All translations are taken from the Loeb unless otherwise specified (*), and amended by the author where necessary. Below is a list of the full titles of the ancient works referenced and their modern short codes.
|
Amm. Marc. |
Ammianus Marcellinus – History of Rome |
|
App. BC |
Appian – Civil Wars |
|
App. Mith. |
Appian – Mithridatic Wars |
|
App. Ib. |
Appian – Spanish Wars |
|
App. Ill. |
Appian – Illyrian Wars |
|
App. Sic. |
Appian – Sicilian Wars (Fragments) |
|
de vir. ill. * |
Unknown – Lives of Famous Men |
|
Dio. |
Dio Cassius – History of Rome |
|
Diod. |
Diodorus – Library of History |
|
Eutrop. * |
Eutropius – Epitome of Roman History |
|
Exsuper. * |
Iulius Exsuperantius – Epitome of Roman History (Fragments) |
|
Fest. * |
Festus – Lexicon (Fragments) |
|
Flor. |
Florus – Epitome of Roman History |
|
Frontin. Str. |
Frontinus – Stratagems |
|
Gell. |
Gellius – The Attic Nights |
|
Gran. Lic. * |
Granius Licinianus – Epitome of Roman History (Fragments) |
|
Iustin * |
Justin – Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ History of the World |
|
Jerome Chr. * |
Jerome – Chronicon (Timeline of History) |
|
John of Antioch * |
John of Antioch – Chronicle of History (Fragments) |
|
Joesph. AJ * |
Josephus – Antiquities of the Jews |
|
Liv. |
Livy – History of Rome |
|
Liv. Per. |
The Periochae of Livy |
|
Macr. Sat. * |
Macrobius – The Saturnalia |
|
Mem. * |
Memnon – History of Heracleia (Fragments) |
|
Obseq. |
Iulius Obsequens – Summary of Livy |
|
Oros. |
Orosius – Seven Books against the Pagans |
|
Ovid. Fasti. |
Ovid – Calendar of Festivals |
|
Plin. NH |
Pliny – Natural History |
|
Plut. Cat. Min. |
Plutarch – Life of Cato the Younger |
|
Plut. Crass. |
Plutarch – Life of Crassus |
|
Plut. Luc. |
Plutarch – Life of Lucullus |
|
Plut. Mar. |
Plutarch – Life of Marius |
|
Plut. Pomp. |
Plutarch – Life of Pompeius Magnus |
|
Plut. Sert. |
Plutarch – Life of Sertorius |
|
Plut. Sull. |
Plutarch – Life of Sulla |
|
Quinct. Inst. |
Quintilian – Institutes of Oratory |
|
Sall. Cat. |
Sallust – The Conspiracy of Catiline |
|
Sall. Hist. * |
Sallust – Histories (Fragments) |
|
Sis. * |
Sisenna – History of Rome (Fragments) |
|
Strabo |
Strabo – Geography |
|
Suet. Iul. |
Suetonius – Biography of Iulius Caesar |
|
Tac. Ann. |
Tacitus – Annals of Roman History |
|
Val. Max. |
Valerius Maximus – Memorable Doings and Sayings |
|
Vell. |
Velleius Paterculus – History of Rome |
|
Cicero – Works |
|
|
Cic. Brut. |
Brutus |
|
Cic. De. Or. |
On the Ideal Orator (de Oratore) |
|
Cic. Div. |
On Divination (de Divintaione) |
|
Cic. Lael. |
Laelius on friendship |
|
Cic. ND. |
On the Nature of the Gods (de Natura Deorum) |
|
Cicero – Speeches |
|
|
Cic. Arch. |
In Defence of Archias |
|
Cic. Balb. |
In Defence of Cornelius Balbus |
|
Cic. Cael. |
In Defence of Caelius |
|
Cic. Cat. |
Against Catiline |
|
Cic. Clu. |
In Defence of Cluentius |
|
Cic. Div. in Caec. |
Against Caecilius |
|
Cic. Dom. |
On his House |
|
Cic. Flacc. |
In Defence of Flaccus |
|
Cic. Font. |
In Defence of Fonteius |
|
Cic. Leg. Agr. |
On the Agrarian Law of Rullus |
|
Cic. Man. |
In Favour of Pompeius’ Command |
|
Cic. Mil. |
In Defence of Milo |
|
Cic. Mur. |
In Defence of Murena |
|
Cic. Pis. |
Against Piso |
|
Cic. Verr. |
Against Verres |
|
Ascon. * |
Asconius – Commentaries on Cicero’s Speeches |
|
Schol. Bob. * |
Scholia Bobiensia – Commentary on Cicero’s Speeches |
|
Cicero – Letters |
|
|
Fam. |
Cicero – Letters to his Friends |
|
Latin Inscriptions |
|
|
CIL |
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum |
Chapter One
1. Sall. Cat. 10. See R Syme, Sallust (London, 1964), pp. 240–273.
2. App. BC. 1.1–2. Plutarch (Sull. 7.2), based on the memoirs of Sulla, naturally blamed Marius. Florus (1.9.3) blamed both men.
3. See TP Wiseman, ‘The Two-Headed State: How Romans Explained Civil Wars’ in B Breed, C Damon and A Rossi (eds.), Citizens of Discord (Oxford and New York, 2010), pp. 25–44.
4. In 485, 439 and 394 BC respectively. See P Panitschek, ‘Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius, M. Manlius als exempla maiorum’, Philologus 133, 1989, pp. 231–245; C. Smith, ‘Adfectatio regni in the Roman Republic’ in S Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny (Edinburgh, 2006), pp. 49–64; M Lowrie, ‘Spurius Maelius: Dictatorship and the Homo Sacer’ in B Breed, C Damon and A Rossi (eds.), Citizens of Discord (Oxford and New York, 2010), pp.171–186.
5. Val. Max. 4.7.1, Cic. Lael. 37.
6. App. BC. 1.20.
7. See L Taylor, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, Journal of Roman Studies 52, 1962, pp. 19–27 and E Badian, ‘Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica’ in J Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine (Stuttgart, 1996), pp.187–214.
8. KJ Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic (Oxford, 2010), pp.107–124.
9. In 209 BC, twelve Roman colonies, with Latin rights, refused to supply troops to Rome’s war effort, claiming they were not able (Liv. 27.9). They too were made an example of (Liv. 29.15).
10. A McDonald, ‘Rome and the Italian Confederation (200–186 BC)’, Journal of Roman Studies 34, 1944, p. 33.
11. The first expulsion of non-citizens from Rome, whether they be Latins or Italians, occurred in 187 BC. Others followed in 177, 168 and 126 BC. See R Husband, ‘On the Expulsion of Foreigners from Rome’, Classical Philology, July, 1916, pp.315–333.
12. See Mouritsen, Italian unification: A study in ancient and modern historiography (London, 1998), p.111.
13. See McDonald (1944), pp.11–33.
14. See V Shochat, ‘The Lex Agraria of 133 BC and the Italian Allies’, Athenaeum 48, 1970, pp. 25–45; E Badian, ‘Roman Politics and the Italians (133–91 BC)’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 4–5, 1970–71, pp.373–409; J Richardson, ‘The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians’, Journal of Roman Studies 70, 1980, pp. 1–11; R Howarth, ‘Rome, the Italians, and the Land’, Historia 48, 1999, pp. 282–300; and H Mouritsen, ‘The Gracchi, the Latins, and the Italian Allies’, in L de Ligt and S Northwood (eds.) People, Land and Politics, Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC–AD 14 (Leiden, 2008), pp. 471–483.
15. App. BC. 1.19.
16. See P Conole, ‘Allied Disaffection and the Revolt of Fregellae’, Antichton 15, 1981, pp. 129–130.
17. App. BC. 1.21, Val. Max. 9.5.1. See A Hands, ‘Land and Citizenship, 125–122 BC’, Mnemosyne 29, 1976, 176–180.
18. Mouritsen (1998), pp. 118–121.
19. Cicero refers to the revolt as the bellum Fregellanum (Leg Agr. 2.90). Mouritsen (1998), pp.118–119, and Conole (1981), pp. 129–140, both argue that Fregellae was part of a larger planned Latin revolt, but that Fregellae jumped the gun and their destruction stopped the others.
20. See Conole (1981), pp.132–133.
21. See G Sampson, The Crisis of Rome. The Jugurthine and Northern Wars and the Rise of Marius (Barnsley, 2010), pp.192–200.
22. Sampson (2010), pp. 212–214.
23. E Badian, ‘Caepio and Norbanus. Notes on the Decade 100–90 BC’, Historia 6, 1957, pp. 318–346, and E Gruen, ‘Political Prosecutions in the 90’s BC’, Historia 15, 1966b, pp. 32–64.
24. See T Carney, ‘Was Rutilius’ Exile Voluntary or Compulsory’, Acta Juridica, 1958b, pp. 242–244, and R Kallet-Marx, ‘The Trial of Rutilius Rufus’, Phoenix 44, 1990, pp.122–139
25. See note 11.
26. Ascon. 68C.
27. Ap. Ib. 99–100, Liv. Per. 70, Plut. Sert. 3.3, Sall. Hist. 1.88M, Gell. 2.27.2, Frontin. Str. 1.8.5 and 2.10.1, Obseq. 48, Cic. Pis. 58, Ascon. 14C, Plut. Crass. 1.1, 4.1–2 respectively.
28. Ap. Ib. 100.
29. Diod. 37.5a.
30. Liv. Per. 70, Obseq. 48 and 53.
31. Liv. Per. 70, App. Mith. 121, Iust. 39.5.2, Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.51, Sall. Hist. 2.41, Obseq. 49, Eutrop. 6.11.3, Jerome. Chr. 1922 and 1952, Amm. Marc. 22.16.24.
32. G Sampson, The Defeat of Rome, Crassus, Carrhae and the Invasion of the East (Barnsley, 2008), pp. 32–55.
33. App. Mith. 10–15, see D Glew, ‘Mithridates Eupator and Rome: A Study of the Background of the First Mithridatic War’, Athenaeum 55, 1977, pp. 380–405, B McGing, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus (Leiden, 1986), S Dmitriev, ‘Cappodocian Dynastic Rearrangements on the Eve of the First Mithridatic War’, Historia 55, 2006, pp. 285–297.
34. Plut. Mar. 31.3.
35. See T Luce, ‘Marius and the Mithridatic Command’, Historia 19, 1970, pp.161–194, and L Ballesteros Pastor, ‘Marius’ Words to Mithridates Eupator (Plut. Mar. 31.3)’, Historia 48, 1999, pp. 506–508.
36. See G Sumner, ‘Sulla’s Career in the Nineties’, Athenaeum 56, 1978, pp. 395–396, P Cagniart, ‘L. Cornelius Sulla in the Nineties: a Reassessment’, Latomus 50, 1991, pp. 285–303, and T Brennan, ‘Sulla’s Career in the Nineties’, Chiron 22, 1992, pp.103–158.
37. Plut. Sull. 5.3–6, Liv. Per. 70, Vell. 2.24.3. See A Keaveney, ‘Roman Treaties with Parthia circa 95–circa 64 BC’, American Journal of Philology 102, 1981, pp.195–212, and Sampson (2008), pp. 86–87.
38. M Olbrycht, ‘Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran’, in J Hojte (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Aarhus, 2009), pp. 163–190, argues that Mithridates II of Parthia was sponsoring Mithridates VI in his activities in Asia Minor to reduce Roman influence.
39. Cic. De.Or. 1.24–25.
40. See E Hardy, ‘Three Questions as to Livius Drusus’, Classical Review 27, 1913, pp. 261–263, P Seymour, ‘The Policy of Livius Drusus the Younger’, English Historical Review 29, 1914, pp. 417–425, A Hands, ‘Livius Drusus and the Courts’, Phoenix 26, 1967, pp. 268–274, E, Weinrib, ‘The Judiciary Law of M. Livius Drusus (Tr. Pl. 91 BC)’, Historia 19, 1970, pp. 414–443, E Gabba, Republican Rome: The Army and the Allies (trans. P Cuff) (Oxford, 1976), pp.131–141, A Marshall, ‘Livius Drusus and the Italian Question’, Historical Papers 11, 1976, pp. 93–103, R Evans, ‘The characters of Drusus and Sulpicius’, Questioning Reputations (Pretoria, 2004), pp. 133–159.
41. Again, there is a debate over whether this proposal was aimed at all Latins and Italians or just Latins. Mouritsen (1998), pp. 120–122, again argues that it was intended for the Latins only, but then this does not explain the Italian reaction.
42. App. BC. 1.35–36
43. Val. Max. 3.1.2, Plut. Cat. Min. 2, Vict. de vir. ill.. 80.1. See C Dart, ‘Qvintus Poppeadivs Silo Dvx et Avctor of the Social War’, Athenaeum 98, 2010, pp. 111–126.
44. Diod. 37.11. See H Rose, ‘The Oath of Philippus and the Di Indigetes’, Harvard Theological Review 30, 1937, pp. 165–181, who argues that the wording Diodorus presents was his own creation, and L Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley, 1949), p.45–46, who argues that it could well be the genuine wording.
45. Val. Max. 9.5.2, de vir. ill.. 66.8.
46. de vir. ill.. 66.8.
47. Plut. Cat.Min. 2.3, Val. Max. 3.1.
48. Liv. Per. 71.
49. Flor. 2.6.8.
50. Dio (28. fr.96) and the Periochae of Livy (Per.71) refer to the conspiracy, but not the part Drusus played.
51. Diod. 37.11.
52. Given his apparent role in unveiling the conspiracy, it could have been by either Romans or Italians. Cicero (ND 3.81) accuses Q. Severus Varius Hybrida (Tr. Pl. 90) as being the assassin.
53. Ascon. 69.
54. App. BC. 1.38.
55. App. BC. 1.38, Diod. 37.13.2, Liv. Per. 72, Vell. 2.15.1, Flor. 2.6.9, Obseq.
Chapter Two
1. L. Lucceius, a friend of Cicero, wrote a history of the Social and Civil Wars in c56 BC. See Cic. Fam. 5.12.2.
2. The Periochae of Livy (Per. 72), Orosius (5.18.8), Eutropius (5.3.1) and Florus (2.6.5), all of whom are based on Livy, have elements of the same list. For this period we do not have the books of Livy himself, but must rely on the Periochae (or summary) of Livy for information.
3. Diod. 37.2.5.
4. App. BC. 1.39.1.
5. E Salmon, ‘Notes on the Social War’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 89, 1958, pp. 159–184.
6. Diod. 37.2.7.
7. Diod. 37.2.4–7. Also see Strabo. 5.4.2.
8. Dart argues that such descriptions are indeed a Romanized version of the Italian command, rather than representing the actuality, which he argues was each of the two federations having a dux in supreme command, with a commander for each of the major races, and no annual elections to Italian magistracies. See C Dart, ‘The “Italian” Constitution in the Social War: A Reassessment (91 to 88 BC)’, Historia 58, 2009, pp. 215–224.
9. See E Salmon, ‘The Cause of the Social War’, Phoenix 16, 1962, pp. 107–119, and P Brunt, ‘Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War’, Journal of Roman Studies 55, 1965, pp. 90–109.
10. App. BC. 1.39.1.
11. See Conole (1981), pp. 129–140.
12. Flor. 2.6.6–8.
13. Plut. Sert. 4.1–5, Sall Hist. 1.77.
14. Mem. 20.
15. App. BC. 1.39.
16. P Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 B.C. – A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 435–440.
17. CIL I². 867–874.
18. The other named legates were Q. Servilius Caepio, C. Perperna, M. Valerius Messala (see App. BC. 1.40).
19. Oros. 5.18.10.
20. See A Keaveney, Rome and the Unification of Italy (London, 1987), pp. 215–219, for the possible identifications of the commanders and the Italian peoples.
21. App. BC. 1.47, Oros. 5.18.17.
22. Keaveney (1987), pp. 131–132.
23. Again, see Keaveney (1987), pp. 216–217.
24. App. BC. 1.41.
25. Oros. 5.18.11–14.
26. App. BC. 1.43.
27. Oros. 5.18.11–13. Also see Dio. fr. 98.1–2.
28. Brunt (1971), p.435.
29. Obsequens (55), however, ascribed the loss to a failed sacrifice.
30. Liv. Per. 73.
31. T Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Volume II, 99 BC–31 BC (New York, 1952), pp. 30–32.
32. Liv. Per. 73.
33. Oros. 5.18.14.
34. App. BC. 1.44.
35. App. BC. 1.46.
36. Liv Per. 73, Oros. 5.18.16.
37. Diod. 37.15.1–3.
38. See Plutarch (Mar. 33.2) for a reported clash between the two men.
39. Cic. Phil. 12.27.
40. Mattingly and Keaveney argue that this Sulpicius was P. Sulpicius, the tribune of 88 BC. See H Mattingly, ‘The Consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 89 B.C.’, Athenaeum 53, 1975, pp. 264–265, and Keaveney (1987), p.209.
41. App. BC. 1.47.
42. Oros. 5.18.17.
43. He came from a different branch of the Iulii than Lucius, and the men may have been cousins.
44. App. BC. 1.48.
45. See Broughton (1952), pp. 27–31.
46. Diod. 37.19.3–20.1.
47. Diod. 37.16.1. Orosius (5.18.17) also names him as an Italian leader.
48. Liv. Per. 72.
49. The Periochae of Livy (Per. 73) and Orosius (5.18.11) state that Caesar fought Samnites. Appian (BC. 1.41) states that the enemy commander was Vettius Scato without naming the peoples he commanded.
50. Ibid.
51. App. BC. 1.41.
52. App. BC. 1.42.
53. Ibid.
54. Having been captured along with his father and held as a hostage for the last 15 years.
55. App. BC. 1.42. Appian continually refers to L. Caesar as Sex (his brother), who was not the consul this year.
56. Oros. 5.18.11.
57. App. BC. 1.45.
58. Frontin. Str. 1.5.17.
59. Oros. 5.18.16
60. Liv. Per. 73. Diodorus preserves details of the famine in the city during the siege (Diod. 37.19.1–2.). Strabo 5.238) states that in his day the city was still deserted.
