Pompieus

You are right -if you are going to do statistics you need to use the same parameters. Here is a list of consuls and consular tribunes from 509 - 27BC by gens compiled by R Ullfig from a list at www.users.dircon.co.uk/: Cornelius 106 Valerius 74 (73) Fabius 66 Aemelius 55 Claudius 43 Furius 41 Servilius 41 Manlius 38 Quinctius 38 Sulpicius 38 Papirius 35 Postumius 35 Iulius 29 (25) Sempronius 25 Marcius 21 Fulvius 20 Atilius 19 Caecilius 19 Licinius 19 (18) Iunius 18 Veturius 15 Verginius 13 Aurelius 12 Sergius 12 Domitius 11 Genucius 11 Lucretius 11 Menenius 11 Minucius 11 Antonius 10 Calpurnius 10 Cassius 10 Nautius 10 Popillius 10 Horatius 8 Marius 8 Plautius 8 Pompieus 8 Decius 7 Geganius 7 Acilius 6 Aeliius 6 Livius 6 Mucius 6 Publilius 6 Lutatius 5 Octavius 5 Porcius 5 Carvilius 4 Larcius 4 Poetilius 4 Tullius 4 (3) Aebutius 3 Aquilius 3 Cloelius 3 Curius 3 Duilius 3 Flaminius 3 Hostilius 3 Mamilius 3 Otacilius 3 Pinarius 3 Pomponius 3 Rutilius 3 Sextius 3 Trebonius 3 Vipsanius 3 (0) Volumnius 3 Annius 2 Antistius 2 (1) Appuleius 2 (1) Aquillius 2 Aulius 2 Baebius 2 Caedicius 2 Caninius 2 Cocceius 2 Cominius 2 Curiatus 2 Fabricius 2 Fannius 2 Flavius 2 Folius 2 Gellius 2 Herennius 2 Herminius 2 Hortensius 2 Laelius 2 Maelius 2 Manilius 2 Norbanus 2 Opimius 2 Perperna 2 Quinctilius 2 Romilius 2 Scribonius 2 Sestius 2 Terentius 2 58 other names appear once - I'll add them on a later post if required- a total of 1209 Magistracies and 157 clans (if my math is right!?). To get back to 27 BC delete:1 Licinius (cos 30), Antistius (suf 30), Tullius (suf 30), Appuleius (29), Valerius (suf 29), 2 Vipsanii (28 27), four Iulii (30 29 28 27), and delete Saenius (Suf 30). Total: 1197 and 156. Note that the following clans show no consuls after 366 that I can find: Verginius Sergius Menenius Horatius Geganius Larcius Aebutius Cloelius Pinarius Cominius Curiatus Fabriciius Herminius Maelius Romilius Titinius

Would a listing of consuls of the years 366-1BC by gens be of any use? I hesitate to mention it because I'm not sure the database I made is completely accurate and I'm not sure I know how to attach the list. I'll try... CONSULs By GENS 366-1BCE (including Suffectus) NOMEN CONSULS NOMEN CONSULSHIPS Cornelius 70 Cornelius 75 Valerius 30 Valerius 38 Aemelius 25 Fabius 33 Fabius 22 Aemelius 30 Claudius 22 Claudius 24 Fulvius 18 Marcius 22 Caecilius 18 Sulpicius 22 Licinius 17 Iulius 22 Marcius 16 Fulvius 21 Sulpicius 15 Manlius 20 Servilius 15 Caecilius 19 Iunius 15 Postumius 19 Manlius 14 Servilius 18 Postumius 14 Iunius 18 Calpurnius 14 Licinius 17 Sempronius 13 Sempronius 16 Atilius 11 Atilius 16 Aurelius 11 Papirius 15 Domitius 11 Calpurnius 14 Plautius 9 Aurelius 12 Quinctius 8 Domitius 12 Cassius 7 Plautius 9 Papirius 7 Quinctius 9 Iulius 6 Popilius 9 Pompieus 6 Pompieus 8 Livius 6 Cassius 7 Mucius 6 Livius 7 Genucius 5 Genucius 7 Popilius 5 Mucius 6 Antonius 5 Antonius 6 Minucius 5 Furius 6 Otaciliuis 5 Decius 6 Porcius 5 Minucius 5 Lutatius 5 Otacilius 5 Furius 4 Porcius 5 Decius 3 Lutatius 5 Veturius 3 Veturius 4 Tullius 3 Tullius 3 Caninius 3 Caninius 3 Otacilius 2 Otacilius 3 Vipsanius 1 Vipsanius 3 25 Tied w 2 There... I graphed this list and it looks remarkably like Marcus Porcius' I REALLY dont know how to attach a graph. The variation between consuls and consulships is accounted for by iteration which was common until about 200 BC. I had to fudge a little to get the data sorted this way as the querys I have all look at gens with multiple consuls there are also 50 -60 nomen that appear only once.

