Roman–Etruscan Wars
[14] In the 6th century BC, according to Livy, Rome's sixth king Servius Tullius went to war with Veii (after the expiry of an earlier truce) and with the rest of the Etruscans.
[19] Tarquinius, having failed to regain the throne using his allies of Tarquinii and Veii, next sought the aid of Lars Porsena, king of Clusium in 508 BC.
Accordingly, the senate took a number of measures to strengthen the resolve of the populace, including purchasing grain from the Volsci and from Cumae, nationalising licences for the sale of salt (which was at the time costly), and exempting the lower classes from taxes and port customs duties.
Next, with the approval of the senate a Roman youth named Gaius Mucius stealthily entered the Etruscan camp with the intent of assassinating Porsena.
To demonstrate the determination of the Romans, Mucius thrust his right hand into one of the Etruscan camp fires, thereby earning for himself and his descendants the cognomen Scaevola ("Lefty").
[26] Although the ancient Romans believed the siege was a historical event that had taken place, many modern historians[weasel words] think the war was at least partly mythical.
Although Livy makes no mention of the involvement of the Etruscans, the Fasti Triumphales record that the consul Publius Valerius Poplicola celebrated a triumph over both the Sabines and the Veientes in May 504 BC.
[29] In 480 BC, Rome was rent by internal dissension, which encouraged the Veientes to take the field in the hope of breaking Roman power.
The consuls, Marcus Fabius Vibulanus and Gnaeus Manlius Cincinnatus, mindful of the undisciplined conduct of the soldiers in the recent past, held their men back from fighting until repeated provocations by the Etruscan cavalry made the start of combat inevitable.
As his men began to fall back in disarray, Marcus Fabius arrived to prevent their slaughter and assure them that their leader was not dead.
Desperate to make their escape, the invaders assaulted the consul's position, and after a volley of missiles was repulsed, a final charge overwhelmed Manlius, who was mortally wounded.
The Roman troops again began to panic, but one of the fallen consul's officers moved his body and cleared a way for the Etruscans to escape, allowing Fabius to crush them as they fled.
[32] Although the battle was a great victory for Fabius, the loss of his brother and his colleague was a severe blow, and he declined the honor of a triumph that had been offered by the Senate.
[32][33][34] In 479 BC the war with Veii was assigned to the consul Titus Verginius Tricostus Rutilus, while his colleague Kaeso Fabius was dealing with an incursion by the Aequi.
[41] In the following year the consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso was assigned the war, but no fighting occurred, as the Veientes sued for peace, which the Romans accepted.
Camillus chose to march against the Volsci first, leaving, according to Livy, a force commanded by consular tribune L. Aemilius Mamercinus in the Veientine territory to guard against the Etruscans.
The Sutrines sent to Rome for aid and Camillus, now victorious against the Volsci and Aequi, marched to their relief, but before any help could arrive they were forced into a conditional surrender, being allowed to leave without weapons and only one garment apiece.
Meeting the exiled Sutrines that same day, Camillus ordered the baggage left behind and marched his now unencumbered army to Sutrium where he found the enemy still dispersed and busy plundering the city.
By the time Camillus and Valerius arrived at Sutrium, the Etruscans had taken half the city, the Sutrines desperately defending the rest behind street barricades.
[50] The many similarities between accounts of the campaigns of 389 and 386—in both Camillus is placed in command, defeats the Volsci and comes to the aid of Sutrium—has caused several modern authors to consider these to be doublets[Note 1] of each other.
Different later writers then treated these invented victories in different ways, assigning them to different years with different incidental detail, until in Livy's writings they emerge as separate, but ultimately both unhistorical, events.
[51] Cornell (1995) believes the Gallic sack of Rome to have been a setback from which she rapidly recovered, and sees the Roman victories that followed as continuation of an aggressive expansionist policy begun in the 420s.
[52] Oakley (1997) considers the accounts of a Roman victory against Etruscans in 389 to be historical, although all the details beyond the bare fact that Sutrium was successfully relieved have likely been invented.
As there would have been little incentive for ancient writers to invent the capture of obscure villages, modern historians tend to consider mention of otherwise unknown sites to be based on genuine records.
The Etruscan army had brought priests wielding snakes and torches, and at first this sight caused the Roman soldiers to flee in panic back to their entrenchments, but the consul shamed his men into resuming the struggle.
[63] According to some of the writers consulted by Livy, in 355 consul C. Sulpicius Peticus ravaged the territory of Tarquinii, but others held that he commanded jointly with his colleague against the Tiburtines.
[69] During 351, the final year of the war, consul T. Quinctius Pennus Capitolinus Crispinus campaigned against Falerii and his colleague C. Sulpicius Peticus against Tarquinii.
[74] Roman historians appear to have invented many early casualty reports, but they also seem to have had access to authentic records of enemies killed and captured from the late 4th century.
As usual Livy portrays Rome as victorious, but with the war dominated by raiding and no records of any towns attacked the scale of the fighting appears to have been limited.
The Gauls reneged and the Etruscans found themselves facing a Roman army under consul Titus Manlius who however died after a fall from his horse in a display of horsemanship.
