Ancient History & Civilisation



1 ITALY. In general see M. Cary, The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History (1947). In detail see H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, 2 vols (1883, 1902).

2 EARLY MAN. In general, see A. M. Radmilli, Piccola guida della preistoria Italiana2 (1974), an excellent analytical account from Palaeolithic down to Villanovan times. Also a general survey by J. Whatmough, The Foundations of Roman Italy (1937). For more detail see Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica, 8 vols, ed. M. Pallottino et al.(1974). Two recent studies in English are L. Barfield, Northern Italy before Rome (1971) and D. H. Trump, Central and Southern Italy before Rome (1966). An older work is T. E. Peet, The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy (1909). G. Daniel and J. D. Evans (CAH, II, 2 (1971), ch. xxxvii) provide a survey of conditions in western Mediterranean countries, while J. Heurgon (The Rise of Rome (1973), ch. i) sets the Mediterranean scene for Rome’s emergence.

3 NEOLITHIC ITALY. See chs iii of the books by Barfield and Trump, and Popoli, I, ii, cited in previous note. For the Neolithic settlement in Apulia see J. Bradford and P. R. Williams-Hunt, Antiquity, 1946, 191 ff.; 1950, 84 ff; also R. Whitehouse, Proc. Prehist. Soc., xl, 1974, 203 ff.

4 COPPER AND BRONZE AGES. See R. Peroni, L’antica età del bronzo (1971), and the books cited above, with detailed bibliographies: Barfield, Trump and Popoli, I, ii.

5 BELL BEAKERS IN ITALY. See D. Ridgway, Antiquity, 1972, 52.

6 APENNINE CULTURE. See Trump, op. cit., 107 ff. and S. M. Puglisi, La civiltà apenninica (1959). On transhumance as an economic stimulus in promoting the interchange of goods in early Italy (which declined with the later growth of the road system) see J. E. Skydsgaard, Analecta Romana Instituti Daniel, vii, 1974, 7 ff. On the comparative rarity of bronze in the Apennine culture see G. Barker, ‘The first metallury in Italy’, Bollettino di Palentologia Italiana, vol. 80, 1971, 183 ff. Excavation of an Apennine settlement (c. 1600–800 BC) at Luni, 50 miles north of Rome, which included the discovery of five Mycenaean sherds, has thrown much light on the development of this culture: see C. E. Östenberg, Luni sul Mignone (1967).

7 MYCENAEANS IN THE WEST. See Lord William Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery in Italy (1958). Metapontum: Strabo, 264; G. Pugliese Carratelli, Par. Pass., 1958, 205 ff., Atti del I congr. di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Naples, 1962), 137 ff. On Luni see Östenberg, op. cit., n. 6 above. Cf. also note 18 below.

8 AUSONIAN CULTURE. LIPARI. See Diodorus, v, 7. L. Bernabò Brea, Sicily before the Greeks, edn 2 (1966). D. H. Trump, Central and Southern Italy before Rome (1966), 133 f., 142 f., unlike Brea, would associate Diodorus’ Ausonians with the later period.

9 VILLANOVAN CULTURE. See n. 2 above and D. Randall-Maclver, Villanovans and Early Etruscans (1924), The Iron Age in Italy (1927); Civiltà del Ferro (Bologna, 1960); L. Barfield, Northern Italy (1971). M. Pallottino (e.g. The Etruscans (1975), 37 ff.) objects to the use of such phrases as ‘Terramara folk’ or ‘Villanovans’, whom he considers to be archaeological inventions or modern myths, since these terms really represent cultural areas and not ethnic units. However, if they are understood as groups of people sharing a similar culture (and after all culture cannot exist unless embodied in a ‘folk’) and not as monolithic ethnic blocks, then perhaps no great harm comes from using such convenient modern labels.

10 URNFIELDS. See H. Müller-Karpe, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit, nordlich und sudlich der Alpen (1959).

11 EARLY VEII. See J. B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR, 1961.

12 SALERNO DISTRICT. See P. Sestieri, St. Etr., 1960, 73 ff., E. Lepore, Par. Pass., 1964, 144 ff., B. D. Agostino, St. Etr., 1965, 671 ff., M. Napoli, id., 661 ff., J. de la Genière, Recherches… Sala Cosilina (Naples, 1968), MEFR, 1970, 571 ff. G. B. Modesti (ed.), Seconda Mostra della preistoria e della protostoria nel Saliternita (Salerno, 1974) describes recent finds.

13 SITULAE. See O. H. Frey, Die Entstehung der Situlenkunst (1969).

14 THE ITALIC LANGUAGES. For a general survey of the problems see E. Pulgram, The Tongues of Italy (1958), L. R. Palmer, The Latin Language (1954), G. Devoto, Gli antichi Italici, edn 3 (1968). For the material see R. S. Conway, The Italic Dialects (1897), E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte (1953), A. Ernout, Le dialect ombrien(1961), J. W. Poultney, The Iguvine Tablets (1959). On Indo-European in general see R. A. Crossland, CAH, I, ii (1971), ch. xxvii, G. Devoto, Origini indeuropee (1961).

15 OSCAN AND UMBRIAN. It may be of interest to quote examples. From an Oscan inscription on a boundary stone between Nola and Abella in Campania, regarding a temple of Hercules: ‘avt pust feihuis pus fisnam amfret, eisei terei nep abellanus nep nuvlanus pidum tribarakattins’ = ‘post muros autem qui fanum circumeunt, in illa terra neve Abellani neve Nolani quidquam aedificaverint’ = ‘but regarding the walls that surround the temple, on that ground no man from Abella or Nola is to build anything.’ Umbrian is represented by the inscription from Iguvium (Gubbio) containing the liturgy of a sacred brotherhood: thus, e.g. ‘vitlu vufru pune heries facu, eruhu ticlu seste, urfeta manuve habetu. estu iuku habetu: iupater sace, tefe estu vitlu vufru sestu’ = ‘vitulum votivum cum voles facere, illa dedicatione sistito Iovi patri. Cum sistis, orbitam in manu habeto. Istum sermonem habeto:Iuppiter sancte, tibi istum vitulum votivum sisto”’ = ‘when you wish to sacrifice a calf as a votive offering, let it be consecrated in that dedication to father Jupiter. When you consecrate it, hold a round cake in your hand. Use these words: “Holy Jupiter, to you I consecrate this calf as a votive offering”.’

16 VER SACRUM. See Festus, 150, 424, 519 L; Dion. Hal. i, 16; Livy, xxii, 10, xxxiii, 44, xxxiv, 44. J. Heurgon, Trois Études sur le Ver Sacrum (1957).

17 AUTOCHTHONOUS VILLANOVANS AND LANGUAGE. M. Pallottino believes that there was no basic ethnic change among the Villanovans: his views are summarized in The Etruscans (1975), 80 f. He also believes (op. cit. 49 ff., 58 ff.) that waves of Indo-European dialects reached Italy from the east across the Adriatic and pushed earlier languages (Ligurian and Tyrrhenian) to the north and west. The first proto-Latin wave arrived before c. 2000 BC and was later pushed westwards by the subsequent wave of Umbro-Sabellian dialects which established themselves within ‘Apennine’ southern-central Bronze Age Italy. A third, Illyrian, wave got no further than the east coast.

18 CONTINUING GREEK TRADE? See F. G. Lo Porto, Bollettino d’ Arte (1964), 67 ff., on the excavation of the acropolis at Porto Saturo, which may be identified with Satyrion where the Spartan leader of the colony to Tarentum landed in the late eighth century. Iapygian protogeometric and geometric pottery and other evidence suggest continued occupation, while Strabo (vi, 3, 2), based on Antiochus of Syracuse (the fifth-century historian of Sicily and Italy), states that the Spartan leader was welcomed by the barbarians and Cretans living there: this may reflect a memory of Greeks surviving at Tarentum.

19 PHOENICIAN COLONIZATION. The general importance of the Phoenicians has been over-rated at some times (e.g. during the last century) and underrated at others. The early dates which tradition assigned to some colonies (e.g. c. 1100 BC to Lixus, Gades and Carthage) must be abandoned (though the alternative date of 814 for Carthage, which Timaeus derived from Tyrian documents, may be only one or at most two generations too early). A few Phoenician traders may have ventured into the west between 1100 and 900, but no large settlements are likely to have been founded. Archaeology suggests settlements at Motya in western Sicily in the eighth century, Utica possibly in the eighth, Sardinia in the eighth (though a Punic inscription at Nora seems to belong to the ninth), Lixus in the sixth (at Mogador Greek pottery of c. 650 BC has been found, indicating the Phoenicians as middlemen, and trade rather than settlement). In Spain the earliest surviving evidence at Gades is late sixth century, but two interesting settlements in the area of Malaga have recently been excavated which are considerably older and go back to the late eighth century: Torre del Mar (probably Maenake) and Almunecar (ancient Sexi). See in general D. Harden, The Phoenicians (1962), S. Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians (1968), J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 57 ff., with bibliographies, 287 ff. In particular, V. Tusa, Mozia, 1–vi (1964–72); B. S. J. Isserlin, Antiquity, 1971, 178 ff.; A. Jodin, Mogador (Rabat, 1966); M. Pellicar, Madrider Mitteil, 1963, 9 ff.; Arch. Anzeiger, 1964, 476 ff. For possible Phoenician pottery in Italy at the time of the first Greek colonization see M. B. Ingrassia, Magna Graecia, xiii, 5–6, 1978, 12 ff.
    There is now evidence of Phoenician residents at Pithecusae (Ischia): a child burial in a local amphora with an Aramaic inscription, and a Phoenician inscription on a local vase: see M. W. Frederiksen, Arch. Reports, 1976–7, 44.

20 PHOENICIANS AT ROME ? See A. Piganiol, Hommages à A. Grenier (1962), 1261 ff., D. Van Berchem, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accad. di Archeologia, 32 (1959–60), 61 ff. (cf. Syria, 1967, 73 ff., 307 ff.), and, for an extreme view, R. Rebuffat, MEFR, 1966, 7 ff. J. Heurgon, JRS, 1966, 2 f.; Rise of R., 73 ff. is somewhat more cautious: ‘all this still remains very obscure’.
    The cult of Hercules (Greek Heracles) spread widely in Italy from the south to Etruria (cf. J. Bayet, Les origines de l’Hercule romaine, 1926) though it is impossible to define the precise point from which it reached Rome (so judges K. Latte, Röm. Relig., 214). The cult at the Ara Maxima was traditionally established by Hercules himself or by Evander; it was in private hands (members of the gentes Potitii and Pinarii) until taken over by the state in 312 BC. It is true that Hercules was popular with merchants, and was later equated with Melqart, while the ritual had some oriental features (e.g. a tithe), though the idea that ‘Potitii’ originally meant ‘those possessed by the gold’ (cf. Katochoi) is very doubtful (possession is not a feature of early Roman religion). True also, the recent discovery of the Punic dedication to Astarte at Pyrgi and that of the Greek Sostratus to Hera at Gravisca (pp. 31; 23) makes foreign dedications in Etruria or Rome more probable. But a Phoenician settlement so far inland as Rome is out of character, and even if the cult was established by easterners it might have been the work of Carthaginians rather than Phoenicians, i.e. at a later date than that originally put at 600 BC or earlier. However, the theory must remain a pure hypothesis as yet, since no decisive evidence has been found to support it.

21 GREEK COLONIZATION. See T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (1948), A. G. Woodhead, The Greeks in the West (1962), J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (1964), 175 ff. The vexed questions of basic causes, priority and chronology belong primarily to Greek rather than to Roman history and so need not be discussed here. On the recent important excavations at Pithecusae see D. Ridgway, ‘The first Western Greeks: Campanian Coasts and Southern Etruria’, in Greeks, Celts and Romans, ed. C. F. C. Hawkes (1973), 5 ff., with full bibliography, p. 30 ff. See also G. Buchner, Arch. Reports for 1970–1, 63 ff. and Buchner and Ridgway, Pithekoussai, I (forthcoming).

22 HOMERIC REFERENCES. ‘Nestor’s Cup’: see Iliad xi, 632 ff.; for the inscription see R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (1969), n.l. Tataie inscription: see A. G. Woodhead, op.cit., n. 21, p. 36 with illustration. Shipwreck: this shows an upturned ship and the crew in the water with fish; see J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships (1968), 34 and pl. 60. On the legends of Odysseus in the west see E. D. Phillips, JHS, 1953, 53 ff. (cf. for a briefer statement J. B. Bury and R. Meiggs, A History of Greece (1975), 74).

23 GRAVISCA AND SOSTRATUS. Sostratus: Herodotus, iv, 152. If not actually Herodotus’ man, this Sostratus will have been a member of the same family. Excavations and the inscription: D. Ridgway, Arch. Reports for 1973–4, 49 ff., A. W. Johnston, Par. Pass., 1972, 416 ff. and F. D. Harvey, ibid., 1976, 206 ff., who dates the inscription to the latter part of the sixth century and points out that an Aeginetan selling Attic pottery in Etruria thus provides evidence for the existence of an ‘international merchant class’ as early as the sixth century. See also M. Torelli, Par. Pass., xxxii, 1977, 398 ff. The large quantities of Greek pottery include dedications to Hera (12), Aphrodite (2) and Demeter (1), and there is evidence for a cult of the Etruscan deities: Uni (an inscription on a silver bowl) and Turan (four inscribed Etruscan sherds).

24 DEMARATUS. Pliny, NH, xxxv, 16, 152; Strabo, v, 219. A. Blakeway, JRS, 1935, 129 ff. showed the reliability of the archaeological background: Corinthian pottery dominated the Etruscan market in the first three quarters of the seventh century, and there is evidence that Greek artists were producing vases in Etruria. But cf. G. Vallet,Rhégion et Zancle (1958), 185.
    Pliny says that Demaratus was accompanied by three workers in clay, who introduced modelling to Italy: one was named Diopus. This name has not been attested elsewhere until the recent discovery at Camerina in Sicily of a mid-sixth-century antefix, inscribed with the name of Diopus. This raises many problems, but at very least strengthens the probability of the historical existence of Demaratus. See M. W. Frederiksen, Arch. Reports, 1976–7, 71.

25 CELTS. In general see T. G. E. Powell, The Celts (1958); A. Grenier, La Gaule celtique (1945), Les Gaulois (1945); H. Hubert, Les Celtes et l’expansion celtique (1932), Les Celtes depuis l’époque de la Tène edn 2, (1950). Cf. J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 34 ff., with modern bibliography, 277 ff.

26 THE ETRUSCANS. Two old books are still valuable: K. O. Müller and W. Deecke, Die Etrusker, 2 vols (1877, reprinted 1965) for source material, and G. Dennis, The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria edn 3, 2 vols (1883) for the geographical background. General surveys include M. Pallottino, The Etruscans (1975); D. Strong, The Early Etruscans (1969); H. H. Scullard, The Etruscan Cities and Rome (1967), = Le città etrusche e Roma edn 2 (1977) with updated bibliography); L. Banti, The Etruscan Cities and their Culture (1973); J. Heurgon, Daily Life of the Etruscans (1964); E. Richardson, The Etruscans: their Art and Civilization (1964); J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 40 ff., 280 ff.

27 ETRUSCAN ORIGINS. P. Ducati, Le problème étrusque (1938) surveys various views up to that date. M. Pallottino, L’Origine degli Etruschi (1947) examines the evidence in detail. Cf. J. B. Ward-Perkins, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1959, 1 ff.; A. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), vol. i, 356 ff., L. A. Foresti, Tesi, ipotesi e considerazioni sull’ origine degli Etruschi (1974). Also the works cited in n. 26 above.
    The two chief views are expressed by Herodotus, i, 94 (from Lydia) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, i, 26–39 (autochthonous). Another view, that the Etruscans arrived in Italy overland from the North over the Brenner Pass, has now been generally abandoned (it rests on, for example, some similarities between Etruscan and the Raetian language of the Central Alps). A fifth-century historian, Xanthus of Lydia, apparently did not mention any Lydian settlement in Italy or a Lydian ruler named Tyrrhenus, but we know little of his work, and he does not appear to have been very reliable; cf. H. H. Scullard in E. Badian (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions (1966), 225 ff. M. Pallottino is the most weighty exponent of the theory of formation on Italian soil. For some medical approaches to the problem see G. E. W. Wolstenholme and C. M. O’Connor (eds), Ciba Foundation Symposium on Medical Biology and Etruscan Origins (1959). It is scarcely possible to discuss details of the problem here.

28 ETRUSCANS AND NORMANS. If the Etruscans arrived as a small conquering alien aristocracy, a parallel may be seen (as suggested by J. B. Ward-Perkins and others) with the Norman invasions of southern Italy and England. The parallel of course cannot be pressed in detail (thus the Anglo–Saxon state in pre-conquest England was highly organized, unlike the political structure of the Villanovans in Etruria), but the achievement of the Normans suggests the kind of development that might have taken place in Etruria. C. H. Hoskins (Normans in European History (1915), 247) wrote that the Normans ‘did their work pre-eminently not as a people apart, but as a group of leaders and energizers, the little leaven that leaveneth the whole lump. Wherever they went, they show a marvellous power of initiative and assimilation: if the initiative is more evident in England, the assimilation is more manifest in Sicily.’ Again, R. H. C. Davis (The Normans and their Myth (1976), 103) writes: ‘At Hastings… apparently as the result of one day’s fighting England received a new royal dynasty, a new aristocracy, a virtually new Church, a new art, a new architecture, and a new language.’ Invasion, followed by intermingling and speedy fusion of two stocks: it happened in England, but had it happened also in Etruria?

29 ETRUSCAN CITIES AND ARCHITECTURE. See the books quoted in n. 26 above, especially L. Banti (287–300 for detailed bibliography) and H. H. Scullard; also A. Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture (1970). It is not possible here to give a detailed bibliography of the individual cities, but two sites may be mentioned: for Tarquinii see H. Hencken, Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans, 2 vols (1968) and a shorter book, Tarquinia and Etruscan Origins (1968): for Veii, J. B. Ward-Perkins PBSR, 1961.
    The major Etruscan cities controlled large areas of land beyond their city walls: thus the ager Tarquiniensis included several large settlements or towns at Norchia, Musana, Tuscania, Bieda and Visentum. Some of these smaller towns have been revealed only by field work and archaeology, as San Giovenale inland from Tarquinii, or Luni nearby (C. E. Östenberg, Luni sul Mignone (1967), Acquarossa near Viterbo, or at Poggio Civitate near Murlo and Siena (Cf. D. Ridgway, Arch. Reports for 1973–4, 56 f; this excavation is throwing much light on varied aspects of Etruscan life of the seventh and sixth centuries.)

30 ETRUSCAN ART. See P. J. Riis, An Introduction to Etruscan Art (1953). Two finely illustrated books are R. Bloch, Etruscan Art (1959) and M. Moretti and G. Maetzke, The Art of the Etruscans (1970). Cf. also M. Santangelo, Musei e Monumenti Etruschi (1960). Two small but useful books on painting are A. Stenico, Roman and Etruscan Painting (1963) and R. Bartoccini, The Etruscan Paintings of Tarquinia (Milan, 1959). Bibliography in L. Banti, The Etruscan Cities (1973), 281–6. L. Bonfante, Etruscan Dress (1976).

31 ETRUSCAN RELIGION. C. Clemen, Die Religion der Etrusker (1936); L. Ross Taylor, Local Cults in Etruria (1923); C. O. Thulin, Die Etruskische Disciplin, 3 vols (1906–9); F. de Ruyt, Charun, démon étrusque de la mort (1934); A. J. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca (Graz, 1975).

32 ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE. The majority of inscriptions have been published in Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum (1893–, still in progress). New material appears in the annual periodical, Studi Etruschi. M. Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae, edn 2 (1968) provides a collection of over 900 inscriptions. For general treatment see M. Pallottino, The Etruscans (1974), chs 10–12; R. A. Staccioli, La lingua degli Etruschi, edn 2 (1969).
    The Pyrgi inscriptions were written on sheets of gold leaf, two in Etruscan and one in Punic; they were found between two early fifth-century temples. They record a dedication by Thefarie Valianas, ruler of Caere, to Uni-Astarte, a Phoenician goddess, and belong to c. 500 BC. Their linguistic value is great, even though they do not provide a strictly bilingual inscription since their content is only similar and not exactly the same. The dedication of a shrine by an Etruscan to a Punic deity suggests very close relations between Caere and Carthage, and probably the existence at Pyrgi of a small settlement of Carthaginian merchants. Of the large bibliography which has grown up since the discovery of the tablets in 1964 reference may be made to J. Heurgon, JRS, 1966, 1 ff.; J. Ferron, Aufstieg NRW, I, i, 189 ff.

33 ETRUSCAN LITERATURE. See especially J. Heurgon, Daily Life of the Etruscans (1964), ch. viii, who emphasizes its volume, and W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), ch. i, who circumscribes its extent. On Claudius the Etruscologist see A. D. Momigliano, Claudius, edn 2 (1961), 11 ff., 85 f., 128. The François tomb painting at Vulci: Momigliano, op. cit., 85; for the date 340–310 see M. Cristofani, Dialoghi di Archeologia 1967, 186 ff. Elogia: see M. Torelli, Elogia Tarquiniensia (1975) and the discussion of this by T. J. Cornell, JRS, 1978, 167 ff. On Etruscan historiography see Cornell, Annali di Pisa, iii, 6 (1976), 432 ff.

34 ETRUSCAN MAGISTRATES. A model iron axe with fasces of c. 600 BC was found in a tomb at Vetulonia, the very place where this symbol of power was said by the ancient sources to have been invented. When the twelve cities of the Etruscan League united for a common enterprise, the twelve rulers of the cities each carried one axe; this was probably the origin of the twelve fasces carried by lictors in front of the kings and consuls of Rome. Funerary sarcophagi from southern Etruria and alabaster urns from Volterrae depict processions of Etruscan magistrates, generally riding in chariots, with attendants carrying fasces. See R. Lambrechts, Essai sur les magistratures des républiques étrusques (1959), with illustrations. On the constitutional aspect of the magistrates see J. Heurgon, Historia, 1957, 63 ff.

35 THE ETRUSCAN LEAGUE. Its strength or weakness, its composition and functions and other problems are briefly discussed by Scullard, Etruscan Cities, 231–6.

36 ETRUSCAN SOCIAL STRUCTURE. See J. Heurgon, Latomus, 1959, 3 ff.; S. Mazzarino, Historia, 1957, 98 ff.; Scullard, Etruscan Cities, 236 ff. Military reforms: A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (1967), ch. iii.

37 ETRUSCAN EXPANSION. Cato, Origines, ii frg. 62P. For more detail and references to the ancient and modern authorities on Etruscan expansion in Italy see Scullard, The Etruscan Cities and Rome (1967), ch. vi (in the south) and vii (in the north). On Etruscan influence in northern Italy see L. Bonfante, Archaeological News, v, 1976, 93 ff.

38 ALALIA. See Herodotus, i, 163 ff.; Diodorus, v, 13; Strabo, v, 2, 7.

39 ETRUSCO-CARTHAGINIAN TREATY. See Aristotle, Politics, iii, 9; 1280a 35.

40 ARISTODEMUS AND CUMAE. The history of Aristodemus is recorded by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, vii, 2–12 (cf. Jacoby, FGrH, no. 576). Whatever other elements have gone into this story, these include a local chronicle of Cumae which may be regarded as essentially reliable. This has wider implications, since it provides an account which is independent of the Roman tradition and bears testimony to the general historical background of events in Roman history connected with the fall of the monarchy there, with Porsenna and the Latins before the end of the sixth century.
    The battle of Cumae was celebrated in one of Pindar’s Odes to Hiero, and by the spoils that Hiero sent to Olympia: these include two surviving Etruscan helmets, inscribed: ‘Hiero and the Syracusans (dedicated) to Zeus the Etruscan spoils won at Cumae.’ See Pindar, Pythian, i, 71 and (for the helmets) Meiggs and Lewis, Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. 1 (1969), n. 29, p. 62.

41 ETRUSCANS IN NORTHERN ITALY. In general see G. A. Mansuelli and R. Scarani, L’Emilia prima dei Romani (1961), especially ch. vi; Mostra dell’Etruria Padana, edn 2, 2 vols (1961). An introduction to Marzabotto is provided by G. A. Mansuelli, Marzabotto. Guida alla Città (Bologna, 1966). On Spina see S. Aurigemma, Il Museo naz. arch. di Spina in Ferrara (1957); P. E. Arias and N. Alfieri, Spina (1958).

42 LATIUM. Theophrastus, Hist. Plant., v, 8, 3. See T. Ashby, The Roman Campagna in Classical Times (1927, reprinted 1970); B. Tilley, Vergil’s Latium (1947). Traces of the primitive forests survive in the Forests of Castel Porziano and of Circeo, while Romans of later days could be reminded of the numerous lakes, lagoons and ponds of early times when they looked at the Lacus Curtius in the Forum or the low-lying ground occupied by the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum.

43 LATIAL CULTURE. The archaeological evidence is published in a massive corpus by P. G. Gierow, The Iron Age Culture of Latium, I (1966), II, i (1964). See also the catalogue of the exhibition in Rome in 1976 entitled Civiltà del Lazio primitivo, published under the direction of G. Colonna. For comparison with southern Villanovan culture see Gierow, I, 483 ff. It is not certain whether the hut-urn type of ossuary spread from southern Etruria to Latium or vice versa. Gierow supposes that Latial culture arrived in two waves, first to the Alban Hills, Rome, Ardea, and perhaps Antium and Tibur, the second to Satricum and Praeneste. The early evidence from the Alban group corresponds to that of the Palatine group at Rome, while the south Latin group is linked to the Esquiline settlement. Those who argue for a long chronology (from the tenth century) include H. Müller-Karpe and R. Peroni, while E. Gjerstad and P. G. Gierow are among the proponents of the short chronology (starting c. 800).

44 DECIMA AND OTHER SETTLEMENTS. For these Latin cities and recent excavations see Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (1976). Decima is most probably to be identified with Politorium, on which see Livy, i, 33, 1, Cato, frg. 54P and Pliny, NH, iii, 68–9. Pliny says that it had long since disappeared without trace (sine vestigiis) and that it had been a member of the Alban League. For the excavations see Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (1976), 252 ff., D. Ridgway, Arch. Reports 1973–4, 45 f. and Par. Pass. xxxii, 1977, 241 ff. Ficana: Civiltà, 250, Ridgway, 46, Par. Pass., 1977, 315 ff. La Rustica and Osteria dell’Osa; Civiltà, 153 ff. and 166 ff. Other sites (e.g. Alban hills, Rome, Gabii, Tivoli, Praeneste, Lavinium, Ardea, Anzio, and Satricum) are discussed in Civiltà. Arch. Labiale, i, 1978, 35 ff. (Ficana), 42 ff. (Gabà), 65 ff. (Satricum). On Gabii see F. Castagnoli, Comptes Rendus, 1977, 468 ff.: a sanctuary (to Juno?) existed from the seventh to the second century, its origin going back to the period of Gabii’s independence. On Decima see now Archaeologia laziale, 1979.

45 PRISCI LATINI. See Livy, i, 38, 4; Dion. Hal. iii, 49–50; Pliny, NH, iii, 68–9. Dionysius reckons the number of communities sharing in the festival of Jupiter Latiaris in the sixth century at forty-seven. A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., 9, equates Livy’s Prisci Latini with those living between the Anio and Tiber. See also A. Bernardi,Athenaeum, 1964, 223 ff.

46 THE LATIN LEAGUE. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., 11 ff.

47 ETRUSCAN LATIUM. See briefly H. H. Scullard, The Etruscan Cities (1967), 170–7. Praeneste in the fourth century had eight tributaries among the lesser Latin communities: Livy, vi, 29, 6. On the Manios inscription (Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi’) see Civiltà del Lazio primitivo, 376 ff.; A. E. Gordon, The Inscribed Fibula Praenestina. Problems of Authenticity (University of California Publications: Classical Studies, vol. 16, 1975); D. Ridgway, ‘Manios Faked?’, BICS, 24, 1977, 17 ff., who traces the ambiguous history of the fibula in modern times and concludes: ‘I see the question of authenticity in terms of precisely a “50–50” chance’.

48 ALTARS AT LAVINIUM. The two earliest of the thirteen (8th and 13th) probably date to the sixth century. ‘The full complement of twelve altars was reached in the fifth-fourth centuries, by which time the thirteenth had been abandoned and the eighth reconstructed’: D. Ridgway, Arch. Reports 1967–8, 34 (fig. 5 provides a photograph). See also C. F. Giulani and P. Sommella, Par. Pass., xxxii, 1977, 356 ff; F. Castagnoli, Comptes Rendues, 1977, 464 ff. For the inscription (‘Castorei Podluqveiqve Qvrois) see S. Weinstock, JRS, 1960, 112 ff.


1 THE TIBER. See J. le Gall, Le Tibre (1953); L. A. Holland, TAPA, 1949, 281 ff. Although the site of Rome offered the best crossing-place, the Etruscans could cross the river a little further north at Fidenae (near Veii) and Lucus Feroniae and thus reach Campania via Praeneste and the route of the later Via Latina.

2 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. This is published in the monumental work of E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, vols i–vi (1953–73): vol. iv is partly resumptive of vols i–iii; vol. v deals with the literary evidence and vol. vi provides an historical survey. As a corpus of material it is unsurpassed, but not all Gjerstad’s interpretations of it have won general acceptance (p. 465 n. 49). For an assessment of the problems involved see A. Momig-liano, JRS, 1963, 95 ff. (= Terzo Contrib., 545 ff). For discussion of many other aspects of early Rome see Terzo Contrib., 545–695, Quarto, 273–499 and Quinto, 293–331. See also G. Poma, Gli Studi recenti sull’ origine della repubblica romana, 1963–73(Bologna, 1974); for various aspects of recent archaeological work see several writers in Par. Pass., xxxii, 1977. A general sketch is given by R. Bloch, The Origins of Rome (1960), while much of great value is contained in Ogilvie, Livy.

3 THE ARGEI. See Varro, De Lingua Latina, v, 45–54. They were straw puppets which were thrown into the Tiber on 14 May as a purificatory sacrifice, possibly being surrogates for human victims of earlier times.

4 SEPTIMONTIUM. The derivation from Saeptimontium is proposed by L. A. Holland, TAPA (1953), 16 ff. One problem is that the sources give 8 not 7 hills, but this can be explained, e.g. by eliminating Subura because it was a valley or a gloss on Caelius, or Germalus might be rejected and Palatium applied to the whole hill. It is noteworthy that Septimontium belonged to a group of sacra publica named pro montibus and that these seven hills were called montes, whereas the excluded Quirinal and Viminal were colles. R. Gelsomino, Varrone e i sette colli di Roma (1975), argues that, although the festival was old, it was not connected with septem until this derivation was propounded by Varro in 52–51 BC.

5 JANUS. L. A. Holland, Janus and the Bridge (1961) has argued that the god Janus was a numen attached to water-crossings, Janus meaning gateway. In later times the gateways and temples of Janus were opened in war and closed in peace: Mrs Holland explains that originally the Janus was opened by removing the bridge (Ianus invius) when war threatened, and closed (Ianus pervius) by replacing the bridge in times of peace. Her book is full of ingenious ideas and her thesis has been accepted by e.g. E. Gjerstad (cf. JRS, 1963, 229 f.) and (apparently) J. Heurgon (Rise of R., 32). A major obstacle is that the ancient sources do not seem to connect Janus with water-crossings.

6 FOUNDATION LEGENDS. See especially Dion. Hal., i, 72–4; Livy, i, 1–7 (with Ogilvie’s Livy). A full up-to-date bibliography of the large modern literature on this topic is given by T. J. Cornell, Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc., 1976, 1, n. 2 (note also two recent discussions: H. Strasburger, ‘Zur Sage von der Gründung Roms’, Sb. Heidelb. Akad., 1968, and G. K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (1969)). Cornell’s article, ‘Aeneas and the Twins: the Development of the Roman Foundation Legend’ (op. cit. supra) is a valuable and thoroughly documented discussion. He argues that the story of Romulus and Remus was the original authentic Roman version of the founding of the city. He counters the arguments of Strasburger who believes in a late literary origin for the twins (early third century) and that the story was invented as anti-Roman propaganda by an unknown Greek author (the story had unsavoury episodes, such as the murder of Remus and the rape of the Sabine women). The evidence is extremely complex, so reference must be made to Cornell’s article for further detail. On the myths of early Rome in general see M. Grant, Roman Myths (1973).

7 AENEAS IN ETRURIA. See G. K. Galinsky, op. cit, n. 6, ch. iii; and A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (1965), 287. For recent attempts to lower considerably the date of the Aeneas statuettes in Etruria see M. Torelli, Roma medio-repubblicana, 335 f., Dialoghi di Arch., 1973, 339 ff., and for the consequential dating of the whole legend of Aeneas in Italy see T. J. Cornell, Liverpool Classical Monthly, 4, April 1977, 75 ff.

