A History of the Roman World (70 page)

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

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

4
L
ICINIAN-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
C
AMILLUS 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
P
LEBEIAN 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
P
LEBISCITA
. 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
N
EWCOMERS
. 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
A
PPIUS 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
N
EAPOLIS
. 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
L
UCANIA 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
T
HE 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
P
EACE 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
S
ATRICUM 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
T
HE 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 B
OVIANUM
. 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
R
OME 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
T
HE 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
T
HE 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
S
ENTINUM
. 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
M
ANIUS 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 T
HE 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
A
GATHOCLES
. 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
R
OMAN 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
P
YRRHUS
. 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).