Gallic War (283 BC)

Colonies underlined in blue:

Narnia (299 BC);

Hadria, Castrum Novum and Sena Galica (280s BC - see below);

Later colonies: Ariminum (268 BC); Firmum Picinum (264 BC); Spoletium (241 BC)

Roman allies underlined in turquoise: Camerinum (310 BC); Ocriculum (308 BC); and the Picenti (299 BC)

Defeated peoples underlined in black: Umbrians (308 BC);

some Etruscans, including Arretium, Perusia and Volsinii (294 BC); Sabines and Praetuttii (290 BC)

Blue road (‘proto-Flaminia’ = most convenient route from Rome to the Adriatic coast in 295 - 220 BC

(see, for example, Federico Uncini  (referenced below, at pp. 21-9)

Adapted from the Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire

Death of the Praetor L. Caecilius and Roman Envoys (283 BC)

Polybius recorded that, in 283 BC, the ‘Gauls’ besieged Arretium, an Etruscan town that had agreed a truce for 40 years with the Romans in 294 BC.  Polybius did not identify the Gallic tribes that had participated in this assault, but they would have included those settled to the north of the Apennines, including the Insubres (around modern Milan), the Boii and the Senones:

1. “The Romans went to the assistance of [Arretium] and were beaten in an engagement under its walls.  Since the strategos (praetor) Lucius had fallen in this battle, Manius Curius [Dentatus] was appointed in his place.  He sent ambassadors to treat with the Gauls for the release of prisoners, but the Gauls treacherously murdered them”, (‘Histories’ 2: 19: 7-10). 
   

The summary of Livy’s now-lost Book 12 gave a different account of these events:

1. “When Roman envoys were killed by Gallic Senones, war was declared against the Gauls.  The praetor L. Caecilius and his legions were killed by them” (‘Periochae’, 12:1 ).
   

Probably drawing on Livy’s now-lost account, Paulus Orosius recorded that:

1. “... during the consulship of [P. Cornelius] Dolabella and [Cn.]Domitius [Calvinus: i.e., 283 BC], the Lucanians, Bruttians, and Samnites made an alliance with the Etruscans and Senonian Gauls, who were attempting to renew war against the Romans.  The Romans sent ambassadors to dissuade the Gauls from joining this alliance, but the Gauls killed them.  The praetor Caecilius was sent with an army to avenge their murder and to crush the uprising of the enemy.  However, he was overwhelmed by the Etruscans and Gauls, and perished.  Seven military tribunes were also slain in that battle, many nobles were killed, and 30,000  soldiers likewise met their death”, (‘History against the Pagans’, 3: 22).
   

Reconciliation of the Polybian and the Livian Traditions

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 429) observed that:

1. “Both traditions must refer to the death of the same Roman commander (presumably L. Caecilius Metellus Denter, the consul of 284 BC, the only L. Caecilius known to be active at that time) and to the same occasion.”
   

In other words, man that Polybius identified only as ‘the praetor Lucius’ must have been L. Caecilius Metellus Denter, the consul of 284 BC.  Since the fasti Capitolini do not mention his death while consul, the war in which he was killed (as praetor) must have taken place in 283 BC.  Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 431) argued that, since:

1. “... Metellus seems to have failed to bring the Gauls to a decisive battle within his actual year of office [as consul in 284 BC], I would suggest that he then was elected praetor for 283 BC, probably in absentia.”
   

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 438) observed that:

1. “The Livian epitomes hint at an even more dramatic story [than that of Polybius]: although the massacre of the envoys is a causus belli (as in Polybius), the death of the praetor L. Caecilius ... follows.  This version is a bit illogical: it may be asked why the praetor was at Arretium if the Senones killed the Roman legati in their [own territory], as all the sources seem to agree.”
   

Brennan argued (at p. 438) that:

1. “The following is probably the most we can make out of our conflicting sources:
   

2. ✴Near the end of consular year 284 BC, certain Gauls ... besieged the pro-Roman town of Arretium. 
   

3. ✴The Romans sent the consul [Metellus] to relieve it. 
   

4. ✴[Since Metellus was] unable to achieve this ... [before the end of the consular year], he was elected praetor ... for the following year.
   

5. ✴In early 283 BC, Metellus, while still in charge of what had been his consular army, ... [returned  to] Arretium ..., [where] the Gauls ... were now joined by rebel Etruscans. 
   

6. ✴[Metellus] met his death at the hands of their combined forces.
   

7. ✴As it was still quite early in the year, the Romans elected a praetor suffectus, the experienced consul M’ Curius Dentatus, to replace Metellus.”
   

It would have been at this point that Curius sent envoys into the territory of the Senones to negotiate the release of prisoners of war, a decision that led to their murder.

Appian

Appian gave two essentially identical accounts of an occasion on which the Senones murdered Roman envoys in 283 BC:

1. ✴“The Senones, although they had a treaty with the Romans [see below], nevertheless furnished mercenaries against them.  The Senate therefore sent an embassy to them to remonstrate against this infraction of the treaty.  Britomaris, the Gaul, being incensed against the Romans on account of his father (who had been killed by the Romans while fighting on the side of the Etruscans in this very war), murdered the ambassadors , [despite the fact that] they held the [herald's staff] and wore the garments that symbolised their office.  He then cut their bodies in small pieces and scattered them in the fields”, (‘Gallic Wars’, 2.13).
   

2. ✴“Once, a great number of the Senones, a Gallic tribe, aided the Etruscans in war against the Romans.  The latter sent ambassadors to the towns of the Senones and complained that, while they were under treaty stipulations, they were furnishing mercenaries to fight against the Romans.  Although they bore the [herald's staff] and wore the garments of their office, Britomaris cut them in pieces and flung the parts away, alleging that his own father had been slain by the Romans while he was waging war in Etruria”, (‘Samnite Wars’, 2.13).
   