61. Keaveney (1987), p.140.
62. App. BC. 1.41.
63. Frontin. Str. 2.4.16.
64. Diod. 37.23.
65. App. BC. 1.42.
66. Oros. 5.18.17.
67. Liv. Per. 74.
68. App. BC. 1.49.
69. Oros. 5.18.17.
70. Liv. Per. 73.
71. App. BC. 1.49.
72. Sis. fr.119 contains references to the issuing of citizenship.
73. CIL. 1.709.
74. Cic. Balb. 21.
75. Gell. NA. 4.4.3.
76. Ad Herenn. 3.2.2.
77. E Bispham, From Asculum to Actium: The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus (Oxford, 2007), pp. 161–204.
78. Ibid, pp. 172–173.
79. Cic. Arch. 7.
80. Schol Bob. 175.
81. See U Ewins, ‘The Enfranchisement of Cisalpine Gaul’, Papers of the British School at Rome 23, 1955, pp. 73–98.
82. App. BC. 1.49. See R Lewis, ‘Appian B.C. I, 49, 214. Rome’s New Tribes 90–87 B.C.’, Athenaeum 46, 1968, pp. 273–291.
83. Bispham (2007), pp. 162–171.
84. App. BC. 1.49.
85. Ibid.
86. Freedmen had been used in the military during the Second Punic War. During the Jugurthine and Northern Wars Marius had recruited citizens without land. See Sampson (2010), pp.180–191.
87. The ‘Hybrida’ refered to his mixed parentage, his mother being Spanish and Varius himself possibly being born in Surco. Cicero (ND. 3.81) accuses him of murdering Livius Drusus and Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (the latter by poison).
88. See E Gruen, ‘The Lex Varia’, Journal of Roman Studies 55, 1965, pp. 59–73, E Badian, ‘Quaestiones Variae’, Historia 18, 1969, pp. 447–491, F. Porra, ‘La legge Varia del 90 e quella Sulpicia dell’ 88 a.C: il problema degli esuli’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere 35, 1973, pp. 13–28.
89. Cic. Brut. 305, ND. 3.81, Val. Max. 8.6.4.
90. Plut. Mar. 33.6.
91. App. BC. 1.50.
92. Ibid.
93. Dio. fr.100.
94. Liv. Per. 75, Oros. 5.18.24.
95. Although Orosius names the battle as Lake Facinus, the word facinus in Latin can refer to an evil deed.
96. Liv. Per. 75.
97. Oros. 5.18.24.
98. Private armies who followed their patron as an individual rather than as the duly appointed representative of the state. See R Morstein–Marx, ‘Consular Appeals to the Army in 88 and 87: the locus of legitimacy in late–Republcian Rome’, in H Beck, A Dupla, M Jehne and F Pollo (eds.), Consuls and Res Publica (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 259–278.
99. App. BC. 1.50, Vell. 2.16.4, Liv. Per. 75, Eutrop. 5.3.2.
100. We have no further names for him other than Sulpicius. Broughton (1952), p. 37, argues that it was Ser. Sulpicius Galba.
101. Oros. 5.18.25, Liv. Per. 76.
102. Liv. Per. 76. The latter campaign took place in 88 BC, see Chapter 3.
103. App. BC. 1.48. Orosius (5.18.21) also has the suicide of Vidacilius.
104. Oros. 5.18.21.
105. Vell. 2.21.1.
106. Oros. 5.18.26.
107. This is not explicitly attested by any ancient source, but a number of them refer to him having legates of his own, and it follows the pattern set with Marius and Rutilius the year previously. See Broughton (1952), p. 38.
108. Plin. NH. 3.70.
109. Oros. 5.18.22.
110. Vell. 3.16.2.
111. App. BC. 1.50.
112. See A Keaveney, ‘Sulla, the Marsi, and the Hirpini’, Classical Philology 76, 1981, pp. 292–296.
113. App. BC. 1.51.
114. Ibid.
115. Ibid.
116. Ovid. Fasti. 6.567.
117. App. BC. 1.52.
118. Ibid.
119. Liv. Per. 75, Diod. 37.2.8.
120. App. BC. 1.52.
121. Broughton (1952), p.39, postulates that he may have been the same man who was a proconsul c.78 BC, but does not explain the massive gap in his career nor this absence during the intervening years of the civil war.
122. Liv. Per. 76.
123. Flor. 2.6.13.
124. Vell. 2.15.3.
125. Brunt (1971), pp. 439 and 696–697.
126. The Northern Wars against the Cimbri and Teutones, which saw one of Rome’s greatest ever defeats, at Arausio, and an invasion of Italy itself. See Sampson (2010), pp. 133–141.
127. Oros. 5.18.30.
128. Brunt (1971), pp. 438–439.
129. Oros. 5.18.27–29.
130. See C Barlow, ‘The Roman Government and the Roman Economy, 92–80 B.C.’, American Journal of Philology 101, 1980, pp. 202–219.
131. App. BC. 1.54.
132. Barlow (1980), pp. 202–219.
133. App. BC. 1.54, Liv. Per.74, Val. Max. 9.7.4.
134. Ibid.
135. Fest. 516L.
136. This is explicitly attested in Cicero (Arch. 11).
137. Plutarch (Mar. 36.5) tells the story of a prophecy that was made during Marius’ youth concerning seven Eagle chicks in a nest that he caught in his cloak, which was interpreted as signalling seven Consulships. At this point he remained on six. We have no way of telling whether this prophecy was a later invention or how much credence Marius made of it during his lifetime.
Chapter Three
1. App. BC. 1.53.
2. Diod. 37.2.9–10.
3. Obseq. 56.
4. See Broughton (1952), p. 43 and p. 45.
5. Obseq. 56.
6. Diod. 37.2.10.
7. Ibid.
8. Liv. Per. 76, de vir. ill. 63. Confusingly, Orosius had a Poppaedius killed at the battle of Teanus River in 89 by Sulpicius (Oros. 5.18.25).
9. Liv. Per. 76.
10. de vir. ill. 63.1.
11. Many commentators have made Mamercus a legate of Metellus, but this is never attested anywhere in the ancient sources.
12. Diod. 37.2.11.
13. Sampson (2010), pp. 46–49, 53–55 and 98–99.
14. Oros. 5.18.30.
15. Liv. Per. 74.
16. Dio. fr. 101.
17. M Olbrycht, ‘Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran’, in J Hojte (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Aarhus, 2009), pp. 163–190. For good background on Mithridates, see B McGing (1986) or P Matyszak, Mithridates the Great (Barnsley, 2008).
18. E Badian, ‘Sulla’s Cilician Command’, Athenaeum 37, 1959, pp. 279–303, P Cagniart, ‘L. Cornelius Sulla in the Nineties: a Reassessment’, Latomus 50, 1991, pp. 285–303, and T Brennan, ‘Sulla’s Career in the Nineties’, Chiron 22, 1992, pp. 103–158.
19. Plutarch (Sull. 24) gives the figures as 150,000, whilst Memnon (22.9) and Valerius Maximus (9.2e3) state 80,000. See also App. Mith. 22–23, 58 and 62, Oros. 6.2.2–3, Liv. Per. 78, Dio. fr. 101, Vell. 2.18.1.–2, Flor. 1.40.7–8, Cic. Man. 7, Tac. Ann. 4.14.
20. Plut. Sull. 6
21. The tribune is only identified as a Pompeius, but modern commentators have argued that it was the same man. See Broughton (1952), pp. 2–3.
22. Cic. Lael. 2.
23. Val. Max. 3.5.2.
24. Technically, lots were used to distribute the command between the two consuls, but with a partnership such as this and a clear military favourite, this seems to have been arranged (Vell. 2.18.2).
25. See Lewis (1968), pp. 273–291.
26. Vell. 2.20.2, App. BC. 1.49, Sis. fr. 17.
27. See A Lintott, ‘The Tribunate of P. Sulpicius Rufus’, Classical Quarterly 21, 1971, pp. 442–453, T Mitchell, ‘The Volte-Face of P. Sulpicius Rufus in 88 B.C.’, Classical Philology 70, 1975, pp. 197–204, C Chapman, ‘Cicero and Sulpicius Rufus (Tr. Pl. 88 B.C.)’, Acta Classica 22, 1979, pp. 61–72, J Powell, ‘The Tribune Sulpicius’, Historia 39, 1990, pp. 446–460, R Lewis, ‘P. Sulpicius’ Law to Recall Exiles, 88 B.C.’, Classical Quarterly 48, 1998, pp. 195–199, R Evans, ‘The Characters of Drusus and Sulpicius’, Questioning Reputations (Pretoria, 2004), pp. 133–159.
28. Ad Herenn. 2.45, Liv. Per. 77. See Lewis (1998), pp.195–199.
29. See B Katz, ‘Caesar Strabo’s Struggle for the Consulship – and more’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 120, 1977, pp. 45–62, A Keaveney, ‘Sulla, Sulpicius and Caesar Strabo’, Latomus 38, 1979, pp. 451–460, and J Beness, ‘Sulpicius (Tr. Pl. 88 BC) and the Pompeii’, Electronic Antiquity 1.3, 1993.
