Talk:Lucius Tarquinius Superbus

Untitled

Why would Tarquin the Proud have defended Julius Caesar, when he was charged for trying to become a king?

Why would Tarquin the Proud have defended Julius Caesar, since Tarquin died half a millennium before Caesar's birth? Kuralyov 03:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Someone needs to add in a paragraph about the town of Gabii, which isn't listed in the Wikipedia yet, or else a link to the article on tall_poppy_syndrome. 01/02/05

I have finals next week, and actually should be working on my Latin work right now, but I'll add in Gabii and tall_poppy_syndrome when I have time. UnDeadGoat. 12 Jan 05

---

I am not an expert in any sense, but shouldn't that be "Latium" and not "Latvia", which is rather further north?

Tarquin the Great?

Nobody -- not even the standard-issue court sycophants of the day -- referred to this man as "Tarquin the Great." I have seen this annoying misnomer on several sites that are merely c/p jobs of one another, so we get a wonderful exercise in proof by repeated assertion with this. The epithet "Superbus" was not exactly a compliment bestowed upon him by his loyal and loving subjects; although it is by general convention rendered as "proud," "vain" or "arrogant" would be more correct. Tarquin earned this rather unflattering title by being a petty, egotistical despot. People did not call him this to his face or in the presence of those sympathetic to him. He hated being called "Tarquin the Proud." Please see Livy's "Early History of Rome" -- among others -- for confirmation of this.

Clarification...

This article concludes with the statement "he died a lonely and childless old man." In the very same paragraph, a reference is made to his son, Sextus, raping Lucretia. This is rather confusing since no subsequent reference is made to Sextus's (or any of Tarquin's children's) death and thus has the appearance of saying two things but meaning one. I'll change it if nobody else gets it first since my Etruscan dictatorial history is a little rusty at the moment.

horacious

there seems to be nothing on horatious cocles defending of a narrow bridge here

You're right, that is pretty horacious. Regardless, I wouldn't necessarily require reference to the war with Lars Porsenna here. In fact, if one were going to mention Horatius Cocles in that regard, I'd much rather see it under Lars, with a link on this page under his name. To be entirely honest, Horatius fighting off Porsenna's army until his comrades could rip up the bridge into town, while important in that Rome didn't get conquered, doesn't have a whole bunch to do with Tarquin the Proud.

Possible Error

This article says that Tarquin the Proud worked on the sewer system (Cloaca Maxima) which drained the marshes into the Tiber. I was under the impression that this was due to the work of Tarquinius Priscus (the fifth king of Rome). In fact, the article for Cloaca Maxima makes that assertion. I think perhaps whoever wrote the article got their Tarquin's mixed up on that point but I'm not going to change it in the event that there is something obvious that I'm overlooking.

Another Possible Error

This article says that the temple to Jupiter on Capitoline Hill was completed under Tarquinius Superbus. It was Tarquinius Priscus who began construction. I seriously think people are getting Tarquinius Priscus (fifth king of Rome) mixed up with Tarquinius Superbus (seventh and last king of Rome). Somebody who knows their history and reads this, change the article if what I'm saying is correct.

Tarquin - Another Shakespeare reference

Another possible cultural reference (it may refer to Tarquin the fifth, not the seventh) is seen in Macbeth's Dagger Speech. "With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design/Moves like a ghost" (Act II, sc. 1, line 58) 137.186.196.117 03:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Atrocity" term out of place?

compare the definition of atrocity at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity

with the sentence from this article:

". . . the books were consulted and recommended that two Gauls and two Greeks be buried alive in the city's marketplace. The magistrates duly followed the advice, showing a traditional willingness to commit atrocities to ensure the well-being of their nation."

I would say that:

It is not accurate to to class the burying of four people alive following the directions of a religious text well over 2,000 years ago with mass bombings such as Hiroshima or Dresden.

