Talk:Romulus and Remus

message: Would it be worth mention to point out the parallels with the recent case of the Chilean child who was nursed by a pack of feral dogs?  Of course, that child was not an infant, but it still suggests the scenario is not quite as outlandish as previously thought. Just mostly. :) -- April
Sure.  I actually had a student raise her hand last week when  I asked "how many of you were raised by wolves?"  My point was that they all ought to have had some experience of a built environmnet, but maybe she was being truthful? MichaelTinkler
* Heh. Or her family keeps canines in the house... It's just fun to speculate that at the bottom of the 20-odd Roman stories of mythological figures raised by wolves (wasn't Atalanta?) there might have been one actual event similar to the Chilean incident. :) -- April
----
It is somewhat confusing that our text mentions first Tiberius then Faustulus who has saved the twins. We do not seem to be consistent. What is the source of the word "Tiberius"? If they are two names of the same person, we should indicate it. I.e., Faustulus or Tiberius, or: Faustulus, a.k.a (also called as) Tiberius. Is not it a confusion for the River Tiberius, if the babies were left on its shore? Similar confusion exists at Loba. Was she the same person as Acca Larentia? The latter word may refer to the Lares, domestic gods of the Romans that are actually Romulus and remus, it appears.
The last part of the new text is a bit long and too detailed but it is the cornerstone of the ancient chronology of the world. (It may be shifted under Rome's foundation but then the birth and death of Romulus would be quite irrelavent there.) The three solar eclipses shall be mentioned here TOGETHER. They are actually six but the other three belong to the Greek history. For example, the total eclipse of Odysseus is detailed under our "Penelope" for now. It occurred on April 16, 1178 BCE. Since total eclipses can be observed from the same place only once in 410 years (an average figure of astronomers), these eclipses provide exclusive absolute dates for us. The other two Greek eclipses are as follow: The expulsion of the last Roman king (end of 506, or February 23, 505 BCE in the new system) can be dated, bacause 28 years later (or, in the 28th year as one may believe) Xerxes crossed over to Greece with his army (Polybius, The Histories III, 22. 1-2) and that event is fixed to 478 BCE (as Hind and Chambers, 1889:323 observed long ago) by two solar eclipses. (The modern 509 BCE date is not well supported as absolute date.) Herodotus VII, 37 and VIII, 131 and IX, 1) testifies these two solar eclipses (fifth and sixth) as follow: When Xerxes was departing from Sardis, before crossing over to Greece, the Sun disappeared (on February 17, 478 BCE). Also in the next year, after the return of Cleombrotus to Sparta a solar eclipse was seen on August 1, 477 BCE. There are no other candidates for these eclipses and they fix harmoniously the Greek and Roman chronology. (Z.S., contact zasimon@hotmail.com)
: I think the above should be put into the article on solar eclipses -- there's a little bit there on historical eclipses already. -- Tarquin
Thanks. It would be great to put this under solar eclipses as well. The details of the three eclipses detailed under Romulus and Remus can be shifted there, as important information for astronomers, etc. However, it would be nice to leave at least the three absolute dates of the three (Roman) eclipses within Romulus and Remus at least. The observation of Tarquin/Tarquin is good, and anyone should feel free to add cross-references, mention something short of it under many other relevant articles if accepted by the co-editors. Also, it is a questionmark form me if Sun or sun shall be written. As a celestial object, it is Sun, but you may render it to a civil or common "sun." (zasimon@hotmail.com)
----
re KT's query. It was the practice in many cultures to dispose of sickly children by leaving them outside at night. Although falling short of the crime of murder, this effectively doomed them to death from exposure or wild beasts. More recently, the practice was used to dispose of unwanted
children (ie girls) in China. Even in English law infanticide (aged under 1 year) is a lesser crime than murder.   jimfbleak 07:23 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
You failed to mention that the two were the sons of the priestess AND the god Ares. This is important to the story because Romulus would in the end be taken back by his father and made a god, according to legend.
What's the deal with the "god of Mars?" is that supposed to be "the god, Mars"? Paul 19:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: In the Latin, the word for the birds counted by the twins in augury is vultur, vulturis, obviously the root word for the English "vulture" but also translated as "big bird" and perhaps even refering to eagles, which were though to have a special relationship with Zues.
: Plutarch describes the bird as one that "lives on carrion", so vulture seems like a good translation given this context. Burritok (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  vultures 

