6.  II.  IV.  Victories of Salamis and Himera, and Their Effects

7.  II.  IV.  Fruitlessness of the Celtic Victory

8.  The grounds for assigning the document given in Polybius (iii. 22) not to 245, but to 406, are set forth in my Rom.  Chronologie, p. 320 f. [translated in the Appendix to this volume].

9.  II.  V. Domination of the Romans; Exasperation of the Latins

10.  II.  VII.  Breach between Rome and Tarentum

11.  II.  V. Colonization of the Volsci

12.  II.  V. Colonization of the Volsci

13.  II.  VI.  New Fortresses in Apulia and Campania

14.  II.  VI.  Last Struggles of Samnium

15.  II.  VII.  Construction of New Fortresses and Roads

16.  II.  VII.  The Boii

17.  II.  VII.  Construction of New Fortresses and Roads

18.  These were Pyrgi, Ostia, Antium, Tarracina, Minturnae, Sinuessa Sena Gallica, and Castrum Novum.

19.  This statement is quite as distinct (Liv. viii. 14; -interdictum mari Antiati populo est-) as it is intrinsically credible; for Antium was inhabited not merely by colonists, but also by its former citizens who had been nursed in enmity to Rome (ii.  V. Colonizations in The Land Of The Volsci).  This view is, no doubt, inconsistent with the Greek accounts, which assert that Alexander the Great (431) and Demetrius Poliorcetes (471) lodged complaints at Rome regarding Antiate pirates.  The former statement is of the same stamp, and perhaps from the same source, with that regarding the Roman embassy to Babylon (ii.  VII.  Relations Between The East and West).  It seems more likely that Demetrius Poliorcetes may have tried by edict to put down piracy in the Tyrrhene sea which he had never set eyes upon, and it is not at all inconceivable that the Antiates may have even as Roman citizens, in defiance of the prohibition, continued for a time their old trade in an underhand fashion:  much dependence must not however, be placed even on the second story.

20.  II.  VI.  Last Campaigns in Samnium

21.  II.  VII.  Decline of the Roman Naval Power

22.  According to Servius (in Aen. iv. 628) it was stipulated in the Romano-Carthaginian treaties, that no Roman should set foot on (or rather occupy) Carthaginian, and no Carthaginian on Roman, soil, but Corsica was to remain in a neutral position between them (-ut neque Romani ad litora Carthaginiensium accederent neque Carthaginienses ad litora Romanorum.....Corsica esset media inter Romanos et Carthaginienses-).  This appears to refer to our present period, and the colonization of Corsica seems to have been prevented by this very treaty.

23.  II.  VII.  Submission of Lower Italy

24.  The clause, by which a dependent people binds itself “to uphold in a friendly manner the sovereignty of that of Rome” (-maiestatem populi Romani comiter conservare-), is certainly the technical appellation of that mildest form of subjection, but it probably did not come into use till a considerably later period (Cic. pro Balbo, 16, 35).  The appellation of clientship derived from private law, aptly as in its very indefiniteness it denotes the relation (Dig. xlix. 15, 7, i), was scarcely applied to it officially in earlier times.