Notes

1

Book 45 is the last one we have intact, taking events up to the defeat of Macedon in 167 BC.

2

Sall. Iug. 10.

3

Polyb. 35.1.1–2

4

C. Calpurnius Piso and L. Quinctius Crispinus; Liv. 39.42.2–4

5

Appian. Iber. 56

6

The Third Punic War in Africa, the Fourth Macedonian War in Greece (followed by the Achaean War) and the Lusitanian and Celtiberian Wars in Spain.

7

App. Iber. 67

8

In 140 BC. App. Iber. 69

9

They have different names due to Servilianus being adopted into the family of the Fabii.

10

Diod. 33.21a

11

App. Iber. 76–78

12

App. Iber. 83. The Numantines refused to accept him.

13

Cicero states that this was in absentia (Cic. Lael. 11).

14

App. Iber. 84

15

App. Iber. 89, twelve elephants along with archers and slingers.

16

App. Iber. 84–98

17

Eutrop. 4.15, Liv. Per. 53, Varr. RR. 2.4.1–2

18

Obseq. 16 is the only source that names the Scordisci. Other references to the war can be found in Liv. Per 47, Flor.2.25 and App. Illyr 11. There is much debate over the role the Scordisci played in the war; main protagonists or minor allies of other Pannonian tribes? See Papazoglu, F, The Central Balkan Tribes in pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, 1978), pp.284–285

19

Liv. Per. 54

20

App. Illyr. 14

21

Gwyn-Morgan., M, ‘Cornelius and the Pannonians’: Appian, Illyrica 14, 41 and Roman History, 143–138 B.C.’, Historia 23, 1974, pp.183–216.

22

App. Illyr. 10, Liv. Per. 56.

23

App. Illyr. 10. Liv. Per. 59

24

For a fuller account, see Bradley, K, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World 140 BC-70BC (Indiana, 1989), pp.46–65.

25

Diod. 34/35.2.5

26

Diod. 34/35.2.15–16

27

Diod. 34/35.2.18

28

Liv. Per. 56, Oros. 5.9.6

29

Oros. 5.9.6, Val. Max.2.7.9 & 4.3.10, Frontin. Str. 4.1.26.

30

Oros. 5.9.7

31

Diod. 34/35.2.23

32

Q. Caecilius Metellus and Cn. Servilius Caepio crushed 4,000 slaves at Sinuessa, whilst a Heraclitus had to deal with that in the Athenian mines (Oros. 5.9.2, Diod. 34/35.2.18).

33

Oros. 5.9.2, Diod. 34/35.2.19

34

IGRR IV. 289, see Sherk, R., (ed.), Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984), pp.39–40.

35

Ibid.

36

Strabo.14.1.38

37

CIL 1².2.2502, Plut. TG. 21.2, Cic. Flacc. 75, & Rep. 1.6, Val. Max. 3.2.17 & 5.3.2, Plin. NH. 7.120 de vir ill. 64.9

38

The son of King Eumenes II of Pergamum (197–159 BC) and a concubine.

39

Vell. 2.4.1

40

Vell. 2.4.1 & 2.38.5, Flor. 1.35.6, Iustin. 1.35.6, Eutrop. 4.20, Oros. 5.10.4–5, Liv. Per. 59, Strabo. 14.1.38, Val. Max. 3.4.5

41

Matyszak, P, Mithridates the Great (Barnsley, 2008).

42

Appian (BC. 1.34) claims that he was only dispatched by the Senate to prevent him from continuing his campaign on the issue of Italians receiving Roman citizenship.

43

Liv. Per. 60. See Benedict, C. ‘The Romans in Southern Gaul’, American Journal of Philology 63, 1942, pp.38–50 and Stevens, C. ‘North West Europe and Roman Politics (125–118)’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II(Brussels, 1980), pp.71–97.

44

Diod. 34/35.23, Eutrop. 4.22

45

Polyb. 33.8

46

Liv. Per. 61

47

Liv. Per. 61, the figure for the Roman forces can be found in Strabo 4.1.11. The battle is also referred to by Caesar (BG. 1.45.2).

48

There is a brief account in Florus 1.37

49

See Stevens (1980), pp.88–92 for a discussion on the size of the Arvernian Empire at the time.

50

Vell. 1.15.5, Eutrop. 4.23, Cic. Brut. 160

51

Named after the consul of 122, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus.

52

Flor. 1.44

53

Vell. 2.6.4, Liv. Per. 60, Val Max. 2.8 4, Cic. Fin. 5.62, Inv. 2.105, Phil. 3.17, Pis. 95 & Planc. 78

54

Taylor, L, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, Journal of Roman Studies 52, 1962, pp.19–27.

55

Just exactly what type of man held the tribunate is a much argued question. Old assumptions that all tribunes were members of the Senatorial oligarchy have been challenged by recent research on the holders of the office. See Sampson, G.A Re-examination of the Office of the Tribunate of the Plebs in the Roman Republic (494–23 B.C.), (Manchester, 2005, unpublished).

56

Anonymous tribunes in 151 BC (Liv. Per.48, App. Iber. 49). Tribunes C. Curiatius and S. Licninius in 138 BC (Cic. Leg. 3.20, Liv. Per.55 & Liv. Oxy.55).

57

Plut. TG. 8. It is not known which office Laelius was holding when he proposed it, but the tribunate is the most likely. Given that he was Praetor in 145 BC, it would have been prior to this.

58

See Astin, A, Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), pp.307–310

59

Cic. Leg. 3.35, Lael. 41, Leg. Agr. 2.4, Liv. Oxy. Per. 54

60

Cic. Brut. 97 & 106, Lael. 41, Leg. 3.35–37, Sest. 103, Ascon 78C

61

Liv. Per.50. App. Lib.112.

62

Liv. Per.51, App. Iber. 84

63

He was consul in 177 and 163, and censor in 169/168 BC.

64

The first man of the Senate; the elder statesman of the house.

65

Appian choose to start his work on Rome’s civil wars in 133, reflecting the widespread belief of those Romans who viewed this period. See Nagle, D, ‘The Failure of the Roman Political Process in 133 B.C.’, Athenaeum 48, 1970, pp.372–394.

66

The principal sources for this reform are; Plut. TG. 8–20 and App. BC. 1–17, Liv. Per. 58, Cic. Leg Agr. 2.10 & 2.31, Sest. 103, Off. 2.80, Diod. 34/35.6.1–2, Val. Max.7.2.6, Vell. 2.2.3, Flor. 2.2.3 & de vir ill. 64. There is an extensive number of modern works on the subject, seebibliography.

67

Notably the Lex Licinia of 367 BC. This in itself is a contentious point as it has recently been argued that the Licinian law was not restricted to ager publicus. See Rich. J, ‘Lex Licinia, Lex Sempronia: B.G Niebuhr and the Limitation of Landholding in eth Roman Republic’, in L. de Ligt & S. Northwood (eds.) People, Land and Politics, Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC-AD 14 (Leiden, 2008), 519–572 and Sampson. G, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Roman Historian: The Eighteenth Century in the Roman Historical Tradition’, in J. Moore, I. Macgregor-Morris & A. Bayliss (eds.) Reinventing History. The Enlightenment Origins of Ancient History (London, 2009), pp.206–208.

68

App. BC. 1.13, C. Sempronius Gracchus and Ap. Claudius Pulcher.

69

See Briscoe, J, ‘Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus’, Journal of Roman Studies 64, 1974, pp.125–135.

70

The implications of a tribunician veto (intercessio) and just how final it was is a matter of some debate. See Sampson (2005), pp.292–296.

71

Plut. TG. 10–12 & 14–15, Diod. 34/35.7.1, Flor. 2.2.5, Vell. 2.2.3, Oros. 5.8.3, Cic. Brut. 95, Leg. 3.24, Mil. 72, ND. 1.106

72

C. Licinius Stolo & L. Sextius Sextinius. They were elected tribunes each year between 376 and 367 BC. The caveats must be that we only have the names of just under 13% of all known tribunes, so we cannot say this for certain. There is evidence that second tribunates were held, though not consecutively. See Sampson (2005), pp.199–201.

