Prow of a Roman War Galley
(After De Montfaucon)
But more numerous and more important than these were the Latin colonies, of which there were thirty in existence when Hannibal crossed the Alps. Of these thirty no fewer than twenty-six had been founded before the close of the year 263 B.C. The reason for the name they bore was this: We have seen that a close connection had subsisted between Rome and the Latin communities from the earliest times. Under the later kings Rome was the head of Latium; and by Spurius Cassius a league was formed between Rome and Latium, which continued with a slight interruption till the great Latin war of 338 B.C. So long as this league lasted, Latins enjoyed all the private rights of Roman citizens in Rome; and Romans enjoyed all the private rights of the Latin citizens in any of the cities of Latium. During the period of the league many colonies were sent forth, in which the settlers consisted jointly of Romans and Latins, and were not confined to the small number of three hundred, but usually amounted to some thousands. But the citizens of these Latin colonies seem to have had no rights at Rome, except such as were possessed by the allied municipal towns. They were therefore regarded politically as communities in alliance with Rome. After the Latin war, similar colonies still continued to be sent forth. Indeed, these were the colonies which chiefly relieved the poor of the Roman territory.
The rights and privileges of these Latin colonies are only known to us as they are found at a later period of the republic under the name Latinitas, or the Right of Latium (Jus Latii). This right, at the later time we speak of, we know to have consisted in the power of obtaining the full rights of a Roman burgess, but in a limited and peculiar manner. Any citizen of a Latin community, whether one of the free cities of Latium or a Latin colony, was allowed to emigrate to Rome and be enrolled in one of the Roman tribes, on two conditions: first, that he had held a magistracy in his native town: secondly, that he left a representative of his family in that native town. Thus was formed that large body of half-Roman citizens throughout Italy, who are so well known to readers of Livy under the appellation of “the Latin name.” Socii et nomen Latinum—the allies and the Latin name—was the technical expression for all those Italian communities who were bound to supply soldiers for her armies.
Besides the mass of the Italian communities which were in a condition of greater or less dependence upon Rome,—the prefectures in a state of absolute subjection, the colonies bound by ties of national feeling and interest, the municipal towns by articles of alliance,—there remain to be noticed, fourthly, the cities which remained wholly independent of Rome, but bound to her by treaties of equal alliance. Of the Latin cities, Tibur and Præneste alone were in this condition; in Campania, most of the cities, till, after the Hannibalic War, Capua and others were reduced to the condition of prefectures; of the Hellenic cities in the south, Neapolis, Rhegium, and others; in Umbria, Camerium; in Etruria, Iguvium; with all the cities of the Frentanians. But as Roman power increased, most of these communities were reduced to the condition of simple municipal towns.
Whatever is known of the internal constitution of these various communities belongs to later times, when by the Julian law they all obtained the Roman franchise, and became part and parcel of the Roman state. There can, however, be little doubt that in the colonies a constitution was adopted similar to that of Rome herself. The colonists formed a kind of patriciate or aristocracy, and the heads of their leading families constituted a senate. There were two chief magistrates, called duumviri, representing the consuls, to whom (in the more important towns) were added one or two men to fulfil the duties of censor and quæstor. In course of time similar constitutions were introduced into the municipal towns also.
Thus, by placing the Italian cities in every possible relation to herself, from real independence to complete subjection, and by planting colonies, some with full Roman rights, some with a limited power of obtaining these rights, Rome wove her net of sovereignty over the peninsula, and covered every part with its entangling meshes. The policy of Rome, as has been said, may be summed up in the two words—isolation and self-government.[c]
FOOTNOTES
[44] [Mommsen[b] thinks of Pyrrhus as “simply a military adventurer.” He finds his dream of western empire, “analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led Alexander over the Hellespont.” But he finds a vast difference between the chances of success, seeing in the disorganised and independent Italian states “poor material for a united realm.” In all points the plan of the Macedonian appears as a feasible, that of the Epirot as an impracticable, enterprise; the former as the completion of a great historical task, the latter as a remarkable blunder. And yet we must not forget that we look at these attempts from the viewpoint of result not of purpose, and to his contemporaries the conquest of Italy would have seemed easier, if less worth while, than the then apparently impossible dream of Alexander.]
[45] Hence the distinction between Civitates Federatæ and Liberæ. All federate communities were free, but not all free communities were federate.]