Key to Umbria

Aequan War (304 - 300 BC)

Yellow dots = Latin colonies founded between the second and third Samnite Wars

Adapted from Linguistic Landscape of Central Italy

According to Livy, the censors of 307 BC, Caius Junius Bubulcus Marcus and Valerius Maximus:

  1. “... built roads through the countryside at the public expense”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 43: 25-6)

It is possible that one of these was the Via Valeria, which extended the Via Tiburtina eastwards from Tibur towards the Adriatic: Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at p. 570) pointed out that, although this hypothesis has been disputed, 307 BC is:

  1. “... precisely the time when we should have expected a road from Rome to the central Abruzzi to be built ... : [its] construction can [reasonably] be connected with:

  2. the disaffection of the Aequi in 304 and 302 BC (which it may help to explain); and

  3. the subsequent colonisation of Alba Fucens and Carseoli [see below], both of which lay on its route.”

In any event, Livy recorded that, in 304 BC: 

  1. The arms of Rome were ... directed against the Aequi ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 45: 5). 

He observed that the Aequi:

  1. “... had been [Roman] enemies of old but, for many years past, [peace had prevailed, albeit that the Aequi had] observed [its terms] unfaithfully:

  2. ... before the overthrow of the Hernici, they had repeatedly joined with them in sending assistance to the Samnites;

  3. after the subjugation of the Hernici [in 306 BC], almost the entire nation had gone over to the [Samnites], without attempting to disguise their policy; and

  4. when [Romans] had applied to them for reparation after the adoption of the Samnite treaty at Rome [in 304 BC], they had persistently

  5. asserted that the Romans were attempting under threats of war to intimidate them into becoming Roman citizens; and

  6. stressed how the undesirability of such a thing had been shown by the Hernici, since those who had been permitted to do so [i.e. Aletrium, Verulae, and Ferentinum] had [chosen instead] to retain their own laws ... while those who had not been given an option [i.e., for example, Anagnia] were to have citizenship thrust upon them as a punishment”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 45: 5-8). 

For Livy, this unprovoked treachery justified the fact that:

  1. “... the Roman people decreed that war should be made upon the Aequi  ... ”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 45: 10). 

Thus, both consuls, Publius Sulpicius Saverrio and Publius Sempronius Sophus:

  1. “... took up a position four miles from the enemy's camp”, (‘History of Rome, 9: 45: 10).

It seems that the Aequan army fled at the sight of the Romans, who were able to take some 30 of their cities [all unnamed]:

  1. “Of these, the greater number were dismantled and burnt, and the Aequan name was almost  exterminated.  A triumph was celebrated over the Aequi ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 45: 18). 

The ‘fasti Triumphales’ record that both consuls received triumphs in 304 BC:

  1. Publius Sempronius Sophus against the Aequi; and 

  2. Publius Sulpicius Saverrio against the Samnites.

Livy noted that, unsurprisingly, the Aequi:

  1. “... resented the planting of a colony [at Alba Fucens] within their borders, which was to be a stronghold of Roman power.  They therefore made a desperate effort to capture it, but were beaten off by the colonists.  In their weakened condition, it seemed almost incredible that the Aequi could have resumed the war, relying solely upon themselves: this fear of an indefinitely extended war necessitated the appointment of a dictator.  Caius Junius Bubulcus was nominated, and he took the field ... He crushed the Aequi in the very first battle and, a week later, he returned in triumph to Rome.  There, he dedicated the temple of Salus that he had:

  2. vowed as consul [in 311 BC]; and

  3. [begun to build] as censor [in 307 BC]”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 6-9). 

The ‘fasti Triumphales’ also record that Caius Junius Bubulcus triumphed over the Aequi in 302 BC. 

Livy also recorded a final but minor skirmish with the Aequi in 300 BC:

  1. “[The consul Marcus Valerius Corvus] also conducted a war against the Aequi, who had recommenced hostilities, but who retained nothing of their earlier character except their restless temper”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 9: 8).

Confiscation of Aequan Land (304 - 302/1 BC) ?

Underlined in red = centres on Aequan territory that was ultimately assigned to the Aniensis

Adapted from Antonio Sciarretta's Toponymy

Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at p. 309, entry 18) suggested that much of the territory of the Aequi was confiscated at this point: Livy did not explicitly say so, but such confiscation is implied by his claim that the people of the Aequan name were almost exterminated and by the fact that, as we shall see, colonies were soon founded on what had been Aequian territory (first at Alba Fucens and then at Carseoli).  The hypothesis is also supported by subsequent events:

  1. the foundation of colonies at Alba Fucens and Carseoli on Via Valeria in 303 - 298 BC; and

  2. the assignation of a number of Aequan centres to the the Aniensis tribe, which was established in 299 BC (see below).

