who, having obtained an audience of the senate in the Capitol, addressed Titus Manlius, and the senators, as though he had taken the Capitol by arms as a victor, and not as an ambassador protected by the law of nations.' The Veientians, by order of their king, Tolumnius, had put to death four Roman ambassadors who were sent to them to inquire about the defection of Fidenae, a Roman colony, to the Veientians. Hostilities were therefore commenced by Rome, and in the course of a battle in 436 B.C., Aulus Cornelius Cossus, a tribune of the soldiers, perceiving the approach of Tolumnius, rushed forth towards him with the exclamation "Is this the breaker of human treaties, the violator of the law of nations? This victim I will now slay-if it is the wish of the gods that there should be anything sacred on earth-and I will offer him up to the shades of the ambassadors." Later, war was again made on the Veientians for their insolent treatment of a Roman embassy, that had been despatched to set forth certain grievances and demand restitution. Again, in 300 B.C., by the vote of the senate and resolution of the assembly of the people, war was declared against the Samnites owing to their threats to Roman envoys.*

On the other hand, a refusal to surrender an ambassador who took part in hostilities and thus violated his neutrality, which was enjoined by the law of nations, furnished a valid ground for war."

1 Liv. viii. 5.

2 Liv. iv. 19: "hiccine est ruptor foederis humani violatorque gentium iuris? iam ego hanc mactatam victimam, si modo sancti quicquam in terris esse dii volunt, legatorum manibus dabo."

3 Liv. iv. 58: "Veiens bellum motum ob superbum responsum Veientis senatus, qui legatis repetentibus res, ni facesserent propere urbe finibusque, daturos quod Lars Tolumnius dedisset, responderi iussit."

4 Liv. x. 12: "quibus obviam missi ab Samnitibus qui denuntiarent, si quod adissent in Samnio concilium, haud inviolatos abituros. haec postquam audita sunt Romae, bellum Samnitibus et patres censuerunt et populus iussit."

5 Cf. Liv. vi. 1 ; and see vol. i. pp. 341 seq.

An unjustifiable rejection of an embassy was likewise held to be a just cause for hostilities on the part of the injured State.1

incursion

violation

rights.

Another obvious ground was the violation of terri- Hostile torial rights, incursio hostilis.' More particularly in conf earlier times incursions were not infrequently made territorial into neighbouring territories, for the purpose of committing plunder, e.g. theft of flocks, capture of slaves, etc. And if due redress was refused, on a formal demand having been made, the injured community claimed the right to make war on the offending people, on the ground that the latter had expressly or tacitly sanctioned the depredations. Thus in 487 B.C.. after Caius Aquilius and Titus Sicinius entered on the consulship, the senate sent ambassadors to the Hernici to demand of them, as of their friends and allies, such reparation as they were entitled to by their treaties; for the commonwealth had been injured by them at the time of the invasion of the Volsci and the Aequi, by the robberies they had committed and the incursions they had made upon that portion of the Roman territory which adjoined theirs. The Volsinians having, along with the Salpinians, made an unprovoked incursion into Roman territory, war was declared against both nations, -"ob quae Volsinienses Salpinatibus adiunctis superbia elati ultro agros Romanos incursavere. bellum inde duobus populis indictum." In 376 B.C. In 376 B.C. hostilities were directed against the Volscians on account of their incursions, which had been conducted after the fashion of bandits, more latrocinii.' In 352 B.c. the land

1 Cf. vol. i. p. 309.

2 Dion. Hal. viii. 64: ...πρῶτον ἐψηφίσατο πρεσβείαν πέμψαι πρὸς Ἕρνικας αἰτήσουσαν, ὡς παρὰ φίλων τε καὶ ἐνσπόνδων, δίκας νομίμους· ἠδίκτο γὰρ ἡ πόλις ὑπ ̓ αὐτῶν κατὰ τὴν Οὐολούσκων τε καὶ Αἰκανῶν ἐπιστρατείαν ληστείαις τε καὶ καταδρομαῖς τῆς ὁμορούσης αὐτοῖς γῆς.

8 Liv. v. 31.

Liv. vi. 31: "populatio non illae vagae similis, quam Vulscus latrocinii more, discordiae hostium fretus et virtutem metuens, per

Desecration of sacred places.

Prevention of peaceful passage of troops.

around the Roman Salinae (the salt-works that had been established by Ancus Martius near Rome) having been depopulated and plundered by the Caeritians, Titus Manlius, who had been nominated dictator, declared war against them by the order of the people and the sanction of the senate. Similarly, in the case of the consul Marcus Valerius against the Etrurians (300 B.C.). And in 189 B.C. the Ligurians, on account of their poverty at home, as Livy observes, made frequent incursions into Roman territory; hence this conduct was held a ground or cause for commencing war, “ vel materia belli vel causa."

Again, the desecration of sacred places was, especially amongst the Greeks, considered a justifiable cause for taking up arms against the offenders. Thus the main reason of the Greek offensive war against the Persians was to exact vengeance for their profanation of sacred objects. The Athenians refused to make terms with Xerxes, and expressed their determination to avenge the destruction by him of their temples and images of gods and heroes.*

The prevention of the peaceful passage of troops over the territory of a State (especially if it was an ally), when assurances had been given of their

trepidationem raptim fecerat, sed ab iusto exercitu iusta ira facta...... omnibus passim tectis agrorum vicisque etiam exustis, non arbore frugifera, non satis in spem frugum relictis, omni quae extra moenia fuit hominum pecudumque praeda abacta."

