Key to Umbria
 

Sidicini and Aurunci/Ausones (337 -332 BC)


War Between the Sidicini and the Aurunci (337 BC)

As we have seen in the previous page (Between First Two Samnite Wars I (341 - 338 BC)), the fasti Triumphalis record that, after the Roman victories of 340 BC, during the Latin War, Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus was awarded triumph, as consul for the third time, over the Latins, Campani, Sidicini and Aurunci.  We hear no more  about either the Sidicini or the Aurunci until 337 BC, when a war broke out between them.  According to Livy:

  1. “The Aurunci had surrendered [to the Romans in 340 BC] and had given no trouble since that time, for which reason they had the better right to expect assistance from the Romans”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 15: 1-2).

This indicates that the Sidicini had not surrendered in 340 BC, and that they had subsequently caused unspecified problems for the Romans.  Livy suggested that the Romans would therefore have gone to the assistance of the Aurunci, but:

  1. “... before the consuls [Caius Sulpicius Longus1 and Publius Aelius Paetus] could march from Rome ... to defend [them], the news arrived that:

  2. [they] had abandoned their [original city on the Monte Roccamonfina] and ... taken refuge ... in [a new city, Suessa Aurunca] ..., which they had fortified, and

  3. the Sidicini had destroyed their original  city and its ancient walls”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 15: 1-5).

It seems that, since the Aurunci safely ensconced in Suessa Aurunca, the consuls  saw no immediate need to engage with the Sidicini on their behalf. 

Appointment of C. Claudius Inregillensis as Dictator

Nevertheless, according to Livy:

  1. “This news [of the aggression of the Sidicini] made the Senate angry with the consuls, whose tardiness had led to the betrayal of their allies [i.e. the [Aurunci].  They therefore ordered a dictator to be appointed.  The nomination fell to Caius Claudius Inregillensis, who named Caius Claudius Hortator as his master of horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 15: 5).

Unfortunately, the entries for this period in the  fasti Capitolini are missing, and neither of these men is recorded elsewhere in our surviving sources.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 576) argued that their obscurity makes it most unlikely that anyone should have invented a dictatorship for them, and he was therefore inclined to accept its authenticity.  However, he considered that Livy’s explanation of  the reasons for Claudius’ appointment was suspect, and noted that:

  1. “... this was a period in which there were many dictatorships, and it is easy to believe that only the bare notice of this one survived without any indication of its purpose.”

Vitiation of the Dictatorship of C. Claudius Inregillensis

According to Livy:

  1. “A religious difficulty was then raised about the dictator and, when the augurs reported that there seemed to have been a flaw in his appointment, the dictator and his master of the horse resigned”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 15: 6).

Mark Wilson (referenced below, at pp. 434-5 and note 34) pointed out that the vitiation of dictatorial appointments was generally caused by:

  1. “... a mistake or bad omen impinging on the consul’s taking of the auspices for the naming of the dictator.”

Mark Wilson (referenced below, at pp. 434-5 and note 34) pointed out that the vitiation of dictatorial appointments was generally caused by:

  1. “... a mistake or bad omen impinging on the consul’s taking of the auspices for the naming of the dictator.”

Vitiations of this kind seem to have been quite rare: Wilson listed only five cases in Livy’s narrative that explicitly involved such an occurrence, although he observed that there were a fews other cases in which the reported resignation of a dictator might actually have been a vitiation.  The five explicit vitiations in his list involved:

  1. C. Claudius Inregillensis [337 BC];

  2. P. Cornelius Rufinus [334/3 BC - see below];

  3. M. Claudius Marcellus [327 BC];

  4. Q. Fabius Ambustus [321 BC] and

  5. L. Veturius Philo [217 BC].

It is surprising that the two earliest of these recorded vitiations took place within three years of each other, and that they both related to dictators who had been appointed in the context of the threat from the Sidicini, particularly since, in the other three recorded cases, the dictator had been elected simply to hold elections in the consuls’ absence from Rome.  I discuss this point further in the section below on the dictatorship of Publius Cornelius Rufinus.

