[The curious deaths of Pansa and Hirtius]

In April of 43 BC, the Roman Senate sent both Consuls, Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Vibius Pansa, into the field to face Antony's troops. They also sent along with them young Octavian. Antony ending up routing Pansa's forces at the Battle of Forum Gallorum. Pansa was mortally wounded and died several days later from his wounds. A week later, Hirtius and Octavian confronted Antony at the Battle of Mutina where, though victorious, Hirtius somehow died in battle.

 

In the span of 1 week, both consuls of Rome were killed and Octavian was now in command of their legions.

 

Question: does anyone besides me smell a rat here? Ie - knowing what we know about Ancient Rome at the time in general, and Octavian in particular, does anyone think it quite possible that Octavian may have played a role in Hirtius' convenient death? Has this been speculated before that you're aware of?

 

 

As Hirtius lost his life in battle during this war, and Pansa shortly afterwards from a wound, the rumour spread that he had caused the death of both, in order that after Antony had been put to flight and the state bereft of its consuls, he might gain sole control of the victorious armies. The circumstances of Pansa's death in particular were so mysterious, that the physician Glyco was imprisoned on the charge of having applied poison to his wound. Aquilius Niger adds to this that Augustus himself slew the other consul Hirtius amid the confusion of the battle.

 

Suet Aug 11

[Could late 2nd and 1st Century republicans stave off the empire?]

My personal view is that the key to the stability of Rome (both during the republican and imperial periods) was in the way that the provinces were managed. As long as the provinces could be treated as personal kingdoms for any Verres, Pompey, or Caesar who wanted to enrich himself and lead his hapless troops against Rome, there was a real danger to civilian government.

 

Marcus Porcius, thank you for your reply. I've always thought that the system of governing the provinces endeared hatred for Rome, especially characters like Verres. It seems that getting rich of one's province through extortion was too great a reward for being elected consul or praetor, and no one was willing to do anything about it, as it was accepted custom.

 

You also raise a good point about a general's armies belonging to the general and not to Rome. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar all led armies loyal to them first and to Rome second. Perhaps if the legionaries had to swear an oath to Rome first and their commander second that could have been abrogated.

 

Marcus Tullius

[Could late 2nd and 1st Century republicans stave off the empire?]

Salve

 

Making my first post with a topic I hope will educate and entertain everyone, including me. I am fascinated by the Roman Republic and it's decline beginning in the year of the consulships of P. Mucius Scaevola and L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi.

 

I am curious what could have been done differently to avert the end of the Republic?

 

1) More support for lex agrari amongst conservative patrician and plebian nobiles?

 

2) More support for Italian enfranchisement amongst the same group, but also the lower urban classes of Rome including the capite censi?

 

3) Less demagoguery, lesser inclination to resort to violence among the populares ?

 

4) No seventh consulship for C. Marius!

 

5) Sulla's appointment to the eastern war against Mithridates left in tact?

 

6) Less of a personal vendetta against C. I. Caesar.

 

7) More of a willingness of C. I. Caesar to work within the confines of the mos maiorum

 

8) Crassus doesn't die?

 

9) Julia wife of Pompey doesn't die?

 

10) Cicero accepts invitation to join 1st Triumvirate?

 

 

Anyone think that any of these things, or a combination of them, would have averted the fall of the Republic and the rise of the empire? Or would other minor events been able to do it?

 

Marcus Tullius