Call the burying up of four people murder or human sacrifice--that is what it is--but the term atrocity nowadays seems to evoke images of mass political or ethnic violence that touches upon thousands and thousands of victims.

Or, looking at the ancient world:

Crucifying captured slaves after the Spartaus revolt was foiled: atrocity. Destroying of Jerusalem by Titus: atrocity

This instance: human sacrifice

Agree? Disagree?

Mnentro 22:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Son or Grandson?

It should be noted that Tarquinius Superbus was probably the grandson of Tarquinius Priscus rather than his son. Livy makes mention of this possibility in his book, "The Rise of Rome". The point of contention is this; when Tarquinius Superbus murdered Servius Tullius, it was said Tullius was in his old age and Superbus was a young man in his prime. Given Tullius' reign of 44 years, it would've been impossible for Tarquinius Superbus to be a young man when he killed Tullius, if in fact he were the son of Priscus. Superbus himself reigned for 25 years so he had to be a grandson of Priscus, unless he was 70-100 years old when deposed. The numbers simply don't add up. Even if Superbus was 10-20 years younger than Tullius, he would've been middle-aged when he came to power. --LTarquinSuperbus (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dionysius

I have fixed alot of this article using Livy. If anyone has time, it would be great to include some references and info from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. I understand his history contains some variations on Livy's account.--Urg writer (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Purely legendary?

The article describes him as "legendary," which appears to imply that he didn't actually exist. Do historians really know one way or the other, though? The main source for his life is Livy, who certainly isn't regarded as very reliable for events that occurred centuries before his time. But if there is a serious possibility that Tarquin really existed, then the article should say so. Or if that possibility has been ruled out, then the article should say how it has been ruled out. Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things

1) I don't think it's right to have fictitious portraits in infoboxes.

2) The article doesn't really make clear whether Rome was part of Etruscan territory or whether the Tarquinii had set up shop in Rome as independent rulers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Junius Brutus Error?

Can someone explain this part of the background section to me: "To forestall further dynastic strife, Tullius married his daughters, known to history as Tullia Major and Tullia Minor, to Lucius Tarquinius, the future king, and his brother Arruns.[3] Their sister, Tarquinia, married Marcus Junius Brutus, and was the mother of Lucius Junius Brutus.[4]"

Marcus Junius Brutus, the Caesar assassin, was not born until 85BC and was married to Claudia Pulchra and then Porcia Catonis. This article is about the last king of rome who died in 496BC.

Is this in reference to another Marcus Junius Brutus? If so, this should be made very clear, if not, then I believe this is strictly inaccurate and should be removed.

Roman families tended to use the same names over and over from one generation to the next. See Praenomen, Gens, and Roman Naming Conventions for more information. The Marcus Junius Brutus in question was the father of Lucius, the first consul in 509 BC, and this is clearly stated in the article. He's the first of ten individuals named Marcus Junius Brutus listed in the article on the Junia gens (although there were probably many others who weren't notable), and the earliest Junius to appear in history.

He doesn't currently have an article, however, because pretty much all we know about him is that he married the king's sister, and had at least two sons (the other one, also named Marcus, and thus probably the elder of the two, was put to death by Tarquin, who presumably saw him as a potential rival). This is adequately noted in other articles, such as this one and the article on Lucius.

I don't think there's any risk of confusion here. Apart from the fact that this Brutus lived almost five hundred years before the other one, most people studying Roman history will already know that it's possible for different people to have similar names... much as they do today. The article plainly notes that this Marcus was the father of the first consul, thus identifying him as clearly as possible; if this were an article about Marcus, then a hatnote distinguishing him from Caesar's murderer might be in order.

