persistency, than those of Greece, less of spectacular individualism,
more of truly patriotic self-suppression. In Rome, even more than in
Sparta, the "State" was everything. During the early days men found
their highest glory in making their city glorious; their proudest boast
was to be "citizens of Rome."

To trace the slow steps by which the tiny republic grew to be mistress
of all Italy would take too long. She settled her internal difficulties
as all such difficulties must be settled, if the race is to progress;
that is, she became more democratic.[10] As the lower classes advanced
in knowledge and intelligence they insisted on a share of the
government. They fought their way to it. They united Rome, mastered the
other Latin cities, and admitted them to partnership in her power. She
conquered the Etruscans and the Samnites. For a moment we find her
almost overwhelmed by an inroad of the wild Celtic tribes from the
forests of Central Europe;[11] but, fortunately for her, the other
Italian states were equally crushed. It was weakness against weakness,
and the Romans retained their foremost place.

[Footnote 10: See _Institution and Fall of the Decemvirate in Rome_,
page 1.]

[Footnote 11: See _Brennus Burns Rome_, page 110.]

Not till more than a century later were they brought into serious
conflict with the Greeks. In the year B.C. 280, Pyrrhus, King of Epirus,
who had won a temporary leadership over a portion of the Grecian land,
undertook the conquest of the West.[12] Fifty years before, Alexander
with far greater power might have been victorious over a feebler Rome.
Pyrrhus failed completely. If the Romans had less dash and a less wide