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 426) observed that, despite some differences, these two accounts probably relate to the events described by Polybius (above), and that they:

1. “... contribute some details ... that are not found in other authors:
   

2. ✴the slaughter of the [envoys by the Senones] is put in the context of an Etruscan war;
   

3. ✴the Romans sent these [envoys] to the towns of the Senones  ... because, [although they had a treaty with the Romans], they had furnished mercenaries to the Etruscans  ... ; and
   

4. ✴the Gaul Britomaris ... , who had lost his father in this war, killed the legates with his own hands.”
   

Brennan reconciled the accounts of Polybius and Appian by suggesting (at p. 438) that, soon after the election of the new consuls of 283 BC (see below), the Romans:

1. “... prepared to advance into Etruria.  In connection with this campaign, [the praetor suffectus] M’ Curius Dentatus sent [envoys] to the Senones [Polybius] in an effort to:
   

2. ✴regain Roman prisoners-of-war (Polybius); and
   

3. ✴dissuade them from assisting the Etruscans as mercenaries (Appian).”
   

In summary, although the detail of the events that led to the Romans’ war with the Senones are confused, it is likely that the caussus belli was the murder of envoys that Curius (as praetor suffectus) had sent to the Senones.

Conquest of the Senones (283 BC)

According to Robert Broughton (referenced below, at p. 188), the consuls elected for 283 BC were P. Cornelius Dolabella and Cn,Domitius Calvinus Maximus.  According to Polybius, when news of the  the murder of the envoys that had been sent to the Senones reached Rome, early in the consular year:

1. “... the infuriated Romans sent an expedition against [the Gauls] that was met by the [Gallic] tribe called the Senones.  This [enemy] army was cut to pieces  in a pitched battle, [following which], the rest of the tribe was expelled from [their territory on the Adriatic coast].   The Romans sent the first colony that they ever planted in Gaul [to this territory]: this colony was named Sena [Gallica] for the tribe that had formerly occupied it”, (‘Histories’ 2: 19: 10-12).
   

Polybius did not identify the Roman commander who defeated the Senones and confiscated their territory.  Some scholars identify him as M’ Curius Dentatus (who, as we have seen, had sent ambassadors to treat with the Gauls the suffect pretor  in 284 BC): for example, Simone Sisani (referenced below, 2007, at p. 215) argued that the early viritane settlement in the area around Pisaurum (evidenced by presence in this area of the Camilia voting tribe) was had immediately followed:

1. “... the extermination of the Senones in 284 BC, which carried the sure sign  of Curius Dentatus, [who had famously exterminated the Sabines in 290 BC - see below], (my translation).
   

However, Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 425) pointed out that, although Polybius recorded that Curius sent envoys to the Senones in that year, he:

1. “... does not state that it was [Curius] who [either] marched against the Senonian Gauls or planted the colony [of Sena Gallica], an erroneous supposition that has caused much confusion.”
   

He plausibly argued (see p. 437) that Curius did not more than replace L. Caecilius as praetor and send envoys ambassadors to the Gauls, after which hedeparted for southern Italy, where he triumphed over the Lucanians in southern Italy (see my page on War in Southern Italy (290 - 275 BC).

Appian (again in two essentially identical accounts) identified the Roman commander who defeated the Senones and confiscated their territory as Dolabella, who was, as we have seen, one of the consuls of 283 BC:

1. ✴The consul [Dolabella], who learned of this abominable deed while he was on the march, moved with great speed against the towns of the Senones by way of the Sabine country and Picenum, and ravaged them all with fire and sword.  He reduced the women and children to slavery, killed all the adult males without exception, devastated the country in every possible way, and made it uninhabitable for anybody else.  He then carried off Britomaris alone as a prisoner for torture”, (‘Gallic Wars’, 2.13).
   

2. ✴The consul [Dolabella], who learned of this abominable deed while he was on the march, abandoned his campaign against the Etruscans and dashed with great rapidity by way of the Sabine country and Picenum against the towns of the Senones, which he devastated with fire and sword.  He carried their women and children into slavery, and killed all the adult youth except a son of Britomaris, whom he reserved for awful torture and led in his triumph”, (‘Samnite Wars’, 2.13).
   

This is confirmed by:

1. ✴Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who referred to:
   

2. “... P. Cornelius [Dolabella], who, while consul [in 283 BC], had waged war on the whole tribe of Gauls and had slain all their adult males, ...”, (‘Roman Antiquities’, 19: 13: 1); and
   

3. ✴Florus recorded that:
   

4. “... near the lacus Vadimonis [see below] in Etruria, Dolabella destroyed all that remained of the tribe [of the Senones], so that none might survive of the race to boast that he had burnt the city of Rome [in the early 4th century BC]”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 1: 8: 21).
   

In short, all of the surviving sources that identify the commander who destroyed the Senones as  P. Cornelius Dolabella, the consul of 283 BC. 

Colony at Sena Gallica 

There are two distinct traditions for the date of the foundation of the colony at Sena Gallica:

1. ✴An entry on the surviving summary of Livy’s now-lost Book 11 records that:
   

2. “Colonies were founded at Castrum [Novum in Picenum], Sena [Gallica] and Hadria”, (‘Periochae’, 11: 7).
   

3. This book probably began in 290 BC and certainly ended before the death of the praetor L. Caecilius in 283 BC (which, as we have seen, was the first event recorded in Book 12).  If the entries in the perioche are in date order, then these three colonies would have been founded:
   

4. •after the double triumph of M’ Curius Dentaus recorded at 11: 5, (which he celebrated as consul of 290 BC, over the Samnites and the Sabines); and
   

5. •before the census recorded at 11: 9, which Robert Broughton (referenced below, at p. 184 and note 2) dated to 289 BC. 
   

6. ✴However, as we have seen:
   

7. •according to Polybius, the colony was founded in 283 BC, on land that the Romans had confiscated  from the Senones; and
   

8. •although Appian did not mention the foundation of the colony, he did record that, in revenge for the murder of the legates, Dolabella, as consul in 283 BC, had:
   

9. “... ravaged [all of the towns of the Senones] with fire and sword.  He reduced the women and children to slavery, killed all of the adult males without exception, devastated the country in every possible way, and made it uninhabitable for anybody else”, (‘Gallic Wars’, 2.13).
   