Colonies at Alba Fucens (303 BC) and Carseoli (302/1, 300 or 298 BC)

Livy recorded that

  1. ... in the consulship of Lucius Genucius and Servius Cornelius (303 BC), during a lull in the war with the Aequi:

  2. “... there was in general a respite from foreign wars.  Colonies were established at Sora [see below] and Alba: 6,000 settlers were enrolled for Alba, in the Aequian country”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 1-2).

  3. He also made two references to the foundation of a colony at Carseoli:

  4. 302/1 BC:

  5. “The Marsi [see below] ... were giving trouble, for a body of 4000 colonists had been sent to Carseoli, and they were prevented by force from occupying the place”, ‘History of Rome’, 10: 3: 3-5);

  6. 298 BC, at the start of the Third Samnite War:

  7. “... a colony was settled at Carseoli, in the country of the Aequicoli”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 13: 1).

Velleius Patroculus recorded that, after the foundation of the colony of Interamna Lirensis in 312 BC:

  1. “... the work of colonisation was suspended for ten years.  Then:

  2. the colonies of Sora and Alba were founded [in 303 BC]; and

  3. two years later [i.e., allowing for the dictator year of 302/1 BC, in 300 BC], that of Carseoli”,  (History of Rome’, 1: 14: 5).

Thus, while we might reasonably assume that the colony of Sora was founded in 303 BC, Carseoli might have been funded in any of 302/1, 300 or 298 BC.  Both Alba Fucens and Carseoli were among the 30 coloniae populi Romani (colonies of the people of Rome, or Latin colonies) that, according to Livy (‘Roman History, 27: 9: 7), existed in 209 BC.

Livy implied that the colony of Carseoli was in the territory of the Marsi.  However, Pliny the Elder (‘Natural History’, 3:17) placed:

  1. the ‘Fucentes’ in the territory of the Marsi;

  2. the ‘town of Alba on Lake Fucinus’ in the territory of the ‘Albenses’; and

  3. the Carseolani in the territory of ‘the Aequiculani’.

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at p. 69) pointed out:

  1. “... the territory of the Marsi probably began only at the Fucine Lake.”

He also noted (at pp. 177-8) that, if there had ever been any distinction between the Aequi and the the Aequicoli, the terms had probably become interchangeable by the Augustan period.  Thus, we might reasonably assume that Carseoli was founded on land confiscated from the Aequi.  he also noted (at p. 45) that, if it was founded in 302/1 BC:

  1. “... then this would provide a second good explanation of [the renewal in that year] ofAequan unrest.”   

Incorporation of Trebula Suffenas (303 BC) ?

Livy recorded that, in the consulship of Lucius Genucius and Servius Cornelius (303 BC), during a lull in the war with the Aequi:

  1. “The right of citizenship was conferred this year upon the Arpinati [people of Arpinum, see below] and the Trebulani”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 3).

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at pp. 39-40) pointed out, scholars generally assume that the people of Trebula here were those of Trebula Suffenas.  According to Pliny the Elder , the territory of the Sabines included:

  1. “... the Trebulani, both those called Mutusci and those called Suffenates; the Tiburtes; and the [now-unknown] Tarinates”, (‘Natural History’, 3:17).

Trebula Mutuesca was well within Sabine territory, but Tibur and Trebula Suffenas were on its borders with (respectively) Latium and the Aequan lands.  This might underly Cicero’s observation that:

  1. “... maiores nostri Tusculanos, Aequos, Volscos, Sabinos, Hernicos in civitatem etiam acceperunt”, (‘de Officiis’, 1: 35)

  2. “The Tusculans, Aequans, Volscians, Sabines and Hernicians received citizenship from our forefathers”, (my translation).  

Since, as discussed below, we know that Arpinum was incorporated sine suffragio (without voting rights) into the Roman state at this point, we might reasonably assume that this was also the case at Trebula Suffenas.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at p. 40, note 3) suggested that, if indeed Livy’s sources for this incorporated:

  1. “... referred to Trebula Suffenas,they are likely to have done so because it was the prospective administrative   centre of a large area of southern Aequan territory that was incorporate into the Roman state after the campaign of 304 BC.”