8 LAVINIUM AND ALBA LONGA. See F. Castagnoli (ed.), Lavinium, i (1972), ii (forthcoming), Par. Pass, xxxii, 1977, 340 ff. Timaeus: Dion. Hal., i, 67; Jacoby, FGrH 566 F 59. Inscription to Lar: S. Weinstock, JRS, 1960, 114 ff; doubts about the reading have been raised by H. G. Kolbe, Röm. Mitt., 1970, 1 ff. which though countered by M. Guarducci, ibid., 1971, 73 ff., still persist (see Cornell, op. cit supra, n. 7). Heroon: Dion. Hal, i, 64; P. Sommella, Atti pont, accad. rom. arch. Rendiconti, xliv (1971–2), 47 ff.; Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (1976), 305 f., (bibliography in Cornell, op. cit. supra, n. 6, p. 14 n. 3; photograph in Arch. Reports 1973–4, 47). For some difficulties in accepting the identification with the shrine described by Dionysius and an origin of the cult in the sixth century see Cornell, Liverpool Cl. Monthly, April 1977, 79 ff.
    Aeneas was linked with Alba Longa as well as with Lavinium. In rivalry, Alba twice unsuccessfully tried to transfer the Penates from Lavinium to itself (Dion. Hal., i, 67), and a Greek mythologer Conon (first century BC) preserved a version that Aeneas had settled in Alba, not Lavinium; in Ennius and Naevius Aeneas may have married the daughter of the king of Alba, not Lavinia. Further, according to legend Aeneas was led by a sow (with thirty piglets, symbolizing the thirty Latin peoples) to the site of Lavinium (so e.g. Timaeus) or alternatively to the site of Alba, which got its name Alba from a sus alba (so Fabius Pictor, frg. 4, Peter). Though no archaeological evidence supports the claim that Rome was settled by Alba (as has often been believed), yet Alba may well have exercised some leadership (through the religious league) in Latium before she was destroyed in the mid-seventh century, and as such would be thought to have claims as strong as Lavinium. On Alba’s claim to Aeneas see Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (1966), 43 ff.; Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins, 271 ff.

9 THE EARLY KINGS AND DUMÉZIL. Attempts to dismiss the early kings as gods or as personifications of the seven hills have been demolished by G. De Sanctis, SR, 1,358 ff. With great ingenuity and in a large number of books G. Dumézil has developed novel ideas about early Roman society, its gods, and kings. These are based on the assumption that, since the Romans shared with Indians and Celts a common Indo-European ancestry, it is legitimate to seek help in these other areas in order to solve problems and obscurities in early Rome. Thus he believes that early Roman society, like early Indian, was divided into three classes: the priests (who included the kings), the warriors, and the producers or farmers, corresponding respectively to religious sovereignty, military strength and fertility. This tripartite division was seen in early Rome in the three tribes of Ramnes (priests), Luceres (warriors) and Tities (producers). In religion Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus were responsible for the three functions, with their corresponding priests (flamines). In many legends and myths a ‘terrible’ type of king (who was also a magician) was contrasted with a more just ruler: in India they are Varuna and Mitra, in Rome they are the gods Jupiter and Fides (or Divus Fidius) and the earthly kings the terrible Romulus and the pious and peaceful Numa. The second, military, function produced Indra, Mars and Tullus Hostilius; the third, fertility, produced Quirinus and Ancus Marcius. Later, Tarquin contrasted with Servius Tullius. It is unnecessary here to list the numerous works in which Dumézil has argued his views, except his synthesis, Archaic Roman Religion, 2 vols (1970): these views have had considerable influence especially among French historians of religion, but for rejection see, e.g., H. J. Rose, JRS, 1947, 183 ff., or A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 581 ff., who concludes that ‘not only is his evidence weak, but his theories are unnecessary’.
    For discussion about the legends concerning the kings, and indeed on all aspects down to 390 BC see above all R. M. Ogilvie, Livy. This work is indispensable for any study of this period but since reference cannot be made to it at all relevant points, this general direction of the reader’s attention to it must be emphasized. See also Ogilvie’s shorter synoptic work, Early Rome and the Etruscans (1976).
    A. Alföldi, Die Struktur des voretruskischen Römerstaates (1974) is ‘essentially a work of comparative anthropology, not history’: so writes R. M. Ogilvie in his review of this book (Cl. Rev., 1976, 240 f.). It tries to discern the society of the Latins while they were still living in a nomadic state when they passed, so it is supposed, from a matriarchy with triadic institutions to a patriarchy with binary institutions: see A. Momigliano, Rivista Storia Italiana (1977), 160 ff.

10 SABINE SETTLEMENT. Long ago Mommsen dismissed a supposed early union of some Sabines and Romans as an anticipation of the granting of Roman citizenship to the Sabines in the third century. The most recent exponent of this negative view is J. Poucet: at length in Recherches sur la légende sabine des origines de Rome (1967), at medium length in Aufstieg NRW, i, i (1972), 48–135, and more briefly in L’Ant. Class., 1971, 129 ff., 293 ff. With Mommsen, Poucet believes the whole story was designed to justify the dual magistracy at Rome; also that the fighting in Rome was based on the capture of the Capitol by the Sabine Appius Herdonius in 460 BC (Livy, iii, 15) and on the battle with the Samnites at Luceria in 294 (if the former of these supposed precedents is possible, the latter is almost certainly to be rejected). For a criticism of Poucet’s views (including his assumption about Livy’s sources) see R. M. Ogilvie Cl. Rev., 1968, 327 ff. From the historical point of view the important question is not so much the details of the legends but rather whether a vague tradition of a real infusion of Sabines into early Rome is likely to have survived into later times.

11 TARQUINIUS PRISCUS. A tomb of the Tarchna family has been found at Caere, with the Latin equivalent of the name as Tarquitius, which is probably the same as Tarquinius. Thus the Tarquins may have come to Rome from Caere rather than from Tarquinii. See M. Cristofani, La tomba delle iscrizioni a Cerveteri (1965), appendix 1. Additional support is given to Priscus’ existence by the consideration that Etruscan influence is shown by archaeology to have continued at Rome throughout the sixth century: so why not two Tarquins, as the Romans believed?

12 THE VULCI PAINTING AND MASTARNA. For the painting see F. Messer-schmidt, Nekropolen von Vulci (1930), A. Momigliano, Claudius (1961) 11 ff., 85 f., A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (1965), 220 ff., M. Cristofani, Dialoghi di Archeologia, 1967, 186 ff. The emperor Claudius in a speech (the Table of Claudius, discovered at Lyons in 1528: ILS, 212, Smallwood, Documents… of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967), 369; cf. Tacitus, Ann., xi, 23 ff.) quotes the Roman tradition that Servius Tullius was the son of Ocresia, a war captive, but prefers the Etruscan version that Servius was the same as Mastarna who came to Rome after his friend and leader Caelius Vibenna had been killed, and was honoured when one of the hills was named the Caelian after him. The Etruscan version is illustrated by the Vulci painting, though not all details are clear. Three other groups in the painting show single combats in which men from Volsinii, Sovana, and (?) Falerii, are being killed by three warriors who presumably came from Vulci (their names, and those of the towns of the vanquished, are painted in). One important aspect of the painting is that it reveals the existence of Etruscan historical traditions, separate from the Roman: thus Mastarna became known to the Romans only much later, though his discoverer is uncertain: see T. J. Cornell, Amali di Pisa, iii, 6 (1976), 432 ff.
    There is no need to follow G. De Sanctis (SR, I, 375, 446 ff.) who regarded Mastarna as a duplicate of Lars Porsenna (p. 75), or L. Pareti (St. Etr., v, 154 ff.) who carried the argument further by identifying Mastarna with both Porsenna and Servius Tullius, who are considered to be reduplications of one person, as are the two Tarquins whom they succeeded.
    Macstarna is the Etruscan form of the Latin word magister, and therefore appears to be a title rather than a personal name. That, however, does not necessarily mean that this anonymous hero did not perform the acts attributed to ‘Macstarna’, while if Claudius was right his name will have been Servius and he may well stand in that part of the sixth century to which tradition assigned Servius. Ogilvie (Early Rome, 88), however, is inclined to place him, together with the Vibennae, in the late rather than the earlier sixth century and to regard him as an adventurer who seized the superior magistracy at Rome during the chaos following the fall of the Tarquins.
    For the Vibenna inscription from Veii and two others (from Bolsena and Vulci) see M. Pallottino, St. Etr., xii, 455 ff. and the works listed by W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria (1971), 11, n. 7.
    A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (1965), ch, v, has put forward the imaginative theory that Rome was in fact ruled by a series of conquering Etruscan kings from Tarquinii, Caere, Vulci, Veii and Clusium. It is perhaps sufficient here to refer to A. Momigliano’s review of this book (JRS, 1967, 211 ff. = Quarto Contrib., 487 ff.) and on this point to his conclusion that ‘the theory… seems to me to be without the slightest foundation in our evidence’. For Alföldi’s restatement of his theory see Römische Frühgeschichte (1976), 168 ff.

13 DIANA’S AVENTINE TEMPLE. The attempt by A. Alföldi (Early Rome, 85 ff.) to assign this temple to a date after 500 BC as a mere imitation of the federal sanctuary at Aricia has been rejected by A. Momigliano (Terzo Contrib., 641 ff.) and R. M. Ogilvie (Livy, 182 f.). This is only one item in Alföldi’s main thesis, namely that Rome in fact gained predominance among the Latin cities only in the fifth century, and that the picture of Rome’s earlier leadership which is given by Livy is a deliberate and false invention by the annalist Fabius Pictor which has imposed itself on later writers. For discussion and rejection of this ingenious theory see A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 487 ff, Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1966, 94 ff, A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 190 ff. and M. Pallottino, Comptes Rendus, 1977, 216 ff. Pallottino’s article provides an excellent survey of the recent archaeological work which demonstrates the economic and cultural importance of sixth-century Rome and also assesses the historicity and achievements of Servius Tullius. See further below, p. 471 n 1.
    Granted that the Aventine cult of Diana goes back to Servius and the sixth century, its temporal relation to the Arician cult remains uncertain. Momigliano argued that it was the original cult, designed to unite Latium in a common bond with Rome (thus, e.g., old excavations at Aricia provided little evidence for cult before c. 500 BC); however, the evidence does not seem sufficiently conclusive to dismiss the priority of Aricia (cf. Ogilvie, Early Rome, 68). Ogilvie also stresses the connection between the Aventine cult and the Greek city of Massilia: Strabo (iv, 180) records that Diana’s statue was set up in the same way as that of Artemis (= Diana) at Massilia, which in turn derived from Ephesus. The emperor Claudius referred to rites which should be paid to Diana ‘according to the laws of the king (Servius) Tullius’ (ex legibus Tulli regis, Tacitus, Ann. xii, 8); these rites may therefore have been influenced by the federal cult of Artemis at Ephesus and more directly by that at the Greek colony at Massilia.

14 THE REGIA. See F. E. Brown, Les Origines de la République romaine (Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966), 47 ff. (Cf. some qualifications by A. Drummond, JRS, 1970, 200); Rendiconti Pont. Accad. di Arch., xlvii, 1974–5, 15 ff. The interpretation of the sixth-century developments remains uncertain. It seemed (cf. Brown, op. cit.) that only in the rebuilding of c. 500 was the plan established which the Regia then retained throughout the Republic, but this now seems less certain (cf. Rendiconti). On the rex sacrorum see below, p. 467 n. 5.

15 COMITIUM AND VOLCANAL. See F. Coarelli, Par. Pass., xxxii, 1977, 166 ff.

16 TEMPLES AT SANT’OMOBONO. Beside Gjerstad, Early Rome, see A. Sommella Mura, Par. Pass. xxxii, 1977; M. Pallottino, Comptes Rendus, 1977, 216 ff.; and G. P. Sartono and P. Virgili, Archclogia Laziale, ii, 1979, 41 ff.

17 ETRUSCAN INSCRIPTIONS IN ROME. For the three inscriptions see E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, iv, 494; M. Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae, edn 2, (1968), 24; Stud. Etr., xxii (1952–3), 309. A bowl of c. 525 BC carries the words ni araziia laraniia, while the name uqno is inscribed on another fragment and may recall Aucno, the legendary founder of Mantua. For a fourth inscription see p. 529.

18 THE TRIUMPH AND SPOLIA OPIMA. On the triumph see L. B. Warren, JRS, 1970, 49 ff.; H. S. Versnel, Triumphus (1971), on which cf. D. Musti, JRS, 1972, 163 ff. The triumph may have developed from a simpler ceremony in which a victorious king dedicated as a trophy the armour of a defeated foe to Jupiter Feretrius at a shrine on the Capitol. The nature of such trophies is obscure: there were said to be three spolia opima, prima, secunda, and tertia (?offered to Jupiter Feretrius, Mars and Quirinius): Varro, Festus, 202L. The early shrine or temple of Jupiter Feretrius was very small and contained only a sceptre and a flint (silex); the latter was used in the fetial ceremonies for the declaration of war (p. 66). The epithet was probably derived from ferre rather than ferire (cf. foedus ferire): cf. Ogilvie, Livy, 70 f. A denarius of 50 BC shows Marcellus, the conqueror of Syracuse, standing in the temple and holding the spolia opima (Crawford, RRC, n. 439).

19 GAMES. Several Etruscan tomb paintings show Games which resemble the traditional Roman Games, e.g. the Tomb of the Augurs (wrestlers) and the Tomb of the Olympiads (runners, horse racing) at Tarquinii, and the Tomb of the Monkey (horsemen, wrestlers, athletes, boxers) at Clusium. The early fifth-century Tomb of the Bigae at Tarquinii shows not only a variety of games but also wooden stands for the spectators at each side. See, e.g., A. Stenico, Roman and Etruscan Painting (1963), plates 7, 17–19, 34–43.
    The Ludi Romani, which were attributed to the Tarquins (Livy, i, 35, 7; Dion. Hal., vi, 95) were celebrated annually on 13 September, the birthday of the Capitoline temple. Before they started, the images of the gods were carried in procession through the streets to the Circus. Beside these regular Games, special votive games might be held to celebrate some special victory or occasion (seven such are recorded before 350 BC).

20 THE SERVIAN WALL. For the existing remains see G. Säflund, Le mure di Roma (1932); E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, iii, 26 ff.; E. Nash, Pict. Dict. Anc. Rome (1962), ii, 104 ff; Roma Medio-Repubblicana (1973). The greater part of the remains belong to the fourth century (an earlier wall is presupposed in Varro, de Ling. Lat., v, 48). On the strength of a piece of Attic red-figure pottery Gjerstad would date the agger to c. 475. But this sherd could be three or four decades earlier and there is evidence for an earlier phase of construction, so that the first agger could well have been built by Servius Tullius, as tradition demands.

21 VITICULTURE. Pips of grapes are not found before Gjerstad’s period IV, commencing c. 625 BC: thus viticulture was probably introduced by the Etruscans. See Gjerstad, Early Rome, iv (1966), 342 f.

22 GREEK POTTERY IN ROME. See E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, iv (1966), 514 ff.

23 OSTIA. Considerable remains of the Roman colony planted at Ostia in 338 BC survive, but nothing much earlier has yet been found. This does not rule out earlier settlements which would have lain outside Roman Ostia and near the medieval salt-beds. See R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, edn 2 (1973).

24 THE FALISCANS The early development of the Faliscans resembled that of the Romans: inhumers had mingled with Villanovan incinerators. Their language was very close to Latin. Their chief city was Falerii Veteres (Cività Castelana). See M. W. Frederiksen and J. B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR, 1957, 67 ff. Closely related was Capena, and not far off was Lucus Feroniae (at Scorano), a market town which lay at an important river crossing, where an annual festival (in honour of Feronia, an Italic woodland goddess) and market were held. See G. D. B. Jones, PBSR, 1962, 191 ff. On Decima cf. p. 448 n. 44.

25 GABII. Gabii lay near Torre di Castiglione, some twelve miles from Rome. Existing remains are not earlier than the third or fourth century, but seventh-century pottery resembles Alban pottery (cf. the tradition that Gabii was a colony of Alba: Dion. Hal., i, 84). Cf. L. Quilici, Civiltà del Lazio primitivo, 186 f. Gabii was too strong to be absorbed by Rome without negotiation and an agreement (Livy, i, 54; Dion. Hal., iv, 57). The tradition is confirmed by Gabii’s later peculiar relationship to the Roman state: ager Gabinus remained juridically distinct from ager Romanus, and the Gabine robe (cinctus Gabinus) was worn by Roman officials as a sacred vestment on certain occasions. Ogilvie (Livy, 209 f.), however, is inclined to believe that the shield is more likely to have been a trophy from the capture of Gabii after its revolt in the Latin War in 338 BC. On the site see now Archaelogia Laziale, 1978. 47 ff.

26 EARLY ROMAN SOCIETY AND INSTITUTIONS. See H. Stuart Jones, CAH, vii, ch. xiii; P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis (1959), a very detailed work in Italian; papers by A. Momigliano in Terzo and Quarto Contributi; F. De Martino, St. d. cos. rom., 1, edn 2 (1972), which may overemphasize economic and class-division factors (cf. E. S. Staveley, JRS, 1960, 250 ff.) but often provides useful summaries of other scholars’ views together with bibliographies.
    The vexed question of the priority of familia or gens need not concern us here. Cf. De Martino, op. cit. 4 ff

27 PRIVATE PROPERTY. Not only the belief of the later Romans but also the need to explain the differentiation between patricians and plebeians require the assumption that private property was widespread if not completely unrestricted in early Rome. Possibly some land may still have been entailed within the gentes. The implications of the words here-dium and mancipatio are not clear. In the Twelve Tables heredium, hereditary estate, meant ‘orchard’ (hortus), not ‘fields’ (Pliny, Nat. Hist., xix, 50), while mancipatio could be thought to have implied originally that only moveable objects (manu capere) could be sold.

28 PATRICIANS AND PLEBEIANS. Political distinction: see Livy, i, 8, 7; cf. i, 34, 6; iv, 4, 7; Cicero, de rep., ii, 8, 14; 12, 23; Dion. Hal., ii, 8, 1–3; 12, 1. Racial or conquered: see, e.g., J. Binder, Die Plebs (1909); W. Ridgeway, Proc. Br. Acad., 1907; R. S. Conway, CAH, iv, 466 ff; A. Piganiol, Essai sur les origines de Rome (1916); rejected by H. Stuart Jones, CAH, vii, 421 ff. and by H. J. Rose, JRS, 1922, 106 ff, who has disposed of the view that the plebeians were matrilineal, the patricians patrilineal, together with many other social and religious differences which are often taken to denote differences of race (the patricians themselves consisted of a blend of races). Mommsen: seeRöm. Forsch., i (1864), 69 ff., Röm. Staatsr., iii (1887), 3 ff F. De Martino (St. d. cos. Rom., edn 2, (1972), i, 66 ff.) discusses various views that have been advanced from the time of Machiavelli to those of Alföldi and Momigliano (on the last two see below n. 39). See now also J. C. Richard, Les Origines de la plèbe romaine (1978).

29 ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES. This aspect is stressed in most recent discussion. See E. Meyer, s.v., Plebs, in Conrad (ed.), Handwörterbuch d. Staatswissenchaft, E. Meyer, Röm. Staat und Staatsgedanke, edn 2 (1961), 33 f.; F. De Martino, St. d. cos. Rom., edn 2, (1972), i, 79 ff. The view of K. J. Neumann (Die Grundherrschaft d. röm. Rep.) followed by Ed. Meyer (Kleine Schriften, i (1924), 351 ff), that the Etruscans introduced serfdom into Latium, has not been generally accepted.

30 DIVISION INTO ORDERS. Although some passages (e.g. Livy, x, 8: ‘vos [patres] solos gentem habere’) seem to point to the original exclusion of the plebeians from the citizen body, this view cannot be maintained: see, e.g. H. Stuart Jones, CAH, vii, 417 f. Similarly the general consensus of opinion now inclines to a late date (fifth century) for the real hardening of the class distinctions between patricians and plebeians; see the basic article by H. Last, JRS, 1945, 30 ff. This is so completely accepted by P. de Francisci that in his large study of pre-Republican Rome (Primordia Civitatis) he does not even discuss the question except, in passing, at the end (pp. 777 f). Such a view, however, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that during the regal period the patricians claimed many special privileges, even if the sharpest confrontation developed only after the fall of the monarchy. Cf. J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 110 ff. For the recent view of A. Momigliano and further discussion see p. 459 n. 39.

31 THE FETIALES. See Livy, i, 24, 4 ff., 32, 5 ff. (with Ogilvie, Livy, 110 ff, 127 ff.). The procedure described by Livy is undoubtedly very old, but the formulae which he preserves were mediated to him via a second-century antiquarian tradition and so have been subjected to some distortion. Negotiations for making peace treaties were handled by two Fetiales: the pater patratus (presumably the ‘father’ acting for the state as a whole) and the verbenarius who carried sacred grasses which had been torn, with earth, from the citadel, thus providing the envoy with a piece of his own country which he could take as protection against foreign influences in enemy territory. How later Romans adapted this primitive procedure to later needs, including wars overseas, has been discussed by F. W. Walbank, JRS, 1941, 86 ff., Cl. Ph. 1949, 15 ff. and by J. W. Rich, ‘Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the period of Transmarine Expansion’, Latomus, vol. 159, 1976, 56 ff.

32 THE THREE TRIBES. The names Ramn(ens)es, Titi(ens)ses and Luceres were derived by later annalists from Romulus, Titus Tatius and perhaps an Etruscan king Lucumo. See J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 120. f. for pre-Etruscan origin (contrast Ogilvie, Livy, 80, for Etruscan origin).

33 THE CURIAE. See Dion. Hal., ii, 7; 3–14; 21–3. See A. Momigliano, JRS, 1963, 109 ff. (= Terzo Contrib., 571 ff.); F. De Martino, St. cos. rom., 1, edn 2, 146 ff; R. E. A. Palmer, The Archaic Community of the Romans (1970). Momigliano lucidly poses the problems involved. De Martino, in line with his view of the early evolution of Rome, sees the curiae as a stage in the slow process of the transformation of a gentile structure into a unitary form. Palmer sees the curiae as originally separate ethnic groups which gradually fused together to form the earliest community of Rome (cf. Ogilvie, Early Rome, 51 f.); they were not phratries, clans or military units; but were earlier than the three tribes which were military non-ethnic units, under the later kings and early Republic the reactionary Comitia Curiata dominated by the patres is to be contrasted with a progressive Comitia Centuriata headed by its officers, later consuls. For a criticism of Palmer’s often very speculative views see A. Drummond, JRS, 1972, 176 ff. For the view that the Comitia Curiata had been preceded by a Comitia Calata (which later seems to have been a special form of both Comitia Curiata and Comitia Centuriata; cf. Aulus Gellius, xv, 27) see J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 123 f.

34 PATRES CONSCRIPTI. The implications of this term have been endlessly debated in both ancient and modern times. The general view was that the patres were the original patricians (members of the maiores gentes) and the conscripti the plebeians later added to the Senate. It is uncertain whether the phrase means ‘enrolled fathers’ (conscriptibeing an adjectival qualification) or patres et conscripti (cf. the phrase qui patres qui conscripti). In the former case early virtual automatic membership (the privilege of certain families) will have been supplemented by the inclusion of other important members of the community, and then the whole body was enrolled as patres. Alternatively the Senate came to comprise patres, who did not need formal enrolment, and non- patres who had to be enrolled (conscripti): these need not be identified with the minores gentes nor strictly with the plebeians, who may not have been so clear-cut a group in the very early period. For the latter view see A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 423 ff.: the existence of a group of conscripti, who were neither patricians nor plebeians (but who later merged with the plebeians) would help to explain the presence in the Fasti of the early Republic of names of consuls that are apparently plebeian: they would have been conscripti (cf. ch. iii, n. 2). Ogilvie (Early Rome, 59) believes that under the monarchy all members of the Senate were automatically patricians, but that this ceased with the establishment of the Republic, when patrician status was restricted.

35 THE TRIUMPH. See above, n. 18. The king in his triumphal insignia in some sense represented Jupiter, but (despite much debate) the idea of divinization was probably not involved. In the early days of the Republic a minor form of triumph was developed, the ovatio; this may approximate more closely to the early pre-Etruscan form of celebration before the Etruscans had elaborated the ritual (e.g. the general went on foot or horseback, not a chariot). In the late third century generals who were refused full triumphs by the Senate might hold unofficial ones on the Alban Mount during the Feriae Latinae. For later developments (241–133 BC) see J. S. Richardson, JRS, 1975, 50 ff.

36 THE CALENDAR. Since ‘Numa’s’ reform does not refer to the dedication of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in 509 BC it must have been earlier than that, while if Aprilis is an Etruscan word the reform probably was made in the sixth century. A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (1967), however, attributes this pre-Julian calendar to the decemviral period, but this view is contested by R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1969, 330 ff. (cf. A. Drummond, JRS (1971), 282 f.). Ogilvie (Early Rome, 42) also suggests that although the lunisolar calendar was established during the Etruscan period, it was not openly published, for all to see and read, until the time of the Decemvirate. The introduction of the new month of January is not generally thought to have resulted in changing the beginning of the Roman year from March to January until 153 BC. Mrs Michels, however, believes the change to be older and that in 153 what happened was only the bringing into line of the official consular year with the older calendar year. On the calendar see, besides Mrs Michels’s book, E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (1968), 43 ff. and A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (1972), ch. v. On the calends and the king’s proclamation: Macrobius, i, 15, 9–13; cf. Lydus, de mens, iii, 10.

37 LEGES REGIAE. A collection of laws ascribed to the kings existed in the second century AD (Pomponius, Digest, i, 2, 2, 2). It was called ius Papirianum because it was allegedly composed under Tarquinius Superbus by a Sextus Papirius, while a C. Papirius, the first Pontifex Maximus, was said to have restored a collection, made by Ancus Marcius, of some laws of Numa which had been recorded on tablets in the Forum and become illegible (Dion. Hal., iii, 36). All such leges regiae preserved in the ancient writers have been collected: see, e.g, Riccobono, Fontes, i, 1–8. They deal chiefly with religious matters and may reflect early rules of the regal community, even if they were not published in the Forum as were the later Twelve Tables, though the survival of the inscription under the Lapis Niger shows that publication cannot be quite excluded. For a defence of their basic historicity see A. Watson, JRS, 1972, 100 ff.

38 DUOVIRI PERDUELLIONIS. A. Magdelain, Historia, 1973, 405 ff., has attempted to show that these officiais were invented by later annalists.

39 THE EARLY CAVALRY. A. Alföldi, Der frührömische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenbezeichnen (1952), identified the patriciate with the 300 cavalry. This view has been challenged by A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 377 ff. and the discussion has been continued in Historia, 1968, 385 ff., 444 ff. De Martino, St. d. cos. rom, edn 2, I, 197 ff., believes that the equestrian centuries were reserved for patricians, but that to argue that the patricians had acquired their political privilege from their monopoly of the cavalry is to view the problem wrongly: the patricians derived their power rather from the gentes. For the dissociation of the mysterious proci patricii from the sex suffragia see Momigliano, op. cit, 377 ff. Ogilvie (Early Rome, 44 ff.) believes that in the earliest army cavalry was more important than infantry, but he rejects (56 ff.) Alföldi’s identification of the patricians with an aristocracy of knights who formed the royal cavalry.

40 HOPLITE WARFARE. The archaeological evidence suggests the introduction of hoplite tactics in the mid-sixth century: see A. N. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (1967), 74 ff. This provides a conclusive argument against those (e.g. M. P. Nilsson, JRS, 1929, 4 ff.) who dated the ‘Servian’ reform to the mid-fifth century as the organizational means of introducing a Greek hoplite system. Further, our sources (Diodorus, xxiii, 2 and the Ineditum Vaticanum, 3) say that it was the Etruscans who taught the Romans to fight ‘with bronze shields and in a phalanx’.

41 REFORM OF THE ARMY. It is widely agreed that the manner in which (though not necessarily the date at which) the army reforms were made has been solved by P. Fraccaro, Atti del sec. Congr. Naz. di Stud. Rom., iii (1931), 91 ff. (= Opuscula, II (1957), 287 ff). Cf., e.g., J. Heurgon, Rise of R., 150 ff.; for a general sketch of the evolution of the legion see A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, I (1965), 505 ff.
    There are, however, still champions of a much later and slower development. Thus G. V. Sumner (JRS, 1970, 76 ff.) argues that Servius created a centuriate organization of the army of 3,000, based on the 30 curiae and the 3 original tribes. When the new territorial tribes were created in the mid-fifth century (so Sumner believes), a phalanx of 3,000 hoplites in 30 centuriae was established; at the same time the new model army was adapted for political purposes as a new Comitia Centuriata, no longer based on the curiae. This legio was increased to 4,000 c. 431 BC, and to 6,000 c. 405 when the Comitia Centuriata took on its classical form of five classes. After 367 it was divided into two legions, and by 311 the four-legion manipular army had been created.

42 CLASSIS AND INFRA CLASSEM. The supposition of a division between classici and those infra classem is based on Cato (apud Gellium, vi, 13, 1) and Festus, p. 100, L). It has been supported by Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 291, A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1952, 3 ff. and A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 596; Quarto, 430 ff., but it has been questioned by E. S. Staveley (in a valuable paper on work done on the early Roman constitution 1940–54 in Historia, 1956, 79) who argues that Gellius does not prove or even imply that there were ever less than five classes in the centuriate organization and that Cato’s remark derives not from fifth-century records but from an unclear distinction of his own day when classicus may have indicated social standing.

43 THE TRIBES. After 241 BC the total number of tribes was, and remained at, 35. Fabius Pictor (frg. 9P) attributes to Servius the creation of 4 urban and 26 rustic tribes; Livy (i, 43, 13) ascribes the four urban tribes to Servius at the time of the institution of the census but does not mention the rustic ones; but elsewhere (ii, 21, 7) he says that 21 tribes were formed in 495 BC. Probably 20 of these (the 4 urban and 17 rustic, i.e. excluding the tribe Clustumina) should be attributed to Servius. A fragment by an unknown writer on the Servian constitution (Papyrus Oxyr., 17 (1927), n. 2088) refers to Servius’ division into tribes. In general see L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960).

44 DATING THE COMITIA CENTURIATA. Early views are discussed by G. W. Botsford, The Roman Assemblies (1909), more recent ones by E. S. Staveley, Historia, 1956, 74 ff. For later discussions see P. Fraccaro, JRS, 1957, 64; P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis (1959), 672 ff; L. R. Taylor, Voting-Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), 3 ff.; A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 594 ff.; R. M. Ogilvie, Livy, 166 ff.; G. V. Sumner, JRS, 1970, 76 ff.; F. De Martino, St. d. cos. rom., edn 2, I, ch. vii.
    As an example of those who accept Fraccaro’s explanation of the growth of the army (see n. 41 above) but reject his dating we may quote briefly the position of De Sanctis (Riv. Fil., 1933, 289 ff.) who maintains that the Servian order cannot be earlier than the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the fourth: if it existed in the regal period it would imply a population of 200 inhabitants to a square kilometre, which De Sanctis rejects as impossible. He also emphasizes the improbability that Rome could put 6,000 men into the field at so early a period. He distinguishes three periods of development: (a) The earliest of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry with three praetors (this accords with his theory that three praetors and not two consuls, or praetors, took the helm as the monarchy declined). (b) This army, based on Thousands and the old tribes and Curiae, was gradually increased. In 444 when three military tribunes took supreme control in the state, the army still contained only 3,000 men. The increase in the number of these military tribunes (three or four from 426 to 406, six from 405 to 367) implies an increase in the Thousands of the army. It was at this period, sometime between 405 and 367, that the new ‘Servian’ order was introduced, probably immediately after the Gallic sack, (c) In 366, when consuls were substituted for military tribunes, the legion of 6,000 men was divided into two separate legions, each under six tribunes; six were nominated by the consuls, six elected by the people. When the number of legions and tribunes was later increased the additional tribunes were elected by the people. Fraccaro’s explanation of the method of transition from one to two legions is to be followed.
    The chief merit of De Sanctis’ argument seems to be that it explains the fluctuating number of military tribunes: they varied with the number of Thousands of men levied annually. But since one of them sometimes remained in the city, their numbers may not depend strictly on the military organization. De Sanctis also implies that the ‘Servian’ order was introduced after the Gallic sack; it is difficult to see how this arrangement based on sixty centuries would square with the occasional appointment of seven, eight, or nine military tribunes (and De Sanctis himself rejects Beloch’s elimination of the odd numbers from the Fasti as arbitrary). Again, not all De Sanctis’ arguments are irrefutable. For instance, if Frank’s calculations are accepted Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome., I (1933), 19 ff., there is no objection on the score of population to placing the ‘Servian’ reform early. But even if these are rejected, the existence of a given number of centuries need not imply that at any given time they all contained 100 men. As De Sanctis says, a century of the census must have contained two or three times more people than a century of the legionary army. Is it not then possible that, accepting Fraccaro’s position, the primitive Romulean centuries were doubled by ‘Servius’ for census purposes; that each military century formed a part only of the census century of a full 100 rather than that the census century exceeded the military century of a full 100; and that the military centuries only gradually reached a full total which would produce an infantry of the line of 6,000 men? Other objections to De Sanctis’ views have been advanced by Fraccaro (Athenaeum, 1934, 57 ff. = Opuscula, II (1957), 293 ff.) that he and Beloch have been forced to imagine a Comitia Centuriata earlier than the ‘Servian’ one, of which tradition records no trace; and that if the ‘Servian’ reforms had been later than the regal period, their chronological position would have been mentioned (e.g. the decemviral legislation is not referred to Romulus or Servius !).

45 SEXTUS TARQUINIUS. For the suggestion that the praenomen of Gnaeus Tarquinius Romanus depicted on the tomb at Vulci (p. 452) is wrong and that the man being killed is Sextus rather than his father or brothers see Ogilvie, Livy, 230. If the Tarquin family did come from Caere (p. 452), this city would be a natural place for them to seek refuge.

