Rome and the Latins: II

Author(s): E. T. Salmon
Source: Phoenix, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 1953), pp. 123-135
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085992 .
Accessed: 04/02/2015 02:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II

E. T. SALMON

A TRUER pictureof thehistoryof Latiumin thefirstcenturyand

a halfof the Roman Republicis likelyto be obtainedif we adopt the
viewthatit was theLatin League ratherthanRomethatdecidedwhen
and whereto plantthe Latin Colonies,Rome'smethodof disposingof
newly seized land being to distributeit in viritane allotments (divisio
ifa reconstruction
viritana).Admittedly, it is boundto be
is attempted,
summary,since "despite the comparativelydetailed account of Livy
and Dionysius, in truthvery little is known of what was happeningin
Latium betweenca. 500 and 350 B.c. except whereRoman interestsare
directlyconcerned."' But an outline of the events at least can be re-
covered.
The fall of the Roman monarchyshortlybefore500 B.c., and therewith
the abrupt terminationof that Roman hegemonyin Latium whichis so
clearlyreflectedin the firstCarthaginianTreaty, usheredin a period of
turmoil.Various non-Latin peoples (Volsci, Aequi, Sabines, Etruscans)
tried to move into the power vacuum which theirown activitieshad no
doubt helped to create,and the inhabitantsof Latium foundthemselves
exposed to severe pressure.The multiplenatureof the threatmust early
have impressedthem with the futilityof individual defence;some form
of joint efforton theirpart was obviouslynecessary.
One of theirearliestconcernsmust have been to secure the line of the
Tiber; but so long as Fidenae remained in hostile, i.e. Etruscophil,
hands this proved impossible. The Romans apparently failed in their
attempt to take this strongholdby themselves,and ultimatelyneeded
the help of at least some of the Latins to reduceit.2 When Fidenae finally
fell,to preventit fromagain becominga pointd'appui forattackson
Latium, a colony, composed no doubt of others besides Romans, was
planted there.' Presumably the decision to colonize was made jointly
by all the communitieswhich had helped to reduce it: these would
include Rome. Once established,the colony became of course an inde-
pendent, sovereigncommunity.
'A. N. Sherwin-White,The Roman Citizenship(Oxford 1939) 27.
2See Livy 2. 19. 2; 4. 17. 1, etc.; Dion. Hal. 5. 42, etc. Good evidence that the
Romans on occasions, perhaps frequentoccasions, needed and secured the cooperation
of various Latin "cities" in the pre-Cassian period is the treatywhich they signed with
Gabii and which was still extant in Augustan times (Dion. Hal. 4. 58. 4; Festus p. 48 L.;
cf. Varro, de L.L. 5. 33). They seem to have signed a similar treaty with Laurentum
(Livy 1. 14. 3; cf. CIL 10. 797), and possibly also with Ardea, and Aricia, and Tusculum.
-The ancient texts relevant to colonial foundationshave been given in the firstpart
of this paper (Phoenix 7 [19531 101-102).
123

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 THE PHOENIX

Although Rome and various Latin cities might thus on occasions

cooperate forsome commonobjective, they could also be at enmitywith
one another wheneverexternaldanger seemed less imminent:incidents
such as the Battle of Lake Regillus imply Romano-Latin hostilitiesin
the days beforethe Cassian Treaty. However, the luxuryof continuous
quarrellingwas forbiddenby the menace fromwithout.The Aequi had
pushed forwardfromthe central Apennines and were threateningthe
valley of the Trerus.The Volsci,descendingfromfastnessesin the Monti
Lepini, had struckrightthroughto the Tyrrheniancoast seizing Latin
territoryin the process (Cora, Satricum,the site of Velitrae) and, once
at the coast, had anchoredthemselvesfirmlyat Antium and Tarracina;
the Coriolanus episode, which contains a kernel of historical fact,4is
clear evidence of the power of the Volscian assault.
It was the Latin "cities," however,ratherthan Rome, that lay in the
directpath of the assault, and the betterto resistit they banded them-
selves togetherin a militaryalliance, the Latin League, the organization
of which was no doubt facilitated by the fact that from early times
religiousamphictionieshad existed in Latium and tended to promote
some kind of Latin national consciousness.5
The Latin League foughtback desperatelyand, wheneverit recovered
any territorythat the Volsci had overrun,it despatched a colony to it to
consolidate it: e.g., (Suessa) Pometia, Cora (both before 503 B.c.),
Signia (495 B.C.), Velitrae (494 B.C.).
Latin success, however, was neither unfailing nor uninterrupted:
duringthe course of the struggleVelitrae evidentlychanged hands more
than once (Dion. Hal. 6. 42-43; 7. 12), andPometia was wiped offthe
face of the earth (Livy 2. 17. 1; 25. 5; Dion. Hal. 4. 50-51; 6. 29. 4).
This last event, more than any other, constituteda direct threat to
Rome, and the Romans did not stand idly by: they signed an equal
alliance with the Latin League (the Cassian Treaty, 493 B.C.)., The fact
that this was afoedus aequum means that neitherof the two high con-
tractingpartieswas superiorto the other.One partycould not impose its
foreignpolicy on the other: Livy clearly states that the various com-
munitiesof Latium could fightwars on theirown account sine Romano
duce aut auxilio (2. 53. 5; 3. 6. 5-6; 4. 45. 4; 7. 38. 1; 8. 2. 5; 2. 13), and
could conduct and settle affairsfor themselves (3. 23. 5; 4. 10. 5); and
the same was equally true for Rome; Rome could and did findherself
4See E. T. Salmon in CQ 24 (1930) 96-101.
'Cf. J. S. Reid, The Municipalities of theRoman Empire (Cambridge 1913) 37: "It is
certain that the Latins retained more cohesion among themselves and more frequently
made common cause than other peoples aftertheir tribal unity had been weakened by
the adoption of municipal life."
.The terms of this treaty, preserved in a perhaps somewhat modernised form by
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (6. 95) and in some of the details by Festus (p. 166 L.),
make it clear that it was afoedus aequum, which is preciselywhat Livy calls it (8. 3. 2).

