Early Roman history is undoubtedly one of the most controversial historical periods; in particular, the relations between the Romans and Latins during the two first centuries of the Republic are one of its most disputed facets. The main issue that historians face is that the literary tradition (mainly represented by Livy) is not merely a record of historical facts, but also a full work of literature. This account is structured around a dual narration, with the domestic matters on the one hand (the famous Struggle of the Orders), and the foreign affairs on the other hand (including the scattered mentions of the Latins and their interactions with Rome). Following Livy, modern scholars usually study both aspects separately, but I argue that there might be closer connections between them than it appears a priori. The first step is to reach a better understanding of how the narrative is patterned. The most promising approach in this respect is the study of the characterisation of history. Beyond the individual exempla, it seems possible to discern a set of several master patterns that serve as the basis for the elaboration of the whole narrative. This feature could also conceivably have an impact on the work of the historians, since it provides a tool enabling a better assessment of the pertinency of what Livy tells us. We will see with the example of the first secession of the plebs how this methodology can open new perspectives of historical interpretations, showing that the Latins were probably much more concerned with the struggle of the orders than what Livy admits.