In the second century BC legions were raised annually or for specific campaigns. Only the two Spanish provinces had what could be called permanent garrisons. Even these legions were formally reconstituted every winter with new tribunes and a new chief centurion. A new governor would come out every year or two bringing fresh recruits while time-served veterans would go home with him when his term expired. The legions were normally kept concentrated in a single camps during the winter both to preserve discipline and to be ready to take the field in the spring. Some individuals would undoubtedly be detached for guard or police duties, but in the second century BC Spain was a very wild place with undefined frontiers and few towns or other places to guard. Special operations and diplomacy among the tribes was a more likely winter diversion, while summers would be occupied with active campaigning. In the second century BC (and well into the first century AD) a private soldier could rise no higher than first centurion of a legion (primus pilus). The tribunes were all equestrians or senators and the provincial governors were all consulars or praetorians (senators). Of course all this changed greatly over time. By the third century AD legions were being split into detachments to garrison provincial towns and to provide a mobile striking force. These detachments eventually became separate, smaller legions. Also, as has been mentioned, in the third and fourth centuries AD private soldiers could rise to be emperor.

Sull DID voluntarily surrender his dictatorship and DID live happily ever after (for a year or so anyway). The authorities agree that he seemed never to have had any intention of extending his domination beyond reconstituting the state and handing it over to the aristocracy. he was a very strange bird to our ways of thinking.

Marcus Porcius gives a good summary. Note that legislation was nearly always brought before the people organized in the Tribes (comitia tributa) rather than in the centuries. Probably because the tribal assembly was much easier to handle administratively, and sometimes because the wealthiest citizens had less control over the tribes than the centuries. Also note that there was no debate and no regular meetings of the assembly. It had to be called by a magistrate who placed a question before it. A magistrate could convene a meeting before the voting (contio) and invite people to speak, but once the people were divided into their tribes all they did was vote. The senate too only met when convened by a magistrate (but meetings tended to be more regular than the assemblies) and was only supposed to discuss questions placed before it by the presiding magistrate. The senators were invited to speak in a strict heirarchical order - the most senior members (based on the magistacy they had held and their seniority) always had the first word unless they deferred to another member. The senate had enormous prestige as it consisted of all the ex magistrates (after Sulla anyway) and it controlled foriegn affairs, finance, military affairs and the magistrates were expected to consult it on any important issue as they handled day to day administration. The courts (after 146) also played a role in the state - but that's another story.

Ahh good catch... I only checked Sallust's War with Cataline, and excuse my embarrassment, but I only checked book 1 of Florus... Here it is in book 2.11 as suggested. Pah!...No catch intended, I only noticed it because Gruen and the Cambridge Ancient History make the references. By the way...what was Lepidus thinking!? Why did he take up arms against the government? He had no "ideology" - he was related by marriage to Saturninus, but helped kill the "popularis" tribune in 100. He took Sullas side in the the civil war and profited from the proscriptions to the extent of enough wealth and clout to gain the praetorship and consulate - then took an anti-Sullan stance when he gained office! Even so he had a potentially profitable proconsulship of Gaul in prospect, and could have used his "popularis" stance to build a following (as Caesar did). Why on earth did he commit political (and actual) suicide by taking up the cause of the Etrurian rebels?