30. Ascon. 25C. See also Quinct. Inst. 6.3.75 and Macr. Sat. 1.11.32.
31. As voting had to be conducted in person in Rome, the vast majority of the new citizens would not be able to afford to leave their jobs to travel to Rome (and back) to vote regularly.
32. Plut. Sull. 7.2.
33. Plut. Sull. 8.3.
34. See Plut. Mar. 36.5 for the prophesy of Marius’ catching a nest with seven eagle chicks in it.
35. When Ti. Sempronius Gracchus deposed M. Octavius.
36. See G Sampson, A Re–examination of the Office of the Tribunate of the Plebs in the Roman Republic (494–23 BC) (Manchester, Unpublished Thesis, 2005).
37. Plut. Sull. 9, App. BC. 1.57.
38. Morstein-Marx (2011), pp. 259–278.
39. See A Keaveney, Lucullus: A Life (London, 1992), p. 7 and pp.17–18.
40. Val. Max. 9.7 ext. 1, Oros. 5.19.4.
41. See Morstein-Marx (2011), pp. 273–274.
42. Plut. Sull. 9.2.
43. Plut. Mar. 35.5 and Sull. 9.1.
44. App. BC. 1.57.
45. Plut. Sull. 9.5.
46. App. BC. 1.58.
47. Plut. Sull. 9.5–6.
48. Florus (2.21.7) has Sulpicius and Albinovanus as the leaders of the defenders, both of whom he labels as consuls, which is an interesting slip. Possibly, Albinovanus was a fellow tribune. Another remoter possibility is that Albinovanus was the suffect consul who replaced Pompeius and who, due to questionable legitimacy and his short tenure of office, was never officially recognized as consul.
49. App. BC. 1.58.
50. App. BC. 1.59.
51. Flor. 2.21.7.
52. The phrase ‘civitatatis statum ordinavit’ is used (Liv. Per. 77).
53. Flor. 2.9.8, Plut. Sull. 10.1, Val. Max. 3.8.5, Velleius (2.19.1) labels it a law.
54. B Katz, ‘The First Fruits of Sulla’s March’, L’antiquité classique 44, 1975, pp. 102–104, disagrees and thinks it was agreed in the Senate and then put to a popular vote.
55. Val. Max. 3.8.5.
56. Appian (BC. 1.60) states that there were around twelve hostes in total. Ten of these can be identified with some degree of certainty: Marius and Sulpicius, C. Marius (jnr.), M. Iunius Brutus, P. Cornelius Cethegus, Cn. and Q. Granius, P. Albinovanus, M. Laetorius, Q. Rubrius Varro. See R Bauman, ‘The Hostis Declarations of 88 and 87 B.C.’, Athenaeum 51, 1973, pp. 270–293 and Katz (1975), pp. 105–115.
57. They were joined by Cethegus, the Granii, Albinovanus, Laetorius and others (App. BC. 1.62).
58. Velleius (2.19.1) has Sulpicius being hunted down by horsemen and killed in the Laurentine marshes, whilst the others sources have him being betrayed by a slave whilst hiding in his villa. According to the sources, Sulla then rewarded the slave with his freedom, and then had him hurled from the Tarpeian Rock for the act of treachery (Plut. Sull. 10.1).
59. Ti. and C. Sempronius Gracchus, L. Appuleius Saturninus and M. Livius Drusus.
60. Fest. 516L.
61. App. BC. 1.59. Katz (1975), pp. 117–120, again argues that this was actually accomplished in 88 BC.
62. See E Badian, ‘Lucius Sulla: The Deadly Reformer’, in A Dunston (ed.) Essays on Roman Culture (Sydney, 1970), pp. 35–74, E Gabba, Republican Rome, The Army and the Allies (Oxford, 1976), pp. 131–141. A Keaveney, Sulla, The Last Republican(London, 1982).
63. We have no details concerning where or whom he fought.
64. Plut. Sull. 10.3, although the manuscript names him as a Servaeus. See Broughton (1952), p. 4.
65. Having been a Metellan client, Marius usurped the command against Jugurtha from Metellus and then supported the tribune Saturninus in exiling Metellus. See Sampson (2010), pp. 192–200.
66. Plut. Mar. 40.3–4
67. E Badian, ‘Notes on Provincial Governors from the Social War down to Sulla’s Victory’, Proceedings of the African Classical Association 1, 1958, pp. 1–18.
68. Plut. Sull. 10.3.
69. Plut. Sull. 10.4, Dio. fr. 102.3.
70. Dio. fr. 102.5.
71. See Vell. 2.24.2. We are not told how many, but as six fled to Cinna and one was executed, it can only be a maximum of three.
72. Plut. Sull. 10.4.
73. App. BC. 1.63. Translation amended by the author.
74. Vell. 2.20.1. This overlooks the murders during the Marsic and Samnite campaigns (see Chapter 2).
75. Sampson (2010), pp. 180–191.
76. App. BC. 1.64.
77. KJ, Hölkeskamp (2010), pp. 107–124.
Chapter Four
1. See J Ramsey, ‘Mithridates, the Banner of Ch’ih-Yu, and the Comet Coin’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 99, 1999, pp. 197–253.
2. Plut. Sull. 7.4, Liv. fr. 15. See J Heurgon, ‘The Date of Vegoia’s Prophesy’, Journal of Roman Studies 49, 1959, 41–45.
3. Cic. Div. 1.4. See TP Wiseman, ‘Lucretius, Catiline and the Survival of Prophesy’, in History and Imagination Eight Essays on Roman Culture, (Exeter, 1994) pp. 58–59.
4. Dio. fr. 102.7.
5. Broughton (1952), p. 48.
6. 135–132 and 104–100 BC. See Sampson (2010), pp. 201–203.
7. Diod. 37.2.13–14.
8. App. Mith. 29.
9. Plut. Sull. 11.4–5.
10. Appian (BC. 1.64) names Capua, whilst Velleius (2.20.4.) names Nola. The Periochae of Livy (Per. 79) does not give a location, but is the only one to name Ap. Claudius.
11. App. BC. 1.64.
12. Cic. Font. 4.3 and Liv. Per. 76.
13. Flor. 2.21.9–10.
14. This is interesting in itself as six of the ten tribunes later fled with Cinna. The use of the majority in vetoing a proposal is also an interesting and little explored feature of the tribunate. See G Sampson, ‘A Re–examination of the Office of the tribunate of the plebs in the Roman Republic (494 – 23 B.C.)’ (Manchester, Unpublished Thesis, 2005), pp. 211–213.
15. App. BC. 1.64.
16. Exsup. 25–26.
17. Plut. Sert. 4.5.
18. App. BC. 1.65, de vir. ill.. 69.
19. See Brunt (1971), pp. 440–441.
20. E Fentress, ‘Tribe and Faction: The Case of the Gaetuli’, Mélanges de l’Ecole francaise de Rome Antiquité 94, 1982, pp. 327–329.
21. Plut. Mar. 41.2. Fentress (Ibid) argues that they were Gaetulians not Mauri.
22. Gran. Lic. 16–17.
23. Flor. 2.8.21.
24. App. BC. 1.67, Plut. Mar. 41.2.
25. See B Katz, ‘The Selection of L. Cornelius Merula’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 122, 1979, pp. 162–166.
26. Dio. fr. 102.7.
27. Gran. Lic. 20–21.
28. Vell. 2.21.2.
29. Brunt (1971), p. 440.
30. We have few clear details surrounding the wider family of Marius; at least one brother and one step-brother are known. Certainly, the late Republic saw a number of Marii holding junior magistracies.
31. Gran Lic.17.
32. For the fleet, see Plut. Mar. 42.1.
33. Gran. Lic. 18. The Valerius is not clearly identified. Broughton postulated that it may have been. L. Valerius Flaccus, the consul of 86. Broughton (1952), p. 53.
34. Most notably in the Gothic Wars of the sixth century AD.
35. App. BC. 1.67, Val. Max. 4.7.5.
36. Gran. Lic. 20.
37. Broughton (1952), p. 51 and p.53.
38. Livy (1.33.6–7) states that the Janiculum was added to the city’s fortifications to stop attacking armies using it as a strong point.
39. App. BC. 1.68.
40. Gran. Lic. 18–20.
41. Vell. 2.213.
42. Oros. 5.19.
43. Tac. Hist. 3.51.
44. Plut. Mar. 42.2.
45. Liv. Per. 80.
46. Lovano (2002), pp. 41–42.
47. Gran. Lic. 18.
48. Tac. Hist. 3.51.
49. The Periochae of Livy is condensing a huge amount of original Livian narrative into short sentences and could easily have integrated different battles.
50. In fact, we have a number of references to Ap. Claudii throughout the period, with no clear idea of how many there were, but they appear on all sides of the conflict.
51. Appian (BC. 1.69) names Marius, but it may have been one of the younger Marii. Orosius (5.19) adds the details of the slaughter.
