Regal Roman history is somewhere between 750BC to 510BC when the republic replaced the Roman kings. Many of the political bodies, such as the Senate and Assembly existed during the regal period - the main innovation was the replacement of the king with two term-limited Consuls who had imperium or royal power.

Roman history tends to get broken into three periods: regal, republic and imperial (empire). The regal period is while it was a developing town, then city, under Etruscan influence, and ruled by Kings. The republican period is after the monarchy was overthrown and replaced by the dual-consuls and Senate. This period lasted until either Julius Caesar or Augustus, to which the latter has the claim as the first emperor which was constitutionally different to Caesar's dictator for life.

Calling the third phase of Roman history the Roman Empire is a bit disingenuous as well. Augustus did expand the Roman Empire to its maximum, but the expanse into Greece, Syria, France, Germany, Spain, Egypt and North Africa all occurred under the Republic.

The political organisation of Rome was for martial purposes and expansion. Even during the Regal period Rome was an expansive city-state eventually being mentioned in a treaty with the Carthaginians as having sovereignty over several Latinium cities and speaking (not vassal) for many others. Rome was a martial-state.

The early iron-age people of Italy were the Villanovans. Europe of the time was one of constant migrations for reasons of violence, displacement and opportunity. It is not sure where the Villanovans came from and it has been suggested that the came from the Balkans, the Adriatic, or were local evolutions of the Terramara or a group from the Appenines.

It is the same with the Etruscans, who eventually displaced the Vollanovans as the dominant people, cities and culture in Italy. There had been Phoenician and Greek settlements or colonies in Italy and it is not certain that the Etruscans were immigrants from Asia Minor by the same method as the Greeks, or if they developed from the Villanovans in cities like Veii. H.H. Scullard write:

One thing however is clear: whether with or without the introduction of newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean, the varied elements were fused together during the orientalisating phase in the early seventh century [BC].

The Etruscans remained largely Villanovan in population but developed, or imported, ever increasing administrative skills such that towns and villages became cities. That wealth and trade increased so that Greek pottery became more common at archaeological sites. Scullard argues that small numbers of immigrants were able to establish themselves as an aristocracy through their superior technology and organisational skills, effectively ruling Etruria with a Villanovan population.

The Etruscans expanded into Latium and reached as far south as Cumae which was Greek at the time. Rather than precipitating greater war, it seems this offered increased trading opportunities, but the Etruscans like any technologically dominant city-state of the time, used their stability to expand. Rome was one such village that fell under their control, including their religious, cultural and economic influence.

During the 6th century BC Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings. It is possible that the area known as Rome had settlements on it as early as 1500 BC, though archaeological finds date the continual habitation of the area at about 800 BC though it was more huts and villages than one town or city.

These villages started to coalesce during around 650 BC as Etruscan influence and trade starts to appear; along with increasing wealth such as tiled roofs. The first Etruscan King took the throne of Rome in 616 BC which entwines with Rome becoming an urban Etruscan city.

One of the problems of pre-history and scant written record, not to mention the pre-modern nature of the time, is that historical record is hard to determine. For instance Rome's founding myth is Romulus and Remus. So if there were Latium or Sabine kings from 750 BC to 616 BC (supposedly four) it is more suitable to myth than historical record. It does seem, however, that two of the Etruscan kings of Rome fit pretty well in the historical record.

The three Etruscan Kings were Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquiniss Superbus. The last king's name gives me a giggle, it has a glaring modern look to it that evokes diesel smoke, beaten in sheet metal and crowded Sydney streets rather than pre-Roman regalia.

The Roman kings weren't a monarchy as we tend to think of them today - especially as most of our experience with kingship is through the British empire and monarchy. It appears the first king was able to exert his will on Rome and establish himself as King. The Senate existed before the Etruscan kings and must have been an innovation, or imposition by the patricians during the previous rule or rulers of Rome.

The king was ethnically Etruscan, but did not rule from Etruria, the monarchy was restricted to Rome alone. This may have been due to poor communications of the time, as well as the decentralised city-state organisational structure. The second king, Servius, was the son-in-law of Tarquinius and the third king was probably the grandson of the first.

The tribal curia has been accredited to Romulus and appeared to have been for military, religious and political organisation. Scullard argues that as the state overtook the familial or collegial nature of tribal rule the curia transformed into the Comita Curiata - a voting assembly body.

Servius, in order to expand the Roman military, set up a centuriate system, similar to the curia. A census was performed and the centuriate's gathered according to property and free status. This effectively expanded the military while creating a new assembly body - the Comitia Centuriata. It wasn't immediately a political body, but inevitably became one.

The Senate of the Regal period was a body of advisors to the king, chosen by the king from the patricians (nobles in anglic). The number varied from king to king, presumably for political reasons such that it was branch stacking as Julius Caesar did centuries later. An appointment to the Senate was for life.

The Senate also had the responsibility of appointing a caretaker king or viceroy on the king's death, who would nominate the next king. It appears that the Senate had to approve the nominated next king. So it is far from the dynastic bloodline monarchy that Australians are familiar with in the British monarchy.

Roman tradition has it that Tarquinius was a tyrant, and his son raped the king's wife. Which led to Lucius Iunius Brutus leading a rebellion that overthrew the monarchy. The political turmoil led to Rome being invaded by the Etruscans, however they did not stay, as Etruscan power was waning and Latium cities were claiming their independence at the same time.

With the overthrow of the Regal system, Rome established the Republic, which placed royal power, imperium, in two consuls who were term limited to a year. The consuls came from the patricians which meant that it was an expanse of senatorial and autocratic power.

Most of the democratic systems, though laughable in sophistication by today's standards, especially in the area of enfranchisement, were already in place during the regal period. The only real change was the elected consuls, and later the election of quaestors, praetors and tribunes. The assembly bodies were already in place, as was the Senate.

This was to be the basis of a martial state and society that would eclipse the Etruscans, Greeks and Carthaginians in their ability to organise their conquests from a centralised political system. The one we know as Rome.