12-15-2012, 07:20 AM
Thanks to Bill Mayer’s site I have missed one reference from Cicero, one from Lydus and more importantly another from Solinus that discusses Cicero’s founding date which completes the jigsaw puzzle. Another reference found in Ovid’s Fasti carries no weight. So the dates for Rome’s founding are:
The varying dates for Rome’s founding depend on the data used by the ancient sources. Romulus was believed to be 17 years old or in his 18th year when he founded Rome. If an ancient writer believed Romulus was 18 years old when he founded Rome and then subtracted this from 770 BC as Romulus’s birth date then Rome was founded in 752 BC. If an ancient writer believed Romulus was 17 years old and subtracted this from 770 BC, then Rome’s founding date is 753 BC.
What I have found studying Roman mathematics and their cosmos is the Romans are confused about which interval of time should be employed in their calendars dealing with time cycle increments over 50 years. They even admit this. All the above dates for Rome’s founding have come about because various ancient writers have used a different calibration point or event in Rome’s history and then applied a different age cycle to that event as the basis of their calculations. The other founding dates of 754 BC and 728 BC also can be clearly defined as they fall on particular events deemed to be important to the ancient historian as their calibration point. Rome’s founding date should be determined at the beginning of the second age cycle but because the ancient writers are employing different events synchronized with different intervals of time for their age cycles, the result is the varying dates listed above.
However, as always with Roman mathematics thankfully the answer is embedded in the empirical data supplied by our trustworthy ancient historians. The difference between Timeaus date of 814 BC and Fabius Pictor of 744 BC is 70 years. Now if we deducted increments of 70 years from 814 BC we get the following:
The year 534 BC equates to the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, which is Fabius Pictor’s calibration point or event. The founding date of Rome also correctly falls at the beginning of the second age cycle. I imagine at this point the sceptics would now be mumbling this is just mathematical coincidence. To those sceptics I say keep reading. According to Servius, in 44 BC, during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days. A haruspex proclaimed the comet heralded the end of the ninth age and the beginning of the 10th age. Now taking the premise Fabius Pictor has incorrectly began the first age to begin at 744 BC instead of 814 BC, we get the following 70 year increments:
This shows that the year 44 BC represents the end of the 10th age not the beginning as stated by Servius. The other problem is the haruspex also foretold the 10th age would bring about the destruction of the Etruscan race. Now this occurs much earlier and what this means is that Servius has confused his sources by using two different calendars, the one being employed by Fabius Pictor and the time table of Rome’s four ages of progress (Rome’s infancy, youth, manhood and old age) as outline by Florus which is based on increments of 70 years and does have the destruction of the Etruscan race occurring during the 10th age.
The correct calendar the Romans conform to starts introducing varying intervals of time from around 416 BC onwards. This is when it goes a little haywire and discrepancies of five years start to occur which in the end results in the year 102 BC having major religious significance. The religious implications of this date allow the Romans to make any changes to the system without violating any sacred principle. As this year happens to belong to the consulship of Marius, he gets the credit for any changes to the system when in fact it is a state sanctified change set by a calendar. During the reign of Augustus the cosmos calendar is recalibrated. Although the Romans are operating within a system, the system at specific intervals of time allows them to be pragmatic.
Steven
814 BC
754 BC
753 BC
752 BC
744 BC
728 BC
754 BC
753 BC
752 BC
744 BC
728 BC
The varying dates for Rome’s founding depend on the data used by the ancient sources. Romulus was believed to be 17 years old or in his 18th year when he founded Rome. If an ancient writer believed Romulus was 18 years old when he founded Rome and then subtracted this from 770 BC as Romulus’s birth date then Rome was founded in 752 BC. If an ancient writer believed Romulus was 17 years old and subtracted this from 770 BC, then Rome’s founding date is 753 BC.
What I have found studying Roman mathematics and their cosmos is the Romans are confused about which interval of time should be employed in their calendars dealing with time cycle increments over 50 years. They even admit this. All the above dates for Rome’s founding have come about because various ancient writers have used a different calibration point or event in Rome’s history and then applied a different age cycle to that event as the basis of their calculations. The other founding dates of 754 BC and 728 BC also can be clearly defined as they fall on particular events deemed to be important to the ancient historian as their calibration point. Rome’s founding date should be determined at the beginning of the second age cycle but because the ancient writers are employing different events synchronized with different intervals of time for their age cycles, the result is the varying dates listed above.
However, as always with Roman mathematics thankfully the answer is embedded in the empirical data supplied by our trustworthy ancient historians. The difference between Timeaus date of 814 BC and Fabius Pictor of 744 BC is 70 years. Now if we deducted increments of 70 years from 814 BC we get the following:
814 BC to 744 BC
744 BC to 674 BC
674 BC to 604 BC
604 BC to 534 BC
744 BC to 674 BC
674 BC to 604 BC
604 BC to 534 BC
The year 534 BC equates to the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, which is Fabius Pictor’s calibration point or event. The founding date of Rome also correctly falls at the beginning of the second age cycle. I imagine at this point the sceptics would now be mumbling this is just mathematical coincidence. To those sceptics I say keep reading. According to Servius, in 44 BC, during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days. A haruspex proclaimed the comet heralded the end of the ninth age and the beginning of the 10th age. Now taking the premise Fabius Pictor has incorrectly began the first age to begin at 744 BC instead of 814 BC, we get the following 70 year increments:
744 BC to 674 BC (1st age)
674 BC to 604 BC (2nd age)
604 BC to 534 BC (3rd age)
534 BC to 464 BC (4th age)
464 BC to 394 BC (5th age)
394 BC to 324 BC (6th age)
324 BC to 254 BC (7th age)
254 BC to 184 BC (8th age)
184 BC to 114 BC (9th age)
114 BC to 44 BC (10th age)
674 BC to 604 BC (2nd age)
604 BC to 534 BC (3rd age)
534 BC to 464 BC (4th age)
464 BC to 394 BC (5th age)
394 BC to 324 BC (6th age)
324 BC to 254 BC (7th age)
254 BC to 184 BC (8th age)
184 BC to 114 BC (9th age)
114 BC to 44 BC (10th age)
This shows that the year 44 BC represents the end of the 10th age not the beginning as stated by Servius. The other problem is the haruspex also foretold the 10th age would bring about the destruction of the Etruscan race. Now this occurs much earlier and what this means is that Servius has confused his sources by using two different calendars, the one being employed by Fabius Pictor and the time table of Rome’s four ages of progress (Rome’s infancy, youth, manhood and old age) as outline by Florus which is based on increments of 70 years and does have the destruction of the Etruscan race occurring during the 10th age.
The correct calendar the Romans conform to starts introducing varying intervals of time from around 416 BC onwards. This is when it goes a little haywire and discrepancies of five years start to occur which in the end results in the year 102 BC having major religious significance. The religious implications of this date allow the Romans to make any changes to the system without violating any sacred principle. As this year happens to belong to the consulship of Marius, he gets the credit for any changes to the system when in fact it is a state sanctified change set by a calendar. During the reign of Augustus the cosmos calendar is recalibrated. Although the Romans are operating within a system, the system at specific intervals of time allows them to be pragmatic.
Steven
