387-343 B.C.

Falerii withdrew from the Etruscan league, and became a perpetual ally of Rome. Thus the whole of southern Etruria became subject to Roman supremacy.

Gradually the conflicts in northern Italy ceased, and the various nations settled side by side within more defined limits. The stream of Celtic immigrations over the Alps flowed back; whether from the desperate efforts of the Etruscans, and the strong barrier of the Romans, or from some causes operating on the other side of the Alps, we cannot determine. In a general way the Celts now ruled between the Alps and the Apennines, and as far south as the Abruzzi: but their dominion did not sink deep into the land, nor had it the character of exclusive possession. In the flat country occupied by the Celts Etruscan settlements still existed. Mantua was a Tuscan city even in the days of the empire, as also was Hatria on the Po; and Etruscan corsairs still rendered the Adriatic unsafe far on into the third century B.C. Further, although mere fragments of the former supremacy of the Etruscans were now left in these districts, such civilization as we find among the Celts and Alpine peoples was due to Tuscan influence. To this we must ascribe the fact that the Celts in the plains of Lombardy abandoned their roving warrior-life, and permanently settled in that district. But the Etruscan nation was now hemmed in on all sides. Its possessions in Campania, and in the district north of the Apennines and south of the Ciminian forest, were lost forever-its day of power had passed away. Socially and politically the whole nation. had completely degenerated. Unbounded luxury and gross immorality had eaten out the heart of the people. Gladiatorial combats first came into vogue among the Etruscans; sensual indulgence of every sort sapped the nation's vigor. The abolition of royalty, which had been carried out in every city about the time of the siege of Veii, introduced the worst form of aristocratic government. The federal bond had always exercised but little restraint; now the abuse of power by the nobles caused social revolution and bitter distress. The energies of the nation were broken from the day of Veii and of Melpum. Earnest attempts were still once or twice made to escape from the Roman supremacy, but in these instances the stimulus was communicated to the Etruscans from withoutfrom another Italian stock, the Samnites.

Chapter IX

ADVANCE OF ROME TO THE CONQUEST OF ITALY. 500-290 B.C.

E have now reached a turning-point in the fortunes of Rome. In the last chapter it was shown that she had abandoned her old defensive attitude towards Etruria, and had succeeded in annexing the southern portion of that country, and in repelling the restless Celtic hordes. Her next foes are no longer foreign intruders, but men of her own stock, or of Italian race.

We may briefly summarize the steps by which Rome became mistress of Italy as follows: The subjugation of the Latins and Campanians; the gallant struggles of the Samnites, both on their own behalf and on behalf of the rest of the still independent Italians; and the invasion and defeat of Pyrrhus. With regard to the first point, we must for a moment revert to the old position of Rome in Latium, as exercising a hegemony, based upon complete equality between the Roman state on the one hand and the Latin confederacy on the other. That these relations were violently shaken by the abolition of the monarchy at Rome we know from tradition, which has painted in glowing colors the victory at Lake Regillus, gained by the Romans about 499 B.C. More certain proof is afforded by the renewal of the perpetual league between Rome and Latium by Spurius Cassius six years later. At what time the rest of Latium followed Rome's lead and abolished the regal power we do not know, but probably this took place at an early period. Although we are without definite information on each point, it is easy to understand how the basis of equal rights soon became impracticable; how Rome not only bore the brunt of most of the wars, but also naturally appropriated the substantial fruits of the victories; how she not only decided the question of war or peace, but practically appointed from her own body the federal generals and chief officers, and assumed the direction of every campaign, and how in founding colonies she supplied most of the colonists.

495-382 B.C.

Although the public rights of the federal Latins were thus encroached upon, their private rights remained the same. To whatever federal town a Latin migrated, he was a passive burgess, could hold property, marry, make wills; and, though not eligible for office, he shared in all other political rights and duties, and could vote in the comitia tributa, if not in the other assemblies.

Long ere the allied Latins dared penetrate Etruria, they successfully extended their power towards the east and south. The Sabines between the Tiber and Anio offered but a feeble resistance to the confederate arms, possibly owing to the fact that the Sabine hordes were pouring into lower Italy. It was not even found necessary to plant colonies in this Sabine land to keep it in subjection. Their neighbors, the Aequi, on the upper Anio, and the Volscians on the coast, proved far tougher foes. In their constant struggles with these two peoples, the Romans and Latins made it their chief aim to sever the Aequi from the Volsci. This object they partly obtained by planting Latin colonies at Cora, Norba, and Signia, about 495 B.C., and still more by forming a league with the Hernici in 486 B.C.; the accession of this state isolated the Volscians, and formed a bulwark against the Sabellian tribes on the south and east. The power of the Aequi was thus broken, but it was not till the system of fortresses or colonies had been extended throughout the Volscian land that the Volsci ceased to resist. Chief among these colonies were Velitrae, founded in 494 B.C., Suessa Pometia and Ardea in 442 B.C., Circeii in 393 B.C.; and finally, after two great victories, won by the dictator Camillus in 389 B.C., and the dictator Aulus Cornelius Cossus in 385 B.C., the Pomptine territory was secured by the founding of the fortresses Satricum in 385 B.C., and Setia in 382 B.C., and the territory itself was distributed into farm allotments and tribes about 383 B.C. These suc、 cesses of the league, which now embraced Rome, Latium, and the Hernici, only rendered it more liable to disunion. The allies felt all the more acutely the overshadowing burden of Rome's increased power, and were naturally indignant at her overbearing acts of injustice. A glaring instance of wrong was the appropriation by Rome of a border territory between the lands of the people of Aricia and Ardea, to which both cities laid claim, and had called in Rome to act as arbiter in 446 B.C. Dissensions, owing to this, arose in Ardea between the aristocratic party, which held to Rome, and the popular party, which sided with the Volscians. The chief cause