In fact, these records can probably be reconciled: as Michael Fronda (referenced below, at p. 429) pointed out,:

1. “In his surviving books, Livy reported colonial foundations in one of two ways: he either:
   

2. •stated that a colony was founded, using formulae as colonia(e) deducta(e) or deduxerunt coloniam/-as: or
   

3. •mentioned that legislation was passed to found a colony at some later point, employing future constructions such as ut colonia(e) deducere tur/ -ntur or colonia(e) deducenda(e). 
   

4. [However], no matter what phrase Livy uses, the periochae ... invariably report colonial foundations with the formula colonia(e) deducta(e).
   

In other words, in this case, we can reasonably assume that the legislation for the foundation of all three colonies was passed in 290-89 BC, but we cannot automatically assume that all three were then immediately founded ‘on the ground’.  It is, of course, extremely unlikely that the Romans would have passed enabling legislation for the foundation of colonies on land that was not under Roman control:

1. ✴This is not a problem in relation to the colonies of Castrum Novum in Picenum and at Hadria since, according to Florus, Curius had confiscated the necessary land during his conquest of the Sabines in 290 BC, when:
   

2. “... the Romans laid waste with fire and sword all the tract of country that is enclosed by the Nar [on which stood the colony of Narnia], the Anio and the sources of the Velinus, and bounded by the Adriatic Sea.  By this conquest, so large a population and so vast a territory was reduced, that even [Curius] could not tell which was of greater importance”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 1: 10).
   

3. ✴On the other hand, it is a problem for Sena Gallica unless there are grounds for believing that the land on which it was subsequently founded was in Roman hands in ca. 290 BC. 
   

An odd aspect of Appian’s account of the events of 283 BC (above) might throw some light on this potential problem: he recorded that, in 283 BC, the Roman legates who were sent to the Senones had argued that the fact that Senonian mercenaries were taking service with Rome’s enemies was represented a violation of a Romano-Senonian treaty.  This information is not found in any of our other surviving sources, but Nathan Rosenstein (referenced below, at p. 38) argued that the Romans had probably forced this treaty on the Senones after their victory  over the Samnites, Gauls, Etruscans and Umbrians at Sentinium (on the border of Senonian territory) in 295 BC, and that they might also have forced them to cede a portion of their land at this time.  If so, then it is at least possible that the Romans passed legislation enabling the foundation of a colony here in 290-89 BC, but that its foundation was postponed until the land in question was more securely under Roman control, which would have been the case  after the conquest of 283 BC.

It seems that Sena Gallica was formally a maritime citizen colony, as evidenced by the fact that (according to Livy, ‘History of Rome’, 27: 38: 4) it was among seven such colonies that pleaded their ‘sacrosancta vacatio militiae’ [notionally inviolable exemption from military service] in 207 BC. It is often asserted that only 300 citizen settlers were enrolled for this type of colony, and that this was therefore the case at Sena Gallica.  However, the number of colonists is known for only 6 of about 20 known maritime colonies:

1. ✴Tarracina, which also appears in Livy’s list such colonies in 207 BC; and
   

2. ✴5 founded in 194 BC (Livy, ‘History of Rome’, 32: 29: 3).
   

It is true that the number of colonists in each of these 6 was indeed 300.  However this does not prove that this necessarily applied at Sena Gallica in 283 BC (or at any other 13 known colonies of this type).  Indeed, according to Giuseppe Lepore (referenced below, in the English abstract of this paper), the archeological evidence suggests that this:

1. “... first [maritime colony] on the Adriatic [had] the shape and size of a [Latin colony], recalling the situation that, 20 years later, characterised the [Latin] colony of Ariminum [on the northern border of the ager Gallicus].  The new [evidence gained from recent excavations] allows us to hypothesis that Rome adopted a new form of [citizen colony as part of] its ‘Adriatic policy’.”
   

In the body of his paper (at pp. 231-2), he expanded as follows:

1. “We can recognise [from the new archeological data] a city of dimensions quite unlike those of other maritime colonies: we are looking at [an area of some] 18 hectares, compared with 2-2.5 hectares for the older maritime colonies on the Tyrhenian coast” (my translation).
   

He suggested that this new model had also applied at the citizen maritime colony of Castrum Novum in Picenum, which, as we have seen, had been founded to the south (on land recently confiscated from the Praetutti) at about the same time.   More recently, Frank Vermeulem (referenced below, at p. 193 pointed out that the Adriatic coastal plain had been essentially unurbanised at the start of the 3rd century BC, and argued (at p. 194) that the series of colonies that the Romans built here shortly thereafter can be:

1. “... seen as successful weapons used by Rome to take full possession of central Italy.”
   

He noted (at p. 195) that our surviving sources  record five such colonies in the two decades following the conquest of the ager Gallicus:

1. ✴the citizen colonies of Castrum Novum (ca. 290 BC) and Sena Galica (283 BC); and
   

2. ✴the Latin colonies of Hadria (ca. 290 BC), Ariminum (268 BC); Firmum Picinum (264 BC);
   

and observed that, on the basis of archeological evidence:

1. “... despite their different legal status, they [apparently had] characteristics that [were] very similar to those of quite large population centres, [and would have] generated a strategically well-balanced urban strip along the coast, controlling the sea and the now expanded easternmost part of the ager Romanus.”
   

Federico Uncini (referenced below, at pp. 21-9) suggested that, before the building of Via Flaminia in 220 BC, the Romans could have reached it using existing roads (including those that he designated as the proto-Flaminia illustrated on the map at the top of the page).  Nevertheless, the lines of communication were long and, as Graham Mason (referenced below, at p. 82) observed, since it would not have been easily provisioned from Rome, the colonists would have needed to provide for themselves by farming the broad alluvial plain on which it was located.