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 125

on occasion at war with individual Latin towns. FurthermoreFestus

(p. 276 L.) makes it clear that, in the joint operationsof Rome and the
Latin League, the command was not necessarilyor invariably Roman
despite what Livy's Roman vanity may imply; and even Livy admits
that the Latins foughtin separate contingents(3. 22. 5).
A few years later the Hernici, a less closely related people (see, e.g.,
Dion. Hal. 8. 69. 2), joined this alliance, apparentlyon termsof absolute
equalitywiththeothertwohighcontracting
parties.7
Although the inhabitantsof Latium thus presenteda united frontto
any aggressorfromwithout,clearly the burdenwas not everywherethe
same forthem all. The Latin League, forinstance,must have borne the
bruntof operationsin the area that lay in a semi-circlearound Rome,
no doubtit received
although substantial
helpfromRome,especially
when Rome's own territoryseemed particularly threatened. Roman
wasusuallywellsheltered
however,
territory, ontheeast,thesoutheast,
and south by the cordon of populi Latini: Nomentum,Tibur, Pedum,
Praeneste, Tusculum, Aricia, Lanuvium, Laurentum, and Ardea.8 The
most vulnerable point in this cordon appears to have been Tusculum,
owing to the activityof the Aequi, who managed to establishthemselves
formany years on the AlgidusPass and thus controlRome's main route
of communicationacross the Alban Hills to the south. This explains the
intensityof Roman interestin places like Gabii and Labici. However,
in general, it was the Latin League that was chieflyinvolved in the
fightingto the south and southeast of Rome. The Latins adhered to
theirtraditionalpracticeof followingup any successesby seizingterritory
fromthe enemy,some of it no doubt reallybeingformerLatin territory,
and establishingcolonies on it. As all Latin populi could participatein
the colonies, the problemof how to apportionthe newly acquired land
was neatly and equitably solved.
The Latin League selected the time and site for each colony but
Roman participationin thesecoloniescan, and indeed must,be assumed.
Not only is traditioninsistentthat theydid so, but also theius migrandi,
which both Romans and Latins enjoyed, makes it a priori as good as
certain. Moreover, if Roman troops had chanced to help the Latin
League to win the territoryin question,it was bothfairand in accordance
with the termsof the Cassian Treaty that Romans should be allowed to
join the resultingcolony. The presence of a Roman element amongst
the colonistswould,of course,strengthenany Latin Colony. Once estab-