War with the Sidicini and the Ausones of Cales (336-5 BC)

Events of 336 BC

According to Livy:

  1. “The following year, being the consulship of Lucius Papirius Crassus and Caeso Duillius [i.e., 336 BC], was remarkable for a war (more novel than important) with the Ausonians of Cales, who had joined forces with their neighbours, the Sidicini”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 1-2). 

The Ausones, who seem to have been ethnically related to the Aurunci, were based around Cales, a strategically-located stronghold that makes its entry into recorded history at this point.  The sources for the relationship between the Aurunci and the Ausones are confusing, but Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 571) argued that:

  1. “The peoples east and west of the Roccamonfina may once have formed part of a united tribe, but it is probable enough that, by 337 BC, the power of the Sidicini had divided them.”

Apparently:

  1. “The Romans defeated the army of the two peoples in a single and by no means memorable battle”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 3).

This single defeat drove the two armies back into their respective strongholds at Cales and Teanum Sidicini, and it seems that the consuls were unable to attack them there. and the consular yearended in stalemate.

Events of 335 BC

According to Livy:

  1. “The Senate ... remained concerned over this war, because the Sidicini ... [had caused the Romans problems] so many times before.  They therefore made every effort to elect Marcus Valerius [Maximus] Corvus, the greatest soldier of that age, to his fourth consulship [in 335 BC], giving him Marcus Atilius Regulus as his colleague; and, lest there should by chance be some miscarriage, they requested of the consuls that Corvus be given the command, without the drawing of lots. [Taking over the victorious army from the previous consuls, he marched on Cales, where the war had originated.  He routed the Ausones (who had as yet not even recovered from the panic of the earlier encounter) and ... attacked [Cales] itself. ... [With the help of a Roman prisoner there who had escaped from his drunken guards], Valerius easily captured the Ausones and [Cales].  Huge spoils were taken, a garrison was established in the town, and the legions were led back to Rome, where Valerius  triumphed ... ”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 6-11).

The fasti Triumphalis record the award of a triumph to Valerius over the Caleni (presumably, the Ausones of Cales).   As described in my page Second Samnite War II (315  - 304 BC), Livy described the fall of the remaining strongholds at Ausona, Minturnae, and Vescia and the destruction of Ausonian nation in 314 BC.

Livy continued:

  1. “... lest Atilius should go without his share of glory, both consuls were directed to march against the Sidicini”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 11).

Apparently, Atilius was denied his share of the glory, since (as we shall see) the Sidicini remained in the field.

Dictator Year 334/3 BC

This was one of the four so-called dictator years, which are discussed collectively in my page on Dictator Years (334/3; 325/4; 310/9; and 302/1 BC).  They are so-called because some relatively late sources such as the fasti Capitolini record:

  1. a normal consular year (in this case, 334 BC Varronian), followed by;

  2. a fictitious year (in this case, 333 BC Varronian), in which a dictator and his master of horse ruled without consuls.

Livy’s Narrative (334/3 BC)

Livy, who never recognised the existence of the fictitious consul-free dictator years, recorded the events of periods such as each of these in a single consular year: in this case, the year in question is designated 334/3 BC.

Consular Elections for 334/3 BC

According to Livy, before the consuls of 335 BC left for the territory of the Sidicini:

  1. “... on the instructions of the Senate, they named a dictator to preside at the [forthcoming] elections.  Their choice fell on Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus, who selected Quintus Publilius Philo to be master of the horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 6-11).

Titus Veturius Calvinus and Spurius Postumius Albinus were elected, at which point the dictator and his master of horse would have resigned.   In other words, there is no reason to think that the dictatorship  Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus was in any way out of the ordinary.

Latin Colony Founded at Cales

According to Livy:

  1. “Although the war with the Sidicini was only half-completed [i.e. although their allies, the Ausones of Cales had been routed, the Sidicini themselves remained undefeated, the new consuls] nevertheless brought in a proposal for sending out a colony to Cales, in order to anticipate the desires of the plebs by doing them a service.  The Senate resolved that 2,500 men should be enrolled for it, and they appointed a commission of three (Caeso Duillius, Titus Quinctius Poenus, and Marcus Fabius [possibly Marcus Fabius Dorsuo]) to conduct the settlers to the land and to apportion it amongst them”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 12-4).

Velleius Patroculus (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 3) also dated the foundation of this colony to 334/3 BC. Thus, it is clear that the Ausones had been expelled from Cales, albeit that the Sidicini remained in control of Teanum Sidicini. 