Victory at the Lacus Vadimonis (283 BC)

Ancient Latin colonies at Sutrium and Nepete protected Rome

Treaties agreed  with Camerinum (310/9 BC); Ocriculum (308 BC); and the Picenti (299 BC)

Latin Colony of Narnia founded in 299 BC

40 year truces agreed with Arretium, Perusia and Volsinii in 294 BC

Lands of the Sabines and Praetuttii confiscated in 290 BC

Latin colony of Hadria and citizen colony of Castrum Novum founded in ca. 290 BC

Citizen colony of Sena Gallica founded in ca. 290 BC (Livy) or 283 BC (Polybius)

According to Polybius, still in 283 BC:

1. “Seeing the expulsion of the [Gallic] Senones [from their territory on the Adriatic coast], and fearing the same fate for themselves, the [neighbouring Gallic tribe known as the] Boii: made a general levy; summoned the Etruscans to join them; and set out to war [against Rome] . They mustered their [combined] forces near the lacus Vadimonis and there gave the Romans battle”, (‘Histories’, 2:20).  
   

Although this ancient lake no longer exists, its general location is known: it was in Etruscan territory (on the left bank of the Tiber), about:

1. ✴50 km  southeast of the Etruscan city-state of Volsinii; and
   

2. ✴70 km east of the Etruscan city-state of Tarquinii.
   

More importantly for the Romans, it was about 40 km north of the Latin colonies of Sutrium and Nepet, which guarded the way to Rome.

Polybius gave no description of the battle at the lacus Vadimonis, simply noting that:

1. “... the Etruscans suffered a loss of more than half their men, while scarcely any of the Boii escaped”, (‘Histories’, 2:20).
   

However, it seems that the Romans’ victory here was not completely decisive: according to Polybius, in the following year (282 BC), the Boii and the Etruscans:

1. “... joined forces once more: after mobilising even those of them who had only just reached manhood, they gave the Romans battle again.  It was not until they had been utterly defeated in this engagement that they humbled themselves so far as to send ambassadors to Rome and to make a treaty”, (‘Histories’, 2:20).
   

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 427) observed that:

1. “Although Polybius does not name the Roman commander [at the lacus Vadimonis], later tradition unanimously ascribes the victory to Dolabella.”
   

He cited (inter alia):

1. ✴Florus
   

2. “... near the Lake of Vadimo in Etruria, Dolabella destroyed all that remained of the [Gallic Senones], so that none might survive of the race to boast that [his ancestors] had burnt the city of Rome”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 1: 8: 21); and
   

3. ✴Eutropius
   

4. “After an interval of a few years [after the end of the Third Samnite War in 290 BC], the forces of the Gauls united with those of the Etruscans and the Samnites against the Romans; but, as they were marching to Rome, they were cut off by the consul Cnaeus [sic] Cornelius Dolabella”, (‘Abridgement of Roman History’, 2.10).
   

He  concluded that, when the Romans became aware that the Etruscans and the Boii were mustering a their men at the lacus Vadimonis:

1. “Dolabella must have hurried back from [devastating] the land of the Senones to return to his original mission, a campaign against the Etruscans.” 
   

Polybius also failed to identify the Roman commander who defeated the remnants of the enemy armies after the battle at the lacus Vadimonis.  However, Appian seems to have identified him as Dolabella’s consular colleague, Cn. Domitius Calvinus:

1. “A little later [i.e. immediately after Dolabella had  ravaged and confiscated their territory], those Senones who were serving as mercenaries, having no longer any homes to return to, fell boldly upon the consul Domitius.  After he defeated them, they killed themselves in despair.  Such punishment was meted out to the Senones for their crime against the ambassadors”, (‘Gallic Wars’, 2.13).
   

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 427) observed that this victory:

1. “...  is found only in Appian.  It is not immediately clear what Appian is talking about.  Some scholars  have (wrongly) thought Appian is referring to Vadimon. ... I would suggest that Domitius' conflict with the Senonian Gauls [actually] belongs to the period immediately following Vadimon, but still in his consular year of 283 BC.” 
   

He suggested (at p. 428) that the following surviving fragment from Cassius Dio might support this hypothesis:

1. “... When the enemy saw that another general had also arrived, they ceased to heed the common interests of their expedition: each cast about to secure his own safety, as is the common practice of those who:
   

2. ✴form a union that is not cemented by kindred blood; or
   

3. ✴make a campaign without common grievances; or
   

4. ✴lack a single commander:
   

5. ... And so, arranging their flight, each in the way that seemed safest in his own judgment ... ”, (‘Roman History’, 8: fragment 38)
   

As Brennan observed (at p. 428):

1. “It has long been thought that [the now-unidentified anti-Roman alliance was that of the] Etruscans, Boii and Senones, at the time of Vadimon: this must be correct.  I would further suggest that that the [the now-unidentified approaching second Roman commander] is the consul Domitius, who had now moved into Etruria  ... to support his colleague ... Dolabella.  It is not impossible that, after defeat at Vadimon and the splintering of the coalition (described here by Dio), a band of desperate Senones attacked Domitius, with dire results.”
   

Final War with the Etruscans (282 - 280 BC)

Our surviving sources for the period immediately following the Romans’ victory at the lacus Vadimonis are very sparse::

1. ✴according to the surviving summary of Livy’s now-lost Book 11, wars against the Volsinians and Lucanians broke out in 282 BC (‘Periochae’, 11: 12); and
   

2. ✴the ‘Fasti Triumphales’ record triumphs awarded to:
   

3. •Q. Marcius Philippus, over the Etruscans in 281 BC; and 
   

4. •T. Coruncanius, over the Vulsinienses and Vulcientes (i.e. over Volsinii and Vulci) in 280 BC. 
   

Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, 2010, at p. 42) asserted that:

1. “... the [Romans’] last war with Etruria ended in [280] BC.  It is usually assumed that, on this occasion, Caere, Vulci, Volsinii and Tarquinii lost part of their land.”  
   

Conquest of Picenum (268 BC) 

According to Livy, when the Romans had become concerned about unrest in Etruria and Cisalpine Gaul in 299 BC, they had:

1. “... with the less hesitation on that account, ... concluded an alliance with the people of Picenum”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 10: 12).
   

While the ‘people of Picenum’ might have been reassured by their alliance of 299 BC, they would surely have been disconcerted by later Roman activity:

1. ✴According to Florus, in 290 BC:
   

2. “... the Romans laid waste with fire and sword all the tract of country which is enclosed by the Nar, the Anio and the sources of the Velinus, and bounded by the Adriatic Sea”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 1: 10: 15). This meant that the land beyond their southern border was Roman territory.
   

