but of the men above mentioned; for Athens, by her opposition to Philip, suffered the crushing defeat at Chaeronaea.

in Rome.

and the Latin

In ancient Italy there were institutions analogous to Confederations the Greek amphictyonies and religious associations. 1 and alliances Later we find confederacies and unions founded as much for political reasons as for the practice of common worship. The conception of the underlying fides added greatly to the solemnity of the transactions in establishing these alliances, and to the recognition of their intrinsic force and binding character. Not long after Alliance the expulsion of the kings, in 492 or 493 B.C., the between Rome Latin confederation (of whose earlier history little is league. known) consisting of thirty cities entered into a league with Rome on a basis of equality. Dionysius assimilates the treaty to a symmachy (ovuμaxía), and isopolitical arrangement (iroToMireia) after the fashion of Hellenic practice. The record of this treaty, which existed at Rome on a brazen pillar down to the time of Cicero, contained the name of Spurius Cassius as the consul who concluded it, and hence it is sometimes termed the foedus Cassianum.' There were two reasons for the formation of this alliance; in the first place, the Roman patricians were desirous of securing the assistance of the Latins against their own plebeians, and, secondly, the contracting parties were anxious to protect their territories more effectively from the menacing encroachments of their flourishing neighbours in the south, the Aequians and the Volscians. The thirty cities of the Latin association were at no great distance from Rome, and are supposed to have

1 Cf. Varro, vi. 25: "Latinae feriae a Latinis populis quibus ex sacris carnem petere ius fuit cum Romanis.”—See Livy, v. 1; xli. 16. 2 J. Beloch, Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie (Leipzig, 1880). * On fides and its influence on international relationships, see vol. i. PP. 391 seq.

4 Cf. Livy, ii. 53; viii. 2, 4; Dion. Hal. vi. 21; viii. 70-77. 5 Cic. Pro Balbo, 23, 24.-Cf. Livy, ii. 23.

Terms of the convention.

Lex loci contractus.

been the following:1 Ardea, Aricia, Bovillae, Bubentum, Corniculum, Carventum, Circeii, Cora, Corbio, Corioli, Fortuna (or Foretii), Gabii, Lanuvium, Laurentum, Lavici, Lavinium, Nomentum, Norba, Pedum, Praeneste, Querquetulum, Satricum, Scaptia, Setia, Tellena, Tibur, Toleria, Tricrinum, Tusculum, and Velitrae. Between these cities and the Romans a perpetual alliance, as related by Dionysius, was established to the following effect:-2 'That there shall be peace between the Romans and all the Latin cities so long as the heavens and the earth shall remain in the same position.

'That they shall not make war nor cause war to be made against each other, nor permit each other's enemies to pass through their respective territories.

'That in case of attack they shall aid each other with all their might, and all plunder and booty captured by their allied forces shall be shared equally between them. "That disputes arising out of private contracts between their respective citizens shall be determined within ten days by the tribunal of the city where the contracts in question were entered into.3

That nothing shall be added to this compact, and nothing taken away without the mutual consent of the contracting parties.'

1 This list is based on Dion. Hal. v. 61 (Ed. Reiske), together with Niebuhr's emendations.

2 Dion. Hal. vi. 95.—Cf. Liv. ii. 33. The statement of Dionysius is as follows : 'Η δὲ τὰ γραφέντα ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις τοιάδε· Ρωμαίοις καὶ ταῖς Λατίνων πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔστω, μέχρις ἂν οὐρανός τε καὶ γῆ τὴν αὐτὴν στάσιν ἔχωσι· καὶ μήτε αὐτοὶ πολεμείτωσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μήτε ἄλλοθεν πολεμίους ἐπαγέτωσαν, μήτε τοῖς ἐπιφέρουσι πόλεμον ὁδοὺς παρεχέτωσαν ἀσφαλεῖς· βοηθεί τωσάν τε τοῖς, πολεμουμένοις ἁπάσῃ δυνάμει, λαφύρων τε καὶ λείας τῆς ἐκ πολέμων κοινῶν τὸ ἴσον λαγχανέτωσαν μέρος ἑκάτεροι· τῶν τε ἰδιωτικῶν συμβολαίων αἱ κρίσεις ἐν ἡμέραις γιγνέσθωσαν δέκα παρ' οἷς ἂν γένηται τὸ συμβόλαιον. ταῖς δὲ συνθήκαις ταύταις μηδὲν ἐξέστω προσθεῖναι μηδὲ ἀφελεῖν ἀπ' αὐτῶν, ὅ τι ἂν μὴ Ῥωμαίοις τε καὶ Λατίνοις ἅπασι δοκῇ.

3 On the interchange of national rights, and the competence of courts with regard to contracts between subjects of different States, see vol. i. pp. 295 seq.