384-358 B.C.

of the disruption of the league was the absence of a common foe. The capture of Rome by the Celts, and the appropriation by Rome of the Pomptine territory caused the most famous Latin towns to break off from their alliance. Separate wars, in consequence, occurred with the revolted towns-with Lanuvium, 383 B.C.; Praeneste, 382-380 B.C.; and Tusculum, 381 B.C. The latter was reduced to the position of a municipality, and was incorporated in the Roman state with the full rights of Roman citizenship, retaining certain powers of self-government. This was the first instance of a municipium in its later sense. In addition to these towns, Tibur, in 360 B.C., and some of the colonies planted in Volscian land, revolted from Rome; and Tibur even made common cause with the again advancing Celtic hordes, whom the dictator Ahala defeated. in 360 B.C. But, owing to the want of concert between the various Latin cities, Rome subdued each separately, and also proved victorious in the later and severer struggle with her allies, the Hernicans, from 362-358 B.C. In the latter year the treaty between Rome and the Latins and Hernicans was renewed, but the terms were doubtless greatly to Rome's advantage.

To this period must be referred the closing of the Latin confederation, which took place about 384 B.C. Probably this was in no small degree the cause of the revolt of Latium above described. The league, as now constituted, included thirty towns with full Latin rights. In addition, there were the colonies founded by Rome and the Latin league. A second class of seventeen towns had no right of voting, but shared in the Latin festival. Such communities as were subsequently founded, e. g., Sutrium, Nepete, Cales, and Tarracina, were not incorporated in the league; nor were those communities whose independence was afterwards taken away, such as Tusculum and Satricum, erased from the list. The geographical limits of Latium were fixed by the closing of the league. Moreover, in the case of all Latin communities subsequently founded, right of commerce and marriage was granted to them only in relation to Rome; they could not enjoy the interchange of these privileges with any other Latin community. Further, all special leagues between Latin communities, irrespective of Rome, were for the future prevented, as being dangerous to Rome's preeminence. Owing also to Rome's influence, ediles were created in the Latin communities, and their constitutions were remodeled on the Roman pattern. After the fall of Veii and the

1

450-345 B.C.

conquest of Pomptine land, Rome tightened the reins of government over the practically subject Latins; and the exasperation arising therefrom caused Latin volunteers to join foreign foes in their conflicts with Rome; and, in 349 B.C., the Latin league refused the Romans its regular contingent. The defeat of the Aurunci and the capture of Sora in 345 B.C. had advanced Roman arms to the Liris. Thus Rome was brought into contact with the Samnites and the struggle with this brave people now claims our attention.

The Samnites were a people belonging to the Umbrian branch of the Italian stock who had settled in the mountainous regions of the interior to the east of Latium and Campania. They were for the most part a simple race of sturdy husbandmen united in a loose confederacy wherein no one community preponderated, as did Rome in Latium. The policy they pursued was the exact opposite of that of Rome. They were content with the defense of their territory, and rarely sought to enlarge it; and new lands gained were the result of adventurous bands who left their homes in search of plunder, and were left to their own resources by their native state. Thus their gains were not direct gains to the Samnite nation, while Rome secured every success by a system of colonization. The movements of the Samnites had hitherto been partly checked by the Greeks and Etruscans. The rapid collapse of the Etruscans, and the decline of the Greek colonies from 450-350 B.C., left them free to march west and south. Capua was captured by them in 424 B.C.; four years later they dealt a fatal blow to the Campanian Greeks by taking Cumae. It is about this time that another Samnite stock, called Lucanians, made its appearance in southern Italy. The Lucanians proved too powerful for the demoralized Greeks; and, despite the united efforts of the chief Achaean cities, who reconstructed their league in 393 B.C., in a very short time but few Greek towns remained. Their speedy downfall was due in great measure to the fact that Dionysius the elder, of Syracuse, sided with the Lucanians against his countrymen. Even Tarentum, powerful and warlike as she was, was forced to turn for aid to her mother country.

Thus, at the period when Roman power began to advance southward, the Samnites and their kins folk the Lucanians and Bruttians had practically swept over the whole of southern Italy. Isolated Greek towns continued to exist, such as Tarentum, Thurii, Croton, Metapontum, Heraclea, Rhegium, and Neapolis; some