73

Linderski, J, ‘The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus’, Athenaeum 90, 2002, pp.339–366

74

Plut. TG. 21.5

75

See Astin (1967), pp.227–241.

76

Liv. Per. 59, Oros. 5.10.9, Vell. 2.4.5, App. BC. 1.20, Plut. CG. 10.5, de vir ill. 58, Cic. Mil. 16, Val Max. 5.3.2

77

The actual law for the foundation of the colony of Iunonia was passed by a colleague of Caius’, Rubrius.

78

Diod. 34/35.25.1, Ascon. 68C

79

Plut. CG. 5.2, App. BC.1.21, Flor. 2.1.7, Vell. 2.6.3. Such a practice was to become a common feature of the late Republic and a fundamental right under the emperors; the so-called bread of the ‘bread and circuses’ fame.

80

Roman citizenship would be given to those of Latin status, and Latin status to those of Italian status. Inhabitants of Italy fell into one of a three citizenship classes, Roman, Latin or Italian, with fewer legal and electoral rights with each lesser category.

81

Many were related to the Senatorial class, including younger sons.

82

App. BC. 1.23, Plut. CG. 9.2

83

A fundamental aspect of the tribunate was that the holders of the office were not allowed to spend a night outside of the city of Rome. Several exceptions to this rule can be found in the surviving sources (in 310 and 204 BC, Liv.9.36.14 & 29.20.4 respectively). Apparently this dispensation could be granted by the assemblies. See Sampson (2005), pp.343–347.

84

Plut. CG. 13.1–2, App. BC. 1.24, Flor. 2.3.4 Oros. 5.12.5, de vir ill. 65.5

85

Plut. CG. 13–17, App. BC. 1.24–26, Diod. 34/35.29–30, Liv. Per. 61, Flor. 2.3, Oros. 5.12.5–8, Val. Max. 2.8.7, de vir ill. 65.5–6

86

The name initially comes to use from Sallust’s work on the war.

87

Flor.1.36.1–2 ‘Quis speraret post Carthaginem aliquod in Africa bellum’.

88

Daly, G, Cannae; The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War (London, 2002), pp.81–112.

89

App. Iber. 15. Liv. 24.48–49.6

90

Liv.24.48

91

Liv. 24.49.4. We must always treat the casualties given in ancient sources with caution, given their tendency to exaggerate both the size of the armies and the total losses.

92

App. Iber.16

93

Polyb. 6.16.

94

Liv. 27.4.5–9

95

Liv. 28.17.1–18.12, 29.23.3–9 & 30.13.3–6, App. Iber. 29–30

96

App. Iber. 37

97

Liv. 29.29.4–33.10

98

Liv. 29.31.8–11

99

Carey, B, Hannibal’s Last Battle (Barnsley, 2007).

100

Liv. 30.12.2–3

101

Saumagne, C, La Numidie et Rome, Masinissa et Jugurtha (Paris, 1966) & Walsh, P, ‘Massinissa’, Journal of Roman Studies 55, 1965, pp.149–160.

102

Badian has an excellent summary and analysis of these events; Badian, E, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.) (Oxford, 1958), pp.125–137.

103

App. Pun. 67

104

Liv. 31.19.4, 32.27.2, 36.4.8 & 43.6.13

105

IG XI.4.1115–16

106

IG II.2.968

107

C. Little, ‘The Authenticity and Form of Cato’s Saying “Carthago Delenda Est’, Classical Journal 29, 1934, pp. 429–435.

108

App. Pun. 68.

109

App. Pun. 71

110

App. Pun. 73

111

Kahrstedt argued that Rome attacked Carthage precisely to stop Numidia annexing the remaining Carthaginian state and thus create a buffer zone in North Africa; Kahrstedt, U, Geschichte Der Karthager, von O. Meltzer III (Berlin, 1913), p.615.

