User talk:Ifly6/Overthrow of the Roman monarchy

Req for comment
Hello there! I started putting together a first draft for a drop-in replacement for the current article on Overthrow of the Roman monarchy which, in its current form, basically just spends its time repeating Livian details uncritically. If you have some time to do a read-over for this draft article, I'd appreciate it. I wrote up this draft yesterday and did some quick copyediting, but it's always difficult judge your own writing so quickly.

Also if there are other sources beyond Cornell (1995) and Forsythe (2005) that you're aware of which touch on this topic, I'd be interested. Flower (2010) and Badian in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (2014) – though in the latter I'm pretty sure the articles haven't been revised in a while – cite basically just those two for the early republic. Ifly6 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I used to think that this article should just be deleted, since the entire thing is apocryphal and (as you said) overly reliant on Livy, and that anything that can be gathered from secondary sources would fit better on individual articles like Roman monarchy, Lucius Junius Brutus, etc. I'll gladly read your drafts and see if I can be proven wrong, though. My editing pace is much slower than yours, however, so you may end up not needing me at all. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With regards to the sources, there needs to be some care when relying too much on Cornell. The "Later foundation of the republic" section is written essentially from his point of view. For example, "there is no evidence" supporting the theories of Werner and Gjerstad, but he unduly dismisses the idea that the early consular fasti are fabrications. There are in fact good reasons to believe that the list of consuls for the early Republic is unreliable. Unfortunately I don't know of that many sources other than Forsythe and Cornell. There is James H. Richardson, Kings and Consuls: Eight Essays on Roman History, Historiography, and Political Thought (2020), but I haven't actually read it in full and I'm not sure how much of it concerns the overthrow of the monarchy spefifically (it's a bunch of essays concerning the reliability of early Roman history in general). Avilich (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I was informed of Richardson (2011), which I think is a connection that eventually runs into that later 2020 collection, via Tempest (2017) on Brutus. His view at least in 2011 seems to be of the very critical stance, that people like LJB didn't exist. I will have to do more looking; hopefully I can find that recent book on the internet somewhere.


 * I agree there is some danger of over-relying on Cornell, I will consult some other texts to see if there's a thread I can pick up (hopefully not in German though because I can't read that). Ifly6 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions
Missing here is Cornell's own tentative reconstruction of events: he argues for the correctness of the essential details – that Tarquin was overthrown c. 500 BC and that Rome was subsequently drawn into a conflict involving Clusium (led by Porsena), Cumae and the Latin cities. A key part of his argument is that he thinks Dionysius of Halicarnassus's account and date (504 BC) of the battle between Porsena and Cumae were drawn from an independent Greek source rather than a Roman one, thus confirming the historicity of the Roman version of events. This argument was originally put forward by Alföldi, and has been discussed enough in sources that I think merits a brief mention here too. This source also provides some valuable, if dense, insight (on the overthrow of the monarchy see esp. pp. 26–27, 45). It argues that the overthrow of the monarchy (509 BC) and of the Decemvirate (449 BC) are more or less historical doublets, and that Roman historiography may have been simply built upon "artificial numerological exercises" around specific dates.

Many of the arguments found in these sources are strictly chronological or too scholarly to be discussed in detail here, but I think it at least gives some perspective into the spectrum of scholarly opinion. Both sides reject most of the tale, but on one side you have the 'hypercritical' argument that it may be all pure invention, and on the other you have an acceptance of the chronology and of some very basic aspects. Avilich (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research help! I'll take a look at this over the next few days (maybe weeks, depending on my real life workload). I hope I'll get back on this soon. Ifly6 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Koptev's paper is basically "it's all fake". I can't say I'm sure I know exactly how to present that, especially when it doesn't really engage with archaeological evidence of stuff happening in Rome at the time (yet, at the same time, I know finding a Troy does not mean the Iliad happened). I'll give an attempt though.
 * Re Forsythe and Cornell, I think they're different enough to split. I called Cornell's account the semi-traditionalist one (as that seems to be an accurate tag) and Forsythe's the Porsennan withdrawal. I reorganised it into "Modern theories" more generally. I think the Cornell and Forsythe (and Alföldi) accounts are different enough to touch on them separately, with a paragraph marking how they might be reconciled. Ifly6 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Para
Attempted to place Koptev somewhere, perhaps like this?

