Was Rome an Etruscan city that was overtaken by Latins or was it an independent non-Etruscan enclave that eventually overran its surroundings?
According to what I know of the subject, the Etruscans traded with the Latins, and gave the Latins the alphabet that we use today, which came to the Etruscans from the Phoenicians.
Other than that, I don't really know. I guess you can imagine that there had to be some cultural overlap between the two peoples in order for them to start using their alphabet though.
>>415549
iirc romans like other latins belonged to an Italic ethos that, at the time of your map, was dominated by Etruscan culture.
Rome began as a refuge for bandits, brigands and people who became disenfranchised from their homes elsewhere. They stole Etruscan culture and women and eventually stole empires.
>>415670
are you upset?
There is a quite plausible theory that Rome started as 2-3 independent settlements on famous hilltops, later uniting under single rule. It's possible the settlements were Latin, Etruscan and Sabinian, with Latin culture eventually dominating other two.
>>415670
do you have sources for that Carthage?
>>415724
I do but I don't have the book on my person.
>>415794
>butthurt Greek
Redundancy if I ever saw it.
>>415816
>>415724
>do you have sources for that
It's literally Rome's founding legend (only the women they stole were sabines).
Chances are however that Rome was born as an alliance between the 7 hills villages, and the capital of the alliance was on the Campidoglio, where Romolus's walls were built. This hipotesis is supported by archeological evidences showing the presence of settlement on all hills and the presence of a market on the Campidoglio, menaing it was probably the meting spot for the area.
I'll try to guess here. Rome was on the northern edge of latin territory. It was founded by a group of runaway latins, for some reason. Soon it incorporated sabinian people and then came the etruscans.
SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE
ROME