46 HORATIUS, SCAEVOLA AND CLOFLIA. According to Livy, Horatius after his heroic defence of the bridge swam to safety, but Polybius (vi, 55) says that he was drowned. Scaevola, after failing to kill Porsenna, showed his indifference to pain by holding his right hand in a fire: Porsenna was duly impressed. Cloelia was a Roman girl, given as a hostage to Porsenna; she escaped across the Tiber, either by swimming or on horseback, but was returned to Porsenna who admired her bravery and handed her back. For a discussion of the origin of these stories, which may well be linked with statues of Horatius and Cloelia in Rome, whose meaning was misunderstood, see Ogilvie,Livy, 258 ff.

47 PORSENNA. For the view that he came from Veii, not Clusium, see E. Pais, Storia di Roma, II, 97 ff. Pliny, NH, ii, 140 derives him from Volsini. For his capture of Rome see Tacitus, Hist., iii, 72. He is said to have tried to keep the Romans in subjection by forbidding the use of iron weapons (as the Philistines had dealt with the conquered Israelites). E. Gjerstad (Opuce. Rom. (1969), 149 ff.) believes that his main target was Cumae rather than Rome. Ogilvie, (Early Rome, 88 f.) suggests that Porsenna’s move south was activated by pressure upon Clusium by the hill tribes of central Italy (Gallic pressure from the north had scarcely started so early as this).

48 THE CUMAEAN CHRONICLE. Whether Dionysius derived his information on Cumaean and Latin affairs from a local chronicle or from a writer, Hyperochus of Cumae, is uncertain. Only recently has the significance of this independent Greek tradition been emphasized. See A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 664 f.; E. Gabba, Les Origines de la Rep. Rom., (Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966), 144 ff.); A. Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (1964), 56 ff.

49 MONARCHY AND REPUBLIC. The conventional view (as expressed, e.g., by Mommsen) is that when Tarquin was suddenly expelled two annually elected magistrates (consuls, though probably first called praetors) succeeded to his position: this dual office was designed to prevent a recurrence of monarchical rule. But many historians reject a sudden change and believe in evolution rather than revolution. Some argue that the power of the kings declined gradually, as at Athens. The title rex, like basileus survived in the person of a priest-king (rex sacrorum), but his power was limited by the creation of three praetors who originally commanded the three military contingents of the Ramnes, Tities and Luceres. Their duties were gradually differentiated and the one left in Rome to administer justice sank to an inferior position; on this view, the traditional account of the creation of the praetorship in 366 arose from the fact that the names of the third ‘praetors’ were first recorded from then onwards. Such a theory, which cuts clean across all that the Romans themselves firmly believed about the fall of the monarchy, does not win a ready acceptance.
    Other historians turn to Etruria and Italy rather than to Greece to illuminate Rome’s constitutional development, but their contribution is not conclusive. On the analogy of the Etruscan magistrate called zilath (translated into Latin as dictator) and of the dictator who was the chief magistrate in such Latin cities as Aricia and Lanuvium, it has been suggested that the earliest magistrate at Rome was the dictator, whose original title was magister populi, together with his subordinate, the magister equitum. This view, although solving some difficulties, totally contradicts the tradition that the Roman dictatorship was an extraordinary non-annual magistracy. In Etruria a regular sequence of office (cursus honorum) may have been established when the monarchy gave place to the local aristocracy, while among the Italian peoples a magistracy was shared by more than one person. The Umbrians had two Marones, the Sabines eight Octovirs, and the Oscans two Meddices. But it is not certain whether any of these groups represent the principle of collegiality: possibly the first pair of Octovirs had equal authority, nothing is known of the Marones, while the Oscans definitely had a Meddix Tuticus and a Lesser Meddix. Thus it cannot be ascertained whether the Romans borrowed or invented the principle of two collegiate magistrates, and the comparative study of other institutions has hardly produced results sufficiently conclusive to justify the rejection of what the Romans believed concerning the nature of their earliest magistracy.
    K. Hanell (Das altrömische eponyme Amt (1946)) has advanced the view that the Romans were wrong in linking the establishment of the Republic with that of the eponymous magistracy; the latter might have existed under the monarchy, and in Hanell’s view it came into being at the same time as the adoption of the pre-Julian calendar which is to be associated with the foundation of the Capitoline temple. These eponymous magistrates will have been praetores maximi, since praetors and dictators are postulated in the regal period as helpers and deputies respectively of the king; such conditions prevailed until the Decemvirate, when the monarchy ended. This ingenious attempt to support the evolutionary theory (cf. De Sanctis, above) has not been widely accepted, even by other scholars who are dissatisfied with the traditional account. These, although ready to accept that the end of the monarchy was sudden and revolutionary, are not willing to believe that the dual consulship was devised suddenly in 509 as an anti-monarchical safeguard: it will have resulted from an evolutionary process, and prototypes of the consuls will have been, e.g. two auxiliaries of the king, legionary commanders called praetors (so A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1952, 24 ff.). Other scholars have assumed a period between the monarchy and the appearance of magistrates with par potestas, when one magistrate, or a college of magistrates in which one predominated, exercised control, e.g. a praetor maximus (on whom see A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 403 ff.). According to the antiquarian Cincius (Livy, vii, 3, 5) the praetor maximus every year drove a nail into the wall of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, presumably to mark the passing of one year; this will have started in the first year of the Republic when the temple was dedicated. The nature and history of the office remain very obscure. It could be an alternative title to maior consul, the consul who held the fasces. Another view is that of De Martino (St. d. cos. rom, edn 2, I, 234 ff.) who believes that until 451 the chief magistrate was a dictator annuus; he was replaced in the struggle of the orders by an annually elected board of ten, which two years later was followed by two unequal praetors, who thereafter were sometimes replaced by military tribunes, until the dual consulship was established in 367. This view is criticized by E. S. Staveley, JRS, 1960, 251 f. The main thesis of a massive work by R. Werner, Der Beginn der römischen Republik (1963), has not been readily accepted (for criticism see A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 669 ff. and R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1965, 84 ff.). Werner’s conclusion is that Tarquin was expelled and the dual consulship establishedc. 472: this is based on his view that time was first reckoned by the nail-ceremony in the temple of Jupiter and not by eponymous consuls, the latter system being adopted only in the third century when the pontiffs equated the Capitoline era with the era based on the expulsion of the kings; this involved a large-scale interpolation of names in the consular Fasti (which Werner regarded as unreliable) to fill the gap between 507 (dedication of Capitoline temple and start of the nail-ceremony) and c. 472 (beginning of the Republic and consuls); Ogilvie (op. cit., 87) accepts that the Romans originally reckoned their years by nails rather than by magistrates, but does not accept Werner’s main thesis.
    These various theories have been mentioned in order to give some indication of the direction of recent enquiries, rather than to suggest their success. A most useful guide to some of this work, together with a sane and balanced assessment of it, is given by E. S. Staveley, ‘The Constitution of the Roman Republic, 1940–1954’, Historia, 1956, 74 ff, especially 90 ff.
    A major chronological problem which affects both the beginning and end of the monarchy remains to be mentioned. As we have seen, the distinguished Swedish archaeologist, E. Gjerstad, has established the main lines of the growth of the city: a pre-urban period (divided on the evidence of pottery into four periods, 800–750, 750–700, 700–625, 625–575), followed by the epoch of the Archaic city (Early, 575–530, Middle, 530–500, Late, 500–450). These results seem to many to support the traditional literary evidence to a remarkable degree: thus the pre-urban period corresponds with the Latin kings, the Early and Middle Archaic with the Etruscan kings, and the Late Archaic with the gradual decline of Etruscan influences after the explusion of the Tarquins. However (unfortunately, as it will seem to many) Gjerstad has accepted the view of Hanell in putting the end of the monarchy well into the fifth century, in fact to the mid-century and the time of the Decemvirate. In brief, Etruscan rule in Rome was c.530–450 rather than c.616–510. This theory, apart from the difficulties of correlating archaeological evidence with constitutional changes, involves transferring to the regal period many events which tradition assigned to the early Republic, e.g. the struggle of the orders and the treaty of Cassius. Dislocation and the telescoping of events on this scale seem unacceptable and indeed quite unnecessary, since the archaeological evidence does not appear to be at essential variance with the literary tradition.
    Gjerstad’s views are of course expounded at length in his great work, Early Rome; shorter statements in his Legends and Facts of Early Roman History (1962) and in ch. i of Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966). For criticism see M. Pallottino, St. Etr., 1963, 19 ff.; A. Momigliano, Rivista Storica Italiana, 1961, 802 ff.; 1963, 882 ff., JRS, 1963, 95 ff. (= Terzo Contrib., 661 ff., 545 ff.); R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rev., 1964, 85 ff; F. de Martino, Aufstieg NRW, I ii, 1972, 217 ff.


1 THE FIRST CONSULS. Tradition associates no less than five consuls with the first year of the Republic, fitting them all in by means of violent deaths or forced retirements. It is more probable that they were connected by popular legend with the birth of liberty and that subsequently their names were included in the Fasti, than that their names were originally in the early Fasti and that later legends were devised to connect them with the establishing of the Republic. It is difficult to assert, but arbitrary to deny their historicity. Three names perhaps may be removed: L. Tarquinius Collatinus as a ‘doublet’ of the king; Sp. Lucretius because of his connection with Lucretia; P. Valerius Publicola as a reduplication of another Valerius who also held office with a Horatius in 449 BC (legends connected with Valerius were designed partly to explain the name Publicola and partly to glorify the Valerian gens which later numbered among its members a very unreliable annalist, Valerius Antias). Of the two remaining names M. Horatius Pulvillus, who consecrated the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus built by Tarquin, may be a ‘doublet’ of the consul of 449, invented in order that a Republican magistrate might share the glory with the hated tyrant. But since Polybius dates the first treaty between Rome and Carthage ‘in the consulship of Brutus and Horatius’, the magistracy of Horatius, if invented, was invented early. Similarly, attempts to dispose of Junius Brutus have not been totally successful: to turn him into some kind of divinity because of the similarity of his name with Juno is absurd, while the fact that the Junii were later a plebeian family does not preclude an original patrician stock. In addition to the reduction of the five consuls to two, another point in the traditional account needs correcting: their original title probably was praetor (prae-itor, a leader; στϱατηγός in Greek writers); since they called their colleagues together they were named praetores consules, and later, when another praetor was established to administer justice, the adjective consuleswas used as a noun to distinguish them from the new praetor. But though the traditional account is encrusted with legend and has been written in the light of later developments, it need not for that reason be completely rejected. An important archaic inscription from Satricum has just been published by C. de Simone, Archelogia laziale, i, 1978, 95 ff. It appears to date from c. 500 BC, and after eleven letters whose meaning is obscure, it runs ‘Popliosio Valesiosio suodales Mamartei’, and may mean something like ‘the sodales (i.e. the members of a priestly college) of Publius Valerius dedicated this to Mars’ (the god’s name being in the Oscan form). It must apply to a member of the Valeriangens: could it be Publius Valerius Poplicola, consul in the first years of the Republic (another was consul in 475)?

2 EARLY PLEBEIAN CONSULS? The general problem of the Fasti and their reliability is discussed elsewhere (ch. xix), but we must face here the question of the apparently plebeian names in the early Fasti. At one time they were totally rejected even by many who believed that in other respects the lists might be more or less reliable: the ground of the rejection was the belief that no plebeian could have held the consulship at this time of patrician privilege, and that therefore their presence was due either to later interpolation arising from family pride (to have ancestors who ‘came over with the Normans’) or else that they were in fact names of patrician gentes who later died out and then reappeared as plebeians. In more recent years many have been prepared to grant them greater credibility, based partly on the assumption that the political distinction between patricians and plebeians had not reached its peak so early (see, e.g., A. Bernardi, Rendicont. Istituto Lombardo, lxxix (1945–6), 1 ff.; H. Last’s paper in JRS, 1945, 30 ff. was important as emphasizing the late closing of the patrician ranks). A neat solution would be to suppose that these consuls were conscripti, neither patricians nor plebeians, if the theory of A. Momigliano could be accepted: see above, ch. ii, n. 34. The difficulty of disentangling the patrician or plebeian status of certain families at different periods of history is examined by I. Shatzman, Cl. Qu., 1973, 65 ff., in regard to the Veturii in the context of the early Fasti.
    The Fasti give 12 plebeian consuls for 509–486, none in the years 485–470 (when the Fabii dominated the scene with consulships in seven consecutive years, and no Etruscan names appear), one in 469, none again until 461, and five in the 450s; then the Decemvirate interposed. The early years of the Republic were obviously very disturbed with the intervention of Porsenna and with pro- and anti-Etruscan groups no doubt in competition (not to mention the effect of external Latin threats on internal politics). Thus J. Heurgon (Rise of R., 164 f.) would explain the Fasti as representing a compromise which resulted from an alliance between plebeians and some of the Etruscans vis-à-vis the patricians, Whatever may be thought of this, once the new Republic began to settle down the patricians clearly strengthened their hold upon the supreme magistracy, at any rate until 461, whether or not plebeians had any legal claim to it.

3 PROVOCATIO. According to Livy (ii, 8, 2) P. Valerius Publico la carried a law in 509 which established the right of appeal (provocatio) from the magistrates to the people (iudicium populi, i.e. the Comitia Centuriata acting as a court of law in capital cases). But since similar laws were said to have been passed later (Twelve Tables, 450; Valerian-Horatian laws, 449: Lex Valeria of 300) many scholars believe that the right was not established as early as 509. The procedure was that a victim of a magistrate’s coercitio appealed to the people which either confirmed or rejected the magistrate’s sentence. Some suggest that the magistrate at first did not pass judgement but referred the question of guilt direct to the popular assembly, while W. Kunkel (Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des röm. Kriminalverfahrens (1962) has argued that only political offences against the state were referred to the iudicia populi and that ordinary crimes were handled by a praetor or a triumvir capitalis. A. H. M. Jones (The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic (1972), ch. i) has defended the traditional viewpoint. For the various laws de provocatione see E. S. Staveley, Historia (1955), 412 ff.

4 IMPERIUM. On the nature of imperium see E. S. Staveley, Historia, 1956, 107 ff.

5 REX SACRORUM. See A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib, 395 ff., Quinto Contrib., 309 ff. The reges sacrorum, found in other Latin towns (Tusculum, Lavinium, Velitrae, and perhaps Alba), may have been established there at the time when they were losing their kings, as at Rome. The word rex was found on a bucchero vase found in the Regia in recent excavations. The rex was chosen by the Pontifex Maximus in the second century BC (Livy, xl, 42), yet he retained precedence in processions where the pontifex maximus took only fifth place, and pontifical decisions in 270 were still dated by the name of the rex (this also suggests that years in the regal period had been numbered as regnal years, as happened at Caere where the Pyrgi inscription refers to the third year of Thefarias; cf. Momigliano, op. cit.).

6 PATRICIAN NUMBERS K. J. Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 221, reckons the patricians as less than one-tenth of the free population of Rome c. 500 BC.

7 DICTATORSHIP. On its origin and the various modern theories about this see E. S. Staveley, Historia, 1956, 101 ff.

8 GREEK POTTERY. See E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, (1966), 514 ff. Athenian trade with the Etruscan cities also declined, but not to the same extent as that with Rome.

9 USURY. According to Tacitus (Ann., vi, 16, 3) the decemvirs in 451 BC fixed the minimum rate of interest at unciarium fenus, which if the interest was annual amounted to 8½ per cent, if monthly to 100 per cent. Livy, however, assigns the law to 357 BC. A passage in Cato (de agri cultura, ad. init.) may imply that he thought that loans at usury were forbidden in early Rome.

10 NEXUM. Details are obscure, partly because the system was abolished towards the end of the fourth century. It was very difficult for the bondsman (nexus) to escape from his condition, which was permanent until a third party could be found to buy back the bondsman from the creditor and so release him. See M. I. Finley, Revue d’ Histoire du Droit (1965), 159 ff. and Ogilvie, Livy, 296 ff. Cf. also A. Watson, Rome of the XII Tables (1976), ch. ix.

11 FOOD SHORTAGES AND DISEASE. Corn shortages are recorded for the years 508, 496, 492, 486, 477, 476, 456, 453, 440, 433 and 411. Despite some possible inaccuracies the main record is likely to be true, since Cato tells us (frg. 77P) that corn shortages were registered in the annales, i.e. the Tabula Pontificum. In the 490s the cult of the corn goddess Ceres, whose centres were at Cumae and Sicily, was established at Rome, while trade with western Sicily, which was under Punic control, will have been helped by Rome’s treaty with Carthage. The account of a Roman embassy sent to Sicily in 491–0 (Dion. Halic, vii, 1–2) may well be reliable, since it probably derives from a Greek source independent of the Roman tradition. See Ogilvie, Livy, 256 f., 291, 321.
    Epidemics are recorded in 490, 466, 463, 453, in six years in the 430s, and in 428, 412, 411, 399, 392, and 390 (malaria, anthrax?); for references and discussion see Ogilvie, Livy, 394 f.

12 MAELIUS, SERVILIUS AND MINUCIUS. The story of Maelius is quite probably historical since it antedates the troubles arising from the corn supply in the time of Gaius Gracchus: it was recorded by Cincius c. 200 BC. Servilius acted either as a private citizen or (according to a later tradition) as a Magister Equitum: see A. W. Lintott,Historia, 1970, 12 ff. Minucius was praefectus (? urbi) in 440 and 439 according to the Libri Lintei (these were early lists of magistrates, written on linen and kept in the temple of Juno Moneta: see R. M. Ogilvie, JRS (1958), 40 ff.). He was later honoured with a column and statue for a subsequent distribution of corn: the column is depicted on denarii of c.134 BC (Crawford, RRC (1974), 242–43), but was not set up before the fourth century (Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 329 ff.). A later Minucius (M. Minucius Rufus, consul in 110) built a porticus Minucius which was used for corn distributions in the Roman Empire. Thus both Maelius and Minucius may be accepted as historical figures, though the connection between them is not beyond doubt. See Ogilvie, Livy, 550 f.

13 SP. CASSIUS. For an analysis of his story see Ogilvie, Livy, 337 ff. A. W. Lintott, Historia, 1970, 18 ff. argues that in the original story Cassius was put to death by his father by virtue of the latter’s patria potestas, and that his formal trial and conviction for treason (perduellio) was a later form.

14 THE FIRST SECESSION. The historicity of this movement is defended by Ogilvie, Livy, 309 ff.

15 LEX PUBLILIA. In view of the importance of what was enacted in 471, Publilius Volero may well be a historical character, although some have seen in him only a doublet of Publilius Philo, dictator in 339. Livy ii, 56, 2 says that the right to elect plebeian magistrates was given to the Comitia Tributa; this should probably be the Concilium Plebis. Perhaps the concessions attributed to Publilius were the result of a secession.

16 COMITIA TRIBUTA POPULI. The existence of this Comitia, as distinct from the purely plebeian Concilium Plebis Tributum, was first shown by Mommsen. For the evidence see A. H. J. Greenidge, Roman Public Life (1901), 443 ff; E. S. Staveley, Athenaeum, 1955, 3 ff. Some scholars, however, maintain that there was only one tribal assembly, from which the patricians were excluded: they are therefore forced to postulate that the patricians were admitted at some unrecorded date, perhaps in 287.

17 THE TRIBUNES. See G. Niccolini, Il tribunato della plebe (1932). According to Varro (de ling. Lat., v, 91) they derived from the military tribunes, but E. Meyer (Kleine Schriften, i, 333 ff.) argued that they had been administrative officers of the tribes.

18 THE DECEMVIRS. The problems involved are discussed by Ogilvie, Livy, 451 ff. Cicero (de rep., ii, 61 ff.) and Dionysius state that the decemvirs remained in office for three years. Cicero tells nothing of the fierce struggle that led up to their establishment. On Appius and the plebeians see De Sanctis, SR, ii, 47 ff.

19 THE TWELVE TABLES. Their authenticity has withstood the attacks of modern scholars, e.g. of E. Pais (Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma, i (1915)) who assigned them to the end of the fourth century, and of E. Lambert (Revue hist., de droit franc. et étranger, 1902) who placed them at the beginning of the second. The original tables, set up in the Roman Forum, have of course perished, but the code has been partially reassembled from quotations in ancient writers. These fragments are collected in Riccobono, Fontes, 23 ff., and elsewhere; for a translation see Lewis-Reinhold, Rn. Civ., i, 102 ff.; for discussion, H. F. Jolowicz, A Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, edn 2, (1972), chs vii–xii, F. Wiencker, ‘Die XII Tafeln in ihrem Jahrhundert’, Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966), 293 ff. See also A. Watson, Rome of the XII Tables (1976), which deals with the law of persons and property.

20 THE VALERIO-HORATIAN LAWS. According to Livy (iii, 55) these laws (a) restored the right of appeal, (b) gave plebiscita the force of law, (c) reaffirmed the sacrosanctity of the tribunes:

·         (a) provocatio: since the right of appeal (cf. p. 466 n. 3 above) is said already to have been restored by the Twelve Tables, its inclusion in the Leges Valeriae-Horatiae may be an anticipation of the Lex Valeria of 300. E. S. Staveley may well be correct in his analysis of these various laws (Historia, 1955, 412 ff.): the right was not granted in 509, and although its possible use was conceded in the Twelve Tables by the patricians in order to check indiscriminate use of tribunician ius auxilii, no magistrate wascompelledto grant an appeal against his coercitio until the Lex Valeria of 300 BC. A. W. Lintott (Aufstieg NRW, II, i (1972), 226 ff.) has surveyed the history of provocatio from the beginning to the principate. He considers that it arose from self-help when a private individual, assailed in some way called aloud on his fellow-citizens to bear witness and give help; in later times such an appeal to the self-help of the plebs was usually made through its spokesmen, the tribunes. The first law to afford support to provocatio as such was that of 300.

·         (b) plebiscita: this second measure is the most controversial of the three, because if it was true it would have given the plebs legal power to realize their aims and to end the struggle. Livy’s words are ‘ut quod tributim plebs iussisset, populum teneret’ (55); i.e. what was voted by the plebs should be binding on the whole people. But he also says that the law of Publilius Philo of 339 BC laid it down ‘ut plebiscita omnes Quirites tenerent’ (viii, 12), while according to Gellius (xv, 27) the Lex Hortensia of 287 decreed ‘ut eo iure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes Quirites tenerentur’: that is, the same law was enacted three times. Many of the theories evolved to meet the difficulty are scarcely tenable. Clearly such an important law would not have continually fallen into disuse so as to require re-enacting; nor is it practical to suppose that the plebs gained power in some matters in 445, in others in 339, and in all in 287. Another suggestion is that some limiting conditions may have been omitted, for instance, that the plebs might pass resolutions which could go before the Comitia Centuriata if first approved by the Senate; that the auctoritas patrum was dispensed with in 339, and that in 287 reference to the Comitia was made unnecessary. According to Mommsen Livy mistook his authority and populusis meant instead of plebs; the reference then is not to the Concilium Plebis but to the Comitia Tributa which he supposes was established in 449. Since there is no evidence for any of these views De Sanctis and others regard the law of 449 as a quite unhistorical anticipation of the later law. The objection to this last view, which is by far the simplest, is that certain important laws (the Lex Canuleia of 445, the Licinio-Sextian rogations of 367 and the Leges Genuciae of 342) were passed by the plebs before 339 BC. It has therefore been suggested (by Sir H. Stuart Jones, CAH, vii, 484) that a law of 449 did give validity to plebiscita, which the patricians long contended were not binding on them because enacted without their consent, and disregarded de facto. Alternatively it is possible that no law was passed in 449 to this effect, but that the plebs asserted their right to issue binding laws and that the other authorities were forced by circumstances to pass through the usual channels the subsequent legislation which had originated with the expressed will of the people: in that case later historians might regard the measures as legally binding plebiscita, when in fact they were only resolutions of the people which were made law by the whole state; that is, they were not laws per se. E. S. Staveley’s view (Athenaeum (1955), 3 ff.) is that in 449 all measures carried by a tribal system of vote, i.e. plebiscita in the Concilium Plebis and leges in the Comitia Populi Tributa, were made valid, subject only to the auctoritas patrum, and that this patrician right to veto legislation was cancelled in regard to (i) the Comitia Tributa by the Lex Publilia of 339, and (ii) the Concilium Plebis by the Lex Hortensia of 287.

·         (c) The tribunate: according to Livy’s third law the caput of any man who harmed the tribunes or aediles should be devoted to the gods and his goods confiscated and sold at the temple of Ceres, Liber and Libera. This view, which affirms the sacrosanctity of the plebeian officers in law, may derive from a tradition designed to explain away the revolutionary character of the tribunate. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the tribune’s rights, which hitherto had been based on a lex sacrata sworn by the plebs, were now confirmed by law. Diodorus (xii, 25) records that one of the provisions of the Valerio-Horatian laws was that ten tribunes should be chosen annually to guard the liberty of the citizens. (He adds that one of the consuls must be a plebeian and that the tribunes on pain of being burnt alive must appoint their successors before going out of office. The former clause is an anticipation of fourth-century conditions; the latter is a plebeian agreement, not a legal pact between plebeians and patricians.) Though Diodorus is obviously wrong in supposing the tribunes were first created in 449 (he has indeed already referred to their existence in 471) and though the date when their number was raised to ten is uncertain (Livy put it at 457, but 449 is quite possible), he may be right in supposing that the patricians in 449 first recognized in law the tribunate which they had long been forced to recognize in fact. This would help to explain why the Valerio-Horatian laws were regarded as a milestone on the plebeian advance to success. Otherwise, especially for those who reject the view that they legalized plebiscita, their importance would seem obscure. Such a concession may well have been won as the result of a secession.

21 MILITARY TRIBUNES WITH CONSULAR POWER. Beloch’s view that all the plebeian names in the Fasti from 444 to 367 are interpolations is too drastic. Cf. CAH, vii, 520. In 22 years between 444 and 367 BC consuls, not military tribunes, were elected. The view that consular tribunes were created for military needs or for administrative convenience (cf. K. von Fritz, Historia, 1950, 37 ff.) has been rejected by E. S. Staveley (JRS., 1953, 30 ff.) who champions Livy’s explanation that the purpose was political, designed to appease plebeian agitation for the consulship. F. E. Adcock (JRS., 1957, 9 ff.) finds no single explanation satisfactory: in the years 444–406, when there was much oscillation between consuls and consular tribunes, different reasons will have operated at different times; in the years 405–367 the preference for consular tribunes reflected the balance of supply and demand in regard to approved generals and administrators. A. Boddington (Historia, 1959, 365 ff.) suggests that at first the consular tribunes were supplementary colleagues of the consuls, appointed at any time of the year to meet unexpected military needs, and only later (probably after 390) did they form an alternative magistracy to the consulship. See also R. Sealey, Latomus (1959), 521 ff; J. Pinsent, ‘Military Tribunes and Plebeian Consuls: The Fasti from 444 to 342’,Historia-Einzelschriften, Heft 24 (1975), who examines the chronological basis of the ancient tradition; but on Pinsent see A. Drummond, JRS, 1978, 187 f.

22 THE CENSORSHIP. In general see J. Suolahti, The Roman Censors (1963).


1 ROME AND THE LATINS. The Roman tradition has naturally stressed Rome’s increasingly dominant position vis-à-vis the Latins, and it may well be that this domination took longer to achieve than the later Romans liked to recognize. Thus the ‘Roman’ colonies founded in the early fifth century were in fact federal ‘Latin’ colonies, in which Rome shared, and perhaps she did not dictate the policy leading to their foundation (see p. 95). While the Latins continued as long as possible to maintain a belief in the sovereignty of their federal organization, the Romans increasingly tended to minimize any feeling of dependence on the Latins. However, a recognition of some pro-Roman bias in the Roman sources need not lead to acceptance of the far-reaching views of A. Alföldi, who in his stimulating and ingenious book, Early Rome and the Latins (1964), argued that the whole picture of early Rome in relation to the other Latin cities which is given by Livy was deliberately invented by Fabius Pictor in an attempt to show that sixth-century Rome was the leading Latin city, whereas in fact (so Alföldi argues) Rome only gained the predominance in the later fifth century, after having been dominated by Alba Longa and Lavinium and then by a string of Etruscan cities (cf. 453 n. 12 above). This large-scale deliberate falsification by Fabius can scarcely be accepted: for its decisive rejection see A. Momigliano, Quarto Contrib., 487 ff. (= JRS, 1967, 211 ff.), Ogilvie, Cl. Rev. (1966), 94 ff., and A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 190 ff.
    Alföldi has now restated his position and replied to his critics in Römische Frühgeschichte (1976). His detailed arguments cannot be examined here: whether he is right or wrong on this point or that, the basic question is whether he is right both on a sufficient number of points to provide any justification for so radically reconstructed a picture of early Rome and in his belief that it is more likely to be true than the more traditional one (whether or not this hypothetical picture was invented by Fabius Pictor or found in part by him in his earlier sources). The matter must be left to future debate, and here it can only be said that in the writer’s view this attempt to undermine the traditional structure has failed: too many of the foundations on which the latter rest remain unshaken: Etruscan Rome survives as a great and powerful city.

2 LAKE REGILLUS. Despite the story of the help given to the Romans by the horsemen gods, Castor and Pollux, the battle seems to have been a hoplite affair, since Livy (ii, 20, 10) records that the Roman cavalry, after riding to the battlefield, dismounted and fought on foot. Some ten years after the battle a temple of Castor and Pollux was dedicated in the Roman Forum. The battle and the divine epiphany were also commemorated by a parade of horsemen (transvectio equorum), which was held on 15 July during the later Republic and was revived by Augustus. On the importance of the cult of the Dioscuri in early Latium see p. 40.

3 THE CASSIAN TREATY. See Livy, ii, 33, 4; Dion. Halic., vi, 95. The text survived in the early days of Cicero (pro Balbo, 53). The thirty Latin cities may represent a later total of the League (some time before 338 BC) rather than the number at the time of signing the treaty. Livy (ii, 22, 5) may suggest that the treaty was made in 495 by Cassius as a fetial priest rather than in 493, the year of his second consulship, where Livy later (ii, 33, 4) places it; closer to the battle would make better sense. Radical attempts to question the traditional date are scarcely supported by valid evidence, e.g. by Beloch (Röm. Gesch., 189 ff.) who places it in 358 when Livy says it was renewed. Any attempt to place it after 338 is ludicrous, as the Latin League had no political existence then. The only possible date, other than the traditional one, is the period after the Gallic invasion, when Roman authority was weakened. But an early date is supported by its internal evidence. This suggests that Rome was not more powerful than the Latins, as she afterwards became; and as the booty was to be divided into two parts, neither party can have had allies, i.e. it is prior to Rome’s alliance with the Hernici. For a defence of the tradition see A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 20 ff. On the machinery of the League and arrangements for military leadership (which are uncertain) see Ogilvie, Livy, 400.

4 THE HERNICI. Their ethnic affinities are uncertain. Beloch (Röm. Gesch., 197 ff.) would place the Hernican, like the Latin, alliance in the fourth century.

5 SABINE CONQUEST OF ROME ? This is the view of E. Pais, Ricerche sulla storia e diritto, Ser. i, 349 ff. Details about Herdonius are confused (Livy, ii, 15–18). Since the episode of a corps of Tusculans intervening on behalf of Rome does not look like a complete invention, there may be a core of truth in the story, but see Ogilvie, Livy 423 ff. (who thinks that the Sabines had an understanding with Etruscan Veii). The view of Mommsen is that the Romans on the contrary even annexed some Sabine territory, a view that is thus diametrically opposed to that of Pais.

6 THE CLAUDII. The migration to Rome is placed in 504 by Livy, ii, 16, 4, Dion. Hal., v, 40 and Plutarch, Public. 21, in the time of Romulus by Suetonius, Tib. 1, and in that of the Tarquins by Appian, Reg. 12. Considerations of family prestige or of the creation of new patricians might point to either of the earlier dates, but the disturbed conditions of c. 504, together with the probable creation of a new tribe, the Claudia, in 495, support the later date.

7 PRISCAE LATINAE COLONIAE. This is the best title for these early federal settlements, They are discussed by E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization (1969), 40 ff. and in more detail in Phoenix, 1953, 93 ff. and 123 ff. The early foundation of such colonies is denied by some (e.g. E. Meyer) and their establishment is dated at the end of the fifth century, but the fact that they were captured later by Rome does not mean that they were not originally pro-Roman: they may have changed hands more than once in the course of the century. Excavations at Norba suggest that the smaller sixth/fifth-century walls were superseded about 340 by a larger circuit: see G. Lugli, Rend. Lincei, 1947, 294.

8 CORIOLANUS. See H. Last, CAH, vii, 498 ff., E. T. Salmon, Cl. Quart., 1930, 96 ff., and Ogilvie, Livy, 314 ff. (On Plutarch’s treatment of the story see D. A. Russell, JRS 1963, 21 ff.)
    Festus (180 L) preserves the fragmentary record of an inscription which originally recorded the names of nine Romans (seven being ex-consuls) who fell in a battle against the Volsci (c. 487 BC ?) and were cremated and buried in the Circus Maximus.

9 ARDEA. Although excavation has not substantiated the tradition of the colony, there is no need to reject it (with Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 147, who does, however, accept the foedus Ardeatinum). A similar treaty with Lavinium (and perhaps with Aricia), outside the framework of the Cassian treaty, shows that Rome was beginning to add a limited series of local alliances to her general confederation with Latium as a whole. Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 26.