7Livy2. 41. 1; 6. 10. 7; Dion. Hal. 8. 69. 4; 71. 5; 77. 3; 78. 2; PlinyN.H. 34. 20, who
all say,or at leastimply,thattherewas an equal tripartite sharingof war-booty. It is
worthpointingout, however,thatLivy and Dionysiusseem to regardthe Hernicias
the alliesof Rome alone.
SArdea,however,may not have been continuously out of enemyhands:its colon-
izationin 442 a.c. suggeststhatit had to be wonfromtheenemy.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 THE PHOENIX

lished, the colony became an independent community,an additional

populus Latinus withits own citizenship;and as such it joined the Latin
League, to the obvious gain of the latter. Thus Norba (492), Antium
(467), Ardea (442). Labici (418), Vitellia (ca. 415?) and Circei (393) were
established as Latin Colonies by the Latin League in the period before
the Gauls sacked Rome.9
The zone of the Hernici was the valley of the River Trerus; but
although the chiefburden of the fightingagainst the Aequi theremust
have fallenon them,the ancientsourcesare singularlyunrevealingabout
it, probably because Roman troops were seldom involved. It can be
safelyassumed that the Hernican League, whose existenceLivy records
(9. 42; 43; 10. 1; 27. 4), had the same policy as the Latin of planting
colonies, "Hernican" Colonies of course, at strategic strongpoints to
consolidate any gains and to block the way to any renewed enemy
thrust.No such colonies,it is true,are specificallyrecordedby our Roman
sources, possibly because Romans did not participatein them,in large
groupsat any rate. But Ferentinummighthave been one: it was certainly
wrestedfromthe enemy (Livy 4. 51. 7; 56. 6), and could thereforehave
possiblygot a "Hernican" Colony. Its status,later at any rate,resembled
that of a memberof the nomenLatinum closely enough forit to be de-
scribed as Latin by Livy (34. 42. 5 = 195 B.c.), althoughit was quite
certainlyneitheran ethnicnor a colonial Latin community:the fact that
Livy could make this mistakeimplies that Ferentinum'srelationshipto
Rome was essentiallythat of a "Latin" Colony: in other words it may
have been a "Hernican" Colony (cf. Livy 9. 43. 23).
The year 431 B.c. seems to have been the great turning-point forthe
defendersof Latium: it was then that the Aequi retreated from the
Algidus Pass, therebyrelievingthe pressureon both the Latins and the
Hernici (Livy 4. 26-27).
Just like the Latins and the Hernici,theRomans had theirown par-
ticular zone: it was in the north and northwestthat the brunt of the
fightingfell upon them. Fidenae, despite its colonization, had soon
discovered,eitherthroughinclinationorforce majeure,that its interests
lay not so much with the inhabitantsof Latium as with the Southern
Etruscans, who had a use forit as a Tiber-crossing:it was, in fact, the
rival of Rome in this respect.1'Not unnaturally,drawn once again thus
into the sphere of Etruscan influence,Fidenae renewed its hostilityto
Rome (cf. Livy 4. 33-34), and not withoutsuccess if we are to attach
any credence to the story of the Fabian gens being massacred at the
Cremera (Livy 2. 48-49; Dion. Hal. 9. 15-16 = 475 B.C.).
9Possibly the Latin League also established other, unrecordedcolonies: e.g., colonies
may have been sent to the unknown sites of Bolae (see Livy 4. 49. 6 and cf. Diod. 13.
42. 6) and Ecetra (see Livy 2. 25. 6 and cf. Dion. Hal. 6. 32. 1, who, however, may be
referringto Signia).
'OSee L. A. Holland in TAPA 80 (1949) 303-319.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 127

Besides Fidenae the Sabines werealso verytroublesome,before449 B.c.

at any rate: the storyof the Sabine Appius Herdonius, who seized the
Capitol, presumablycontains a kernelof historicalfact (Livy 3. 18. 2;
19. 8; Dion. Hal. 9. 16; 20); and we hear of battles against the Sabines
at Eretum (Livy 3. 29. 7; Dion. Hal. 5. 46).
However, it was not the Sabines, but, as might have been expected,
the Etruscans, or the Etruscans' allies, who constituted the biggest
menace to Rome, and for long Rome could not make any substantial
headway against them, probably because she was simultaneouslyin-
volved, in part at any rate, in the strugglesof the Latins and Hernici.
Significantlyenough,the momentthe Volscian-Aequianthreatbegan to
wane ca. 431 B.c., Rome disposedof Fidenae once and forall ca. 425 B.c.
(Livy 4. 22. 6; cf. Diod. 12. 80. 6)." Nor was thesuccess against Fidenae
an isolated one; the conquest of Crustumeriumto the northof it fol-
lowed.'2
It goes withoutsaying that the Romans exploitedany victoryin the
mannernormalin Italy in those days: viz. by seizing territoryfromthe
conquered and disposingof it as they saw fit.The Latins (and, as we
have seen, the same is probably true of the Hernici) used their newly
acquired territoryforcolonies,whichwere thenadded to theirLeague to
strengthenit. The Romans, also, used theirnewlyacquired territoryto
strengthenthemselves:they assigned it to individuals in viritaneallot-
ments; the recipients,however,did not formthemselvesinto new, inde-
pendent,sovereigncommunities;the territorytheyoccupied was simply
added to the Roman state. It would seem hardlynecessaryto add that
if Romans participatedin the Latin Colonies, then Latins shared in the
Roman viritane allotments."3
The creation of the so-called rustic tribes of Roman citizens is clear
evidence of the process,even if not all the tribusrusticaeenter into the
picture in this connection.The sixteenoldest of the tribusrusticaebear
names derived fromRoman familiesratherthan fromItalian localities;
but the traditionis clear that the latest of these sixteen at least, the
tribusClaudia, was formedafterthe fallof the monarchyand on territory
wrested from the Sabines (Eretum ?) (Livy 2. 16. 5 = 504 B.c.). The
seventeenth rustic tribe definitelybears a topographicalname, tribus
Clustumina; obviously it was established after the Roman annexation
of Fidenae and Crustumerium(cf. Festus p. 48 L.). But the clearest
evidence of all is supplied by Veii, the large and importantEtruscan
"The date is uncertain, but the event is vouched forby the spolia opima which were
won by Cossus on this occasion and which were inspected hundreds of years later by
the Emperor Augustus (Livy 4. 20. 7).
'2For the fall of Crustumerium see K. J. Beloch, Romische Geschichte(Berlin and
Leipzig 1926) 302.
IsDion. Hal. 8. 69. 4. explicitly asserts that the Latins possessed the right to do so:
see, too, Livy 5. 19. 5.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 THE PHOENIX

