Marcus Furius Camillus: The Life of Rome's Second Founder

By Marc Hyden

This is the only modern biography of Marcus Furius Camillus currently available in English.

Camillus served as a censor, was elected to six consular tribuneships, appointed dictator five times, and enjoyed four triumphs. He toppled mighty Veii, ejected the Senones from Rome following its sacking, and helped orchestrate a grand compromise between the patricians and plebeians. The Romans even considered him Rome’s second founder – a proud appellation for any Roman – and revered him for being an exemplar of Roman virtue. Interestingly, he never held the consulship. Plutarch stated that Camillus had avoided it on purpose, and for good reason. The office was often at the heart of controversy, given that patricians dominated it for most of Camillus’ life.

The appointment of a dictator was an emergency measure taken only in the direst of situations and the fact that Camillus was repeatedly appointed speaks of a period when the young Republic was surrounded by enemies and still fighting for survival. Without Camillus’ efforts the city may never have fulfilled its great destiny. Marc Hyden sifts the fragmentary and contradictory sources and, while acknowledging that much legend and exaggeration quickly accrued around Camillus’ name, presents the story of this remarkable life as the ancient Romans knew it.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pen and Sword
• Release date: Sep 30, 2023
• ISBN: 9781399055802

Marc Hyden

Marc Hyden is the Director of State Government Affairs at a Washington DC-based think tank, and he graduated from Georgia State University with a degree in philosophy. He has had a long-standing fascination with ancient Rome and has written extensively on various aspects of its history. He is also the author of 'Gaius Marius: The Rise and Fall of Rome’s Saviour' (Pen & Sword, 2017).

Book preview

Marcus Furius Camillus

Marcus Furius Camillus

The Life of Rome’s Second Founder

Marc Hyden

First published in Great Britain in 2023 by

Pen & Sword Military

An imprint of Pen & Sword Books Limited

Yorkshire – Philadelphia

Copyright © Marc Hyden 2023

ISBN 978 1 39905 578 9

epub ISBN 978 1 39905 580 2

mobi ISBN 978 1 39905 580 2

The right of Marc Hyden to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing.

Pen & Sword Books Limited incorporates the imprints of After the Battle, Atlas, Archaeology, Aviation, Discovery, Family History, Fiction, History, Maritime, Military, Military Classics, Politics, Select, Transport, True Crime, Air World, Frontline Publishing, Leo Cooper, Remember When, Seaforth Publishing, The Praetorian Press, Wharncliffe Local History, Wharncliffe Transport, Wharncliffe True Crime and White Owl.

For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact

PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED

47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England

E-mail: [e-mail]

Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

or

PEN AND SWORD BOOKS

1950 Lawrence Rd, Havertown, PA 19083, USA

E-mail: [e-mail]

Website: www.penandswordbooks.com

For my grandmother

Contents

Chronology

Maps

Preface

Chapter 1 Mount Algidus

Chapter 2 Censor

Chapter 3 Alban Lake

Chapter 4 Veii

Chapter 5 Triumph

Chapter 6 Apuleius

Chapter 7 Senones

Chapter 8 Ardea

Chapter 9 ‘Vae victis!’

Chapter 10 Rome

Chapter 11 Sutrium

Chapter 12 Satricum

Chapter 13 Marcus Manlius Capitolinus

Chapter 14 Lucius Furius

Chapter 15 Licinius Stolo

Chapter 16 Gauls

Chapter 17 Camillus

Notes and References

Notes

Bibliography

Chronology*

* The chronology and dates are approximate, and largely reflect the Livian tradition and Varronian dating.

Maps

Seven Hills of Rome.

The Mediterranean near Rome.

Rome and southern Etruria.

Rome and much of Latium.

Preface

Despite being celebrated as the second founder of Rome, Camillus was and still remains an enigma. Even though modern historians largely agree that Camillus was, in fact, a historical figure, far more is unknown about Camillus and early Roman history than is known. To begin with, Roman documents from Camillus’ era are no longer extant – save for a few fragments – and later historians recorded much of Camillus’ biography and Rome’s history. While many ancient writers mentioned Camillus and chronicled episodes connected to his biography, the most comprehensive of these accounts come from Livy and Plutarch. As such, most of what we know – or think we know – about Camillus comes from historians who lived hundreds of years after his death. The late arrival of such histories calls into question their accuracy, as do other problems with sundry Greek and Roman writings.