52. Gran. Lic. 22.
53. Gran. Lic. 22. See O Watkins, ‘The Death of Cn. Pompeius Strabo’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 131, 1988, pp. 143–150, T Hillard, ‘Death by Lightening, Pompeius Strabo and the People’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 139, 1996, pp. 136–145, and T Hillman, ‘Cinna, Strabo’s Army, and Strabo’s Death in 87 B.C.’, L’antiquité classique 65, 1996, pp. 81–89.
54. App. BC. 1.69. See Lovano (2002), pp. 42–43.
55. Gran. Lic. 23–24.
56. Diod. 38.2.
57. App. BC.1.70, Plut. Mar.43.1.
58. App. BC. 1.70.
59. Diod. 38.2.
60. Plut. Mar. 42.4.
61. App. BC. 1.71.
62. Gran. Lic. 24.
63. App. BC. 1.72.
64. Sampson (2010), pp. 167–179.
65. App. BC. 1.73.
66. Ibid.
67. Plut. Mar. 44.6, Sert.5.5, Oros. 5.19.24.
68. App. BC. 1.74.
69. Ibid.
70. Liv. Per. 80.
71. Broughton (1952), p. 51 and p. 53.
72. E. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 376–379.
73. Liv. Per. 80.
Chapter Five
1. Dio. 31. fr.104. If we combine the two sources it would seem that Marius’ son was tribune this year; a point not usually noted.
2. Liv. Per. 80.
3. See Lovanao (2002), pp. 53–77.
4. See C Barlow, ‘The Roman Government and the Roman Economy, 92–80 B.C.’, American Journal of Philology 101, 1980, pp. 202–219.
5. Plin. NH. 33.132 and 34.27.
6. See E Badian, ‘Waiting for Sulla’, Journal of Roman Studies 52, 1962b, pp. 47–61.
7. See Brunt (1971), pp. 91–99 and Lovano (2002). pp. 61–63.
8. The figure comes from Jerome. Chr. 173.4
9. It may fall into the Census of 86/85, given the notoriously inaccurate dating of The Periochae of Livy.
10. Liv. Per 84.
11. Lovano (2002), pp. 61–63.
12. Cic. Dom. 84.
13. App. BC. 1.53.
14. Cic. Brut. 303.
15. See Badian (1958), pp. 1–18 and Lovano (2002) pp. 79–103.
16. See Badian (1958), pp. 7–8.
17. Ibid.
18. App. Ib. 100.
19. Son of the consul of 86 BC, he fled to his uncle following the murder of his father in Asia by Fimbria. Cic. Flacc. 63.
20. Some manuscripts give the name as Caelius, which some modern commentators have amended to Caecilius. See Broughton (1952), p.25, and Badian (1958), p.12, who identify him as the consul of 94 BC.
21. Liv. Per. 73.
22. Badian (1958), p. 12.
23. Val. Max. 4.7.5.
24. Badian (1958), pp. 12–13.
25. Badian (1958), p. 1.
26. Plut. Mar. 40.3–4.
27. By reason of a superior imperium to Sextilius, see Badian (1958), p. 1.
28. This version of events would explain the odd two to three year gap between Metellus gaining control of Africa and the Cinnan regime attempting to dislodge him.
29. Plut. Crass. 6.2.
30. Liv. Per. 84.
31. Sampson (2010).
32. Plut. Mar. 40.5.
33. Plut. Luc. 2.3–4, Joseph. AJ. 14.114.
34. Vell. 2.24.3. This is often combined with Sulla’s meeting with a Parthian ambassador in the 90s, but Velleius is quite clear on the timing.
35. Liv. Per. 70, Obseq. 53.
36. Cic. Pis. 84.
37. Dio. 30–35. fr.101. Jerome (Chr. 174.1) dates the sacking of the Temple to 83 BC, to synchronize it with the destruction of the Capitol in Rome.
38. App. Ill. 5, though the dating is contentious. See Broughton (1952), p. 59.
39. Liv. Per. 74 and 76.
40. Oros. 5.18.30.
41. App. Mith. 35.
42. Mem. 22.12.
43. App. Ill. 5.
44. Eutrop. 5.7.1.
45. Gran. Lic. 27–28. The campaigns are also mentioned by the Periochae of Livy (Per. 83) and the de viris illustribus (75).
46. See E Badian, ‘Rome, Athens and Mithridates’, American Journal of Ancient History 1, 1976, pp. 105–128, C Habicht, ‘Zur Geschichte Athens in der Zeit Mithridates VI’, Chiron 6, 1976, pp. 127–142, M Hoff, ‘Laceratae Athenae: Sulla’s Siege of Athens in 87/6 B.C. and its Aftermath’ in M Hoff and S Rotroff (eds.), The Romanization of Athens (Oxford, 1997), pp. 33–51.
47. Mem. 22.
48. App. Mith. 45, Oros. 6.2.4–7.
49. App. Mith. 51.
50. Plut. Sull. 20.1.
51. App. Mith. 51.
52. Mem. 24.
53. App. Mith. 52.
54. The site widely believed to be Troy is certainly that of Ilium. Whether it is the site of Troy has recently been disputed by the research of Dr I McGregor-Morris and Dr J Moore.
55. Liv. Per. 83.
56. App. BC. 1.77.
57. App. BC. 1.78.
Chapter Six
1. There is significant confusion around the son of Marius. The Periochae of Livy (Per.86) has him as being younger than 20 when elected consul in 83 BC. Yet Orosius has him serving in Porcius Cato’s army in 89 BC, and he was old enough to declared hostisin 88 BC, and serve possibly as tribune in 86 BC (based on Dio.). In truth, we know little about Marius’ children, and it could possibly be that there was more than one son, though this remains speculation.
2. App. BC. 1.82; 200 cohorts of 500 men. Brunt argues that this could well have been an accurate figure. See Brunt (1971), pp. 442–443.
3. App. BC. 1.82.
4. App. BC. 1.79. Again, see Brunt for confirmation of these figures. Brunt (1971), pp. 442–443.
5. Plutarch has him landing at Brundisium (Sull. 27.1) but later has him landing at Tarentum (Sull. 27.4) as well.
6. Vell. 2.25.1.
7. Exsup. 43–44.
8. Vell. 2.25.3 and Plut. Sull.5 respectively.
9. Appian (BC. 1.84) states that the battle took place at Canusium, possibly mistaking it for Casilinum in Campania.
10. Vell. 2.25.4, Plut. Sull. 27.4 .
11. Plut. Sull. 27.5.
12. Flor. 2.9.19.
13. Oros. 5.20.
14. Eutrop. 5.7.4.
15. App. BC. 1.85.
16. Plut. Sull. 28.1–3. Also see Eutrop. 5.7.4.
17. Plut. Sert. 6.2.
18. Exsup. 49.
19. Plut. Sull. 28.2–3.
20. Vell. 2.25.3.
21. P Spann, Quintus Sertorius and the Legacy of Sulla (Fayetteville, 1987), p. 36.
22. Plut. Sert. 4.3.
23. Vell. 2.25.3.
24. Plut. Sert. 6.2.
25. Exsup. 50.
26. Diod. 38.16.
27. App. BC. 1.86.
28. Ibid.
29. Liv. Per. 85.
30. App. BC. 1.86.
31. The date of the fire comes from Plutarch (Sull. 27.6–7). See H Flower, ‘Remembering and Forgetting Temple Destruction. The Destruction of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in 83 B.C.’, in G Gardner and K Osterloch (eds.). Antiquity in Antiquity(Tübingen, 2008), pp. 74–92.
32. App. BC. 1.86.
33. Plut. Pomp. 6.4, App. BC. 1.80.
34. See Broughton (1952), p. 65 for possible identification of this man.
35. Plut. Pomp. 7.1–2.
36. Plut. Pomp.7.3.
37. Diod. 38.16.
38. Plut. Crass.6.2.
39. Crassus’ date of birth is not clear, but must have been around 112 BC. See Sampson (2008), pp. 57 and 64–65.
40. Plut. Crass. 6.2–3.
41. Plut. Crass. 6.1, App. BC.1.86.
42. See note 399 for a discussion on the various ages assigned to C. Marius. Velleius (2.26.1) has him as twenty–six. Sallust (Hist. 1.35) records that Marius’ widow objected to her son becoming consul this year, as did the de viris illustribus (68).
