Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 1 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 1 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
We see him here as a noble-hearted man, who will
not thus return, but rather dismisses his followers upon whom he must
have made an impression by his having renounced his country; such a
paramount influence could easily be exercised by a great man in times
like those. He did not compromise the interests of the Volscians: it
is possible that he really mediated for them, and obtained the cession
of Antium and isopolity. Thus he fulfilled his duty towards those who
had received him, and for Rome he gained the immense advantage that it
was now reconciled with its most dangerous enemy; for, the Volscians
had pressed upon Rome the hardest, and henceforth there remained only
the Æquians, whom it was easy to resist. The childish vanity of the
Romans has thrown so thick a veil upon this Volscian peace, but for
which every thing would be unconnected. It saved Rome, and gave it new
strength; and the state, with great wisdom, now turned this time to
account.
It is one of the distinguishing features of Roman history, that many
an event which seemed necessarily to lead to ruin, only brought out a
new career of prosperity. After the plague, one might have expected
the fall of Rome; and the peace with the Volscians was in the eyes of
the later Romans, who for this very reason tried to conceal it, in
some measure a humiliation; yet we have seen, how wise and fortunate
it was. From it there arose a source of power for Rome, which, even in
the most successful issue of the war, it would have been far from ever
possessing. The dissolution of the Latin state destroyed _de facto_ the
equality which was established in the league. The general opinion in
Dionysius, and also in Livy, is this, that the Latins were subjects of
the Romans, and that the war under Manlius and Decius in the year 410
(415), was a kind of rebellion. This is contradicted by the notice of
Cincius in Festus, according to which,--in his opinion, since Tullus
Hostilius--the Latins had their separate republic, and the supremacy
alternately with Rome. The true account is as follows: In the times
from Servius Tullius down to Tarquin the Proud, the Latins were on
a footing of equality with Rome; under Tarquin, they were subjects.
This state of submission was done away with by the defection of Latium
after the expulsion of the kings; after the battle at the Regillus,
it was perhaps restored for a couple of years; and at last, equality
was again established in the league of Sp. Cassius. In point of fact,
it continued for thirty years; but when the Latin towns were partly
occupied, partly destroyed by the Volscians, scarcely the fourth part
of the Latin league was left, and this could no more put forth the same
claims to equality as the whole state had done. It is evident, that
in the beginning of the fourth century, no ties of home policy bind
the Latin towns together any more. They have hardly a common tribunal
still: some towns, Ardea for instance, were entirely severed from
the rest.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account