Like many ancient accounts, they differ from author to author. Often the variations are minor, but at other times, they are drastic, creating maddening frustration for serious historians. With regard to Camillus’ life, some ancient authors recorded very similar narratives, while various episodes bear slight discrepancies. Meanwhile, other writers presented completely different sequences of events, and at times do not mention Camillus at all in connection to exploits normally associated with his life. This isn’t an aberration though. Much of Rome’s early history is uncertain, thanks to the extant literary record. Even basic details, such as who served as consuls or consular tribunes in any given year, can draw different answers from Livy, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the fasti capitolini.

Further muddling matters, academics have been quick to point out that other components within the ancient accounts of early Roman history should generate ample suspicion. The traditional dating paradigm, which is known as Varronian chronology, appears inaccurate and may mean that certain episodes in Camillus’ life are off by a handful of years. What’s more, as many have asserted, some ancient reports seem as though their authors recast and remodelled real events in a more glorious light, perhaps leading to exaggerations and even falsehoods being accepted as truthful accounts. Again, most moderns do not doubt that Camillus was a veritable historical person, but they assert that the ancients may have embellished much about his life as Camillus evolved from a successful Roman politician and general into a legendary character of near mythological status.

All of this makes compiling an accurate biography of Camillus challenging, which may indicate why no comprehensive biography of Camillus has been published before in English. In order to fill this void, some creativity was required. The methodology guiding this work includes primarily following the traditions found in Livy and Plutarch – the only two extensive extant accounts of Camillus’ life – and relying on Varronian chronology. These narratives are simultaneously supplemented with other ancient works and modern commentary.

The story of Camillus may very well be an amalgam of fact and fiction, but to the Romans, he was their heroic second founder. He achieved an astounding level of political and military success. He sacked mighty Veii, expelled the Gauls from Rome and defeated them on the field. Afterwards he oversaw Rome’s reconstruction, and as a consummate politician, he wisely counselled the Romans and helped orchestrate grand compromises for the good of Rome. He did all of this while demonstrating admirable virtues. There was no other Roman like him.

While it is up to the reader to decide how much – if any – of the Camillus story was fabricated, this book presents the orthodox account of his life and the legend that the ancient Romans knew so well.

Chapter One

Mount Algidus

‘[Camillus], by his own efforts, was the first of his clan to achieve fame. This he did in the great battle with the Aequians and Volscians, serving under Postumius Tubertus the dictator. Dashing out on his horse in front of the army, he did not abate his speed when he got a wound in the thigh, but dragging the missile along with him in its wound, he engaged the bravest of the enemy and put them to flight.’

Plutarch

Sometime around 365 BC, one of Rome’s greatest heroes – Marcus Furius Camillus – lay in his bed. He was suffering from some pestilence and was inches away from death. He had lived a life of legendary proportion and survived many battles, but this illness was much different than his prior struggles. It would ultimately claim his life, but as he doggedly resisted the disease, his mind likely drifted towards his greatest exploits and proudest moments.¹

Camillus had risen to fame, become Rome’s leading man, vanquished numerous enemies on the battlefield and attained unrivalled political success. He had served a term as censor, been elected to as many as six consular tribuneships, was appointed dictator five times and enjoyed four triumphs. At the time of his death, he was more accomplished and influential than any previous Roman, save perhaps the fabled Romulus. Whether Camillus predicted it or not, the later Romans believed that he embodied what it meant to be an exemplary Roman, and they would remember him almost as a demigod because of his selfless and valiant endeavours.²

Given that Camillus’ impressive deeds seemed to have breathed new life into the Republic, the Romans heralded him the second founder of Rome. Indeed, if the stories about Camillus are even remotely credible, then without his contributions, Rome may have never accomplished many of its extraordinary feats or become the dominant power of later years. Fortunately for the Romans, they reached this potential and their achievements still leave moderns in awe.³

Mere mentions of Rome inspire images of gaudy temples, colossal stadiums, intricately engineered aqueducts and dazzling gladiatorial events and chariot races. Today Rome is synonymous with triumphant legions, great wealth, prestige and unrestrained decadence, but most of all, Rome is equated with unbridled power. The truth is that the ancient world had never before seen a nation like Rome, and in many ways, the world hasn’t witnessed one since. Rome became a thriving empire that, at one point, stretched from the modern-day United Kingdom to the Middle East. At its apogee, Rome was home to 70 million or more people – possibly comprising about 20 per cent of the world’s population – and the ancient city of Rome was the largest on the globe. It boasted more than 1 million inhabitants, a number not matched by any other city until London in the 1800s.⁴