For example, Alexander Koptev argued in a 2010 book chapter that the placement of dates in early Roman history was rooted in a single source written by Timaeus of Tauromenium, which "shaped the chronological skeleton of Roman history, basing it on a comparison with the Hellenistic world", directly influencing the later sources like Fabius Pictor, who then flow forward to the sources we have today. These "artificial numerological exercises" then provided the skeleton onto which events could be placed, with Timaeus dating the start of the republic merely to the same year in which the city of Sybaris was destroyed and Cleisthenes established democracy in Athens (510–9 BC).

Also it does not seem there are further citations of Koptev in Google Scholar, at least qua numerology, which implies to me that others don't really engage with this numerology argument. If so, we ought not to give it too much weight beyond the current one sentence. Ifly6 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The BCMR review of the book itself doesn't even mention Koptev's argument that basically all the dates are fake. One article uses it just to say that Roman historians had Greek influence (which is a banal claim, especially compared to Koptev's much larger claim). Ifly6 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect Koptev 2010 to be used for more than a few sentences, to be honest, but the publisher is a reliable one and he does cite a lot of sources, so I felt that this view couldn't be fully ignored here. But I think this approach of simply listing his view right off the bat without any context won't work here. The ideas that early Roman history was built around synchronisms with Greek history, that the fall of the monarchy was deliberately synchronized with the expulsion of the Peisistratid family from Athens, and that the events of 509 are suspiciously similar to those of 449 (eg. Lucretia and Verginia:, and also this source), are hardly new. Koptev 2010 simply suggests the explanation that Timaeus, the first historian to write about Rome, played around with numbers a bit (using two different dates for the fall of Troy) and ended up with two different dates (509 and 449) for what was originally intended to be a single turning point event. What counts here is the general idea of how arbitrary and unhistorical ancient historians' treatment of early Roman history could be. Koptev's specific argument need only be presented as an example and summed up in one sentence or two after the general idea is discussed. Avilich (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify, are you speaking of the existing draft which basically says that he thinks it's artificial numerology or are you speaking of the above, which I had written but decided not to include? I agree it's worth including one of the sceptical viewpoints; your suggestions here do inspire some ideas, I will think on it. Ifly6 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the paragraph you pasted here, I hadn't checked the actual draft to see if you had written it there already. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote something which I think is at least passable, see the draft version's last paragraph. Would like comments. Ifly6 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I rewrote some portions and did some copy editing. If you have any feedback on the current draft, especially with the Modern section, I'd like to hear it! Ifly6 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Further comment
Hey, do you know anyone else who might have useful comments on this draft? Ifly6 (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn, I nearly forgot about this, and I didn't even reply to your last post, sorry about that. I haven't done anything substantial in wikipedia as of late and I'm probably taking a break soon. GIving it a quick read, I think your draft is already pretty good, well researched, and certainly better than many articles already in the mainspace. The only worthwhile thing I can suggest at this point is that you more or less ditch the 'chronology' section and move its contents to the "Later foundation" and "Critical approach" sections. You don't need to list every way the ancients calculated the year of the overthrow, only say that ancient source estimates varied between 509 and 507 BC. All the information in that section about the dedication of the Capitoline temple, the (un)reliability of the fasti, and the synchronism with Athenian history (mentioned by Holloway 2008) can be moved to the same paragraph where Koptev 2020 is already cited. The latter source simply supplements the underlying idea of those others with his comments on how dates were arrived at, and they should all be cited together. If you still want someone else's input, the only person thta comes off my head is T8612, whose help you already requested for the optimates and populares thing. And finally, congratulations for your work. Avilich (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll reach out too. Ifly6 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Having re-read the article, I think it's reasonable to keep the Chronology section, as it relates to how one can place the event in history. I am, however, unsure as to whether it should be at the front or the end. Putting it at the front, I feel, puts the factual events first. Putting it at the back would place more of an emphasis on scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, do you have any comments on this draft? Ifly6 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * hi, and thanks for writing on this. Some comments:
 * I wouldn't start like this. My take:
 * I would start by summarising the ancient accounts, then telling the difficulties of the sources. The draft looks too much like an academic essay, most users don't know about Tarquinius and Lucrecia.
 * You don't develop on the invention of the tradition, notably with Fabius Pictor, the first Roman historian. Read Tim Cornell's The Fragments of the Roman Historians. Ogilvie's Commentary on Livy may also be useful.
