hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
388 BC 2 2 Browse Search
309 BC 2 2 Browse Search
307 BC 2 2 Browse Search
399 BC 1 1 Browse Search
391 BC 1 1 Browse Search
198 BC 1 1 Browse Search
153 BC 1 1 Browse Search
321 BC 1 1 Browse Search
216 BC 1 1 Browse Search
341 BC 1 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 10 (ed. Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D.). Search the whole document.

Found 3 total hits in 3 results.

305 BC (search for this): book 10, chapter 9
ortune but a warlike spirit. Apuleius, the other consul, laid siege to the town of Nequinum in Umbria. it was a steep place and on one side precipitous —the site is now occupied by Narnia —and could be captured neither by assault nor by siege operations. The enterprise was therefore still unfinished when Marcus Fulvius PaetusThe acta Triumphorum (C.I.L., 12, p. 171) give him as son of Gnaeus and grandson of Gnaeus; he is therefore not the same as the M. Fulvius who was consul in 305 B.C. (ix. xliv. 15), whose father and grandfather were both named Lucius. and Titus Manlius Torquatus, the new consuls, took it over. Licinius Macer and Tubero declare that all the centuries were for naming Quintus Fabius consul for this year, though he was not a candidate, but that Fabius himself urged them to defer his consulship to a year when there was more fighting; just then he would be of greater service to the state if invested with an urban magistracy. and so, neither dissemb
198 BC (search for this): book 10, chapter 9
ntroduced, by the same family in every instance.For the earlier laws de provocatione, see II. viii. 2, and III. Iv. 4. The reason for renewing it more than once was, I think, simply this, that the wealth of a few carried more power than the liberty of the plebs. yet the Porcian law alone seems to have been passed to protect the persons of the citizens, imposing, as it did, a heavy penalty if anyone should scourge or put to death a Roman citizen.This law was not passed until (probably) 198 B.C., at the instance of the elder Cato, who was then praetor. The Valerian law, having forbidden that he who had appealed should be scourged with rodsB.C. 299 or beheaded, merely provided that if anyone should disregard these injunctions it should be deemed a wicked act. this seemed, I suppose, a sufficiently strong sanction of the law, so modest were men in those days; at the present time one would hardly utter such a threat in earnest. The same consul conducted an insig
331 BC (search for this): book 10, chapter 9
ius Macer and Tubero declare that all the centuries were for naming Quintus Fabius consul for this year, though he was not a candidate, but that Fabius himself urged them to defer his consulship to a year when there was more fighting; just then he would be of greater service to the state if invested with an urban magistracy. and so, neither dissembling what he had in mind nor yet seeking it, he was elected curule aedile, with Lucius Papirius Cursor.Fabius had already held this office, 331 B.C. (viii. xviii. 4). i have been unable to put this down for certain, because Piso, one of the older annalists,For Piso and the other annalists see Vol. I. pp. xxviii- XXX. states that the curule aediles for that year were Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, the son of Gnaeus, and Spurius Carvilius Maximus, the son ofB.C. 299 Quintus. i fancy that this surname occasioned an error in regard to the aediles, and that a story afterwards grew up in harmony with the error, from a confusion of the