message: The sources for these mythic details need to be distinguished from time to time: "as Virgil said..." etc. It currently reads as if we imagine these are biographical details. --Wetman 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a naive "biography"

message: A couple of times an image was added, and removed again. Couldn't figure out why. Why not add this image? It wasn't added before (I think) and it seems perfect. Garion96 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added a picture but I changed it to this one. The other image had an unknown copyright status and will probably be deleted soon. Garion96 21:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I don't really know that it's relevant, and I've never heard any "confusion" among scholars about the Romulus and Remus myth, but after seeing what could be the start of an edit war I figured I'd post and confirm that, yes, lupa does mean both she-wolf and prostitute. Seems to me it's probably some first-year Latin student very impressed with himself that he found out that they're the same word. Still, it deserves looking into before reverting it blindly again; maybe it deserves mention somewhere, I don't know. I know it's hard to assume good faith when it's a couple of anons posting this kind of subject matter, but...  Kafziel 02:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two meanings of "lupa" 

message: ===Noun===
caption
# A title or brief explanation attached to an illustration or cartoon.
Emphasis added.
Um.  Yeah.  The caption for the initial picture is ENTIRELY too long.  
-- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: caption
# A title or brief explanation attached to an illustration or cartoon.
Emphasis added.
Um.  Yeah.  The caption for the initial picture is ENTIRELY too long.  
-- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: Shouldn't there be two different articles for each of the twins? Or at least one on the legend and another on the rule of Romulus as the first king of Rome? TarquiniusWikipedius 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We don't have separate articles on Cain and Abel, Castor and Pollux, Fred and George Weasley, Patty and Selma Bouvier, or countless others. -Silence 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think because Romulus went on (in myth at least) to do much more after the death of Remus. The two can only be linked for the first 20 some years of their lives.68.190.117.18 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two seperate articles 

message: The king-to-be of Rome (whether it was to be Romulus or Remus), was decided over augury. They stood in separate areas and counted the birds that flew overhead. Romulus saw more birds and therefore became king.
Remus, when Romulus was building the walls to the city, was jumping back and forth over the city border, taunting Remus's efforts to build a wall. Remus was then brutally slain by his brother, Romulus, with the words "Sic deinde pereat quicumque alius traniliet moenia mea."
Hopefully this mistake in the introduction will be corrected soon.
Source: Fabulae Romanae
Zoni 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augury? 

message: Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?
...
With Amulius dead, the city settled down and offered Romulus and Remus the joint crown. However, the twins refused to be the kings so long as their grandfather was still alive, and would not live in the city as subjects. Thus after restoring the kingship to Numitor and properly honoring their mother Rhea Sylvia, the two left England to found their own city upon New York. Before they left England, however, they took with them fugitives, runaway slaves, and all others who wanted a second chance at life.
Once Romulus and Remus arrived at the New York, the two argued over where the exact position of the city should be. Romulus was set on building the city upon the Bronx, but Remus wanted to build the city on the strategic and easily fortified Manhattan Island. They agreed to settle their argument by testing their abilities as augurs and by the will of the gods. Each took a seat on the ground apart from one another, and, according to Giuliani, Remus saw six vultures (which were considered to be sacred to Al Gore, their father), while Romulus saw twelve.
: No, that was normal vandalism. For some reason this article attracts quite a lot of that. The New York part is already removed from the article. Garion96 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York? 

message: This question reveals my vast ignorance on the subject:  The article does state that Romulus and Remus belong to fiction and myth.   But -- much of the article also treats them as actual persons (e.g., the mention of the lack of certainty of their birthdate).  It is bizarre that the article should not state clearly whether they belong solely to myth, or were in fact also real people.  My question is this:  Are they or are they not believed to have been real (as well as appearing in myth)?    In any case, my opinion is that whwatever the case is, this should be made crystal clear in the intro.Daqu 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not crystal clear, in fact. Remus may have been added to the founding myth explain the second suckling child under the bronze Capitoline Wolf, originally intended, however, as emblems of the dual nature of Rome's founding: Etruscans and Sabines. This opens an area of Original Research that Wikipedia avoids. --Wetman 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine -- then that should be made crystal clear:  Whatever the state of knowledge is about whether Romulus and/or Remus were actual historical characters in addition to being characters of myth -- that state of knowledge should be made clear in the article.Daqu 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has made a sensible start by adding T.P. Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth. (New York: Cambridge University Press,) 1995, to the references. But the questions that Wisemen sets out to answer (the questions are clear; his answers are debated) can scarcely be entered into this article, because of all the detailed and naive "biography", which is what is keeping people from recasting this article. --Wetman 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Romulus and Remus ''solely'' fictional?

