User:Fornadan/temp/Volsci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Roman-Volscian wars were a series of wars fought between the Roman Republic and the Volsci, an ancient Italic people. Volscian migration into southern Latium led to conflict with that region's old inhabitants, the Latins under leadership of Rome, the region's dominant city state. By the late 5th century the Volsci were increasingly on the defensive and by the end of the Samnite Wars had been in incorporated into the Roman Republic. The ancient historians devoted considerable space to Volscian wars in their accounts of the early Roman Republic, but the historical accuracy of much of this material has been questioned by modern historians.


Volscian aggression[edit]

During the 5th century the Volsci and the Aequi, a related people, invaded Latium, as part of a larger pattern of Sabellian-speaking peoples migrating out of the Apennines and into the plains. Several peripheral Latin communities appear to have been overrun. In response the Latins formed the Foedus Cassianum, a mutual military alliance between the Latin cities with Rome as the leading partner. A second people, the Hernici, joined the alliance sometime later. While the precise workings of the Latin League remains uncertain, its overall purpose seems clear. The ancient sources record fighting against either the Aequi, the Volsci, or both almost every year during the first half 5th century. Famously the Roman nobleman Gaius Marcius Coriolanus is supposed to have gone over to the Volsci after being spurned by his countrymen. This annual warfare would have been dominated by raids and counter-raids rather than the pitched battles described by the ancient sources.

Growth of Roman power[edit]

During the second half the 5th century the Romans and the Latins appears to have stemmed the tide. The sources records the founding of several Roman colonies during this era, while mention of wars against the Aequi and Volsci become less frequent.

Before 389[edit]

402

In this year the Volsci recaptured Anxur while the Romans were occupied with their war against Veii. The garrison had been weakened by the absence of men on leave, and Volscian were admitted to the town indiscriminately. As a result the men guarding the gate were surprised and the post taken. The loss in men was however slight, due to most of the garrison being scattered to forage. [1]

The Battle ad Maecium 389 BC[edit]

In 390 a Gaulish warband first defeated the Roman army at the Battle of Allia and then sacked Rome. The ancient writers report that in 389 the Etruscans, the Volsci and the Aequi all raised armies in hope of exploiting this blow to Roman power while the Latins and Hernici abandoned their alliance with Rome. [2]

Ancient narratives[edit]

Livy, Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus (D.S.) provide roughly similar narratives of the ensuing Roman campaign against the Volsci, with Plutarch's account being the most detailed. According to Plutarch and D.S. the Roman consular tribunes marched out with the army and pitched camp near Mount Marcius, but their camp was attacked by the Volsci. [3]

To deal with their many enemies the Romans now appointed Marcus Furius Camillus dictator. [4] According to Plutarch, Camillus raised a new army, which included men normally considered too old for military service, eluded the Volsci by marching around Mount Marcius and arrived in the enemy's rear where he made his presence known by lighting fires. The besieged Romans prepared to sally out. rather than risk being attacked from two sides the Volsci retreated within their own camp and barricaded themselves in. Knowing that a strong wind would blow down from the mountains at sunrise, Camillus ordered part of his forces to make a diversionary attack on the opposite side, while he led the rest of the army to hurl fire into the enemy camp once the sun rose. Aided by the wind, the fires burnt the camp to the ground. Most of the enemy perished, either in the fire or by desperate attacks on the Roman army. [5]

According to D.S. Camillus marched out at night. At dawn he attacked the Volsci in the rear while they were attacking the camp. Those in the camp sallied forth. Attacked from two sides the Volscians were slaughtered. [6] According to Livy, who does not mention the consular tribunes' initial difficulties, the news of Camillus' appointed to command was enough to cause the Volsci to barricade themselves in their camp at ad Maecium near Lanuvium. Camillus set fire to the barricades, throwing the Volscian army into such confusion so that when the Romans assaulted the camp, they had little problem routing the Volsci. [7] Camillus then ravaged their territory until the Volsci were forced to surrender. [8]