Marrucini, Marsi, Paeligni, Frentani & Vestini (304 - 302/1 BC)

Red squares = Latin colonies: Alba Fucens (303 BC) and Carseoli (probably 302/1 BC)

Red asterisk = Trebula Suffenas, probably incorporated sine suffragio in 303 BC

Livy recorded that, in 304 BC:

  1. “... warned by the example of [the downfall of the Aequii], the Marrucini, Marsi, Paeligni, and Frentani sent ambassadors to Rome to sue for peace and friendship.  These nations, at their request, were granted a treaty of alliance”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 45: 18).

Livy also recorded that, in 302/1 BC:

  1. “The Vestinians had requested to be given the status of a friendly State, and a treaty was made with them this year”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 3: 1). 

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at p. 46) observed that this notice:

  1. “... is not to be doubted, although we do not know why [the Vestini] did not join the other tribes of the Abruzzo in making this agreement in 305 BC.

Livy noted that, shortly after the submission of the Vestini:

  1. “The Marsi... were giving trouble, for a body of 4000 colonists had been sent to Carseoli [see above], and they were prevented by force from occupying the place.  In view of this threatening aspect of affairs, Marcus Valerius Maximus was nominated dictator ... [He] took the field and routed the Marsi in one battle.  After compelling them to seek shelter in their fortified cities, he took [the now-unknown] Milionia, Plestina, and Fresilia within a few days. The Marsi were compelled to surrender a portion of their territory, and then the old treaty with Rome was renewed”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 3: 1).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at p. 26) observed that, having agreed these treaties (and with the possible exception of the Marsi in 295 BC):

  1. “... the tribes did not  fight Rome again until the Social War ...”.

Sora, Arpinum and Frusino (305 - 304 BC)

Red asterisks  = centres incorporated (Arpinum) or probably incorporated (Frusino) sine suffragio in 303 BC

Black asterisks = centres incorporated sine suffragio before 303 BC

Red square (Sora) = Latin colony founded in 303 BC

Black squares = Latin colonies founded around Samnium before 303 BC

Tribes underlined = those around Samnium that were allied with Rome by 303 BC

(Note that the Volsci had effectively disappeared as an entity by this time)

Livy recorded that, in 305 BC:

  1. “The Romans recepta (captured or recaptured) Sora, Arpinum and [the now-unknown] Cesennia from the Samnites”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 44: 16).

Both Sora and Arpinum were in the Liris valley, on territory that had originally belonged to the Volsci.  However, Edward Salmon (referenced below, at p. 191) suggested that:

  1. “By the middle of the 4th century BC, [this valley] was rapidly becoming the Mecca to which the [emerging powers of Rome and Samnium] were inflexibly headed.  ... the Volsci were manifestly in retreat ... and the real question was: “who [would] replace them [in this key strategic area] ?”

In 305 BC, it became clear that the answer would be: “the Romans”.


Livy noted that:

  1. “Sora had belonged to the territory of the Volsci, but the Samnites had taken possession of it (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1:2).

As discussed on a previous page, the Romans had taken it from the Samnites in 314 BC. 

Sora was among the 30 coloniae populi Romani (colonies of the people of Rome, or Latin colonies) that, according to Livy (‘Roman History, 27: 9: 7), existed in 209 BC.

Livy recorded that, in the consulship of Lucius Genucius and Servius Cornelius (303 BC), during a lull in the war with the Aequi:

  1. “... there was in general a respite from foreign wars.  Colonies were established at Sora [and Alba , see above] ...  4000 men were sent there.  [Also, in this year]:

  2. the Arpini and [the Trebulani, see above] were granted citizenship; and

  3. the Frusinates were mulcted in  a third of their land, because it was discovered that they had [conspired] with the Hernici [in their rebellion of 306 BC]; the ringleaders of the conspiracy... were scourged and beheaded”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 1-3).

He hypothesised (at pp. 193-4) that the treaty recognised the Liris as the boundary between there respective spheres of influence, in which case:

  1. Sora was fair game for the Romans, who captured it in 345 BC; and

  2. Arpinum, further to the east, had probably been mostly in Samnite hands until 305 BC, (the date of its earliest mention in our surviving sources), when (as noted above) it fell to Rome.


Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at pp. 585-6) pointed out that:

  1. “Since recepta is used of Sora [since , as described in a previous page, the Romans had also caputured Sora in 314 BC], it may have the sense ‘recaptured’ here.  However, since recipire can [also] mean just ‘to capture’ , it is possible that the verb is used in two different senses, and that this was the first time that the Romans had held Arpinum.”


