A History of the Roman World

by Scullard, H. H.

  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.

  VII THE FIRST STRUGGLE

  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 f
f. 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.