10 THE CREMERA DISASTER. The traditional date of 479 is suitable: when later the Romans had to bear the full weight of the Volscian push they were free from complications in Etruria. The exact date accords with the fact that the name Fabius which appears in the Fasti of the seven years 485–479 is missing for the next eleven years; this in itself helps to confirm the tradition. The nature of the engagement has been used to suggest that hoplite tactics had not yet been introduced. However, during the disturbed days of the early Republic (with episodes like those of Porsenna’s activities) disciplined phalanx warfare may well have given place temporarily to more ‘heroic’ methods of fighting, or, more probably, an irregular formation was deliberately used on a mission aimed at raiding and seizing an enemy strongpoint on the frontier, a mission for which the Fabii may well have volunteered (possibly because of their local interests in the district).

11 FIDENAE. Velthur Tolumne, a member of the family of the Tolumnii, is mentioned in an inscription (?sixth-century) from Veii: B. Nogara, Not. d. Scavi (1930), 327 f. Augustus corrected the popular view that Cossus won the spolia as military tribune in 437 by discovering that the breastplate referred to Cossus as consul. Unless Augustus misrepresented the facts in order to justify his refusal of the spolia opima to M. Crassus, governor of Macedonia, or misread an abbreviation of the name Cossus as consul, the date of the war must have been the consulship of Cossus, i.e. 428 BC. Serious doubts must arise when it is recalled that in this early period the chief magistrate was called praetor not consul, and that cognomina were not officially written; however, the original inscription might have been restored sometime during the four centuries before Augustus saw it. The record of the first war may be due to the cognomina of the consul L. Sergius Fidenas and of the dictator Q. Servilius Fidenas; these may have been given because these men owned property around Fidenae rather than because they had won triumphs. It is, however, possible that they were involved in earlier operations around Fidenae, though the details of the war of 437 undoubtedly belong to 428–425.

12 THE SIEGE AND FATE OF VEII. On the site of Veii see J. B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR, 1961 (and for the ager Veientanus, ibid., 1968). On Livy’s account of the siege see Ogilvie, Livy, 626 ff. (he dates the fall to 392–1). Archaeological evidence shows that the natural defences were artificially strengthened at the end of the fifth century against the Roman attack: the tufa wall was cut back and elsewhere a wall of stone and earth was built. The story of the capture by driving a tunnel under the citadel must be rejected, but it may have arisen from the presence of numerous drainage tunnels (cuniculi) in the neighbourhood. In fact at the Roman camp in the north-west the newly-built wall was constructed over cuniculi which had been filled in with earth and stones. The Romans could possibly have used these to enter the city but not the citadel, which was solid underneath. The story of the draining may or may not have some connection with this episode: the emissarium of the Alban Lake, an engineering work some two thousand yards long, was certainly not constructed later than the siege of Veii. After the fall of Veii the Romans solemnly transferred the statue and cult of Juno Regina by a ritual of evocatio to Rome: the statue was installed by the victorious Camillus on the Aventine. The dedication of the golden bowl at Delphi may be accepted: though stolen en route by the Liparians, it was restored, only to be melted down later by Onomarchus; however, the bronze base remained. The dedication is important because it shows the early friendship of Rome and Massilia (on their early relations see G. Nenci, Riv. di stor. Ligure, 1958), and Rome’s interest in Greece and Apollo. It is not surprising that Rome should send a gift to Delphi when her neighbour Caere maintained a treasury there.
    After its destruction Veii maintained only a trickle of life, while the resettlement of its territory is marked by the pottery found on the farms: on one hundred sites examined, the cessation of black-glazed ware at about one third indicates the end of their occupation, while the spread of this ware to other sites indicates the farms of the new Roman masters.

13 FALERII. The one fact that emerges from the story of the Faliscan schoolmaster (Livy, v, 27; Dion. Halic., xiii, 1–2) is that Falerii was not stormed (despite Diod., xvi, 96). It was saved by its precipitous position.

14 SUTRIUM, NEPETE, VOLSINII. Diodorus (xix, 98): Sutrium, 390; Nepete, 383 (cf. Livy, vi, 3, 2; 21, 4). But Velleius (i, 14) gives: Sutrium, 383, Nepete, 373. ‘To go to Sutrium’ remained a proverbial phrase meaning ‘to be ready for war’. It was an exposed outpost. Cf. Plautus, Casina, 524. The tradition (Livy, v, 3–2; Diod. xiv, 109) of a Roman war against Volsinii (392–391) is hardly reliable: at most it represents a frontier raid. Rejected by De Sanctis (SR, ii, 149), it is accepted by E. Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums, v, 816.

15 ROME AND LATIUM. On their relations see De Sanctis, SR, ii, 151 ff., A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), i, 115 ff.

16 BATTLE OF ALLIA AND THE SACK OF ROME. The Gauls advanced not perhaps down the Tiber valley, which was too swampy, but round through Sabine territory to Reate and thence by the Via Salaria: see Kromayer and Veith, Atlas, Röm. Abt., Blatt. 1. The numbers are also given as 70,000, against 40,000 Romans (cf. Diod., xiv, 113, 114; Plut., Camillus, 18). The battle is placed on the left or eastern bank of the Tiber by all ancient writers except Diodorus who places it on the right bank. The main objections to the right bank are (1) the Allia which gave its name to the battle is on the left bank, (2) a flight to Veii would be unlikely if the Romans were forced back on the right bank, (3) it is a priori probable that the Gauls would advance on the Roman side of the Tiber. Mommsen, followed by E. Meyer, argued for the right bank. See Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, iv, 449 ff. and Schachermeyr, Klio, 1929, 277 ff. who support the left bank. O. Skutsch, JRS, 1953, 77 f. and 1978, 93 f., has drawn attention to traces of a tradition (observable perhaps in Ennius, Annales, frg. 164, Tacitus, Ann., xi, 23, and in Silius Italicus, Pun., i, 525 f.; iv, 150 f.; vi, 555 f.) that the Capitol actually fell to the Gauls. This tradition, however, must be rejected. For traces of the devastation see L. G. Roberts, Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, 1918, 55 f. and E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, vol. iii (1960), index, s.v.Gallic invasion; they include a layer of roof-tiles on the site of the Comitium in the Forum. Livy (v, 40, 9 f) tells how in the evacuation of the sacra the Vestals had been helped by a certain Lucius Albinus, while Plutarch (Camill., 22, 4) says that Aristotle mentions a Lucius as the man who saved Rome. This is important both as confirming the tradition and also as showing that it is earlier than the later building up of Camillus as the saviour-hero of Rome.

17 SOME LEGENDS OR FACTS. As to the story of the senators, Ogilvie (Livy, 725 f.) is inclined to accept it as a deliberate act of devotio. He also points out that although geese were not sacred to Juno, birds were kept on the Capitol for purposes of divination (hens, used later, may only have been imported in the fourth century). The real reason for the withdrawal of the Gauls was probably a report that the Veneti were attacking Cisalpine Gaul (Polybius, ii, 18, 3), while Livy (v, 48, 1) refers to pestilence among the Gauls. Diodorus (xiv, 117, 7) records that the Gauls were defeated not by the Romans but by the Caeretans in Sabine territory and the gold was thus recovered. Livy, however, had no difficulty in turning Rome’s disaster to Rome’s glory: after Brennus’ insolence, Camillus appeared as a deus ex machina and routed the enemy. Livy puts in his mouth a fine speech (v, 51–4) appealing for the preservation of Rome and its glory; this may reflect fears at the end of the Republic that the capital of the Empire might be transferred from Rome either by Julius Caesar or Mark Antony, fears which Augustus finally allayed. Lastly, we may note that according to one tradition, Hellenic perhaps in origin, the friendly Greeks of Massilia had advanced the ransom money (Justin, xxiv, 4, 3).

18 THE ‘SERVIAN’ WALL. T. Frank (Roman Buildings of the Republic, 1924) had supposed that it was built by the Roman army with Veientane captives serving as quarrymen. But see G. Säflund, Le mura di Roma repubblicana (1932); Nash, Pict. Dict. Anc. Rome, ii, 104 ff. (with bibliography); Roma Medio Repubblicana. Aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli iv e iii a.C. (1973). However, the quarry-marks on the wall seem now to be archaic Latin and not Greek: see F. Castagnoli, Stud. Rom., 1974, 431, n. 14, J. Reynolds, JRS 1976, 177.

19 THE WARS. Accepted in general by e.g. L. Homo, CAH, vii, ch. xviii; rejected by Beloch (Röm. Gesch., 319).

20 ETRUSCAN CONTACTS. In I rapporti romano-ceriti (1960) M. Sordi, who has tried to distinguish traces of Etruscan historiography in the surviving tradition, finds strong Etruscan influences in Rome in these years, arising from friendship with Caere. This friendship is placed in a wider setting: it helped to counter Rome’s weakness in Latium, to check the expansionist policy of Dionysius of Syracuse into Italy, to contain Gallic threats, to support Rome’s expeditions to Sardinia and Corsica, and to promote friendship with Massilia and the Carthaginian treaty of 348, while internally in Rome a pro-Etruscan plebeian group was strengthened and supported the Licinian reforms. Such a reconstruction, even if the evidence is too weak to give it full support, at least emphasizes the widening horizon that Rome was being forced to face (though Etruscan influence on Roman politics at home is much less likely). But some of the items in Rome’s alleged overseas interest at this time are somewhat suspect: attempts to found colonies in Corsica (attested by Theophrastus, Hist. Plant., v, 8, 2, at some unnamed date, but before he wrote in the late fourth century) and in Sardinia c. 377 BC (Diod., xv, 27, 4), and the treaty of alliance with Massilia which Justin (lxiii, 5, 10) set as early as 386. Rome’s supposed growing Mediterranean interests, arising from her friendship with Etruscan Caere, as expounded by M. Sordi, are taken seriously by J. Heurgon, Rise of R. 183 ff.

21 VOLSCIAN DEFEATS. Beloch (Röm. Gesch., 315 ff.) regards the victory of 389 as a fictitious counterblast to the battle of Allia, and those of 386 and 381 as reduplications of that of 389.

22 CAERE. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 53 ff.; De Sanctis, SR, ii, 256 ff.; Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 363 ff. For a defence of a grant in 386 see M. Sordi, I rapporti romano-ceriti (1960), 36 ff.; W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), 45 ff. A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), i, 410 ff. and P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower(1971), 515 ff. give full discussions and follow Beloch in dating civitas sine suffragio to 274–273. For the wider implications of Rome’s relations with Caere see n. 20 above.

23 FURTHER GALLIC RAIDS. Polybius (relying on Fabius Pictor) records that in 357 some Gauls reached the Alban Mount unopposed and that in 346 or 345 they returned to the attack but withdrew when challenged by the Roman army; Livy (drawing upon later annalists) attributes a Roman victory to Camillus’ son in 349 when the picturesque incident of the intervention of the raven (corvus) on behalf of M. Valerius Corvus took place. Perhaps the events recorded in 349 and 346 refer to one affair, while Livy’s raid of 360 may be equated with the Polybian incident of 357.

24 SABELLIAN CAMPANIA. For the occupation of Campania by the Sabellians see T. J. Cornell, Museum Helveticum, 1974, 193 ff.

25 RAIDS ON CENTRAL ITALY. In 384 Dionysius I raided Pyrgi and sacked the rich Etruscan temple of Leucothea or Eileithyia (Diodorus, xv, 14). Traces of his raid survive: see Arch. Class 1957, 213. There seems no good reason to doubt Livy’s references (vii, 25, 4; 26, 13) to raids in Latium in 349.

26 THE SAMNITES. On their culture and history see E. T. Salmon’s standard work, Samnium and the Samnites (1967). M. Sordi, Roma e i Sanniti nel IV secolo A.C. (1969) takes full note of the ‘international’ background, but is speculative, not least in chronological reconstruction (cf. J. Pinsent, JRS, 1971, 271 f.).

27 ROMAN VICTORIES? The capture of Sora on the Upper Liris and the victory over the Aurunci attributed to 345 (Livy, vii, 28) are probably anticipations of the events of 314: see De Sanctis, SR, ii, 266.

28 THE FIRST SAMNITE WAR. F. E. Adcock, who rejects the war, writes (CAH, vii, 588) that to accept it one would have to postulate ‘folly in the Romans, blindness in the Latins, a short memory for benefits in the Campanians and a short memory for injuries in the Samnites’. De Sanctis (ii, 269 ff.), however, accepts the war as historical in outline; though rejecting the alleged deditio of the Campanians to Rome, he believes in a Romano-Campanian alliance and in the two Roman victories at Suessula and Mt Gaurus, but he rejects the battle at Saticula as an anticipation of Caudium. If the war is accepted, Rome’s motives may include a desire to get a foothold in the rear of the Volsci, Aurunci and discontented Latins, to win control of one of the wealthiest cities in Italy and to prevent the Samnites from strengthening their position in Campania: so S. W. Spaeth, The Causes of Wars, 343–265 (1926), 20. The historicity of the war is also defended by E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (1967), 195 ff. (cf. also A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1943, 21 ff.) and E. S. Staveley, Historia, 1959, 419 ff. Staveley believes that behind Rome’s desire to extend her influence southwards into Campania lay a growing interest in trade and industry, and that this Campanian policy was promoted by a group of men who included Q. Publilius Philo, M. Valerius Corvus, Sp. Postumius Albinus, C. Maenius and later the great Appius Claudius. On the other hand Salmon finds the advocates of this southern policy in a group of patricians, though with the support of some plebeian leaders (Samnium, 203 ff.). While it is clear that a group of senators successfully continued to advocate a more active policy towards Campania, the extent to which military motives were reinforced by commercial interests must remain doubtful.

29 CAMPANIAN POLICY. If the First Samnite War and the Roman-Campanian alliance are accepted, this sudden change in the Campanians has to be explained. De Sanctis (SR, ii, 274) suggests that as they were allies of the Roman-Latin alliance they had to choose between the two and chose to support the weaker side because they could thus hope to preserve their independence in the event of being victorious. The relations of Rome and Capua between 343 and 338 are discussed by A. Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1942, 88 ff., 1943, 21 ff. On early Capua see J. Heurgon, Capoue préromaine (1942). (On Republican Capua see M. Frederiksen (PBSR, 1954, 80 ff.), who also discusses the (Greek) origin of the Campanian cavalry, Dialoghi di Archeologia, 1968, 3 ff.)

30 THE LATIN WAR. Livy, viii, 3–14. See F. E. Adcock, CAH, vii, 589 ff. Livy’s account (vii, 42–viii, 1) of how the consul of 341 defeated the Volscians of Privernum who had raided Setia and Norba is probably an anticipation of the incident of 329. Manlius’ route in 340 is uncertain (cf. Salmon, Samnium, 207, n. 3); the route mentioned in the text is supported by Adcock (CAH, vii, 590), but rejected by De Sanctis (SR, ii, 276). The battle of Trifanum (whose precise site is unknown) was clearly fought not far from Capua. Diodorus (xvi, 90, 2) puts it near Suessa. Livy (vii, 6, 8; 11, 8) gives two battles, which should be reduced to one. Since Trifanum is unknown, perhaps the battle should be called that of Suessa. After the battle in 338 near Antium, the prows (rostra) of the ships of Antium were taken to adorn the Comitium in the Forum at Rome.


1 ALAND BILL IN 367 ? this is rejected by de sanctis, sr, ii, 216 ff. and Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 344, but defended by Münzer, PW, xiii s.v. Licinius Stolo, by H. Last, CAH, vii, 58 ff., by T. Frank, Econ. Survey, i 27 f. and by De Martino, St. d. cos. rom. 1, 396 ff. A clause limiting the number of sheep and cattle which could be kept on public pastures may have been included. The provision of a certain proportion of free labour is obviously an anticipation. G. Tibiletti in his discussion of possessio of ager publicus (Athenaeum. 1948, 173 ff., 1949, 1 ff., 1950, 245 ff.) accepts a Licinian law de modo agrorum but argues that it admitted plebeians to possessio; it is doubtful, however, whether this right was hitherto restricted by law to patricians. He also believes that a law establishing 500 iugera and limiting pasturage was passed after the Hannibalic War.

2 DEBT REMISSION ? This measure is defended by H. Last, CAH, vii, 543.

3 LEX POETELIA. See Cicero, de rep., ii, 59. E. Pais. Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto publico di Roma, iv, 44 ff.

4 LICINIAN-SEXTIAN ROGATIONS. On the reorganization of the Roman government in 366 see K. von Fritz, Historia, 1950, 1 ff., who emphasizes the influence of administrative needs.

5 CAMILLUS AND CONCORD. See A. Momigliano, Cl. Qu., 1943, 111 ff. (= Secondo Contrib., 89 ff.). The temple lay in the north-west corner of the Forum. The surviving remains belong to a restoration made by Tiberius and dedicated in AD 10.

6 PLEBEIAN CONSULS. Münzer’s view (Röm. Adelsparteien, 30) that at this time the consul-ship alternated annually between the Orders is improbable. However, possibly the Leges Liciniae-Sextiae had made one plebeian consulship merely permissive and it was not made obligatory until the Lex Genucia in 342.

7 PLEBISCITA. See above, p. 469 n. 20. Possibly it was enacted in 339 that the consul must bring plebiscita before the Comitia Centuriata for confirmation or rejection. It is not very likely that they were ever subject to the auctoritas patrum: cf. CAH, vii, 483.

8 NEWCOMERS. Cicero, pro Plancio, 19. Not all the cases advanced by Münzer (Röm. Adelsparteien, 46 ff.) are acceptable: see CAH, vii, 548; L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), 287 f.; F. Cassola, I Gruppi politici, (1962), 152 ff; A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy; (1965), 340 is more favourable.

9 APPIUS CLAUDIUS. Tradition is weighted against him: it may derive from Fabius Pictor whose clan was hostile to the Claudii. His censorship is dated to 312 by Livy (ix, 29, 6) and to 310 by Diodorus (xx, 36, 1). Livy records that he refused to resign his office; according to some annalists he was still censor when he was elected consul in 308. This hostile tradition may have arisen from doubt about the date of his office. He may also have suffered from the reputation of his tyrannical ancestor, the Decemvir. See A. Garzetti, Athenaeum, 1947, 175 ff.; E. S. Staveley, Historic 1959, 410 ff.; E. Ferenczy, From the Patrician State to the Patricio-Plebeian State (Budapest, 1976), 144–217; on his tribal reforms see also P. Fraccaro, Athenaeum, 1935, 150 ff. (= Opuscula, ii, 1957, 149 ff.) and L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), 11 and 133 ff. (Fraccaro has shown that the landless were enrolled in any tribe). Appius Claudius was a cultured patrician and a legal expert. The motives that led him to champion radical reform have been variously interpreted. Niebuhr regarded him as the leader of the patricians against the new patricio-plebeian nobility. Mommsen went to the other extreme and saw in him a democratic demagogue and would-be Caesar. To Garzetti he was a moderate who by building up his clientela hoped to succeed to the position that Publilius Philo had enjoyed. Staveley sees him as trying to change a basically agricultural community into one in which agriculture and commerce played an equal part. Ferenczy takes an even more radical view of Appius’ tribal reform: all citizens were allotted to their tribes, irrespective of their place of domicile or financial resources, both for political reasons and to strengthen the army.


1 NEAPOLIS. Livy (vii, 22–6) wrongly says that there were two cities in one at Naples. The quarter of the oldest inhabitants, Palaeopolis, corresponds with Pizzofalcone in the modern city (cf. Par. Pass., 1952, 250, 269 f.); on the city in general see M. A. Napoli, Napoli Graeco-romana (1959). Despite difficulties in Livy, it is too radical to reject the siege entirely (as is done by T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), 45). One fact at any rate is above suspicion: the resultant alliance with Rome. On Rome’s relations with Naples see also W. Hoffmann, Rom und die Griechische Welt im vierten Jahrhundert (1934), 21 ff.

2 LUCANIA AND APULIA. Livy (viii, 25, 3; 27, 2) says that Rome concluded alliances with the Lucani and Apuli. The Lucanian alliance should probably be rejected (Livy, viii, 27, 5–10, says the Lucanians later repudiated their treaty), while that with Apulia must remain uncertain (it is rejected by E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites(1967), 215). But cf. M. W. Frederiksen, JRS, 1968, 226, and R. M. Ogilvie, Cl. Rep., 1968, 331.

3 THE CAUDINE FORKS. The exact site of the disaster is uncertain. See Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, iv, 481 ff. and Atlas, Röm. Abt., col. 2 ff.; P. Sommella, Antichi campi di battaglia in Italia (1967), 49 ff. Three main sites have been suggested: (a) the pass between Arienzo and Arpaia, (b) the more open ground between Arpaia and Montesarchio, and (c) between S. Agata dei Goti (Saticula) and Moiano. (a) is traditional and the most probable (it contains a locality still named Forchia), and is supported by Kromayer and by Salmon (Samnium, 226); cf. D. Adamesteanu, Atti II Conv. di Studi sulla Magna Grecia (1963), 57; for (b) see De Sanctis, SR, ii, 307 ff.; (c) is advocated by F. E. Adcock,CAH, vii, 599.

4 PEACE OR WAR ? Livy’s story of the repudiation of the peace, which is probably based on the Senate’s attitude to the capitulation of Mancinus in Spain in 137 BC (p. 304), should be rejected. E. T. Salmon (JRS, 1929, 13) believes that in 318 the Romans prolonged the pax Caudina by forming a two-years’ truce with Samnium, as alleged by Livy (ix, 20). This truce, however, could have been invented by the annalists who rejected the pax Caudina in order to account for the peacefulness of these years. In any case the Second Samnite War (which was the First if the struggle of 343 is rejected) in practice consisted of two wars, from 326–321 and 310–304.

5 SATRICUM AND ARDEA. Livy (ix, 21) says the Romans attacked Saticula, but this has probably been confused with Satricum: see E. T. Salmon, TAPA, 1957, 99 ff. The raid on Ardea is recorded by Strabo (v, 232): traces of the catastrophe appear to survive: see Bollet. Stud. Mediterr., 1931, 15.

6 THE ETRUSCAN WAR. The accounts of these campaigns in Livy, ix, and Diodorus, xx, 35, 1–5; 44, 8–9, are full of difficulties which have led some historians to extreme scepticism: thus, e.g., Beloch Röm. Gesch. 413 ff.), rejects Fabius’ victory as a reduplication of the events of 295; he limits operations to a fight between Q. Aemilius and the Etruscans at Sutrium (Livy, ix, 37; Diod. xx, 35) and places the alliances with Cortona, etc. in 294 BC, with Camerinum and Ocriculum in 295. Such hypercriticism is unjustified. For a more balanced and moderate assessment, see W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), 49 ff. Unless the whole campaign of 311 is merely a doublet of that of 310, the Etruscan attack on Sutrium will have started in 311.

7 BOVIANUM. It is generally believed that there were two Samnite towns named Bovianum: B. Vetus and B. Pentrorum. The latter is modern Boiano, while the former has always been identified with Pietrabbondante. However, in the light of recent excavations at Pietrabbondante it has been suggested that this was not the site of Bovianum Vetus, which in fact may not have existed: see Salmon, Samnium, 13, n. Regarding the campaign of 305, Livy says (ix, 44) that the Romans penetrated to Bovianum; if this is accepted the site will in any case be that of Boiano. Diodorus on the other hand places the Roman success at Bola (an ancient Latin town of unknown site).

8 ROME AND ALEXANDER. Bruttians, Lucanians and Etruscans visited the court of Alexander the Great at Babylon. The story that the Romans also sent envoys (Pliny, NH, iii, 57) is probably rightly doubted by Arrian (vii, 15, 5–6). Alexander’s alleged idea of sending an expedition to Italy and the west (Diod., xviii, 4, 3) is also doubted by many, but in fact his final plans are simply not known: see E. Badian, Harvard Stud. Cl. Phil., 1967, 204. Later Romans probably believed in this threat and Livy patriotically argues that if he had invaded Italy, Alexander would have met the same fate as Pyrrhus (ix, 17). Strabo (v, 232) alleged that Alexander, and later Demetrius Poliorcetes, protested to Rome about Italian pirates; this may be true.

9 THE PHILINUS TREATY. Polybius (iii, 26, 3 f.) denied the assertion of the pro-Carthaginian historian, Philinus of Sicily, that there was a treaty between Rome and Carthage which forbade the Romans to enter Sicily and the Carthaginians Italy. If Philinus, however, was right (cf. A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), i, 543 ff.; R. E. Mitchell,Historia, 1971, 633 ff.), the treaty should probably be dated to 306. See further for its place in the context of Romano-Punic treaties pp. 160, 486.)

10 THE THIRD SAMNITE WAR. The theory of Beloch Röm. Gesch., 426 ff.), that the war of 298–290 was mainly fought against the Sabines rather than the Samnites and that the Roman tradition has confused the names, has not met with much support (cf. F. E. Adcock, CAH, vii, 615; Salmon, Samnium, 259). For the war see Salmon, op. cit., 255 ff. and, for Etruscan involvement, W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), 61 ff. The alleged capture of Bovianum by M. Fulvius in 298 is probably a duplicate of its capture in 305, while his alleged campaign in Etruria may be a duplicate of that in 295. The inscription on the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus claims that he ‘subdued all Lucania’ (Dessau, ILS, n. 1). A. La Regina (Dialoghi di Arch., 1968, 173 ff.) suggests that the Lucani conquered by him were a small northern group in the Sango valley in Samnium.

11 SENTINUM. Polybius (ii, 19) mentions only Samnites and Gauls. Livy (x, 27, 3) adds Etruscans and Umbrians (cf. Diod., xxi, 6); if true, their numbers are likely to have been small. Beloch naturally converts the Samnites into Sabines. The story of the devotio of Decius to the Gods Below is told of three Decii: his father at Veseris in 340, and his son at Asculum in 279. The matter is uncertain. Beloch would even rob this Decius of his death at Sentinum and believes that he fought later in Samnium. Sentinum was situated at Sassoferrato, to the north of which the battle is placed by P. Sommella, Antichi campi di battaglia in Italia (1967). A contemporary Greek historian, Duris, put the casualties at 100,000! (Diod, xxi, 6, 1).

12 MANIUS CURIUS DENTATUS AND 284 BC. He had terminated the Third Samnite War in 290 and was a man of considerable distinction: on him see G. Forni, Athenaeum, 1953, 170–240. On the events of 284 see Polybius, ii, 19; Walbank, Polybius, i, 188 ff.; E. T. Salmon, Cl. Ph., 1935, 23 ff.; W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria (1971), 79 f.; J. H. Corbett, Historia, 1971, 656 ff.; M. G. Morgan, CI. Qu., 1972, 309. Harris argues strongly (op. cit., 85 ff.) that Rome’s final post-war settlements with the Etruscan (and Umbrian) cities were based on foedera (not indutiae).

13 THE TARENTINE TREATY. Its date is uncertain, whether 348 (Mommsen), 332 (M. Cary, J. Philology, 1920, 165 ff), 315 (Burger, Der Kampf zwischen Rom und Samnium (1898)), or 303 (De Sanctis and Beloch).

14 AGATHOCLES. During his intervention in Italy the tyrant of Syracuse engaged Samnite, Etruscan, Celtic and Campanian mercenaries, but it is uncertain whether he had any relations with Rome, though this is not impossible. Beloch (Griechische Geschichte, IV, i, 205) regarded Venusia as a Roman outpost against Agathocles.

15 ROMAN POLICY. Some (e.g. T. Frank, CAH, vii, 641) have attributed Rome’s policy of intervention in the south to the plebeian leaders, now strengthened by the Lex Hortensia. E. T. Salmon (Samnium, 281 ff.), however thinks that the ‘southern lobby’ in the Senate comprised, as earlier, a faction of the patricio-plebeian nobility, and included Ap. Claudius Caecus, P. Cornelius Rufinus, P. Valerius Corvus, L. Papirius Cursor, and C. Aelius (who proposed that aid should be sent to Thurii in 286/285). See also F. Cassola, I gruppi politici Romani (1962), 159 ff.; he argues for a sharp division of interest between those nobles who championed the rural plebs and those who backed the merchant class, thus probably overemphasizing economic influences in Roman policy. R. E. Mitchell stresses the possible effect on Carthage of Rome’s involvement in southern affairs from 326 onwards (Historia, 1971. 633 ff.).

16 PYRRHUS. In Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus there is a substratum of sound material which he derived from the historian Hieronymus of Cardia, who in turn made use of Pyrrhus’ own Memoirs. A detailed modern account is given by P. Levêque, Pyrrhos (1957). G. Nenci, Pirrho, aspirazioni egemoniche ed equilibrio mediterraneo (1953), is primarily concerned with Pyrrhus’ policy: Nenci believes that Pyrrhus was supporting a supposed anti-Carthaginian policy of the Ptolemies and that therefore the primary target of his western adventure was Carthage rather than Rome. But see J. V. A. Fine, AJ Phil., 1957, 108 ff. It is not possible to discuss here the many controversial details raised by Pyrrhus’ battles in Italy, but on one aspect of these battles (his use of ‘Lucanian oxen’, as the Romans nicknamed his elephants) see H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (1974), ch. iv (with notes); his Indian elephants are depicted on a painted dish, on a coin of Tarentum and on early Italian aes signatum (cf. Scullard, plates vii a, xiv a and b).

17 PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. These are a matter of dispute. The main possibilities are that Cineas went to Rome (a) in 280, (b) in 279 after the battle of Asculum, (c) twice, in 280 and 279 (cf. W. Judeich, Klio, 1926, 1 ff.), (d) once only in 280, but that peace negotiations were conducted in Campania early in 278 (G. N. Cross, Epirus (1932), 115 ff.). See further, A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 1943, 92 ff.; P. Levêque, Pyrrhos (1957), 341 ff., 404 ff.; M. R. Lefkowitz, Harvard St. Cl. Ph., 1959, 147 ff.

18 THE ROMANO-CARTHAGINIAN TREATY. Polybius, iii, 25. See Walbank, Polybius, i, 349 ff.; P. Levêque, Pyrrhos (1957), 409 ff. The treaty is usually dated 279/8. E. Will (Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (1966), i, 106 ff.), however, argues for 280, while Nenci, Historia, 1958, 261 ff., believes in two agreements, in 280 and 278 (but see Lefkowitz, Harvard St. Cl. Ph., 1959, 170). According to R. E. Mitchell (Historia, 1971, 646 ff.) the essence of the negotiations of 279/8 was to reaffirm the Philinus treaty and to arrange conditions under which any possible joint action might be taken against Pyrrhus (not with him, as often assumed). This interpretation of Polybius (iii, 25) is also reached by K. Meister, Riv. Fil, 1970, 408 ff. and in Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden, 1975).
    If the Romans received any financial help from Carthage, they may have used some to mint their first silver coinage, just as earlier they may have used some of the vast amount of bronze that they received in 290 at the end of the Third Samnite War for producing their heavy cast aes grave.

19 PYRRHUS’ NAVAL DEFEAT. This battle was interpreted by Beloch (Griechische Gesch., IV, i, 556) and Cross (Epirus, 120) as an attempt by the Carthaginians in pursuance of their treaty of 278 to relieve Rhegium, which they suppose was being blockaded by Pyrrhus immediately after the king had landed in Italy.

20 BENEVENTUM. The battle was traditionally fought at Beneventum. Beloch (Gr. Gesch., IV, ii, 476 and Röm. Gesch., 466 ff.), however, questions this and argues in favour of a site near Paestum, the Campi Arusini (cf. Orosius, iv, 2, 3). The idea that the Romans faced Pyrrhus so far north scarcely squares with the traditional account of their recent victories in the south.

21 LOCRI. Twenty-seven bronze tablets, recently discovered, record annual loans made by the temple of Zeus to the city; they include expenses to meet the demands during Pyrrhus’ occupation: see A. de Franciscis, Klearchos, 1961, 17 ff.; 1962, 66 ff.; 1964, 73 ff.; 1965, 21 ff.; Atti d. Congr. intern, di Numismatica, 1961 (1965), 21 ff. Locri celebrated her return to Rome by issuing coins which depicted Rome crowned by Pistis (= Fides, Loyalty).

22 THE CAMPANIANS AT RHEGIUM. The date, nature and number of this garrison are uncertain. They were sent by Rome perhaps in 282 and rebelled in 280. Polybius (i, 7, 7) gives 4,000, but other authors differ (confusion may have arisen from the 500 men sent in 278). They were Campanians, under a Campanian commander. The story is told from the Roman point of view (deriving from Fabius Pictor), but some have suspected that Rome was not so innocent or the Campanians so guilty as suggested. Thus F. Cassola (I gruppi politici romani, 171 ff.) even argues that Rome, suspecting disloyalty in Rhegium, carried out a preventative massacre. Cf. also A. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy(1965), i, 101 f. For discussion of sources see Walbank, Polybius, i, 52 f.

23 VOLSINII. A recently found inscription, from S. Omobono in Rome, commemorates the dedication of the booty captured in 264 at Volsinii by M. Fulvius Flaccus: M. FOLV (IO. Q. F. COS) OL. D. VOLS (NIO). CAP (TO). See L’ Année Epigraph., 1964, 72; J. Reynolds, JRS, 1971, 138. Cf. Pliny, NH, xxxiv, 34.

