I. likewise are hostile, 396 B.C., and Tibur carries on a lengthy CHAP. war, in conjunction, as it appears, with Præneste, long after the time when, according to the boast of the Romans, Præneste had been humbled by T. Quinctius. Rome 390-343 B.C. of the Romans. How Rome was able to defend herself against the Vol- Success scians, in spite of the hostility of many of the Latins and Hernicans, it is impossible to say. Apart from the indomitable courage and perseverance which distinguished the Roman nation, whether in council or in the field, the circumstance that Rome, as a united state, stood opposed to a coalition was especially favourable to her. always knew very well how to make use of dissensions among her enemies. The senate, led by the most tried politicians of the republic, doubtless displayed already that dexterity and firmness in its foreign policy which greatly distinguished it at a later time. It is significant that during these wars a league of the Romans with the Samnites is mentioned (354 B.C.). The Samnites dwelt in the rear and on the flank of the Volscians, and they appear just at this time to have come into hostile contact with the Ausonian tribes to which the Volscians belonged. However this may be, it is certain that the Romans, in spite of many vicissitudes, in the end, had the advantage at all points. The Latins were compelled to return to their former subordination as the confederates of Rome. The Volscians were driven back, and in 358 B.c. two new tribes were added to the Roman territory, a circumstance which furnishes better evidence of the superiority of the Romans than we can have in any reports of Roman conquests and triumphs. This addition to the territory of the republic, the first important one which took place on the side of Latium, indicates a marked and very decisive success of the Roman arms. Undoubtedly the conquered and now incorporated territory was taken from the Volscians, and was originally a part of old Latium. Instead of being restored to the Latins, it was added to the territory of Rome, and this shows plainly how completely the Romans regarded themselves as masters of Latium. We hear of no opposition of the Latins against the incorporation BOOK JII. 390-343 B.C. War between of the two new tribes. On the contrary, it is reported of the same year (358 B.C.) that peace with the Latins was restored, and that the latter again placed their contingent at the disposal of the Romans.' In the same year the Hernicans were reduced to submission.2 Possibly the reports of Roman victories are boastful and exaggerated, and the renewal of the old confederacy was brought about more by persuasion and peaceable means than by force of arms; still the advantage was not less decisively on the side of the Romans. The Latins and Hernicans resigned themselves to that which they found was unavoidable. Only such towns as Præneste and Tibur, relying on the strength of their walls, could venture to hold out still longer against Rome, and yet they also were in the end compelled to submit, 354 B.C. But the Latins retained a deep-seated grudge against their imperious and ungenerous allies, who had become their masters. They considered themselves in every respect equal to the Romans. They had fought innumerable battles side by side with them, and had helped to gain many a Roman victory. They formed the barrier against the Equians and the Volscians, and through their troubles and losses Rome had become great. Now they saw that the prize of victory was carried off by the Romans. If discontent and rancour filled their hearts, the Romans had sown the seed. Fourteen years after the submission of Tibur, the great Latin war broke out (340 B.C.), which more than any other threatened the existence of Rome. On the north of the Ciminian mountains, which sepaRome and rate southern from central Etruria, lay Tarquinii, one of Tarquinii. the oldest and most powerful of the Etruscan towns. After the destruction of Veii, this had become the immediate neighbour of Rome. The Tarquinians might consider 1 Livy, vi. 12: Pax Latinis petentibus data et magna vis militum ex fœdere vetusto quod multis intermiserat annis accepta.' Compare p. 96, note 1. Polybius, ii. 18 : ἐν ᾧ καιρῷ Ῥωμαῖοι τήν τε σφετέραν δύναμιν ἀνέλαβον καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Λατίνους αὖθις πράγματα συνεστήσαντο. Schwegler, Rom. Gesch. ii. 338. 2 Livy, vii. 15. I. 390-343 B.C. themselves safe from a hostile collision with Rome, partly CHAP. on account of the distance, and partly because they were protected by the natural boundary of the Ciminian forest, which was at that time a wild and inhospitable mountain tract. Yet it was inevitable that quarrels should arise among the neighbours, which at any time might give occasion for wars. The Roman citizens who had settled in the four tribes formed out of the conquered Veientine territory, especially the colonists in the border fortresses, Sutrium and Nepete, behaved probably much after the fashion of the advanced posts of a conquering people generally, and encroached upon their Etruscan neighbours. But it was not before the year 358 B.C., when, as it seems, the disputes between Rome and the Latins had been settled and the old confederation was re-established, that the Romans found it advisable to declare war in due form against the Tarquinians. This war, which lasted, according to Livy's account, eight years, was carried on with great animosity and under many vicissitudes of fortune, and it ended by no means in