112

Ridley, R, ‘To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage’, Classical Philology 81, 1986, pp.140–146.

113

Polyb. 36.16.1–10

114

Walsh (1965), pp.152–154

115

Sall. Iug. 5.4–6. Trans. S. Handford (1963).

116

App. Pun. 106. Trans. H. White (1982).

117

Liv. Per. 50

118

App. Pun. 106. Zon 9.27. The fragments of Polybius’ book 36 detail Masinissa’s death and mentions Scipio’s arrangements but with no detail (Polyb. 36.16).

119

Zonaras (9.27) has Micipsa placed in charge just of the Numidian finances.

120

App. Pun. 111.

121

App. Iber. 67

122

Sall. Iug. 7.1–7, App. Iber. 89

123

Diod. 34/35.35 (Trans. F. Walton. 1984).

124

Flor. 1–1.36.2

125

Sall. Iug. 6.1

126

Ibid. 7.1

127

Sall. Iugv. 7.5–7

128

Ibid. 9.2

129

Sall. Iug . 11.6

130

Ibid. 11.5

131

Sall Iug. 14–15.1

132

Ibid. 16.4–5

133

Sall. Iug. 21.1–3

134

For more on Scaurus, see Bates, L, “Rex in Senatu”: A Political Biography of M. Aemilius Scaurus’, Proceedings of the American Philological Society 130, 1986, pp.251–88.

135

This point is much debated; see Badian (1958), p.139.

136

Sall. Iug. 25.11

137

Sall. Iug. 26.1–3

138

The scope and severity of this ‘massacre’ have long been questioned. See Morstein-Marx, R., ‘The Alleged “Massacre” at Cirta and Its Consequences (Sallust Bellum Iugurthinum 26–27)’, Classical Philology 95, 2000, pp.468–476.

139

Sall. Iug.25.3

140

Sall. Iug.27.2

141

See Oost, S, ‘The Fetial Law and the Outbreak of the Jugurthine War’, American Journal of Philology 75, 1954, pp.147–159.

142

Rich argues that this assigning of provinces is evidence that the Senate had already decided to send a consul to Numidia before the siege of Cirta ended, but we have no clear chronology of the events and given the Senate’s previous reluctance to involve themselves directly, this does seem an unusual change of policy, derived from the benefits of hindsight; Rich, J, Declaring War in the Roman republic in the period of transmarine expansion (Brussels, 1976), pp.50–55.

143

Liv. Per. 62.

144

Eutrop. 4.23.2

145

App. Illyr. 11

146

Morgan, M, ‘Lucius Cotta and Metellus. Roman Campaigns in Illyria during the Late Second Century’, Athenaeum 49, 1971, pp.271–301.

147

For a fuller discussion of this, see Syme, R, Rome and the Balkans 80BCAD14 (Exeter, 1999) and Papazoglu, F, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, 1979).

148

Strabo. 7.5.12, Iust. 32.3, Liv. Per. 63, Athen. 6.25, App. Illyr. 2, Flor. 1.39

149

Polyb. 1.6.5, 2.20.6 & 4.46.1, Paus. 1.4.4, 10.3.4, 10.8.3, 23.1–10; Iustin. 24.7.8–8.10 & 32.3.6, Ampel.32.2, Liv.40.58.3, Diod.22.9.1, Cic. Div.1.81

150

The traditional date for the Gallic Sack of Rome is 390 BC, based on consular years. However, given that there are four years without consuls or military tribunes in office, the so-called ‘Dictator Years’, the dating of all events in this period has a four-year margin of error. See Drummond, A, ‘The Dictator Years’, Historia 27, 1978, pp.550–572.

151

Strabo. 7.5.12 See Alföldy, G, ‘Des Territories Occupés par les Scordisques’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12, 1964, pp.107–127.

152

Gwyn-Morgan., M, ‘Cornelius and the Pannonians’: Appian, Illyrica 14, 41 and Roman History, 143–138 B.C.’ Historia 23, 1974, pp.183–216.