24 TWELVE LATIN COLONIES. In future Latin colonies the ius migrandi was probably limited by the proviso that any Latin settling in Rome and claiming citizenship must leave a son behind him; this measure would check any decline in Latin manpower and thus strengthen the Confederacy. A group of twelve Latin colonies is sometimes referred to as having ius Arimini or the ius duodecim coloniarum (Cicero, pro Caecina, 102). See Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn. 2, 102 ff.; E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization (1969), 92 ff.; and A. Bernardi, Studia Ghisleriana, Ser. I, 1948, 237 ff. who suggests that the twelve colonies with ius Arimini were the Latin colonies founded in and after 268, Ariminum to Aquileia, which preserved some of the prerogatives of Roman citizenship as ius conubii and commercii (and with no restriction on ius migrandi).

25 MUNICIPIA. So A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 59 ff. contra H. Rudolf, Stadt and Staat in röm. Italien (1935). On the word municipium, J. Pinsent, Cl. Qu., 1954, 158 ff. On the municipal organization of Italy see also A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, i, 189 ff., 397 ff.

26 MILITARY SERVICE. Allied troops were called up in accordance with a roll (e formula togatorum) kept at Rome. This was either a list of the maximum number of troops that the Romans might levy from each ally (so Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, i, 424 ff.) or a sliding scale, which Rome could vary, indicating that each ally must supply a fixed number of men for each legion that Rome raised for any given year (so P. A. Brunt, Manpower, 545 ff., who also discusses the varying proportion of allies to Romans, 677 ff. Cf. also V. Ilari, Gli Italici nelle strutture militari romane (1974)).

27 POPULATION. On these figures, which were naturally only general calculations, see Beloch, Griech. Gesch., IV, i, 662 and Bevölkerung d. Gr.-Röm. Welt (1886), esp. 367: De Sanctis, SR, ii, 425 and 462 ff., III, i, 331; T. Frank, CAH, vii, 811 and Econ. Survey, i, 56 ff. In addition there were the slaves whose numbers even at this early period cannot have been inconsiderable (p. 358). A. Afzelius, Die römische Eroberung Italiens, 340–264 v. Chr., (1942), has examined the population of Italy and attributes Rome’s successful conquest of Italy mainly to her growing superiority in manpower and to her political skill in applying this to the best advantage. See too P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower, 225 BC AD 14 (1971), which though concerned with later periods is especially relevant to this book for the years 225–146 BC.


1 CARTHAGE. On Carthage and Carthaginian civilization see S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord, 8 vols (1914–28); O. Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager, i–ii (1879– 96), iii (by U. Kahrstedt, 1913); B. H. Warmington, Carthage, edn 2, (1969); G. and C. Charles-Picard, Daily Life in Carthage (1961) and The Life and Death of Carthage (1968); G. Picard, Carthage (1964).
    The date of its foundation is still uncertain. The earliest deposit of proto-Corinthian pottery found in the sanctuary of Tanit belongs to c. 725 BC, while some Punic pottery is probably slightly older. This comes within sight of the traditional date of 814, and of course earlier tombs may still await discovery. See also p. 518 n. 19.

2 TARTESSUS. A description of the Spanish coast and Tartessus is given in Avienus’ Ora Maritima which embodies the Periplus (sailing directions) of a sailor from Massilia about 520 BC. A flourishing trade was carried on with Brittany, the British Isles and the northern coasts in tin and amber, while a high degree of culture was attained. Tartessus was probably the biblical Tarshish. See A. Schulten, Tartessos (1922) and CAH, vii, ch. xxiv; J. M. Blasquez, Tartessos (1968); A. Arribas, The Iberians. On Phoenician influence in this area see above, p. 442 n. 19. The destruction carried out by the Carthaginians c. 500 BC was so effective that later writers confused Tartessus and Maenace with Gades and Malaca. Archaeological evidence attests Punic influence through Andalusia as far north as the Sierra Morena from c. 500 BC. Whether this involved political domination (as Schulten believed on the strength of Polybius’ remark (ii, l) that Hamilcar ‘recovered’ (anektato) the district in 237) or merely commercial domination is uncertain. Any direct control would probably be confisned to coastal areas and would weaken inland.

3 THE EARLY TREATIES BETWEEN ROME AND CARTHAGE. The contents of the treaties between Rome and Carthage before the First Punic War have been briefly summarized in the text above (p. 160), but their date and number is a matter of great dispute. Polybius (iii, 22 ff.) quotes three and declares that there were only three: these may be called P1, P2 and P3. P1 is dated 508–507, P2 is undated, P3 belongs to the Pyrrhic War in 279–278. Polybius also rejects as false the statement of the pro-Carthaginian Sicilian historian Philinus that there was another treaty which forbade the Romans to enter Sicily and the Carthaginians Italy. Diodorus (xvi, 69) gives only one treaty before that of 279; this he said was the first treaty. According to his chronological system it is placed in 344–343, although this may perhaps be corrected to 348. Livy records a treaty in 348, the fact of a Punic embassy at Rome in 343, another treaty in 306 and again in 279.
    The first main problem is the date of P1. The Polybian date of 508 is defended concisely by H. Last (CAH, vii, 859 ff.). The conditions implied by the treaty and their considerable difference from those of P2, as well as the archaic language of the treaty (Polybius says that Roman scholars found it difficult to decipher), point to the sixth-century date. If this is accepted, P2 may be dated in 348 in accordance with Livy’s first treaty.
    Many scholars, however, reject the early date and place P1 in 348. In that case P2 is placed either in 343 (on the assumption that the Carthaginian ambassadors received a treaty in return for their complimentary gift of a golden crown weighing 25 lb) or in 306 (on the assumption that conditions had not altered sufficiently between 348 and 343 to justify a fresh treaty). However, the situation in Italy after 310 militates against placing P2 in the last decade of the fourth century. The date of P3 is not disputed.
    The second main problem is whether Polybius’ statement that there were only three treaties must be accepted and whether his denial of the treaty recorded by Philinus is valid. Both these points, together with the condition of the Roman state archives, their accessibility, completeness and reliability, are discussed by M. Cary (‘A Forgotten Treaty between Rome and Carthage’, JRS, 1919, 67–77) who makes out a very strong case for accepting the Philinus treaty and placing it in 306; (P1 is then assigned to 348 and P2 to 343). It is argued that Polybius probably had no first-hand acquaintance with the Roman archives which would hardly contain a complete collection of Rome’s past treaties. The Philinus treaty is also indicated by Servius (Ad Aen., iv, 628) who probably follows a tradition independent of Philinus. Further, the treaty of 279 implies that certain barriers existed which precluded the Carthaginians from landing in Italy and the Romans from crossing to Sicily; it thus confirms the existence of an earlier treaty which put these territories out of bounds. Polybius denied its existence, but then his pro-Roman sources had good reason to overlook it. The ban may have been military and political rather than commercial: compare the Ebro treaty which forbade the Carthaginians to cross the Ebro, but only ἐπὶ πολέμω (Pol., iii, 30, 3). Cary, however, later became more sceptical about the Philinus treaty (A History of Rome (1954), ch. xii, n. 8) and was inclined to follow F. Schachermeyr (Rheinisches Museum, 1930, 350 ff.), who believes it is a misunderstanding of the pact of 279 which he assumes to have been a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’: the Carthaginians received an informal assurance of a free hand in Sicily. Walbank (Polybius, i, 354) thinks it may have been an unpublished agreement toward the end of the war with Pyrrhus.
    It is impossible here to enter into details or to refer to all modern theories, e.g. the elaborate suggestion of A. Piganiol, (Musée belge, 1923, 177) that Polybius has inverted the order of the first two treaties and that P2 belongs to 348 and P1 to c. 327. The present writer is inclined to accept the Philinus treaty of 306, but to place P2 in 348 and P1 in 508. Once it is admitted that the number of treaties has not been irrevocably fixed by Polybius’ ex cathedra statement, it is impossible to determine the precise number. It is probable that Carthage had treaties with Etruscan Rome and would seek to maintain relations with the new Republic. If it is thought that the phrase ‘quarto renovatum’ which Livy applies to 279 means literally ‘renewed a fourth time’, then a treaty may well be placed in 343, making five in all: in 508, 348, 343, 306 and 279. But more important than the precise number is the fact that the early treaties were commercial, and the last two political.
    Amid a great number of recent discussions see Walbank, Polybius, i, 337 ff.; ii, 635; iii (1979), 766 f.; and A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), 519 ff. For a recent reaffirmation that the Fair Promontory was west and not east of Carthage see R. Werner, Chiron, 1975, 5, 21 ff. On the identification hangs the area forbidden to Roman shipping: it was probably west of Carthage and included the northern shore of Africa from Tunisia to Morocco rather than east (which would have interdicted the Syrtes).
    For a full discussion of the evidence and modern theories see Walbank, Polybius i (1957), 337 ff. and Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), i, 579 ff. The latter is able to take account of some views (e.g. of R. Werner, Der Beginn der römischen Republik (1963)) published later than Walbank’s discussion. See also on the first two treaties K. E. Petzold, Aufstieg NRW, I, i, 364 ff., and on the last two K. Meister, Riv. Fil., 1970, 408 ff. and Historische Kritik bei Polybios (1975) and R. E. Mitchell, Historia, 1971, 633 ff. Mitchell, like Toynbee, accepts the Philinus treaty (and incidentally that of the early Republic); he also sees the treaties of 306 and 279/8 as proofs of Rome’s growing strength rather than of weakness or disinterest, a strength which provoked Punic suspicions.

4 THE CARTHAGINIAN NOBILITY. De Sanctis, SR, i, 50, 54 argued for an ever-open caste, Groag (Hannibal als Politiker (1929), 19) for a closed caste. The nobility becoming interested in land: see U. Kahrstedt, Geschichte der Karthager (1913), 138 ff., 582 ff. and Cavaignac, Histoire de l’Antiquité, iii, 162 ff.; criticized by Groag, op. cit., 18 f.

5 CARTHAGINIAN FINANCE. The calculations of Kahrstedt (op. cit., 133 ff.) have been rejected by De Sanctis, SR, III, i, 81.

6 CARTHAGINIAN RELIGION. Many personal names imply the favour of Ba’al: Adherbal, Hasdrubal, Hannibal. Urns have been found in the Sanctuary (Tophet) of Tanit containing the calcined bones of young children, probably victims ‘passed through the fire’. See B. H. Warmington, Carthage, edn 2, (1969), 147 ff.

7 QUOTATION. From F. N. Pryce, Universal History of the World, iii, 1942.

8 THE TARENTINE INCIDENT. This is not recorded by Polybius, but by Livy, Epit., xiv (cf. xxi, 10, 8); Diod, frg. 43, 1; Orosius, iv, 3, 1 and others. It has been rejected completely by Beloch (Griech. Gesch., IV, i, 642); Frank (CAH, vii, 656) rejects the implication of Punica fides, on the ground of Polybius’ silence and the improbability that Carthage would risk war with Rome for the sake of one Italian harbour – but she did later for one Sicilian town, while Polybius, who did not record the Roman siege of Tarentum, might overlook an incident which did not technically infringe existing treaties and so could not honourably be cited as an act of Punic treachery.

9 WAR MOTIVES. Rome’s difficulty in maintaining a balance of power: see De Sanctis, SR, III, i, 101. Popular leaders; T. Frank, CAH, vii, 670 f. If, in line with the Philinus treaty, Rome had obligations not to intervene in Sicily, no reference to this would be likely to be enshrined in the work of Fabius; and the official account current in Polybius’ day would not paint Rome as a treaty-breaker. If Polybius found any such reference in his pro-Carthaginian sources it would automatically be rejected together with the Philinus treaty. See also F. Hampl, ANRW, I, i, 412 ff. A. Heuss (Hist. Zeitschrift, 1949, 457 ff.) (= Der erste punische Krieg, edn 3, (1970) believed that Carthage had no hostile designs on Italy, and that by intervening at Messana the Romans would face Syracuse rather than the Carthaginians as their primary enemy. In line with this J. Molthagen has argued (Chiron, 1975, 89 ff.) that the Romans feared the expanding interest of Syracuse (not of Carthage) in southern Italian affairs: at first the war was essentially between Syracuse and Rome, and only in the winter of 263/2, when the Romans showed that they did not intend to leave Sicily, did the Carthaginians take effective hostile action. This was not the view of Polybius and it can hardly be doubted that the Romans did declare war on Carthage in 264.

10 THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR. The part played by C. Claudius, a military tribune, is doubted by some: cf. Walbank, Polybius, i, 61. Polybius (1, 11, 11) places the embassy sent by Appius Claudius after his arrival in Sicily, but see Diodorus xxiii, 1, 3 (cf. Livy, xxxi, 1, 4). Ennius refers bluntly to the fact: ‘Appius indixit Karthaginiensibus’. T. Frank suggests that Claudius went beyond the Senate’s wishes and was for this reason denied a triumph: but the Senate showed no sloth in prosecuting the war, and it is not certain that the tradition of Claudius’ success is correct: see next note. On the problems of the formal declaration of war see J. W. Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic (Collection Latomus, vol. 149; 1976), 119 ff.
    Basic for the study of the Punic Wars are Walbank, Polybius, i, and De Sanctis, SR iii. Two general accounts are D. R. Dudley, Rome against Carthage (1971) and R. M. Errington, The Dawn of Empire: Rome’s Rise to World Power (1972).

11 APPIUS CLAUDIUS. Polybius records that Claudius’ two engagements were successful and that afterwards he marched against Syracuse; this march is probably a doublet of that of Valerius in 263 (Beloch, Griech. Gesch., IV, ii, 533 ff.). Polybius rejects the account of Philinus, according to whom the two Roman engagements were unsuccessful, because he cannot explain the retreat of the Syracusans on this evidence. Polybius’ authority is not unimpeachable: he admittedly gives only a sketch of the First Punic War. Probably both sides claimed the victory and the issue was uncertain. The suggestion of De Sanctis (SR. III, i, 109 ff.) that Hiero did not retreat till 263 when faced by the increased forces of Rome is attractive; the failure of Claudius would explain much: the Senate’s displeasure with him, the discontent of the people at the conduct of the war, and the reason why it was his successor Valerius that won the title ‘Messalla’ (the first Roman to adopt such a ‘triumphal’ place name).

12 THE TWO NAVIES, (a) Speed of Roman construction. The timbers of the Punic ship found off Marsala (see e below) were numbered by letters and suggest mass-production. The keel was of maple, the ribs of oak and the planking of pine; it was carvel built, i.e the outside planks were assembled first and the ribs inserted afterwards; the hull was covered with lead sheeting and the ram with bronze. A bag of cannabis was found, suggesting the need to relieve the hardships of rowing, (b) Triremes and quinqueremes. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (1930), held that the trireme did not have three banks of oars, but oars in groups of three, with one man to each oar; the quinquereme had five men to each out-rigged oar, but like the trireme only one bank of oars. Against this view of the trireme is that of J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams (Greek Oared Ships, 900–322 BC (1968), 169 ff.) who believe that it was rowed by oarsmen at three levels (cf. Morrison, Mariner’s Mirror, 1941, 14 ff., Cl. Qu., 1947, 122). A less probable arrangement for the quinquereme is a group of three men to an upper oar and two to a lower. (c) The corvus. Tarn (op. cit., 149) believes that the corvus, as described by Polybius (i, 22) would have caused a quinquereme to turn turtle: it was rather an improved grapnel. Per contra J. H. Thiel (Studies on the History of Roman Sea-power(1954), 432 ff.) argues that the ‘crow’ was a boarding-bridge, that its use was abandoned between 255 and 249 because of the resultant naval losses suffered through storms, and that its revival was impossible when a lighter type of quinquereme was built from 242 onwards; see also H. T. Wallinga, The Boarding-bridge of the Romans (1956). (d) Size of fleets. See Tarn, JHS, 1907, 48 ff. and Thiel, op. cit.; there was a tradition that by a supreme effort Carthage could raise 200 vessels, and this is probably correct; the limitation would be imposed by the difficulty of raising crews, not of building ships, (e) Surviving ships. A Punic warship has recently been found off Marsala in western Sicily and has been ‘excavated’; see H. Frost, Int. J. Naut. Arch., 1972, 113 ff., Mariner’s Mirror, 1973, 229 f. A Roman mid-third-century ship has been found off Terrasini, west of Palermo; it contained amphorae, but also two Roman swords (a merchantman with a military guard aboard or a troop transport?): see V. Giustolisi, Le navi romane di Terrasini(Palermo, 1975). (f) Early representations. The prow of a ship became the normal type of the obverse of the Roman bronze coinage, which was probably first issued between 260 and 235; it may have commemorated a specific battle or Rome’s naval success in the war as a whole. A Punic ship is depicted on the coinage issued by the Carthaginians (Mago?) in Spain (see, e.g., Scullard, Scipio Africanus (1970), pl. 14).

13 DUILIUS. An imperial copy of the laudatory inscription on the column still survives (Dessau, ILS, 65). Both it and the Fasti Triumphales imply that the liberation of Segesta preceded the battle of Mylae; Polybius and Zonaras invert the order. The Carthaginian naval defeat recorded by Polybius (i, 21, 11) might be a doublet of the battle of Mylae (from Philinus’ account).

14 ECNOMUS. The formation of the Roman fleet is uncertain. Polybius says that it advanced in wedge shape, the first two lines forming the spearhead, the second two forming a double base to the triangle. This formation is accepted by Kromayer (Atlas, col. 15), but is rejected by De Sanctis (SR, III, i, 140 f.) and Tarn (Hellenistic Military Developments, 151) who says that it is ‘quite impossible; no captains, let alone Roman captains, could have kept station. What happened was that the Roman centre pressed forward.’ If the first two squadrons sailed in line ahead and then deployed into line abreast, or if they sailed in line abreast and then advanced with all speed, so that the swifter ships of the centre got ahead of the wings – then, in either case, from the enemy’s point of view they would appear in wedge-shape formation. See further, Walbank, Polybius, i, 83 ff.

15 REGULUS. The story that Regulus was later sent on parole to Rome to negotiate, that he refused to advise the Senate to accept conditions and returned voluntarily to Carthage to suffer torture and death, became a national epic (see e.g. Horace, Odes, iii, 5) but its historicity is doubtful. It could have been invented to counterbalance the story that he died in captivity and that his widow tortured some Carthaginian prisoners in Rome: the barbarity of the Carthaginians was invented to exculpate the barbarity of this Roman matron. T. Frank (Cl. Phil., 1926, 311 ff.), however, defends the peace mission, and although Polybius almost certainly did not know the Regulus story, it is as least as old as the annalist Sempronius Tuditanus (Aul. Gell., NA, vii, 4, 1) who was quaestor in 145 and consul in 129; according to him the embassy was concerned only with an exchange of prisoners, though Livy (epit., xviii) adds peace. If the story was completely without foundation, would a man of affairs like Sempronius have recorded it? The history of the ‘Regulus legend’ is discussed by E. R. Mix, Marcus Atilius Regulus, Exemplum Historicum (1970).

16 NAVAL NUMBERS. See W. W. Tarn, JHS, 1907, 48 ff. At the Hermaean Promontory Polybius gives: Roman fleet 350, Romans capture 114; this does not square with his account of the losses off Camerina. Diodorus says that the Romans captured 24; this, however, would involve accepting Polybius’ figures of 350 for the Roman fleet, which is on other grounds thought to be too high. In the storm it is suggested by T. Frank (CAH, vii, 685) that 15 per cent of Italy’s able-bodied men went down. This stupendous figure however, presupposes that all the rowers were free men.

17 METELLUS AND THE ELEPHANTS. On the date see M. G. Morgan, Cl. Qu., 1972, 121 ff. After the battle Metellus transported, with difficulty, the captured elephants to Rome, where they were displayed in the Circus, thus giving the Roman people their first sight of African elephants (those of Pyrrhus having been Indian). Thereafter the Caecilii Metelli adopted the elephant as a kind of family badge, which was often used on coins issued by members of the family who became mint-masters. See H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (1974), 151 f.

18 HEIRKTE. The site of Heirkte has been sought on Mte Pellegrino, just north of Palermo, or Mte Castellaccio to the west; De Sanctis (SR, III, i, 181) argues for the former, Kromayer, Schlachtfelder III, i, 4 ff. for the latter. V. Giustoli, Le navi romane di Terrasini e l’avventura di Amilcare sul Monte Heirkte (Palermo, 1975), has found traces of a camp on Monte Pecoraro (west of Mte Castellaccio), with associated pottery of the first half of the third century; this he suggests was Heirkte.

19 ROME’S ALLIES. It is noteworthy that in 242 despite wartime difficulties Rome allowed two of her foederati in Italy (Naples and Elea) and two Sicilian cities to receive invitations to a festival of Asclepius in Cos: see H. Bengtson, Historia, iii (1954–5), 456 ff.


1 PROVINCIAL LAND. See T. Frank, JRS, 1927, 141 ff., who shows that no theory of state ownership of provincial land was recognized till after the reign of Claudius. Although the lawyer Gaius asserted that the dominium in all provincial soil was vested in the Roman people or the emperor, this was a late theory and had little practical importance: cf. A. H. M. Jones, JRS, 1941, 26 ff. (= Studies in Roman Government and Law (1960), 141 ff.). On the Lex Hieronica and the taxation of Sicily see especially J. Carcopino, La Loi de Hiéron et les Romains (1919).

2 THE TRUCELESS WAR. Polybius (iii, 75 ff.) gives a full account, on which Flaubert based his vivid historical novel, Salammbô. The mercenaries in effect established a separate state, since they issued a considerable coinage, including gold (see E. S. G. Robinson, Num. Chron., 1943, 1 ff.; 1953, 27 ff.; 1956, 9 ff.; Jenkins and Lewis,Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins (1963), 43); after using Carthaginian types, they invented their own: Head of Hercules/Prowling lion, inscribed ‘of the Libyans’. The site of Prione is uncertain: Veith, Schlachtfelder, III, ii, 550 ff., located it near Sidi Jedidi not far from Hammanet, but this is doubtful. The site too of the final battle is unknown: Polybius, whose account is pro-Barcid, deals summarily with the campaign in which Hanno took a prominent part.

3 WAR ON SARDINIA. On the adaptation of the fetial procedure for the declaration of war against overseas enemies see F. W. Walbank, Cl. Phil., 1949, 15 ff. and J. W. Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic, Collection Latomus, vol. 149 (1976).

4 ROMAN PRETEXT. Cf. Appian, Lib., 5; Iber., 4 and Polybius, iii, 28, 3; this tradition may derive from Fabius, while the censure of Rome which Polybius repeats may come from the writer who continued the work of Philinus.

5 REFORM OF THE COMITIA CENTURIATA. This reform is described by Cicero (de rep., ii), Livy (i, 43, 12) and Dionysius (iv, 21, 3), but much remains obscure, especially regarding its nature, purpose and date.

·         (a) Nature. Either the centuries remained at 193 or else all 5 classes were made into 70 centuries, giving (with equites, etc.) 373 centuries. Mommsen, who believed in 373 centuries, thought that they were grouped into 193 ad hoc voting units. His view has received some support from the discovery of the Tabula Hebana, which shows that such a system could work (cf. G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 1949, 223 ff.); this document, a rogatio of AD 19 in honour of Germanicus, found at Heba (Magliano) in Etruria, shows that under Augustus temporary voting groups called centuries were formed from 33 tribes in an assembly of senators and equites which took part in the electoral process for appointing consuls and praetors. But that is not to say that the reformed Comitia in the third century did work in the way that Mommsen envisaged: see E. S. Staveley (AJPhil., 1953, Historia, 1956, 112 ff, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (1972), 126 ff.) who rejects the 373 centuries, discusses recent views and argues that the coordination of centuries with tribes was neither confined to the first class nor extended to all five classes, but was applied in the first and second class, with the abolition of the distinction between seniores and iuniores in the second class. J. J. Nichols and L. R. Taylor (AJPhil, 1956, 225 ff., 1957, 337 ff., Roman Voting Assemblies (1966), 87 ff.), however, have supported Tibiletti and Mommsen’s general position. For a brief summary of the evidence see Walbank, Polybius, i (1957), 683 ff.

·         (b) Purpose. This has been regarded by many as democratic: thus Mommsen saw the hand of Flaminius behind it (cf. E. Schönbauer, Historia, 1953–4, 31 ff.). But if this was the purpose, the result was not democratic (cf. De Sanctis, III, i, 344), since inter alia the Fasti show that in the later third century the nobilitas strengthened rather than relaxed its hold upon affairs. Thus some would argue that the reform was promoted by the nobility to restrict the influence of the wealthy trader who was enrolled in the urban tribes (so E. S. Staveley, A J A, 1953). Cf. L. R. Taylor (AJPhil., 1957), who believes that the nobility found the tribes easier to manipulate than the centuries: hence the reform in their interest.

·         (c) Date. Fresh light may be afforded by an inscription from Brindisi, an elogium which records the achievements of someone who ‘primus senatum legit et comiti [a ordinavit],’ apparently in the consulship of Aemilius Barbula (and Iunius Pera) in 230; if so, the subject may be Q. Fabius Maximus who was censor in 230 (cf. G. Vitucci, Riv. Fil., 1953, 42 ff.), and the reference may be to the reform of the Comitia Centuriata. There is, however, the possibility that the subject was a local magistrate of the Latin colony of Brundisium who was concerned with the local constitution (so E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1958, 90 ff.; cf. T. R. S. Broughton, MRR, Suppl., 1960, 2) and that therefore the inscription has no bearing upon the Comitia at Rome.

6 FLAMINIUS. On his career see K. Jacobs, Gaius Flaminius (1938, written in Dutch), and Z. Yavetz, Athenaeum, 1962, 325 ff. De Sanctis (SR, iii, i, 334) argued that Flaminius was responsible for a law limiting the amount of public land to be held by an individual and that the agrarian Lex Licinia of 367 was merely an anticipation of this. But see p. 479 n. 1.)

7 TELAMON. For the site of the battle and finds in the district see P. Sommella, Antichi campi di battaglia in Italia (1967), 11 ff.

8 MARCELLUS. Polybius’ account (ii, 34) is pro-Scipionic and the danger which Scipio incurred is minimized; for the part played by Marcellus see Plutarch, Marcell., 7. Was Scipio’s advance any less dangerous than that of Flaminius which the aristocratic tradition so heartily condemns?

9 ROME AND GREECE. Polybius, ii, 12, 8. The alleged Roman treaty with Rhodes in 306, her alliance with Apollonia in 266, and her intervention on behalf of Acarnania in 239 may all be dismissed as fictitious. See M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques (1921) and CAH, vii, 822 ff. General contacts had of course existed intermittently since Etruscan times, but not specific political commitments. See F. W. Walbank, JRS, 1963, 2 f.

10 ILLYRIA. See Polybius, ii, 2–12; iii, 16, 18–19 and Walbank, Polybius, i, ad loc. On Illyrian piracy see H. J. Dell, Historia, 1967, 344 ff. On Roman policy, Holleaux, op. cit. above, E. Badian, PBSR, 1952 (= Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 1 ff.), N. G. L. Hammond, JRS, 1968, 1 ff., K. E. Petzold, Historia, 1971, 199 ff., P. S. Derow,Phoenix, 1973, 118 ff.

11 THE ILLYRIAN SETTLEMENT. The legal position of the Greek towns is doubtful. They were not dediticii, enjoying libertas precaria, as Holleaux (CAH, vii, 836). De Sanctis (SR, iii, i, 301) believed that Issa, Dyrrhachium and Apollonia were recognized as allies, Issa having a foedus aequum, and Corcyra being immunis et libera. But see E. Badian, PBSR, 1952, 72 ff.: all were free amici, with no treaties, and extra-legal clientela of Rome.

12 ROMAN POLICY. Holleaux (CAH, vii, 837 ff.) has rejected the view that the Romans formed an imperialistic policy against Macedon or even that they negotiated in Greece as a precaution against Macedon. His views have been widely accepted. However, N. G. L. Hammond (JRS, 1968, 1 ff.) has revived the view of Rome as imperialistic and anti-Macedonian: at the end of the first war Roman control in Illyria was not dictated by revenge or anti-piratical desires, but to gain power there, and Rome was careful to send embassies to Macedon’s enemies, the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues and not to Macedon; a cold war was developing. It is hardly to be expected that Macedon would smile on Rome’s intervention in the Balkans, but Roman policy in 228 is scarcely likely to have envisaged the idea of dominating or destroying Macedon.

13 MASSILIA. T. Frank (CAH, vii, 810) assumes that a trilateral treaty was signed by the two parties and a willing Massilia. But A. Schulten, (ibid., 788) believes that Massilia would not welcome Rome’s concessions. Yet had it not been for her alliance with Massilia Rome might have been content to fix the limit of Hasdrubal’s aggressions at the Pyrenees. On Massilian diplomacy see F. R. Kramer, AJPhil., 1948, 1 ff. The further implications of this treaty are discussed on pp. 198 ff.

14 SIEGE OF SAGUNTUM. Polybius, iii, 17. Livy’s account is highly coloured and cannot be trusted in detail. His statements regarding the embassies to Hannibal are confused, because his source (Coelius?) has tried to justify Rome’s lack of support to Saguntum. The assault on Sagunto (Murviedro) by Marshal Suchet in 1811 confirms the probability that resistance weakened in the west.

15 ASENATORIAL DEBATE ? Dio (Zon., viii, 22) says that on the fall of Saguntum there was a senatorial debate in which L. Cornelius Lentulus proposed an immediate declaration of war, Fabius the sending of an embassy. Polybius (iii, 20) ridicules this tradition which derives from Chaereas and Sosylus ‘whose compositions are more like the gossip of the barber’s shop than history…. There was no debate on the question of war’. De Sanctis, however, has shown (III, ii, 197) the probability that this tradition is reliable. Prompt action might have been wiser, for the embassy merely succeeded in showing up the weakness of Rome’s juridical position (unless the embassy did not reach Carthage until after Hannibal had actually crossed the Ebro, as W. Hoffmann, Rhein. Mus., 1951, 77 ff.; cf. H. H. Scullard, ibid., 1952, 212 ff. both reprinted in Hannibal, ed. K. Christ (1974). 134 ff., 156 ff.). The leader of the embassy was more probably M. Fabius than Q. Fabius Maximus. J. W. Rich (Declaring War in the Roman Republic, Collection Latomus, vol. 149 (1976), 28 ff., 109 ff.) attributes the Senate’s hesitation even after the fall of Saguntum to a practice, which he believes obtained, namely that it regarded itself as entitled to postpone wars until the new consuls entered office (ad novos consules).

16 WAR GUILT. For the immense literature on this topic prior to 1930 see CAH, viii, 724. For more recent discussions of the sources and modern views see Walbank, Polybius, i (1957), esp. 168 ff., 310 ff., 327 ff. and F. Cassola, I gruppi politici romani (1962), 250 ff. Five more recent discussions are G. V. Sumner, Harvard Stud. Cl. Ph., 1967, 204 ff.,Latomus, 1972, 469 ff., A. E. Astin, Latomus, 1967, 577 ff., R. M. Errington, Latomus, 1970, 26 ff, F. Hampl, ANRW, I, i, 427 ff. Two well-known older papers, by W. Otto and G. De Sanctis, are reprinted in Hannibal (ed. K. Christ, 1974).

17 THE SAGUNTINE ALLIANCE. This has long been regarded as a formal alliance based on a treaty (foedus): thus Polybius refers to the Saguntines as σύμμαχοι of the Romans. But he also says that they placed themselves in the fides of the Romans. Thus it has been suggested (see J. S. Reid, JRS, 1913, 179 ff.; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, (1958), 49 ff., 293; Errington, Latomus, 1970, 41 ff.) that the action was a deditio in fidem (rather than a formal treaty) which imposed moral but no legal obligations on Rome (cf. T. A. Dorey, Humanitas, 11, 12, 1959–60, 2 f.), while A. E. Astin (Latomus, 1967, 589 ff.) goes even further in supposing that there was not even a formal deditiobut a looser acceptance into Roman fides. Equally controversial is the date of the agreement. The early date implied by Polybius is rejected by E. Groag (Hannibal als Politiker (1929), 17 ff.) who assigns the alliance to 221–220: the Saguntines appealed to Rome while Hannibal was campaigning in central Spain. A late date is also proposed by R. M. Errington (Latomus, 1970, 43 f.), reviving the idea of J. S. Reid (JRS, 1913, 178 ff.) that the agreement was reached when the Romans arbitrated in the internal quarrel at Saguntum, but this does not seem very probable. Against a late date (which would make the alliance an infringement of the Ebro treaty) is the fact that the Romans were eager to discuss the treaty, but the Carthaginians refused (Polybius, iii, 21; 29). For an analysis and discussion of modern views see also F. Cassola, I gruppi politici romani nel iii sec.a.C (1962), 244 ff.

18 PERSONAL VENDETTAS. For Polybius’ three reasons see iii, 9, 6–10. He also says that Fabius Pictor gave two causes for the war: Saguntum and the imperialist ambitions of Hasdrubal (whose policy was rather, as we have seen, pacific). Livy on the other hand has little to say about the arguments of Polybius or Fabius: for him Hannibal is the villain, ‘non dux solum, sed etiam causa belli’ (xxi, 21, 1).

19 ROMAN POLICY. Agrarian versus capitalist: E. Meyer, Kleine Schriften, ii, 375 ff. Modern views continue to fluctuate: thus G. V. Sumner (see n. 16 above) believes that the Romans were entirely concerned with curbing Carthaginian expansion, while at the other extreme Errington dismisses the ‘wrath of the Barcids’ as unknown to Fabius Pictor and thinks that Roman policy to Spain was essentially apathetic.


