Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

III.

B.C.

BOOK interesting affair, but they contribute nothing towards the real history of the war. L. Papirius Cursor was one of those 326-304 favourite heroes of the old school who looked upon military discipline as the first condition of national prosperity.' He was now dictator, and being obliged to leave the army and go to Rome to take the auspices anew, he left strict injunctions with his master of the horse, Q. Fabius Rullianus, to avoid all collision with the enemy during his absence. Fabius did not attend to this order. He made use of an opportunity, and won a great victory over the Samnites. For this violation of military obedience the stern Papirius threatened that he should suffer death. Fabius escaped from the camp and sought protection with the Roman senate. But the dictator followed close after him, refusing to be turned from his resolution by any entreaties or threats, until Fabius, renouncing any protection from the law, gave himself up to the magnanimity and mercy of the dictator. After the sanctity of military discipline had been solemnly acknowledged by this submission, Papirius granted Fabius his life, but removed him from his office, and appointed in his place L. Papirius Crassus as master of the horse.

Alleged exploits of Papirius and

Fabius.

The annalists of the Papirians and the Fabians, who mentioned these family disputes, were not at a loss to make a suitable framework of military events for their narrative. The Fabians told long stories of a great victory gained by Q. Fabius over the Samnites in the absence of the dictator-a victory which excited his envy and jealousy.2 Twenty thousand enemies were slain. That, however, was not yet sufficient. Some writers related two victories of Fabius, equally grand and brilliant. But others, as Livy honestly adds, mentioned nothing of all this. The oldest annalist of the Romans, who worked up family memorials into a history of Rome, was Fabius Pictor. To him we may perhaps attribute a great part of the many stories in

It is amusing to read (Livy, ix. 16) that the conceit of Roman writers went so far as to declare that Papirius would have proved a worthy antagonist for Alexander the Great, if the latter had invaded Italy. 2 Livy, viii. 30.

which the Fabians appear, and among them the boastful narrative of the heroic deeds of Q. Fabius Maximus in the second Samnite war. But the Papirians would not be outThe dictator therefore, on his return

done by the Fabians.

to the army, likewise defeats the Samnites, lays waste their territory, even compels them to ask for peace, and graciously grants them one year's truce.

CHAP.

X.

326-304

B.C.

in Latium,

If at this time a truce was really concluded with the Rebellion Samnites, the Romans had most probably as good reason 323 B.C. for desiring it as their enemies, even if it be true that hitherto the fortune of war was on their side. The edifice of the Roman supremacy over Latium was still too new to be able to weather every storm. Soon after the breaking out of the Samnite wars, ominous signs of danger appeared in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. Tusculum, which had always been so devoted, began to waver in her fidelity. Her discontent broke out into open rebellion, and this revolt spread to Privernum and Velitræ, two Latin towns whose obstinate resistance against the sovereignty of Rome had often alarmed the Romans and been quelled with difficulty. If this spirit of rebellion had extended further, the Roman power would have been endangered to its very foundations, and the war with the Samnites could not have been continued.

of the rebellion.

As to the cause of the rebellion in Latium, our Cause authorities are, as usual, silent. We may reasonably suspect that the severity of the Romans, and the numerous confiscations after the end of the war with the Latins, were the cause of the discontent which showed itself now, and even at a later time, in various ways. The Tusculans, Veliternians, and Privernatians had become subjects of Rome. They now endeavoured either to become Roman citizens or to regain their independence, and they succeeded in carrying their point. It is quite possible that there was a party in these towns which was ready to call on the Samnites for protection. Without the prospect of Samnite help Tusculum and the other Latin towns would not have dared to defy Rome. But with the

III.

326-304

B.C.

BOOK help of the Samnites, their hostility would be very serious, and so the extraordinary circumstance is explained, that the town of Rome was alarmed one night, and the citizens prepared to defend themselves against an attack.' Yet the danger passed away; it is not stated how. We learn only accidentally that L. Fulvius Curvus, who in this year filled the highest magistracy in Tusculum, was in the following year consul in Rome, and, more than this, that five years later that is, at the next census-two new Roman tribes were established. Nothing is said of a forcible suppression of the revolt. It follows from this that Rome, by a wise concession, averted the threatening storm, while she received into full citizenship, on favourable terms, the whole of the rebellious Latins. Whether Fulvius, who was raised to the consulship in Rome 322 B.C., belonged in the year before (323 B.C.), when he was consul in Tusculum, to the party hostile to Rome, may reasonably be doubted. The Romans were not naturally inclined to lavish generosity towards their enemies, or to overcome hatred by love. Moreover it is reported by Livy that the tribune M. Flavius made a proposal to the people to punish with death or loss of freedom those Tusculans who had excited the Veliternians and Privernatians to war against Rome.5 This equally cruel and unwise measure was indeed rejected almost unanimously; nevertheless it can hardly be imagined that the leader of the Tusculan rebellion, instead of being punished with death, should have obtained the Roman consulship as the price of his submission. It is far more likely that Fulvius was throughout well affected to Rome, and brought about the arrangement by which the

' Livy, viii. 37.