153

Diod. 34/35.30. The attestation of these two events is still somewhat speculative, though given the events of 114 BC, the Scordisci do remain the prime candidates for this invasion.

154

SIG³700, Sherk, R., (ed.), Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984) pp.51–53.

155

Papazoglu (1979), pp.295–296

156

The Periochae of Livy (63) states Thrace, whereas Florus (1.39) implies Macedon.

157

Flor. 1.39.4 and App. Illyr. 5 respectively.

158

Plut. Mor. 284, See Eckstein, A, ‘Human Sacrifice and Fear of Military Disaster in Republican Rome’, American Journal of Ancient History 7, 1982, pp.69–95.

159

Flor. 1.39, Fest. It has been argued that both sources mistake this Didius for a late commander in Macedon and that there was no commander between Cato and Metellus. However, given that we have two clear sources stating this and that there was no need for this Didius to be a consul or governor, merely an ad-hoc commander, the evidence favours his inclusion here.

160

Vell. 2.8.2; Eutrop. 4.25.1

161

See Papazoglu (1979), pp.288–291.

162

The tribune who had opposed C. Gracchus, in 122 BC.

163

Flor. 1.39

164

Amm. Marc. 27.4.10. This can also be found in Festus Brev.9.2 and Iord. Rom. 219

165

C. Scribonius Curio between 76 and 73 BC, see Syme (1999), pp.134–136.

166

Levick, B, ‘Cicero, Brutus 43. 159 ff., and the Foundation of Narbo Martius’, Classical Quarterly 21,1971, pp. 170–179

167

Frontin. Str. 4.3.13, de vir ill. 72.7

168

Strabo. 5.214, App. Gall. 13, Vell.9.1

169

Plin. NH. 37.35–36. See Cunliffe, B, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek (New York, 2001).

170

Plut. Mar. 11

171

Faux, D, (2007) ‘The Cimbri Tribe of Northern Jutland, Denmark, During the La Tene Period: 400 BC to 15 AD’, (2008a) ‘The Cimbri Tribe of Jutland, Denmark: Their Origins and Descendants as Indicated by the Archaeological, Historical and Genetic Data’, & (2008b) ‘The Cimbri of Denmark, the Norse and Danish Vikings and Y-DNA Haplogroup R-U152’. All can be found on the internet.

172

Plut, Mar. 11. Homer. Odyssey. 9.14.19, Herodotus. 4.11–14

173

Plut. Mar. 11.5, Strabo. 7.2.1–2

174

Plut. Mar. 11.2

175

Aug. Res Gest. 5.26, Strabo. 7.2.1

176

Liv.5.34

177

Strabo. 7.2.2, based on Poseidonius. Strabo (4.43) and Caesar BG. 5.4 also preserve an encounter between the Belgae and the Cimbri and Teutones, with the Belgae winning the encounter.

178

Faux (2008b), p.42.

179

Appian (Gall.13) merely states that he took up position where the pass was the narrowest without giving us a specific location.

180

Ibid

181

Ibid

182

Plut. Mar. 16.5

183

The seemingly erratic reports of the Cimbri throughout this period may be the result of there being more than one tribal group.

184

Given the fragmentary records for office-holding (except the consulship), we can only say that he is the first recorded one.

185

Cic. Brut. 128. The date of his tribunate is uncertain, though Broughton argued for 121 BC; Broughton, T, Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1 (New York, 1952), p.524.

186

Oros. 5.15.6

187

Sall. Iug. 28.4

188

Ibid. 28.6–7

189

Sall. Iug. 29.1–2

190

Ibid. 31.1–29

191

Sall. Iug. 32.2–4

192

Ibid. 35.1–6

193

Sall. Iug.35.2

194

Ibid. 36.1–4.

195

From the consul Q. Fabius MaximusVerrucosus in the Second Punic War.

196

Sall. Iug.37.1–3

197

Orosius (5.15.6) names the city as Calama, which may be the Roman name for the city of Suthul.