1 HANNIBAL’S FORCES. Polybius (iii, 33) quotes the figures for the Spanish and African armies. He himself saw at the Lacinian promontory in Bruttium a bronze tablet on which Hannibal had inscribed these particulars. The same source (iii, 56) guarantees the numbers with which Hannibal arrived in Italy, but the numbers assigned to him on his departure from Spain are exaggerated by Polybius or his source: cf. De Sanctis; SR, III, ii, 83 ff.

2 CROSSING THE RHÔNE. For this picturesque incident see Pol., iii, 42, Livy, xxi, 28. The crossing cannot be located with certainty. Napoleon (Commentaires, vi, 159) was probably right in setting the limits between the Rhône’s tributaries, the Durance and the Ardèche. For discussion and bibliography see Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, i (1908–9), 464, who, however, favours a crossing further south at Tarascon. Cf. also De Sanctis, III, ii, 70, Walbank, Polybius, i, 378. On Hannibal’s elephants here and elsewhere see H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (1974), 154 ff. There is no doubt that the main herd comprised African elephants, though there is a possibility that Hannibal may have had one or two Indian beasts in addition.

3 THE ALPS. The topographical evidence given by Polybius (iii, 50–6) and Livy (xxi, 31–7) does not allow any conclusive identification of the pass used by Hannibal. For older discussions it will suffice here to mention the bibliography in CAH, viii, 725 and to list the more probable passes and some of their advocates: (a) Little St Bernard: Niebuhr, Mommsen, Lehmann, Viedebandt; (b) Mt Cenis: Napoleon, Osiander; with the variant of Col du Clapier: Azan, Colin, Wilkinson; (c) Mt Genèvre: Neumann, Fuchs, Marindin, De Sanctis; with the variant of Col de Malaure: Bonus; (d) Monte Viso (Monviso): Col d’ Argentière and variants: Freshfield. See further De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 65 ff.; Walbank, Polybius, i, 382 ff. The views of Sir Gavin de Beer, Alps and Elephants (1955), more ingenious than convincing, have been refuted by Walbank, JRS, 1956, 37 ff., and A. H. McDonald, Alpine Journal 1956, 93 ff. A balanced survey of the problem is given in D. Procter’s excellent Hannibal’s March in History (1971). If any trend can be detected, it perhaps leans towards the Col du Clapier (cf. also E. Meyer, Museum Helveticum, 1958, 227 ff.).

4 TREBIA. Scipio’s movements after Ticinus have caused much difficulty, partly owing to Livy’s inferior account which places the battle on the right of the river. The account given in the text follows De Sanctis and Kromayer. When Scipio had recrossed the Po (presumably at Placentia; according to Lehmann, Hist. Zeitschr., 1916, 101 ff., a little further west and according to Fuchs near Pavia) he camped πεϱὶ πόλιν Πλακεντίαν (Pol., iii, 66, 9): on the east or west of the Trebia? Topography and strategy suggest on the west; i.e. the left bank, some way off at Stradella; Lehmann and Fuchs place the camp nearer Placentia at Rottofreno, but this is in the open plain. The old view of Grundy (Journ. Phil., 1896, 83; Cl. Rev., 1896, 284) though rejected by later critics (e.g. Kromayer) has been revived by Beloch (Hist. Zeitschr., 1915), who places Scipio’s camp on the east bank of the Trebia. This view alters the whole topography of the battle which followed; according to it, after the desertion of his allies Scipio then withdrew and camped on the left of the river, while Hannibal encamped on the right and the battle was fought on the right bank. Scipio’s retreat over the Trebia becomes, on this theory, an advance, while Beloch even regards it as a doublet of his retreat after the battle of Ticinus. The view has been rejected by De Sanctis, Lehmann, and Kromayer, and the old view that Scipio camped with Sempronius on the right, Hannibal on the left bank and that the battle was fought on the left bank also may be retained. Laqueur’s theories (Polybius, 99) are not happy; see De Sanctis’ criticism (p. 98). Tenney Frank (JRS, 1919, 202 ff.) believes that Placentia before it was refounded in 190 was near Stradella: a theory which solves many difficulties, but is supported by no evidence. It may be added that Livy (xxi, 57–59) gives a long account of campaigning during the winter, but this may safely be rejected as reduplication. See also Walbank, Polybius, i, 404 ff.

5 HANNIBAL CROSSES THE APENNINES. The route suggested in the text is supported by Kromayer (Schlachtfelder, iii, 104–47) and De Sanctis (III, ii, 104–9). It involves the supposition that there were then marshes between Pistoia and Florence, which is highly probable. The four days mentioned by Polybius present a difficulty, which is not insuperable. Routes further north and west are too long and too near the sea and would lead through marshes which were impassable for ancient armies before the land was drained; routes further east were not marshy and would bring Hannibal too near Flaminius at Arretium. The marshes were probably subject to flood, and Veith refers to similar conditions suffered by the Austrians at Muzakja in Albania in the winters of 1916–18.

6 FLAMINIUS. The extant tradition, which is aristocratic in outlook, depreciates such popular leaders as Flaminius and Varro, but an impartial estimate of their careers goes far to modify such criticism. Tradition asserts that Flaminius refused to co-operate with Servilius, which the facts contradict. He acted rashly but did not fall into every trap that Hannibal set. He was probably hastening south, not to fight, but to join Servilius further south, instead of awaiting him in the north.

7 TRASIMENE. The various hypotheses suggested for the actual site of the battle all agree that it was on the north shore of Trasimene; but various positions are chosen: (1) Borghetto-Passignano. This view has been adopted in the above text: see Fuchs (Wien Stud., 1904, 134), Pareti (Riv. di Fil., 1912, 383), De Sanctis (109) and Hallward (CAH). (2) Passignano-Monte Colognola: here the mountains are much nearer the sea. The view of Henderson (J. Phil., 1897; 1899), Kromayer and Walbank; criticized by De Sanctis. (3) Borghetto-Tuoro; a very confined space – see Grundy (J. Phil., 1896, 83; 1897, 273), Reuss (Klio, 1906, 226), M. Caspari (Eng. Hist. Rev., 1910, 417). (4) Up the river Sanguineto. This improbable view presupposes that Flaminius was not surprised on the march by Hannibal, but saw the enemy above the Sanguineto and advanced against him in battle formation – see Sadée (Klio, 1909, 48) and Lehmann (Jahresber. d. phil. Vereins Berlin, 1915, 81). A recent attempt to identify the site from the finding of what were alleged to be the ashes of the dead by G. Susini is criticized by Walbank, JRS, 1961, 232 ff (cf. Polybius, ii, 638).

8 SERVILIUS. See De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 122 ff. Appian, Iber., 9, 11, who follows an inferior tradition, places the defeat at the lake of Plestia (Pistia) east of the Via Flaminia.

9 CALLICULA. The pass probably lay between Cales and Teanum (cf. De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 124 ff; Hallward, CAH, viii, 50); less probably further north at Mte Caievola, as Kromayer.

10 MINUCIUS RUFUS. On his office see T. A. Dorey, JRS, 1955, 92 ff. On the topography see De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 54; Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, iii, 248.

11 CANNAE. Numbers. The Roman forces considerably outnumbered those of Hannibal, though they probably did not amount to the 80,000–90,000 men that Polybius and Livy give (Livy also knew of other assessments). Cf. De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 131, B. H. Hallward, CAH, viii, 52. The basic reliability of the number of legions in the field in the years 218–167 given by Livy is defended by De Sanctis and by P. A. Brunt, Manpower (1971), 416 ff., 645 ff. against the criticism of M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften, iii, 220 ff. Site. Two main solutions of the difficulties in fixing the site are offered: (1) It lay on the north, i.e. left bank of the Aufidus, with the Romans facing roughly east and the Carthaginians west. This is the view of Delbrück, De Sanctis and Hallward. An improbable variant, with the armies almost north and south, was proposed by Lehmann (Klio, 1917, 162), though later retracted (Klio, 1930, 71). Judeich (Hist. Zeitschr., 1927, 1) places the armies facing north-west and south-east; criticized by Kromayer (Schlachtfeld., iv, 611). (2) It lay on the south bank, i.e. the right. This school falls into two divisions: (a) those who place the battle to the west of Cannae, with the armies facing very roughly north and south; this view is very improbable. It is proposed with individual variations by Arnold, Hesselbarth and Reusch (who alters the course of Aufidus) and recently by Lehmann in his recantation (Klio, 1930). (b) those who place the battle east of Cannae with the Romans backing the sea some three miles distant. This view, adopted in the text above, is that of Kromayer (proposed in Schlachtfeld., iii, and defended in iv, and Atlas), Kahrstedt, Cornelius, etc. The discovery of a large cemetery south of the Aufidus (Arch. Anzeiger, 1938, 717; M. Gervasio, Iapigia, ix) seemed to have established that the battle was fought on the south bank, but these burials appear to be medieval (see H. H. Scullard, Historia, 1955, 474 f.; F. Bertocchi, Rendic. Ac. d. Lincei, xv, 337). For full discussions of Cannae, see especially Kromayer, De Sanctis and Walbank Polybius, i, 435 ff. Cornelius’ ‘Cannae; das militärische u. das literarische Problem’ (Klio, xxvi, 1932) contains much of interest, but his main contention is untenable: namely, that in the Polybian account the Romans broke through the Gallic-Spanish line and were caught behind that line by the Africans held in reserve. The Gallic line bent but did not break; nor were the Africans a reserve.
    Six deep grain depositories, which may have formed part of the rich granaries captured by Hannibal, have been found: see The Times, 2 August 1930.

12 NAVAL BATTLE OFF EBRO. For the naval aspect of the war see J. H. Thiel, Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican Times (1946). A description of the battle of the Ebro is probably found in a fragment of the Greek and pro-Carthaginian historian Sosylus: see F. Jacoby, FGrH, 176 F. Our five sources all give different reasons for the victory. Polybius (iii, 95–6) gives the nearness of the Carthaginians to their infantry on the shore; for Livy (xxii, 19–20) it is surprise; Frontinus (Strat. iv, 7, 9) tells of the throwing of burning projectiles; Zonaras, of the destruction of the Carthaginian sails; while Sosylus says the skill of the Massiliotes foiled the enemy’s manoeuvre. The reasons given by Polybius, Livy and Sosylus are not mutually exclusive.

13 THE SCIPIOS IN 217. Traces of their camps have been found at Almenara, five miles north of Saguntum; the accuracy of Polybius’ topographical description is thus strikingly confirmed: see A. Schulten, Arch. Anz., 1933, 622 ff., and, for photograph, Scullard, Scipio Africanus (1970), plate 24. In tibili lay near Benicarlo, and Iliturgi in Catalonia at Cabanes west of Oropesa: see A. Schulten, Hermes, 1928, 288 ff. The site of the more famous southern Iliturgi in Andalusia is now shown by an inscription (in honour of its deductor Ti. Sempronius Gracchus) to have been near Mengibar in the province of Jean: A. Espan. Arch., 1960, 193 ff.

14 THE SCIPIOS’ ADVANCE. It is very improbable that the Scipios also penetrated into Andalusia and captured Castulo, as Livy, xxiii, 49; xxiv, 41 f. Such annalistic accounts, which Livy derived from Valerius Antias, may contain elements of truth, but it is safer to reject them. Strategic considerations make an advance and victories in southern Spain very improbable. However, this idea has been revived by R. C. Sanchez, Habis, 1975, 213 ff., who placed the defeat of Publius Scipio near the river Genil, south-west of Corduba.

15 PHILIP’S TREATY WITH HANNIBAL. On the terms and Philip’s subsequent war with Rome see F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon (1940), 70 ff. The terms of the treaty are given by Polybius, vii, 9, who provides a Greek translation of the Punic document which fell into Roman hands. E. Bickerman, TAPA, 1952, 1 ff. equates the oath with a Hebrew covenanted treaty (berit). See also A. H. Chroust, Classica et Med., 1954, 60 ff.; Walbank, Polybius, ii, 42 ff. It is noteworthy that the terms imply that Hannibal’s war aims were limited and that he does not appear to have aimed at the complete destruction of Rome.

16 THE AETOLIAN TREATY. The terms are summarized by Livy, xxvi, 24. Part of a copy of the text, in Greek, was found in 1949 inscribed on a stone in Acarnania. See G. Klaffenbach, S.-B. Berlin, 1941, 13 ff.; A. Momigliano, Quinto Contrib. 977 ff.; A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1956, 153 ff.; E. Badian, Latomus, 1958, 197 ff.; Walbank, Polybius, ii, 162, 179 ff., 599 ff.; and G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur hist. Glaubwürdigkeit des Polybios (1967), who deals with the problems at length. See also E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Flamininus (1970), 49 ff.; J. Briscoe, Commentary on Livy xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 273 f.; D. Musti, Aufstieg NRW, I, ii (1974), 1146 ff. The terms were probably agreed by Laevinus and the Aetolians in the autumn of 211 and ratified in Rome two years later.
    Livy records that if the Romans took any cities they were to have the movable booty while the cities and their territories fell to the Aetolians. But the inscription adds two further clauses (the second fragmentary): booty from cities taken jointly by Romans and Aetolians should be shared, and any cities that went over voluntarily to the Romans or Aetolians could be received into the Aetolian League. This last clause causes problems in regard to Flamininus’ settlement of Greece in 197 when he denied the Aetolians any right to four Thessalian cities on the ground that they had surrendered to him. Questions of Flamininus’ honour or Polybius’ accuracy may be involved, but possibly in the lost part of the inscription there was some further qualification about the cities that surrendered voluntarily under which Flamininus’ demand might be justified (cf. Walbank, op. cit, 600).

17 SYRACUSE. On the topography see K. Fabricius, Das Antike Syrakus (1932), who showed that the city did not extend on to the plateau of Epipolae; also H.-P. Drögemüller, Syrakus (1969). Polybius, viii, 6–8, describes the catapults of varied range, the huge beams and cranes which swung over the walls to drop weights, the mechanical arms which capsized the Roman boats, etc. In general see E. W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery (1969), and for Archimedes pp. 109 ff. A. W. Lawrence, JHS, 1946, 99 ff. discusses the siting of Archimedes’ artillery. Archimedes is also said to have focused the sun’s rays by means of bronze mirrors in order to set fire to the Roman ships: recent experiments, carried out by modern Greek sailors, suggest that this may have been possible: see The Times, 7 November 1973.

18 CAPUA. The rebel cities, Capua, Atella and Calatia, issued coins (mainly bronze) as an act of independence: some depict elephants (see Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, 70 ff. For Hannibal’s coinage in Italy see E. S. G. Robinson, Num. Chron., 1964, 37 ff. The coins issued by the Barcids in Spain, with probable portraits of Hamilcar, Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago, may be mentioned here: see E. S. G. Robinson, Essays in Roman Coinage (ed. R. A. G. Carson (1956), 34 ff.) On the sources see J. von Ungern-Sternberg, Capua im zweiten punischen Krieg: Untersuchungen zur römischen Annalistik (1975).
    A report in the Daily Telegraph of 2 February 1976 refers to the discovery near Santa Maria Capua Vetere of what appears to be a military encampment (? Hannibal’s camp).

19 HANNIBAL’S MARCH AGAINST ROME. According to Polybius (ix, 5) Hannibal marched through Samnium and crossed the Anio; Coelius (Livy, xxvi, 11) sent him through Samnium, the Paelignian Sulmo, Amiternum and Reate: but Livy (xxvi, 7–11) thought he advanced direct along the Via Latina. E. W. Davies, Phoenix, 1959, 113 ff., argues for the Via Latina, but the longer route is supported by E. T. Salmon, Phoenix, 1957, 153 ff., who attributes Livy’s mistaken route to confusion (by Valerius Antias) of Paelignian with Volscian Sulmo. See also Walbank, Polybius, ii, 121 ff. Traces of Hannibal’s sack of the temple at Lucus Feroniae (Livy, xxvi, 11) survive: R. Bloch, Rev. Phil., 1953, 75.


1 NEW CARTHAGE AND SCIPIO. For this episode and Scipio’s Spanish and African campaigns see H. H. Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War (1930) and, more briefly, Scipio Africanus, Soldier and Politician (1970); also Walbank, Polybius. On the topography see Scullard (1930), 289 ff. This and Polybius’ account of the storming of the city abound in difficulties. Although Polybius had visited New Carthage and based his account on a letter from Scipio to king Philip V, his description raises many problems, some of which arise from his rationalistic outlook, which refused to recognize anything extraordinary either in nature or in the character of his hero Scipio. Thus the sinking of the waters in the lagoon may seem miraculous, but it was a miracle in the sense of a coincidence in time rather than a violation of natural law. Many parallels in history can be found, the most striking being that related in Exodus: ‘And the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night and made the sea dry land’ (if the early account is disentangled from later miraculous elements, we find a perfectly natural explanation of the passage of the Red Sea; see H. H. Scullard, Expository Times, November 1930, 55 ff.). By Polybius’ time, and perhaps even during Scipio’s lifetime, popular tradition about Scipio was growing into a ‘legend’. This arose from Scipio’s exceptional personality and his apparent belief in divine help, especially from Jupiter in whose temple he used to commune (a very un-Roman habit). Polybius the rationalist might regard Scipio’s conduct as a way of winning popular confidence, but in fact his beliefs may have been genuine and he should not be dismissed as a hypocrite. On the ‘legend’ see R. M. Haywood, Studies on Scipio Africanus (1933); F. W. Walbank, Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc., 1967, 54 ff.; H. H. Scullard, Scipio (1970) 18 ff., 235 ff.

2 BAECULA. On the topography see Scullard, Scipio (1930), 300 ff.; (1970), 258 ff. and Veith, Schlachtfelder, iv, 503 ff. (the site suggested by Scullard is accepted by R. Thouvenot, Essai sur la province romaine de Bétique (1940), 89 7. 3). Scipio is sometimes criticized and Baecula minimized to a mere rearguard action (e.g. by Ihne, ii, 380), but for a defence see Scullard, op. cit., and B. H. Hallward, who writes (CAH, viii, 87), ‘the censure ignores the lesson of all campaigning in Spain’. R. C. Sanchez (Habis, 1975, 213 ff.) rejects the usual identification of Baecula with Bailen and seeks it west of Castulo south of the Baetis at Betula, but he does not offer any precise site for the battle.

3 ILIPA. Date: Livy’s chronology is followed above, but many (e.g. De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 496) transfer Ilipa to 207, because of the number of events to be crowded into 206 (for an attempt, however, to accommodate them all see Scullard (1930), 304 ff.). On the site of the battle and of the Roman and Carthaginian camps see Scullard, JRS, 1936, 19 ff. (cf. A. Schulten, Arch. Anzeiger, 1940, 113 ff.; 1943, 51). In line with his proposal to shift the campaigns of the elder Scipios and Publius further to the south-west (cf. p. 449 n. 14; and n. 2 above), R. C. Sanchez rejects Alcala del Rio as the Ilipa of the battle and seeks an Ilipa somewhere around Munda south of the Baetis, but is not very specific.

4 MARCELLUS. Hannibal is said to have buried Marcellus with full military honours, though he kept his signet ring. He tried to capture Salapia by means of a forged dispatch sealed with this ring, but the trick miscarried and he lost 300 men, who on entering the city were cut off by the dropping of a portcullis. Marcellus, the ‘Sword of Rome’, had shown more initiative than most of his contemporaries, as attested by the annalistic exaggerations of his exploits. His faith is seen in his dedication of temples to Honos and Virtus, his appreciation of Greek culture in his sending the artistic treasures of Syracuse to Rome. For his portrait see Crawford, RRC n. 439.

5 GRUMENTUM. On the topography of the fight at Grumentum see Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, III, i, 414 ff., and Atlas, col. 28, 9.

6 METAURUS. The battlefield is uncertain and the fixing of it affects the strategy attributed to Hasdrubal. Two main theories may be distinguished: (a) the Romans camped near Fanum Fortunae (Fano) and the battle was fought on the north of the Metaurus; then Hasdrubal’s march by night was an attempt to reach central Italy; (b) the Romans and Carthaginians camped near Sena Gallica (Senigallia) and the battle was fought south of the Metaurus; in this case Hasdrubal’s march was a retreat either to northern Italy or to reach a defensive position beyond the Metaurus. A third solution, that of Kahrstedt, seeks to cut the Gordian knot by rejecting the night march as an annalistic invention; the battle would then have been fought near the camps, but this is very improbable. Of the two main views the first has been adopted in the above text. The chief objection to it is that Livy places the camps at Sena; but this hardly excludes the district around Sena. It is impossible here to enter into the controversy, but the main exponents may be listed (for details see the bibliographies in Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtfelder, III, 424 ff., CAH, viii): (a) north of Metaurus, moving westwards from Fano: Vaudoncourt (La Lucrezia), De Sanctis (M. Sterpeti), Lehmann (Calmazzo), Tarducci (San Silvestro); (b) south of Metaurus. Pitalluga and Oehler and with slight variations Kromayer (San Angelo), Bottini Massa (Cerasa), Marcolini (M. Maggiore) and recently in two pamphlets, G. Rossi (Montebello) to which A. Bianchini has replied (Tombacchia and Vago Colle). Cf. G. Buroni, Le diverse tesi sulla battaglia del Metauro (1953), and Walbank, Polybius, ii, 267 ff.

7 MAGO. J. H. Thiel, Roman Sea-Power (1946), 144 ff., suggests that in view of her available naval forces Rome was culpable in allowing Mago to land, as earlier Scipio was in allowing his escape from Spain.

8 APEACE PARTY ? E. Meyer Meister der Politik, i, 101, 131 ff.; Kleine Schriften, ii, 353, n. 2) suggested that Fabius and his supporters were ready in 205 to compromise with Carthage and allow her to keep her African possessions in exchange for peace. W. Schur (Scipio Africanus (1927), 47) summarizes their policy as the freeing of Italy, the reconquest of the lost Po valley and its colonization by farmers.

9 SOPHONISBA. The romantic story of her relations with Masinissa and her death is recorded by Livy, xxx.

10 PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. A fragment of papyrus of the second century BC deals briefly with the negotiations of 203–202 (Catalogue of Greek Papyri, J. Rylands Library, iii, n. 491, ed. C. Roberts). The author is unknown but was nearly contemporary and possibly more pro-Carthaginian than other writers. See Walbank, Polybius, ii, 442; Scullard, Scipio (1970), 270.

11 ZAMA. The decisive battle of the Hannibalic War, traditionally known as Zama, has more recently been dubbed Naraggara (e.g. by De Sanctis) or Margaron (by Veith), although this is only to exchange one uncertainty for another. The ancient accounts of the battle bristle with difficulties regarding the topography, strategy, tactics, numbers, chronology, etc. The account given in the text is based on the present writer’s views as expressed in Scipio Africanus (1930). For a criticism of some of these views, cf. P. Fraccaro (Athenaeum, ix, 1931, 428–38) who would seem to smooth over the difficulties in Polybius’ account somewhat too easily. Two traditions are extant, the better one of Polybius and Livy, the inferior one of Appian and Dio; the latter finds an advocate in Saumagne. In matters of strategy and tactics it is not chiefly the facts which are questioned, but the motives of the leaders. Polybius’ authority must be final in questions of fact, but it appears legitimate to assign motives from the data which he gives when he does not do so himself, or even to suppose that the motives he does supply may be wrong – for his account presents difficulties and contradictions which necessitate some criticism. The account given above adheres closely to Polybius in facts and attempts to avoid the supposition of a gap in the present text of Polybius (as Veith) or an alteration in his order of the movements in the battle (as De Sanctis).
    There were probably two towns named Zama in North Africa (a third at Sidi Abd el Djedidi north-west of Kairouan was probably not called Zama). Zama Regia was most probably Seba Biar, while this settlement may have declined and the Zama of the Roman Empire have lain at modern Jama: see Scullard, Scipio (1970), 271 ff. Provided the general neighbourhood of Zama can be established, the precise sites are less important for the campaign, since Zama was clearly only Hannibal’s camp before his final advance westwards to the battlefield. Similarly, Scipio camped at Naraggara (Livy; Polybius gives Margaron, which is otherwise unknown) but no suitable battlefield can be found there. The most probable site is that suggested by Veith Atlas, col. 40, Schlachtfelder, iv, 626 ff.) in the plain of Draa-el-Metnan some eight miles from El Kef and about half way between Naraggara and Zama (Seba Biar). A visit to this site has confirmed the present writer in his belief in its suitability on physical as well as literary grounds. Most of the modern literature on the subject is criticized by Veith, Schlachtfelder, iii, 599 ff. and iv, 626 ff., although he curiously neglects the valuable account by De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 549 ff., 588 ff. which appeared before he published his fourth volume. For discussion of another site suggested by F. H. Russell (Archaeology, 1970, 122 ff.) see Scullard inPolis and Imperium, Stud, in Hon. of E. T. Salmon (ed. J. A. S. Evans, 1974), 225 ff. (where I have corrected the name of the hill on which Scipio camped from Koudiat el Behaima to Koudiat Sidi Slima).


1 THE HELLENISTIC WORLD. General works on this period include CAH, vii–ix; W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation, edn 3 (1952); M. Cary, A History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 BC, edn 2 (1951, repr. 1963); E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, vol. i, 323–223 av. J.-C. (1966), vol. ii, 223–30 (1967); M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols (1941). On individual states see E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus (1902); E. R. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (1927); E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum, edn 2 (1972); P. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols (1972); P. Fraser and G. E. Bean,The Rhodian Peraea (1952); H.H. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos (1957); F.W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon (1940). A. Aymard, Les Premiers rapports de Rome et de la confédération Achaienne (1938), Tes Assemblées de la fédération Achaienne (1938); R. Flacelière, Les Aitoliens à Delphes (1937). See also J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States(1968). R. M. Errington, The Dawn of Empire (1971) outlines Rome’s policy towards the Greek world.

2 THE SYRO-MACEDONIAN PACT. The attempt of D. Magie (JRS, 1939, 32 ff.) to reject this pact as a fabrication of Rhodian propaganda, designed to frighten Rome, which deceived both Rome and Polybius, is not very convincing. It has been revived by R. M. Errington (Athenaeum, 1971, 336 ff. and The Dawn of Empire (1971), ch. x). In any case the report of the pact, whether it was fact or fiction, will have had the same effect on the Senate and have played the same part in precipitating Roman intervention. The pact is accepted by H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochus des Grossen (1964), ch. iv (this book deals with various aspects of Antiochus’ reign, but not primarily with his relations with Rome).

3 CHIOS AND LADE. On the chronology of events see Walbank, Polybius, ii, 497 ff.

4 THE AETOLIAN EMBASSY. Appian (Mac., 4, 2) places the embassy in 201–200 when the Senate would have welcomed it. This is to be corrected to 202 (rather than rejected as an annalistic invention, as proposed by E. Badian, Latomus, 1958, 208 ff.). De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 39) places the embassy before Zama, when the Senate would naturally wish to avoid eastern complications; Holleaux (CAH, viii, 152, n. 1) places it after Zama, in which case Philip may have derived an unwarranted hope from the Senate’s attitude. See also Livy, xxxi, 29, 4, on which see J. Briscoe, Livy, xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 130; he dates it to 201, but before the Rhodian and Attalid embassies.

5 THE PEOPLE AND WAR, Livy (xxxi, 6 f.) places the consuls’ proposal for the declaration of war at the beginning of the consular year and then recounts a second appeal which resulted in the declaration. Mommsen pointed out that the latter occurred in the summer of 200, not in March. But the assumption that the two appeals were made in quick succession makes it difficult to explain the sudden change in the people’s feelings. De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 32 n.) rightly separates the two appeals, placing one in March (as Livy), the other in midsummer (as chronology demands). See A. H. McDonald and F. W. Walbank, JRS, 1937, 187 ff.; E. Bickermann, Rev. Phil., 1935, 171 ff. and Cl. Ph., 1945, 139 f.; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS, 1954, 37 ff. J. W. Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic (Collection Latomus, vol. 149, 1976), 73 ff. and 107 ff., sticking closer to Livy, argues that only a short interval (a month or so?) intervened between the two meetings and that there was no direct link between the war vote and the embassy to Macedon: the instructions given to the legati were to inform the Greeks and Philip that the Senate had passed a senatus consultum which set out the terms on which it was ready to remain at peace with Philip. The formal indictio belli was therefore not delivered by Lepidus to Philip at Abydus, but was conveyed to a Macedonian post in Illyria after Galba had crossed the Adriatic. This view, like all others (!), involves difficulties. For the question of the state of the calendar in 200 BC see Rich, 75, n. 58.

6 AN EMBASSY TO EGYPT. Livy (xxxi, 2 and 18) says the embassy went in the summer of 201 to Egypt to report the defeat of Hannibal and to ask the king to remain friendly to Rome if she should be forced to fight Philip. Chronology demands that the embassy started in 200; hence an annalistic error is generally assumed, e.g. by De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 23) and Holleaux (CAH, viii, 161, n. 1). The latter remarks: ‘It is to be observed that Hannibal’s defeat happened a year before’. But it is also to be observed that the peace was only officially concluded in that year (201). May there not be a confused reference in Livy to an earlier embassy sent in 201 by the Senate (on the pretext of announcing Hannibal’s defeat) to ascertain the attitude of the Great Powers to one another? If the personnel of the two embassies was the same, confusion would easily arise.

7 ATHENS AND ROME: CEPHISODORUS. The influence of Athens on Roman policy has been variously assessed. The view of E. Bickermann (Rev. Phil., 1936, 59 ff., 161 ff.; cf. also D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 744 ff.) that the Peace of Phoenice was a koine eirene which included Athens and that therefore Philip’s subsequent attack on Athens involved Rome in a legal obligation to aid Athens since Rome had guaranteed the security of all the signatories, has been rejected by J. A. O. Larsen (Cl. Phil., 1937, 15 ff.) and by McDonald and Walbank (JRS, 1937, 180 ff.). The view in the Livian tradition (e.g. Livy, xxxi, i, 10) that Athens appealed directly to Rome for helpbefore the summer of 200 (which De Sanctis attempted to defend against the criticism of Holleaux) may be rejected: see F.W. Walbank, Philip V, 311 ff. In any case such an appeal would not have affected the legal aspect of Roman diplomacy, though it might have influenced Roman sentiment. Further light, however, has been thrown upon an Athenian appeal during the summer of 200 by the publication of a decree in honour of the Athenian statesman and ambassador, Cephisodorus (see B. D. Meritt, Hesperia, 1936, 419 ff. and A. H. McDonald, JRS 1937, 198.; cf. Pausanias, i, 36, 5). If Cephisodorus reached Rome just before the second meeting of the Comitia (McDonald, who originally placed the arrival after, now agrees that it was before: contrast JRS, 1963, 189 with JRS, 1937, 198), his appeal, while not affecting the legal aspect of Rome’s procedure, would have afforded the Senate an additional argument with which to persuade the people to declare war; at the same time it would help to explain the impression which the Athenian appeal made on the later annalistic tradition.

8 SOCII ET AMICI. On these see Matthaei, Cl. Qu., 1907, 182 ff.; A. Heuss, ‘Die Volkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit’, Klio, Beiheft 31 (1933); T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), 147 ff., 160, n. 19 and Cl. Phil., iv, 122; W. Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwicklung des röm. Volkerrechts im dr. und zweit. Jahrhund. v. Chr. (1968), 248 ff. E. Badian (Foreign Clientelae (1958), 69), however, thinks that the term socius et amicus may be older than the second century, and stresses (68) the growing influence of the concept of clientela on the earlier idea of amicitia ‘until the Romans could no longer imagine the co-existence of genuinely equal states: her amici could only be her clients’. Rome was gradually extending her diplomatic categories.
    For the view that Pergamum was an ally, not merely an amicus of Rome see J. A. O. Larsen, Cl. Phil., 1937, 17. The early history of Rome’s relations with Rhodes is uncertain: Polybius (xxx, 5, 6) notes that in 167 BC they had been in political association for nearly 140 years, i.e. since c. 306. Holleaux, however, argued that Polybius’ text should be emended to ‘40’ and that relations began only at the end of the third century. This view is criticized at length by H. H. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos (1957; on which cf. A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1958, 184 ff. and P. M. Fraser, Cl. Rev., 1959, 64 ff.). Even if formal amicitia had not existed since 306, some friendly contacts may have been made before c.200, but certainly there was no treaty (foedus), while amicitia, as Heuss has shown, should be interpreted in a looser way than Holleaux had postulated. The relations of Rome and Rhodes in the second century are also examined by E. S. Gruen, Cl. Qu., 1978, 58 ff.

9 MILITARY IMPERIALISM. This was the view of Wilamowitz and of De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 26) who made Scipio Africanus the prime mover. It has been revived more recently by E. Will (Hist. pol. du monde hellen., ii, 116 ff.), who however makes Sulpicius Galba, not Scipio, the villain. But see T. Frank, Roman Imperialism, ch. xiv and Amer. Hist. Review, 1912/13, xviii, 233 ff. and De Sanctis, 26, n. 58.

10 PHILHELLENIC POLITICS. See G. Colin, Rome et la Grèce de 200 à 146 av. J. C. (1905); T. Frank, Roman Imperialism, ch. viii. Criticism by Holleaux, CAH, viii, 158 f.; E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Flamininus (1970).

