Romans and Italians 447few even had citizenship. However, the familiar pattern emerges eventually: those from
groups closer to Rome geographically and with older ties to the state, and those who
could rationalize an ethnic tie to the traditional aristocracy, were more successful in the
political culture of the capital. Patronage from established Roman families accounts for
much of their success, especially as the Republic slides into the Triumviral period. Yet,
only under Augustus, whentota Italiabegan to emerge as an idea in practice and Italic
ethnic origins of all types became a marker of closeness, do we see attempts by men from
these other areas of Italy to celebrate their ethnic identity.
Besides the charge of treachery that they earned for joining Hannibal, the Campanians
had a reputation for luxury-loving, which pervades our Roman sources (Tagliamonte
1994: 130ff., 142ff.). Livy (e.g., 7.31.5–6) makes much of this, claiming that their
propensity in this regard had enervated their capacity to resist Rome effectively, and
subsequently corrupted their capacity for loyalty. Some postulated that the fertility
of their soil had something to do with their behavior, as well as their connections to
the south Italian Greeks (Polybius 7.1.1–2, Cicero,De Lege Agraria2.95; Seneca,
Epistulae51.5). Campanian success in business ventures around the Mediterranean
from the second centuryBCEonward may have contributed to this reputation. It is
noteworthy that their stereotype was still around in the fourth centuryCE: Ammianus
Marcellinus (14.6.25) uses the phraseCampana lascivia(‘Campanian indulgence’),
with some evident expectation that his readers would recognize the reference. Perhaps
continued use of the region as a villa center and vacation area for wealthy Romans
kept this reputation going long after the Campanians had become assimilated into
Roman Italy.
The Samnites, Lucanians, and other south Italian groups also had to deal with a repu-
tation for treachery, since they too had participated in many revolts against Rome. The
Bruttians of south Italy deserve special attention in this regard. Our Roman sources
acknowledge that the rebellious reputation of the Bruttians actually came from the neigh-
boring Lucanians, since the Bruttians were their subject people before becoming allied to
Rome. In fact, the geographer Strabo (6.1.4) informs us that the ethnicBruttiuscomes
from the Lucanian word for “rebel,” and Diodorus Siculus (16.15) follows a similar tra-
dition, claiming that “Bruttian” means “runaway slave” in a local language. Diodorus
even tells us that Bruttium was a state founded by such runaways who separated from
Lucania in the 350sBCE(Guzzo 1996; see Chapter 34 by John Wonder in this volume).
As with the Greek opinion of the Etruscans, the Romans may have picked up on the
ethnic evaluations of various south Italian people at the time of their first contact and
interpreted them in light of their own experiences with them. As a counterpoint, one
notes a legend more favorable to the Bruttians, perhaps reflecting an indigenous tradi-
tion, that either a “Brettos,” son of Heracles and a Valentia, or “Brettia,” a daughter,
was their eponymous hero (Farney 2007: 196, with sources).
Hand in hand with their rebelliousness, and as mountain folk of modest means, the var-
ious Apennine people were notoriously tough, crude warriors, “noble savages” at best
(Tagliamonte 1994; 1996; Dench 1995). As with the Sabines, these Oscan-speaking
people were famed for their frugal lifestyle and were thought to practice marriage cus-
toms designed to produce the best possible soldiers. That they were often charged with
uncouth behavior may come from an earlier period when they were regarded as just sav-
ages without nobility. Other mountain folk were characterized in a manner similar to that