CHAPTER XI.

THE WAR WITH THE LATINS.

CHAP.

XI.

Tarquin

Latin con

THE war with the Latins was celebrated and rendered conspicuous in the oldest annals especially by the battle of the Lake Regillus, with which it ended. The thirty towns of united Latium' insisted on placing Tarquin on the and the throne of Rome. Tusculum was particularly attached to federacy. him, for Octavius Mamilius, the son-in-law of Tarquin, reigned in that town. As the Romans would not consent to the demand of the Latins, there arose a great war between Rome and united Latium. In a hard-fought battle at the Lake Regillus,' in the neighbourhood of Tusculum, the Latins were completely conquered, and from that time the freedom of Rome was for ever after secure from the Tarquins.

In the narratives of this war considerable uncertainty Chronological difin the chronology is discovered by Livy, who honestly ficulties. confesses it; while Dionysius, in his smooth description, does not allow the reader to guess from what a chaos of conflicting accounts he has taken it. Livy3 places the battle of Regillus in the year 499 B.C., while by other historians' it was placed in the year 496. But what do a few years matter at a time when history is only beginning to get disentangled from legends and myths? We should be contented if apart from the chronology

Livy, ii. 18: Supra belli Sabini metum id quoque accesserat, quod triginta iam coniurasse populos, concitante Octavio Mamilio, satis constabat.' Dionysius, τ. 61, ὅσοι τοῦ Λατίνων μετεῖχον γένους κοινῇ τὸν κατὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀναιροῦνται Tóλepov.-Dionysius, vi. 74, 75.

2 No traces of this lake are now to be found. 'Livy, ii. 21.

• Dionysius, vi. 3, and the Fasti Capitolini.

BOOK everything else were authenticated. How much is wanting in this respect will be seen from what follows.

I.

The share of the Latins in the war.

It is singular that this war is not brought into any sort of connection with the other attempts to restore Tarquin to his kingdom. Neither in the war with the towns of Tarquinii and Veii nor in that with Porsenna does it appear that the Latins took any part. They allowed Tarquinius to exhaust all his other resources, and then, when Rome had got rid of her other enemies, they took up arms. If there is any historical truth in this narrative, the Tarquins must have called upon their friends in Latium to unite with their Etruscan allies in fighting against Rome. But is it likely that all Latium, as one man, stood up for the tyrant? The dominion which the Tarquins exercised in Latium was assuredly not milder than their tyranny in Rome. They had subjected the whole of Latium by force of arms. The story of the treacherous conquest of Gabii by the cunning and deceit of Sextus Tarquinius points to the existence of an enmity between the Tarquins and Latium. And is this not expressed in the legend of the siege of Ardea? After the expulsion of the kings, this town is said to have concluded a peace with the Romans for sixteen years; is it likely, supposing all the stories to have been authentic, that this town fought against Rome on the side of the Tarquins? Moreover, there was the town of Præneste, which, like Tusculum, Ardea, and Aricia, was at that time hardly inferior to Rome itself. According to a meagre report preserved by Livy, which by its very meagreness betrays a good annalistic source, Præneste joined the Romans. This town, therefore, did not take the side of

1

1 Livy, ii. 19: Præneste ab Latinis ad Romanos descivit.' Nevertheless Præneste is mentioned in the list of confederate Latin towns arrayed against Rome (Dionysius, v. 61). The list contains the following names alphabetically arranged: Ardea, Aricia, Bovillæ, Bubentum, Corne, Carventum, Circeii, Corioli, Corbio, Cora, Fortinea, Gabii, Laurentum, Lanuvium, Lavinium, Labicum, Nomentum, Norba, Præneste, Pedum, Querquetulum, Satricum, Scaptia, Setia, Tellenæ, Tibur, Tusculum, Tolerium, Tricrium, Velitræ (see Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 325. Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 350, note; English transla

XI.

united Latium against Rome. Of Gabii we may suppose CHAP. the same; for, according to the legend, the Gabines