Yet Rome wasn’t always a sprawling empire or a marble metropolis teeming with spectacles of ostentatious opulence. Its roots were much humbler. Legend has it that Romulus founded Rome around 753 BC, and a series of monarchs subsequently ruled over the nascent kingdom. By 509 BC, however, the Romans grew tired of being governed by despots and deposed their ruling king, and they replaced their monarchy with a republican form of government that included different checks and balances. Thereupon free Romans began to enjoy more rights and liberties, including the ability to regularly elect their leaders and vote on proposed laws and declarations of war. This form of government became massively successful and helped plant the seeds of Rome’s eventual dominance, but that came much later.

Even though the Romans obtained additional freedoms under this system, the so-called Republic was really more of an oligarchy – at least at first – and it was marked by great inequality. The powerful nobility, whose members were known as the patricians, at times enjoyed a near monopoly on both political and religious power. While many modern historians believe that Roman society from this time period was more complex than what the Roman and Greek authors claimed, per the ancient accounts, beneath the patricians in the social hierarchy were plebeians and then slaves. It is impossible to know how many slaves lived in Rome by Camillus’ era, but they certainly existed and were mainly composed of prisoners of war or were acquired through trade with the Etruscans. Their numbers were significant, but their share of Roman society was smaller than the later Roman Republic’s slave population, which represented more than 20 per cent of Rome’s inhabitants.⁵

The plebeians, on the other hand, enjoyed more liberties than slaves, but in early Republican Rome, the plebs only had diminutive voting power and weren’t permitted to hold certain public offices. Moreover, the plebeians believed that the patricians abused the system of governance for selfish purposes, hoarded the state’s public lands – known as the ager publicus – to further enrich themselves, and oppressed the plebs with debt and usury. Consequently, the plebeians and patricians clashed on a number of occasions, and understandably so. The aristocrats struggled to retain their perceived birthrights, way of life and influence, while the plebeians sought some semblance of equity, a greater share of the state’s resources and increased political power.

The ongoing discord between the classes – known as the conflict of the orders – came to a head numerous times and was a central theme throughout much of the early Republic’s history. Around 494 BC, less than two decades following the formation of the Roman Republic, the plebs were already at their wits’ end. According to the ancient sources, they complained of rampant and burdensome indebtedness and the government’s refusal to alleviate their plight, although there was probably more to it than just this. Whatever the case, after Rome’s ruling class had repeatedly ignored their overtures, the plebeians employed a new tactic: a massive number of them laid down their tools, left their shops, quit the city and camped on a nearby hill.⁶

While there, they created a plebeian voting body – called the plebeian council – and established the office of plebeian tribuneship, which was meant to protect plebeians from arbitrary and harsh mistreatment at the hands of the rich and politically connected. In spite of the intended purpose, plebeian aristocrats who were more focused on their own interests than that of the plebeian body often held this position. Eventually, ten tribunes of the plebs were elected each year, and it became an incredibly powerful post that wielded veto power over many official actions in Roman. In time, they could even introduce legislation, impacting all Romans, patrician and plebeian alike.⁷

Faced with the spectre of a plebeian body that was refusing to reintegrate into Roman society, the patricians resolved to make some concessions and ultimately recognized the plebeian council and the plebeian tribunes. After settling on more favourable terms, the plebs re-entered Rome, but future troubles weren’t far off. By 449 BC, the plebeians were once again feeling oppressed, and many abandoned the city until the patricians agreed to the plebeian demands for greater political power and fairer treatment. Even when awarded a more equitable arrangement, the threat of a secession and near constant strife between the orders continued for years.⁸

These internal sociopolitical struggles weighed heavily on the state, but the Romans also had to cope with the day’s geopolitical realities. Rome in the sixth and fifth centuries BC was, in some ways, just one fledgling city among many that laboured to survive and gain supremacy, and at the time, potential enemies essentially surrounded the Romans. Chief among them was the mighty city of Veii and its Etruscan allies and the Volscian and Aequian tribes. These peoples ensured that Rome was regularly involved in costly conflicts for centuries.