But as Brutus is only mentioned in passing, further distinction would simply be a distraction: "Their sister, Tarquinia, married Marcus Junius Brutus, the father of Lucius Junius Brutus, subsequently one of the first consuls of the Roman Republic; this Marcus is not the same person as Marcus Junius Brutus, one of Caesar's assassins, who lived almost five hundred years later; Roman families used the same names from one generation to the next, so that many individuals might share the same name over the course of several centuries." There's such a thing as too much disambiguation, and this is it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We wouldn't have a comment explaining that a "John Smith" mentioned in an article was not the same person as any one of several other people called John Smith. That would only happen if there was some reason why confusion should occur in the context of a specific article. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not legendary

LTS almost certainly existed. He is not legendary. A lot of legend grew up around him, but that does not mean that he did not exist. A lot of legends have grown around JFK, but even the most insane conspiracy theorists don't claim he didn't exist.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody claims he didn't exist. You are making a confusion between legendary and fictional. Tarquinius is a historical figure appearing in many legends (and a legend is not a fairytale!). This is why he is - as the six other kings of Rome - referred to as legendary by many historians. Sapphorain (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As Sapphorain says. This is an issue I have to deal with regularly when writing and revising Greek and Roman articles: how do you indicate the larger-than-life status of heroes, generals, kings, demigods, or deities without implying that they didn't exist? Many articles use the word "mythical", which I tend to avoid: the technical definition of "myth" refers to a traditional story told for a particular purpose, without respect to historicity, but most people take it to mean "fictional", which I think is inappropriate for personages whom the ancients regarded as historical figures or deities, even if we have doubts about their authenticity. Besides, even if the stories attached to a particular figure are later developments, they generally coalesced around some person or figure who did exist. As the old joke says, "the Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name." P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarity

I came here as a 'layperson' hoping to get a quick impression of how much truth scholars think there is to Tarquin's existence, and after reading the article, I still have no idea. I appreciate that precisely where Tarquin might lie between the poles of utterly historical as Livy portrays him and complete fiction is difficult, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion at all. 193.60.93.97 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be because scholarly opinion is pretty much unanimous that Tarquin was a historical person. There's some uncertainty about which deeds should be attributed to him or to his (grand)father, but there the balance also seems to be that most of what was attributed to him was probably his doing, since it would have made sense to retroject his "good" actions into the career of his predecessor, but the opposite probably wasn't true. Other material, such as military campaigns in Latium, seems consistent with other evidence, as does the tradition ascribing the building of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline to him, since the natural tendency of revisionism would have been to ascribe it to the new consuls, who merely got to dedicate it, as the building was done.

Now, personal details are very uncertain; for instance how he became king—whether by overthrowing Servius Tullius or in some other circumstance—whether the "tall poppy" story could have been true or was borrowed by later storytellers from Greek examples—whether he was overthrown due to popular outrage over his actions and the rape of Lucretia—are all very uncertain, but none of them can be confirmed or rejected outright given what we know, and any attempt to declare them false based on no evidence whatsoever is by definition somebody's opinion, not historical fact. Most of what the extreme skeptics say involves rejecting almost all the narrative of the Roman monarchy, not just what's said about Tarquin. But nearly everyone agrees that he existed. There may be room for a "historicity" section in this article at some point, provided it can be reasonably neutral, which is often a problem with polarizing topics, such as the historicity of figures such as Tarquin. P Aculeius (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarquin the Proud and Tarkin from Star Wars?

When I first read of the name of Tarquin the Proud, I instantly asked my self if George Lucas was inspired by it when creating or fleshing out Grand Moff Tarkin?

• We have a guy with the byname of "the Proud" vs a guy whose last words were a proud "Evacuate? In our moment of Triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!".
• "By not replacing the slain senators, and not consulting the senate on matters of government, he diminished both the size and the authority of the senate." vs "The Imperial Senate will no longer be a concern for us."
• A guy that actually usurped Leadership vs a guy that planned to usurp the Emperor.
• A guy that was a notorious builder vs a guy that build the Death Star (well, it got a bit fuzzy with Rogue One)
• "His reign is described as a tyranny that justified the abolition of the monarchy." vs "His philosophy of "ruling through fear of force", dubbed the Tarkin Doctrine, became central to Imperial policy and promoted him to become the first Grand Moff in the Galactic Empire."

