Roman Imperialism / 51
16. Plutarch says that Gracchus conceived of his agrarian reforms because of the Etruscan conditions which he
noticed on a journey from his province; Plut., Tib. Gracch. 8. The population had always been sparse because
of the uneconomic landlord system. In 225 there were less than two able-bodied men per square kilometer in
Etruria, while Campania could furnish ten; see Polybius, II, 24.
17. The Roman annalists frequently refer to what they call slave riots in Etruria. These were in fact social
upheavals due to the survival of the old feudal system. In Volsinii the serfs seized the reins of government in
265 and the masters appealed to Rome, whose consul found the rocky citadel (now Orvieto) almost impreg-
nable. As a result, when the city was finally taken and the former masters reinstated, Rome demanded that the
city be rebuilt on level ground. So the late annalists tell an interesting story of Rome’s shrewdness; Val. Max.
IX, 1, 9; Zonaras, VIII, 7.
18. See Nissen, Ital. Landeskunde, II, 316.
19. See Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, p. 279 (Iguvinian Tables, VI, b, 54). The Iapudes were
Illyrian pirates who spread havoc on the Adriatic coast of Italy; see Pauli, Altital. Forschungen, III, 413.
20. This, I confess, is based upon inference. Asisium and Fulginia apparently received citizenship before 90
B.C., since their magistrates continued to be called by their old title, marones. Ocriculum, Mevania, and
Trebia were not in the same ward as the cities that were allied until 90 B.C. They were on the Flaminian road
and therefore probably attained citizenship early. Tuder and Iguvium, two cities assigned to the tribus
Crustumina, were still allied to Rome a few years before 90 (Sisenna, frag. 119, and Cic. Balb. 46). Perhaps
all the cities along the Tiber — which were ascribed to the same ward — were allies until 90. Of the rest we
know only that Camertum possessed a foedus aequum till the Social war. The subjugation of the northern-
most tribe, the Sarsinates, required a special invasion about 268 — not many years before the birth of Plautus,
their most famous citizen. These mountaineers may have been disturbing the newly founded colony of
Ariminum.
21. Livy dates Namia at 299, but it can hardly have been founded until after the battle of Sentinum.
22. Beloch (Ital. Bund. p. 57) scarcely supports his conjecture that Rome took large stretches of public land in
Umbria. In the days when Rome settled Umbria it was not the custom to appropriate lands except by way of
severe punishment, and we have no reason to think that many Umbrian cities incurred this.
23. Picentian history is full of uncertainties because the Roman annalists confused the territory with the ager
Gallicus, sometimes called ager Picenus in legal documents. They therefore attributed wholesale confisca-
tion and allotment to land which had experienced nothing of the sort; see Klio, XI, p. 373. The correct
inferences can be drawn from Polyb. II, 21, 7, and Cato, in Varro, R. R. I, 2, 7. Strabo (V, 251), who finds a
people called Picenti below Naples, immediately drew the hasty conclusion that the Picentes of the Adriatic
had been transported. This is, of course, erroneous. I would revise Beloch, Ital. Bund. p. 55; Nissen, Ital.
Landesk. II, 410, and Mommsen, C. I. L. IX, p. 480, accordingly. Asculum was an ally till 90, when in fact it
was among the first to revolt. Since the rest of Picenum had received citizenship, Asculum felt that it too
deserved as much.
24. Strabo, V, 241, kwmhdÕn zîsin,
25. For the Roman treaties with these tribes, see Diod. XX, 101; Livy, IX, 45; X, 3. For the tribal organization,
Vestini: Polyb. II, 24; Livy, XLIV, 40; tribal coins, Conway, The Italic Dialects, p. 260. Marrucini: Polyb.
IX, 24; Conway, p. 254, totai maroucai. Paeligni: Diod. XX, 101. Possibly Rome later dealt with the indi-
vidual cities here; the evidence is late and unreliable. Marsi: Polyb. II, 24; Conway, p. 294, pro le[gio]nibus
Martses. Frentani: Polyb. II, 24; Conway, p. 208, Kenzsur; tribal coins, Conway, p. 212 (Larinum had a
separate treaty).
26. With the Sabines I include the subdivision of the Prastuttii (modern Abruzzi).
27. Mommsen, C. I. L. IX, p. 396, following a late legend, states that the Sabines were driven out and most of the
land confiscated. My reasons for rejecting this, which is the orthodox view, are, in brief, as follows, (1) The
earlier tradition holds that the Sabines remained and became Roman citizens, see Cic. de Off. I, 35; pro Balb.
31; Livy, XL, 46, 12; XLII, 34, 2; Velleius, I, 14. Strabo, V, 228: œsti d kai palaiÒtaton gšnoj oƒ Sab…noi
kai aÙtÒcqonej... antšscon mšcri prÕj tÕn parÒnta crÒnon. (2) Livy would hardly have praised the volun-
teers from this district as he does in XXVIII, 45, had they not been of non-Roman stock. (3) Schulten, in Klio,
II and III, has shown that names ending in (i)edius and idius are Sabellic, and that they occur as frequently in