2.  II.  Vi.  Last Struggles of Samnium

3.  Near the modern Anglona; not to be confounded with the better known town of the same name in the district of Cosenza.

4.  These numbers appear credible.  The Roman account assigns, probably in dead and wounded, 15,000 to each side; a later one even specifies 5000 as dead on the Roman, and 20,000 on the Greek side.  These accounts may be mentioned here for the purpose of exhibiting, in one of the few instances where it is possible to check the statement, the untrustworthiness—­almost without exception—­of the reports of numbers, which are swelled by the unscrupulous invention of the annalists with avalanche-like rapidity.

5.  The later Romans, and the moderns following them, give a version of the league, as if the Romans had designedly avoided accepting the Carthaginian help in Italy.  This would have been irrational, and the facts pronounce against it.  The circumstance that Mago did not land at Ostia is to be explained not by any such foresight, but simply by the fact that Latium was not at all threatened by Pyrrhus and so did not need Carthaginian aid; and the Carthaginians certainly fought for Rome in front of Rhegium.

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.