Talk:Rape of the Sabine Women

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 12 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): History2112. Peer reviewers: BeckAnn B, Hannahhelm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page move
Hi all. I've moved the main article from Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna) to The Rape of the Sabine Women per Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). The name of the sculpture isn't ambiguous so no need for the brackets on the main article, and it should keep its 'The' at the beginning. Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna) now redirects here, and I've fixed all the double redirects created ~ Veledan • Talk 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case any of the authors see this note, cheers for the interesting article :-) I saw and admired this sculpture only last year but knew nothing of its background so I'm glad I stopped by ~ Veledan • Talk 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the painting... is there going to be a different page for that? AB


 * I didn't know there was a painting. That article could have the name of the painter in brackets, and have a link added to the disambiguation line at the top of this article, or alternatively my page move could be undone by an admin and this page could be converted to a disambiguation page. ~ Veledan • Talk 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Story
(Regarding my minor edit to the Story section.) In deference to the extensive work of those who've preceded me please feel free to reject my small change. However, I've made an attempt to improve the style: I've always recoiled from that graceless, baffling term, "pre-existing." The word itself seems redundant: In essence, the root, "existing," means the same thing. Further, in this context, citing the Sabines implies their existence.

Fagiolonero 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good point about the word "pre-existing." Never occurred to me before, but of course you're correct! 71.235.81.186 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text "Livy is clear that no sexual assault took place. On the contrary..." because it is simply untrue. Livy does not say anything either way about sexual assault. What he does say clearly enough is that the Sabine women had no choice but to accept their new Roman husbands who had just seized them. Fschmidt2 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: The article about Livy has a broken citation link. The website was taken down. It would be helpful to all if a new citation could be put up. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.218.166 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture substitution
the former image ( Image:Giambologna sabine.jpg ) is not so impressive IMO. regardsTetraktys-English 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern tags
I have placed concern tags on this article. I think it's a well written essay, but it appears to have developed into an original research essay by synthesizing various fragments related to the article name. There is the mythical incident (which is dealt with briefly in Sabine), there is the significant sculpture by Giovanni Bologna, which - for a long time - was the proper topic for this article. And there are other works of art with the same name and theme. The article has developed so that now it attempts to cover all three subjects under the same umbrella - along with fragments from the Bible. There is, of course, a recent film with the title, and - no doubt - that will eventually find it's way in here. There isn't a readily available independent reliable source for the range of this article which appears to take the idea of the original myth and explore it's representation through art. The article began solid enough, but has been allowed to drift into its current state. Nice article, but this is not the place for it. I am proposing that the article is returned to its original title of Rape of the Sabine Women (Giovanni Bologna), that the Roman myth section is merged into Sabine, and that the other artist's sections are merged into their appropriate artist articles. A List created called List of artistic representations of the rape of the Sabine women which would hold links to the appropriate sections within existing articles, and any other items that seem appropriate, such as the new film. This article will then be turned into a Disambiguation page leading to Rape of the Sabine Women (Giovanni Bologna), Sabine, and List of artistic representations of the Rape of the Sabine Women. Objections, support and discussion welcome.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss to understand your argument. When the concept of an "essay" is used, this usually means that the article is essentially the work of one contributor who is putting forward an argument or making a particular case. This is essentially series of vignettes in the history of the story of the Sabine women. If you check the edit history you will see that they have been added by a number of different editors who are clearly not working together to create a particular "thesis" about the subject. Also, I don't think that the notion of original synthesis applies here. That again usually refers to an attempt to create a new claim or argument that is not represented in sources - by sourcing fact 'a' and fact 'b' along, with theory 'c', to prove some new claim. But no new claims are being made here. It simply brings together well established material on the same subject. That's not an original synthesis as envisaged in the policy. The examples given of inappropriate synthesis in the WP:OR policy statement concern the creation of new conclusions or theories, not the simple combining of established material into an article on a notable topic. Indeed, that's what all WP articles do. Paul B 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * An essay, same as an article, can be written by more than one person. The collective spirit of wikipedia allows for such a thing. Original Research, which is defined as "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position," does not stipulate that the essay/article be written by one or multiple editors. The thinking is that "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have g", which is not the case here. Because that is not the case, what has happened is that editors have started to formulate an essay based an original research because the concept has appealed to them. I'll admit that when I started to read the article I was entranced. Both the concept and the execution are well done. But as I read on I realised that this was against one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. And I understand why. Wiki is not the place to be expounding original thought and research. Wiki is the access point to existing verifiable and sound academic thought and research. I am not proposing that we delete the information and research that has been done here. Simply present it in a way that is acceptable to the principles of Wikipedia, and doesn't leave us open to criticism.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk  19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply does not even address the points I made. Firstly, I already stated "If you check the edit history you will see that they have been added by a number of different editors who are clearly not working together to create a particular "thesis" about the subject." You don't seem to have understood the second part of the sentence. And of course the article has to be coherent, as all articles do. I know perfectly well what the definition of original research is. Again, I don't think you understand the very policy you quote, which states "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". There is no attempt to 'advance' any position here. I'm confident that all facts and opinions here have been published before. Certainly the art-historical material is unexceptionable. There is no rule that the entire article has to regurgitate a book or other source written on the entire topic. There does not have to be a single source written about - say - carnations that contains all the information written about carnations in the article. Paul B 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SilkTork, I share your desire to break this article up but the Wikipedia policy you invoke doesn't put the finger on the problem. It's not that disparate nuggets of information have been cajoled together to make a point that wasn't in the original source, as there isn't any discernible argument to the article (I refer you to everything Paul B has just said). It's more that the article is trying to be too many things at once – giving an overview of the subject and going into depth about each artwork on the subject and more besides. As I see it, the problem is not that such an 'original synthesis' hasn't been done before; rather it's that the constituent parts of the article don't synthesise very well.