11 FEAR OF PHILIP AND/OR ANTIOCHUS. It has often been said, e.g. by Mommsen, that Rome’s desire for quiet neighbours was a cause of the war, yet Mommsen himself admits that Philip was not a real danger to Rome. However, others have judged differently: thus R. M. Errington (The Dawn of Empire (1971), ch. x and Athenaeum 1971, 338 ff.), who rejects the Syro-Macedonian pact, has emphasized alleged activity of Philip against some Illyrian territory and supposes that senatorial distrust or fear of Philip was the basic cause of the war.
    The relevance of Illyria is doubtful. At the conference of Nicaea in November 198 Flamininus ordered Philip to ‘hand over to the Romans those parts of Illyria of which he had become possessed since the Peace of Epirus’, i.e the Peace of Phoenice in 205 (Polybius, xvii, 1, 14; cf. Livy, xxxii, 33, 3). These places probably did not include the territory of the Parthini nor were they within the Roman protectorate (as Briscoe, Livy, xxxi–xxxiii, 54 f. argues). Rather, they will have been lands which had no previous connection with Rome (cf. Walbank, Polybius, ii, 551). There is no reference to encroachment in Illyria in the Roman ultimatum to Philip in 200, while attempts to find references to such places in the annalistic tradition are not conclusive (e.g. they need not (pace Briscoe, loc. cit.) be among the socii in Livy, xxx, 26, 2; cf. xxx, 42, 5; xxxi, 1, 9). The importance of Illyria in general has also been stressed by Badian: senators who knew Greece would realize that ‘Illyria would only be safe when Macedon had been humbled’ (Foreign Clientelae (1958), 66). Rome’s ultimatum was designed to this end, which could be achieved either peacefully if Philip accepted or by war if Philip rejected it. Without legal justification Rome extended her traditional practice, took her new Greek ‘friends’ under her protection, and delivered the ultimatum on their behalf, but in order to serve her own purpose which was conditioned by fear and hatred of Philip.
    Others prefer to stress fear of Antiochus (in combination with Philip) and accept the attractive theory of Holleaux, expounded in Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques au iii e siècle avant J.-C. (273–205) (1921) and in CAH, viii, 156 ff. (Holleaux’s papers are collected in Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, vols i–v (1938–57); see especially vol. iv, Rome, la Macédoine et l’Orient grecque). Holleaux argued that the effective cause of the war was the Senate’s sudden realization of this joint threat which was revealed when the Pergamene and Rhodian envoys reported the kings’ pact at Rome. Philip’s action in rebuilding his fleet (on this threat see G. T. Griffith, Cambr. Hist. J., 1935), with which he had gained Caria and the Rhodian Peraea and defeated the Rhodians at Lade, might well seem a direct threat to Rome, now that he was backed by Antiochus, and the possibility of a Syro-Macedonian invasion of Italy might appear foreshadowed. A. Passerini (Athenaeum, 1931, 542 ff.), who attempted to refute Holleaux’s theory, with less plausibility maintained that the Rhodian embassy emphasized the danger of Philip’s supposed intrigues with Carthage. The suddenness with which the Senate changed from an abrupt refusal of the good opportunity to intervene in Greece offered by the Aetolian embassy of 202 to an almost feverish effort to precipitate war two years later suggests the emergence of a critical new factor, and that is best explained as knowledge of the pact and fear of its implication.
    The Romans will have had a further grievance against Philip, if he had allowed Macedonian troops to support Hannibal in the battle of Zama as recorded by Livy (e.g. xxx, 33, 5; xxxi, 1, 9). These men however do not appear in Livy’s description of the battle itself, nor in that by Polybius (e.g. at xv, 11, 1). The tradition is supported by J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS, 1954, 34 f. and by J. Briscoe, Livy xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 55: Balsdon suggests that the Macedonum legio were mercenaries who were present in Carthage in 202 but did not take part in the battle. However, the story is likely to have been invented by Roman annalists who wanted to show that Rome’s hostile attitude to Philip in 201 was justified on account of his earlier alleged support of Hannibal.

12 CAUSES OF THE SECOND MACEDONIAN WAR. Many suggested causes have been discussed above, but three recent general surveys may be mentioned here: B. Ferro, Le origini della II guerra macedonica (1960; on which see A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1963, 187 ff.); J. Briscoe, Commentary on Livy xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 36 ff. and R. Werner,ANRW, I, i, 501 ff. (with some preliminary discussion of imperialism in general; cf. L. Raditsa, ibid., 564 ff.); Briscoe naturally concentrates on the Livian tradition concerning Rome and Macedon in the years 205–200, which was severely attacked by Holleaux but has more recently found a champion in J. P. V. D. Balsdon (JRS, 1954, 30 ff.) who argues for its general reliability, but E. Badian (Foreign Clientelae, 62 ff.) has not been persuaded in general. Despite some weaknesses in it, Holleaux’s thesis is regarded as still the most satisfactory by F. W. Walbank in a valuable survey, ‘Polybius and Rome’s Eastern Policy’, JRS, 1963, 1 ff. In general Polybius, as expounded by Walbank, regarded Roman imperialism as the result of ‘natural’ ambition, sharing the common Greek idea that it is a natural tendency of imperial states to expand. This, combined with his belief in the intrusive activity of Tyche (Fortune, Chance, Providence?) sometimes led him to conclusions which conflicted with his rational analysis of motives and causes; when conflict arises we should follow Polybius’ detailed analyses rather than be misled by his superimposition of a general pattern which may be further from the truth. Cf. Walbank, Polybius (1972), 164 ff. and ‘Political Morality and the Friends of Scipio’, JRS, 1965, 1 ff.

13 CLASS STRUGGLES IN GREECE. Fustel de Coulanges (Questions historiques (1893), 121 ff.) advanced the view that the upper classes in the Greek states supported Rome and that Rome’s varying policies in Greece were influenced by the internal class struggles there. This idea has been widely held, though challenged by A. Passerini (Athenaeum, 1933, 309 ff.). It is probably true that the Romans favoured the upper classes in general, but only if and when this did not impinge upon their own interests, which they often conceived as best served by the preservation of a balance of power during the incessant internal quarrels that vexed the Greek states. The ‘Greek resistance’ to Rome was obviously determined by those who at any given time had political control in their own individual cities or leagues. J. Deiniger, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 217–86 v. Chr. (1971), argues that until Pydna a pro- or anti-Roman policy was decided by internal rival political leaders with little reference to the desires of the people as a whole, whose influence was brought to bear only in the final Achaean revolt (147/6) when members of the upper class supported the lower. Though this view is perhaps too simple (cf. R. M. Errington, JRS, 1973, 249 f.; J. Briscoe, Cl. Rev., 1974, 258 ff.), the relevant ancient evidence is usefully collected. Cf. also p. 515 n. 14 below.

14 THE SECOND MACEDONIAN WAR. See Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, ii, De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, F. W. Walbank, Philip V (1940). On Philip’s strategy cf. Kromayer, 3 ff., De Sanctis, 44 ff.

15 THE CAMPAIGNS OF 200–198. See the three works cited in previous note, together with N. G. L. Hammond, JRS, 1966, 39 ff., for various views of the topography, especially of the Aoüs valley. For the campaign of 198 see also A. M. Eckstein, Phoenix, 1976, 119 ff., who limits Flamininus’ military and diplomatic skill and thinks that he turned south-east after Aoüs for reasons of supply not of diplomacy.

16 FLAMININUS’ TERMS. Cf. T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), 161, n. 29. Since the terms were more sweeping than those offered in 200, Flamininus could hardly have made these additions on his own initiative.

17 FLAMININUS. Polybius was fairly critical of Flamininus, and Livy suppresses some of these criticisms. Various assessments of Flamininus’ policy and ambitions have been reached: see H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC, edn 2, (1973), index s.v. Quinctius; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Phoenix, 1967, 177 ff.; E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Philhellenism and Realpolitik (1970, University of Cincinnati); J. Briscoe, Latomus, 1972, 22 ff. and Commentary on Livy xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 22 ff. For his family and early career, Badian, JRS, 1971, 102 ff. Balsdon is more favourably disposed to Flamininus than is Badian, who thinks that on occasion he was ready to sacrifice principle and even Rome’s interests to his own personal ambitions (though he emphasizes that Flamininus should be judged by the standards of his own day). Badian’s study is an astringent corrective to attempts to ‘whitewash’ Flamininus; he would even question the extent of Flamininus’ personal culture. But however much or little Flamininus shared Greek culture, he certainly showed respect for it and this must have helped his dealings with the Greeks, even though few would now suppose that his policy was based on ‘sentimental’ philhellenism.

18 CYNOSCEPHALAE. De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 86 n.) roughly follows W. M. Leake (Travels in Northern Greece, iv (1835), 457) who places the site between Sulpi and Dulvatan: Kromayer places it some six miles further west. See also Walbank, Polybius, ii, 576 ff. and W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, vol. ii (1969), 133 ff.

19 DANGER FROM THE NORTH. This threat is minimized by Holleaux, CAH, viii, 177.

20 THE AETOLIAN CLAIMS. When the Aetolians asked for the return of four cities which Philip was willing to concede, Flamininus contended that three of them could not be handed back according to the terms of the Romano-Aetolian treaty of 211 (see p. 499 n. 16 above) which he claimed they had abrogated by making a separate peace in 206: even if the treaty was still valid, he asserted that their request contradicted its terms. The issues are uncertain and Flamininus may have been guilty of sharp practice, but in any case his refusal naturally angered the Aetolians, who had played an important part in the battle of Cynoscephalae.

21 PEACE. Polybius, xviii, 33–9; 44 ff.; Livy, xxxiii, 11–13; Plutarch, Flam., 9. See especially De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 90 ff. Livy, (xxxiii, 30, 6) adds that Philip’s armaments were limited and that he was not to engage in foreign wars without Rome’s consent. This is probably an annalistic invention to try to justify Rome’s interference later: see E. Taübler, Imperium Romanum, i (1913), 230.


1 GREEK CITIES IN ASIA MINOR. On the Greek cities of Asia Minor and on Rome’s treatment of them see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), especially ch. iv and the Notes in vol. ii where many matters are discussed in detail relevant to the present and following chapters. See also E. Badian, ‘Rome, and Antiochus: a study in Cold War’ (Cl. Phil., 1959, 81 ff. = Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 112 ff.). The annalistic tradition (Livy, xxxii, 8; 27) that Attalus appealed to Rome against Antiochus’ invasion in 198 has been rejected by Holleaux (Klio, 1908, 273 ff.), but is defended by Bickermann (Hermes, 1932, 47) and Badian (Cl. Phil., 1959, 82 f.).

2 ROME AND THE AUTONOMY OF GREEK CITIES. When the Romans based their policy of intervention in Greece upon a proclamation of ‘freedom’ for the Greek cities, they were using a word with a long and somewhat ambiguous history. Freedom or autonomy had been a catchword of the kings who succeeded Alexander the Great. Although in theory it meant complete sovereignty (and in practice it sometimes did, as at Rhodes), it often in fact involved only a privileged status granted to cities by kings rather than real independence. Theoretically it involved the continuance of the city’s constitution, the absence of a garrison and immunity from regular taxation, but in practice it generally fell short of such concessions (cf. e.g. ‘those of the autonomous cities which formerly paid tribute to Antiochus,’ Polybius, xxi, 46). It was this royal conception of freedom in the main that Rome adopted vis-à-vis the cities of the Hellenistic world (cf. A. H. M. Jones, Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler, 103 ff.).
    That intervention on the principle of autonomy was justified was not denied by e.g. Philip of Macedon. At a meeting of the Achaean League (200–199) he counterattacked Roman charges not by refusing to admit the validity of such intervention in principle, but by asserting that the Romans had no right to act upon such a principle in view of their treatment of the Italian Confederacy, especially of Rhegium, Tarentum and Capua. To this charge the Roman envoy put up a spirited reply (see Livy, xxxi, 29–31).
    Rome’s claim to extend this principle to the Greek cities of Asia Minor (cf. p. 260) was complicated by the fact that so many of these cities had at one time or another been subjected to foreign conquerors (e.g. Persia) and had temporarily been robbed of their freedom; in particular the political relationship of these autonomous cities to the kings of Syria has formed the subject of much discussion. Their status of freedom has sometimes been interpreted as a grant dependent upon the unilateral act of the monarch, and hence revocable and to be renewed at each accession: it was based on the conqueror’s right to dispose of ‘territory won by the spear’ (cf. E. Bickermann, Institutions des Séleucides, 106 f., 133 f.; Hermes, lxvii, 50 ff.; M. Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Econ. Hist. of Hellenistic World, e.g. 153, 525–30, 1343 n. 15, 1347 n. 25). The view of E. Bickermann (Rev. ét. gr., 1934, 346) that Alexander as conqueror of Asia arbitrarily gave autonomy to the Greek cities of Asia Minor has been refuted by W. W. Tarn (Alexander the Great, vol. ii (1948), 199 ff.), who shows that Alexander treated them as free allies and restored their original freedom which de iure they had never lost (these cities were not parties to the Peace of Antalcidas); he merely removed the obstacle of Persian rule and thus allowed the exercise of free rights which were still there. Those who accept this view will be less ready to follow Bickermann in his belief that Antiochus III laid claim to the possession of the Greek cities by right of conquest since they had formed part of the empire of Lysimachus. Rather, their independence which had been recognized by Alexander was confirmed by Antiochus I when he declared all Greek cities ‘free, autonomous and ungarrisoned’. This was the policy of Alexander’s successors, pursued in however an opportunist spirit, until it was abandoned by Antiochus III when he started on a career of active aggression (cf. D. Magie, The Greek Political Experience, 174 ff., Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 825 ff.). But theory and practice often varied, and although ‘there certainly was a difference between genuine freedom (independence) and bogus freedom (under royal protection), it depended on the de facto situation, and I question whether the kings ever gave it precise legal formulation – it was to their interest to maintain the ambiguity of the term ἐλευθεϱία’ (A. H. M. Jones,The Greek City, 315 n. 8).
    E. Badian (Foreign Clientelae, 69 ff.) has argued that ‘freedom for the Greeks’ is not a new idea in Roman diplomacy, but a development of her earlier methods (e.g. towards the Illyrian coast), and he shows how the idea developed between 200 and 196 (in 200 Philip was to stop attacking the Greeks, in 198 to withdraw from Greece, then in 196 came the full declaration). But see A. H. McDonald JRS, 1959, 149.

3 NEGOTIATIONS, 194–193. See De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 130. A diplomatic manoeuvre by Rome: see Holleaux, CAH, viii, 200. Spheres of influence: T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), 171.

4 SCIPIO AFRICANUS AND HANNIBAL. The story, given by Livy (xxxv, 14, 5) on the authority of a later Roman annalist, that Scipio was a member of the embassy and met Hannibal at Ephesus, must be dismissed. Scipio was, however, on a mission sent to Carthage in 193 and also travelled in the eastern Mediterranean (he made dedications at Delos and Delphi: Scullard, Scipio Africanus (1970), 285 f.), so it is just possible he might have met Hannibal, though not at Ephesus.

5 HANNIBAL’S PLANS. On these and his relations with Antiochus see Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, ii, 127, whose views are supported by E. Meyer (Kl. Schr., i, 260 ff.; Meister d. Politik, 160 ff.) against the criticism of Lehmann (Delbrück-Festschrift, 69 ff.). De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 143 f., 155) rejects Kromayer’s belief that Hannibal intended to carry the war into Italy. Groag (Hannibal als Politiker, 132 ff.) attempts to defend Hannibal’s war plan against Kromayer’s criticism, but his attempt is not convincing, especially in its assumption of the weakness of the Italian confederacy.

6 NABIS AND PHILOPOEMEN. It is not certain that the conduct of Nabis was so black and of Achaea so white as our pro-Achaean sources paint it: cf. De Sanctis SR, IV, i, 133, 231. In any case the Romans wished to stop the fighting before it spread. On Philopoemen see R. M. Errington, Philopoemen (1969).

7 ANTIOCHUS’ AIMS. See De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 141 ff.

8 THERMOPYLAE. On the topography see Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, ii, 134 ff. and Atlas, cols 42, 43; G. B. Grundy, The Great Persian War (1901), 257 ff.; W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography (1965), i, 71 ff. Traces of the wall survive.

9 LUCIUS SCIPIO. On the political intrigues behind these appointments Livy (xxxvii, 1–2) and Cicero (Phil., xi, 7; Pro Mur., 14) give slightly differing accounts. Cf. Scullard, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC, edn 2, (1973), 284 f. L. Scipio’s abilities are not generally rated very highly, but see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Historia, 1972, 224 ff., for a more favourable assessment.

10 THE ROMAN INVASION OF ASIA. In spite of the Polybian tradition to the contrary (Polybius, xxi, 15), Antiochus’ decision not to contest the crossing seems to have been wise. Cf. Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, ii, 161 ff. The Scipios sent a letter to Prusias, stating Roman policy to kings: Polybius, xxi, 11.

11 MAGNESIA. On the battle see Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, ii, 163 ff. and Atlas, cols 43–6. The criticism of Delbrück (Geschichte der Kriegskunst, i, edn 3, 426 ff.) is far from convincing.

12 THE PEACE OF APAMEA. See Polybius, xxi, 16–17, 24, 45: Livy, xxxvii, 45. Appian, Syr., 38, includes the surrender of the fleet and elephants in the preliminaries, but Polybius’ silence is preferable. Cf. De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 205 ff. On the territorial limits imposed on Antiochus by land and sea, see A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1967, 1 ff. (the Taurus frontier to lie along the river Calycadnus in Cilicia Tracheia), and McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1969, 30 ff. (for the naval clauses and types of ships involved). Contrary to the widely accepted view that Scipio’s terms were more generous than those finally established by the Senate, E. Badian (Foreign Clientelae, 81 ff.) believes (partly because Polybius’ account of Scipio’s terms is incomplete) that ‘the spirit of the Scipios’ armistice is the same as that of the Senate’s peace treaty’. But would Scipio have approved of the handing over to Eumenes of some Greek cities in the final settlement? We do not know, but the friendly letters that he wrote to some cities (see p. 520 n. 15) and his lack of prejudice against kings (as shown in his letter to Prusias, as well as in his personal relations with Philip) may suggest that he would not have liked the Senate’s terms.


1 CALLICRATES. New era: Polybius, xxiv, 10. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (1958, 91) assesses Callicrates more favourably.

2 DEMETRIUS. For this judgement see De Sanctis (SR, IV, i, 255) who compares Philip’s fortunes with Hannibal’s. Demetrius was probably used as an unwitting tool by the Senate and Flamininus against the Macedonian royal house: as a future king he would become a pawn of Rome. Flamininus is said to have alleged in a letter to Philip that Demetrius was plotting not only to oust Perseus but also to remove Philip himself: the letter may have been a forgery, as Livy suggests (lx, 23). See Walbank, Philip V, 251, Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 94.

3 PERSEUS. See P. Meloni, Perseo (1953). On the causes of the war see A. Giovannini, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique, 1969, 853 ff.; L. Raditsa, ANRW, I, i, 576 ff. E. S. Gruen (Amer. J. Anc. Hist., 1976, 29 ff.) has argued that Greek attitudes towards Rome or Macedon were not determined by class membership or social status during the Third Macedonian War.

4 EUMENES. His charges against Perseus included the expulsion of a Thracian chief, now Rome’s ally; the harbouring of the murderers of an Illyrian chief; intrigues with Carthage and Byzantium and in Greece, etc. The charges are listed in the accusation of Perseus before the Delphic Amphictiony (Dittenberger, Sylloge, 643; translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rom. Civ., i. 184 f.).

5 Q. MARCIUS PHILIPPUS. See F. W. Walbank, JRS, 1941, 86 ff., J. Briscoe, JRS, 1964, 66 ff. His diplomatic methods offended some of the more old-fashioned senators. The sources mention four diplomatic contacts between Rome and Macedon after Eumenes’ visit. These are discussed by J. W. Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic(1976), 88 ff., who concludes that only two are authentic, namely Philippus’ interview with Perseus at Tempe and the Macedonian embassy to Rome in early 171; he also concludes that at no point did the Romans deliver an ultimatum and discusses the chronological problems involved.

6 THE BATTLE OF PYDNA. This battle presents many difficulties. Polybius’ account (xxix, 15–17) is very fragmentary, while there is a large lacuna in Livy’s (xliv, 33–42). See Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, II, 294 ff.; criticism by E. Meyer, Kleine Schriften, II, 465 ff.; reply by Kromayer, Schlachtfelder, iv, 601 ff., and Atlas, col. 48 ff.; De Sanctis, IV, i, 322 ff.; W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Greek Topography, ii (1969), 145 ff. The date is fixed by an eclipse of the moon on the night of 21 June (cf. De Sanctis, pp. 369–76). This date (rather than the autumn) is confirmed by an inscription, discovered in the Agora at Athens, which contains the earliest known reference to the battle: seeHesperia, 1934, 18 ff.; 1936, p. 389 ff., n. 17. Livy (xliv, 37) dated the eclipse to 3 September; hence it has been argued (cf. De Sanctis) that the calendar was at this time some 2 months out of line with the solar year, i.e that 3 September on the contemporary calendar = 21 June (Julian calendar). This view has been challenged by S. I. Oost, Cl. Phil., 1953, 217 ff., but defended by P. Meloni, Latomus (1954), 553 ff.
    Kromayer places Perseus’ camp eight miles south of Pydna between the Pelikas and Mavroneri. He supposes that the Romans as well as the Macedonians withdrew to their camp at midday before the battle, because otherwise their advance guard by the river would be unnecessary. Yet it may have been necessary to protect their right wing from the possibility of being outflanked. Meyer’s view is that the Romans remained in battle array all day and that Perseus succeeded in attacking them suddenly in this position. Even if the first statement is admitted, the second can hardly withstand Kromayer’s criticism; the Romans were not taken by surprise when Perseus attacked. More recently Kromayer has changed his ground by suggesting that the Roman army did not advance from its camp into battle line at all in the morning; and it is certainly easier to support this by absence of reference in our sources than it is to find definite reference to a Roman advance.

7 THE SETTLEMENT OF MACEDONIA. See T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), 208 ff.; A. Aymard, Cl. Ph. 1950, 97 ff.; J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States (1968), 295 ff. E. Badian (Foreign Clientelae, 97) notes that the settlement involved ‘for the first time the dissociation of libertas and immunitas’: the states were free but paid taxes.

8 THE SETTLEMENT OF EPIRUS. See S. I. Oost, Roman Policy in Epirus (1954), 68 ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus (1967), 629 ff. For the part played by the Epirote traitor Charops see H. H. Scullard, JRS, 1945, 55 ff.

9 ROMAN POLICY. On Roman policy in the east, 168–146 BC, and the factions in the Roman Senate that formulated it see J. Briscoe, Historia, 1969, 49 ff. For a general survey of this period see E. Will, Hist. pol. du monde hellénistique, ii (1967), 301 ff.

10 PTOLEMY’S TESTAMENT. See SEG, ix, 7, with literature cited there and in JHS, 1933, 263 f.

11 DEMETRIUS. Polybius, Demetrius’ friend, helped him to escape and has given a vivid account of the adventure (xxxi, 19 ff.). Perhaps the Senate, or part of it at any rate, turned a blind eye to this escapade; cf. H. Volkmann, Klio, 1925, 382 f.

12 JEWISH TREATY. This treaty, which was granted by the Senate and not ratified by the Comitia, never became operative, but its existence has been doubted without adequate reason. See 1 Maccab. 8; Josephus, Antiqu. xii, 10, 6 (414–19). Cf. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1 (revised by G. Vermes and Fergus Millar, 1973), 171 ff.

13 MACEDONIA AS PROVINCE. M. G. Morgan (Historia, 1969, 422 ff.) argues that Macedonia was formally established as a Roman province by Mummius in 146 rather than (as is usually believed) by Metellus Macedonicus.

14 THE ACHAEAN WAR. On its social aspects see A. Fuks, JHS, 1970, 78 ff. The lower classes supported the war effort against Rome, but although various measures taken by the League (e.g regarding payment of debts and freeing of slaves) had serious social and economic implications, the war was essentially a national struggle for independence, irrespective in the main of class differences. Cf. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization, edn 3 (1952), 38; when the League voted to go to war with Rome ‘it could do nothing else, unless a small country has no right to fight for its liberties against a big one’. E. S. Gruen (JHS, 1976, 46 ff.) has made a further attempt to disentangle the motives which led to the war, which he believes was caused neither by Roman imperialism nor by Greek mob hysteria: rather it ‘stemmed from understandable miscalculation on both sides. Rome expected that a combination of intimidating demands and generous proposals would prevent conflict in the Peloponnese. Achaean leaders assumed that coercion of dissident communities in the League could continue – as it had in the past – with impunity. The peculiar circumstances of 146 undermined those expectations. In the end, Rome would not endure a conflagration in Greece when she was about to establish a stable order in Macedon… The result was calamity, unplanned and unanticipated’ (p. 69).

15 THE SETTLEMENT OF 146. See J. A. O. Larsen, Econ. Survey of Anc. Rome, iv, 306 ff.; Greek Federal States (1968), 498 ff.; S. Accame, Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (1946).


1 CISALPINE GAUL. As ancient historians were more interested in Rome’s expansion in the east, the dreary wars in the north were ill-recorded by authoritative writers: this afforded an open field for the patriotic imagination of the Roman annalists, and some modern writers have not been slow to seek doublets of events. Thus, e.g., Livy’s account of the campaign of 200–199 (xxxi, 10; 21–2; 47–9) is sometimes regarded as merely a doublet of those of 197–196. But while confusion and duplication of many details may have occurred, such radical criticism is scarcely needed: see, e.g., J. Briscoe, Commentary on Livy, xxxi–xxxiii (1973), 82 ff. On these northern campaigns see also A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), 268 ff. and (for 201–191) A. H. McDonald, Antichthon, 1974, 44 ff.

2 NEW ROADS. This Via Flaminia from Arretium to Bononia is to be distinguished from the old Via Flaminia from Rome to Ariminum (of which the Via Aemilia was a continuation) built by the consul of 223. On the development of Cisalpine Gaul see U. Ewins, PBSR, 1952, 54 ff. and for its population and resources see P. Brunt, Manpower, ch. xiii.

3 MINUCIUS THERMUS. Livy’s account (xxxv, 3, 11, 21; xxxvi, 38) of Thermus’ exploits is confused and untrustworthy.

4 LUCA, LUNA. See E. T. Salmon, Cl. Qu., 1933, 30 ff., JRS, 1936, 47 ff. and A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), ii, 532 ff. It remains uncertain whether or not references in the sources to a colony at Luca should be emended to Luna, and that thus Luca should be eliminated from the list of colonies; Salmon is against retaining it, Toynbee in favour. See now P. Sommella and C. F. Giuliani, La pianta di Lucca romana (1974), in favour.

5 CENTURIATION. Traces of the division of land into plots have been found in northern Italy. On this centuriation as revealed by aerial photography see J. Bradford, Ancient Landscapes (1957), esp. 157 ff., 261 ff.; P. Fraccaro, Opuscula (1957), III, i, ii.

6 MANLIUS. On the topography, see Veith, Atlas, cols. 49, 50; De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 431.

7 DALMATIAN CAMPAIGNS. See J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969), 30 ff.

8 THE SPANISH WARS. The account of these wars, which belong to the Great Age of Conquests, partly exceeds the strict chronological limit of this volume (146 BC). The Lusitanian War lasted from 154 to 138, the First Celtiberian from 181 to 179, the Second from 153 to 151 and the Third (or Numantine War) from 143 to 133; Polybius treats the last two as one twenty years’ war, 153–133. The sources (mainly Polybius, Livy, Appian and Diodorus: Polybius wrote a monograph on the Numantine War, now lost), are collected in Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, iii (1935), iv (1937), edited by A. Schulten.

9 ROMAN SPAIN. See A. Schulten, CAH, viii, 306 ff., C. H. V. Sutherland, The Romans in Spain (1939). The ancient sources are collected in Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, ed. A. Schulten, P. Bosch Gimpera and L. Pericot.

10 ROMAN CAMPS. Camps dating from this campaign have been found near Emporiae, Segontia (at Aguilar and Alpanesque) and near Numantia (at Renieblas I).
    The survival of many camps, particularly at and around Numantia, throws an interesting light on these wars. Our knowledge of them derives mainly from the work of A. Schulten (see especially his four monumental volumes, Numantia: die Ergebnisse der Ausgraben, and more briefly, Geschichte von Numantia (1933)). Literary information about Republican camps derives chiefly from Polybius’ detailed description (vi, 27 ff.); though the camps of Scipio at Numantia do not quite conform to Polybius’ description, that of Nobilior at Renieblas does. Though the Romans did not excel in certain branches of art, the Roman camp, no less than the Roman constitution in the civil sphere, was a work of art, and as early as 280 BC king Pyrrhus could exclaim in wonder, ‘The camps of the barbarians are not barbarian’, and his remark is now shown to be true.
    It may be convenient to list a number of camps which belong to this period:

217 Camp of the Scipios at Almenara, near Saguntum (p. 213).

206 Camp of Scipio at Ilipa (p. 228; cf. H. H. Scullard, JRS, 1936, 19 ff.).

c. 195 Camps of Cato’s campaigns at Emporiae (?. See A. Schulten, Arch. Anzeiger, 1940, 75 ff.), Aguilar, Alpanesque (near Segontia) and Renieblas I and summer camp II.

153 Summer camp of Nobilior at Almazan.

153 Nobilior’s camp at Renieblas III (Camps IV and V belong to the war with Sertorius).

152 Marcellus’ camp at Numantia on Castillejo I.

141–140 Pompeius’ camp at Numantia on Castillejo II.

139 Servilius Caepio’s camp near Caceres: Castra Servilia (later camps near Caceres date from the Sertorian war).

138 Brutus’ camp, the cava di Viriato, at Viseu in Portugal.

134 Scipio’s seven camps around Numantia.

11 SPAIN 154–133 BC. On these wars see H. Simon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 154–133 v. Chr, (1962); A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (1967), 35 ff., 137 ff.

12 REVOLT AND NOBILIOR. On the site of Segeda see A. Schulten, Arch. Anzeiger, 1933, 547. A bronze tablet, referring to a treaty between ten Celtiberian towns, belongs either to this period or later (c. 98 BC): see Schulten, Hermes, 1915, 237. In order that the consul might start his campaign early, the beginning of the civil year was altered from 15 March to 1 January. Modern Europe thus owes the beginning of its year to the Celtiberian War. On Nobilior’s camp see n. 10 above.

13 VIRIATHUS. On the war with Viriathus see A. Schulten, Neue Jahrbücher, 1917, 1 ff. and Kromayer, Atlas, col. 56. Little was known of details, topographical and strategical, until Schulten’s researches revealed the main outline.

14 NUMANTIA. Schulten believes that the town wall was partially destroyed when the inhabitants spread beyond it, so that the attacks of Nobilior in 153 and of Scipio in 134 were against an unwalled town. But the archaeological evidence has been interpreted differently by R. G. Collingwood and M. I. Munro (JRS, 1931, 156) who suggest that the town wall was not destroyed.

15 HANNIBAL AS SUFFETE. The date of his office, whether 197, 196 or 195 is uncertain; 196 is the most probable, with 195 as the year of his flight into exile. See E. Groag, Hannibal als Politiker, 114, n. 4, Scullard, Roman Politics, 284; J. Briscoe, Comm. Livy, xxi–xxxiii, 335 at L. xxxiii, 45.

16 MASINISSA. See Polybius’ tribute, xxxvi, 16. On Masinissa’s achievement cf. P. G. Walsh, JRS, 1965, 149 ff.; G. Camps, Massinissa (= Libyca, viii, 1960).

17 THE FOSSA REGIA. The frontier of Carthage at the beginning of the Third Punic War followed the same course as the boundary between the future province of Africa and Numidia, called the fossa regia. The discovery of boundary stones has shown that Carthage only retained the north-east corner of Tunisia and a narrow coastal strip on the east.

18 CAUSES OF THE THIRD PUNIC WAR. Commercial jealousy, the view of Mommsen, has been effectively rejected by Kahrstedt (Gesch. d. Karthager, iii, 616 ff.), T. Frank (Roman Imperialism, 234) and E. Badian (Roman Imperialism in the late Republic (1968), 20). After the war the Romans made no attempt to occupy or exploit the commercial facilities of Carthage, while at xxxvi, 9 Polybius is silent about possible trade rivalry. Badian (Foreign Clientelae, 125 ff., and esp. 133 ff.) underlines Roman fear of Carthaginian strength (in contrast to Kahrstedt’s view of Carthaginian weakness which, it was feared, might tempt Masinissa to attack Carthage and try to dominate North Africa). W. Hoffmann (Historia, 1960, 309 ff.) emphasizes the growth of metus Punicus. On Roman policy see further F. E. Adcock, Cambr. Hist. J., 1946, 117 ff.; A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (1967), 272 ff; and (on Scipio’s policy) H. H. Scullard, JRS, 1960, 59 ff.

19 CARTHAGE: TOPOGRAPHY. See D. B. Harden, Greece and Rome (1939), 1 ff.; C. Picard, Carthage (1951); B. H. Warmington, Carthage, edn 2, (1969), 128 ff. See H. Hurst, Antiquaries J., 1975, 11 ff.; 1976, 117 ff.; 1977, 232 ff.; CEDAC (Centre d’Études… arch. de la Conservation de Carthage) Bulletin I (September 1978, Tunis); S. Lancel,Byrsa, i (Rome, 1974). The general accuracy of Appian’s description (Lib., 96) of the splendid circular naval harbour, with ship-sheds for 220 vessels, has now been confirmed.