message: I`ve found a rather obvious and offensive vandalism of this article not too far down, right after the part where it states Romulus slew Remus. I`d fix it myself, but my knowledge of the legend is a bit lacking, so I do not know if the names used are mythologically accurate. But, I do know that coarse language does not belong in this format except in the case of an informative or comparative use, so someone please rectify this defacement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crossfire 7 (talk • contribs).
:Fixed; thank you for noting this. If you suspect a page has been vandalised, you can look at the page history to see changes made recently. You can then revert to a version of the page prior to any vandalism. EALacey 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Detected 

message: I removed a statement that Romulus and Remus descend from fugitives from Amsterdam. I guess that would need some more referencing.RFB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RFB (talk • contribs).
:Thanks. It said "descendants of fugitives from Troy" before it was vandalised in this edit, so I've restored the earlier text. EALacey 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amsterdam 

message: The end of 3rd and beginning of 4th para. in the section Life before Rome doesn't follow:
...ordered the death of the twins by exposure.
The servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however, and placed the two in a cradle and laid the cradle on the banks of the Tiber river and went away.
Block quote
If the order was to kill the twins by exposure, and the servant 'placed the two in a cradleon the banks of the Tiber and went away', then he could 'kill the twins', and he did, and exactly as ordered.
So "the servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however" is false, surely?
Robert Crowdy 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death by exposure

message: The story of R&R has had influences on art and music. I'd like to read something about that Gautam  22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on Art/Music 

message: Is it really appropriate to illustrate this page with Victorian cartoons? Paul B 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those little challenges that will be defended by provocative specious arguments, designed to show the mainstream that we're critical fogies. Watch and see. --Wetman 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoons

message: "Sanctuary of Rome's 'founder' revealed" 
from Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_eu/birth_of_rome
"Italian Archaeologists Unveil Grotto Linked to Romulus, Remus" 
from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312310,00.html
DonL (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a way to go before his link gets accepted though.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeologists Unveil Grotto Linked to Romulus, Remus

message: Sorry if this isnt the way im supposed to post this, but im relatively new. Although Romulus was the more well know of the two brothers, Remus played a large part in the beginning of Rome.  Also, the incident at Alba Longa was a relatively important incident in the founding of Rome.  I believe that this article should be separated into 3 different articles, one each for Romulus, Remus, and the dispute/revolt in Alba Longa.  Also, if anyone could please give me advice ou how to post this properly, i would greatly appreciate it.  Thanks.
Sniper201092 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and corrections

message: This article presents, in naive and tediously pedestrian detail, a synthesized "biography", in the Christian fashion of creating "biographies" for figures like Christopher, Sebastian, Barbara, Margaret, et al. A wholesome corrective would be a report of the findings in Timothy Peter Wiseman, Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge University Press) 1995, which analyzes the myth as myth. --Wetman (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth, not "biography"

message: http://www.crystalinks.com/romulus.html and this article have a lot of identical stuff, and the Crystalinks page links to this article -- as an extra reference, or is it copied from an earlier version? Of course, if it is the original, we have to cut it all out and that means basically starting afresh -- a very good idea.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a copyvio. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the copy, Crystalinks or this? 