3. ✴In 283 BC, the Romans defeated the Gallic Senones and and confiscated their lands, at which point the lands beyond their northern border became the Roman ager Gallicus. 
   

Any such fears were vindicated in 268 BC, when, according to Florus:

1. “... all Italy enjoyed peace, except that the Romans thought fit themselves to punish those who had been the allies of their enemies, for who could venture upon resistance after the defeat of Tarentum?  The people of Picenum were therefore subdued and their capital Asculum was taken under the leadership of [P.  Sempronius Sophus, the consul of 268 BC]: when an earthquake occurred in the midst of the battle, appeased the goddess Tellus by the promise of a temple”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 1: 14: 19).
   

Eutropius placed the start of this Roman campaign in the previous year, and blamed it on the Picentes:

1. “In the consulate of Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius Pictor [269 BC], the people of Picenum started a war [with Rome].  They were conquered by the succeeding consuls P. Sempronius [Sophus] and Ap. Claudius [Russus], and a triumph was celebrated over them”, (‘Summary of Roman History’, 3: 7)
   

The fasti Triumphales record triumphs over the people of Picenum for both consuls of 268 BC: [P.] Sempronius [Sophus]; and Ap. Claudius [Russus].

According to Velleius Paterculus:

1. “At the outbreak of the First Punic War [in 264 BC], Firmum [Picenum] and Castrum [Novum, probably in Etruria] were occupied by colonies”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 14: 8).
   

Firmum was among the 18 Latin colonies that had honoured their obligations to Rome in 209 BC, as recorded by Livy (27: 10: 7). 

Viritane Settlement

Gino Bandelli (referenced below, at column 19) suggested that, with the exception of:

1. ✴the Greek colony of Ancona; and
   

2. ✴the capital Asculum, which was still nominally independent at the start of the Social War;
   

the whole of Picenum became ager Romanus.  Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at p. 318, note 98) commented observed that:

1. “In 241 BC, the tribus Velina was established in Picenum, which makes it likely that land [there] was distributed to Roman citizens [and possibly also to] Picentes who had received Roman citizenship.”
   

Simona Antolini and Silvia Marengo (referenced below, at p. 213) list no fewer that 15 centres in Picenum that were assigned to the Velina.  The only other tribal assignation listed for centres of this region were at:

1. ✴Asculum, which was assigned to the Fabia on municipalisation after the Social War;
   

2. ✴the Latin colony of Hadria, which was assigned to the Maecia, presumably also on municipalisation after the Social War; and
   

3. ✴Ancona, which, according to Simone Sisani (referenced below, 2006, at p. 317) was assigned to the Lemonia on municipalisation after the Social War.
   

This predominance of the Velina suggests that this was the tribe to which the citizens settled here were mostly assigned in 241 BC.  Of the 15 settlements assigned to this tribe:

1. ✴the Latin colony of Firmum (264 BC) was probably so-assigned on municipalisation after the Social War; and
   

2. ✴three citizen colonies were probably so-assigned at their respective dates of foundation:
   

3. •Potentia (184 BC);
   

4. •Auximum (157 BC); and
   

5. •Urbs Salvia (Giovanna Maria Fabrini  and Roberto Perna, referenced below, at p7 suggested that the foundation was probably a result of the lex Sempronia of 133 BC).
   

According to Simona Antolini and Silvia Marengo, the other 11 (Castrum Truentinum; Cingulum; Cupra Maritima; Cupra Montana; Falerio; Pausulae; Planinia; Ricina; Septempeda; Tolentinum; and Trea) were (or, in some cases,  were probably) municipalised after 49 BC, presumably as a result of legislation enacted by Julius Caesar. Actually, as notd below, Cingulum might have been municipalised slightly earlier than this:

1. ✴Some or all of these 11 centres might have been constituted as conciliabula and assigned to the Velina in or after 241 BC (like the conciliabulum of Interamnia Praetuttorum and possibly the citizen colony of Castrum Novum, both in the erstwhile territory of the Praetutti, to the south).  However, we have no evidence for any centres in Picenum that were so-constituted. 
   

2. ✴Any of the 11 centres that were not so-constituted would have been assigned to the ‘local’ tribe at municipalisation.
   

Caesar gave the impression that many, if not most, of the settlements in Picenum were constituted as prefectures by 49 BC.  Some at least must have been so-designated when the level of citizen settlement led to the requirement of the services of a Roman prefect.  Nevertheless, Cingulum is the only Picene settlement for which we have evidence of its constitution as a prefecture. 

Foundation of the Colony at Ariminum (268 BC)

Sites of the Latin colonies of Sena Gallica (founded in 283 BC) and Ariminum (founded in 268 BC)

Adapted from the Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire

In the surviving summary of Livy’s now-lost Book 15:

1. “When the Picentes had been subdued [in 268 BC], they were given peace.  Colonies were founded at Ariminum in Picenum and at Beneventum in Samnium”, (‘Perioche’, 15: 4-5).
   

Two later sources also place the foundation of the colony in 268 BC;

1. ✴Eutropius:
   

2. “In the consulate of P. Sempronius [Sophus] and Ap. Claudius [Russus], .... [the Romans founed two colonies]: Ariminum in Gaul; and Beneventum in Samnium”, (‘Summary of Roman History’, 3: 7)
   

3. ✴Velleius Paterculus:
   

4. “... in the consulship of [P.] Sempronius Sophus and Appius [Cllaudius Russus], the son of Appius the Blind, colonists were sent to Ariminum and Beneventum, and the right of suffrage was granted to the Sabines”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 14: 7).
   

The new colony [near modern Rimini]was located on the northern border of the ager Gallicus, which comprised the land that had been taken from the Gallic Senones in 283 BC.  A remark by Strabo indicates the strategic importance of this location:

1. “The Apennines, after joining the regions round about Ariminum and Ancona, that is, after having traversed the breadth of Italy there from [the Tyrhenian Sea to the Adriatic], again take a turn, and cut the whole country lengthwise”, (‘Geograohy’, 5: 1: 3).
   