We know that Cales was what is known as a Latin colony because it appeared in Livy’s list of 30 such colonies  that existed in 209 BC (‘History of Rome’, 27: 9: 7).  Furthermore, it was the first such colony to be added to the list, alongside five continuing priscae Latinae coloniae (Ardea; Circeii; Norba; Setia; and Signia).  Its foundation marked an important development in Rome’s expansionist policy: as Timothy Cornell (referenced below, 1995, at pp. 351-2) pointed out:

  1. “After the [defeat of the Latin League in 338 BC], Latin status ceased to have a distinct ethnic or linguistic significance ... A Latin state could therefore be created simply by [the conferral] of Latin rights on it. ... The first colony to be established under these conditions was [founded in 334/3 BC] at Cales.”

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 582) observed, the site on which the new colony was founded:

  1. “... was a strategic one: ... its territory separated the Sidicini ... from [the] Samnites, and, above all, it was only 13 km northwest of Capua, which it was thus able to watch.”

Raid on the Sidicini

Once the plans for the new colony were in place, Veturius and Postumius:

  1. “... took over the army from their predecessors and, entering the territory of the Sidicini, laid it waste as far as their city walls”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 1).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 573-4) suggested that the city in question was Teanum Sidicinum, and that the fact that the Romans failed to attack it for a second time indicates that it was particularly well-fortified.  Thus it seems that the stalemate in the hostilities between the Romans and the Sidicini continued.  However, supplies at teanum Sidicini must have been running low and, according to Livy:

  1. “At this juncture ... :

  2. the Sidicini aised exercitus ingens (a huge army) and seemed likely to make a desperate struggle on behalf of their last hope; and

  3. the rumour circulated that Samnium was [also] arming ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 1-2).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 574) argued that:

  1. “The rumour that the Samnites were restless is ... wholly credible:  they must have viewed the with alarm the colonisation of Cales, the Roman threat to the Sidicini, and the increasing Roman grip on the whole area.  The build-up to the Second Samnite War had begun.”

Dictatorship of Publius Cornelius Rufinus

According to Livy, because of the danger that the Sidicini and the Samnites would join forces in attempt to end the Romans’ grip on this area:

  1. “... the Senate authorised the consuls to nominate a dictator.  They appointed Publius Cornelius Rufinus, and Marcus Antonius was made master of the horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 2-3).

However, Cornelius’ appointment was immediately vitiated: according to Livy:

  1. “... concern was subsequently raised about the regularity of their appointment [i.e. that of both Cornelius and Antonius] and they resigned their office”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 4).

It aseems that this was not enough to correct the situation:

  1. “When a pestilence ensued [the vitiation of Cornelius’ dictatorship], it was supposed that all the auspices were affected by that irregularity [in the ritual of his appointment], and the state reverted to an interregnum”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 4).

In other words, according to Livy, the deficiencies in the ritual that had attended Cornelius’ appointment precluded the consuls from presiding over the election of their successors, a situation that necessitated the appointment of an interrex for this purpose.  The importance of this for our present discussion is that it indicates that, in Livy’s narrative,  the award and vitiation of Cornelius’ dictatorship took place very late in the consular year of 334/3 BC.

I discuss some difficulties with this narrative n my page on Dictator Years (334/3; 325/4; 310/9; and 302/1 BC).  In short, as in the case of the dictatorship of Caius Claudius Inregillensis, one is tempted to suggest that Livy or his source(s) had elaborated reliable record that had contained only a bare notice of of a short-lived dictatorship during the war with the Sidicini, without any indication of its purpose.  Indeed, it is at least possible that the bare notice of a single, immediately-vitiated dictatorship during this war had found its way into Livy’s account of the events of both 337 and 334/3 BC.

End of the War with the Sidicini

As it happens, the threat from the Sidicini had evaporated by the time that he and his colleague took office: according to Livy:

  1. “Coming, as it did, when all was tranquil, the rumour of a Gallic war worked like an actual rising, and caused the Senate to have recourse to [yet another] dictator”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 6).  

He also recorded that the Samnite threat persisted, and:

  1. “... for [that] reason, the Roman army was not withdrawn from the territory of the Sidicini”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 8).

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 574) pointed out that we hear no more about the Sidicini until 297 BC, early in the Third Samnite War, when the Romans used Sidicine territory as one of their bases from which to invade Samnium.  Oakley suggested that

  1. “... we should probably assume that some kind of treaty had brought an end to the fighting [that had begun in 336 BC].”

If so, then this putative treaty must have been agreed during 334/3 BC:

  1. It is possible that the Samnites were already distracted by the threat posed by Tarentum on their southern border, and that this discouraged the Sidicini from trying to break out of Teanum Sidicini:

  2. in this scenario, it is possible that the Sidicini agreed to a cessation of hostilities with Romans, at which point, the need for a dictator would have disappeared.   

  3. Alternatively, it is possible that Livy or his source(s) had invented the huge army raised by the Sidicini and that the Romans had simply decided that Teanum Sidicinum was beyond their reach and that they should therefore  gree a cessation of hostilities:

  4. in this scenario, if Cornelius had indeed been appointed as dictator, his function would have been to preside over the forthcoming consular elections while the incumbent consuls were still keeping the Samnites under surveillance from  the territory of the Sidicini.

Threat from the Gauls and the Samnites (332 BC)

Consular Elections

As noted above, Livy recorded that the vitiation of Cornelius’ dictatorship led to the appointment of an interrex to preside over the forthcoming consular elections.  A senator who was appointed in such circumstances as interrex was only allowed to serve for a period of 5 days: if he was unable to complete hold elections within period, he was replaced by another, a process that continued until the elections were completed.  According to Livy, on this occasion:

  1. “... Marcus Valerius Corvus, the fifth interrex from the beginning of the interregnum, finally achieved the election to the consulship of Aulus Cornelius [Cossus Arvina] (for the second time) and Cnaeus Domitius [Corvinus]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 4-5).

Gallic Threat

Appointment of Marcus Papirius Crassus  as Dictator

Again, as noted above, it seems that the threat from the Sidicini and their enormous army of 334/3 BC soon subsided, and that the Romans were not expecting hostilities of any kind in 332 BC.  Thus:

  1. “Coming, as it did, when all was tranquil, the rumour of a Gallic war worked like an actual rising, and caused the Senate to have recourse to a dictator.  Marcus Papirius Crassus was the man, and he named Publius Valerius Publicola master of the horse.  While they were conducting their levy more strenuously than they would have done for a war against a neighbouring state, scouts were sent out, and returned with the report that all was quiet amongst the Gauls”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 6).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 211) argued that this Marcus Papirius Crassus was  quite likely to have been the Marcus Papirius who was one of five commissioners who had been appointed in 352 BC to deal with a financial crisis, but he is otherwise unrecorded in our surviving sources.  However, there is no reason to suspect that he had any significant military experience at this point, while the consul  Aulus Cornelius Cossus Arvina had triumphed over the Samnites in his earlier consulship of 343 BC.  Thus, one wonders whether Livy or his source(s) had invented the reason for Papirius’ appointment as dictator in 332 BC.  According to Livy, while Papirius and Valerius:

  1. “... were conducting their levy more strenuously than they would have done for a war against a neighbouring state, scouts were sent out, and returned with the report that all was quiet amongst the Gauls”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 7).

Mark Wilson (referenced below, at pp. 422-3) observed that:

  1. “After these remarks, nothing further was said [in Livy’s account] about Papirius’ dictatorship.”

Samnite Threat

According to Livy:

  1. “Samnium ... had now for two years been suspected of hatching revolutionary schemes, for which reason the Roman army was not withdrawn from the territory of the Sidicini”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 8).

However, this Samnite threat receded when:

  1. “... an invasion by King Alexander of Epirus [at the behest of Tarentum] drew the Samnites off into Lucania, and these two peoples [i.e. the Samnites and the Lucanians] engaged in a pitched battle with the Alexander as he was marching up from Paestum.  Alexander, who emerged victorious, then made a treaty of peace with the Romans; with what faith he intended to keep it, had the rest of his campaign been equally successful, is an open question”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 9-10).

As it happened, Alexander was killed in battle in the following year.