Our surviving sources link the town of nearby Volscian town of Frusino to this conflict:

  1. Following his account of Roman activity in Samnium in 306 BC, Diodorus Siculus recorded that:

  2. “[The Romans] declared war on the Anagnitae, who were acting unjustly, and, taking Frusino, they distributed the land”, (‘Library of History’, 20: 80: 4).

  3. Livy recorded that:

  4. “The Frusinonians were fined a third part of their lands [in 303 BC], because it was discovered that they had incited the Hernici to rebel [three years before]; and the heads of that conspiracy ... were beaten with rods and beheaded”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 3).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 557 and note 1) suggested that:

  1. “... the easiest interpretation of the evidence is that Frusino revolted in 307-6 BC and was captured by Marcius in 306 BC, but that its punishment was effected only after the Samnites had made peace [in 304 BC.  If so, then] Diodorus will have merged the narrative of several years into one ...”

Livy noted that, in 303 BC:

  1. “Colonists were settled at Sora ... [which] had been a Volscian town, but the Samnites had occupied it [most recently in 306-5 BC]; 4000 [colonists were now] sent there.  The right of citizenship was conferred this year upon the Arpinates ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 1-3).

The people of Arpinum must have received civitas sine suffragio in 303 BC, since Livy (‘History of Rome’, 38: 36: 9) recorded that,in 188 BC, its people received full citizenship and were assigned to the Cornelia tribe .

Velleius Patroculus recorded that, after the foundation of the colony of Interamna Lirensis in 312 BC:

  1. “...... the work of colonisation was suspended for ten years.  Then

  2. the colonies of Sora and Alba were founded [in 302 BC]; and

  3. ... that of Carseoli [in 300 BC]”,  (History of Rome’, 1: 14: 5).

Fall of Nequinum (300-299 BC)

Livy next noted Roman activity in Umbria in 303 BC, when:

  1. “... in order that the Romans might not pass a whole year without any military operations, a small expeditionary force was sent into Umbria.  A certain cave was reported to be the rendezvous of a body of freebooters, and from this hiding-place they made armed excursions into the surrounding country.  The Roman troops entered this cave, and many of them were wounded, mostly by stones, owing to the darkness of the place.  At length they discovered another entrance, for there was a passage right through the cave, and both mouths of the cavern were filled up with wood. This was set on fire, and, stifled by the smoke, the bandits, in trying to escape, rushed into the flames and 2,000 perished”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 4-6).

The precise location of this cave is unspecified and the significance of this episode is unclear, but it might have been a prelude to the attack on Nequinum (below).

The first major Roman engagement in Umbria after the battle at Mevania took place at Nequinum (modern Narni), some 15 km northeast of Ocriculum in the Nera valley.  According to Livy, in 300 BC, the consul Quintus Appuleius Pansa:

  1. “.. invested the town of Nequinum in Umbria.  It was situated where [the Latin colony of] Narnia now stands, on high ground that is s steep and precipitous on one side, and it was impossible to take it either by assault or by regular siege works. It was left to the new consuls of 299 BC], Marcus Fulvius Paetus and Titus Manlius Torquatus, to carry the siege to a successful issue”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 9: 8-10)

Livy began his account of the following year by noting that:

  1. “...the siege of Nequinum was dragging slowly on and time was being wasted.  At length two of the townsmen, whose houses abutted on the city wall, made a tunnel, and came by that secret passage to the Roman outposts.  They were conducted to the consul, and undertook to admit a detachment of soldiers within the fortifications and the city walls.  It did not seem right to reject their proposal, nor yet to accept it without circumspection.  [Thus, while] one of them was instructed to conduct two spies through the underground passage, the other was detained as a hostage.  The report of the spies was satisfactory, and 300 soldiers, led by the deserter, entered the city by night and seized the nearest gate.  This was broken open, and the consul with his army took possession of the place without any fighting.  Thus Nequinum passed into the power of Rome.  A colony was sent there as an outpost against the Umbrians, and the place was called Narnia from the river Nar [now Nera].  The army marched back to Rome with a large amount of spoil”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 10: 1-6).