43. Liv. Per. 86.
44. Exsup. 50.
45. App. BC. 1.86.
46. Exsup. 47.
47. Brunt (1971), pp. 442–443.
48. Val. Max. 7.6.4, Plin. NH. 3.16.
49. From the large increase in the number of coins for this period. See Barlow (1980), pp. 204–205.
50. App. BC. 1.87.
51. The latter detail comes from Orosius (5.20.5).
52. Plut. Crass. 6.5.
53. App. BC. 1.87.
54. Oros. 5.20.5.
55. App. BC. 1.88.
56. Only Appian (BC. 1.88) records the battle.
57. This allegation is repeated in the de viris illustribus (68).
58. Plut. Sull. 28.4–8.
59. App. BC. 1.87.
60. Eutrop. 5.8.1.
61. Oros. 5.20.6.
62. Diod. 38.15.
63. App. BC. 1.88.
64. Liv. Per. 87, Vell. 2.27.6.
65. App. BC. 1.89. The battle is also referred to in the Periochae of Livy (Per. 86).
66. Vell. 2.28.1.
67. App. BC. 1.90.
68. Ibid.
69. App. BC. 1.90.
70. App. BC. 1.91.
71. Oros. 5.20.7.
72. App. BC. 1.91.
73. Plut. Sull. 27.7.
74. Oros. 5.20.3.
75. App. BC. 1.92.
76. Ibid.
77. App. BC. 1.90.
78. Such as at the Battle of Sacriportus, see Appian (BC. 1.87).
79. Flor. 2.8.22.
80. Vell. 2.27.1.
81. App. BC. 1.90. See R Lewis, ‘A Problem in the Siege of Praeneste, 82 B.C.’, Papers of the British School at Rome 39, 1971, pp. 32–39.
82. Plut. Sull. 29.3.
83. The battle is also mentioned in Oros. 5.20.9, Vell. 2.27.1–3, Flor. 2.9.22–23, Liv. Per. 88, Sall. Hist. 1.34L, Strabo. 5.249, Eutrop 5.8.1.
84. App. BC. 1.93.
85. Plut. Sull. 29.5.
86. Plut. Sull. 29.7.
87. Plut. Crass. 6.6.
88. Plut. Sull. 30.1–3.
89. Ibid.
90. App. BC. 1.94.
91. For the fall of Norba see Appian (BC. 1.94).
Chapter Seven
1. See F Vervaet, ‘The Lex Valeria and Sulla’s Empowerment as Dictator (82–79 BC)’, Cahiers Glotz 15, 2004, pp. 37–84.
2. Even though Appian states that he held the dictatorship until 79 BC (BC.1.103), a number of modern scholars have tried to argue against this, preferring a date in either 80 or 81 BC. Recently, Vervaet has argued that there is nothing wrong with Appian’s chronology and that Sulla did indeed hold the dictatorship until the beginning of 79 BC, coming full circle. See E Badian, ‘Forschungsbericht: From the Gracchi to Sulla’, Historia 11, 1962, p. 230, B Tywman, ‘The Date of Sulla’s Abdication and the Chronology of the First Book of Appian’s Civil War’, Athenaeum 54, 1976, pp. 271–295, F Hurlet, La dictature de Sylla: monarchie ou magistrature republicaine? (Rome, 1993), pp. 67–69, A Jenkins, ‘Sulla’s Retirement’, Studies in Roman History and Latin Literature VII, 1994, pp. 132–142, F Hinard, ‘Dion. Cassius et l’Abdication de Sylla’, Revue des Études Anciennes 101, 1999, pp. 427–432, Vervaet (2004), pp.58–69, A Keaveney, ‘The Terminal Date of Sulla’s Dictatorship’, Athenaeum 93, 2005, pp. 423–439.
3. See Sampson (2005), pp. 357–366.
4. For the similarities between these reforms and those proposed by Drusus, see E Gabba (1976), pp. 131–141.
5. Sall. Hist. 1.53.
6. Vervaet (2004), p. 47.
7. See Badian (1970).
8. Euseb. Chron. 211.
9. Orosius (5.21) states 80 and then 500. Appian (BC. 1.95) has 40 senators and 1,600 equestrians initially.
10. App. BC. 1.101, Liv. Per. 89, Plut. Sull.33.5–6, 40.7; Ascon. 91L, Dio. 37.10.2.
11. App. BC. 1.95.
12. App. BC. 1.100, Liv. Per. 89.
13. Plut. Pomp. 9.
14. John of Antioch, fr.68, translated by F Walton, ‘A Neglected Historical Text’, Historia 14, 1965, p. 245.
15. Katz (1975), pp. 122–125.
16. Plut. Pomp. 10.1.
17. Another Carbo had been murdered in the Marian-ordered proscription of 82 BC.
18. Liv. Per. 89 also mentions the revolt, but with no details.
19. Gran. Lic. 39.
20. Val. Max. 9.7.3.
21. Liv. Per. 86.
22. Diod. 38.14.
23. Plut. Pomp. 10.1.
24. Liv. Per. 89.
25. We are not told where he fled to. Spain is usually mentioned by modern commentaries, but not the ancient ones.
26. Oros. 5.21.11.
27. Liv. Per. 89.
28. Oros. 5.20.3.
29. Cic. Verr. 2.1.70.
30. Plut. Pomp. 10.1.
31. Oros. 5.24.16.
32. Plut. Pomp. 11.2.
33. See Fentress (1982).
34. Plut. Pomp. 12.1–4.
35. Oros. 5.21.13–14.
36. Plut. Pomp. 12.5.
37. Plut. Pomp. 12.1.
38. See T Hillman, ‘Pompeius in Africa and Sulla’s Orders to demobilize (Plutarch, Pompeius 13, 1–4)’, Latomus 56, 1997, pp. 94–106.
39. Plut. Pomp. 14.3.
40. The best modern sources for Sertorius’ campaigns in Spain are Spann (1987) and C Konrad, Plutarch’s Sertorius. A Historical Commentary (Chapel Hill, 1994).
41. App. BC. 1.86.
42. Plut. Sert. 7.1. See Konrad (1994), pp. 99–100.
43. Plut. Sert. 7.2.
44. Ibid.
45. Plut. Sert. 7.3. Spann (1987), p.48.
46. Plut. Sert. 7.3–4.
47. Oros. 5.21.11.
48. It is interesting to note that Egypt was the destination for Pompeius following his defeat at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC.
49. See I Shatzman, ‘The Egyptian Question in Roman Politics (59–54 B.C)’, Latomus 30, 1971, pp. 363–369, and M Siani–Davies, ‘Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans’, Historia 46, 1997, pp. 306–340.
50. Appian provides the only detailed narrative for this war. (App. Mith. 64–66). Also see Mem. 26. Cic. Mur. 15, Liv. Per. 86.
51. Plut. Sert. 9.1–2.
52. Plut. Sert. 9.3, Spann (1987), pp. 51–52.
53. Ibid.
54. Plut. Sert. 12.2.
55. Sall. Hist. 1.93.
56. As noted earlier (Plut. Sert. 9.2), his former Cilician allies had chosen to fight on the side of King Ascalis and may therefore have been captured when Tingis fell.
57. It could have been either of the brothers, Caius or Marcus; both became consuls (75 and 74 BC respectively). See P Spann, ‘C., L. or M. Cotta and the “Unspeakable” Fufidius: A Note on Sulla’s Res Publica Restituta’, Classical Journal 82, 1987, pp. 306–309, and C Konrad, ‘Cotta off Mellaria and the Identities of Fufidius’, Classical Philology 84, 1989, pp. 119–129.
58. See Konrad (1994).
59. Sall. Hist. 1.95.
60. Plut. Sert. 12.3.
61. C Konrad, ‘A New Chronology of the Sertorian War’, Athenaeum 83, 1995, p.157.
62. Gran. Lic. 32. This was not considered to be part of Italy proper, which only reached unto the River Rubicon.
63. Brunt (1971), pp. 470–471.
64. Frontin. Str. 4.5.19.
65. Spann (1987), p. 66.
66. Plut. Sert. 12.3–4. See Konrad (1994), pp.129–133.
67. Liv. Per. 90.
68. Oros. 5.23.3.
69. Eutrop. 6.1.2. The battle is also mentioned in Sall. Hist. 1.111M and Flor. 2.10.6–7.
70. Florus (2.10.6) has the other of the Hirtulei brothers commanding against Throius.
71. C Konrad, ‘Segovia and Segontia’, Historia 43, 1994b, pp. 444–445.
72. See Spann (1987), pp. 65–66.
73. See Konrad (1994), p. 133.
74. Flor. 2.7.6.
75. Plut. Sert. 12.3. Cic. Fin. 2.63 also mentions that he died in battle.
Chapter Eight
1. For his abdication, see endnote 491. For his death, see T Carney, ‘The Death of Sulla’, Acta Classica 4, 1961, pp. 64–79.
2. See E Hardy, ‘The Number of the Sullan Senate’, Journal of Roman Studies 6, 1916, pp. 59–62, J Hawthorn, ‘The Senate After Sulla’, Greece & Rome 9, 1962, pp. 53–60, R Evans, ‘The “Consulares” and “Praetorii” in the Roman Senate at the beginning of Sulla’s Dictatorship’,Athenaeum 61, 1983, pp. 521–528, F Santangelo, ‘Sulla and the Senate: A Reconsideration’, Cahiers Glotz 17, 2006, pp. 7–22.
3. See A Keaveney, ‘Who were the Sullani?’, Klio 66, 1984, pp. 114–150.
4. L Hayne, ‘M. Lepidus (Cos. 78): A Re–Appraisal’, Historia 21, 1972, pp. 661–688, V Arena, ‘The Consulship of 78 BC. Catulus versus Lepidus: an optimates versus populares affair’, in H Beck, A Dupla, M Jehne and F Pollo (eds.), Consuls and Res Publica (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 299–318.