stronghold.After its capture in 396 B.c. its territorywas assigned in

viritaneallotments(Livy 5. 30. 8), and a few years later no fewerthan
fournew rustictribeshad to be created in consequence (Livy 6. 5. 8).
The activitiesagainst Veii inevitablyinvolved operationsagainst her
allies, Capena and Falerii. These towns, like Fidenae, spoke a variety
of Latin, but evidentlyfeltthat theirinterestslay with the inhabitants
of Southern Etruria. According to Livy (5. 24. 3), Capena was taken
by the Romans the year afterVeii fell and in the followingyear it was
Falerii's turn (Diod. 14. 98. 5; Livy 5. 27; Dion. Hal. 13. 1-2).
These Roman successes in SouthernEtruria must have had a marked
effecton the balance of power within the Cassian Alliance. Until they
occurredthe Romans had made fewerand smaller territorialgains than
the Latin League: such is the implication of the traditionpreserved
by Livy (see, e.g., 2. 54; 4. 35; and cf. Dion. Hal. 9. 36), with which
indeed the topographical facts are in accord. But Southern Etruria
changed all that: Rome's acquisitions were now comparable with those
whichhad been made since 493 B.c. by her Latin partnersin the Cassian
Alliance.
The search forsecurityin theirzone inevitablyinvolved the Romans
next in hostilitieswith the Etruscan town of Volsinii (Livy 5. 32. 2;
Diod. 14. 109. 7 = 391 B.c.). But they had not proceeded very far
when the catastropheof the Gallic assault occurredand postponed any
furthernorthwardoperationsforsome time.
The capture and sack of Rome by Brennusand his warriorsin 390 B.c.
meant a tremendous,iftemporary,setback to the city.It was Rome that
lay squarely across the Gallic avenue of approach and that was in the
frontline of the attack and helped to blunt it." The Latin League
appears to have been less affectedby the disaster: Livy, indeed,although
he assuresus that the fourth-century Gallic assaults, of whichtherewere
morethan one, had all Latium as theirobjective,reportsthaton occasion
some Latin cities, such as Tibur, actually cooperated with the Gauls
(7. 11 = 360 B.c.; the Triumphal Fasti reflect the same incident).
This means that the Latins came throughthe Gallic disasterin somewhat
better shape than the Romans. At any rate the Latins now appear to
have seized the opportunityto assert themselvesagainst a partnerwho
had recentlyshown a tendency to become too powerful. During the
early part of the fifthcenturywhen the Latins were keepingthe Volsci
and Aequi at bay and when Rome was makingonly comparativelysmall
acquisitions,Rome could scarcely be envisaged as a potential threat to
her Latin allies: they were too valuable to her as a protectivebarrier,a
cordonsanitaire,to use a modernfashionableexpression.But ever since
l4Cf. A. Afzelius,Die rimische EroberungItaliens 310-261 B.C. (Copenhagen 1942)
143: "Ausserdem war Rom durch seine Lage dazu bestimmtden ersten Stoss von den
Galliern abzufangen,so dass diese Gefahrden Latinern wenigerinteressierenmusste."

