Marcus Aemilius Lepidus' Rebellion of 78/77BC

[Hroppa]

I'm interested in the rebellion in the topic title. Unfortuantely, there's very little I've been able to find out about it. Does anyone know where more information can be found?

[Primus Pilus]

I'm interested in the rebellion in the topic title. Unfortuantely, there's very little I've been able to find out about it. Does anyone know where more information can be found?

 

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.

[Pompieus]

I'm interested in the rebellion in the topic title. Unfortuantely, there's very little I've been able to find out about it. Does anyone know where more information can be found?

 

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(?)

[Primus Pilus]

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(?)

 

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.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, H.

 

This Lepidus was the father of the Triumvir, first an oppressive praetor of Sicily (81 BC), then partisan of Sulla in the war against Marius (where he enriched considerably); but afterwards he was a leader of the popular party and run against Sulla for the consulship in 79 BC, wining with the support of Pompey. After Sulla's death, Lepidus tried unsuccessfully to prevent his burial in the Campus Martius and proposed several laws against Sulla's Constitution, provoking great agitation at Rome and the opposition of the other consul (QL Catulus). Sent by the Senate to Gaul to prevent their confrontation, Lepidus allied with M Brutus for the rebellion (this topic title) and marched to Rome; but after being declared a public enemy by the Senate, he and Brutus were easily defeated by Pompey and Catulus in the Campus Martius; Lepidus and Brutus died a little later (A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, By various writers, Ed. by William Smith, entry no. 13 of Lepidus article, pg. 764-765).

 

I think that the power struggle after Sulla's death is one of the most fascinating and neglected periods of the history of the Late Republic.

[Hroppa]

Thanks for all the information everyone.

 

What is surprising is that in a period so well documented, there are whole revolutions which get barely a mention. From Sulla to Caesar is one of the periods we know the most about, but of Lepidus' revolution so little information remains. Thanks for the sources everyone! We have to praise those historians, because without their writings we'd know next to nothing.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think that the power struggle after Sulla's death is one of the most fascinating and neglected periods of the history of the Late Republic.

 

It is fascinating. We touched on it briefly in this thread on the Sullans.

[Pompieus]

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(?)

 

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?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

Saturninus was no ordinary populare, was he?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

In the way P puts it, I doubt any of the Roman politicians of the late Republic had "ideology" beyond their own profit.

Anyway, I think we simply don't know enough of this Lepidus to talk about his ideologies.

As far as I can tell, he was the main leader of the Popular "party" (if such a thing could exist then) between Marius and Caesar.

Being the death of Sulla unexpected (and happening during his consulship), he tried to benefit himself from the resultant confussion.

It wasn't a bad bet.

Unfortunately for him, he was unable to get in terms with the main political players specially Pompey and Catulus.

Edited July 23, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

[Edit: for some reason, I've lost the ability to post competently. Ignore this message.]

Edited July 23, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[M. Porcius Cato]

Without any surviving records of what Lepidus and Brutus were thinking, it's impossible to know whether they were motivated by any long-term policies and ideological issues.

 

Venturing a guess, however, I think it likely that they would have been. Sulla had failed to provide the best possible resolution to the Marian crises, and his constitution was reactionary. In the wake of Sulla's removal from the political scene, restoring power to the tribunate was undoubtedly wise, and the cause of restoring tribunician power provides a nice example of where "populare" politics and traditionalist politics were united. Thus, it's easy to see why a broad spectrum of Sullans--Lepidus, Brutus, Pompey, Crassus, and even Catulus--were eager for a constitution that was more balanced than Sulla's. Reform was needed; voters and candidates demanded it; voters and candidates supplied it. (In fact, cleaning up the Sullan mess was also a project on which Cato and Caesar cooperated and were jointly committed.)

 

Against the backdrop of these constitutional issues, however, there are hints of a foreign policy issue that would have demanded revolution--the status of Gaul. Lepidus and Brutus, and later Caesar, seem to have been convinced that Gaul deserved wider political participation. Expansion of the franchise would have been political suicide--the urban plebs in Rome jealously guarded their civic privileges and had opposed expansion of these priviiliges ever since the Gracchi and Livius Drusus had proposed them.

 

Viewed in this light, Lepidus' rebellion can be explained as a continuation of the Marsic War, whose cause held no clear electoral advantage in Rome but which had tremendous merit nevertheless. I'd note that this is exactly the sort of issue that an ideologue would fall in love with.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

Methinks it's interesting to correlate the failure of this Lepidus with the subsequent success of both of his sons (specially the futur triumvir) under the Caesarian auspice.