I agree that the text in the Giambologna section should return to being a self-contained article under the title Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna). (There is scope for the sections on the Poussin and David paintings to become articles of their own as well.) Your suggestion of making The Rape of the Sabine Women into a disambiguation page has a precedent in The Birth of Venus, so that could indeed be an option. Another possibility is to make that the page that deals with the Rape as a subject for works of art, which is what I'm inclined towards at the moment. An example of what I have in mind is at Venus Anadyomene, which does a good job of following a particular subject through the history of Western art. Ham 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point or position that I see as being advanced in this article is the representation of the myth of the Rape of the Sabine Women through art. Such a concept gradually evolved in the article and now appears to be an accepted notion. But where are the sources for such a topic? The Last Supper has been dealt with as a disambiguation page, though there are probably good sources for that as a article topic. Because this current article now exists, it appears to people as though the concept of a deliberate and researched study of the representation of the myth of the Rape of the Sabine Women through art exists - yet, in reality, it only appears to exist here on Wiki. The position has been advanced in an essay, albeit not deliberately, and not by a single mind, but nevertheless by a synthesis of existing concepts, and we have accepted that notion because it is an attractive and plausible one. However, as we know, such original concepts are against the principles of Wiki - and for the very reason that we are having this discussion: because a well written and attractively presented article on Wiki can be very convincing. However, this article, though dealing with High Culture, and being nicely written, is yet another In Popular Culture type article, though without the name!