Appian mentions it only briefly in The Civil Wars book 1; 13:107 Cassius Dio ignores it almost entirely. It should be in Book 36 as this mentions Lepidus' consulship, but alas.. no detail. Plutarch discusses it very briefly at the end of Life of Sulla beginning around ch. 34. He provides a bit more in Life of Pompey ch. 15-16. It is also mentioned in the Periochae of Livy, book 90. Sallus, Paterculus and Florus make no mention of it. Apparently there is some mention of the revolt (or at least the senates reaction to it) in a fragment of Sallusts Histories 1.77 and Florus 2.11(?)

If anyone is interested, the Notitia Dignitatum does provide a sort of "Order Of Battle" for the Imperial Army of the fifth century. The Western Empire portion is dated to sometime in the mid 420's (423?) - more than a quarter century before the Battle of Chalons. What was left of the Gallic Field Army by 451 is anyones guess. In 423 or so, however, it consisted of: 1 Legion Palatina (Lanciarii Sabarienses) 16 Auxilia Palatina 7 Legiones Comitatenses (Menapii Seniores, Armigeri defensores seniores, Lanciarii Honoriani, Secundani Britones, Praesidienses, Ursarienses and Cortoriacenses (or possibly Geminiances and Honoriani felices Gallicani)- it's not real clear) 21 Legiones Pseudocomitatenses 4 Vexillationes Palatini 8 Vexillationes Comitatenses This was a significant force with a "paper" strength of 6000 horse and 26500 foot (20-25000 field strength?)

Isn't it possible (probable?) that the the senates removal of the consuls and the appointment of Crassus (one of the praetors of 72, not a private citizen) to the command against Spartacus was, at least in part, a stroke against Pompey and his supporters? Lentullus and Gellius were, apparently, friendly to Pompey (they served under him later, and as consuls sponsored a bill allowing him to enfranchise some Spaniards). Would not the leaders of the senate (who loathed Pompey even if they weren't crazy about Crassus) have been happy to get in a dig at the great general by punishing his friends and raising up a rival?

Odd, considering all the ink spilled on the "professionalization" of the army, that Brunt ("Italian Manpower"), Parker ("Roman Legions"), Keppie ("Making the Roman Army") et al don't touch on this as these are (if they were maintained) the first "semi-permanent garrison units the Romans had - prior even to those in Spain.

Plutarch's "Sulla" and "Lucullus" are the main sources; there is also, apparently, a fragment of Cassius Dio that treats the story. Volume ix of the Cambridge Ancient History (1951 ed, pg 255 and 266) give the story and a reference. It's difficult to believe any of the "Fimbriani" were still around by 49 BCE. After all, the two legions were raised in 87 or 86 and had been campaigning hard in the East for twenty years when Pompey took the command. After such long service there cannot have been many survivors, and for this and many other reasons it is very likely that Pompey disbanded them as units. A few individual old-timers might possibly still have been with Gabinius when he restored Ptolemy Auletes in 55, but they would have had to be in their 50's! I like McCullough's books (especially the earlier ones) because they give color and texture to the period, but I find her weak on the military side. (viz. there was no such thing as a "legion" of allied troops et al)

Volume VII of the Cambridge Ancient History (pg 655 of the 1954 edition) says that when Tarentum was taken at the end of the Pyrrhic War (272 BCE) a legion was "permanently" stationed in the citadel. It also says (pg 798) that after the First Punic War, when a Praetor was finally assigned as governor of Sicily (227 BCE) he had a legion as a garrison. Polybius (vii.24) when enumerating the forces available to the Republic in the Gallic War of 225 says that legions were in garrison at Tarentum and in Sicily. I can't find any reference to these first garrisons in a primary source prior to Polybius or in any modern work. the CAH doesn't give a source. Polybius and Livy don't mention them in the first year of the Second Punic War (218 BCE). Is it aknowledged by those that know these things that the Romans kept garrisons in Sicily and Tarentum (in addition to the two "urban legions" raised each year) from 272 and 227 BCE? Did they exist in 218 BCE?