It appears, further, from a work of Cincius1 (who lived in the time of the second Punic war), quoted by Festus, that there was an additional provision of importance in the establishment of this confederacy, namely:

That the command of the allied armies shall be exercised by the Roman and Latin generals alternately.'

and the

At about 485 B.C. the same Spurius Cassius entered Alliance into a similar alliance with the Hernicans, a Sabine between Rome people, whose territory was situated south-east of Hernicans. Praeneste, and not far from Rome. They probably possessed some sixteen cities, of which the only names now known to us are Anagnia, Alatrium, Ferentinum, and Verulae. Like the Latins they had been the dependent allies of Rome under the last Tarquinius; but on the establishment of the Roman commonwealth they, too, severed their relationships with Rome, and now joined the league on more favourable terms for the purpose of mutual protection against the aggressive Aequians and Volscians. An important point to notice in this case is that the confederacy was, by the admission of the new members, extended

1 De consulum potestate.

2 Praetor ad portam : “Cincius ait Albanos rerum potitos usque ad

Tullum regem: Alba deinde diruta usque ad P. Decium Murem cos. populos Latinos ad caput Ferentinae, quod est sub monte Albano, consulere solitos, et imperium communi consilio administrare. Itaque quo anno Romanos imperatores ad exercitum mittere oporteret iussu nominis Latini, complures nostros in Capitolio a sole oriente auspiciis operam dare solitos."-With regard to Cincius, Arnold says: "His statement which bears on the face of it a character of authenticity, is quite in agreement with what Dionysius reports of the treaty itself, and only gives an additional proof of the systematic falsehood of the Roman annals in their accounts of the relations of Rome with foreigners." (T. Arnold, History of Rome, 3 vols. (London, 1871), vol. i. p. 127, note 4.)

Of course the expression 'quo anno' in the above passage does not necessarily warrant the conclusion that the Roman and Latin generals enjoyed the supreme command of the combined forces every other year; but it is highly probable that such was the arrangement until the accession of the Hernicans to the league, when the period of the command was limited to one year in three.

Rights and duties of Roman confederates and allies.

1

beyond merely ethnic limits. Amongst the provisions of the treaty, there was a clause securing to the Hernicans an equal portion, that is one-third, of all lands taken by the confederate armies.2

From these typical examples of alliances (that is, at least, those concluded in the earlier history of Rome), we may realize what were considered to be the most important rights and obligations of confederates and other allies in their relationships with Rome. Each member retained in form its own legal system; for before the Social war, Latin law was not necessarily the same as that of Rome. Ultimately, however, private law became in form as in matter substantially the same throughout all Latium. No subject of any of the constituent States could be enslaved within the territory of the league. Thus, as an application of this principle, the law of the XII. Tables provided that if a creditor wanted to sell his insolvent debtor, he must be taken and sold beyond the boundary of the Tiber. Again, in the second treaty between Rome and Carthage it was stipulated that if any citizen of a State allied to Rome be taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, he should regain his freedom on entering a Roman seaport. Any Latin was entitled to settle anywhere within the limits of the confederacy. The Romano-Latin confederates retained their sovereignty and independence; whilst the

1 Dion. Hal. viii. 69, 72, 74.

2 In reference to this clause Livy says: "Cum Hernicis foedus ictum, agri partes duae ademtae" (ii. 41),—that by the treaty the Hernicans were deprived of two-thirds of their own land,-whence, it is evident, Livy followed a Roman annalist whose strikingly inaccurate statement was either due to gross carelessness, or to a perverted sense of patriotism and a priori assumption of Roman predominance and unrestrained dictation of terms. At this period, at least, Rome did not enjoy and could not claim anything like an overwhelming preponderance in international relationships.

It may

be said, in general, that the transactions between Rome and alien communities were on a more equal footing than would appear from the exaggerated or suppressed accounts of jealous partisans.

8 See infra, chap. xvii.

league of the thirty communities as such preserved also its own autonomy. There appears to have been no prohibition as to the liberty of either Rome or Latium to undertake on its own account an aggressive war; and the Latin federal council-the hegemony of Rome notwithstanding-very probably took part in deliberations regarding the commencement of war or the conclusion of peace by the combined league.1 In the later constitution of the league, however, Rome's ascendancy was more firmly established. The Latin members were deprived of the right to make war and treaties with foreign nations. The supreme command of the combined army was exercised exclusively by Rome, and the staff-officers of the various contingents were therefore appointed by the Roman commander-in-chief.2

of the

In 340 B.c. all the Latin cities as well as the Cam- Dissolution panians revolted against Rome. The Romans sub- confederacy. sequently gained a decisive victory near Tripanum, and the Latin league was thus dissolved. It was transformed from an independent political confederacy to a religious festal association. Separate perpetual alliances between Rome and the several towns began to be made.

and duties of

the allies of the

In general, in the later history as in the earlier, when Various rights two States concluded a treaty of alliance, their existing allies in confederates were ipso facto included therein,—unless it general. was expressly stipulated to the contrary-and were often mentioned by name. Thus in the first treaty Inclusion of between Rome and Carthage (509-508 B.c.) it was agreed that there should be friendship between the signatories. Romans and their allies on the one part, and the Carthaginians and their allies, on the other; and in a treaty of some two centuries later between the same parties, the Carthaginians specially added the Tyrians

4

1 Cf. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, vol. i. bk. i. chap. vii.

2 Cf. Mommsen, ibid. bk. ii. chap. v.

3 Cf. Polyb. iii. 21. 5.

4 Polyb. iii. 22 : ἐπὶ τοῖσδε φιλίαν εἶναι Ῥωμαίοις καὶ τοῖς Ῥωμαίων συμμάχοις καὶ Καρχηδονίοις καὶ τοῖς Καρχηδονίων συμμάχοις.—For the entire treaty, see infra, chap. xvii.