5. Plut. Pomp. 15.1.
6. Sall. Hist. 1.48. The speech, as we have it, is worded as though Sulla is still alive.
7. Gran. Lic. 34. Sallust preserves a purported speech from one of Lepidus’ opponents, Philippus, in the Senate, in which he claims that Lepidus was planning on restoring the powers of the tribunate (Sall. Hist. 1.67) but there is no other source to directly connect him to this at this time. See B Marshall and J Beness, ‘Tribunician Agitation and Aristocratic Reaction 80–71 B.C.’, Athenaeum 75, 1987, pp. 361–378.
8. See Plut. Sull. 36–38 and App. BC. 1.105.
9. App. BC. 1.107, Flor. 2.11.1–5, Exsuper. 35–37, Gran. Lic. 34, Liv. Per. 90.
10. Gran. Lic. 34–35.
11. See F Santangelo, Sulla, the Elites and the Empire (Leiden, 2007) pp. 181–183. Cicero (Cat. 3.6.14 and Mur. 24.49) refers to Sullan settlers from Faesulae in Catiline’s army in 63 BC (see Appendix II).
12. Cicero (Cael. 70) refers to law passed by a Q. Catulus in a time of civil dissension on the use of violence.
13. App. BC. 1.107.
14. Sall. Hist. 1.67.
15. This Brutus was a different person to the M. Iunius Brutus who was declared hostis by Sulla in 88 BC, who was a praetor in that year.
16. Oros. 5.24.16. See Konrad (1994), pp. 147–148.
17. Exsuper. 34.
18. Sall. Hist. 1.64.
19. Plut. Pomp. 16.3.
20. Exsuper. 38.
21. Plut. Pomp. 16.4–5. Frontinus (Str. 1.9.3) also refers to Pompeius’ men slaughtering the ‘Senate of Milan’; though the reference is undated this conflict would seem the most logical.
22. Believed to be his eldest son, who had been adopted into the Cornelii Scipiones to renew an alliance between the two families. See L Hayne, ‘M. Lepidus (Cos. 78): A Re–Appraisal’, Historia 21, 1972, pp. 661–688. The Alba in question is never explicitly attested as that in modern Piedmont.
23. Flor. 2.11.6–8.
24. App. BC. 1.107.
25. Exsuper. 39.
26. App. BC. 1.107, de vir. ill.. 77.3.
27. Exsuper. 39–42. Asconius (19C) also refers to Valerius Triarius’ fighting Lepidus.
28. Appian (BC. 1.107), Plutarch (Pomp. 16.9), Florus (2.11.7) and Pliny (NH. 7.122 and 186) all agree that he died of natural causes, with the additional stress of a divorce. The Periochae of Livy (Per. 90) and Cicero (Cat. 3.24) merely state that he died.
29. App. BC. 1.107.
30. See Broughton (1952), p.89 for the dating.
31. Cic. Clu. 99.
32. R Syme, Rome and the Balkans 80 BC–AD 14 (Exeter, 1999), p.168.
33. Again, see Konrad (1995), pp.157–187 for the issues of dating the years of the war securely to an actual calendar year.
34. Plut. Sert. 12.5.
35. Plut. Sert. 13.3.
36. Plut. Sert. 12.5.
37. Plut. Sert. 13.5.
38. Oros. 5.23.4.
39. Caes. BG. 3.20.1.
40. Oros. 5.23.4.
41. We find Mauri soldiers operating under Sertorius in Spain at the siege of Langobriga (Plut. Sert. 13.5).
42. Cic. Balb. 34.
43. Plut. Sert. 16.1.
44. Plut. Sert. 14.1.
45. Plut. Sert. 14.4–5.
46. App. BC. 1.108.
47. Konrad (1994), pp.150–151.
Chapter Nine
1. See Konrad (1995), pp. 157–187 for a summary of the key arguments.
2. Both Velleius and Valerius Maximus refer to him as being an ex–praetor. Velleius alone remarks that he had been proscribed (Vell. 2.30.2, Val. Max. 6.2.8). Plutarch (Sert.15.1) also states that he was ‘of the same faction as Sertorius; in other words a Marian supporter. See Konrad (1994), p.146 for further details.
3. Oros. 5.24.16
4. Plut. Sert. 15.3.
5. Suet. Iul. 5.
6. Plut. Sert. 15.1.
7. Vell. 2.30.1.
8. See R Smith, ‘Pompey’s Conduct in 80 and 77 B.C.’, Phoenix 14, 1960, pp. 1–13, T Hillman, ‘Pompeius and the Senate: 77–71’, Hermes 118, 1990, pp. 444–454 and F Vervaet, ‘Pompeius’ Career from 79 to 70 BC: Constitutional, Political and Historical Considerations’, Klio 91, 2009, pp. 406–434.
9. Sall. Hist. 2.98. Appian (BC. 109) also records his crossing of the Alps.
10. Cic. Mil. 28.
11. Cic. Mil. 30.
12. Caes. BC. 1.35.
13. See C Ebel, ‘Pompey’s Organization of Transalpina’, Historia 29, 1975, pp. 358–373.
14. Oros. 5.23.6, quoting Galba.
15. Liv. fr.18.
16. Ibid.
17. Plut. Sert. 18.2.
18. Plut. Sert. 18.2–6.
19. Frontin. Str. 2.5.31.
20. App. BC. 1.109.
21. Sall. Hist. 2.30. The obvious oddity here is the Sallustian report of Hirtuleius’ troops being involved, given that he was to the south of the country fighting Metellus. This can be cleared up by the fact that it is reported that there were several Hirtuleii (brothers) serving under Sertorius, and it may have been one of those who was legate in Sertorius’ army.
22. Obseq. 58.
23. Plut. Sert. 18.6.
24. It was also the birthplace of the Emperor Hadrian.
25. Oros. 5.23.10.
26. Frontin. Str. 2.1.2.
27. Frontin. Str. 2.3.5.
28. Liv. Per. 91.
29. App. BC. 1.109.
30. Sall. Hist. 2.82 refers to Metellus being provisioned from Gaul, but the year is unclear and may refer to an earlier one.
31. Konrad (1995), p. 442.
32. Oros. 5.23.12, Liv. Per. 91.
33. Flor. 2.10.7.
34. Konrad (1994b), p. 445, though he adopts a revised chronology for the war and dates it to 76 BC.
35. Sall. Hist. 2.46.
36. Plutarch (Pomp. 18.3) is the only source to provide details of the clash.
37. Plut. Pomp. 18.3.
38. Sall. Hist. 2.82.6.
39. Plut. Pomp. 19.1–3.
40. Plut. Sert. 19.2–5.
41. Oros. 5.23.12.
42. See Konrad (1995), p.186. Broughton (1952), p.93 and Spann (1987), p.104 assign it a year earlier.
43. The location of the battle is unclear. See P Spann, ‘Saguntum vs. Segontia: A Note on the Topography of the Sertorian War’, Historia 33, 1984, p. 116–119 and Konrad (1994b), pp.440–453.
44. Plut. Sert. 21.1, though the manuscript may be corrupted for the location. See Spann (1984), p.117.
45. Spann (1984), pp. 118–119, (1987), p.115, and Konrad (1994), pp. 447–451. Both Cicero (Balb.5) and Sallust (Hist. 2.98) make reference to a clash near the river Duero, which makes the Segontia at Langa de Duero the most likely on a range of topographical and geographical factors.
46. Sallust’s Histories (2.55–59), refer to military encounters in this period, but cannot be ascribed to any particular encounter with any certainty.
47. App. BC. 1.110.
48. Liv. Per. 92.
49. Plut. Sert. 21.1–2.
50. Oros. 5.23.12 .
51. Plut. Sert. 21.3–4, Liv. Per. 92.
52. Sall. Hist. 2.82.9.
53. Ibid.
54. Plut. Sert. 21.5.
55. Sall. Hist. 2.82.7.
56. Sall. Hist. 2.82.9–10.
57. Sall. Hist. 2.82.10.
58. App. BC. 1.111.
59. App. BC. 1.112.
60. Ibid.
61. Liv. Per. 93.
62. Sall. Hist. 3.30.
63. Drawn together from brief notes by Cicero: Div in Caec. 55, Verr. 2.2.8, 3.213–218, Sall. Hist. 3.4–7, Tac. Ann. 12.62.
64. Sall. Hist. 3.6.
65. The sources are again unclear as to the exact timing. See D Glew, ‘Between the Wars: Mithridates Eupator and Rome, 85–73 B.C.’, Chiron 11, 1981, pp. 109–130 and B McGing, ‘The Date of the Outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War’, Phoenix 38, 1984, pp. 12–18.
66. As is common in this period, an exact chronology is impossible to determine, but the Periochae of Livy (Per. 93) and Plutarch (Sert. 23–24) place it in this period.
67. Appian actually names him as Marcus Varius, whilst Plutarch, Orosius and Memnon name him as Marius. To what extent this is a consequence of poor manuscript tradition is unclear.