I might just be reading to much into those similarities, but it seems to obvious a connection. 178.6.84.255 (talk) 1:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you overestimate their similarities! But in all seriousness, while it's not impossible that the name of a movie villain was inspired by that of a historical figure remembered as an archetype of tyranny, we don't have any direct evidence of it—and at best borrowing the name would be a relatively insignificant detail. Unless some reliable source points to this or other similarities, it would be your opinion, and akin to "original research" to the extent that you're the source for the comparison, rather than some published, scholarly research that other readers could consult in order to make up their own minds. But since I know a little bit about the topic, I think I may be able to help you evaluate whether that's worth pursuing.

To make the case that the character of the villain was inspired by the last king of Rome, the similarities would have to have been there ab initio; if they were grafted on by later writers or as an afterthought, fleshing out a character who already existed by borrowing from Roman mythology (using that word in its literal sense, not in the sense of "fictitious"), then the character wasn't actually inspired by Tarquinius Superbus. So let's look at the points of similarity you observed and see whether they might have applied to the character as created by George Lucas.

1. Pride is one of the most important themes in Greek and Roman literature, and pretty much everything that follows from that tradition. It's the downfall of heroes and villains alike, and presumably would have been a factor in Star Wars even without any similarity between Governor Tarkin and Tarquinius Superbus. Nearly all Star Wars villains are defeated at least in part due to their hubris; in fact this is pretty much how all villains in adventure movies meet their fate. Where would the dramatic tension come from if the outcome were assured halfway through, rather than at a moment near the end when the heroes can either succeed or fail? The villain is almost always nearing a moment of triumph when he or she is defeated. This is less often the case in real life: when Tarquin was overthrown, he was away from Rome attending the siege of Aricia—an endeavour of no lasting significance in Roman history. He didn't even initiate the specific events that led to his downfall: his son Sextus did, and all of the principals in the revolution that followed were motivated by that particular act—until then they were prepared to endure the status quo. So there's not really much of a connection between the character and the king here.
2. Although Tarkin may have announced that the senate had been dissolved, nothing in the film suggests that he was responsible for doing so, and while EU references (and subsequent films) may not be relevant to the extent that they don't reflect the process of inventing Tarkin's character, they do seem to diminish the likelihood that it was ever meant to have been Tarkin's actions that led to it. In other words, this wasn't something that can be attributed to the villain, so it's not actually a similarity between him and Tarquin the Proud—just a sign that the Empire is by its nature tyrannical; i.e. a justification for rebellion.
3. This point comes exclusively from EU material, and there's no evidence that George Lucas had it in mind when developing the character for the first film.
4. Again, this isn't stated or implied in the film; the first evidence of Tarkin's connection with the Death Star's construction is in the scene at the end of RotS, almost thirty years afterward. Perhaps it was suggested by EU materials earlier, but it doesn't seem to have been in the original script or character development. By the time this was decided, the character and his association with the Death Star was long-established, so it's unlikely that the writers went back to Roman myth and said to themselves, "what else can we borrow from Tarquin?"
5. Also something from EU material, following years or decades after the character had been established, and probably not written by George Lucas himself. And since the Empire was established as tyrannical from the beginning, it wasn't necessary to borrow common elements of tyranny from Roman mythology to develop the character. But to the extent that it's possible that later writers did so—wouldn't any historical tyranny have been equally informative?