198

Sall. Iug.38.4–10

199

Oros. 5.15.4

200

Oros. 5.15.5

201

Sall. Iug.39.4

202

See Hayne, L, ‘The Condemnation of Sp. Postumius Albinus’, Acta Classica 24, 1981, pp. 61–70.

203

Ibid. 40.1–5

204

It was custom for the choice to be made by the drawing of lots.

205

Sall. Iug. 65.1

206

Ibid. 46.4

207

Possible the modern river Wäd Mellag.

208

Sall. Iug. 48.3–49.2.

209

Ibid. 49.6.

210

Sall. Iug. 50.4–5.

211

Ibid. 52.2

212

Sall. Iug.51.4

213

Ibid. 53.4

214

Sall. Iug.54.4

215

Ibid. 54.6

216

Sall. Iug. 54.10

217

Ibid. 56.3–6

218

Sall. Iug. 58.4–7

219

Ibid. 61.5

220

Sall. Iug. 66.3

221

Ibid. 69.3

222

Sall. Iug. 69.4

223

Plut. Mar. 8

224

Sall. Iug.73.1

225

Ibid. 74.2–3

226

Pliny (NH. 5.17) names three separate tribes: the Autoteles, the Baniurae and the Nesimi.

227

Sall. Iug. 80.1

228

Liv. 23.18.1

229

Bocchus was Jugurtha’s son in law; Sall. Iug. 80.6, Plut. Mar. 10

230

Sall. Iug. 80.4

231

See Paul, G, A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum (Liverpool, 1984), pp.192–194. Also see Pelham, H, ‘The Chronology of the Jugurthine War’, American Journal of Philology 7, 1877, pp.91–94, Canter, H, ‘The Chronology of Sallust’s Jugurtha’, Classical Journal6, 1911, pp.290–295 & Holroyd, M, ‘The Jugurthine War: Was Marius or Metellus the Real Victor?’, Journal of Roman Studies 18, 1928, pp.1–20.

232

Sall. Iug. 74

233

Sall. Iug. 83.1

234

Ibid. 88.3–5

235

Flor.1.36.2

236

Flor.1.38.1–4

237

Liv. Per. 65

238

Vell. 2.12.2, Eutrop.4.27.5

239

Cic. Corn 2, Ascon.80C

240

Evans, R, ‘Rome’s Cimbric Wars (114–101 BC) and their Impact in the Iberia Peninsula’, Acta Classica 48, 2005, p41.

241

Ibid.

242

Oros. 5.15.23–24

243

Caes. BG. 1.7.4 7 & 1.12.5, though he is the only source who mentions this.

244

Ascon. 68C (Trans. S. Squires, 1990).

245

Which forms part of the border between Greece/Turkey and Bulgaria.

246

Flor. 1.39

247

Amm. Marc. 27.4.10

248

Fest. Brev. 9.2

249

Frontin. Str. 2.4.3

250

Vell. 2.8.3

251

Liv. Per. 65

252

Eutrop. 4.27

253

CIL. I²692, ILS 8887, SIG³, ILLRP 337, though the Greek and Latin versions differ slightly in the wording.

254

Evans, R, Gaius Marius, A Political Biography (Pretoria,1994), pp.18–51.

255

This was an important distinction during this period of Roman history, as it was not until 89 BC that all Italians received Roman citizenship. Marius, however, was born a Roman citizen.

256

Evans (1994), p. 23.

257

Wiseman, T, New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.-A.D.14 (London, 1971).

258

Plut. Mar. 3.2

259

Evans (1994), pp.28–32.

260

Sall. Iug. 63.5

261

Val Max. 6.9.14

262

Ibid, also see CIL.1²1.195

263

Val Max. 6.9.14

264

Plut. Mar. 4.1

265

Cic. Leg. 3.38–39

266

Plut. Mar. 4.2. See Bicknell, P, ‘Marius, the Metelli and the Lex Maria Tabellaria’, Latomus 28, 1969, pp.327–348.