message: Should there be any kind of section about the parallels (and perhaps differences) in the Moses story? What about other comparitive religion/mythology? 208.53.116.182 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and welcome. You might want to get yourself an account. Let me know if you do and I'll give you a welcome menu. Anyway, you use the word 'essay' -- Wikipedia is not the place for essays no matter how scholarly, it is an encyclopedia reporting, in this case, what scholars say about Romulus and Remus as compared to Moses. If you can find some sources for that, great, bring them here. Look at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for an explanation of the sort of sources Wikipedia likes. And WP:OR. Thanks. Oh, by the way, I put the stuff from Cline in the Moses article. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parellels to Moses

message: At the end of the article a reference could be made to the fictional use of the names of both Romulus and Remus in the fictional Star Trek television series' movies and books.  Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulan#Romulan_Star_Empire . Or I have also seen this type of reference made in the head of an article
--Vann98 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cruft lists of "Romulus" and "Remus" (Uncle Remus?) aren't helpful to the Wikipedia reader interested in the subject of this article, though they lighten the burden of leisure for list-makers. Where "Romulus' is used on other occasions and with intentional reference to this Romulus, a connection should be made at the article in question... if it helps the reader's understanding of that subject. This is what relevance signifies. --Wetman (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: This page is also missing an entire section of the myth. Romulus and Remus founded a new city, Rome, they did not continue to live in and rule the city of Amulius. Romulus kills Amulius and restores control of the city to Numitor and then the twins decide to found a new one and this isn't reflected in the article. Also, the article talks about Life after the founding of Rome and how Romulus became king after the assasination of Tatius. This is totally wrong, sorry. Romulus and Remus found Rome but they lack anyone to live there. The twins invite the outlaws of Italy to come to this new city. The population is made up entirely of murderers, smugglers, theives and the like and there are no women. To fix this, they have a horse race and invite the families of a nearby city, a people called the Sabines, to come. The romans attack and steal all of the women from these people. Titus Tatius forms a force and attacks Rome to get the women back. The myth says that the women had fallen in love with their Roman captors (badboy effect maybe?) and they throw themselves between the two armies to stop the fighting. The two sides even join together and all the Sabines move into Rome to live. From this point, Tatius and Romulus co-rule Rome until the death of Tatius a few years later, leaving Romulus the sole ruler. The article doesn't show this portion of the myth at all and makes it seem as though they don't really found a new city, rather they just rename the one they were already in... All of this info I've learned from reading the Aeneid and from The Dictionary of Classical Mythology by Pierre Grimal (ISBN-13: 978-0-140-51235-9)
Vickler (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing section and corrections

message: Quite frankly, it's unreasonable to ask the distinguishing of fact and fiction in what is only ASSUMED fact. The story is a legend,
and attempting to sever fact from fiction is asking the impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.150.213 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact ar Fiction?

message: I took the liberty of restoring these things. Even though we cannot tell for sure if Romulus and Remus truly were historical figures, I see no reason to remove this info. Lycurgus, the Spartan who was said to be the creator of Spartan's laws and society as it is famous today, is a figure no different from Romulus and Remus, yet his article has info similar to what was removed from this article - and I really do not see a reason to remove such info. It is not claimed that Romulus and Remus or Lycurgus would definetely be historical figures. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the infobox again.  Can someone explain why it should be removed instead of just deleting it without explanation? -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the infobox is kind of idiotic. Father Mars? An infobox for one person used for two persons? A birth and death date for legendary figures? All that is so much better explained in prose instead of using a simple template. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. It is idiotic and likely to mislead. It's inappropriate to use such an infobox for mythical or legendary figures. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Romulus and Remus are definitely mythological figures. An infobox for such figures is misleading, as they had no real date of birth or death, nor a real birthplace. In contrast, there is genuine doubt whether Lycurgus of Sparta is a mythological or historical personage, and so an infobox box would not be inherently misleading there--although I see that article has no infobox, and that doesn't bother me in the least. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an actual rule that infoboxes are only for 100% factual individuals?  I recognize that Romulus and Remus were 90% mythological (possibly more than that), but if the mythology itself is sufficiently specific, why not use the infobox to summarize? -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The mythology is not specific about when Romulus and Remus were born, at least not at the level of saying 771 BC. (I just noticed this date is given at the beginning of the article's text, as if we were writing a biography. Ugh.) Some classical Roman authors believed the myths were historical fact, and tried to determine when the twins were born and when Rome was founded--and even though we're now generally taught that the legendary founding of Rome was in the 8th century BC, the Romans came up with a number of different dates. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not noticed that Kurt put the dates back in the lead. They definitely should not be there, and they are discussed later in the article. This is not, as you say, a biography. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Kurt, you clearly do not have consensus for this. What other articles do is irrelevant to this one. The article now starts with a lead which gives them birth and death dates instead of keeping that for a later section. I'll start an RfC on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: There is consensus here to have it removed. You don't agree with consensus and immediately after/before your message here you added the infobox. And again after I reverted you. You see something wrong there? Garion96 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored dates and infobox 

