A Legal Interpretation of Livy's Caudine Sponsio: Using Roman Law to test the validity of Livy's Caudine Forks Narrative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much has been written about Livy's account of the defeat of a Roman army at the hands of the Samnites at the Caudine Forks in 321 B.C., commentators do not agree as to whether the account describes an historical event. This paper offers a new approach to the problem, by analyzing the legal form and content of the sponsio (agreement) that acts as the backbone of Livy's narrative. The body of the paper analyzes Livy's sponsio in detail, from a legal perspective. The analysis leads to the conclusion that Livy based his narrative upon the sponsio of Roman civil law. Since it is unlikely that the Romans and Samnites conducted their agreement on the basis of Roman private law, it is concluded that the events at the Caudine Forks are either fictional, or did not happen as Livy describes them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".