War in this era, however, was far different to that of later epochs. These conflicts usually only lasted one season at a time, in part, because the Romans and other ancient communities weren’t equipped for year-round conflicts. Their armies were essentially part-time citizen militias, and the troops couldn’t be at war for long because they needed to return home to tend their farms. This was largely a consequence of Rome’s circumstances at the time. While the later Roman Empire’s economy was highly complex and boasted vast trade and manufacturing, the Rome that Camillus and his predecessors knew was much simpler. There is some evidence of the Romans occasionally importing grain and pottery, but Rome’s economy was primarily based on some aspect of military action and farming.⁹

Agricultural workers cultivated a host of crops including wheat, barley, root vegetables, beans, olives and, of course, wine grapes, but most farms only provided enough sustenance for the owners’ families. Others engaged in pastoral activities and raised sheep, pigs and cattle, but eating meat was a privilege not enjoyed by many with regularity. Most Romans of this era likely survived on a simple diet of bread, porridge and vegetables.¹⁰

Considering Rome’s truly meagre beginnings, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that the Rome of the monarchal and early Republican periods wasn’t particularly impressive. The Rome of Emperor Augustus was reportedly built of dazzling marble and imposing structures, but the Rome of Camillus was constructed mostly of wood, thatch, and mud and stone bricks. The streets were narrow, winding and bustling with rickety carts transporting goods.

Even the era’s temples and administrative buildings would have been so humble that they’d be deemed laughable, or least pitiable, by later Roman generations. Rome might have also elicited a fair amount of disgust, but for a different reason. In a time long before advanced plumbing and sewage systems, a putrid stench undoubtedly pervaded the city and the River Tiber’s waters were likewise foul, polluted with the Romans’ refuse. It was one of the many sources of debilitating bacterial outbreaks in old Rome and, given the city’s proximity to the flood-prone Tiber, mosquitos and the terrible diseases that they carry must have been ubiquitous.

The city’s inhabitants regularly endured plagues, but they impacted a far lesser number of people because early Republican Rome was considerably smaller in population than the Rome of later times. Even in the fifth century BC, it was only a fraction of Rome’s size at its height. Livy claimed that Rome’s population, perhaps including men, women and children, was around 117,000 in 459 BC, but this may be an overestimation. Regardless of Rome’s unassuming appearance and size, it was destined for greatness, but it needed selfless heroes to shepherd it through times of adversity. It needed men like Camillus, and Rome would not be disappointed.¹¹

Marcus Furius Camillus was born sometime around 447/446 BC, but very little is known about his youth, his upbringing, or even the era in which he was born. Surviving Roman writings from this time period are virtually nonexistent save for some in fragmentary form, and maybe for good reason. According to Livy, much of Rome’s oldest historical documents were destroyed around 390 BC, although there’s some modern debate over whether Livy’s statement is accurate. Despite this, what is evident is that Camillus hailed from a patrician family: the gens Furia. Judging by some of their members’ names and extant epigraphic evidence, they were probably of Latin stock and had roots in the cities of Tusculum and Medullia.¹² The former was situated atop a hill in the Alban region some 15 miles south-east of Rome, and the latter was another nearby city. Unfortunately, its specific location has been lost to time.¹³

Initially, the Furii weren’t as influential as some other clans who, in many ways, often seemed to have a stranglehold on government operations. In spite of this, the Furii clearly enjoyed some sway in Rome beginning no later than a generation or so before Camillus’ birth. The first member of the Furii to gain political prominence was Sextus Furius who may have been a direct ancestor of Camillus. In 488 BC, Sextus became one of Rome’s two consuls, which were intended to be the state’s chief executive officers. Two were elected and served concurrently for a one-year term. They had considerable influence, but were also limited in power, given that they could veto each other’s actions and were bound by the rigid – but largely unwritten – Roman constitution.¹⁴

After Sextus Furius’ ascension to the pinnacle of elected Roman politics, a handful of other members of the gens Furia gradually tasted electoral success and presumably grew richer as the years passed. By the mid-fifth century BC, Camillus was born into this increasingly consequential family. Strangely, the ancient writers were curiously quiet about his genealogy, but the fasti capitolini – an ancient set of Roman tablets that list many of Rome’s leading men and the offices that they held – offers hints. Text on the fasti capitolini asserts that Camillus’ father was named Lucius and his grandfather was called Spurius.