message: Romulus was not entirely fictional. The City of Rome really was founded by the bastard son of prostitute--he was not actually raised by a wolf, a later embellishment thanks to a linguistic coincidence--and since no twin brother appears on the original king-list he was probably an only child not a twin. 
Nevertheless, a man from very humble origins (though not actually raised by a wolf) did found the most influential city in world history. 
We should tweak the Article to clarify that legend (exaggerated history) is not the same as myth (tales of the gods) even though they overlap. 
My sources are Ovid and Livy among others. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bursting a bubble here, but...

message: The issue is discussed above. In the case of probably mythological figures (or even definitely mythological figures), should the lead/infobox contain birth & death dates even if shown somehow (in this case by a footnote) that they are alleged dates? Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC Comment: In cases such as this one, where there does seem to be some rough agreement as to the appropximate time these individuals would have lived were they in fact living people, I can see mentioning that in the lead. However, I have to think it would be going too far to add such information to an infobox, because that gives it the appearance of factuality which is not merited in this instance. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Are infoboxes & leads with alleged birth/death dates appropriate for probably mythological figures 

message: I've restored sections that were deleted by Dougweller some while ago. Before today, the article jumped from R+R's childhood to Romulus's joint rule with "Tatius", whose name was just suddenly introduced without any mention of who he was! This made the article completely unreadable and nonsensical. The earlier text has problems, but it is not unsupported. It refers to sources, but does not generally present them as footnotes - fairly typical of Wikipedia text written some years ago when such matters were less important. The article needs to give a full and coherent account of the R+R myth. Just deleting whole sections, seemingly arbitrarily, is like chopping whole chapters from the summary of a book, leaving chapter 1 jumping straight to chapter 4 without any explanation of who new characters are or what happened to the old ones. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, mea culpa for never finishing what I started. The original edit is here  and is basically a dump of Plutarch. What we need is a concise summary, not a copy and paste. And footnote 12 actually contradicts what it is cited for. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections on foundation of Rome

message: I wonder whether the two myths, that have many common traits, bear the mark of some kind of remembrance of a matriarcal society.
Children generated by god, ie no known father, and reared by uncles and aunts or strangers who were connected to an uncle, as Acca and Faustulus to Numitor. All these features are typical of  a matriarcal order of society.Aldrasto (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone finds some reliable sources on this, it doesn't belong in the article. Note that this page is not an appropriate place to discuss the possibility unless sources are discussed. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romulus and Caeculus: matriarcal link? 

message: I removed the dead link and comment (I assume it was based on the linked site) and pasted it here as reminder (to myself as much as any) that Rome's foundation myth requires evaluation within a modern scholarly perspective. Haploidavey (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A deadlink to defunct site 

message: We've a mixed lot of sources categorised as "primary" and "secondary"; that's iffy, if not immediately misleading in a subject of such complex historiography. I'll change the format and layout. There'll be inline citations and external links to those "secondary" sources anyway, along with a cited, interpretive modern bibliography. (I'm not at all sure why Fabius and Livy would both be described as primary sources on the subject - and apart from a very brief summary, plus Plutarch's say-so, we have very little Fabius anyway). Haploidavey (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your hard work on this, the article has been a mess for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug, thank you. It's not exactly a pleasure unless evisceration turns you on, but the topic's well worth the effort. Back to the gutting...  Haploidavey (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This quite long list is of little value (and will probably confuse many readers) unless connections and relevance are explained; we can't rely on linked articles to do that. I'll paste it here for now, and re-instate those supported by sources as relevant to the topic. Haploidavey (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Acca Larentia et al, et al, et al