 * Perhaps you can mention the François Tomb, where there is a fresco with several main characters in Livy, but it gives the Etruscan point of view. T8612  (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To what extent do you think Cornell's acceptance of the traditional dating is correct? Certain modern theories mentioned by Cornell place the expulsion of the kings later (though still, I guess, within the 5th century). There also is, I believe, some discussion as to whether the republic emerged quickly or slowly from the monarchy. To what extent do you think that should be emphasised (especially in a lede section). Ifly6 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I recast some portions of the lede (also see other comments here if you haven't yet seen them). Though, in general, I think that the three-paragraph structure I started with generally covers most of the bases, your suggestion above was pretty helpful in setting up some signposting.
 * Having thought about it somewhat, I think that spending too much time on Tarquin, his son, and Lucretia detracts from the article. The traditional story doesn't need every detail if we are just to dismiss it as fictitious anyway. (Nor does Cornell, in Origins of Rome (1995) spend that much time on it, even after admitting that people nowadays are not that familiar with the story; "nowadays" meaning not the 19th century.)
 * Following Oakley, in Flower (ed) Camb Comp to the Roman Rep (2nd edn, 2014), I placed the source difficulties in the front. You think it ought to be moved to the middle? Why? Not placing them at the front would give a glancing reader the impression that people think the traditional story carries some weight with modern scholars.
 * As to development of the narrative, see previous replies (and edit). Ifly6 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, about Cornell's Fragments. Is it not an anthology of all the fragments of ancient historians that is multiple thousands of pages long? Which specific section would you have me find and read? My initial thoughts on the development of the tradition are that it probably ought to be short(er), as a excursus in the Traditional account section, to remain topical to the overthrow itself. Ifly6 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cornell's Fragments of the Roman Historians is a huge work in three tomes (with a very small font). It's a gold mine, but information is often disseminated throughout the books, so you often have to read a lot. I do think you should move up the "traditional account"; you talk about it in the second paragraph of the lede and the lede picture is also about the story of Lucrecia. Few Wikipedia readers will be aware of it. You can simply add a "warning" at the beginning of the section saying that the following section is the traditional narrative found in Livy but no modern scholar thinks it's historical. T8612  (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's a decent justification re why it ought to be moved up; I moved the section "Difficulties in the sources" to the end (though it also could go in the middle between the "Traditional account" and "Modern accounts"). A section on development of the account I think also goes well above "Problems" in the "Tradition account" section. I'll work on that if I have some time this week. Ifly6 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a short stab at writing a section on development and ran into perhaps a problem. It's not clear how I can talk about the development of this traditional account against development of early Roman historical accounts in general. (This is, I think, logical insofar as know little about the oral stories which themselves were turned into the stories of Anaeas coming to Italy, Lucretia, etc.) I'd appreciate some pointers or help in general if the current section which just talks about the sources of the traditional account itself being various oral stories etc were to be expanded. Ifly6 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a need for a separate section on "difficulties in the sources". I would merge it with "development" and "problems" subsections. I think you can also add a section on "legacy", especially in modern art. The events of 509 BC were a major theme from the Renaissance to the Neoclassical era. T8612  (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking over "Difficulties in the sources", I agree. The two sections are mostly similar content that could be better integrated. I've done the merge. As to a proposed "Legacy" section, I have no meaningful knowledge of art history. (And I don't feel that I should write on the topic if that's the case; nb I feel one of the problems on Wikipedia is people keep writing on topics they know nothing about... which is why we've ended up with so many HBO Rome copy-paste articles.) Ifly6 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the relevance of the François tomb would be to the overthrow of the monarchy. It does suggest that Rome was ruled by Etruscans, that Servius Tullius was Etruscan, he and others gathered around to lead some raiding parties. But that doesn't seem relevant to the overthrow of the monarchy in as much as it is relevant to the monarchy itself. Ifly6 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First sentence
I feel as if The overthrow of the Roman monarchy is a semi-legendary event. is a bit too terse. But something like The overthrow of the Roman monarchy is a semi-legendary event in which the Roman monarchy was expelled and a republic formed in its place. is overly repetitive. Any reader would know the overthrow of the Roman monarchy led to the expulsion of the kings... those are different words patently describing the same thing. I'll keep for now, but am open to suggestions especially with rephrasing. Ifly6 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This was resolved in the previous section. Ifly6 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy (and further further comments)
Apologies for yet another ping. I took a look through some books I have as to references to LJB, Popicola, etc in "recent" (ie not 2000 years ago) arts and literature. (Though I did remember the Jacques-Louis David painting without prompt.) The current section is pretty barebones, I think, especially on the political side. The arts side focuses on the French Revolution and neoclassicism, but I don't have any good sources on that; what I have right now is mostly peripheral or self-explanatory.