The ‘fasti Triumphales’ record that Marcus Fulvius Paetinus was awarded a triumph over the Samnites and the Nequinates in 299 BC.  Julius Beloch (referenced below, at p. 271) argued that, since the Third Samnite War (see below) had not yet begun, this triumph might well have been against the Sabines rather than the Samnites, and that this signalled the start of a decade of Sabine hostilities with Rome that culminated in their total defeat in 290 BC.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2007, at pp. 31-3), who did not accept all of Beloch’s rewriting of the history of the 290s BC, nevertheless agreed (at pp. 33-4) that:

  1. “It would [indeed] be surprising if the Sabines had capitulated in just one year, [and] it is [more] likely that the capture of Nequinum [in 299 BC] provoked hostilities [between Rome and] the Sabines.... [This would account for, inter alia,] the very difficult reference to the Samnites in the fasti Triumphales in 299 BC”

Livy (‘Roman History’, 27: 9 - 27:10) identified the status of Narnia by including it among the 30 Latin colonies that existed in 209 BC.  At the time of its foundation, it represented the most northerly Roman presence in peninsular Italy.  Its position on the northern border of the Sabina Tiberina is potentially significant: as noted above, it is possible that the triumphs recorded in the fasti Triumphales in 299 BC were against the Nequinates and the Sabines (rather than the Samnites).  If so, then it is at least possible that the Romans had also suspected these two peoples of pro-Samnite sympathies.  In other words, Livy’s assertion that Narnia served as  “an outpost against the Umbrians” might not have fully captured the strategic significance of its foundation.

Census of 299 BC

According to Livy, this year witnessed:

  1. “... the closing of the lustrum by the censors Publius Sempronius Sophus and Publius Sulpicius Saverrio, and two tribes were added: the Aniensis; and the Teretina”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 9: 14).

These were the first tribes that had been created since 318 BC (which had seen the creation of the Falerna and the Oufentina).  The fasti Capitolini add that these censors completed the 29th lustrum.

Aniensis Tribe

Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 56) pointed out, that the Aniensis was clearly named for the Anio valley, which indicates that it was created for citizens who were settled on land confiscated from the Aequi .  Livy also recorded the foundation of another Latin colony, Carseoli, on Aequan territory in 298 BC (‘History of Rome’, 10: 13: 1).  When Trebula Suffenas and Carseoli were enfranchised after the Social War, they were both assigned to the Aniensis, as were two other centres that had nucleated on confiscated Aequan land: Afilae and Treba (marked on the map above).

[I wonder whether Trebula Suffenas functioned as a Roman prefecture from 303 BC, although that can only be a matter for speculation. ]

Teretina Tribe

According to Festus: 

“TERETINATIBUS; a flumine Terede dicti existimantur, et syllaba cius tertia mutata, et pro Teredc Teram scribi debuisse ((‘De verborum significatione’, 498 Lindsay)

Bruce Woodward Frier (reference below, 1t p. 123, note 1) observed that:

  1. “Mommsen proposed:

  2. ‘TERETINA TRIBUS: a flumine Terede dicta existimatur.’

  3. (It is supposed that the Teretina tribe is named for the river Terede

The rest of the note is garbled, but evidently discussed variants of the river.”  

As noted on the previous page, the territory of the Aurunci had fallen to Rome in 314 BC.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 301) observed that:

  1. “The inevitable confiscation of territory followed [this] subjugation, and this provided land for both

  2. the Latin colony of Suessa Aurunca, founded in 313 BC; and

  3. the [citizen] maritime colonies of Minturnae and Sinuessa, founded in 296 BC.”

As we shall see in the following page, the citizen colonists of Minturnae and Sinuessa were assigned to the Teretina, a new tribe that was created in the census of 300 BC.  Oakley suggested that is therefore:

  1. “... quite likely that the Aurunci were incorporated into the Roman state optimo iure.”

The suggestion here is that the Teretina was created for the putative newly-enfranchised Aurunci, and that it also became the tribe of the citizen colonists who were enrolled at Minturnae and Sinuessa four years later.  However, it seems to me that the Teretina could have been created for viritane citizen settlers on land that had been confiscated from the Aurunci.  I return to this discussion on the following page.