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 129

431 B.C. the Volscian-Aequianthreathad been diminishingand Rome no

longerhad the same interestin a belt of strongLatin communities;and
simultaneously she had begun to make substantial territorialgains
herselfbeyond the Anio and in SouthernEtruria.
Moreover the Roman policy of using seized enemy land for viritane
allotmentshad meant a steady increase in the size and strengthof a
single political unit, whereas the Latin policy of sending out Latin
Colonies had merelymeant an increase in the numberof membersin a
militaryleague.'"And, as Napoleon was wontto insist,a militaryalliance
is always weak as compared with a unitarystate: it displays fissiparous
tendencies,mutual distrust,conflictinginterests,and internecinerivalries
from which a is
political entity relativelyimmune.Obviously Rome was
now beginningto overshadowher Latin partnersratherominously,and
they could hardlyignorethe fact that events mightonce again take the
coursewhichtheyhad taken many years beforein the days of the Roman
monarchy,when Rome had finallycome to bestrideall Latium like a
colossus.
Just priorto 390 B.c., therefore,the Latins must have been watching
this upsettingof the balance of power withinthe Cassian Alliance with
anxiety.True, as a League, they had made no communalmove against
Rome: Livy (6. 2. 3) is emphaticon that point (per annos prope centum
numquam ambigua fide in amicitiampopuli Romani). But individual
Latin towns had shown hostilityto Rome on occasions (Diod. 14. 104;
Livy 3. 4. 3.), and it is significantthat in this respectthe Latin Colonies
are recordedas behaving no differently fromotherpopuli Latini; which
would be strangeif theyreallywere Roman in origin.These isolated acts
of hostility,however,had failed to stop Rome's growth;theymay even
have contributedto it by forcingthe Romans into actions upon which
they might not otherwisehave embarked. By 390 B.C. Rome was not
only very much biggerthan any singlememberof the Latin League but
was actually a match for all of them put together.
Mommsen notoriouslyregardedthe Gallic Raid as having littleeffect
on Rome: he depicted it as an ephemeralsetback. And Livy, of course,
is full of tales of Roman victoriesover Volsci in the years immediately
followingthe melancholyoccurrence.But even the uncriticalLivy is a
little sceptical of the versionhe foundin his sources: he asks how could
the Volsci continue to field large armies in the face of their repeated
defeats (unde totiensvictisVolscis suffecerint milites:6. 12. 2).
In fact the effectsof the Gallic Raid of 390 B.C. must have been
momentarilydisastrous.'"For years thereafterthe Romans made little
headway in their own northernzone. No mention is made of further
ibid. 143, notesthispoint,although,of course,he acceptsthe view that
'5Afzelius,
Latin ColonieswereRomanin origin.
16Cf.Beloch,Rdm.Gesch.314: "Roms Hegemoniein Latiumbrachzusammen."

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 THE PHOENIX

operationsagainst Volsinii,and Rome foundit prudentto sign a peace-

treatywithnewlydefeatedFalerii and also withTarquinii (Livy 7. 22. 5);
nor does Rome appear to have subjugated Caere, there being no trust-
worthyevidence forthe usual assertionthat this town was incorporated
with the civitassine suffragioin 353 B.C.'7
To Rome's allies the opportunitywas too temptingto be missed.
The Latins, and seeminglythe Hernici as well, now asserted themselves
against theirovergrownpartner (Livy 6. 2. 6; 7. 6, etc.). Evidently the
Latins insistedthat henceforthLatin Colonies, instead of viritaneallot-
ments,be the practice in the Roman zone as well as in theirown: Livy,
for example, records that the Roman desire for a divisio viritanaca.
387 B.C. was frustrated(6. 5. 1; 6. 1). On the otherhand Latin Colonies
now make their appearance even in the Roman zone, and significantly
enough the patriotic traditionpreservedby Livy slurs over this: Livy
does recordSutriumand Nepet as colonies but he tells us nothingabout
the actual colonization of either; he does not mentionthe despatch of
the colony to Sutrium at all and he mentionsthe one to Nepet only in
passing (6. 21. 4). PresumablyRoman patriotictraditionwas not anxious
to publicizethe circumstancesattendingthe foundationof thosecolonies,
since they were the resultof Latin policy ratherthan Roman.
The Latins, while insisting on Latin Colonies instead of Roman
viritaneallotments,were realistsenough to know that they would have
difficultyin controllingindefinitelyany community,even a Latin Colony,
in the Roman zone. Latin Colonies in lieu of viritaneallotmentsmight
postpone the final outcome, but they would not prevent it for ever:
ultimately,communitiesin SouthernEtruria were bound, like Fidenae,
to come under undue Roman influence,and this in fact did finally
happen in the case of both Sutrium and Nepet. The Latins, therefore,
foundedtwo additional colonies in the interestsof keepingthe eventual
balance even: both werein theirown zone and therefore could reasonably
be expected to remain within their control. Satricum (385) was the
counterpartto Sutrium (383), and Nepet (383) was balanced by Setia
(382).
For the time being the Romans, weakened by the Gallic assault, had
very little option but to comply with Latin policy. For that matter,
theymay not have been altogetheraverse to the idea of a stringof Latin
fortressesprotectingthem now on the northin the same way that the
Latin communitieshad covered them against southern attacks in the
fifthcentury.
The colonization was a Latin policy, but even so the Romans must
have been consulted about any individual colony: they after all were
expected to contributemanpowerto it. In theirown zone especially the
Romans very probably had some say in the selection of sites. This
17Beloch, R'm. Gesch. 363; see, too, Sherwin-White,Roman Citizenship51-52.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 131