 * Ham, I understand what you are saying - however, I feel that Venus Anadyomene is possibly another original Wiki creation that might need looking at. The way the subject matter is dealt with at Venus (mythology) appears to me to be more appropriate: a neutral grouping and listing of the representations without the editorial comment and drawn conclusions presented as authoritative fact that mars Venus Anadyomene. (The crude pun is deliberate!)  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone thinks that the individual works of art here are better dealt with as separate articles, then they may spin off such articles of course, but creating a series of stubs seems to me to be pointless. The reason the Last Supper was (in September) a disambiguation page is that there are separate articles on the event and on the Leonardo painting. The synthesis argument should not be taken to such extremes, IMO, as it will destroy any chance of writing an excyclopedia which does not simply repeat what a single source says. All articles synthesise sources. That's the nature of the project. The Carnation article that I mentioned above list both botanical and cultural significance of the carnation. Yes there is no single book on the subject that unites the two - at least not one that is cited in the article. This is repeated throughout Wikipedia. I see no advance here, just tagging. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul here. It's a fine article as it stands. Going around and tagging good articles based on anal retentive interpretations of wiki rules isn't any more useful than tagging a wall with graffiti. Keith Henson (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the end of the article, I'd say that there are probably no firm grounds for the speculation that this kind of abduction was a widespread feature of Mediterranean culture. The more narrow claim that it may have been a common motif in mythical histories is more realistic. 66.135.106.50 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Cy

I have related concerns to those above, but this gets at a different core problem. The "historical" analysis section focuses entirely on the work of ancient Roman writers, whose information is subject to question by modern historians. Modern historians have either said this is a much later foundation myth that owes nothing to any historical events, or is based on an understanding of the dynamics of early Roman society quite different from the versions known to later Roman writers, who had no access to archaeological and linguistic analysis that inform modern historians. The discussion about speculation regarding motifs and Mediterranean culture make sense only within the context of what modern historians have said about this specific story. I would suggest a revision of this section, treating people like Livy as additional primary sources and citing the viewpoints of modern historians as the only valid historical analysis. The use of this story, rooted in myth or distorted history, as art, is important but it should be a secondary aspect of the article toward the bottom. It was an ancient Roman story first and showed up art much later. I don't have time at the moment to compose this or I would. Perhaps later if no one else does. 75.130.155.136 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error?
I believe the root for this sense of rape is rapio, not raptio. Oldpedant (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"War Rape" Wikipedia article
I just wanted to invite everyone to check out the page and discussion page for the War rape article. One of the paintings for "The Rape of the Sabine Women" is being used in that article. I believe it is an improper use of the painting in that particular article, as the event itself wasn't a gang-rape during wartime, but rather a mass kidnapping. I'm also afraid it may perpetuate a misconception that the actual event "The Rape of the Sabine Women" was an actual rape, rather than what it really was. Please, anyone with a comment/insight on this, go to the War rape article and its corresponding discussion page. Thank you


 * It seems to have been removed now Lessthanideal (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * a better translation of raptio should be abduction.--Elvenmuse (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Change for readability
I have changed the first paragraph of the introduction from this ''The Rape of the Sabine Women (rape in this context meaning "kidnapping" (raptio) rather than its prevalent modern meaning of sexual violation) is an episode in the legendary early history of Rome narrated by Livy and Plutarch ('Parallel Lives' II, 15 and 19). It provided a subject for Renaissance and post-Renaissance works of art that combined a suitably inspiring example of the hardihood and courage of ancient Romans with the opportunity to depict multiple figures, including semi-clothed women, in intensely passionate struggle.''

to this

''The Rape of the Sabine Women is an episode in the legendary history of Rome in which the first generation of Roman men acquired wives for themselves from the neighboring Sabine families. Recounted by Livy and Plutarch ('Parallel Lives' II, 15 and 19), it provided a subject for Renaissance and post-Renaissance works of art that combined a suitably inspiring example of the hardihood and courage of ancient Romans with the opportunity to depict multiple figures, including semi-clothed women, in intensely passionate struggle. In this context, rape means "kidnapping" (raptio) rather than its prevalent modern meaning of sexual violation.''

to make it easier to follow.

Metatron the Tetramorph (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good edit! Paul B (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet someone changed it back, so I changed it again.

Before an edit war begins, let me explain my reasonining and invite whoever changed it back to explain his or hers. The problem with the original phrasing is that it makes the paragraph much harder to read, especially to someone who is new to the topic. Clarity is important. By arranging the sentence thus -- subject, predicate, predicate nominative -- the new reader is given an easy to follow definition.