The ancient sources then tell how Camillus won great victories first against the Aequi and then against the Etruscan at Sutrium. Livy also provides a description of the amount of spoils taken. Having won three simultaneous wars, Camillus returned to Rome in triumph. The many prisoners taken in the Etruscan war were publicly sold; after the gold owed to Rome's matrons had been repaid (they had contributed their gold to ransom Rome from the Gauls), enough was left for three golden bowls inscribed with the name of Camillus and placed in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus before the feet of the statue of Juno. [9]

Modern interpretations[edit]

The many similarities between accounts of the campaigns of 389 and 386 (for which see below) - in both Camillus is placed in command, defeats the Volsci and comes to the aid of Sutrium - has caused several modern authors to consider these to be doublets of each other. This was the view taken by Beloch who held that the Gallic sack had a severe and long lasting effect on Rome's fortunes. Accordingly Camillus' stunning victories against the Etruscans and Volsci so soon after must be inventions designed to minimize the scale of the Roman defeat. Different later writers then treated these invented victories in different ways, assigning them to different years with different incidental detail, until in Livy's writings they emerge as separate, but ultimately both unhistorical, events. [10]

Cornell (1995) believes the Gallic sack to have been a setback to Rome from which she rapidly recovered, and sees the Roman victories that followed as continuation of an aggressive expansionist policy begun in the 420s. The accounts of these victories have been exaggerated and elaborated, and some events duplicated, but essentially describe historical events that fit into the broader picture of Rome's development. While the role of Camillus has been exaggerated, the frequency in which he is recorded to have held office attest to his political importance in Rome during this era. [11]

Oakley (1997) considers the accounts of a Roman victory against Volsci in 389 to be historical. All three surviving sources probably derived their accounts of this battle from a common tradition, the discrepancies being due to different authors omitting different details. This hypothesis is strengthened by Livy and Plutarch's very similar accounts of the fighting at Sutrium later the same year. However the original historical records probably just stated that the Romans won against the Volsci in a battle fought ad Maecium, all other details being later inventions. [12] Except for the repayment of the gold to the matrons, Livy's description of Camillus' 389 triumph could be based on authentic information, if so this would help confirm the fighting in 389.[13] The victory against the Volsci in 389 opened the Pomptine region for further Roman inroads. [14]

Forsythe (2005) takes a more sceptical view. He believes only the existence of three golden bowls dedicated by Camillus to Juno to be historical. From these ancient writers have invented a series of lighting victories against the traditional enemies of Rome at the time of Camillus, the Etruscans, the Aequi and the Volsci, and dated them to the year after the Gallic sack when Rome was supposed to beset by enemies on all sides.[15]

Roman designs for the Pomptine region 388 - 385[edit]

Until the development of Latina in modern times, south-eastern Latium was covered by the Pomptine Marshes. Between these marshes and the Monti Lepini there were an area of dry land, the ager Pomptinus. [16] The Pomptine region is the scene of much of the recorded fighting between Romans and Volsci in the 380s and 370s.

Ancient narratives[edit]

Livy is our only source for the next few years. According to him, in 388 the Roman tribunes of the plebs proposed to divide up the Pomptine territory, but met little support from the plebs. [17] In 387 L. Sicinius, tribune of the plebs, again raised the question of the Pomptine territory however when news reached Rome that Etruria was in arms the subject was dropped. The next year, 386, the Antiates invaded the Pomptine territory and it was reported in Rome that the Latins had sent warriors to assist them. The Romans had elected Camillus as one of the year's six consular tribunes in anticipation of an Etruscan war. He now took charge of affairs almost as if he had been elected dictator. He chose one of the other consular tribunes, P. Valerius Potitus Poplicola, as his colleague in the Volscan war, tasking the other four with defending and governing the city. [18]

Camillus and Valerius met the Antiates at Satricum. In addition to Volsci, the Antiates had brought a large number of Latins and Hernici to the field. At first daunted by the size and composition of the enemy army, after a rousing speech by Camillus the Roman soldiers charged the enemy. It was claimed that to further incite his men, Camillus ordered the army standard flung into the enemy's lines. The Volsci were routed and slaughtered in great number during their flight until a rainstorm brought an end to the fighting. The Latins and Hernici now abandoned the Volsci who took refuge inside Satricum. Camillus first began a regular investment, but when sorties disrupted the construction of his siege works, he changed tactics and carried the city by storm. Leaving Valerius in command of the army, Camillus returned to Rome to urge the senate to continue the war and attack Antium, the Volscian captial. However upon news that the Etruscans were attacking the border strongholds of Nepete and Sutrium, it was instead decided that Camillus and Valerius should take on the Etruscans with a new army raised at Rome. Consular tribunes L. Quinctius Cincinnatus and L. Horatius Pulvillus were sent to carry on the Volscian war [19] Livy then describe how Camillus again defeated the Etruscans at Sutrium and Nepete.

