Talk:Founding of Rome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity. |
 |
Founding of Rome is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the city of Rome on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
This is the most thorough treatment of this topic that I have ever seen anywhere. 1307-100 14:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! This is a great article! --Larry_Sanger
- I'll second that! I wish there were some External links on this material. Wetman 13:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The article is fine, but the author is biased.
For he/she, the legend is part of a "propaganda" agenda.
He/she should study a little more about Myths and their role in the rise and fall of nations. Studying Mircea Eliade should help.
Obviously, from time to time, there are "historians" and politicians that pretend to use myths for ideological purposes. They still do it now when they try to desacre ancient myths and when they explain that "human has always been corrupt".
The roman mythical origin is synctactically correct in its symbolism; and to attribute a dark intention to it is unjust and seemes part of an agenda to wipe out anything which is sacred and to diminish the greatness of Rome.
Is it because we don't want any other Benito Mussolini? Or because we are christians and "rome persecuted christians"? Or are we so contaminated by a dark and dirty vision of our own past? Rome is not Caligula, nor Nero, but Numa Pompilius and Marcus Aurelius.
Rome lasted one thousand years, and you still can note the positive influence of Rome in western Europe, and that was because of a strong root this tree had. --Ccho 16:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Rome is not Caligula, nor Nero, but Numa Pompilius and Marcus Aurelius." - This is incorrect. Rome was both Caligula and Numa Pompilius, Nero as well as Marcus Aurelius. Rome was neither good nor evil, it merely was. -Silence 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] picture
Is the propaganda picture from WWII really the best to head this article? The article is about the founding of Rome, not anything WWII related. Maybe something less blood thirsty would work better? How about She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg at the top of the article? --345Kai 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. 24.202.236.110 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence "Its beginning took place at 6:49, its middle at 7:47 and its end at 8:51." from the third paragraph (the one beginning with "According to Lucius Tarrutius of Firmum...") of the part "the date of the founding of rome" for it was an irrelevant information making reading harder.