tion, i. 357). What is the value and the authority of this list? I feel con-
vinced it is of no value and of no authority whatever. It is made up at hap-
hazard by some annalist, from names of decayed or still existing Latin towns'
(see the Author's Researches, p. 53, n. 1). Schwegler arrives at a different
conclusion (Röm. Gesch., ii. 322), and thinks, with Niebuhr, that Dionysius took
his list from the document containing the treaty of alliance between Rome and
Latium of the year 493 B.C. This treaty, concluded by Sp. Cassius, was of the
greatest importance, and formed the basis of the relations between Rome and
Latium down to the great Latin war 338 B.C. The original document contain-
ing it was supposed to be in existence in Rome even at the time of Cicero. It
was engraved on a bronze column behind the Rostra in the Forum. Cicero
could still remember it, but when he wrote it was gone (Cicero, Pro Balbo, 23,
53: Cum Latinis omnibus fœdus ictum, Sp. Cassio, Postumio Cominio con-
sulibus, quod quidem nuper in columna ahenea meminimus post rostra incisum
et perscriptum fuisse'). Livy, therefore, could not have seen it, though he ex-
presses himself as if the original document on the bronze pillar were still in
existence at his time (Livy, ii. 33). The antiquarian, Verrius Flaccus, quotes
obsolete words which occurred in this treaty (Festus s. v. nancitor). There
can, therefore, be no doubt that there existed in Cicero's time a document,
which was supposed to be the treaty concluded between Rome and Latium in
493 B.C. under the auspices of Sp. Cassills. Nevertheless, it is very questionable
if this document was genuine. In the first place it is not likely that a bronze
pillar in the Forum should have escaped the cupidity of the Gauls in 390 B.C.
Then the inscription on the pillar, as we see from Festus (s. v. nancitor) con-
tained legal matter, such as could hardly be incorporated in an international
treaty many years before the Roman civil law was first committed to writing
in the legislation of the decemvirs. It is probable, therefore, that the treaty
inscribed on the bronze pillar was not the original one of 493 B.C., but that of
358 B.C., by which the old treaty of Sp. Cassius was renewed (Livy, vii. 12:
Pax Latinis petentibus data et magna vis militum ex fædere vetusto, quod
multis intermiserat annis, accepta. See below, book iii. chap. i.) Yet, even if
this conjecture should be erroneous, and if the original of the treaty of 493 B c.
should have been extant in later times, it is nevertheless certain that Dionysius
could not have taken from it the list of the thirty Latin cities. If he had
done so, he would not have failed to name his source, and, moreover, he would
have given the list in the proper place, where he relates the conclusion of the
treaty (vi. 95), and not where he enumerates the towns leagued against Rome
(v. 61). In addition to this, if the inscription on the pillar contained the names
of the Latin towns, it assuredly did not give them in alphabetical order, as
Dionysius names them. It was not customary in antiquity to avoid disputes
of precedence by having recourse to the alphabet, as modern diplomacy does.
Thus in a fragmentary document preserved by Cato (Priscian, iv. 4, 21, p. 629;
and vii. 12, 60, p. 762 ed. Putsch), the following towns are mentioned as
members of a league that met in the grove of Aricia: Tusculum, Aricia, Lanu-
vium, Laurentum, Cora, Tibur, Pometia, Ardea. If, however, from some unex-
plained motive, the alphabetic order should have been preferred for the list of
the thirty confederate Latin towns of 493 B.C., how could it happen, that an
VOL. I.
H

BOOK avenged the treachery of Sextus, by killing him soon after the expulsion of his family from Rome.'

I.

In Lavinium there lived, according to the legend, Collatinus, the colleague of Brutus, after he had voluntarily resigned his office, and had left Rome. This town also must, therefore, be supposed to have been friendly to Rome. And if we had more accurate reports of the events of this time, we should probably find that many other Latin towns were united with Rome in the struggle for national independence and political liberty. It is due only to the national vanity2 of the Roman annalists, that the whole of Latium is mentioned as hostile, whereas perhaps only a few towns opposed, and the majority supported, Rome. In some towns, indeed, it may be that a strong Tarquinian party was in favour of a war against Rome. This may especially be supposed of Tusculum, a town in the hands. of Tarquin's son-in-law, Octavius Mamilius. The same can easily be believed of Fidenæ, for it was perhaps more Etruscan than any other town on the left bank of the Tiber. With others other motives may have operated. We cannot guess the detail of these events, but from a few traces that are preserved it appears clear that the war cannot be considered as one between Rome and united Latium. On the contrary, it seems that the dominion of the Tarquins was detested, not only in Rome, but everywhere in Latium, on account of its despotism, and from national hostility; that rebellion took place, as for instance, in Ardea, and that at last, in a great decisive battle, the national element of the Latins and the aristocratic republic gained the victory over the Etruscan

3

alphabet was taken which was not introduced in Rome till more than 200 years later (see Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 350; English translation, i. 357). There is, it seems, no alternative but to reject the list of Dionysius as spurious. 1 Livy, i. 60.

2 We shall often have occasion to refer to this trait of the Roman historians. Cicero speaks of the Latin war as a war with Octavius Mamilius of Tusculum (Ad Atticum, ix. 10, De Natura Deor., ii. 2).

The monarchical government seems to have been superseded by the republican in Latium sooner than in Rome. -Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., ii. 70.

monarchy. Let us try to discover what gave the first impulse to this movement.

CHAP.

XI.

ment.

In the period of the fall of Tarquin, as far as we can Origin of trust the uncertain chronology, Aristodemus was Tyrant the moveof Cuma. Of him Dionysius relates a long story, how he possessed himself of power, killed the nobles, expelled their sons from the town, but fell at last a victim to their revenge. This Aristodemus is said to have driven back a powerful army of Umbrians, Daunians, and Tyrrhenians, who marched against Cuma; afterwards he went to assist the Latins against the Etruscans, who, under Aruns, the reputed son of Porsenna, besieged Aricia. Here Aristodemus, with his allies, gained a victory over the Etruscans. At last, Aristodemus supported the Romans against the Etruscans, who wished to restore the expelled Tarquins.'

the Greek

These statements suggest the conclusion that the The EtrusEtruscans, after the conquest of Rome and Latium, ad- cans and vancing southward, came in contact with the towns of colonies. Campania, especially with Cumæ. Repulsed here, they began to lose their hold on Latium. Several towns, such as Ardea and Aricia,2 rebelled. Then Rome rose against them. Præneste and other towns joined the party which opposed the Etruscan kings, perhaps more from national than political enmity. In the war which arose, the towns of Etruria proper seem to have taken no part; the Latins were divided and stood on both sides. In the battle of Regillus the victory was decided in favour of Roman and Latin independence. It was not a victory of the Romans over Latium. Consequently when, a few years later (493 B.C.), a league was concluded with the Latins under the consul Sp. Cassius, the Latins were treated as an independent nation. The Romans were satisfied with having again obtained their independence by the help of the Latins, and they made no attempt to regard

1 Plutarch, De Virt. Muliebr., 361. According to Livy (ii. 9), the Romans, on the approach of Porsenna, sent to Cuma for corn. The legend therefore represented Cumæ as friendly to Rome.

2 Livy, i. 50.