Beyond this, some other factors provide clues to his lineage, including Camillus’ age relative to the other influential members of the Furia and his later rise to power, which would have likely only occurred if he had descended from an important branch of the family. With all the evidence combined, it is appropriate to assume with great probability who Camillus’ relatives were: his grandfather was Spurius Furius Medullinus Fusus who was elected to the consulship of 464 BC, and Camillus’ father was Lucius Furius Medullinus. He served a few terms as consular tribune after Camillus’ birth.¹⁵

Consular tribunes were a peculiar quirk of Roman politics that may have been a consequence of Rome’s social struggles. Numerous ancient writers claimed that since plebeians were prohibited from serving as consuls at the time, the plebs would sometimes obstruct governmental operations and loudly complain about this exclusion. This sometimes required that the state instead be led by consular tribunes who could be plebeian or patrician. However, some modern academics question whether consular tribunes were actually elected officials or merely unofficial commanders of private war bands whose roles were misinterpreted by the ancient writers.

Meanwhile, other historians disagree and believe that the consular tribunes were officially elected roles intended to permit the Romans to better govern and protect the state, which could very well be the case. More than two consular tribunes could be elected at any time, compared to only two consuls. Their increased numbers often allowed the Romans to install several leaders in order to handle numerous threats at once. Regardless of the modern academic debate over their genesis, consular tribunes allegedly came into existence no later than the mid-fifth century BC and were reportedly military tribunes – or commanders – with consular powers. This meant that they could serve as chief administrators, generals and judges, preside over elections and, in dire situations, could even nominate dictators.¹⁶

Since Camillus’ father served as consular tribune, his relatives were elected to other important positions, and as they were patricians, it is logical to conclude that the Furii were relatively affluent by the time of Camillus’ birth. Even so, youths in the early Roman Republic enjoyed little coddling. In many cases, newborn boys weren’t named for up to nine days following their birth because of their high mortality rates, which was just a lamentable reality at the time.¹⁷ While it is impossible to determine the rates with certainty, some estimates suggest that around 30 per cent of Roman children sadly died in their first year of life and around half perished by the time they were aged 15.¹⁸ If they were fortunate enough to survive the birthing process, they were sometimes maimed and deformed, but an ancient law supposedly dating back to King Romulus allowed the Romans to callously discard their disabled children for death so long as the parents displayed the deformities to five of their closest neighbours.¹⁹

Heads of households held a great deal of sway in other ways too. As some ancient historians claimed, the eldest male of a clan enjoyed almost total control over his family, and he could exert it and punish his family members as he saw fit, no matter the ages of his children or grandchildren. This certainly made for some awkward spectacles as elderly men publicly admonished their adult descendants. Further, as outlined by ancient Romulean law, fathers could even sell their sons into slavery. If they won their freedom, their fathers could resell them again. The archaic statute limited the number of times a son could be sold into slavery to three. More than that was evidently deemed excessive.²⁰

Thankfully for the Romans, Camillus was a healthy newborn who survived his first vulnerable days without recorded incident, and it appears that he was originally given the name of Marcus Furius, not Camillus. The name Camillus was a cognomen. Per Roman naming conventions, all males were given a praenomen, which was a first name, and a nomen, which denoted the gens. In Camillus’ case, his praenomen was Marcus and his surname was Furius. Cognomens, on the other hand, were a third name that followed the nomen. They served different purposes and could act as nicknames or honorific titles. In other cases, cognomens identified specific branches of a particular gens. For instance, Gaius Julius Caesar was from the Caesarian branch of the Julian family. As for Camillus, his cognomen was apparently connected to later events in his youth, which unfortunately were not well chronicled.

What is clear is that the young Marcus Furius Camillus had two brothers who later distinguished themselves: Lucius Furius Medullinus and Spurius Furius Medullinus. Unfortunately for historians, they shared their names with many others within the family, which can create frustrating confusion. Nevertheless, considering the dates of their later elections, Lucius was, in all probability, the eldest of the three brothers, but it isn’t clear whether Camillus or Spurius was born next. Regrettably, the ancient writers didn’t find it prudent to record whether they had any other siblings.²¹

If Camillus’ childhood was similar to those