What this really boils down to is that, aside from the possible influence of the name, i.e. "let me see, I need a name for a villainous leader, maybe there are some historical villains I could borrow a name from", most of the rest of the characteristics are common traits of villains and tyrants in general, or plainly weren't part of the original character development, and in all probability were embellishments added long after the villain and his general traits were established, by other writers—and there's no real evidence that they reached back to a particular figure in history in order to flesh him out. The details they came up with could have been borrowed from any number of historical or literary sources, or made up without any need to turn to particular persons or events. So it seems quite improbable that they turned to Tarquin the Proud for no better reason than that his name was similar, in order to come up with generic character traits for a villain, or to involve the character in actions already known to be taking place within the framework of a larger story. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Promotional tag

@Phrogge: Can you say what wording in the article "promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information"? It can't be the word "legendary", you'd deleted that. "His reign has been described as a tyranny that justified the abolition of the monarchy" hardly seems promotional, and I haven't spotted anything else that seems like excessive praise of him. NebY (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry. I definitely thought it meant something more as in using biased language rather than promotional, and also I don't see anything super excessive either: I agree that the sentence,"his reign has been described as a tyranny that justified the abolition of the monarchy" is not promotional, though it does use some weasel wording (it doesn't mention or cite who describes that way). Some words/phrases I have found that may be biased (but not exactly promotional) are:

• "in his youth and vigor"
• describing Tullia Major as "of mild disposition" and Tullia Minor as having a "fiercer temperament"
• I still do think that "legendary" is promotional and at the very least unnecessary, but I don't want to start an edit war lol

In general, I feel like the article is more descriptive than factual, but I think it's all up to personal preference. Thank you for asking about what I was thinking when I put up the peacock tag (and after looking more in-depth to the article I'm honestly kind of glad someone reverted it). Phrogge (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The description in this article is more-or-less exactly how he's portrayed by the Greek and Roman historians, poets, and antiquarians—at least those whose works have survived. Without question the Tarquin they describe is a "larger-than-life" figure, hence the description of him as "legendary", along the lines of George Washington or Napoleon Bonaparte: undoubtedly historical figures who said and did at least some of the things they're famous for, but whose reputations are embellished by unverifiable—or in some cases demonstrably false—anecdotes and speculation, leaving one to wonder exactly which parts are true. Of course we don't know much for certain about the historical Tarquin; most modern historians are inclined to believe he existed in some form, although likely some of the stories attached to him originally belonged to other persons or may have been invented or exaggerated for dramatic effect. Others regard him as semi-historical at best—a shadowy figure of elusive verifiability, like King Arthur or Robin Hood.

But to the Romans he was a real, looming presence in their history; part of a distant, unreachable past, but of immense cultural importance; and this accounts for his larger-than-life status. He is one of the most clearly-defined personalities in all of Roman history, simply because he was the symbolic antithesis of the Roman Republic. What are the facts of Tarquin the Proud? We can't really know—all we can do is compare the varying accounts against what else we know of Roman civilization, and try to make educated guesses. Maybe he did everything the stories say, and maybe he never existed at all. He is a probably-historical figure who is known entirely from surviving Greek and Roman literature, so it ought not to be too surprising that he is described rather in the mode of folklore—that which is widely "known", but which may or may not be literally true; the historical truth is less important than what the stories about him meant to the Romans, and to a lesser extent us. P Aculeius (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Further to P Aculeius's comments, those descriptions you mention are the legendary characterisations. They don't represent bias on Wikipedia's part. Sure, if those people really did exist they might not have been quite like that, but that's how the stories were told and retold, long before anyone wrote them down.

I did wonder if you thought "legendary" was promotional, because there is such a colloquial usage about even living people nowadays, alongside calling someone a legend or a star. Here we're using it in a more staid and long-established sense, meaning of or relating to legend, where legend means a popular story or group of stories handed down from previous times, often quite distant times, whose veracity is at best uncertain. NebY (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Lucius Tarquinius Corinthian Greek ancestry

The article ommits that his original Greek name is unknown but it is known that he was the son of a wealthy CORINTHIAN GREEK REFUGEE NAMED DEMARATUS.  98.113.91.244 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing him with Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, where this is clearly stated. AND THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Source Used of Lucius Tarquinius' Greek roots

Time life book The Etruscans page 24. 98.113.91.244 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See above reply. P Aculeius (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)