Now, I agree that it's important to note that "rape" in this context has a distinct meaning from "sexually violate." But you can't give every bit of important information in the very first sentence and maintain readability. Someone who can benefit from the additional information about "raptio" is surely someone who has only recently been introduced to the article topic.

In my change here, I have placed the explanation about the different meanings of "rape" in a parenthetical sentence immediately after the first one. Before reverting this, can we please have a discussion on the talk page? Metatron the Tetramorph (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edit. A heavily bracketed section at the beginning is clumsy. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The first is better. Or perhaps the first is not as bad. The problem with the first and your second versions is the mention of artistic subject matter. It is bizarre to list any historic event's utility as artistic subject matter as some defining attribute because just about every historic event has been depicted in art. Improvement would definitely require the removal of that needless digression. This would clear the way for the possibility of muddying the meaning of rape with a minimum of punctuation. I always thought the use of physical force to initiate a sexual relationship was rape but apparently minds can differ. Perhaps it's because I like The Fantasticks. The use of "legendary history" is absurd as the word "legend" means NOT history. Oh well, I see some goof has replaced "legendary history" with something even worse...mythology. Whether the event is properly described or not, it is HISTORY. History is a matter of form rather than accuracy. This event is absolutely NOT mythology and there is no support of that assertion.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:E04D:2063:33BE:A91F (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent mythology
This article states "The painting depicts Romulus's wife Hersilia — the daughter of Titus Tatius, leader of the Sabines ..." However, according to the page Titus Tatius "He had one daughter Tatia, who married Numa Pompilius (Romulus's successor) ..."

So which is it (or did one woman have two names and two husbands)? Maybe myths are allowed inconsistency but Wikipedia articles should not be contradictory. If the story is known to have several versions then an explanatory note appears warranted.

Incomplete lists of other pages stating that Tatia was the daughter of Titus Tatius and maried Romulus's successor:

Numa Pompilius

Or that Hersilia was the daughter of Titus Tatius and Romulus's wife:

Jacques-Louis David

The Rape of the Sabine Women

Cross posted to discussions of listed articles Shythylacine (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery?
I would like to add an image to this page. I was in Florence and took a photograph of the statue pictured at the top of the article (which is a great picture, but of a facsimile).

What is the correct etiquette for adding secondary images? An image gallery section?

— Demong talk 10:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's one option. Have you uploaded it? Paul B (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't, should perhaps have read up on how to do that first :) It is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-rape-of-the-sabine-women_sculpture_firenze.tif    — Demong talk 20:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, I see that there is already this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giambologna_sabine.jpg
 * It is of similar quality, but does not include the base or scale reference. — Demong talk 21:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 2nd one added - it's a tighter crop Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a better top-of-the-page image for an article that is about the legend and not this sculpture in particular, but technically the pedestal is part of the sculpture, and a good documentary image includes scale reference (e.g. the people in the lower-right). Wasn't talking about changing the top-of-the-page image. Oh well :) — Demong talk 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rape or Rapture
The article claims that this wasn't really rape in the sense it would now be understood, quoting Livy. Plutarch's account in his life of Romulus reads a bit differently e.g. "It continues also a custom at this very day for the bride not of herself to pass her husband's threshold, but to be lifted over, in memory that the Sabine virgins were carried in by violence, and did not go in of their own will." As this is a mythical episode there is not a definitive version. PatGallacher (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it's mythical, but the Plutarch passage does not contradict Livy at all. It says nothing about forced sex, just that they were "carried in" by force, which is exactly what Livy says. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Sabine were raped. The distinction between abduction and sexual violation that is drawn in the article is specious. One must consider the motive for the rape. It wasn't simply domestic companionship or piggyback rides but procreation that the Roman men were after. It was all about sex. The women were taken by force. We must not allow ourselves to be naive about what it meant to take a woman in ancient Rome. The women were sexually violated. They were raped.

