by Horatius Piscinus on Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:46 am
Salvete
Yes, Orce, the Etruscan League did NOT form until after 510. The Etruscan did NOT manage to seize Rome after the expulsion of the kings. There is solid evidence that Etruscans did not control Rome after the formation of the Republic in 510. The base culture, common to Etruscans and Latins, i.e. the Villanovan material culture, disappears from Rome at that time or shortly after. That is very significant because we are not talking here of an absence of luxury items in the material culture, but of the kind of utensils that even the lowest classes of citizens were using. Shortly after the Republic forms there is also a noticeable decrease in Greek luxury goods. That is generally interpreted as Roman trade with Etruria being cut, and that Greek goods had been coming through Etruria. That is not necessarily the case however.
Along the Tyrrhenian coast, from Etruria through Latium and into northern Campania, the material culture was generally homogeneous, composed of various elements including Greek, Etruscan, and Latin. There are instances of individuals with Latin names living in Etruscan cities, just as Etruscans lived in Rome and other Latin cities. What is found in Etruria that can be identified as Latin does not necessarily come from Rome either, for Rome was only one Latin city and not always was it the most important.
Another 19th century notion tried to identify the patricians of Rome with Latins, and held the plebeians to be Sabines. As Momigliano said, one cannot tell what a Latin grave looks like compared to a Sabine grave at Rome. There is no distinction. Nor would the grave of any Etruscan buried at Rome have been any different. The mixing of different ethnic groups at Rome was not reserved solely to an elite class but was at every level of Roman society.
With Servius there seems there may have been a division developing in Roman society between the urban center and the landed aristocracy. Servius does not exactly seize power by force, but does usurp his position. The title he uses is not king, but reflective more of a tyrrant. And tyrrant in that period, we should understand, was a populist title. In other words, Servius had the support of the urban population, and of all classes in the urban center. That poses that another class may have opposed him, and those who do finally expel Superbus and establish the Republic would seem to be this class. Among the revolutionaries are Latins and Sabines and Etruscans, patricians and plebeians, there is even a Tarquinius among them.
This brings us to the other problem in early Roman history. Exactly what distinguished a patrician from a plebeian? These two categories of Romans grow out of the Regal period, but I tend to think that the distinction did not really emerge until after the Republic formed. It may relate back to the factions that supported or opposed Servius. What we can say is that the distinction of plebeian from patrician was not made along ethnic lines, or of relative wealth, power, or position. The fact is we have no idea what the distinction was based on and all attempts to give an answer have proven wrong.
Valete optime
Moravius Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus
Sapere aude!