208 LUCANIA. had not, however, subdued the Greek cities on the coasts, some of yhlch fell at a later period under the yoke of the Bruttians ; while others maintained their independence, though for the most part in a decayed and enfeebled condition, till the period of the Roman dominion. [Magna Graecia.] Shortly afterwards, the Lucanians lost the Bruttian peninsula, their most recent acquisition, by the revolt of the Brut- tians, who, from a mere troop of outlaws and ban- ditti, gradually coalesced into a formidable nation. [Bkuttii.] The establishment of this power in the extreme south, confined the Lucanians within the limits which are commonly assigned from this time forth to their territory; they seem to have acqui- esced, after a brief struggle, in the independence of of the Bruttians, and soon made common cause with them against the Greeks. Their arms were now principally directed against the Tarentines, on their eastern frontier. The latter people, who had appa- rently taken little part in the earlier contests of the Greeks with the Lucanians, were now compelled to provide for their own defence ; and successively called in the assistance of Arcbidamus, king of Sparta, and Alexander, king of Epirus. The former monarch was slain in a battle against the Lucanians in b. c. 338, and his whole army cut to pieces (Diod. xvi. 63, 88; Strab. vi. p. 280); but Alexander proved a more formidable antagonist: he defeated the Lucanians (though supported by the Samnites) in a great battle near Paestum, as well as in several minor encounters, took several of their cities, and carried bis arms into the heart of Brut- tium, where he ultimately fell in battle near Pan- dosia, B. c. 326. (Liv. viii. 24 ; Justin, xii. 2, sxi>i. 1 ; Strab. vi. p. 256.) It would appear as if the power of the Lucanians was considerably broken at this period; and in B.C. 303, when we next hear of them as engaged in war with the Tarentines, the very arrival of Cleonymus from Sparta is said to have terrified them into the conclusion of a treaty. (Diod. XX. 104.) Meantime the Lucanians had become involved in relations with a more formidable power. Already, in B.C. 326, immediately after the death of Alexander king of Epirus, the Lucanians are mentioned as voluntarily concluding a treaty of peace and alliance with Rome, which was then just entering on the Second Samnite War. (Liv. viii. 25.) We have no explanation of the causes which led to this change of policy ; just before, we find -them in alliance with the Samnites, and very shortly after they returned once more to their old allies, (lb. 27.) But though they were thus brought into a state of direct hostility with Rome, it was not till b. c. 317, that the course of events allowed the Romans to punish their defection. In that year the consuls for the lir.->t time entered Lucania, and took the town of Nerulum by as.sault. (Liv. ix. 20.) The Lucanians were evidently included in the peace which put an end to the Second Sanmite War (b. o. 304), and from this time continued steadfast in the Roman alliance; so that it was the attack made on them by the Samnites which led to the Third Samnite War, b. c. 298. (Liv. X. 11.) Throughout that struggle the Lucanians seem to have been faithful to Rome ; and were probably admitted to an alliance on favour- able conditions at its close. But in b. c. 286, they having turned their arms against Thurii, the Romans took up the cause of the besieged city, and declared war against the Lucanians, over whom M'. Curius is said to have celebrated an ovation. (Aur. Vict, de LUCANIA. Vir Illust. 33) ; and four years afterwards (b. c. 282) the allied forces of the Lucanians and Samnites, which had again beleaguered Thurii, were defeated in a great battle by C. Fabricius. (Val. Max. i. 8. § 6.) On the arrival of Pyrrhus in Italy (b.c. 281) the Lucanians were among the first to declare in favour of that monarch, though it was not till after his victory at Heraclea that they actually sent their contingent to his support. (Plut. Pyrr. 13, 17; Zonar. viii. 3.) The Lucanian auxiliaries are espe- cially mentioned in the sei-vice of that prince at the battle of Asculum (Dionys. xx., Fr. Didot) : but when Pyn-hus withdrew from Italy, he left his allies at the mercy of the Roman arms, and the Lucanians in particular, were exposed to the full brunt of their resentment. After they had seen their armies de- feated, and their territory ravaged in several suc- cessive compaigns, by C. Fabricius, Cornelius Ru- finus, and M'. Curius, they were at length reduced to submission by Sp. Carvilius and L. Papirius Cursor in b. c. 272. (Zonar. viii. 6; Eutrop. ii. 14; Liv. Epit. siii., xiv. ; Fast. Capit.') From this time the Lucanians continued in undis- turbed subjection to Rome till the Second Punic War. In the celebrated register of the Roman forces in B.C. 225, the Lucanians (including, probably, the Bruttians, who are not separately noticed) are reck- oned as capable of bringing into the field 30,000 foot and 3000 horse, so that they must have been still a numerous and powerful people. (Pol. ii. 24.) But they suffered severely in the Second Punic War. Having declared in favour of Hannibal after the battle of Cannae (b. c. 216), their territory became during many successive campaigns the theatre of war, and was ravaged, in turn, by both contending armies. Thus, in b. c. 214, it was the scene of the contest between Sempronius Gracchus and Hanno ; in the following year Gracchus employed the whole campaign within its limits, and it was in Lucania that that general met with his untimely death in the summer of b. c. 212. (Liv. xxii. 61, xxiv. 20, XXV. 1, 16.) At length, in b. c. 209, the Lucanians, in conjunction with the Hirpini, abandoned the alli- ance of Hannibal, and betrayed the garrisons which he had left in their towns into the hands of the Romans ; in consideration of which service they were admitted to favourable terms. (Id. xxvii. 15.) They did not, however, yet escape the evils of war ; for in the next year their territory was the scene of the campaign of JIarcellus and Crispinus against Hannibal, in which both consuls perished; and it was not till after the battle of the Metaurus, in b. c. 207, that Hannibal withdrew his forces into Brut- tium, and abandoned the attempt to maintain his footing in Lucania. (Liv. xxvii. 51, xxviii. 11.) Strabo tells us that the Lucanians were punished by the Romans for their defection to Hannibal, by being reduced to the same degraded condition as the Bruttians. (Strab. v. p. 251.) But this can only be true of those among them who had refused to join in the general submission of the people in b. c. 209, and clung to Hannibal to the last: the others were restored to a somewhat favourable condition, and continued to form a considerable nation ; though, if we may trust to the statement of Strabo, they never recovered from the ravages of this war. But it was the Social War (a.c. 90 — 88) that gave the final blow to the prosperity of Lucania. The Lucanians on that occasion were among the first to take up arms; and, after bearing an important part throughout the contest, they still, in conjunction with