One must also read the sources. Livy says that Romulus tells the Sabine women, after they've been raped, "mollirent so iras et, quibus fors corpora dedisset, darent Animos" ("they should cool their anger and give their hearts to the men who had already taken their bodies," according to one common translation from Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook in Translation, by Lefkowitz and Fant). So I don't understand the talk around here to the effect that, according to Livy, they weren't sexually violated. That's just untrue--and Livy is hardly the most sympathetic voice imaginable. Mr. Sextus (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The distinction is clearly not specious, since it is well supported by sources. Yes, the women were "taken by force"; they were abducted, which is exactly what taking by force means. You actually demonstrate the speciousness of your argument by saying "it wasn't simply domestic companionship or piggyback rides but procreation that the Roman men were after." That's exactly why the women had to be persuaded to stay to be a part of the community. If you are raping someone for sexual gratification you do not need that do you? If the victim gets pregnant that is no concern of a "normal" rapist (if I can put it like that). In this context integration into the community was what was needed. Getting the girls pregnant would be worse than pointless if that did not happen. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Continuation of a relationship in NO WAY AT ALL negates the original rape. What's next? The women were asking for it? They didn't struggle hard enough? Livy's account clearly depicts a rape and calls it a rape. Your mental failure is NOT the same as support by sources. The sources call it a rape and describe a rape. What source do you have that says the Sabine women were not raped? Only your failure of reason suggests such a thing.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:E04D:2063:33BE:A91F (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Rapture. Roma offre pace o guerra, a Italia non l'interessa quello che voi scegliette.

PadmaPhala (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What definition exactly of the word rapture did you have in mind? Note the last three definitions are considered "obsolete" in English. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the abduction
This article strikes me, and I see others, as some kind of strained apology for the actions of the Romans, which would be roundly condemned in other circumstances. Strange.

Another person in the talk section, Mr. Sextus, has even produced text which clearly elucidates the purpose of the "abduction," which did not seem to be for extorting money from rich relatives, if I make myself clear.

116.55.65.71 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

coward anon, they wanted them as wives... there was seduction first. ~PadmaPhala italian

PadmaPhala (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Procedural issue
The editor who proposed a merge needs to follow merge request procedure: see WP:MERGE. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm in error: the other article is a complete duplicate of this one, and therefore a candidate for speedy deletion. The proposer seems to want a change of title (WP:MOVE), which would require a move request. "Rapture" doesn't seem to be used in English to translate raptio or var., though "abduction" is rather common. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Rape of the Sabine Women" may not be the best translation, but it is long-established as the English name for the episode. "Rapture" would just confuse people, & make them think either drugs or Evangelicals were somehow involved. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What these two said. I've never heard a different way of referring to this topic, aside from the casual shorthand, "the Sabine women".  davidiad { t } 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Improvement
This sentence appears in the introductory paragraph:

"The English word rape is a conventional translation of the Latin raptio, which in this context means "abduction" rather than its prevalent modern meaning in English language of sexual violation."

The intention of this sentence is to suggest that no actual rape of the Sabine women took place, that the word "raptio," meaning abduction, is satisfactory for the events of the legendary tale. It is my presumption, that if, indeed, the abduction of the Sabines took place, "in which the first generation of Roman men acquired wives for themselves from the neighboring Sabine families," then there is an inherent suggestion that sexual violence would have taken place.

It is my suggestion that this sentence be removed, or heavily edited, as it is attempting to mitigate the violent nature of one of Rome's founding myths for no apparent reason other than, perhaps, a cultural bias.