a complete overthrow of the Tarquinians, but in a peace of forty years, which left the independence of Tarquinii untouched and the Roman boundary unchanged. Care and Falerii, it is said, took part in the war against Rome, by sending volunteers, and when peace was concluded the people of Care were compelled to accept the Roman citizenship without the full franchise, i.e. to become subjects of Rome. They shared in the burthens, but were not admitted to the honours and privileges of Roman citizenship, and the name of the Cærites was ever afterwards applied to designate citizens of this class. The national hatred with which the war between the The first Romans and the Etruscans was carried on, showed itself, plebeian in the very beginning, by a bloody deed, which even the ship. cruel code of war of antiquity could not justify. The consul C. Fabius Ambustus was beaten by the Tarquinians, and 307 Roman prisoners fell as victims on the altars of BOOK 390-343 B.C. Further Gallic inroads. the Etruscan gods.' Religious fanaticism, from which the Greeks and Romans were tolerably free, and which we meet only among Asiatic nations and among the Celts in Europe, appears to have stimulated the patriotism of the Etruscans into madness. This appears also from the part which the Etruscan priests took in the battle. As in a religious war, they rushed on before the combatants, with burning torches in their hands and serpents in their hair.2 The courage of the Etruscans became fury, and the Roman soldiers, not prepared for such terrors, gave way. The Roman territory on the right bank of the Tiber was abandoned to the invasion and devastation of the enemy. It was necessary to appoint a dictator, and for the first time a plebeian, C. Marcius Rutilus, was raised to this post. At last, in the year 353 B.C., the defeat of the Romans was avenged, and now bloody reprisals were taken on the Etruscan prisoners. Three hundred and fifty-eight of the noblest of them were scourged on the Roman Forum and beheaded. The Romans succeeded in keeping off the Etruscans, but they could boast of no great success, and the peace which was concluded in the year 351 B.C. was, as we have already seen, only a truce of forty years.3 The predatory invasions of the Gauls in the central and southern parts of Italy were repeated as long as the spoil was attractive and the opposition not too vigorous. Of their invasions into the Roman territory we have two accounts, materially differing from one another that of Polybius, who appears to give the oldest and simplest tradition, and, on the other side, that of Livy and the other historians, who describe a great number of battles and victories with a mass of detail. We give first the 1 A curious coincidence in the number of these 307 Romans commanded by a Fabius and the 306 Fabii who fell at the Cremera. Is it possible that we have in the two accounts only two versions of the same story, one popular and poetical, the other dry and annalistic? The difference of one in the respective numbers may be intentional to hide the identity. Compare above, pp. 173, 291, 2 Were these serpents real or artificial? 3 Livy, vii. 22. note 3. story of Polybius, which appears to us the most credible, because it is less flattering to Roman pride.' CHAP. I. 390-343 B.C. For thirty years after their first invasion, the Gauls remained quiet. Then they appeared suddenly at Alba, The and the Romans were so surprised and so unprepared story of Polybius. that they did not dare to march against them. But when the Gauls made another invasion twelve years later, they found the Romans, with their allies, armed and ready for battle, and they returned in haste back to their own country. Now, when they had learnt that the Romans had become strong, they concluded, thirteen years later, a treaty of peace with Rome. Out of these few collisions with the Gauls, which were Versions of Livy neither eventful nor glorious, the patriotic writers from and other whom Livy draws his information have made a series of writers. six great wars and victories, in which the heroic deeds of T. Manlius Torquatus and M. Valerius Corvus stand out prominently. Already in the year 367 B.C., twenty-three years, therefore, after the burning of Rome, the Gauls, according to this account, appeared in the neighbourhood of Alba. Camillus, who had once deprived them of their spoils, and had driven them with victorious hand out of Rome, was still living, and had reached the advanced age of fourscore years. He was now, for the fifth time, named dictator, and displayed, as he had always done, his greatness as a warrior. He totally defeated the barbarians, and celebrated a glorious triumph in that same year in which he had contributed towards settling the internal disputes which ended with the passing of the Licinian laws.3 1 Polybius, ii. 18. See a full account in Sir G. C. Lewis's Credibility of Early Roman History, ii. 399 ff. 2 Livy, vi. 42. Plutarch, Camill., 40. Zonaras, vii. 24. It is not difficult to account for the origin of this story, which is fictitious from beginning to end. It was nothing but the fact that in 367 B.C. Camillus was appointed dictator, for the purpose, as it appears, of overawing the plebeians. His panegyrists would not pass by this opportunity of exhibiting him as a great hero. Being dictator, it was natural, they thought, that he should have gained a victory and a triumph. They cared little if the civil history of Rome could not well be made to harmonise with the pretended military exploit |