In other words, the new colony blocked the access of the neighbouring Boii and the other Gallic tribes to the coastal plain that extended along the length of the Adriatic.  It also would have supported the the earlier colony at Sena Gallica in the event of any further trouble from the Picentes.

Stephen Dyson (referenced below, at p. 27) characterised the foundation of this colony as:

1. “... a turning point in Romano-Gallic relations: previously, the Romans and the largest Gallic tribes had had only indirect frontier contacts, but now the Romans had moved several thousand [colonists] into territory that the Gauls had considered as their own for [at least] a century.”
   

Nevertheless, it was to be another 30 years before the Gauls made any attempt to attack the colony.

Final Defeat of the Umbrians (267 BC)

According to the ‘Periochae’, Rome defeated the “Umbrians and Sallentines” in 267 BC.  This account can be augmented by the fasti Triumphales, which record that the consuls Decius Iunius Pera and Numerius Fabius Pictor were awarded triumphs in 266 BC for two different victories:

1. ✴first over the Sassinates (Umbrians from Sarsina, in the Apennines); and then
   

2. ✴over the Sallentini and Messapii (from two towns in Calabria).
   

Simone Sisani (referenced below, 2007, at p. 53) suggests that the revolt of the Sassinates had probably been in reaction to the formation of a Latin colony at nearby Ariminum (Rimini) in 268 BC.

Fall of Volsinii (264 BC)

                      Orvieto, with Campo della Fiera in foreground                                           Bolsena and its lake

The Periochae record that Rome finally defeated the Volsinians in 264 BC.  Fortunately, other writers (Paulus Orosius; and John Zonaras, drawing on Cassius Dio) also record this tragic event, which is described in detail in the page on the ancient history of Volsinii/ Orvieto.  It seems that, in response to an uprising by their slaves, the nobles of Volsinii sought the help of Rome.  The Consuls of 265 BC, Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges and Lucius Mamilius Vitulus duly marched on Volsinii , but Fabius Maximus was killed as he attempted to take the city.  The Romans then besieged it, and it fell to the Consul Marcus Fulvius Flaccus in 265 BC.  He razed it to the ground and settled its pro-Roman citizens on another site, Volsinii Nova, which was probably near modern Bolsena. 

The fasti Triumphales record that the Marcus Fulvius Flaccus was awarded a triumph in 264 BC for his victory over the “Vulsinienses”.   He also seems to have destroyed the Fanum Voltumnae, the federal sanctuary of the Etruscans, which was almost certainly located just outside the city.  He ‘called’ to Rome the presiding deity, Veltune, whom the Romans called Voltumna or Vertumnus, thus marking the end of Etruscan independence.

Destruction of Volsinii (264 BC)

Etruscan Volsinii was almost certainly located on the site of modern Orvieto, which rises on a cylindrical tufa cliff that would have controlled a vast territory in the plain below.  It seems that the Romans agreed a foedus (treaty) with Volsinii after defeating them in 279 BC: thus, according to Cassius Dio (as summarised by John Zonaras):

1. “In [265 AD], the Romans] made an expedition to Volsinii to secure the freedom of its citizens [i.e. the noble faction that had appealed for their help in suppressing a slave revolt]; for they were under treaty obligations to them”, (‘Roman History’, 10 - search on “Volsinii”).
   

Cassius Dio also described how the Romans besieged Volsinii , which was eventually forced to surrender in 264 BC.  The consul, Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, then:

1. “... razed the city to the ground; the native-born citizens, however, and any servants who had been loyal to their masters, were settled by him on another site””, (‘Roman History’, 10 - search on “Volsinii”).
   

The “fasti Triumphales” record that Flaccus as awarded a triumph in the following year for his victory over the “Vulsinienses”.  The history of Etruscan Volsinii effectively ended at this point: there are no significant Roman remains on the site of modern Orvieto.  The surviving population was moved to the ‘new’ Volsinii, at modern Bolsena, some 20 km to the southwest, on the shores of what became know as the lacus Volsiniensis, (which might originally have been part of the territory of the Etruscan city). 

1. ✴[In 282 BC, war broke out against] the Volsinians, and Lucanians, when the Romans decided to support the inhabitants of Thurii against them” (‘Periochae’, 11:12). 
   

This last incident took place among the growing tension between the Romans and the inhabitants of Tarentum, the important Greek city in southern Italy .  Tarentum regarded  its neighbour, Thurii (also Greek), as within its sphere of influence. Thus, when Thurii turned to Rome, rather than to Tarentum, for protection from the Lucanians, hostilities became inevitable.  According to Cassius Dio:

1. “The Romans had learned that the Tarentines and some others were making ready to war against them ... and, by sending men to the Etruscans, Umbrians and Gauls, [had] caused a number of them also to secede, some immediately and some a little later” (‘Roman History’, 9:39).  
   

In 280 BC, Tarentum secured the services of the Greek commander Pyrrhus, in what proved to be the start of the so-called Pyrrhic War.   In order to secure their position, the Romans seem to have sent an army into Etruria: thus, the ‘Fasti Triumphales’ record that the consul Tiberius Coruncanius was awarded a triumph over the Vulcientes (from the Etruscan city of Vulci) and Vulsinienses in that year.  Although the sources for this period are very sparse, it seems that this last Roman triumph marked the end of Volsinian independence: the city made a treaty with Rome, under which it retained its nominal independence, but under Roman hegemony.   This treaty was documented by Cassius Dio (as summarised by John Zonaras) in his account of the subsequent destruction of the city (as described below):

1. “In the consulship of Quintus Fabius and Aemilius [i.e. 265 AD, the Romans] made an expedition to Volsinii to secure the freedom of its citizens [i.e. the noble faction that had appealed for their help]; for they were under treaty obligations to them” (‘Roman History’, 10 - search on “Volsinii”).
   