58.165.100.168 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)1/03/2016
 * It is necessary to say something to explain this was not simply a mass-rape in the modern sense. Since the sources are very late and unclear, I'm not sure what else can really be said. There is more detailed discussion of what may have happened lower down. It is clear enough that later artists depicting the event show violent abductions rather than rape, and it is important not to distort this, as the subsequent cultural history is as least as much the subject of the article as the misty legend of the actual event (if any). Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The original sources even describe where the Roman leader asks the women to quell their anger over their BODILY VIOLATION. Rape is clearly described. Your bizarre wish to describe the rape of the Sabines as anything other than a rape constitutes original work and is contradicted by the only sources that exist to use a reference for this event. The original sources are ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that this is a rape that is described. WHAT SOURCE HAVE YOU THAT SAYS OTHERWSE?2600:1700:6D90:79B0:E04D:2063:33BE:A91F (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Talking about above cited translation of "BODILY VIOLATION", I guess that there is a misunderstanding between what ancient sources really describe and some translations from latin to english; citing latin author T. Livy ( Ab Urbe Condita, Liber I ): " Sed ipse Romulus circumibat docebatque patrum id superbia factum qui conubium finitimis negassent; illas tamen in matrimonio, in societate fortunarum omnium civitatisque et quo nihil carius humano generi sit liberum fore; mollirent modo iras et, quibus fors corpora dedisset, darent animos ; ... ". TRANSLATION of last part (" mollirent modo iras et, quibus fors corpora dedisset, darent animos ") to english is (more or less): " after a while they (Sabine women) quelled their anger and, to those to whom their bodies had been given by chance, they gave their souls (their feelings) ";  in other words: " ... they (Sabine women) gave their souls (spiritual part related to their good feelings, etc.) to those (roman men) to whom fate had given their bodies ".  In this case, corpora (bodies) means only the physical bodies (abducted by force by roman men) and not the alleged "intercourse" / sex otherwise the author would have used other words / verbs to describe it.  No sex before marriage, this was the rule when things were really important !
 * Ade56facc 11:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications about the word rape versus abduction and a few proposals
about whether "rape" (extreme sexual violence) occured (because of the violent nature of the acts of roman men) or not occured to abducted women.

First of all the proper english translation for the latin word "raptio" should be because the latin word, so,  both in the title of the page and in the contents of the article;  NOTE: these misunderstandings are really annoying because too many people (specially english speaking feminists) are firmly convinced that roman men behaved like stupid rapers following their animal instincts.

which, besides meaning "rapture", is mostly intended as an outrageous sexual violence; in.

Many people strongly believe that (sexual violence)  because of these reasons:
 * 1) roman men strongly wanted to have regular wives in order to raise children and to achieve this goal they had to trust their women;


 * 2) one of the many reasons for wanting regular wives instead of sluts was also the fear of possible revenges by gods; at the foundation of Rome gods showed their presence (by using the usual sign of a storm of birds flying at high speed in strict formation) and roman men were fully aware that the success of their city was bound to the good will of the gods, in fact things and actions were divided in " fas " (liked by gods) and " nefas " (not liked by gods);


 * 3) before the abduction they (romans) asked to marry the unmarried women (young girls indeed) of their neighbours and only after having failed this goal they felt they had no more time to waste and so they planned the abduction of the women, also because they needed hundreds of women, not a few tens;
 * NOTE: the english page mentions that because in other pages it is also mentioned that many sources report about a number of hundreds of women (see also the italian page);


 * 4) if roman men had raped the abducted women they were never have been able to convince them to marry them and to raise children; instead abducted women could have tried to kill themselves, to curse those men, to escape Rome to return to their homes and, if forced to marriage, to even attack their husbands or to treat badly their unwanted children;  at those times the honor of a woman (not enslaved) was sacred (it suffice to think about what happened when the son of seventh king of Rome raped a noble woman: the woman told the fact to her relatives, etc. and then she killed herself; this and other scandals helped to end the monarchy).

After the abduction, roman men tried to lower the anger of women (for having been abducted by force) and to gain their trust by behaving like real gentlemen, giving them everything they required to live and granting them special conditions and privileges, so week after week first respect and then love arose between those women and roman men.