1 THE EQUESTRIAN ORDER. Polybius (vi, 17) gives a description of their activities about 150 BC (‘nearly everyone’ had an interest in state contracts). See H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class (1952); C. Nicolet, L’Ordre équestre à l’époque republicaine, i, ii (1966, 1975); (the basic thesis of this book, namely that the ordo equester consisted only of equites equo publico, has not met with widespread acceptance); P. A. Brunt in The Crisis of the Roman Republic (ed. R. Seager, 1969), 83 ff; E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners (1972) and briefly OCD2, s.v. Equites.

2 FREEDMEN. See in general S. Treggiari, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (1969) and, for the history of their voting rights, pp. 37 ff.

3 AGRARIAN AND COLONIAL POLICY. See G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 1950, 183 ff.; A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, (1965), ii, 190 ff.

4 COLONIES. Latin colonies: Copia (193), Vibo (192), Placentia and Cremona (190), Bononia (189), Aquileia (181), ?Luca (180). Citizen colonies: Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum, Pyrgi, Sipontum, Tempsa, Croton (194), Potentia, Pisaurum, Auximum (184), Mutina, Parma, Saturnia (183), Graviscae (181), Luna (177). The larger size of citizen colonies founded from 183 BC (pp. 293 ff.) perhaps led to the introduction of the duovirate or dual praetura (p. 147) and hastened the assimilation of such colonies to municipia: cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit., edn 2, 81 ff. See also E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonisation (1969), eh. vi.

5 IUS MIGRANDI. The law that members of Latin colonies founded after 266 must leave a son behind (p. 484 n. 24) might be evaded by manumitting and adopting a slave. Between 187 and 177 the restricted ius migrandi was probably applied to all Latin colonies.

6 LEGES PORCIAE. See Bloch-Carcopino, La République romaine, ii, 145; A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1944, 19; A. H. M. Jones, Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (1972), 22 ff.

7 ALLIED GRIEVANCES. Senatorial interference: Polybius, vi, 13, 3. Sidicinum: C. Gracchus, apud Aul. Gell., x, 3, 2–3.

8 ANTI-EXPANSIONISM. See F. B. Marsh, The Founding of the Roman Empire (1927), ch. i.

9 ROMAN POLICY NON-COMMERCIAL. See T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1914), ch. xiv; and CAH, viii, 348; also cf. p. 518 n. 18 above. On Italian trade see J. Hatzfeld, Les trafiquants italiens dans l’Orient hellénique (1919).

10 PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION. The general methods have already been discussed in connection with the formation of the province of Sicily (ch. viii, 1): conditions varied in the different provinces, and it was a great merit of the Roman system to avoid imposing an unnatural uniformity. In general see G. H. Stevenson, Roman Provincial Administration (1939); E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners (1972).

11 THE TRIBUNATE AND THE LEX AELIA AND FUFIA. On the tribunes’ increasing independence of the Senate and magistrates see L. R. Taylor, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, JRS, 1962, 19 ff. On the law see A. E. Astin, Latomus, 1964, 421 ff.; A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (1967), 94 ff.

12 LEX VILLIA ANNALIS. See A. E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla (1957).

13 NOBLE EXCLUSIVENESS. ‘Consulatum nobilitas inter se per manus tradebat’: Sallust, Bell. lug., 63, 3. It is instructive to compare the working of aristocracy in England. It is very exceptional to find a commoner in the Cabinet in the eighteenth century, and in the nineteenth ‘every Cabinet from Lord Grey’s Reform Bill administration to that of Disraeli in 1874 was wholly, or almost wholly, aristocratic. There was this advance from the eighteenth century – that it was not necessary to be a peer in order to be a Cabinet Minister, but birth and connection were almost indispensable to Cabinet rank’ (O. F. Christie, The Transition from Aristocracy, 1832–1867 (1927), 114).

14 POLITICAL FACTIONS. The ‘prosopographical’ analysis of Roman politics derives mainly from M. Gelzer’s work on the nobility (now translated as The Roman Nobility (1969) by R. Seager) and the development of some of his ideas by F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (1920). For the application of group politics to different periods see F. Cassola, I gruppi politici romani del iii secolo a.C. (1962; on this cf. E. S. Starveley, JRS, 1963, 182 ff.); A. Lippold, Consules… 264 bis 201 v. Chr. (1963); H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC, edn 2 (1972); E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 264–70 BC (1958). Brief general discussions of method are given by A. E. Astin, Politics and Policies in the Roman Republic (a lecture, 1968) and T. R. S. Broughton, Aufstieg NRW, I, i, 250 ff. On factio see R. Seager, JRS, 1972, 55 ff. While most historians would now agree that the essential nature of Roman political life was personal, they remain divided about the extent to which groups of friends and clients gathered round an individual and on how durable such groups which were held together by ties of family and amicitia (political alliance) may have been. On the ideals of the nobles see D. Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (1967).

15 SCIPIO AFRICANUS. The idea that the people wished to make him perpetual consul and dictator is based on late and unreliable evidence (Livy, xxxviii, 56): see H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, edn 2 (1972), 83 ff., 282. Scipio’s visit to Delphi in SEG, i, 144. Visit to Delos in 193: Holleaux, Hermes, 1913, 75; in 189: Dittenberger, Sylloge, ii, 617. Decrees proxenia to the Scipios by Aptera in Crete in 189: M. Guarducci, Inscr. Cret., ii, Aptera 5A. Letter to Colophon in 190: M. Holleaux, Riv. d. Fil., 1924, 29 ff. Letter to Heraclea: Dittenberger, Sylloge, ii, 618 and De Sanctis, SR, IV, i, 226 n. and 576 n. On the treaty which terminated the war of Heraclea and Miletus in 180: Dittenberger,Sylloge, ii, 633.

16 PHILHELLENISM. Two camps: R. M. Haywood, Studies in Scipio Africanus (1933). The idea of A. H. McDonald (JRS, 1938, 155 ff.) that Flamininus supported the old Hellenic ideal of the Greek city-state at the expense of the Hellenistic kingdoms, while Scipio’s policy was based more broadly, has not been accepted by all, though it has much to commend it.

17 THE TRIAL OF THE SCIPIOS. On this vexed question see P. Fraccaro, I Processi degli Scipioni (1911) and Athenaeum, 1939, 3 ff. (= Opuscula, i, 263 ff., 393 ff.); H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC edn 2 (1972), 290 ff. Alternatively to what is said in the text, some maintain that the attack on Africanus occurred in 187 and merely formed an incident in the trial of Lucius; the evidence is inconclusive.

18 CATO. See D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor (1954); F. della Corte, Cato, edn 2 (1969); H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, edn 2 (1972), s.v. index; A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (1978).


1 AGRICULTURE. On agriculture and Roman methods see especially K. D. White, Roman Farming (1970); also his Agricultural Implements of the Roman World (1967) and Farm Equipment of the Roman World (1975). Also W. E. Heitland, Agricola (1921).

2 CHANGING AGRARIAN CONDITIONS. See A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy (1965), ii, chs v– viii; M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, ch. i.

3 SICILIAN CORN. See T. Frank, Econ. Survey, i, 158 ff.; H. Last, CAH, ix, 4.

4 ARMY REFORMS. Livy (i, 43, 1; viii, 8, 3) dates the adoption of the long scutum in place of the clipeus either to Servius Tullius or to c. 400 BC, while Sallust (Catil., 51) and the Ineditum Vaticanum believe the Romans borrowed the pilum and scutum during struggles with the Samnites. The looser manipular system may have been introduced at the time of the siege of Veii (an operation for which the older phalanx formation was not suited: see Q. F. Maule and H. R. W. Smith, Votive Religion at Caere (1959), 22 ff.), but if so, it did not prove effective at Allia. The manipular formation is described by Livy (viii, 8) under the year 340, but since a rival Roman tradition (Plutarch, Camillus 40) regards Camillus as a military reformer, some (e.g. L. Homo, CAH, vii, 568) believe that the reform was designed by Camillus against the Gauls. E. T. Salmon (Samnium and the Samnites, 105 ff.) prefers Camillus and the beginning of the fourth century, while F. E. Adcock CAH, vii, 596) argues for the Samnite Wars. On the literary sources for the pre-Marian army see E. Rawson, PBSR, 1971, 13 ff. On the earliest use of the cohort see M. J. V. Bell, Historia, 1965, 404 ff. and E. Rawson, op. cit. Most books on specialized aspects of the Roman army (e.g. H. M. D. Parker, The Roman Legions, edn 2 (1958)) deal only briefly with earlier periods and concentrate on the later Republic and Empire. An excellent picture book, elementary but reliable, The Roman Army (1975) by P. Connolly, well illustrates the formation and weapons of the pre-Marian army (and navy). Standard works include Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen und Kriegsführung der Griechen und Römer (1928); P. Couissin, Les armes romaines(1926).

5 LEGIONS IN BEING. The fact that between 200 and 168 BC there were normally eight legions in being (some 42,000 citizens under arms) shows that the standing armies of the Empire were foreshadowed: cf. R. E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Army (1958), ch. i. On the total number of troops involved see A. Afzelius, Die römische Eroberung Italiens (340–264 v. Chr.) (1942) and Die röm. Kriegsmacht während der Auseinandersetzung mit den hellenistischen Grossmächten (1944); P. A. Brunt, Manpower (1971), ch. xxiii.

6 OSTIA. On early Ostia see R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, edn 2 (1973), ch. 3.

7 MINING. If a senatorial decree which closed mining in Italy (Pliny, Nat. Hist., xxxiii, 78) belongs to this period, it did not apparently apply to the iron of Elba. On mining in general see J. F. Healy, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World (1978).

8 SHOP-KEEPERS. The three different signatures on some pottery of c. 200 BC found in a deposit of ‘throw-outs’ from a kiln at Minturnae suggest that the potter was not an individual but a small syndicate or co-operative group: Amer. J. Arch., 1934, 294.

9 ROMAN COINAGE. On the early coinage see R. Thomsen, Early Roman Coinage, 3 vols (1957–61); on Republican coinage in general see E. A. Sydenham, Roman Republican Coinage (1952), M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (1974). Two wider surveys are H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, edn 2 (1962) and C. H. V. Sutherland,Roman Coins (1974). It is not possible here to enter into problems that have vexed the study of the early coinage, but there is now wider agreement about the date of its inception and that the denarius was introduced in 212/211 BC. On the developments during the Hannibalic War see M. Crawford, JRS, 1964, 29 ff.; and for Hannibal’s and other coinage in Italy at this time see E. S. G. Robinson, Num. Chron., 1964, 37 ff.

10 WAR BUDGETS. The figures given above for the First Punic War are those of T. Frank (Econ Survey, i, (1933), 61 ff.) who equates the cost of the war, some 100 million denarii, with 24 million American dollars of 1933. He includes the grain received by the allies, but it is probable that though Rome provided food and equipment for the allies, the cost of this (like that of the allied pay: Livy, xxvii, 9, 2) fell on the allies, who will have made an overall payment to Rome: see Polybius, vi, 39, and Walbank, Polybius, i, 722. For the Second Punic War see Frank, op. cit., 76 ff. The figures he gives are only put forward as rough estimates which may give some idea of the relative scale of the various financial operations.

11 PROPERTY. See De Sanctis, SR, III, ii, 623 ff. and Frank, Econ. Survey, 125 f. Land was worth perhaps 100 denarii an acre in 200 BC.

12 PRICES. See T. Frank Econ. Survey, i, 188 ff., 208 ff.

13 SLAVERY. On the revolting conditions in the mines see Strabo, iii, 147, and Diodorus, v, 36. In general see W. L. Westermann. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1955); P. A. Brunt, JRS, 1958, 164 ff.; M. I. Finley (ed), Slavery in Classical Antiquity (1960); J. Vogt, Ancient Slavery (1975).

14 FAMILY LIFE AND SCHOOLING. See J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969), ch. iii; H. I. Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity (1958), 229 ff.; S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (1977).

15 GREEK INFLUENCES. See G. Colin, Rome et la Grèce (1905), still a useful collection of material. He assigns the cause primarily to Rome. At the moment when social inequalities, pride and ambition corrupted the Romans, Greece supplied all manner of evil examples.

16 Cf A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (1975), 18 f.

17 THE CITY. On the architecture of the early city see A. Boethius and J. B. Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture (1970). On the individual buildings see S. B. Plainer and T. Ashby, Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929) and the splendid complementary work, E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 2 vols (1961). See also G. Lugli, Roma antica, Il centro monumentale (1946) and Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romanae Pertinentes, 8 vols (1953–). D. R. Dudley, Urbs Roma (1967) is a source book of selected translated texts. Also M. Grant, The Roman Forum (1970). F. Coarelli, ‘Public Building at Rome from 201 to Sulla’, PBSR, 1977, 1 ff.

18 FORUM BOARIUM TEMPLES. Hercules Victor: this round temple, near S. Maria in Cosmedin, was destroyed in 1475, when the cult image of gilded bronze was discovered. On the early temples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta see above, p. 000. Either one of the two later well-preserved temples, the pseudoperipteral Ionic, known as Fortuna Virilis, and the round temple known as Vesta or Mater Matuta, may have been dedicated to Portunus, the harbour god.

19 OTHER AVENTINE BUILDINGS. These included temples to Mercury (495; here was held an annual festival of merchants, mercatores); Jupiter Liberias (dedicated by Ti. Sempronius in 238; his son placed there a picture of his victory at Beneventum in 214); Flora (240); Consus (built in 272 by L. Papirius Cursor whose portrait, as a triumphator, adorned the walls); Venus Obsequens (295, built from fines imposed on women convicted of adultery). On the Basilica Aemilia see Boethius and Ward-Perkins, Etr. Rom. Architecture, 107, E. Nash, Vict. Diet. Anc. Rom., ii, 238 ff.

20 THE PALATINE. Traces survive of the ‘Servian’ wall, or a contemporary but separate enceinte, in the north-west, and of a separate fort on the west and south sides (the so-called ‘wall of Romulus’). Other shrines included a temple of Jupiter Victor (vowed at Sentinum in 295) and an altar erected to Aius Locutus by the Senate in 390 because the Romans had disregarded a warning voice concerning the Gauls. On the temple of Magna Mater see Arch. Labiale, i, 1978, 67 ff.

21 VESTA AND THE REGIA. The temple of Vesta contained no statue of the goddess; the foundations of the existing temple, one of the best-known monuments of the Forum, are Augustan. There are no traces of the Atrium Vestae before the second century BC. When the Regia was enlarged in the latter half of the third century it preserved the essential plan of its sixth-century predecessor: see F. E. Brown, Les Origines de la Rép. Rom, Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1966), 477 ff. (cf. p. 454 n. 14 above). The Via Sacra ran between the precincts of Vesta and the Regia.

22 THE ARX. Other monuments include: Temple of Concord (216); Columna Rostrata in honour of M. Aemilius Paullus, consul in 255, destroyed in 172. The temple of Veiovis stood between the two summits of the Capitoline. It was discovered in 1939; the existing remains belong to a restoration of 78 BC, but below the podium are traces of the first temple, vowed by L. Furius Purpureo in 194.

23 THE CAMPUS MARTIUS; FORUM HOLITORIUM. Circus Flaminius: recent excavation and new fragments of the Severan marble plan of Rome have shown that its precise site was slightly different from that usually accepted in the past (see Nash, Pict. Dict. Anc. Rome, i, 232, with bibliography). Other temples were: Hercules Custos (c.221); Hercules Musarum (187; containing Fasti, and statues brought by Nobilior from Ambracia); Jupiter Stator (beneath S. Maria in Campitelli; built by Metellus c. 146). Shrine of Fons, built with booty from Corsica, 231. Four temples were found in 1926–9 in a precinct of Republican date in the Largo Argentina. Their identification is uncertain, but now that the site of the Circus Flaminius has been settled (the temples were ‘in campo’ not ‘in circo’) fresh attempts at identification have been made: see Roma medio repubblicana (Catalogue of the Mostra of the Capitol, 1973): temple A, late, Juno Curitis (?); B, end of second century, aedes Catuli (?); C, fourth century, Feronia; D, beginning of second century, Lares Permarini (?). For photographs see Nash, Pict. Dict., i, 136 ff. Forum Holitorium: Janus, built by Duilius after Mylae; Spes (First Punic War); Juno (194). A temple of Pietas, vowed by Glabrio at Thermopylae (191) contained a gilded statue of Glabrio, the first of its kind in Rome. On the Circus Flaminius see T. P. Wiseman,PBSR, 1974, 44 ff.

24 QUOTATIONS. See F. de Zulueta, The Legacy of Rome (1923), 175; 186.

25 ROMAN LAW. See H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, edn 3 (1972), to which I am particularly indebted here; W. Kunkel, Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (1966); B. Nicolas, Introduction to Roman Law (1962); J. Crook, Roman Law and Life (1967); F. Schulz, Principles of Roman Law(1936), History of Roman Legal Science (1946), Classical Roman Law (1951); A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1951); A. Watson, Roman Private Law around 200 BC. (1971), rather specialized, and Rome of the XII Tables: persons and property (1976).


1 LATIN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. On the language see L. R. Palmer, The Latin Language (1954); A. Meillet, Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue Latine, edn 4 (1930). On literature: J. Wight Duff, A Literary History of Rome from the Origins to Close of the Golden Age, edn 3 (1953); T. Frank, Life and Literature in the Roman Republic(1930); H. J. Rose, Handbook of Latin Literature, edn 2 (1950); W. Beare, The Roman Stage, edn 2 (1955).

2 BALLAD POETRY. See A. Momigliano, JRS, 1957, 104 ff. (= Secondo Contrib., 69 ff.).

3 SATURNIAN VERSE. The stock line comes from Naevius: ‘Dabunt malum Metelli Naevio poetae’. The question is still unsettled whether Saturnian verse is accentual, semi-quantitative, or quantitative. If accentual, based on the minstrel’s beat, the accent probably falls on the first, not on the second syllable (dábunt, málum), so that we must reject the famous example: ‘The queen was in her parlour, eating bread and honey’. The verse may then have been affected later by Greek quantitative scansion.

4 ACTORS. It is possible that this social stigma was a later phenomenon, and even then did not apply to all branches of acting alike. There was, however, little to stimulate the acting profession in Rome, so that later dramatists often acted in their own plays. By 200 BC only six days were set apart for dramatic performances. Drama had no religious associations in Rome as in Greece. Atellan farces may perhaps have derived from the Dorian farces of Magna Graecia.

5 LIVIUS ANDRONICUS. Horace (Ep., ii, 1, 62) wrote: ‘Ad nostrum tempus Livi scriptoris ab aevo’. Cf. the lines of Porcius Licinus (second half of the second century BC): ‘Poenico bello secundo Musa pinnato gradu/Intulit se bellicosam in Romuli gentem feram’.

6 NAEVIUS. The tradition about his imprisonment has been questioned (e.g. more recently again by H. B. Mattingly, Historia, 1960, 414 ff.), but wartime censorship may have muzzled free speech to an unparalleled extent. See T. Frank, AJPhil., 1927, 105 ff. The charge would be made under the restriction imposed by the Twelve Tables on offensive carmina. See A. Momigliano, JRS, 1942, 120 ff. Contaminatio may mean adapting borrowed scenes (so W. Beare) rather than interweaving two plots.

7 ENNIUS. See Ennius (Entretiens Hardt, xvii, 1971), especially ch. iv by E. Badian on the tradition about the poet’s friends in Rome.

8 ROMAN ART. See R. B. Bandinelli, Rome, the Centre of Power (1971); J. M. C. Toynbee, The Art of the Romans (1956).

9 ETRUSCAN ART. For a critical assessment cf. S. Casson, CAH, iv, 442. But see also D. Randall-Maclver, The Etruscans (1927); J. D. Beazley, Etruscan Vase-Painting (1947); P. J. Riis, Etruscan Art (1953) and other works cited above, p. 446 n. 30.

10 GEMS. A specimen was found in 1780 in the sarcophagus and on the skeleton hand of Scipio Barbatus, consul in 298.

11 PAINTINGS. The Esquiline painting (reproduced, e.g. in Bandinelli, op. cit., supra n. 8, p. 111 and CAH, Plates, iv, 82) shows in three superimposed bands scenes which include a surrender and another in which two generals (Roman and Italian?) are parleying. One is named Q. Fabius, perhaps Q. Fabius Rullianus, consul of 322 or his son. The painting is to be dated to the first half of the third century: Roma Medio-Repubblicana (1973), 200. Another early example is found on the fresco on the façade on the Tomb of the Scipios.


1 ROMAN RELIGION. Four standard works are W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (1911), to which this chapter owes much, and The Roman Festivals (1889); G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (1912); K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte (1960). See also C. Bailey, Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome (1932); F. Altheim, History of Roman Religion (1938), valuable for the Italian setting of Roman religion, but to be used with caution (so also should G. Radke, Die Götter Altitaliens (1965)); J. Bayet, Histoire politique et psychologique de la religion romaine, edn 2 (1969); H. J. Rose, Primitive Culture in Italy (1926); G. De Sanctis,SR, IV, ii, 1, 121 ff. (1953); H. Wagenvoort, Roman Dynamism (1947). Two excellent introductory volumes are H. J. Rose, Ancient Roman Religion (1949) and R. M. Ogilvie, The Romans and their Gods (1969). For surveys of relatively recent work on Roman religion see A. K. Michels, Cl. Weekly, 1955, 25 ff.; H. J. Rose, JRS, 1960, 161 ff.; R. Schilling,Aufstieg NRW (1972), 1, ii, 317 ff.

2 NUMEN. Quotation: Warde Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People, 8. For discussion of numen as equivalent of the idea expressed in the Pacific by mana see H. J. Rose, Ancient Roman Religion (1949), ch. i, and H. Wagenvoort, Roman Dynamism (1947), ch. 3. Numen is not identified with a deity until the Augustan age: F. Pfister, Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. and S. Weinstock, JRS, 1949, 167.

3 LARES. Some scholars maintain that the Lares were the spirits of the dead and the Lar Familiaris the spirit of the family ancestor; if so, this would be evidence of worship of the dead and ancestor worship. But the dead in Roman practice were honoured at their graves, not in the house. Cf. C. Bailey, Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome(1932), 103 ff. and H. J. Rose, OCD, edn 2, s.v.

4 DUMÉZIL. For G. Dumézil’s theory that Rome had three gods (Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus) corresponding with three social classes (priests, warriors and herdsman), see above, p. 451 n. 9.

5 THE IGUVINE TABLETS. See J. W. Poultney, The Bronze Tablets of Iguvium (1959). These tablets, the records of a religious brotherhood, throw a wealth of light on early religious belief and practice. For a brief account of the survival of this ritual in the ‘Elevation of the Ceri’ at modern Gubbio (Iguvium) see R. S. Conway, Ancient Italy and Modern Religion (1932). On the survival of other ancient rites in modern Italy see T. Ashby, Some Italian Scenes and Festivals (1929).

6 DI INDIGETES. The view of Wissowa that di indigetes meant the old indigenous gods and the di novensides the newcomers, has been challenged by F. Altheim (Hist. Rom. Rel., 106 ff.), H. Wagevoort (Roman Dynamism, 83 ff.) and others, but little agreement has been reached about the meaning of these words.

7 THE BACCHANALIA. Livy gives a lively, though highly-coloured, account of the scandal. The so-called senatus consultum de Baccanalibus contains the consuls’ instructions to the allies: Riccobono, Fontes, 240 ff. Cf. M. Gelzer, Hermes, 1936 (= Kleine Schriften, iii (1964), 256 ff.); A. H. McDonald, JRS, 1944, 26 ff.; D. W. L. van Son,Livius’ Behandeling van de Bacchanalia (1960); A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, ii, 387 ff.

8 ORPHISM AND PYTHAGOREANISM. Cf. R. S. Conway, Ancient Italy and Modern Religion ch. ii, ‘Orpheus in Italy’; in general, W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, edn 2 (1952). K. von Fritz, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy (1940).

9 THE SCIPIONIC CIRCLE AND STOICISM. On the attitude of some members of the so-called ‘scipionic circle’ to the ancestral religion see E. Rawson, JRS, 1973, 161 ff. On Stoicism E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism (1900); F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (1975).


1 INSCRIPTIONS, LAWS. Republican inscriptions are published in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. i, edn 2 (1893); A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae 2 vols (1957–63); H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (1892–1916). The number of inscriptions of early Republican times is of course infinitesimal compared with those of the the late Republic and Empire. Roman laws are published by S. Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Romani Ante Iustiniani, i, (1941).

2 FASTI AND CALENDARS. These, respectively, are published in Inscriptiones Italiae, XIII, i (1947) and ii (1963). On the annales and their probable content see J. E. Crake, Cl. Ph., 1940, 375 ff.; P. Fraccaro, JRS, 1957, 60 ff.; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Cl. Qu., 1953, 162. E. Rawson, however, has argued (Cl. Qu., 1971, 158 ff.) that later writers did not in fact make much use of the Annales Maximi and that their annual publication did not continue after Mucius Scaevola (usque ad P. Mucium: Cicero, de Orat., ii, 12, 52).

3 THE GALLIC DESTRUCTION. See Livy, v, 49, 3; 50, 2; vi, l, 10. T. Frank (Roman Buildings of the Republic (1924), 53, 78, 83) believed in the survival of the Regia; this is denied by L. G. Roberts, Mem. Amer. Acad. in Rome, 1918, 55 ff. The matter is not discussed by F. E. Brown in his report on recent excavations in the Regia (Entretiens Hardt, xiii (1967), 47 ff.); he is concerned with the earliest phases and reports destruction by fire c. 500 BC or earlier. On traces of devastation by the Gallic raid in the city in general see E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, iii (1960), index s.v. Gallic invasion. If the Regia was sacked and all its records destroyed, then the early annales which circulated later must have derived from a priestly reconstruction of the lost earlier material. R. M. Ogilvie’s examination of the early books of Livy, however, has led him to the belief (Livy, 6, n. 1) that ‘a number of tabulae, although not a complete set, survived from the period 509–390 (especially 460–390) and contained much more variegated material than is usually assumed’. On the other hand, E. Rawson (Cl. Qu., 1971, 158 ff.) thinks that in fact later writers did not make much use of the Annales Maximi.

4 THE ECLIPSE. Cicero (de rep., i, 1, 25) says that the first observed (not merely computed) eclipse recorded in the Annales Maximi (and by Ennius) was ‘about 350 years after Rome was founded’. If 350 may be interpreted as 354, the eclipse of 21 June 400 BC would be indicated. This would take the Tabulae back to c. 400, and Cicero seems to suggest that earlier eclipses mentioned in the Annales were based on backward calculations from 400 rather than recorded by contemporary evidence. But even if there was a continuous record only from 400, nevertheless some fifth-century material may have survived, as suggested by R. M. Ogilvie (see n. 3 above) who finds very early material e.g. in Livy on 463 and 431 BC.
    K. J. Beloch (Griechische Geschichte, IV, ii, 267) would read CCCC (400) for the figure CCC which a scribe had entered into the defective text of Cicero, but this later date is rejected by J. E. Crake, Cl. Ph., 1940, 379 ff. For Beloch on the Fasti Triumphales see Röm. Gesch., 1 ff.

5 THE HISTORIANS. The standard collections of the fragments of the lost historians are H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, edn 2 (1906–14) and F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (vol. iiic (1958), 845–927 contains the fragments of the Greek historians who dealt with Rome and Italy). Beside the general histories of literature, see valuable surveys of recent work; on the Greek historians by G. T. Griffith and on the Roman historians by A. H. McDonald in Fifty (and Ten) Years of Classical Scholarship, edn 2 (1968). 182 ff., 465 ff., and also McDonald on Republican history, JRS, 1960, 135 ff.
    Timaeus. See Jacoby, FGrH, n. 566. Also T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (1958) and A. Momigliano, Terzo Contrib., 23 ff. (especially 44 ff. for Timaeus and Rome).
    The Annalists. An important survey is provided by E. Badian in Latin Historians (ed. T. A. Dorey, 1966), ch. i. On the individual annalists see also articles by A. H. McDonald, OCD, edn 2. Cf. M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften, iii (1964), 51 ff.
    Fabius Pictor. See A. Momigliano, Terzo Contributo (1966), 55 ff. and D. Timpe, Aufstieg NRW, I, ii (1974), 928 ff. A Greek inscription from an ancient library in Tauromenium in Sicily has recently been found: see G. Manganaro, Par. Pass., 1974, 389 ff., E. Badian, Liverpool Classical Monthly, i, 7, July 1976, 97 f. and Manganaro in A. Alföldi,Römishche Frühgeschichte (1976), 83 ff. The inscription summarizes Fabius’ work: ‘he investigated the arrival of Heracles in Italy and also (the return ?) of Lanoios (his ally ?) and Aeneas and (?Ascanias). Not(?) much later Romulus and Remus were born, and the foundation of Rome by Romulus, who (?first) ruled.’ Thus it is clear that Fabius did not neglect the foundation stories and Rome’s earliest period; he probably dealt briefly with the early Republic and then expanded as he reached the third century and his own times. For reference to Alföldi’s ideas of Fabius’ unreliability, see above, p. 472.
    Cato. On his Origines see W. A. Schröder, M. Porcius Cato. Das erste Buch des Origines (1971); A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (1978), ch. 10. See also G. Calboli, Cato: Oratio pro Rhodiensibus (Bologna, 1978).
    Licinius Macer, Valerius Antias and Aelius Tubero. See Ogilvie, Livy, 7 ff.
    Claudius Quadrigarius, See M. Zimmerer, Der Annalist Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (1937).
    Livy. See especially P. G. Walsh, Livy (1961); Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey (1971; eight essays); Ogilvie, Livy; J. Briscoe, Commentary on Livy, books xxxi–xxxiii (1973).
    Dio Cassius. See F. Millar, Cassius Dio (1964).
    Polybius. See F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, i (1957), ii (1967), iii (1979); Polybius (Sather Classical Lectures, 1972) and JRS, 1962, 1 ff.; 1963, 1 ff. Cf also K. E. Petzold, Studien zur Methode des Polybios (1969); Polybe, Entretiens Hardt, vol. xx, 1973; D. Musti, ‘Polybios negli studi dell’ultimo ventennio (1950–1970)’, Aufstieg NRW, I, ii, (1974), 1114 ff.
    Diodorus. The passages of Diodorus which refer to early Roman history are conveniently printed in A. B. Drachmann, Diodors römische Annalen bis 302 a. Chr. (1912). On Perl’s Kritische Untersuchungen zu Diodors Jahrzählung (1957) see E. S. Staveley, Cl. Rev., 1959, 158 ff.
    Plutarch. See R. H. Barrow, Plutarch and his Times (1967), C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971), D. A. Russell, Plutarch (1973).

6 CHRONOLOGY. See E. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (1968); A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (1972). On the date of the foundation of Rome see Walbank, Polybius, i, 665 ff. On the problems of the dislocation of the calendar in the third and second centuries see A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic(1967); recent discussions include P. Marchetti, Ant. Class., 1973, 473 ff.; P. S. Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 345 ff.; M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, Historia, 1974, 288 ff. Eclipse of 190: Livy, xxxvii, 4, 4; of 168: Livy, xliv, 37, 8 (cf. above, p. 514 n. 6); intercalation of 169: Livy, xliii, 11, 13. Acilius: Censorinus, De die nat., xx, 6; Macrobius,Sat. 1, 13, 21.


The following items appeared too recently to be noted in the appropriate places.

D. and F. R. RIDGWAY, Italy before the Romans (London, 1979), a valuable collection of papers by experts.

W. V. HARRIS, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 BC (Oxford, 1979), argues for a much more aggressive Roman foreign policy than many recent writers.

H. HUMBERT, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio: L’organisation de la conquête jusqu’ à la guerre sociale (Rome, 1978).

C. R. WHITTAKER, ‘Carthaginian Imperialism in the fifth and fourth centuries’, in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P.D.A. Garnsey and C. D. Whittaker (Cambridge, 1978).

R. RILINGER, Der Einfluss des Wahlleiters bei dem römischen Konsulwählen von 366 bis 50 v. Chr. (Munich, 1976). Cf. J. Carter, JRS, 1979, 184 ff.

W. DAHLHEIM, Gewalt und Herrschaft: Das provinziale Herrschafts-system der römischen Republik (Berlin, 1977). Cf. J. Richardson, JRS, 1979, 156 ff.

J. M. FRAYN, Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy (London, 1979).

J. POUCET, ‘Le Latium protohistorique et archeologique’, L’ Ant. Class., 1978, 566 ff., a general survey of recent work.

M. PALLOTTINO, ‘Lo svillupo socio-istituzionale di Roma arcaica’, Studi Romani, 1979, 1 ff. This records, inter alia, the discovery of a fourth Etruscan inscription in Rome. It is inscribed on a small ivory lion, comes from S. Omobono, and is to be dated c. 580 – 60BC. It runs araz silqetenas spurianas. Thus two names follow the praenomen araz, but Spurianas could be a patronymic or a second name.

F. CASTAGNOLI, Archeologica Laziale, 1 (1978), 13 f., writes about the statues of Minerva, etc., from Lavinium (see above, p. 40).

P. S. DEROW, ‘Polybius, Rome and the East’, JRS, 1979, 1 ff.: Polybius’ view was that from c. 200 BC Rome sought universal obedience to her wishes and skilfully masked offensive designs as defensive wars.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!