Events of 331 BC

According to Livy, 331 BC was:

  1. “A terrible year ... , whether owing to the unseasonable weather or to man's depravity.  The consuls were Marcus Claudius Marcellus and Caius Valerius:  I find Flaccus and Potitus severally given in the annals, as the surname of Valerius, but it does not greatly signify where the truth lies in regard to this”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 18: 1-2).

The fasti Capitolini record the Valerian consul as Caius Valerius Potitus.  More importantly, this was the year of the first known magistracy of Quintus Fabius Maximus: as we shall see, he served in this year as he curule aedile.

Livy recorded reluctantly that the year witnessed a spate of deaths among the leading citizens of Rome and, while originally attributed to an epidemic of some sort:

  1. “... were in reality destroyed by poison”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 18: 3).

The truth came to light when:

  1. “... a certain serving woman came to Quintus Fabius Maximus, the curule aedile, and declared that she would reveal the cause of the general calamity, if he would give her a pledge that she should not suffer for her testimony.  Fabius at once referred the matter to the consuls, and the consuls to the Senate ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 18: 4-6).

This led to an investigation that revealed that some 170 Roman matrons were tried and found guilty of murder.

Livy noted that:

  1. “... there had never before been a trial for poisoning in Rome.  [The behaviour of the matrons] was regarded as a prodigy, and suggested madness rather than felonious intent.  Accordingly, when a tradition was revived from the annals, which recorded that:

  2. in secessions of the plebs, a nail had been driven by the dictator; and

  3. how the minds of men who had been driven mad by civil discord had been restored to sanity by that act of atonement;

  4. [the Senate] resolved on the appointment of a dictator to hammer in the nail.  The appointment went to Cnaeus Quinctilius, who named Lucius Valerius master of the horse. The nail was [duly] hammered in  and they [then] resigned”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 18: 11-13).

The fasti Capitolini record this dictatorship but disagree with Livy as to the identities of the dictator and his master of horse: they named

  1. Cnaeus Quinctius Capitolinus   as dictator clavi figendi causa; with

  2. Caius Valerius Potitus, son of Lucius, as his master of horse (after he resigned as consul).

Privernum and Fundi (330 -328 BC)


With the Sidicini increasingly under the sway of the Samnites and the Latins, the Hernici, the Antiates and the northern Campani securely under Roman control, the days of Volscian independence were obviously numbered.  Thus, Livy recorded that, in 330 BC:

  1. “... ambassadors came to Rome from the Volscians of Fabrateria and the Lucani [also Volscian ?], requesting acceptance into the fides of Rome and promising that, if they were defended from the arms of the Samnites, they would faithfully and obediently accept the government of the Roman people.  The Senate sent ambassadors to warn the Samnites to refrain from aggression against these peoples.  This embassy proved effective, not because the Samnites were desirous of peace, but because they were not [yet] prepared for war”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 1-3).

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 606-7) explained, the most natural reading of ‘ex Volscis Fabraterni et Lucani’ is that both were Volscian centres, albeit that Volscian Luca is otherwise unknown.     

Revolt of the Peoples of Privernum and Fundi (330 - 329 BC)

We should start by summarising Livy’s account of the relevant events of 341 -33 BC:

  1. In 341 BC, after a brief revolt, Privernum surrendered to Rome.  Although it retained its independence at this point, it suffered the confiscation of two thirds of its territory (‘History of Rome’, 8: 1: 3).

  2. In 340 BC, this confiscated land was distributed in small allotments among the Roman plebs (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 15).

  3. In 338 BC:

  4. “... the peoples of Fundi and Formiae [were granted civitas sine suffragio], because they had always afforded [the Romans] a safe and peaceful passage through their territories [presumably even during the Latin War]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 10).


Then, in 330 BC, at a tome when (as noted above) the Samnites were causing trouble in the area:

  1. “... a war broke out [between Roman and] the people of Privernum, in which the people of [recently-incorporated people of] Fundi were their supporters.  The [rebel] leader was Vitruvius Vaccus of Fundi, who was a man of distinction, not only at home, but also in Rome ... [The consul] Lucius Papirius Crassus, having set out to oppose him whilst he was devastating the [Roman-controlled] districts of Setia, Norba, and Cora, posted himself at no great distance from his camp.  ... [Vitruvius’ army was easily defeated and] repaired to Privernum in trepidation, so that the soldiers might protect themselves within its walls ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 4-9). 