68. App. Mith. 62.
69. Plut. Sert. 23.3.
70. Oros. 6.2.
71. For more details on the coalition Senate, see Spann (1987), pp. 169–174.
72. See Konrad (1994), pp. 191–192.
Chapter Ten
1. Plut. Sert. 24.3.
2. R Evans, ‘Gaius and Marcus Marius in Iberia and Gaul: Family Affairs and Provincial Clients’, Acta Classica 50, 2008, pp. 77–90.
3. M. Marius Gratidianus was a son of Marius’ sister.
4. Oros. 6.2.
5. See G Kelly, A History of Exile in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 180–181 for a fuller discussion.
6. Ibid, pp. 187–188.
7. Mem. 28.
8. Plut. Luc. 7.1–2.
9. Plut. Sert. 24.3–4.
10. Lucullus held command in Cilicia, Cotta in Bithynia.
11. A. Keaveney, Lucullus. A Life (London, 1992), pp. 17–18.
12. Oros. 6.2.13. Also see App. Mith. 71.
13. Plut. Luc. 8.5–7.
14. Mem. 28.
15. App. Mith. 72.
16. See Konrad (1995), pp. 175–176 for a fuller discussion.
17. See Broughton (1952), pp. 106–108 and W Bennett, ‘The Death of Sertorius and the Coin’, Historia 10, 1961, pp. 459–472.
18. Mem. 28.
19. App. Mith. 76.
20. Oros. 6.2.
21. App. Mith. 75.
22. App. Mith. 76.
23. Eutropius (6.6.3 and 6.8.2) also refers to it on two occasions.
24. App. Mith. 77.
25. Plut. Luc. 12.2–5.
26. Oros. 6.2.21–22.
27. Cic. Man. 21.
28. Cic. Mur. 33.
29. Cic. Arch. 21.
30. Dio. 36.8.2.
31. App. BC. 1.113, Plut. Sert. 25.4.
32. Plut. Sert. 25.1.
33. App. BC. 1.113.
34. Plut. Sert. 26–27, Sall. Hist. 3.83. See C Konrad, ‘Some Friends of Sertorius’, American Journal of Philology 108, 1987, pp. 519–527.
35. Bennett (1961), pp. 459–472, Konrad (1995), pp. 157–187.
36. Bennett (1961), pp.466–467.
37. Liv. Per. 94.
38. Konrad (1995), based on earlier commentators, has argued that this re–assessment means re-dating the whole chronology of the civil war in Spain. This in part rests on the sources’ accounts being a coherent narrative, which must be moved as a whole a year further back. Whilst there is enough evidence to support moving the murder of Sertorius back a year and disposing of the vague narrative for the campaigns of 73 found in Appian and Plutarch, this author believes that there is not yet enough evidence to warrant a wholesale alteration to the chronology of the war, given the belief that Pompeius did not start campaigning in Spain until 76 BC. Nevertheless, Konrad’s arguments are fundamental to any analysis of the civil war in Spain and may yet be proven correct.
39. App. BC. 1.114.
40. Ibid.
41. Plut. Sert. 27.1.
42. App. BC. 1.115.
43. Plut. Pomp. 20.2–3.
44. See B Katz, ‘Sertorius’ Overlooked Correspondent?’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 126, 1983c, pp. 359–362.
45. Plut. Sert. 27.4.
46. Flor. 2.30.9.
47. Oros. 5.23.14.
48. Plut. Crass. 9.3. See P Piccinin, ‘Les Iialiens dans le “Bellum Sparticium”’, Historia 53, 2004, pp. 173–199.
49. Sampson (2008), pp.62–68.
50. Plut. Pomp. 21.2.
51. Vell. 2.30.6.
52. Metellus Pius, the third triumphant commander, followed the correct procedure and disbanded his army after he had crossed the Alps. (Sall. Hist. 4.43).
53. App. BC. 1.121.
Appendix I
1. Oros. 5.23.
2. Eutrop. 6.3, Oros. 5.23, Liv. Per. 90.
3. App. Sic. 6.1.
4. Flor. 1.42.7, Diod. 40.1.
5. Liv. Per. 97.
6. See D Braund, ‘Royal Wills and Rome’, Papers of the British School at Rome 51, 1983, pp. 16–57.
7. Sall. Hist. 2.40–41, App. BC. 1.111, Eutrop. 6.11.3.
8. I. Shatzman, ‘The Egyptian Question in Roman Politics (59–54 B.C)’, Latomus 30, 1971, pp. 363–369. M. Siani–Davies, ‘Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans’, Historia 46, 1997, pp. 306–340.
9. See Sampson (2010), pp. 46–49 and 98–99.
10. Liv. Per. 91.
11. Eutrop. 6.2.1.
12. See R Syme (1999), p. 13. For the other campaigns, see pp. 133–137.
13. This Cosconius is most often identified with the Cosconius who fought against the Italians in 89 BC. See Broughton (1952), p.88. However, I would argue that the elapsed time is too great, and that given Cosconius’ military success and expertise, had he survived, we should have heard of him in the intervening wars. To my mind, the elder Cosconius died sometime shortly after 90 BC, and the Cosconius here is his son.
14. Eutrop. 6.4. Also see Oros. 5.23.23, Cic. Clu. 97.
Appendix II
1. I am indebted to an individual in the audience for my paper ‘Still Waiting for Sulla’ at the 2002 Classical Association Conference, who first challenged my theory of the civil war ending in 70 BC with the case of Catilina.
2. B Marshall, ‘Catilina and the Execution of M. Marius Gratidianus’, Classical Quarterly 35, 1985, pp. 124–133.
3. See T Broughton (1952), p.138 and 140.
4. J Ramsey, ‘Cicero, pro Sulla 68 and the Catiline’s Candidacy in 66 BC’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86, 1982, pp. 121–131 and F Ryan, ‘The Consular Candidacy of Catiline in 66’, Museum Helveticum 25, 1995b, pp. 45–48.
5. Sall. Cat. 18–19, Cic. Mur. 81, Ascon 92.
6. Dio. 36.44.3–5. Also see Liv. Per. 101, Ascon 83, Cic. Sull. 11 and 81.
7. Sall. Cat. 19.3–5, Dio. 36.44.5, Ascon 92.
8. Suet. Iul. 9, Ascon. 83.
9. See H Nutting, ‘The Conspiracy at Rome in 66–65’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 2, 1910, pp. 43–55, E Hardy, ‘The Catilinarian Conspiracy in Its Context: A Re–Study of the Evidence’, Journal of Roman Studies 7, 1917, pp. 153–228, E Salmon, ‘Catiline, Crassus, and Caesar’, American Journal of Philology 56, 1935, pp. 302–316, F Jones, ‘The First Catilinarian Conspiracy’, Classical Journal 34, 1939, pp. 410–422, R Seager, ‘The First Catilinarian Conspiracy’, Historia 13, 1964, pp. 338–347. R Seager, ‘Iusta Catilinae’, Historia22, 1973, pp. 240–248. E Phillips, ‘Catiline’s Conspiracy’, Historia 25, 1976, pp. 441–448.
10. Dio. 37.10.2, Suet. Iul. 11.2, Ascon. 90–91.
11. It has been argued that Catilina was not the instigator of this coup, but was forced to join Manlius’ rebellion by the accusations made against him, especially by Cicero. See K Waters, ‘Cicero, Sallust and Catiline’, Historia 19, 1970, pp. 195–215, Seager (1973), pp. 240–248, and Phillips (1976), pp. 441–448.
12. The key conspirators seem to have been C. Cornelius Cethegus, L. Statilius, P. Gabinius Capito and M. Caeparius. See D March, ‘Cicero and the Gang of Five’, Classical World 82, 1989, pp. 225–234. Others included L. Cassius Longinus (Pr. 66), L. Calpurnius Bestia (Tr. 62), Q. Annius Chilo, C. Cornelius, Q. Curius, P. Furius, M. Porcius Laeca, L. Tarquinius, P. Umbrenus and L. Vargunetius.
13. Sall. Cat. 39.6–41.5.
14. Sall. Cat. 48.3–9.
15. Trials of other conspirators were held, in 62 BC, including P. Cornelius Sulla and P. Autronius Paetus, the instigators of the coup attempt of 65 BC. Both were convicted.
16. Sall. Cat. 37.5–11.
17. Sall. Cat. 28.4.
18. Sall. Cat. 42.
19. Sall. Cat. 59.4, Dio. 38.39.4.
20. Sall. Cat. 59–60.
21. Oros. 6.6.7.
22. Dio. 37.42–4, Plut. Cic. 23.2–3 and Cat. Min. 26–29.
23. Many commentators on this subject have at one time or another accused both Pompeius and Crassus of being the masterminds behind the attempted coup and the insurrection, in order to give them a chance for high office to put down the insurrections. See Salmon (1935), pp. 313–314.
Appendix III
1. App. BC. 1.103, Diod. 37.29.5.
2. Oros. 5.22, Eutrop. 5.9.2.
3. Vell. 2.15.3.
4. For a more detailed analysis, see F Hinard, Les Proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome, 1985).