[Three duoviri of Sinuessa (Sp. Blossius Sp.f.Ter. (AE, 1977, 187); L. Caedicius L.f.Ter. [--] (AE, 1986, 153) and L. Papius L.f.Ter. Pollio (CIL X 4727), belonged to the Teretina]

Read more:

D. Roller, “A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo”, (2018) Cambridge

M. Fronda and F. Gauthier , “Italy and Sicily in the Second Punic War: Multipolarity, Minor Powers, and Local Military Entrepreneurialism”, in

  1. T. Ñaco del Hoyo and F. López Sánchez (eds.), “War, Warlords and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean”, (2017) Boston

J. Prag, “Cities and Civic Life in Late Hellenistic Roman Sicily”, Cahiers Du Centre Gustave Glotz 25 (2014) 165-208

G. Tols et al., “Minor Centres in the Pontine Plain: the Cases of 'Forum Appii' and 'Ad Medias'’”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 82 (2014) 109-134

P. Camerieri, “Il Castrum e la Pertica di Fulginia in Destra Tinia”, in: 

  1. G. Galli (Ed.), “Foligno, Città Romana: Ricerche Storico, Urbanistico e Topografiche sull' Antica Città di Fulginia”, (2015) Foligno,  at pp. 75-108

J. C. Yardley and D. Hoyos, “Livy: Rome's Italian Wars: Books 6-10”, (2013), Oxford World's Classics

G. Camodeca, “Regio I (Latium et Campania): Campania”, in

  1. M. Silvestrini (Ed.), “Le Tribù Romane: Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Epigraphie du Monde Romaine (Bari, 8-10 Ottobre 2009)”, (2010) Bari, at pp. 179-83 

S. Roselaar, “Public Land in the Roman Republic: A Social and Economic History of Ager Publicus in Italy, 396 - 89 BC”, (2010) Oxford

H. Solin, “Problemi delle tribù nel Lazio meridionale”, in

  1. M. Silvestrini (Ed.), “Le Tribù Romane: Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Epigraphie du Monde Romaine (Bari, 8-10 Ottobre 2009)”, (2010) Bari, at pp. 71-9 

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume IV: Book X”, (2007) Oxford

S. Sisani, “Fenomenologia della Conquista: La Romanizzazione dell' Umbria tra il IV Secolo a.C. e la Guerra Sociale”, (2007) Rome

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume III: Book IX”, 2005 (Oxford)

S. Sisani, “Lucius Falius Tinia: Primo Quattuorviro del Municipio di Hispellum”, Athenaeum, 90.2 (2002) 483-505

G. Bradley, "Ancient Umbria", (2000) Oxford

T. C. Brennan, “The Praetorship in the Roman Republic”, (2000) Oxford

M. Humm, “Appius Claudius Caecus et la Construction de la Via Appia”, Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome (Antiquité), 108:2 (1996) 693-746

K. Lomas, “Roman Italy, 338 BC - 200 AD: A Sourcebook”, (1996, reprinted 2003) London

T. Cornell, “The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (ca. 1000-264 BC)”, (1995) London and New York

T. Cornell, “The Conquest of Italy”, in:

  1. F. Walbank et al. (eds), The Rise of Rome to 220 BC (“The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 7:2)”, (1989) Cambridge

J. Linderski, “Legibus Praefecti Mittebantur (Mommsen and Festus 262. 5, 13 L)”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 28:2 (1979) 247-250

A. Drummond, “The Dictator Years”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 27:4 (1978), 550-72

B. Woodward Frier, “Lily Ross Taylor on the ‘Pons Teretinus’”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 22:1 (1973) pp. 123-5

R. Ogilvie, “Notes on Livy IX”, Yale Classical Studies, 23 (1973) 159-68

W. Harris, “Rome in Etruria and Umbria”, (1971) Oxford

E. Salmon, “Roman Colonisation under the Republic”, (1970) New York

E. Salmon, “Samnium and the Samnites’, (1967) Cambridge

J. B. Ward Perkins. “Etruscan and Roman Roads in Southern Etruria”, Journal of Roman Studies, 47:1/2 (1957), 139-43

W. B. Anderson, “Contributions to the Study of the Ninth Book of Livy”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 39 (1908) 89-103

J. W. Kubitschek, “Imperium Romanum Tributim Discriptum”, (I889)

G. Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria”, (1848) London

  1. Roman Conquest: Conquest of Veii - Renewal of Latin Peace (406 - 358 BC)

Renewed Latin Peace to 1st Samnite War (358 - 341 BC)

Between 1st and 2nd Samnite War (341 - 328 BC)    

Second Samnite War I: 328 - 312 BC     Second Samnite War II: 311  - 304 BC

Etruscan War  (311 - 308 BC)      Between 2nd and 3rd Samnite Wars (304 -298 BC)

Third Samnite War      End Game (290-241 BC)

  1. Return to the History Index