message: "Shepherd kings, as some mythographers would classify Romulus, were torn to pieces in a secret religious ceremony at the end of their "reign" and the beginning of the reign of the next "king"."
Are we sure about the use of the phrase 'Shepherd Kings' in this context? The title 'Shepherd Kings' usually refers to the Hyksos, an ancient Egyptian Tribe from the 18th century BC with no connection to Romulus & Remus. The contributor appears to be using it as though it is an established phrase with some more generalised mythologic meaning. Is this correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. And possibly not. This seems one of the better written sections; I suspect "Shepherd Kings" might be from Frazer's fascinating and dubious The Golden Bough but citation's lacking here as elsewhere. I'll see what T. P. Wiseman's Remus has to offer. Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No luck with the above, which seems another "grand scheme." I'll probably remove it at some point, unless someone comes up with a sourse, of cource. Haploidavey (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the section is well written, it seems entirely incoherent to me. The term "Shepherd Kings" is introduced and used without explanation - does it refer to Romulus and Remus themselves, or maybe to some sort of cult-leaders who worshiped them? A ceremony is mentioned, but why exactly is it being held, and by whom? Is someone literally torn apart in the ritual, or is this done in effigy? What "rumor" is being implied exactly? I might surmise that we're describing some mythological prototype applicable to Romulus and Remus, but then all the details seem very specific and certain for something so general. I'm going to go ahead and remove this section. Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstood, but at the very least clarification is in order (and citation). Ennen (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, "better" is not necessarily "well". I think you're right to remove it. IIRC, the "Shepherd Kings" theory held that ancient shepherd communities elected one of their number as a sacred king, to be indulged for a year then ritually killed and dismembered. I've yet to find scholarly support for the idea; let alone its elucidation in a scholarly work pertaining to Romulus and Remus. Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I thought it rang a bell but modern scholarship's wary of Frazer's constructs and conclusions. Does F. mention Romulus by name? Found an online of "Golden Bough". Frazer refers to Romulus' dismemberment ("in some versions") though not, as far as I can see, to his being a "shepherd king". So I don't think we can justify a section under the latter heading. Haploidavey (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Shepherd Kings"

message: Thankfully his is a minority opinion, rather than the most notable of "some". Not a matter to be given undue weight in the lede, so if no-one objects, I'll lay him to rest in a footnote. Haploidavey (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Carandini

message: Circa 771 etc? Given that this is mythography (and I sincerely hope we agree that it is), need we be quite so precious in offering historically spurious dates?  Would this Plutarchian calculation not be best in a footnote? Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed - just had to. Haploidavey (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Birth and death dates"

message: About the section on the stories concerning the birth of the two twins, their rearing and deeds to their conflict on the foundation of Rome. I gather the author here has not read Dionysius's version which is by far the most complete and reliable. I would suggest adding it as it is significantly different on many essential points.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dionysius 

message: Emilio Peruzzi too gives his positive opinion in his works (Le origini di Roma etc.). Romulus would be Sabine nickname meaning the one from Rome.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of Romulus 

message: Among ancient sources a  precise and explicit mention should go to Varro and Properce about Caelius Vibenna, Titus Tatius and the name of the 3 tribes.
Among contemporary sources it is always interesting the article by S. B. Platner Septimontium in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Ant.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who, having read the article, was still left feeling confused by the historicity of the subjects. But I'm dismayed to discover that the perplexity goes back to the origins of the article itself, and no editor with the appropriate classical education has seen fit to clarify things. Are these historical figures? Are they mythical figures? Are they historical figures heavily overlain with mythical qualities? The article doesn't say. Instead, it shifts between providing "biographical" details, including specific dates; and mythological elements. What would be helpful is to have a section just dealing with the question of teasing apart history from myth.  fishhead64 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the drawbacks of the Wikipedia method: different people add bits of information to an article, & unless someone (who hopefully knows something about the topic) reviews & reworks the article, it suffers. And the fact this article has reached 40K in size means no one who is knowledgeable will be bold & rewrite it to reflect modern academic thinking. (I've had a taste of it reading Gary Forsythe's A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley, 2005), but I'm reluctant to revise this article based on having read one book, notwithstanding how good it is.)The problem with the earliest Roman history is that the student will find (roughly speaking) three different takes on it: the traditional (as in up to the 18th or 19th centuries) approach, which was to treat Livy as accurate & simply retell what he wrote -- with a few nods to Plutarch, Dionysus of Hallicarnassus; what could be called the "19th century" approach, which was to acknowledge problems in the accepted account of this early history (e.g., the tale of Romulus & Remulus echoes many well-known folklore motifs such as twin birth, heros surviving despite being exposed at birth, being suckled by a wild animal); & contemporary approach, which while being critical still values the traditional story for the insights it offers to what the Romans thought of themselves & of their origins. I suspect this article had its origins in the EB 1911 article, which at best demonstrates the second approach, & despite that this article has had attention from intelligent & knowledgeable editors, it hasn't freed it from the limits of that venerable but outdated works, while mingling elements of all three approaches & serving it up as a messy combination. And to repeat myself, the size of this article is going to make even intelligent (& especially veteran) editors reluctant to perform the necessary work on it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: It isn't just me

message: I believe the present tense should be used when recounting incidents in the legend.  For instance:
Current version
*In all versions of the founding myth, the twins grew up as shepherds. While tending their flocks, they came into conflict with the shepherds of Amulius. Remus was captured and brought before Amulius, who eventually discovered his identity. Romulus raised a band of shepherds to liberate his brother and Amulius was killed. Romulus and Remus were conjointly offered the crown but they refused it and restored Numitor to the throne. 
Suggested version
*In all versions of the founding myth, the twins grow up as shepherds. While tending their flocks, they come into conflict with the shepherds of Amulius. Remus is captured and brought before Amulius, who eventually discovers his identity. Romulus raises a band of shepherds to liberate his brother and Amulius is killed. Romulus and Remus are conjointly offered the crown but they refuse it and restore Numitor to the throne. 
Comments?
InformationvsInjustice (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote attempted a rewrite of the article years ago, taking care to use "past-in-present" (more or less exactly as in your suggested version) when presenting material identified by modern scholarship as legendary; not just in the introduction. Take a look through the article history; and particularly some of the edit commentaries justifying changes to past tense throughout; sometimes by degrees, sometimes in one fell swoop. Here's a recent, more reasonable example -  by then, I'd given up. So, to cut to the chase - yes, please go ahead. Haploidavey (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Verb tense for the legend: past or present

message: It really needs to be overhauled.  It's sourced, but it needs to be written in less archaic English:  "Weary of kingly government"; "This suspicion they sought to turn aside"; "exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them"; "made him away".
Also the last three run-on sentences need to be fixed (the one below is the worst offender):
A "foul suspicion" arose that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Obtuse language and run-ons in The death of Romulus Section

message: I propose renaming the article "The legend of Romulus and Remus" with a redirect from here.  An ancient sources subsection should be created, which identifies the various (there aren't actually that man) writers whose work has handed down the myth.  Modern sources and historicity could be dealt with in another subsection, free of the details of the story itself.
To stress the non-historical nature of the topic, the lead should begin "The legend of R & R is the mythical tale of the twin brothers who, according to the ancient Romans founded the city of Rome and established the semi-historical kingdom which predates the establishment of the Roman Republic..."
The importance of the topic to the understanding of ancient Rome merits whatever input can be gotten from all of you who have done so much great work over the years to maintain and improve the page.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the vote.  Do you have any suggestions regarding the article's enumerated troubles?  Perhaps a page on the legend itself could be created and this one dedicated to the characters themselves?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: We might even use the structure already suggested in the article lead/intro (! it's based on Wiseman's summary of the legend as a whole, minus his theses on Remus). Overlap with other articles pertaining to the topic is inevitable; Roman mythology and Foundation of Rome come to mind, and there are probably many more; but we keep all that to the most relevant, disciplined minimum.   Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What Haploidavey said. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks Johnbod and Haploidavey.  Could the sections/subsections be better organized so as to more strictly convey the legendary account and then, separately, the historicity/recent, mainstream modern scholarship, and, finally, the different ancient sources and the details of how they differ?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article will certainly need a complete overhaul, and there seem many possible approaches. The problem with any strict conveyance of the legendary account is that there isn't one - there are several to choose from, and favouring one or another - for whatever reason - would be convenient indeed but is beyond our editorial scope; therefore scholarly opinion and evaluation of "primary" sources count from the outset. Apropos of which, the intro already provides the narrative essentials common to the three major accounts. Google scholar results show that Livy's account in particular (apparently the most rationalised and historicised) is a well-covered topic in both modern literary criticism and historiography. At the moment, I'm inclined to organise in sequence and theme (much as the intro); and perhaps will also take a scatter-gun shot at the main text over the next few days, mostly to clear away those over-lengthy quotations...  and will try to maintain readability for readers; this article seems to get around 300 2,000 hits per day, on average. (PS: I just took another look at the article; startling to see that the main text offers no account whatsoever of the twins "virgin birth and divine conception" - let alone of their special status as twins.) Haploidavey (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead could do with a clearer statement for less sophisticated readers that it is all a myth/legend. The later sections also read, if taken by themselves, as history. But these are easily fixed by additional reminders of the status of the story. Otherwise I'm sure Haploidavey will make an excellent job of improving the article.  Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Johnbod, for your kind and constructive comments. And please, do feel free to realign, clarify or otherwise change any text as you see fit. "Excellent" would be nice. Haploidavey (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an alternative suggestion:  An initial "sources" section to list or name those.  Then a section on the "universal" elements of the story, and then subsections, not by elements of the story, but instead by sources, chronologically.  So, the Livy subsection would describe his version, the Plutarch subsection would describe his, etc.21:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration to "The legend of Romulus and Remus" and refocus on the myth over historicity 