1 Liv. vii. 19: "cognitum est depopulatum agrum circa Romanos salinas praedaeque partem in Caeritum fines avectam et haud dubie iuventutem eius populi inter praedatores fuisse... ex auctoritate patrum ac populi iussu Caeritibus bellum indixit."

2 Liv. x. 11: "neque illos novus consul vastandis agris urendisque tectis, cum passim non villae solum sed frequentes quoque vici incendiis fumarent, elicere ad certamen potuit."

3 Liv. xxxix. 1: "nec deerat unquam cum iis vel materia belli vel causa, quia propter domesticam inopiam vicinos agros incursabant.” 4 Herodot. viii. 144: πρῶτα μὲν καὶ μέγιστα, τῶν θεῶν τὰ ἀγάλ ματα καὶ τὰ οἰκήματα ἐμπεπρησμένα τε καὶ συγκεχωσμένα, τοῖσι ἡμέας ἀναγκαίως ἔχει τιμωρέειν ἐς τὰ μέγιστα μᾶλλον, ἤπερ ὁμολογέειν τῷ ταῦτα ἐργασαμένῳ.

refraining from all injurious acts, was occasionally considered sufficient justification for commencing hostilities. Thus in 360 B.c. the consuls Caius Sulpicius and Caius Licinius Calvus conducted an army against the Hernicans; and on the return of the troops the Tiburtians shut their gates against them, and refused to allow them to traverse their country. The Romans had had other grievances, but, says Livy, this refusal was the determining cause-the ultima causa'-for the declaration of war against the Tiburtian people, restitution having been previously demanded by the fetials.1

The refusal, without sufficient reason, to surrender Refusal of (deditio) such individuals of a State as had committed extradition. any offence against a sovereign or his subjects was, in general, held to be a proper ground for making war.2

From time to time various other causes were con- Other causes. sidered to be of sufficient weight for sanctioning the commencement of hostilities. Thus, on entering on the war with Demetrius, the Romans, says Polybius, looked out for a suitable opportunity and a decent pretext to justify them in the eyes of the world; for, indeed, they were quite rightly very careful on this point.3

This observation might, of course, be deemed a disparagement of Roman foreign policy and diplomatic methods. But, as the latter portion of the historian's remark indicates, and as he has testified again and again, Roman war was well regularized, and was not waged without provocation after the manner of robbers and bandits, more latronum.' Sometimes, no doubt, the causes alleged were perhaps of a somewhat feeble

1 Liv. vii. 9: "revertentibus inde eis Tiburtes portas clausere. ea ultima causa fuit, cum multae ante querimoniae ultro citroque iactatae essent, cur per fetiales rebus repetitis bellum Tiburti populo indiceretur."

2 See vol. i. pp. 358 seq., on extradition.

3 Polyb. xxxvi. 2 : ... καιρὸν ἐζήτουν ἐπιτήδειον καὶ πρόφασιν εὐσχήμονα πρὸς τοὺς ἐκτός. πολὺ γὰρ δὴ τούτου τοῦ μέρους ἐφρόντιζον 'Ρωμαῖοι, καλῶς φρονοῦντες.

Aim of war.

character; but is indisputable that, on the whole, the Romans, in this respect, made a remarkable advance on all previous and contemporary practice.

The

Speaking generally, warlike relationships were not established for the purpose of wantonly destroying those against whom grievances were alleged, or for taking possession of their lands and goods on account of some trivial or trumpery charge. The real aim of war was to effect a reparation, previously denied, of some serious injury that had without reason been inflicted, or to exact the due expiation of a wrong conformably to divine injunctions. Thus Xenophon exhorted his men to have regard to moderation and honour, and not to plunder any city that was not in any way guilty of offences against them.2 purpose, declares Polybius, with which good men make war is not to destroy and annihilate the wrongdoers, but to reform and alter the wrongful acts; nor is it their object to involve the innocent in the destruction of the guilty,—οὐ γὰρ ἐπ ̓ ἀπωλεία δεῖ καὶ ἀφανισμῷ τοῖς ἀγνοήσασι πολεμεῖν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ διορθώσει καὶ μεταθέσει τῶν ἡμαρτημένων, οὐδὲ συναναιρεῖν τὰ μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντα τοῖς ἠδικηκόσιν. ... The same doctrine had long before been affirmed by Plato. Thus in the Republic, where Socrates and Glaucon discuss what acts ought to be forbidden in warfare, but distinguish, however, between war against Hellenes and that against barbarians, Socrates suggests that the quarrel, at least with Greeks, ought to be conducted solely with a view to reconciliation; that friendly correction ought to be the rule, not enslavement or destruction of the enemy. "And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas, nor

1 Cf. Polyb. v. 11; xviii. 37, where the historian relates the observation of Flamininus that it was not the way of Rome utterly to destroy those with whom she was at open war.

2 Xenoph. Anab. vii. 1. 29.-Cf. Cyrop. vii. 1. 41.

3 v. II.