Destruction of Velzna/ Volsinii (264 BC)

In contrast with the sparse sources for 280 BC, a number of sources document the events of 265-4 BC, when Volsinii was  rocked by the revolt of a social class that was made up of freed slaves: 

1. ✴Valerius Maximus gave a series of examples of the damage done to various cities by vice, included a cautionary tale about Volsinii at this time:
   

2. “[Vices] also brought the city of Volsinii to calamity.  It had been rich, with well-established customs and laws, and was regarded as the capital of Etruria.  However, after its descent into luxury, it was buried in injustice and baseness, which led to the insolent rule of slaves.  Initially, very few slaves dared to enter the senatorial order, but later they came to control the entire state.  [For example, they routinely]: had wills drawn up at their own discretion; forbad free-born men to assemble at banquets and elsewhere; and married their masters’ daughters.  Finally, they enacted a law that allowed them to rape wives and widows with impunity and that specified that no virgin could marry a free-born man before being deflowered by one of their number” (my translation from “Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX”, 9:1 ext2, search on “Volsiniensium”).
   

3. ✴Paulus Orosius, writing in the ca. 417 AD, gave a similar account:
   

4. “[In ca. 264 BC], the Volsinians, the most flourishing of the Etruscan peoples, almost perished as a result of their wantonness.  After making license a habit, they indiscriminately freed their slaves, invited them to banquets, and honoured them with marriage.  The liberated slaves, admitted to a share of power, criminally plotted to usurp complete rule of the state and, relieved of the yoke of slavery, were consumed with the desire for revolution.  Once free, they cursed those masters whom they, as slaves, had devotedly loved, because they remembered that these men had once been their masters.  The liberated slaves then conspired to commit a crime and claimed the captured city for their class alone.  So great were their numbers that they accomplished their rash purpose without real resistance.  They criminally appropriated the property and wives of their masters, and forced the latter to go into distant exile.  These wretched and destitute exiles betook themselves to Rome.  Here they displayed their misery and tearfully pleaded their cause.  They were avenged and restored to their former positions through the stern rule of the Romans” (‘Historiae adversum Paganos’, 4:5).
   

5. ✴Cassius Dio (as summarised by John Zonaras) recorded that:
   

6. “These people [of Volsinii] were the most ancient of the Etruscans: they had acquired power and had erected an extremely strong citadel, and they had a well-governed state.  Hence, on a certain occasion, when they had been involved in war with the Romans, they had resisted for a very long time.  Upon being subdued, however, they drifted into indolent ease, left the management of the city to their servants, and used those servants also, as a rule, to carry on their campaigns.  Finally, they encouraged them to such an extent that the servants gained both power and spirit, and felt that they had a right to freedom; and, indeed, in the course of time, they actually obtained this through their own efforts.  After that, they were accustomed to wed their mistresses, to succeed their masters, to be enrolled in the senate, to secure the offices, and to [assume] the entire authority themselves.  Furthermore, they were not at all slow to requite their masters for any insults and the like that were offered them.  Hence the old-time citizens, not being able to endure them and yet possessing no power of their own to punish them, despatched envoys by stealth to Rome.  The envoys urged the senate to convene secretly by night in a private house, so that no report might get abroad, and they obtained their request.  The senators, accordingly, deliberated under the impression that no one was listening; but a certain Samnite, who was being entertained by the master of the house and was sick, kept to his bed unnoticed, and learning what was voted, gave information to those against whom charges were preferred.  These seized and tortured the envoys on their return; and when they found out what was afoot, they put to death the envoys and the other more prominent men as well” (‘Roman History’, 10 - search on “Volsinii”). 
   

Cassius Dio (as summarised by John Zonaras) described how, after the nobles of Volsinii had appealed for help, the Romans sent an army under the terms of the treaty:

1. “[Quintus] Fabius routed those who came to meet him, destroyed many in their flight, shut up the remainder within the wall, and made an assault upon the city.  He was wounded and killed in that action, whereupon the enemy gained confidence and made a sortie.  Upon being again defeated, they retired and underwent a siege; and when they were reduced to famine, they surrendered.  The consul [of 264 BC, Marcus Fulvius Flaccus] scourged to death the men who had seized upon the honours of the ruling class, and he razed the city to the ground; the native-born citizens, however, and any servants who had been loyal to their masters, were settled by him on another site” (‘Roman History’, 10 - search on “Volsinii”). 
   

The “Fasti Triumphales” record that the Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, the consul of 265 BC, was awarded a triumph in the following year for his victory over the “Vulsinienses”.

At this point, the history of Etruscan Orvieto effectively ended.  The surviving population was moved to the ‘new’ Volsinii, at Bolsena (as described on the following page).

Livy had recorded a series of meetings of the ancient Etruscan Federation at the fanum Voltumnae in the period 434-389 BC but he never specified its location.  However, Propertius, in an elegy that took the form of a monologue delivered by a statue of Vertumnus in Rome, had this statue insisting:

1. “[Although] I am a Tuscan born of Tuscans, [I] do not regret abandoning Volsinii’s hearths in battle” (‘Elegies’ 4.2). 
   

Scholars reasonably assume that the fanum Voltumnae had been located in the territory of Volsinii, and that a cult statue of Voltumnus/ Vertumnus that had adorned it had been ritually called to Rome after the sanctuary itself was destroyed in 264 BC.  Thus, the events at Volsinii in 264 BC marked not only the end of an ancient Etruscan city: they made manifest the end of anything resembling a confederation of independent Etruscan city states.

Fall of Falerii (241 BC)

Adapted from the Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire

The Faliscan town of Falerii, some 60 km north of Rome, had had sought, and probably received, a foedus with Rome in 343 BC, impressed (it was said) by the Romans’ success in the First Samnite War.  It had briefly joined the revolt of the neighbouring Etruscans in 293-2 BC, towards the end of the Third Samnite War:

1. ✴Sp. Carvilius Maximus, after his campaign in Samnium in 293 BC, marched into Etruria and:
   

2. “... [made] preparations to attack [the now-unknown town of] Troilum in Etruria. He allowed 470 of its wealthiest citizens to leave the place after they had paid an enormous sum by way of ransom; and he took by storm the town with the rest of its population.  Thereafter, he took  five forts that occupied positions of great natural strength, in actions in which the enemy lost 2,400 killed and 2,000 prisoners.  The Faliscans sued for peace, and he granted them a truce for one year on condition of their supplying a year's pay to his troops, and an indemnity of 100,000 asses f=of bronze coinage”, (‘‘History of Rome’’, 10: 46: 10-12).
   

