previous next
26. Fabius, as soon as he returned to Rome, qualified his discourses, both in the senate and when brought before the people, in such a manner as to appear neither to exaggerate, or lessen, any particular relating to the war; and to show, that, in agreeing to another general being joined with him, he rather indulged the apprehensions of others, than guarded against any danger to himself, or the public. [2] “But if they chose,” he said, “to give him an assistant in the war, and associate in command, how could he overlook Publius Decius the consul, whom he had tried during so many associations in office? [3] There was no man living whom he would rather wish to be joined in commission with him: with Publius Decius he should have forces sufficient, and never too many enemies. [4] If, however, his colleague preferred any other employment, let them then give him Lucius Volumnius as an assistant.” The disposal of every particular was left entirely to Fabius by the people and the senate, and even by his colleague. And when Decius declared that he was ready to go either to Etruria or Samnium, such general congratulation and satisfaction took place, that victory was anticipated, and it seemed as if a triumph, not a war, had been decreed to the consuls. [5] I find in some writers, that Fabius and Decius, immediately on their entering into office, set out together for Etruria, without any mention of the casting of lots for the provinces, or of the disputes which I have related. [6] Others, not satisfied with relating those disputes, have added charges of misconduct, laid by Appius before the people against Fabius, when absent; and a stubborn opposition, maintained by the praetor against the consul, when present; and also another contention between the colleagues, Decius insisting that each consul should attend to the care of his own separate province. [7] Certainty, [p. 663]however, begins to appear from the time when both consuls set out for the campaign. Now, before the consuls arrived in Etruria, the Senonian Gauls came in a vast body to Clusium, to attack the Roman legion and the camp. [8] Scipio, who commanded the camp, wishing to remedy the deficiency of his numbers by an advantage in the ground, led his men up a hill, which stood between the camp and the city: [9] but having, in his haste, neglected to examine the place, he reached near the summit, which he found already possessed by the enemy, who had ascended on the other side. The legion was consequently attacked on the rear, and surrounded in the middle, when the enemy pressed it on all sides. [10] Some writers say, that the whole were cut off, so that not one survived to give an account of it; [11] and that no information of the misfortune reached the consuls, who were, at the time, not far from Clusium, until the Gallic horsemen came within sight, carrying the heads of the slain, some hanging before their horses' breasts, others on the points of their spears, and expressing their triumph in songs according to their custom. [12] Others affirm, that the defeat was by Umbrians, not Gauls, and that the loss sustained was not so great. That a party of foragers, under Lucius Manlius Torquatus, lieutenant-general, being surrounded, Scipio, the proprietor, brought up relief from the camp, and the battle being renewed, that the Umbrians, lately victorious, were defeated, and the prisoners and spoil retaken. [13] But it is more probable that this blow was suffered from a Gallic than an Umbrian enemy; [14] because during that year, as was often the case at other times, the danger principally apprehended by the public, was that of a Gallic tumult; for which reason, notwithstanding that both the consuls had marched against the enemy, with four legions, and a large body of Roman cavalry, joined by a thousand chosen horsemen of Campania, supplied on the occasion, and a body of the allies and Latin confederates, superior in number to the Romans, two other armies were posted near the city, on the side facing Etruria; one in the Faliscian, the other in the Vatican territory. [15] Cneius Fulvius and Lucius Postumius Megellus, both propraetors, were ordered to keep the troops stationed in those places.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

load focus Notes (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1898)
load focus Summary (English, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1926)
load focus Summary (Latin, W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1898)
load focus Summary (Latin, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1926)
load focus Latin (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1898)
load focus Latin (Charles Flamstead Walters, Robert Seymour Conway, 1919)
load focus Latin (Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1926)
load focus English (Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1926)
load focus English (Rev. Canon Roberts, 1912)
hide References (30 total)
  • Commentary references to this page (7):
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.49
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 36.2
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 36.7
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 38.17
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 39-40, commentary, 40.14
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 43-44, commentary, 43.1
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, book 45, commentary, 45.36
  • Cross-references to this page (15):
  • Cross-references in general dictionaries to this page (8):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: