The relation of συμπολιτεία was different; it is very necessary to distinguish the two, and great attention is required not to confound them. Sympolity was the relation subsisting between Rome and its _municipia_, it was the connection of one place with another on a footing of inequality; the citizens of the subordinate state had not the same rights with those of the chief state, their advantage consisting in the close alliance with a powerful head, but they had no share in the election of magistrates (_civitas sine suffragio_), and the relation was altogether one-sided. Isopolite states, on the other hand, generally stood to each other in a relation of perfect equality, and were quite independent in their transactions with foreign countries; it is only in a very few instances that in later times we find them in a subordinate relation to a chief state. Sympolite states could not, on their own responsibility, enter into negociations with foreign countries, as had been the case of isopolite states only in earlier times. It may perhaps be assumed that all sympolite places were at one time in the relation of isopolity, and that their citizens were entitled to the general franchise in every one of the allied states. Isopolity, therefore, may have existed with several states, which among themselves had no isopolity, as, for example, the Hernicans were in a relation of isopolity with the Romans and also with the Samnites. At that time the Aetolians increased their connections in both ways, and many distant towns joined them and became Aetolians. Of this we have evident proofs in inscriptions, in which the Aetolians grant to the inhabitants of such places letters of safety against robbery, as for example to the inhabitants of Crete, Carthaea in the island of Ceos, and others, ὡς ὄντων Αἰτωλῶν. Others, seeking the direct protection of the Aetolians, entered the relation of sympolity; but this must not be understood, as if they had taken upon themselves duties as subjects towards the Aetolians; the towns were too distant; but if they did, the great distance at least prevented the relation from becoming oppressive. In the case of isopolity a town could not claim to be protected by the more powerful one. Aetolia thus extended chiefly through the relation of sympolity, and Cephallenia, _e.g._, joined it. In the earlier times, and down to the sixth century of Rome, Olymp. 135, we can trace the extension only with difficulty; we cannot indeed doubt that the Aetolians extended beyond their own frontiers, but we are unable to say how or how far. The newly added part was called Αἰτωλία ἐπίκτητος, but it is wrongly marked in our maps, for the part beyond the Aetolian mountains, on the coast of Locris, belongs to ancient Aetolia.