User:Fornadan/temp/Etruscans

Final defeat of Veii
403

Tired of annual elections, the Veientines elected a king to be their leader. This decision angered the other Etruscan states, both because of their hatred of monarchy and their dislike of the man chosen as king of Veii. Previously this man had made an unsuccessfully attempt at being elected priest at the Etruscan Games. In revenge he had withdrawn the performers, most of them his own slaves, and so put a sudden stop to the festical. Because of this the Etruscan League decided that no help would be given to the Veientines as long as they were ruled by a king. News of this decision was suppressed in Veii in fear of the king. Though the Romans heard that no relief army was coming from the Etruscans, they still constructed their siege line with two faces, one inward looking to stop sorties from Veii and one outward looking to block relief attempts from Etruria. Planning to keep up the war during winter the Roman generals begin construction of winter quarters in the field. The tribunes of the plebs unsuccessfully opposed this new development. ref>Livy, v.2-6 Outside Veii the Romans had built vineae and constructed a raised way up to the city. However in a sudden night attack the Veientines sallied out in force and, armed with torches, destroyed both the raised way and the vineae. Many Romans defending the siege works were killed. News of this set-back caused consternation at Rome. Spirits were restored when a number of men assessed as knights, but not provided with a public horse, volunteered to serve as cavalry on their own horses. In turn the plebeians vowed that they were now part of the infantry and promised that though it was not their turn to serve, they would march to Veii or wherever they were led. And if they were led to Veii, they would not return until that city was taken.

402

The Roman siege was hampered by their commanders quarrelling with each other. The two towns nearest to Veii, Falerii and Capena, feared that if Veii fell, the Romans would make war on them next. The Faliscans had also been involved in the war with Fidenae. Accordingly the two cities concluded an alliance and marched their armies to Veii and made an unexpected attack on the Roman entrenchments. The section attacked happened to be where consular tribune Manius Sergius was in command. The attack caused great alarmed among the Romans who feared that all of Etruria had come in great force. The Veientines also sallied from the city so that the Roman lines were attacked from both sides. The Romans in entrenchments' only hope was reinforcements from the main camp, but consular tribune L. Verignius was in command there, and he and Sergius detested each other. Accordingly Verignius refused to send help unless Sergius asked for it, while Sergius preferred defeat to seeking help from his personal foe. In the end a few Romans managed to reach the camp after abandoning the lines. Sergius made his way to Rome with the greater part of his force, and once there put all the blame on Verignius. Veriginus was summoned to Rome. Most senators divided along party lines in supporting either Sergius or Verginius. The leaders of the senate decided that the best solution would be to hold elections early with the new consular tribunes entering office on 1 October rather than 13 December which was customary. Sergius and Verginius attempted to block this, but when when consular tribune C. Servilius Ahala, threatened to nominate a Dictator, they resigned.

Ancient narratives
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. According to Livy the leading men of all of Etruria gathered at the sanctuary of Voltumna to form a hostile alliance against Rome. Beset by dangers on all side, the Romans appointed Marcus Furius Camillus dictator. Camillus chose to march against the Volsci first, leaving, according to Livy, a force commanded by consular tribune L. Aemilius Mamercinus in the Veientine territory to guard against the Etruscans. In the course of two campaigns Camillus inflicted crushing victories against the Volsci and the Aequi and was now ready to take on the Etruscans.

Livy and Plutarch, and more summarily Diodorus Siculus, narrates the fighting between Romans and Etruscans in very similar terms. While Camillus was away campaigning against the Volsci, the Etruscans laid siege to Sutrium, a Roman ally. The Sutrines sent for Rome for aid and Camillus, now victorious against the Volsci and Aequi, marched to their relief, but before any help could arrive they were forced into a conditional surrender, being allowed to leave without weapons and only one garment apiece. Meeting the exiled Sutrines that same day, Camillus ordered the baggage left behind and marched his now unencumbered army to Sutrium where he found the enemy still dispersed and busy plundering the city. Camillus ordered all the gates closed and attacked before the Etruscans could concentrate their forces. The now trapped Etruscans at first intended to fight to the end, but when hearing that their lives would be spared, they surrendered in great number. Sutrium was thus captured twice in the same day. Livy provides a description of the amount of spoils taken. Having won three simultaneous wars, Camillus returned to Rome in triumph. The Etruscan prisoners 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.