In 385 A. Cornelius Cossus was nominated Dictator with T. Quinctius Capitolinus as Master of the Horse, ostensibly to deal with the Volscian war and the defection of the Latins and Hernici, but the true reason was the trouble stirred up by M. Manlius Capitolinus. The Dictator marched his army into the Pomptine territory which he had heard was being invaded by the Volsci.[20] The Volscian army was swelled by Latins and Hernici, and included contingents from the Roman colonies of Circeii and Velitrae. Preparing for battle on the morrow after his arrival, Cornelius ordered his soldiers to receive the enemy's charge. The Romans stood firm and when, as planned, the cavalry under T. Quinctius attacked, panic broke out among the enemy. The Volsci fled the field and their camp was taken. Cornelius bestowed all the plunder, except the prisoners, on the soldiers. [21] Returning to Rome, A. Cornelius celebrated his triumph over the Volsci. Satricum was colonized with 2000 Roman citizens, each to receive two and a half jugera of land. [22]

According to Diodorus in the Varrionian year 386 the Romans sent 500 colonists to Sardinia.[23] This could also be a reference to the colonization of Satricum, the having been corrupted by Diodorus or his copyist.[24]

Modern interpretations[edit]

Beloch rejected Camillus' campaign of 386 as a doublet of that of 389 (itself invented) and also the events of 385 as they depended on Camillus' victory at Satricum the previous year. More recently, Cornell (1995), Oakley (1997) and Forsythe (2005) have instead chosen to interpret these events as part of a expansionist Roman policy to take control of the Pomptine region. Hence the fighting takes place at Satricum and Antium rather than on Roman territory.[25]

Indebtedness was a persistent problem at Rome in this era, the favoured method of debt-relief being land allotments, this provided a motivation for Roman expansion into the Pomptine region. [26] The sources however mention many proposals for agrarian laws to divide up public land, some of which might be unhistorical. The Sicinii feature prominently as plebeian leaders in the Struggle of the Orders, but it's questionable how much of this has any historical basis. The plebeian tribune of 388, L. Sicinius, is otherwise unknown and could be an invention. [27]

Circeii and Velitrae had been colonized by Rome and the Latins in 393 and 401 respectively, but these might have been little more than garrisons. By 385 the native Volsci could had seized control of these towns again, but it is also possible that the Roman and Latin settlers had now turned against Rome. [28] These two settlements more than any other Latin towns would have felt vulnerable to Rome's aggressive designs for the Pomptine region. [29]

The Volsci join forces with the Latins 383-381[edit]

Ancient narratives[edit]

Livy records that in 383 Lanuvium, a Latin town which had so far been loyal to Rome rebelled and joined the Volsci and the colonies of Circeii and Velitrae in the war against Rome. In Rome, on the advice of the senate, the tribes unanimous declared for war on Velitrae after five commissioners have been apppointed to distribute the Pomptine territory and three to settle a colony at Nepete. However, there was pestilence in Rome throughout the year and no campaign was launched. Among the revolting colonists a peace party was in favour of asking Rome for pardon, but the war party continued hold the population's favour and a raid was launched into Roman territory effectively ending all talk of peace. [30] In 382 consular tribunes Sp. and L. Papirius marched against Velitrae, their four colleagues being left to defend Rome. The Romans defeated the Veliternian army, which included a large number of Praenestine auxiliaries, but refrained from storming the place, doubting whether a storm would be successful and not wanting to destroy the colony. Based on the report of the tribunes, Rome declared war on Praeneste. [31]

Livy and Plutarch provide parallel narratives for 381. In that year the Volsci and Praenestines are said to have joined forces and, according to Livy, successfully stormed the Roman colony of Satricum. In response the Romans elected M. Furius Camillus as consular tribune for the sixth time. Camillus was assigned the Volscian war by special senatorial decree. His fellow tribune L. Furius Medullinus was chosen by lot to be his colleague in this undertaking. [32] There are some differences between Livy and Plutarch in their accounts of the campaign that followed. According to Livy the tribunes marched out from the Esquiline Gate for Satricum with an army of four legions, each consisting of 4000 men. At Satricum they met an army considerably superior in number and eager for battle. Camillus however refused to engage the enemy, seeking instead to protract the war. This exasperated his colleague, L. Furius, who claimed that Camillus had become too old and slow and soon won over the whole army to his side. While his colleague prepared for battle, Camillus formed a strong reserve and awaited the outcome of the battle. The Volsci started to retire soon after the battle had started, and, as they had planned, the Romans were drawn into follow up the rising ground toward the Volscian camp. Here the Volsci had placed several cohorts in reserve and these joined the battle. Fighting uphill against superior numbers, the Romans started to flee. However Camillus brought up the reserves and rallied the fleeing soldiers to stand their ground. With the infantry wavering, the Roman cavalry, now led by L. Furius, dismounted and attacked the enemy on foot. As a result the Volsci were defeated and fled in panic, their camp was also taken. A large number of Volscis were killed and a even large number taken prisoners. [33] According to Plutarch a sick Camillus was waiting in the camp while his colleague engaged the enemy. When he heard that Roman had been routed, he sprung from his couch, rallied the soldiers and stopped the enemy pursuit. Then on the second day Camillus led his forces out, defeated the enemy in battle and took their camp. Camillus then learned that Satricum had been taken by Etruscans and all the Roman colonists there slaughtered. He sent the bulk of his forces back to Rome, while he and the youngest men fell upon the Etruscans and expelled them from Satricum.[34] Having described Camillus' victory at Satricum, Livy and Plutarch move on to narrate the Roman annexation of the Latin town of Tusculum.

Modern interpretations[edit]

Of all the old Latin towns, Lanuvium was closest to Pomptine plain, it is therefore no surprise that she now joined the struggle against Rome.[35] While the details provided by Livy for the campaign of 382 are plausible, the original records likely only stated there was fighting against Praeneste and Velitrae.[36] Of the two versions of Camillus' victory at Satricum in 381, Plutarch's is thought to be closer to the earlier annalists than that of Livy. Notably Livy present a more noble picture of Camillus than Plutarch, he has also compressed all the fighting into one day rather than two. [37]. That the Praenesetine should have joined with the Volsci at Satricum and been defeated there by Camillus is credible enough, however most, if not all the details surrounding the battle, including the supposed quarrel between Camillus and L. Furius, are today considered to be later inventions. Especially the scale of the battle and the Roman victory have been vastly exaggerated. [38]

End of the wars 380-377[edit]

Ancient narratives[edit]

Livy his our only source for the next few years. He reports that in 380 the Romans stormed Velitrae, but the main event of that year was the Roman Dictator T. Quinctius Cincinnatus successful campaign against Praeneste who was forced to sue for peace. [39] In 379 the Romans assigned command of the Volscian war to consular tribunes P. and C. Manlius due to the two's high birth and popularity, but this proved to be a mistake. The Roman commanders sent out their foragers without first doing any scouting, and were then tricked into an an ambush by an enemy spy who falsely reported that the foragers had been surrounded. The Volsci also attacked the Roman camp. In Rome it was first decided to nominate a Dictator, but when the Romans realized that the Volsci did not intend to follow up their victory, they chose to recall their army from Volscian territory instead. New colonists were also sent to reinforce Setia. [40] The next year, 378, the Volsci invaded and plundered Roman territory in all directions. At Rome the tribunes of the plebs first obstructed the enrolment of troops until the patricians accepted their conditions that no war tax would be paid until the war was over and no debt suits be brought to court. With these internal difficulties out of the way the Romans divided their forces into two armies. One, commanded by consular tribunes Sp. Furius Medullinus and M. Horatius Pulvillus, to march towards Antium and the coastal areas, the other, under Q. Servilius Fidenas and L. Geganius Macerinus, to head for Ecetra and the mountains. Hoping to draw the Volsci into battle, the Romans set about ravaging the Volscian countryside. Having burning several outlying villages and destroyed the enemy's harvest, the two armies returned to Rome with their booty. [41]

According to Livy in 377 the Volsci and Latins united their forces at Satricum. The Roman army, commanded by consular tribunes P. Valerius Potitus Poplicola (the same Valerius who had commanded with Camillus against the Volsci in 386) and L. Aemilius Mamercinus, marched against them. The battle that followed was interrupted on the first day by a rainstorm. On the second the Latin resisted the Romans for some time, being familiar with their tactics, but a cavalry charge disrupted their ranks and when the Roman infantry followed up with a fresh attack they were routed. The Volsci and Latins retreated first to Satricum and thence to Antium. The Romans pursued, but lacked the equipment to lay siege to Antium. After a quarrel whether to continue the war or sue for peace, the Latin forces departed and the Antiates surrendered their city to the Romans. In fury the Latins set fire to Satricum and burned the whole city down except the temple of Mater Matuta - a voice coming from the temple is said to have threatened terrible punishment if the fire was not kept away from the shrine. [42]

Operations against Velitrae 370-367[edit]

Livy chose to focus his account of the years 376-367 on internal political struggles at Rome leading up to the decision in 367 to replace the consular tribunes with two consuls as Rome's chief, annually elected, magistrates, and the opening of this office to plebeians; making only make passing references to Rome's external affairs. He writes that in 370 the Velitraeans raided Roman territory and attacked Tusculum. A Roman relief army broke the siege of Tusculum and in return laid siege to Velitrae. [43] This siege is then supposed to have lasted a number of years in which nothing worth mention took place, [44] until it ended with Roman success in 367. [45] According to Plutarch, Velitrae surrendered to Camillus, dictator for the fifth time in 367, without a struggle. [46] The capture of Velitrae is Camillus' last recorded exploit, he would fall victim to a plague that ravaged Rome in 365.

According to traditional Roman chronology the years 375-371 were supposed to have been a period of Anarchy in which no curule magistrates elected at Rome. Modern historians consider the Anarchy to have lasted no longer than a year, if it existed at all, and attribute the extension into five years being due to ancient historians' attempts to synchronize Roman and Greek history. The apparent break six year break in Roman-Volscian affairs after 376 is therefore deceptive.

War with Privernum[edit]

358

The Privernates and afterwards the Veliternians raided Roman territory. [47] The Pomptina and Publilia tribes were formed. [48]

357

The war against Privernum was assigned to consul C. Marcius Rutilus. The territory of Privernum had long been at peace and Marcius' army captured a large amount of plunder. Marcius let his soldiers keep everything, appropriating nothing for the State. [49] The Privernates had formed an entrenched camp in front of their walls. The Romans stormed this camp and prepared to attack the town when the Privernates surrendered. A triumph was celebrated over the Privernates. [50]

353

The Latins reported to Rome that the Volsci had assembled an army and intended to ravage Roman territory. Command of this war was given to consul M. Valerius Poplicola. He set up camp at Tusculum, but at to return to Rome to nominate a dictator when war with Caere threatened. [51]

348

Colonists from Antium rebuilt Satricum. [52]

346

News reached Rome that emissaries from Antium were attempting to stir up the Latins against Rome.[53] Consul M. Valerius Corvus marched to Satricum with his army and engaged the Antiates and other Volscian troops in battle.[54] The Volsci fled into Satricum, but surrendered just as the Romans were about to storm the town. 4000 men and numerous non-combatants were taken prisoner.[55]Satricum was sacked and burned, only the temple of Mater Matuta was spared. The 4000 who had surrendered were marched in front of the consul's chariot during his triumphal procession and subsequently sold, bringing in a large sum for the State treasury.[56] Some say these prisoners were slaves that had been captured at Satricum. Livy found this more plausible than they being surrendered fighting men. [57]

345

The consuls took Sora from the Volsci by a surprise attack.[58]

341

The Privernates made a sudden incursion and devastated the Roman colonies of Norba and Setia.[59] News of this incursion reached Rome through the Latins and also news that a Volscian army led by the Antiates at concentrated at Satricum.[60] The Romans assigned the wars against Privernum and Antium to the consul Gaius Plautius. He first defeated the Privernates and captured their city. A Roman garrison was imposed on them and two-thirds of their territory confiscated.[61] Plautius then marched against the Antiates at Satricum. A hard battle was fought which ended at nightfall without a clear victor. Counting their losses, the Volsci decided to withdraw during the night, retreating to Antium and leaving their wounded and part of their baggage behind. The Romans gathered a large quantity of arms left behind at the battlefield and in the Volscian camps which the consul decided to offer to Lua Mater. He then ravaged the Volscian territory down to the coast.[62]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Livy, v.8.1-3
  2. ^ Livy, vi.2.2; D.S. xiv 117.1; Plutarch, Camillus 33.1
  3. ^ D.S. xiv 117.1-2, Plutarch, Camillus 33.1
  4. ^ Livy, vi.2.8; D.S. xiv 117.3; Plutarch, Camillus 33.1
  5. ^ Plutarch, Camillus 34.1-5
  6. ^ D.S. xiv 117.3
  7. ^ Livy, VI.2.8-12
  8. ^ Livy, vi.2.13; Plutarch, Camillus 35.1
  9. ^ Livy, vi.4.1-3
  10. ^ Oakley, S. P. (1997). A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X, Volume 1 Introduction and Book VI. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 348–349. ISBN 0198152779.
  11. ^ Cornell, T. J. (1995). The Beginnings of Rome- Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). New York: Routledge. pp. 318–319. ISBN 9780415015967.
  12. ^ Oakley, pp. 349-350, 399-400
  13. ^ Oakley, p. 423
  14. ^ Oakley, p. 349
  15. ^ Forsythe, Gary (2005). A Critical History of Early Rome. Berkley: University of California Press. p. 257. ISBN 0520249917.
  16. ^ Oakley, p. 434
  17. ^ Livy, vi.5.1-5
  18. ^ Livy, vi.6.1-18
  19. ^ Livy, vi.7.1-9.7
  20. ^ Livy, vi.11.9-12.1
  21. ^ Livy, vi.12.6-13.1-6
  22. ^ Livy, vi.15.12
  23. ^ D.S. xv.27.4
  24. ^ Forsythe p. 257, but Sardinia is accepted by Cornell, p. 321
  25. ^ Cornell, p. 323; Oakley pp. 351-352; Forsythe p. 257
  26. ^ Oakley pp. 352
  27. ^ Oakley pp. 433, 441
  28. ^ Oakley pp. 507-508
  29. ^ Cornell, p. 322;
  30. ^ Livy, vi.21.2-8
  31. ^ Livy, vi.22.1-3
  32. ^ Livy, vi.22.3-4; Plutarch, Camillus 37.2
  33. ^ Livy, vi.22.7-24.11
  34. ^ Plutarch, Camillus 37.3-5
  35. ^ Cornell, p. 322
  36. ^ Oakley, p. 357
  37. ^ Oakley, p. 580
  38. ^ Oakley, p. 357
  39. ^ Livy, vi.27.3-29.10
  40. ^ Livy, vi.30.1-9
  41. ^ Livy, vi.31.1-8
  42. ^ Livy, vi.32.4-33.5
  43. ^ Livy, vi.36.1-5
  44. ^ Livy, vi.36.6
  45. ^ Livy, vi.42.4
  46. ^ Plutarch, Camillus 42.1
  47. ^ Livy, vii.15.11
  48. ^ Livy, vii.15.12
  49. ^ Livy, vii.16.3-4
  50. ^ Livy, vii.16.4-6
  51. ^ Livy, vii.19.6-9
  52. ^ Livy, vii.27.2
  53. ^ Livy, vii.27.5
  54. ^ Livy, vii.27.6-7
  55. ^ Livy, vii.27.8
  56. ^ Livy, vii.27.8
  57. ^ Livy, vii.27.9
  58. ^ Livy, vii.28.6
  59. ^ Livy, vii.42.6
  60. ^ Livy, viii.1.1-2
  61. ^ Livy, viii.1.3
  62. ^ Livy, viii.1.4-6