would explain Velleius' assertion that, immediately after the Gallic

Raid, colonies were sent out iussu senatus. Nevertheless the Romans
could scarcelyhave relishedthe fact that, forthe moment,the initiative
belonged to the Latins. They would inevitablytry to change this state
of affairsat the earliestopportunity,whereuponthe policyofestablishing
Latin Colonies would be terminated,the practice of divisio viritana
would be resumed, and the Cassian Treaty generallywould become a
dead letter.
The firstRoman counter-movecame in an area which they had
always regardedas sensitiveand with which theirconnectionshad been
of the closest ever since the Aequian threat at the Algidus Pass: viz.
Tusculum. This town was annexed in 381 B.c., becoming part of the
Roman state, apparently with full Roman citizenship(Livy 6. 25-26;
Dion. Hal. 14. 6. 9; Plut. Cam. 38).18 Thereby a solid block of Roman
territoryfromthe Tiber to the Algidus Pass was created, splittingthe
Latins and renderingit extremelydifficult forthem to concertany joint
move against Rome in the future.It is not surprisingthat Polybius
(2. 18. 5) is able to assert that the Romans recoveredfromthe effectsof
the Gallic Raid in less than thirtyyears. Simultaneouslythe Latin policy
of sendingout colonies came to an abrupt halt: afterthe annexationof
Tusculum colonization by the Latins ceased completely;Setia was the
last of the Priscae Latinae Coloniae. Any later colonies came after the
Latin War and were planted by the Romans. On the other hand the
Roman policy of viritaneallotmentswas now resumed,as we shall see.
Even while this struggleforthe balance of power withinLatium was
going on, theremust have been occasions when unity was needed in the
face of enemies fromwithout: e.g., Gallic raiders continued to attack
Latium sporadically,until 348 B.c. if the traditionalaccount is to be
believed (Polyb. 2. 18. 7; Livy 7. 26. 9). The account in Livy suggests
that such unity, when it occurred,was neithervery complete nor very
consistent;he describesthe Romans as complainingat the tardinessand
inadequacy of aid contributedby the Latins (6. 6. 4; 10. 6). Evidently
in a united frontthat was only an ad hoc emergencymeasure instead of
the resultof a close and bindingalliance, mutual aid was both minimal
and grudging.
In 358 B.c., however,the Cassian Alliance is said to have been renewed
on its old terms,"1and the reportis credible. A reason for such a rap-
prochementof Romans and Latins aftertheirrecentcoolnessis not hard
'sSuch an action need occasion no surprisein view of the relations which had always
prevailed between Rome and individual Latin towns.
I"Livy 7. 12. 7 insists that this was a renewal of the old foedus aequum, and that it
was a foedus aequum is certain if we accept the view of F. Miinzer, Rimische Adels-
parteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) 44-45, that the victorious Plautius of
358 B.c. was a praetorof the Latins ratherthan a consul of the Romans (but see T. R. S.
Broughton, The Magistratesof the Roman Republic [New York 1951] 1. 121).