Livy is our only written source for the subsequent years. He writes that in 388 a Roman army invaded the territory of Tarquinii where the towns of Cortuosa and Contenebra were captured. The former was taken by surprise and fell at the first assault. At Contenebra a small garrison resisted attempted to resist, but after a few days succumbed to superior Roman numbers. In 387 there were rumours in Rome that Etruria was in arms and the Romans once again turned to Camillus who was one of six elected consular tribune for 386. However Camillus was diverted by news that the Volscians had invaded the Pomptine territory. With Camillus occupied, the Etruscans attacked the border strongholds of Nepete and Sutrium. However Camillus soon defeated the Volscians and meanwhile a second army was raised at Rome. Camillus and his colleague P. Valerius Potitus Poplicola received command of this second army and the war against the Etruscans. By the time Camillus and Valeirus arrived at Sutrium, the Etruscans had taken half the city, the Sutrines desperately defending the rest behind street barricades. Camillus divided his army into two and ordered his colleague to attack the walls on the side the enemy was holding. Attacked from both within and without the city, the Etruscans fled in panic and were killed in great numbers. Having recaptured Sutrium, the Roman army marched to Nepete, which by that time had surrendered to the Etruscans after treachery from some of the townsmen. Camillus first attempted to convince the Nepesines to throw out the Etruscans. When they refused, he captured the city by storm. All the Etruscans and those who had sided with them were killed and a Roman garrison put in place. After this victory no further conflict is reported between Romans and Etruscans until 358 when Rome again clashed with Tarquinii.

Modern interpretations
The sources frequently refer to meetings of the Etruscan league at the temple of Voltumna. The league still existed during the Roman Empire when it met near Volsinii, this might have been the meeting place during the 4th century as well. However modern historians consider the Etruscan league to have been a purely religious organization dedicated to celebrate common Etruscan festivals, it was never a military alliance. Rather the Roman annalistic records and other sources seem to describe a disunited Etruria divided into several rival city states. References to all of Etruria united against Rome are therefore considered unhistorical. The original Roman records perhaps stated there had been fighting against "the Etruscans" without specifying the city. Later writers have then expanded this to involve all of Etruria including plausible, but fictitious, meetings of the Etruscan league.

The many similarities between accounts of the campaigns of 389 and 386 - 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.

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.

Oakley (1997) considers the accounts of a Roman victory against Etruscans in 389 to be historical, although all the details beyond the bare fact that Sutrium was successfully relieved has likely been invented. 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. He also believes the campaign of 386 could be historical as well, although with some of the detail transplanted from 389. A major victory by Camillus in this year would explain why no further fighting is recorded on Rome's Etruscan frontier until 358.

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.

Livy's report of the capture of Cortuosa and Contenebra in 388 has received much less skepticism than the campaigns of 389 and 386. No furter records of Cortuosa and Contenebra have been preserved and their sites are today unknown. As there would have been little incentive for ancient writers to invent the capture of obscure villages, modern historians tend consider notices on otherwise unknown sites to be based on genuine records. Excavations at modern San Giovenale near Tarquinii have revealed a settlment founded about 650 and destroyed early 4th century. While San Giovenale's identity as ancient Cortuosa or Contenebra can not be confirmed, it is still reasonable to attribute its destruction to the campaign described by Livy under 388

War with Tarquinii 359-351
As usual Livy provides the only full narrative for this war. Parts of his account is corroborated by Diodorus and the Fasti Triumphales.