The "Fimbriani" were indeed historical. They were two legions raised in 87 or 86 BCE and sent to the East by the government under the suffect consul of 86 L Valerius Flaccus to attack either Mithridates or Sulla(!?) After some success against the Pontic forces in Thrace, Flaccus and his legate C Flavius Fimbria turned south to seek out Sulla. But so many men deserted they turned east to Byzantium instead. While the army was crossing to Asia Flaccus and Fimbria quarreled and Fimbria (whose only previous distinction seems to have been an attempt on the life of the Pontifex Maximus at Marius' funeral) raised the troops against Flaccus and killed him in Nicomedia. In spite of its' disapproval of his actions the senate confirmed Fimbria in his usurped command and he began a succesful campaign in Bithynia and Asia, destroying a Pontic army at the Ryndacus River and shutting up Mithridates himself in Pitane. Fimbria appealed to Lucullus, who was operating with a fleet in the Aegean, to complete the blockade, but Sullas' deputy refused to cooperate and the king escaped to make peace with Sulla at Dardanus. Fimbia then moved south into Phrygia and was surrounded by Sulla at Thyatira. With his troops openly fraternizing with Sullas' and after unsuccesful attempts at negotiation and assasination, Fimbria fled to Pergamum where he commited suicide. The two legions were added to Sullas army and were left in Asia as the garrison when he returned to Italy in 83. They served under Lucullus in the Second Mithridatic War and in Armenia until they mutinied in 67, responding to Lucullus' personal pleas by throwing down their empty purses and telling him to fight alone since only he knew how to profit from it. When Pompey superseded Lucullus in 66 he disbanded the two legions and discharged the survivors or took them into his own legions.

Why isn't number the ONLY thing that matters? The jurors voted, and the majority ruled. In theory a majority of the jury decided; but such trials were political struggles and the clout of individual nobles (particularly the ex consuls) was what mattered. However, it's not clear that all the ex consuls that eventually wound up in Pompey's camp would have violently opposed Caesar, and how a trial would have gone is, as you say, anyones guess. But Caesar was't willing to chance it - and anyway, he probably thought that subjecting himself to such a trial was beneath his dignitas.

If I understand the argument here(?!) the question is: could Caesar have survived a trial for any of several enormities he would have been accused of by Cato and his coterie had he laid down his command and returned to Rome as a private citizen? Is the idea that Caesar's fear of such a prosecution was just a propaganda excuse for his long planned attempt to sieze power? As far as a prosecution and trial are concerned I'm not sure that the number of Caesars' partisans is that significant. It's fairly clear that in Rome a minority of the principal men (the consulars et al) could control what happened in the government or in the courts (hadn't the Catonists (aka the "Optimates") quashed Curio's popular proposal that both Pompey and Caesar lay down their commands?). Caesar's party was numerous and broad, it included patrician nobiles like Fabius Maximus as well as many equites and others; but consulars were significantly absent. The only such partisans Caesar could claim were Gabinius (cos58) M Valerius Messala Rufus (cos53) and C Antonius (cos63) (all of whom had been condemned for electoral fraud) and Cn Domitius Calvinus. L Marcius Philippus (cos56), L Calpurnius Piso and C Claudius Marcellus (cos50) remained neutral - supposedly due to marital relationships, but all the other active consulars eventually accompanied Pompey. But I'm not sure even this is as important as the determination of the powerful agroup led by Cato to put the kaibosh on Caesar's ambitions and the eventual decision by Pompieus to support stripping Caesar of his command. It was personal politics - not ideology. The "Optimates" wanted to end Caesars' career because of fear, personal animosity or jealousy, Pompieus wanted to regain the position of preeminence he had lost in the 60's, and Caesar was determined NOT to end up eating mullet in Massilia. These rivalries were eventually decided by the contention of armies, provinces and kingdoms instead of in the forum. Weren't all three contenders guilty of so raising the ante?

What literature does Gelzer site for a source on this? Admittedly, the later historians such as Livy probably lacked some understanding of the origination of the word, but they relate the context of Patrician with Pater and they certainly would've had access to any literature that Gelzer did. Granted, I think all can concede that a Patrician was a member of the original founding 'sheep-owning' tribes, but I can not personally relate the connection of the words Pater and Pecus-Pecoris. Perhaps Mr. Dalby can shed some light on this? Mostly he used men called nobilis by Cicero with some Sallust, plus (with reservations) Livy, Varro, Gellius and Pliny.