3. ✴Zonarus recorded that, in the following year:
   

4. “The Romans ... sent out Carvilius [as legate] with [the new consul, Junius Brutus [Scaevola, to continue the campaign against the Faliscans].  Brutus worsted the Faliscans and plundered their possessions, as well as those of the other Etruscans”, (‘Epitome of Roman History’, 8: 1: 10, search in this link on ‘Carvilius’).
   

Nothing in our surviving sources suggests that the Faliscans subsequently caused problems.  However, somewhat surprisingly, the ‘fasti Triumphales’ record that, within a few months of the end of the First Punic War in 241 BC, both consuls, A. Manlius Torquatus Atticus and Q. Lutatius Cerco, celebrated triumphs “over the Faliscans”.  A number of our surviving sources support this

1. ✴Cassius Dio:
   

2. “... the Romans made war upon the Faliscans and [the consul] Manlius ravaged their country.  ... he was victorious and took possession of ... half of their territory.  Later on, the original city, which was set upon a steep mountain, was torn down and another one was built, easy of access”, (‘Roman History’, 8: 18).
   

3. ✴Eutropius:
   

4. “[The consuls] Lutatius and Manlius ... made war upon the Falisci ... and [were victorious] within 6 days: 15,000 of the enemy were slain and peace was granted to the rest, but half their land was taken from them”, (‘Breviarium’’, 2: 28).. 
   

5. ✴Polybius:
   

6. “[Immediately after] the confirmation of the peace [with Carthage, the Romans engaged in] war against the Faliscans.  They [captured] Falerii after only a few days' siege”, (‘Histories’, 1:65).
   

7. ✴Livy:
   

8. “When the Faliscans revolted, they were subdued on the 6th day, and their surrender was accepted”, (‘Periochae’, 20: 1).
   

Further evidence of this victory comes in the form of a bronze cuirass of unknown provenance that is now in the Getty Museum, Malibu, which carries an inscription (AE 1998, 0199) that reads:

Q(uinto) Lutatio C(ai) f(ilio) A(ulo) Manlio C(ai) f(ilio)/ consolibus Faleries capto(m?)

Jean-Louis Zimmerman (referenced below, at p. 40) dated the cuirass to the second half of the 4th century BC.  He suggested (at p. 41) that it had been an heirloom that had been worn by a Faliscan cavalryman who had been killed in the battle of 241 BC, and concluded (at p. 42) that:

1. “The inscription might have been engraved for a Roman who was entitled to the remains of an opponent whom he had killed in single combat” (my translation).
   

Thus, there can be no doubt that both consuls successfully attacked Falerii in 241 BC and killed a number of its defenders.  However, the cause of this one-sided war are completely obscure.  It seems unlikely that the Faliscans would have chosen to revolt at precisely the time that the Romans  established their supremacy over the mighty Carthaginians.   A more likely scenario is thus that the Romans mounted a surprise attack on Falerii, which would account for their rapid success in taking the almost impregnable settlement.  Eutropius and Cassius Dio agreed that the Romans had then confiscated half the territory of Falerii.  However:

1. ✴Eutropius related that the survivors at Falerii were granted peace in 241 BC; while
   

2. ✴according to Cassius Dio:
   

3. “Later on [i.e., at an unknown date after the battle], the original city, which was set upon a steep mountain, was torn down and another one was built, easy of access.”
   

It is often assumed that the situation at Falerii was analogous to that at the original Etruscan city of Volsinii, where the inhabitants were forcibly removed to a less defensible site in 264 BC.  It is certainly true that the old city (located at modern Civita Castellana) was largely abandoned at about this time, although a number of its sanctuaries remained in use until ca. 100 BC (see , for example, the recent paper by Nicoletta Cignini, referenced below).  However, this model of forced removal is not supported by the archeological evidence from the so-called Falerii Novi, some 6 km to the west.  Simon Keay and Martin Millett (referenced below, at p. 364) described its location:

1. “... on the line of the Via Amerina ... The position of the town is such that both Falerii Veteres and Monte Soracte, sacred to Apollo, were visible to the east ... [It was] conceived as an artificially landscaped plateau that was enclosed within high walls ... in order to present a monumental facade to visitors approaching along Via Amerina to the south.”
   

They also note (at p. 365) the existence of a processional way from Falerii Novi to the:

1. “... still-functioning sanctuary of Juno Curitis at the foot of the abandoned site of Falerii Veteres.”
   

Keay and Millet expressed the view (at p. 364) that:

1. “Falerii Novi is best understood as a re-foundation, expressed in terms of the architectural language of Roman colonies while consciously incorporating key points of reference to the earlier Faliscan settlement.”
   

Foundation of the Colony of Spoletium (241 BC)

According to Velleius Paterculus (ca. 19 BC - 31 AD):

1. “Spoletium [was formed] three years [after the consulship of Torquatus and Sempronius [i.e. in 241 BC], in the year in which the Floralia were instituted” (‘Roman History’, 1:14:8) .
   

The colony, which was assigned to the Horatia tribe after the Social War, received a substantial ring of walls soon after colonisation that incorporated part of the original walls of the much smaller Umbrian settlement.   

According to Paolo Camerieri and Dorica Manconi (referenced below, at p. 19):

1. “The founding of the Latin colony of Spoletium probably constituted the completion of the programme of Romanisation of the northern Sabina that had been undertaken by M’ Curius Dentatus.  [This process] had begun with the founding of the Latin colony of Narnia, and continued with the establishment of the prefectures of Roman citizens at Amiternum, Reate and Nursia ... Having regard to the location  of the colony [of Spoletium] ..., it undoubtedly provided a secure base for the final Romanisation of Umbria and central Italy, complimented 20 years later by the construction of Via Flaminia ...” (my translation).