 * A) to add the fact that many sources report numbers of hundreds of abducted women instead of only 30 as mentioned in the english article page (see also pages in other languages);
 * B) to include above reasonings (about the strong assumption that no sexual violence occured to abducted women supported by the fact that there is no mention of sexual violence in ancient writings describing the abduction) into the article;
 * C) to replace most instances of "word" rape with "abduction";
 * D) to change the name of the page from "The Rape of the Sabine Women" to "The Abduction of the Sabine Women";
 * E) to add a page redirection from "The Rape of the Sabine Women" to "The Abduction of the Sabine Women".
 * E) to add a page redirection from "The Rape of the Sabine Women" to "The Abduction of the Sabine Women".

Ade56facc 22:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede, different names & common name
The lede suffered from the common problem of focusing on the name, not the topic. (See WP:NOTDIC & WP:REFERS). While the name of this story/incident is problematic both because it has lots of different names and because 'rape' is using a now defunct definition, we still need the lede to establish the topic, and not immediately get bogged down in naming issues. If we want to acknowledge its various names, WP standard is to have (also XYZ) immediately after the name of the article. The current solution 'is the common name of' adds no extra information, doesn't even indicate any of the problems with nomenclature, isn't provable the "common name"and it just makes the first sentence hard to read. Finally, the lede should summarise the main article, not introduce new details or debates, and the main article doesn't discuss that it has other names. Ashmoo (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your many years of contributing! First, you are right, "the common name for" should be avoided not just for MOS, but also because, as you correctly point out, it typically adds nothing.  Here, though, I think it, or something similar, is appropriate.


 * This article presents a distinct challenge. It isn't that there are other names for the topic, the problem is that the only common name for the topic and how that common name should be understood is problematic.  I would call it a false friend and misleading.


 * I think the need to avoid confusion outweighs WP:REFERS. I would point out that following the MOS does not prohibit "the name for" or "the term for", merely that they are "sometimes used inappropriately" in the lede. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but prefer the original (Ashmoo) version. "Name is the name for..." is pretty pointless, even here. Para 2 covers the issue well enough for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding IvI. I agree with your concerns. However, I don't see how add 'is the common name for' makes it clear to the reader that 'rape' is using a now-defunct definition. The current version has the 2nd paragraph explain the definition issue, which seems to be the clearest way to do this. Ashmoo (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Rape of the Sabine Women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102053759/http://www.principisabini.it/glossario/zoom.php?id=23 to http://www.principisabini.it/glossario/zoom.php?id=23
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106102640/http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/372/ to http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/372/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

19th century sandstone reproduction
The image shown of Giambologna's sculpture is a 19th century limestone reproduction of the original marble sculpture. Here is the original --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giambologna_raptodasabina.jpg

The Rape of the Women of Shiloh
Should comparisons be drawn with the Biblical story of the Rape of the Women of Shiloh, Judges 21:15-23? - Eroica (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinions on a move
In 2006, this article was moved to "The Rape of the Sabine Women", I gather that the article at that time was only about the sculpture. Now that it has expanded to include the event itself, I think the time has come to once again drop the definite article as per the article titling policy regarding it. Any thoughts or objections? Primergrey (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Primergrey, I came here to say about the same thing. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, per WP:THE this should either be at Rape of the Sabine women (sentence case – see WP:TITLECAPS) or Rape of the Sabine Women (title case). Ham II (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On the meaning of raptio/rapere
"Rapere" means "to abduct". This is why I edited the introductory chapter. While abducting a woman did carry strong implications of rape in the modern sense, the word still means "to abduct", as we can see from the fact that it is not used in cases where there is a rape but no abduction (Lucretia). 2001:569:FB1A:C000:A1FD:EFEC:E476:131B (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Artist inclusion
What criteria are there for including the different artistic reproductions? Dr Suess is obviously an extremely notable artist and his painting has received significant coverage (see list at ). -- D'n'B-t -- 13:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) (Pinging )
 * Apart from anything else, that's in copyright, plus it appears to be a joke. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If fair use doesn't apply, then the painting can be described without an image. But I don't know what you mean by appears to be a joke? It could be described at humorous, but surely you wouldn't remove Life of Brian from List of films based on the Bible on that basis? What about John Leech's work from this same article? D'n'B-t -- 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)