message: Please follow these links to the proposed new articles to replace the existing one.
Romulus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox3
Romulus and Remus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InformationvsInjustice/sandbox2
Comments?  Feedback?  Help?  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept Romulus and Remus does exist as a myth on its' own, so I see no reason why it shouldn't have its' own page separate to that of Romulus. Remus' only real mention is history is that he was murdered in the process of Romulus founding Rome. Meanwhile, Romulus went on to build a dynasty that would last until the Republic. In short; Romulus was impactful upon history, and Remus was only an element of his brothers' tale. Psychotic Spartan   04:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The New articles are live.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article into "Romulus and Remus" and "Romulus" 

message: Should the article be reassessed?  In light of the revisons?  How does that process work? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the links to See also.  Please feel free to add something about them and move them over.  Just for my own reference, how does one start a reassessment?  Just delete the grade?  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you simply replace the old grade with whatever you think the new version merits; but it's best etiquette only to do that with projects of which you're a member (thus, G & R, I suspect). The criteria are reasonably explicit; If you open the Project header at the top of this page, you'll see a link - specifically, this one . To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever used one! At least, not to promote anything I've been personally involved in - most articles seem scored far too high imo. Most of the stuff I've done a lot of work on has been "B" before I started rewriting, and remains "B" after 12 months intensive editing. Haploidavey (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassment? 

message: The lead is really hard to read, what with the enormous Mignard painting. Per MOS, leading image should be on the right. How about the altar image as lead image, and the Lupa somewhere below? And the Mignard (substantially and lawfully shrunken) nested further down? Haploidavey (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have come to the conclusion that the capitoline wolf belongs at the top, simply because she (and the boys) are the most famous visual representation of the myth.  I put them it, followed by the Alter and then the Mignard work in that order on the right.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: :Then the end of 79 through 84 on the account of their struggle with Amulius. 84 with the non-fantastical account of their survival 294. Finally 295 is the augury 85–86, 87–88 the fratricide.303
and
:Livy discusses the myth in chapters 4, 5, and 6 of his work's first book. p. 7 parentage 4 p. 8 survival. p. 8 the youth. 5 9–10 the struggle with Amulius. 6 p. 11 (the beginning only) the augury and fratricide.
i don't understand how these are meant to be read in a way that makes any sense. 73.74.12.238 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's pretty bad. Even traditional cites are stupid now that space isn't at such a premium. A Roman work being cited as 1.12 might be referring to the 12th chapter of the 1st book, the 12th section of the 1st chapter, or the 12th line of the 1st book or stanza. Things should just be clearly distinguished whenever possible. — LlywelynII 07:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do i read this? 

message: It's been over a decade and this guy still hasn't gotten satisfaction. It doesn't matter that Livy may have omitted it: by far the common modern version of the story is that Romulus and Remus got violent over teasing over a short wall (murus Romuli), probably misunderstanding the ancient idea of the furrow created during the sulcus primigenius. Wherever it came from, it should be mentioned prominently here with suitable sourcing and (if necessary) caveats. — LlywelynII 07:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Augury?