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 THE PHOENIX

to find.The Samnites now played the same role as the Volsci earlier.At
this time they were beginningto put great pressureon Campania, and
Campania adjoins Latium. The Latins, therefore,would be eager to
resuscitatethe old Cassian Alliance as a bulwark against the eventual
Samnite assault which they foresaw.The Romans, however,who were
not immediatelythreatenedby the Samnitessince the Latins lay between
the latter and themselves,agreed to the reactivationof the old treatyin
a much more calculatingspirit.It had served theirinterestswell in the
days when the Volsci were the threat,and it might be made similarly
to serve theirinterestsnow when the Samnites werethe potentialenemy.
The Romans, in fact, were chieflyinterestedin extractingprofitfor
themselvesfromthe situation.Thus, the price fortheircooperationwas
Latin acquiescence in a renewalof the policy of viritaneallotments,and
actually in the Latin zone. How else are we to account for the creation
in this same year, 358 B.c., of the two new rustic tribes,Publilia and
Pomptina (Livy 7. 15. 12; 42. 8)? Nor did the Romans hesitate to make
it clear that the revived alliance was for defensivepurposes only: to
reassurethe Samnites on this point theyat once proceeded to negotiate
a treatywith them (Livy 7. 19. 4 = 354 B.C.).
Ultimately,it is true, the Romans did become involved in the First
Samnite War (343-341 B.c.), but the evidence suggests that they were
dragged into it against theirown betterjudgment by theirLatin allies,
made a very perfunctoryshowing,and concluded a separate peace at
the earliest opportunityeven though it meant abandoning the Latins
(Livy 7. 29-30; 8. 2). For the Latins this proved the last straw. They,
or at any rate many of them, now formeda coalition with all the pro-
spective victimsof the Samnites (Sidicini, Campani, Aurunci) as well as
with the remnantsof the Volsci, and they presented Rome with an
ultimatum.Accordingto Livy (8. 4. 4), they demanded that one of the
two consuls of the Roman state should always be a Latin, a demand
which if granted would have guaranteed the constant availability of
Roman troops to themselves.As the Samnites for the moment were
apprehensiveabout developmentsin theirrear (the Tarentinemercenary,
Archidamusof Sparta, landed in Italy at about this time20),the Latins
felt that this was the ideal time for them to present Rome with an
ultimatum.Their demand was spurned,and the Latin War (340-338 B.c.)
ensued.
In this war, as on previousoccasions, the Latin Colonies behaved like
any other Latin communities.Indeed it was preciselyin two of them,
Circei and Setia, that the Latins foundtheirleaders (Livy 8. 3. 9). This
behavioris consistentwiththe thesisthat Latin Colonies up to this time
had been Latin foundations,not Roman; it certainlycontrastsmarkedly
2OSeeDiod. 16. 63. 88; Livy 8. 3. 6, who,however,confusesArchidamuswithAlex-
anderof Epirus.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 133

with the behavior of the Latin Colonies in the Social War of some two
hundred and fiftyyears later, which are known to have been Roman
foundationsand which were conspicuouslyloyal.
There were, indeed, some Latin communitiesin 340 B.c., including
some Latin Colonies, which,forprudentialor othermotives,showed no
hostilityto Rome. For obvious geographicalreasons Sutriumand Nepet
made no move against Rome, while on the south those Latin towns that
lay nearestto Rome wereunwillingto riskher wrathfulvengeance: there
is no evidence that Norba or Ardea, both fairlyclose to Rome, fought
against her. On the other hand some of the Tusculans imprudentlydid
so, presumablybecause theyregardedthisas an opportunityforrestoring
complete independenceand sovereigntyto theircity. Either fromtheir
recordedactions or fromthe subsequent peace termswe can inferthat
Lanuvium, Aricia,Nomentum,Pedum, Tibur, Praeneste,Antium,Setia,
Circei, Signia, Velitrae,and Satricum were also all in the enemy camp:
and Laurentum,if.not actively hostile,was a pro-Latinnon-belligerent
(see Livy 8. 11. 3-4).
As Rome proved victoriousshe imposed the peace settlementat the
war's end. Its main featurewas the complete dissolutionof the Latin
League and the loss of political independence by most of the populi
Latini.21Some of the Latin Colonies, it is true,retainedLatin status at
the end of the war, either because they had not moved against Rome
(e.g., Sutrium,Nepet, Norba, Ardea), or because of theirgeographical
position and a shrewd calculation of their futureusefulnessin helping
to maintain Roman authority(e.g., Signia, Setia, Circei). Whatever the
reason, these seven communitiesremainedas the Latin allies of Rome at
the war's end, but they were the only communitieswhich were allowed
to continue in the old relationshipof equal alliance with Rome. In
338 B.c. the towns of Latin status were these seven, and these seven
alone.22They are the originalcore of the nomenLatinum,whichhowever
soon burgeonedwhen Rome began to foundLatin Colonies of her own:
as we have seen, by Hannibal's day, the nomen Latinum comprised
thirtycommunities.23
Livy, in a famous chapter (8. 14), outlines the peace terms for the
remainderof the Latins in 338 B.c.
(1) Some Latin cities (Tibur, Praeneste, Laurentum) became allied
states (civitatesfoederatae)
evidentlyless privilegedthan Latin Colonies:
"Cf. K. J. Beloch, Der italischeBund (Leipzig 1880) 151: "Seit 338 gab es kein Latium
mehr."
"The usual view is that after 338 B.c. the nomen Latinum consisted of the Latin
Colonies and whatever populi Latini still continued to exist as such (so, e.g., OCD s.o.
Latini): but it is not easy to see which populi Latini these would be.
2Cf. Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire 58: "In the period of the second war
with Carthage the 'Latin name' seems only to comprise towns which were recognized
as Latin colonial foundations."