Ancient narratives
Livy writes that in 358 Rome declared war on Tarquinii after forces from that city had raided Roman territory. Consul Gaius Fabius Ambustus was assigned to that war. However the Tarquinienses defeated Fabius and sacrificed 307 Roman prisoners of war. The following year, 357, Rome also declared war against the Falisci. They had fought with the Tarquinienses and refused to give up the Roman deserters who had fled to Falerii after their defeat, even thoough the Fetials had demanded their surrender. This campaign was assigned to consul Cn. Manlius Capitolinus Imperiosus He however accomplished nothing of note except convening his army, at camp near Sutrium, in Assembly and passing a law taxing the manumission of slaves. Worrying about the precedent this could set, the tribunes of the plebs made it a capital offence to convene the Assembly outside the usual place. D.S. also records a war between the Romans and the Falisci where nothing of note took place, only raiding and pillaging.

According to Livy, in 356 consul M. Fabius Ambustus commanded the Romans against the Falisci and Tarquinienses. The Etruscan army had brought priests wielding snakes and torches, and at first this sight caused the Roman soldiers to flee in panic back to their entrenchments, but the consul shamed his men into resuming the struggle. The Etruscans were scattered and their camp captured. This caused the whole of Etruria to rise, under leadership of the Tarquinienses and Falisci they marched against the Roman salt works. In this emergency the Romans nominated C. Marcius Rutilus as dictator, this was the first time a plebeian had been dictator. Marcius transported his troops across the Tiber on rafts. After first catching a number of Etruscan raiders, he captured the Etruscan camp in a surprise attack and took 8 000 prisoners, the rest were either killed or chased out of Roman territory. The people of Rome awarded Marcius with a triumph, but this was not confirmed by the senate. This is supported by the Fasti Triumphales which records that C. Marcius Rutilus, dictator, triumphed over the Etruscans on 6 May. According to D.S. the Etruscans pillaged Roman territory, raiding as far as the Tiber before returning home.

According to some of the writers consulted by Livy, in 355 consul C. Sulpicius Peticus ravaged the territory of Tarquinii, but others held that he commanded jointly with his colleague against the Tiburtines. Then in 354 the Romans forced the Tarquinienses to surrender after killing a large number of them in battle. The prisoners taken were all put to the sword except 358 nobles who were sent to Rome where they were scourged and beheaded in the Forum as retribution for the Romans immolated by the Tarquinienses in 358. According to Diodorus only 280 were executed in the Forum.

Livy is the only source for the final years of the war. In 353 rumours reached Rome that the people of Caere had sided with Tarquinii in sympathy with their fellow Etruscans. These were confirmed when consul C. Sulpicius Peticus, who was ravaging Tarquinian territory, reported that the Roman salt-works had been raided. Part of the plunder had been sent to Caere and no doubt some of the raiders had been men of Caere. Accordingly the Romans nominated Titus Manlius Torquatus dictator and declared war upon Caere. The Caerites now bitterly regretted their actions and sent envoys to Rome to plead for peace. In view of their old friendship the Romans granted the Caerites a hundred year truce. The Romans then turned their attention to the Falisci, but no enemy was found in the field and the Roman army returned home after ravaging Faliscan territory, having made attempt at any enemy city.

In 352 due to, groundless as it turned out, rumours that the twelve cities of Etruria had formed a league against Rome, the Romans decided to appoint a dictator. C. Julius Iullus was nominated by the consuls while they were still in camp, rather than in the city as usual. During 351, the final year of the war, consul T. Quinctius Pennus Capitolinus Crispinus campaigned against Falerii and his colleague C. Sulpicius Peticus against Tarquinii. There was no battle, but the Falisci and Tarquinienses were weary of war after having their territories ravaged year after year, and asked for a truce. The Romans granted each city a forty years truce.

Modern interpretation
Modern historians accept as historical the overall outline of the war, but the historicity of many individual events have been disputed.