The differences between Gelzer and Gruen are too numerous to list, but you're right that no one disagrees that non-patrician families could gain access to the magistracies. Calling the magistrates of the Roman republic 'nobility,' however, obfuscates much more than it clarifies. Perhaps. However, Gelzers book defines the term as used by the Romans in the literature.

Matthias Gelzers book is Die Nobilitat des romischen Republik first published in 1912. Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien was published by Friederich Munzer in 1920; both are available in English now. These are the seminal works in this area, and were used by Syme, Taylor, Badian, Holmes, Gruen et al as the basis for their work. While some of the specific conclusion reached by the German scholars of the last age have been challenged (such as the co-option of dominant families in allied towns by leading Roman families), the general theses are still accepted by scholars are they not? Niether work denies that non-patrician families could gain access to the magistracies and thus entered the ruling nobilty.

Most of the patrician families had died out? What's the basis of such a claim? And how many new patrician families did Augustus create anyway? Wasn't this mostly a reward for his cronies? Like any good politician Augustus rewarded his supporters, but he also wanted to be seen as a good traditional Roman and tried to restore the number of patrician families. As to the fate of the old patriciate all there is for evidence is the consular fasti. After the civil wars the Iulii are obviously prominent, and there are still some Cornelii (mosty "suffectus" though) some Aemilii and Claudii, a couple of Valerii and a lone Fabius, Sulpicius and Marcius (wasn't Servilius Vatia a pleb?). Patrician names are not numerous, and the old names (Manlius, Postumius, Quinctius, Furius, Papiius: not to mention the really old ones like Foslius, Nautius, Veturius, Sergius, Cloelius etc) are absent. No?

The quality of "nobility", according to M. Gelzer (and I think still mainly accepted today) belonged to descendants of all those who at some time had held the highest public office viz. dictatorship, consulship or consular tribunate. The definition of "equestrian" is variable. It originally meant those citizens registered in the 18 "equestrian centuries" who performed their military service on horseback. Later it meant those Romans of wealth who chose not to pursue public office and entrance to the senate (a "middle class"?). The "patricians" were definitally a hereditary, rather than an economic class. Consider the economic straights to which Sulla (a patrician Cornelius) was reduced in his youth, and the desperate measures Catilina (a patrician Sergius) was willing to take to restore his families' status. Most of the patrician families had died out or, at least were in no position economically to compete for the consulship during the late republic, and Augustus attempted to remedy this by creating new patrician families.

The Eastern Roman Army apparently retained remarkable affinities to the late Roman Army described in the Notitia Dignitatum up to the beginning of the seventh century. The sources are The Strategicon written by the emperor Maurice (d.602) and Byzantium and Its Army by W. Treadgold. The regional and praesental field armies apparently still existed, as did some of the limitanei (although thier pay had been stopped in 545). Although new formations had been added (Federates. Bucellarii etc) and the nomenclature had changed to include Greek titles as well as the old latin ones (Magister=Strategos, prefect/tribune, centurion, decarch=chiliarch, hecatontarch, decarch and legions, auxilia, vexillations and alae all are refered to as banda); some of the formations listed in the Notitia (Victores, Theodosiaci) seem to have survived to give their names to units in the Themes that existed in the tenth century.

One might even dare to question the traditional role accorded to the "proletarian" army in the fall of the Republic as E.S. Gruen does in "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic", and wonder whether the troops actually were loyal only to thier generals and not to the state. Only Sulla and Caesar got their armies to follow them into the political arena - Pompey discharged his army when he returned from the East, as he had when he returned from Spain, and as Crassus did after the slave war. When Sulla marched on Rome he was was still the legally elected consul; could not his troops have seen themselves as defending the state against revolutionaries who had siezed power in the capitol? Even Caesar claimed to be defending the rights bestowed upon him legally by the popular assembly against the machinations of a senatorial clique of personal enemies determined to depose the legitimate proconsul of the Republic (I'm sure Cato will "goak here"). Is it not possible that in times when whole question of "legitimate" government is at issue soldiers, like anyone else) will gravitate toward the probable winner?