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 THE PHOENIX

Tibur and Praeneste, indeed, were mulcted of some of their territory,

and, althoughwe are not specificallytold that this happened to Lauren-
tum, Livy (8. 11. 3) does give a broad hint that its status was reduced.
Cora, too, appears fromepigraphicevidence to have become an allied
state (Dessau, ILS 6131; cf. Livy 8. 19. 5).
(2) The incorporationof Tusculum in the Roman state, with full
Roman citizenship,was reaffirmed.
(3) Lanuvium, Aricia, Nomentum,and Pedum also obtained Roman
citizenshipbut, as Livy distinguishestheir treatmentfromthat meted
out to Tusculum, presumablyit was the civitassine suffragio.2'
(4) Antiumreceiveda Citizen Colony.
(5) Velitrae was subjected to divisioviritana.
(6) The rest of the Latin peoples, says Livy, were deprived of the
rightsofmutual tradeand intermarriage and ofholdingcommoncouncils.
Most scholarsthinkthat thislast sentenceofLivy's is a kindofsumming-
up of the whole peace settlementand that by "the rest of the Latin
peoples" he means the towns already named. This is to strain Livy's
Latin; nor does it seem very logical. Surely by "the rest of the Latin
peoples" Livy means thosepopuli Latini who are not otherwiseaccounted
for.It is not difficultto see whichtheyare: viz.,Satricum,Labici, Vitellia,
Gabii (if it had not been annexed by Rome long before,as seems proba-
ble), and those parts of Velitrae and Antiumwhichhad not been seized
forviritaneallotmentsand a Citizen Colony respectively.What happened
to these otherpopuli Latini? Livy's statementis not very explicit,but
once again we get some help fromFestus (p. 117 L., s.v. municeps).
These communitiesbecame municipes,and according to Festus this
meant that theywereobliged to performthe duties,but werenot allowed
to enjoy the privileges,of Roman citizens: they were in fact an inferior
grade of cives sine suffragio.As Festus says (p. 155 L.), only later did
theyobtain Roman citizenship."
Thus the Latins forthe most part were reduced to a state of complete
inferiority, politicallyspeaking. It is true that ultimately,although in
default of ancient evidence we cannot say precisely when, they were
completelyassimilatedinto the Roman state and acquired the privileges
that Roman citizenshipbroughtwith it." But that should not blind us
to the factthat in 338 B.c. theirlot was farfromenviable. The days when
possession of Roman citizenship,even in the modifiedform,became
UPresumably the new cives were enrolled in the two new tribes which were now
created (Livy 8. 17. 11).
"Sherwin-White,Roman Citizenship39, argues, rightlyin my opinion, that there was
more than one kind of civitas sine suffragioat this time. See, too, E. Manni, Per la
storia dei municipii (Rome 1947) 18-28.
"Cf. Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire 58: "It is highly probable that dis-
abilitiesimposed on the older Latin townsendured but fora short time and that most of
them speedily acquired the full Roman citizenship."

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROME AND THE LATINS-II 135

highly prizedwerefarin thefuture. Ca. 300B.c.otherItaliansdidnot

wanttheRomancitizenship (seeLivy9. 43.23).Evenonehundred years
latersoldiersfromPraeneste, whenoffered Romancitizenship, preferred
Praenestine (Livy23.19.2), and laterstill,in Gracchantimes,when
Romancitizenship begantobe theobjectofItalianaspiration, itappears
thatmanyItaliansdidnotsomuchwantitas theiusprovocationis, which
wouldprotect themagainstthearbitrary actionsofRomanmagistrates
(see tje Lex Acilia).In 338 B.c. mostLatinsmusthavefeltthatthey
had beenblotted outofthepolitical landoftheliving, as it were;they
hadceasedto be freemen.Theirstatusmusthaveseemedmiserable to
themselves and to otherItalians:thatis shownby thedesperate re-
sistance,whichtheHerniciandtheinsignificant Aequicoliputup a few
yearslater(in304B.c.)rather thanacceptit (Livy9. 42-43).

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions