Did the Romans base their civilization on the Etruscans?
No you fucking mong, read the Aeneaid.
The surviving Trojans sailed to italy, met the Latins, and the Alban Kings ruled for several hundred years until rome was founded.
>>1227074
Oh I guess the Trojan war never happened right?
Troy and Sparta were just mythical cities that never actually existed
>>1227080
Just because the Trojan war may have happened doesn't mean you're magically required to believe every fucking myth anyone's ever come up with about it.
>>1227099
I think it's generally agreed that Troy existed and it was besieged, and there are ruins that archaeologists are relatively confident in. The rest is generally storytelling.
I'm not dealing in absolutes though, I said "may have happened."
Either way the Roman founding legends are telling about who THEY associate themselves with, and the Romans seemed to emphasize associations with the Greeks over associations with the Etruscans. The reality is still that they were ruled by Etruscan kings for centuries and that would inevitably influence their culture significantly.
>>1227066
The Aeneaid was propaganda made at the personal request of Augustus.
Rome kept no history and wrote no prose or poems that we are aware of, before the early 4th century. All that we have are consul lists AFAIK.
After the Gauls sacked Rome and burnt it in like 380-something, Rome built a wall (they weren't even a walled city) and they decided to start writing their 'history' like a full 300 years later (Livy).
Rome was has Hellenized as the Etruscans were, by the time they started to expand.
>>1227091
>>1227080
>>1227110
Troy existed and was destroyed many times. One of those times is dated to 1199 or 89 BC. Herodotus wrote that the Trojan War occurred in that time span.
There was a monarch of unknown origin in Troy in the 13th century BC named Alexander, which is a Greek name. The Achaeans were fighting against the Hittites and their vassals in Anatolia and also supporting rebellions in the region. This is true from like the 14th century until the 12th century when records cease.
Atreus, Priam, Alexander (Paris), Eteocles are all mentioned in Hittite/Luwian records as names of Greek or Luwian kings.
Mycenaean palaces were being burnt down very shortly after, and 'Sea Raiders' were a thing in two waves around 1290BC and 1200-60BC. One coincides pretty nicely with the proposed date of the Trojan War... and Homer. Raiding and pillaging and razing by sea is recorded as having happened for the first 10 whole years of the Trojan War in the Iliad (ie: probably war with coastal cities and islands allied with Troy which was apparently not Greek) and after in the Odyssey, Egypt is mentioned as having been attacked by Menelaus on his way home. And Egypt was attacked by sea peoples in that second period.
>>1227058
>base
No. Like, absolutely fucking not and it's not even debateable.
They were however very strongly influenced by them, at a level comparable to greek influence.
People of Rome were already well aware of Trojans and everyone else who came from hundreds of miles around to trade. Seafaring people had been trading all over the Med for well over 1000 years prior. Etruscan people built Rome, so Romans "were" arguably Etruscan and many other surrounding peoples. You're not going to find one, independent, untouched society on the Med shores which didn't somehow interact with neighbors. Think, please. Think.
>>1227058
We'd know a lot more if Emperor Claudius' several volume history of them had survived, along with the dictionary he wrote. It is said that he was the last Roman who knew their language.
As to their origin, there is no consensus. Herodotus suggests that they sailed from the Kingdom Of Lydia in what is now Turkey, fleeing famine. Others say that this is not likely because the Lydians and Etruscans held different Gods and language.
However, we know that they were a civilised people and regional power before the Romans conquered the peninsula. From that point of view, it would make sense for a fledgling culture to be influenced by a stronger one, and to learn from them.
>>1227058
To an extent, certainly more than they would want to admit. During the early, mid and into the late Republic, the Etruscans were demonised, their contributions were handwaved away, and Romans wanted nothing to do with them.
>>1227922
Are you brain damaged? Romans are Laticum people from Italic origin, Etruscans may not even be indo-europeans.
>>1228297
>Etruscans may not even be indo-europeans.
>may not
Etruscan is not Indo European, it is known.
>>1228297
>>1228306
You "might" be confusing a commonly spoken language with "people". You might be imagining people lived in little, isolated pockets without influencing each other or knowing each other before 500bc. Whatever you have going on there, Etruscans founded Rome. Verify it other than my words and deal with it.
>>1228360
Indo European=people who speak Indo European.
>>1228360
>Etruscans founded Rome
That's factually impossible
>>1227080
how can you be this fucking retarded
>>1228387
>>1228475
There becomes some conflation when we use the term "Greeks" of that era, before 700bc. Greek becomes a sort of generic term to us modernly, and causes conflation. Even early Greek historians referred to predecessors in some regions as something other than Greek, i.e. Pelasgians, Tyrrhenians, while those who spoke ancient Greek were Ionians. "Some Greeks" spoke IE language, "some Greeks" did not. Some Greeks lived in when we now call the Italian peninsula. Some stories argue Aenius founded Rome. Some hypotheses argue "Minoan", "Etruscan" and "Tyrrhenian" to be more closely related, than the IE Ionians who were disparate and warred with the former.
IF Etruscans are as Tyrrhenian are as Minoans, and we can substantiate this through shared language, then we see the Ionians and Latins as not only cultural but military invaders of the centuries between 1000bc and 700bc. Rome happened to be formed in this cloud. All we have on "who founded it" are myths and conjecture from literally 2 or more centuries after. So, it's very possible Etruscans did "found" Rome, for it to be shortly after shanghaied, or overtaken, by whatever process, by Latin influence. This actually makes the most sense from surrounding archaeological evidence.
>>1228551
Those are myths, archeology tells a different story.
Archeolgoists have only found documents written in Ancient Greek, not a single one in Pelasgian, whatever that is, and the only document in Etruscan found in the Aegean (Lemnos) dates back to 200 years after the first Etruscan documents found in mainland Italy.
So no, there's absolutely no evidence that bronze age Greeks (or even Western Anatolians, who spoke Luwian in the bronze age according to ALL documents found) spoke anything other than Indo European.
>>1228595
The closest thing in this whole post to truth is the conjecture "they're all myths". Arguing from Cicero in the 1st century bc isn't somehow arguing from Herodotus, and there is, most certainly, archaeological evidence of people who didn't speak IE, from Crete to the Aegean to the Italian Peninsula, to the Alps.
Also, nothing's stopping you from Googling "Pelasgians, whatever they were", where I got the title and how it was used.
>>1228595
There's not archaeological evidence of IE language in the Aegean sea or Italian peninsula besides Homer's poetic works. What's your point? Confirmation bias?
>>1228650
Even it mentions Pelasgoi and Aenaes.
>>1228619
>The closest thing in this whole post to truth is the conjecture "they're all myths".
I'd like to see your counter arguments, let's see
>and there is, most certainly, archaeological evidence of people who didn't speak IE, from Crete
Never argued again people speaking non Indo European languages in Greeks, nice strawman, I said Aegean but obviously excluded Crete itself
> to the Aegean
There's evidence only for some regions which were under Minoan influence, there's no evidence for anybody speaking something related to Etruscan outside of the Lemnos stone, which is not an evidence because it dates back to centuries after the Etruscan culture developed in Italy, so it's not an evidence for the homeland of the Etruscans being aroudn that region, provide that evidence please.
> to the Italian Peninsula,
Strawman
>to the Alps.
Strawman
>Pelasgians, whatever they were
I said whatever they were because they're surrounded by myths and it's basically impossible to distinguish those myths from what could have been true.
>>1228650
>There's not archaeological evidence of IE language in the Aegean sea
Yeah, I guess the Luwian people and Myceneans never existed then.
>or Italian peninsula
Never mentioned Italy speaking or not speaking Indo European, nice strawman.
>>1228551
>>1228659
>Aeneas
The poor guy's probably rolling over in his grave, no one can spell his name. Ancestor of Romulus and Remus, which probably translates to something of the effect "Guy who founded "Latium", which is, well, you look it up.
And yeh, it's alot of myths, and one myth is as good as another, but there seems to be some substance here, and it's been a hypothesis since the 19th century.
>>1228676
>in Greeks,
Meant in Crete.
>>1228676
>>1228686
Everything you're arguing is after sometime in the 700s bc. Name one archaeological source (which I agree we should consult) which depicsts written IE before the 8th century. You can't. It doesn't exist.
And you're going to cite the Dorian invasion, I bet. Who did they invade? Pelasgians. Who were Palasgians? Early Greeks. Where did early Greeks before the Dorian invasion of the 11th century live? Crete, Aegean sea, Italian Peninsula.
It's like you're purposefully rejecting anything that might say there was an organized trading civilization with loose colonial affiliation before 1150bc. What are you doing? Who were the similar Phoenecians and what did they do, but the same thing, albeit from a different source and culture. Why are you so against someone other than a Latin twerp founding Rome? What specific archaeological evidence do you think you have that "people who spoke Latin founded Rome"?
>>1227524
Interesting, I was reading a bit about the Sea Peoples a while back and never made the connection between them and the Ancient Greeks.
I still don't see what's somehow wrong with Aeneas founding Latium. He was a Greek. Stick that in your strawman.
>>1228727
>Name one archaeological source (which I agree we should consult) which depicsts written IE before the 8th century.
I hope this is some sort of bad joke, what the hell?
The corpus of Greek (which is an IE language) documents in mainland Greece during the medium and late bronze age is of some thousand clay tablets, not big at all, but still, there's plenty of evidence of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B
>Where did early Greeks before the Dorian invasion of the 11th century live?
Are you kidding me?
Again, mainland Greek people started speaking Greek, which is a IE language, since at the very least 1500 bc.
> Crete, Aegean sea, Italian Peninsula.
There's only evidence for trade in the Italian peninsula, not of any Mycenean settlements.
>It's like you're purposefully rejecting anything that might say there was an organized trading civilization with loose colonial affiliation before 1150bc
No, i never did that.
>Who were the similar Phoenecians and what did they do
Similar in what?
The Phoenicians spoke a Semitic language and were from Lebanon, they had a different culture, different Gods, and their area of influence was different.
>>1228693
Can someone vocaroo how you anglos pronounce Aeneas? I can't understand how it can be hard to spell at all.
>>1228772
Linear B in Mycenae is a bit of a troubling gremlin to the whole thing, isn't it.
I have a question. Is it possible these preserved writings didn't originate in Mycenae, but were brought later by people who took over Mycenae, perhaps from the Anatolian interior, near the Ionian and Luwians? Just because they're "found there" doesn't mean they were "born there". Maybe this happened during the 11th century, it's substance to the concept of Dorian invasion and it was the first real acquisition of IE speakers over Greece's previous inhabitants?
>>1228827
Like "Anus" but the "u" has a "yuh" sound. How would you pronounce it?
>>1228827
A-Nay-us
or
A-Nee-us
>>1228883
Yeh, the second one but in 2 syllables.
Ayn-yes
>>1227066
>Aeneaid
literally a fan fiction sequel of the Iliad
>>1228827
http://vocaroo.com/i/s10oIzgkRzjJ
>>1228890
I've literally never heard it pronounced that way. Is that an American thing?
>>1228925
All "Ae" from Greek I've ever heard is as "ey", in Aeneid (also 2 syllables, probably should be 3?), Aegis (2 syllables, ey-jus. Is it A-gee-us?) Aesop (2 syllables ey-sop).
>>1228925
Alot of American accent combines syllables, generally secondary and tertiary, non emphasis, to 2. The extraneous vowel sounds become as "yuh" or "air" sounds.
>>1228856
No it's not possible, these stone tablets date back to before the sea people invasions, in pylos some of these tablets were found burnt because they were written shortly before the town was set in fire by sea invaders, in fact those tablets were about defending themselves from the incoming sea invaders
>>1228967
But some also make almost 2 syllables of monosyllabic words , as "here" become "hee-yer" and there becomes "they-er". That's more American south, as Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas.
LMAO
>Linear B in Mycenae is a bit of a troubling gremlin to the whole thing, isn't it.
What a retard says about facts when his makebelieve story is blown to shreds.
>>1227524
>>1228733
Yeah, there's actually a really interesting new theory that ties together the Trojan War, the Sea People, and the Luwians. I'm not sure how much I buy it but it definitely seems reasonable - basically goes that Western Anatolia was a network of Luwian speaking petty states that got too big for its britches and started going on naval raids, which lead to the Myceneans attacking Troy for an extended period of time. When the warrior elites got back to Greece their retainers basically said fuck you and started civil wars, meanwhile the Luwians were scattered across the Mediterranean and continued their raids, all of which lead to the Bronze Age collapse.
>>1229574
Luwians are only thought be have been 1 tribe of sea raiders.
The Sardinians are another. Sicilians another. Greeks another. Probably more than one group of Greeks.
It's probable that the Luwians who are mentioned as Sea Raiders were allied to the Greeks, since Mycenaean-Greek material culture and it's successor language, Arcado-Cypriot are found in the region ascribed to as the homeplace of the Lukka (i think, anyways).
>>1227058
No. But just like the Etruscans, they were influenced by the Greeks. But then again, pretty much every civilization was influenced by another. Greek had some influence from Egypt, that had influence from Mesopotamia.
>>1229574
I'm also familiar with this new area of study and it is indeed interesting stuff. Luwian Studies want to dig up dozens of mounds across Western Anatolia because they believe there is evidence of a distinct Bronze Age Kingdom there - comparable in size to the Hittites. They point out that the area has a lot of mineral wealth which would make them potentially the regional superpower.
They also think that this region, including Troy, produced the Sea Peoples and sacked Hattusa during the cataclysm.
http://luwianstudies.org/the-luwians/who-are-the-luwians/
>>1229824
I think that theory is a little too neat. We already know for a fact that at least one group who sacked Hattusa were not Luwians.
It seems like the Luwians, or a part of them anyways, did finally successfully revolt but they were allied with the Mycenaeans and some other factions in the region.