In 329 BC, the consul Caius  Plautius Decianus was charged with ending the revolt at Privernum.  Livy had at least two sources for the subsequent events:

  1. “Some say, that Privernum was taken by storm, and that Vitruvius was taken alive, while others maintain that the townsmen surrendered to Plautius ... and that Vitruvius was delivered up by his own troops”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 6).

In any event, after Plautius’ success:

  1. “The Senate ... sent word that Plautius should demolish the walls of Privernum and, leaving a strong garrison there, return to Rome and enjoy the honour of a triumph.  They also ordered that Vitruvius should be kept in prison in Rome until Plautius arrived ... [Furthermore], they decreed that all those who had continued to act as a senator of Privernum during the revolt should henceforth reside on the farther side of the Tiber, under the same restrictions as [the exiled senators] of Velitrae [see above].  ... Vitruvius and his accomplices were put to death Plautius had triumphed”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 4-10).

The fasti Triumphales record that both consuls (Plautius and his colleague Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus, who is given the surname ‘Privernas’) were awarded triumphs against the Privernates.    

Settlement with Privernum

According to Livy, Plautius argued in the Senate against any further punishment of the people of Privernum, who:

  1. “... are neighbours to the Samnites, whose peaceful relations with ourselves are at this time most precarious:  [we should therefore ensure] that as little bad feeling as possible is created between them and us”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 12).

This argument prevailed, and it was agreed that:

  1. “... a bill to award civitas to the people of Privernum should be brought before the people”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 10).  

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 620) argued that:

  1. “... this grant of citizenship [to the people of Privernum] must have been sine suffragio ..."

Settlement with Fundi (and Formiae ?)

There had, of course, been repercussions for the people of Fundi: in 330 BC, while Lucius Papirius Crassus was engaged at Privernum:

  1. “The other consul, Lucius Plautius Venox ... led his army into the territory of Fundi.  The senate there met him as he was crossing their borders, declaring that they had not come to intercede on behalf of Vitruvius [and] his faction, but on behalf of the [other, blameless] people of Fundi ... [where there was] ... gratitude for the [Roman] citizenship that the people had received.  They begged Plautius to refrain from war  ....  Plautius ... [duly] despatched letters to Rome [reporting that] the people of Fundi had preserved their allegiance, and then  marched on Privernum”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 9-13).

Livy acknowledged that the annalist Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius had recorded a different version of the fate of the people of Fundi:

  1. “Claudius states that Plautius first punished those people of Fundi who had been at the head of the conspiracy.  According to him, 350 of the conspirators were sent in chains to Rome, but that the Senate refused to accept their submission because they considered that the people of Fundi wished to escape with impunity by the punishment of needy and humble persons”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 14).

However, Livy does not inform us of the penalty (if any) inflicted on Fundi in this version of events.

Colonia Maritima at Anxur/ Tarracina (329 BC)

Livy ended his account of 329 BC by recording that:

  1. “... 300 colonists were sent to Anxur, where they each received 200 iugera of land”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 10-11).

Velleius Patroculus (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 4) also recorded the foundation of a colony here in 329 BC, albeit that he referred to it by its Roman name, Tarracina.  It was the first citizen colony that the Romans had created since that of Antium in 338 BC.  Livy listed it among the seven coloniae maritimae that resisted an emergency military levy in 207 BC.  As discussed below, it is likely that it was founded on land that had been confiscated from Privernum.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 621) suggested that:

  1. “... its foundation in the year in which Privernum and Fundi were defeated can hardly have been coincidental, and its purpose will have been to exercise some control over the activities of those Volscian towns.”

As we shall see on the following page, the citizen colonists at Tarracina were probably registered in a new tribe, the Oufentina, which was created in 318 BC.


Read more:

M. Wilson, "The Needed Man: Evolution, Abandonment, and Resurrection of the Roman Dictatorship" (2017) thesis of City University of New York

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume II: Books VII and VIII”, (1998) Oxford

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


Return to the History Index

 


Roman Conquest:

Between the 2nd Latin and

the 2nd Samnite War (337 - 328 BC)


Home   Cities    History    Art    Hagiography    Contact