Legal-schmegal!...I thought the argument was that the Classical Quarterly article says the nobility didn't support Pompey and Cato et al. (leges silentum intra armas) If this means that the vast majority of the senators supported Curios' proposal that both dynasts disarm, I think most will agree. If it means that important nobiles supported Caesar I have my doubts. Syme says the only supporters among the consulars were Cn Domitius Calvinus, Gabinius and Valerius Messala (all of whom had been condemned for electoral fraud!). L Marcius Phillipus (like his father in Sullas' day) and Marcellus (who had placed the sword in Pompeys hand!) discovered marriage connections that kept them neutral, as did L Calpurnius Piso (Caesars father in law). Besides these, weren't most of Caesars' supporters young nobles like Curio and Antonius and decayed patricians like Fabius Maximus, Claudius Nero, Aemilius Lepidus and Cornelius Dollabella looking to restore the family fortunes?

For anyone who is interested here are the top 25 gentes and the number of consulships and consular tribunates held by their members from this list I have (I think it came from the internet and I really can't vouch for its accuracy). The total of offices recorded between 509 - 27 BC is 1213 (if my arithmetic is right). Cornelii 106 Valerii 74 Fabii 66 Aemilii 55 Claudii 43 Furii 41 Servilii 41 Manlii 38 Quinctii 38 Sulpicii 38 Papirii 35 Postumii35 Iulii 29 Sempronii 21 Marcii 21 Fulvii 20 Atilii 19 Caecilii 19 Licinii 19 Iunii 18 There are some interesting aspect to this, such as the rise and fall of families: The Fabii dominated the state in the fourth and third century BC with three consecutive princepes senatus (Ambustis, Rullianus and Gurges plus Maximus after an Cornelian interval), but only one (cos suff 45 BC and he a Caesarian) in the first century BC. The Furii and Atilii also seem to disappear, or at least can show no consuls, while the Caecilii came from nowhere to infest the second century BC. It's also interesting how the numerous disasters presided over by the Postumii didn't seem to injure their chances in the elections. Also I don't think this list distinguishes between the patrician (Pulchri and Nerones) and plebean (Marcelli)Claudii or Iunii Brutii.

Well Marcus Portius...for what it's worth, and unlike our namesakes, it seems we approach agreement - on this topic at least. You are quite right, I believe, that the impression of a sort of two-party system is an illusion caused by the lack of source material and, possibly, our anglo-saxon propensities. The actual rivalries and competition among the Roman nobles was undoubtedly far more complex than that, and positions and alliances shifted and changed - sometimes quickly. I think Gruens' books (Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts and Last Generation of the Roman Republic make a strong case for this. I believe Gruen is right when he says contention was rife among individuals and groups of allies unless the basic system was challenged (as in the cases of the Gracchi, Saturninus, Lepidus or Catalina), at which point the aristocracy would close ranks against the challengers - only to resume their rivalries when the danger had passed. I also agree that there was no de jure oligarchy. However, the Romans were a very conservative people who believed everything and everybody had its proper place in the scheme of things. A Roman voter, be he a Roman nobiles, a member of a princely clan in one of the towns of Italy, a wealthy banker or businessman, a Marsian peasant or a day laborer in Rome, could rarely be pursuaded to vote for a consular candidate who's name had not been famous for a century or more. This is, I suppose, what you mean by "oligarchy of influence" and again I would agree, if you concede that additions to the ruling class were fairly tightly controlled. I have a list I got somewhere that purports to sort the total number of consulships and consular tribunates etc between 509BC and 27BC by gens. It shows that 28% of them came from the five patrician gentes maiores, (Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Valerii, Claudii) and almost 70% from the top 25 families. It is to the credit of these noble families that they sponsored able individuals (like Cato, Marius, Cicero, Manius Curius Dentatus, Titus Didius, Quintus Pompieus, etc), and brought them into the body politic, broadening its' base in the senate. Would this tendency have continued in the first century BC, and expanded to allow Romanized aristocrats from Gaul or Spain (like Balbus) to enter the senate? I presume your position is that it very well could have - you may be right.