12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
For those who study the Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul — let it be said at once — there is little or no hope of writing an adequate historical account. To say this is not to disparage what has been done. The subject has been treated admirably, with full critical care, by scholars who combined intimate knowledge of the region with personal feeling for its importance in Italian history, in the light of Gallic social conditions and Roman policy and military methods — always with the reservation ‘as far as the recorded evidence allows’.
1 For the historical background, treated in detail, see above all De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani [cited as ‘De Sanctis’], Vols, iii-iv, 1 (Turin, 1916-1923); cf. iv, 1, p. 410Google Scholar: ‘Campo aperto alle falsificazioni dell' annalistica … e in realtà possiamo a gran pena seguire le direttive principalissime dello svolgersi dei fatti.’
2 On factors of terrain and strategy, fully discussed, see now Toynbee, Arnold J., Hannibal's Legacy [cited as ‘Toynbee’], Vols, i-ii (London, O.U.P., 1965), especially Vol. ii, pp. 252 ff., 660Google Scholar ff. My debt to this work will be clear: it clarified and enlarged impressions I had gained on the ground and from study of the Annalistic parts of Livy.
3 Polyb. ii 14-35; cf. Walbank, F.W., Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. i (Oxford, 1957), pp. 172Google Scholar ff.
4 Cary, M., The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1949), pp. 113Google Scholar ff.; Toynbee, ii, pp. 252-60: Barfield, L., Northern Italy before Rome (London, 1971), pp. 146Google Scholar ff.
5 Toynbee, i, pp. 85-8.
6 Polyb. ii 21; cf. Walbank, , Comm. i, pp. 191-4.Google Scholar
7 Polyb. ii 31-35; Toynbee, ii, pp. 260-5; cf. Frank, Tenney, C. A. H. Vol. vii, pp. 810-15Google Scholar; Salmon, E.T., Roman Colonization under the Republic (London, 1969), pp. 102Google Scholar ff.
8 Livy, , Per. xxGoogle Scholar, cf. Polyb. iii 40.5; De Sanctis, iii, 2, pp. 6-7, 102-4.
9 Polyb. ii 17.9-12; cf. Powell, T.G.E., The Celts (London, 1958), pp. 80-3, 106-8.Google Scholar
10 Livy xxviii 46, xxix 5, xxx 18-19; De Sanctis, iii, 2, pp. 511-2, 540-2. On C. Servilius cf. Livy xxx 19.6-9.
11 Livy xxxi 2.5-10; De Sanctis, iv, 1, p. 412; Toynbee, i, pp. 485-7; ii, p. 268.
12 Livy xxxi 2.11.
13 Livy xxxi 10-11.3, 21-22.3, 47.4-49.3; De Sanctis, iv, 1, p. 412 n. 11; cf. Briscoe, J., Commentary on Livy, Books XXXI-XXXIII (Oxford, 1973), pp. 82 ft., 110 ff., 158Google Scholar f.
14 Livy xxxii 7.5-8.
15 Livy xxxii 9.5, 26.1-3 (doublets).
16 Polyb. xviii 11.1-2: 
17 Livy xxxii 29.5-31.6, xxxiii 22.1-23.9; Briscoe, , Comm. pp. 226-7, 291-3.Google Scholar
18 Livy xxxiii 36.13-15. Livy cites Valerius Antias and Claudius (Quadrigarius) on the booty, and adds: ‘Id quoque inter scriptores ambigitur utrum in Boios prius an Insubres consul exercitum duxerit.’ Note in particular Toynbee, ii, p. 270 n. 3.
19 Cf. n. 11, on C. Ampius in 201.
20 In 218, cf. Polyb. iii 40. 11-13, Livy xxi 25.8-26.2; in 216, cf. Polyb. iii 118.6, Livy xxiii 24.6-13; Toynbee, ii, pp. 259-60.
21 On the Laevi and Libui cf. Polyb. ii 17.4; Walbank, , Comm. i, p. 182.Google Scholar
22 Livy xxxiii 37. 9-12; cf. n. 13 for his triumph as praetor in 200.
23 Livy xxxii 30.6 (the excuse of the Cenomani); cf. n. 17.
24 Livy xxxiv 22.1-3, 42.2: cf. n. 20.
25 Livy xxxiv 46.1.
26 Livy xxxiv 46.4-47.8.
27 Livy xxxiv 43.4-5; cf. Scullard, H.H., Roman Politics, 220-150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), pp. 116-8.Google Scholar
28 Livy xxxiv 48.1; cf. nn. 15 and 24 (on the doublets), where routine work at Placentia and Cremona is also regarded as ‘nihil memorabile’.
29 Livy xxxv4-5, 6.5-10, 8.
30 Cf. McDonald, A.H., ‘The Roman Historians’ in Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), pp. 470-2, 474.Google Scholar
31 Livy xxxv 22.3-4, 40.2-4 (doublets).
32 Livy xxxvi 38.5-7, 39.3-40.14; xxxvii 2.5; cf. De Sanctis, iv, 1, p. 415.
33 Livy xxxiv 56.1-7; xxxv 3, 11, 21.7-11; xxxvi 38.1-4; xxxvii 46.1-2; cf. Toynbee, ii, pp. 273 ff., 277-8.
34 Livy xxxvii 46.9-11.
35 Livy xxxvii 57.7-8.
36 Livy xxxix 2.6 and 10; on this Via Flaminia cf. Hardie, Colin, JRS 55 (1965), 129.Google Scholar
37 Livy xxxix 55.6-8; and note in general Ewins, U., ‘The Early Colonisation of Cisalpine Gaul’, Papers of the British School at Rome 20 (1952), 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff.
38 Cf. McDonald, A.H., ‘The Style of Livy’, JRS 47 (1957), 155-9Google Scholar; Toynbee, ii, pp. 36-43; Walsh, P.G., ‘Livy’, Greece & Rome, New Surveys No. 8 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 23-9.Google Scholar
39 See Nissen, H., Krit, Untersuchungen über die Quellen der iv und v Dekade des Livius (Berlin, 1863), pp. 53–85.Google Scholar
40 Nissen, op. cit., pp. 86 ff.; Kahrstedt, U., Die Annalistik von Livius, B. XXXI-XLV (Berlin, 1913), pp. 58–84Google Scholar; cf. Briscoe, , Comm. pp. 3–6Google Scholar, but he presses his general conclusions too far.
41 Cf. Briscoe, op. cit., pp. 1-3.
42 Kahrstedt, op. cit., pp. 1-20; cf. Briscoe, , Comm. pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
43 See nn. 15,24,31.
44 Cf. Walsh, P.G., Livy (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 141Google Scholar ff.; Walbank, F.W. in Livy (ed. Dorey, T.A.; London, 1971), pp. 49Google Scholar ff.