3 The Tusculans were at this time to which they afterwards belonged. of the two newly-formed tribes.

2 Pliny, Hist. Nat., vii. 44.

probably admitted to the Papirian tribe, Velitræ and Privernum were made parts

Vitruvius Vaccus, who had headed the revolt of Privernum five years before, suffered death.

Livy, viii. 37. The motion was rejected by all the tribes except the Tribus Pollia. The people of Tusculum, long after they had been received into the Tribus Papiria, remembered this vote, and seldom supported at the elections a candidate of the Tribus Pollia.

cause of discontent among a party at Tusculum was removed and the Tusculans were admitted to the full Roman franchise. The boastful Roman annalists avoid, almost on principle, making the admission that concessions were made to any enemy. They looked upon concessions as incompatible with the majesty of the republic, and thought that all opposition ought to be crushed by force of arms. But we know that the Romans were wise enough to yield, when it was necessary, and we may presume that on the present occasion they accepted a compromise which was highly salutary to all parties; that the plan of rising against Rome was entertained only by a portion of the Tusculans, Veliternians, and Privernatians, and that, after their real grievances were removed, the whole population of these towns ceased to desire separation from Rome, like the Roman plebs after their reconciliation with the patricians on the Sacred Hill.

The necessity of a conciliatory policy towards their Latin and Campanian subjects appeared plainly in the course of the war, when fortune began to favour the Samnites, and the arm of Rome appeared to be paralysed. Even in the war of Hannibal the faith of many of the subject peoples wavered; it is therefore not to be wondered at that, a century before, those communities which were scarcely brought into subjection bore the yoke with uneasy reluctance.

CHAP.

X.

326-304

B.C.

Need of a

concilia

tory policy.

322 B.C.

In the campaign of the year 322, the fourth of the war, Fourth the Roman writers boasted of a series of brilliant suc- of the war, campaign cesses. Unfortunately they are not agreed whether these successes are to be attributed to the consuls, L. Fulvius Curvus, the Tusculan, and Q. Fabius Rullianus, the late master of the horse, or to a dictator, A. Cornelius Arvina.' The Samnites, it is said, humbled by repeated defeats and losses, sued for peace. But although they came to deliver up the body of their general, Brutulus Papius, who

It is with reference to this divergence of opinion that Livy (viii. 40) makes the following most important remark: Nec facile est aut rem rei aut auctorem auctori præferre. Vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familia ad se quæque famam rerum gestarum honorum

BOOK

III.

B.C.

in despair had put an end to his own life, they were unsuccessful, because they would not unconditionally recog326-304 nise the supremacy of Rome. This story, so gratifying to Roman pride, can hardly be considered sufficiently authenticated. When so many of the most important and striking events were imperfectly recorded, it is not likely that we should be informed of diplomatic transactions that led to no result. The events, moreover, which took place in the succeeding year show that the Samnites were very far indeed from being fainthearted and compelled to sue for peace.

The Cau

321 B.C.

If other nations delight in remembering the days of dine Pass, national triumphs, and in celebrating the memory of victories by which they feel their strength was increased and their pride gratified, the greatness of the Roman people is shown much more by their keeping continually before their eyes the evil days when the god of battles was unfavourable to them, and by celebrating the anniversaries of their defeats, in a certain degree, as days of national humiliation. The day of the Allia and the day of Cannæ stood before the eye of the Roman in more burning colours than the day of the victory of Zama.1 But by the side of those names there was yet a third in the list of evil days-a name which was more painful than any other to the proud Roman, because the feeling of national disgrace and humiliation could not be separated from it; it was the name of the Caudine Pass. At the Allia and at Canna thousands fell in open battle; at Caudium four legions agreed to purchase life and freedom by the sacrifice of military honour, and the Roman people, when they refused to ratify the agreement, covered themselves with a load of infamy, from which no sophistry could free them, even in their own conscience.

que fallenti mendacio trahunt. Inde certe et singulorum gesta et publica
monumenta rerum confusa.'

Curiously enough the great victory of Scipio over Hannibal, which termi-
nated the most dangerous of all wars, did not take place at Zama, but at a
place of which the locality and almost the name are unknown.

1

« AnteriorContinuar »