If you have any recommendations I'd be interested in taking a look at them. Ifly6 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to follow up on the above, if you have any recommendations or comments on the article draft as it stands. Ifly6 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't find sources on Neoclassicism.
 * The picture of the coin with Brutus is duplicated.
 * "Porsennan withdrawal" It's weird to coin an adjective from a not so famous figure. I would say something like "Intervention of Porsenna". Besides, as far as I remember Gary Forsythe mentions that the Etruscans remained important in Rome after the fall of Tarquinius, which supports the theory of this subsection. Given you cite him often, Forsythe should indeed be placed somewhere in the section Modern theories.
 * As an aside, many Etruscan names are found in the Fasti of the first decades of the Republic, until 485 when the Fabii, Cornelii and Aemilii enter the Fasti, which would be connected with the fall of Cassius Vecellinus. As there were Roman tribes named Fabia, Cornelia, Aemilia already under the monarchy, it seems that these clans were prominent under the Tarquins, then lost power with the "revolution", but recovered their place c.485. There is a french historian who wrote an article on this (Etcheto 2012). Interesting theory. T8612  (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Forsythe, as far as I can tell, mainly advocates the Porsenna withdrew theory. The adjective suggestion is well taken. As Etruscan influence recovery etc in Rome, I think that's more suited for an article the early republic more generally. That said, our articles on the early republic are ... poor. I intend, if I ever get around to it, to maybe take a look at them chronologically [though probably next on this theme for me is a look at the Conflict of the Orders (which may as well be an English epitome of Livy right now)] . Ifly6 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Conflict of the Orders is in bad shape. I remember I wrote about it in the Roman Republic article. It could help you. T8612  (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I did some copy-editing. I think the draft looks pretty decent (and definitely, as Avilich said above, better than many articles already in the mainspace) and if there aren't any other major comments, I'm prepared to move it into the main-space sooner rather than later. I clarified explicitly that Forsythe views the Porsennan intervention theory positively in the text. As to Gary Forsythe mentions that the Etruscans remained important in Rome after the fall of Tarquinius, I can't find that in the relevant section of Critical History of Early Rome. Could you take a look? Ifly6 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)