267

L. Caecilius Metellus ‘Delmaticus’ was consul this year.

268

Plut. Mar. 4.3

269

Plut. Mar. 4.4. There is no direct evidence that it was tribunician, but that is the most likely source.

270

Two places each. Plutarch states that he lost both elections on the same day. This has been widely dismissed on account of it being considered both impractical to hold both elections on the same day and that this was not the custom. See Evans (1994), pp.44–45.

271

Plut. Mar. 5.2–5

272

Plut. Mar. 6.1

273

See Carney, T, A Political Biography of C. Marius (Assen, 1961), p.23.

274

The exact length of his command in Spain is unknown and the source of some debate, again see Evans, 1994, pp.54–57.

275

Plut. Mar. 6.2.

276

Evans (1994), pp.57–62.

277

Sall. Iug. 40.1–5.

278

Farney, G, ‘The Fall of the Priest C. Sulpicius Galba and the First consulship of Marius’, Memoirs of the American Academy of Rome 42, 1997, pp.23–37.

279

See Sall. Iug. 63–65 & Plut. Mar. 7.2–8.3

280

Sall. Iug. 63–65

281

App. Pun. 112

282

Plut. Mar. 8.1–2

283

Sall. Iug. 73.5

284

Ibid. 85.1–50. See Skard, E, ‘Marius’ speech in Sallust, Jug. chap.85’, Symbolae Osloenses 21, 1941, pp. 98–102 & Carney, T, ‘Once again Marius’ speech after election in 108 B.C.’, Symbolae Osloenses 35, 1959, pp.63–70.

285

Cic. Prov. Con. 19

286

Sall. Iug. 84.2, Plut. Mar.9.1, Diod. 36.3.1. Diodorus does date this to the Cimbric War, c.105 BC, but Sallust places it in 107 BC.

287

Sall. Iug. 84.2, Plut. Mar. 9.1

288

Evans (1994), pp. 75–76.

289

Sall. Iug. 91.6–7, not that it was particularly uncommon for the era.

290

The modern Moulouya, the western border of Algeria.

291

Sall. Iug. 92.5–94.6

292

Plut. Mar. 10.2–3

293

Oros. 5.15.9

294

See Canter (1911) & Holroyd (1928).

295

We are told the time of year, with the siege near Muluccha being the apparent last act of the campaigning season before Marius retired to winter quarters. From the timescale that this process must have taken, the year is assumed to be 106 BC, though this is never explicitly stated in Sallust.

296

Sall. Iug. 87.4

297

Ibid. 88.3–4

298

Again, the date is implied rather than explicitly stated.

299

Sall. Iug.97.2

300

Ibid. 88.1 the triumph is detailed on the inscribed list of triumphs as well as Vell. 2.11.2, Gell. 12.9.4, Eutrop. 4.27.6, de vir ill. 62.1

301

Sall. Iug. 97.4–99.3

302

Oros. 5.15.9–18

303

This story is also repeated by Frontinus (Str. 2.4.10) most likely taken from Sallust’s’ own account.

304

Sall. Iug. 101.8–11

305

Oros. 5.15.18

306

Sall. Iug. 104.5

307

Ibid. 106.2–3

308

Sall. Iug. 108.3

309

Ibid.

310

Though if all were murdered it is not clear how the Romans got hold of Jugurtha’s sons at the same time. The handover was captured in both a signet ring which Sulla had commissioned, as well as a statue in Rome commissioned by Bocchus in the 90s (Plut. Sull. 3.44 & 6.1–2 respectively).

311

Plut. Mar. 12.3–4

312

Oros. 5.15.19. Jugurtha’s sons were spared and lived in exile in Italy (App. BC. 1.42).

313

Caes. BA. 56.3

314

See note 305.

315

See Holroyd, M, ‘The Jugurthine War: Was Marius or Metellus the Real Victor?’, Journal of Roman Studies 18, 1928, 1–20 and Parker, V, ‘Sallust and the Victor of the Jugurthine War’, Tyche 16, 2001, 111–125.

316

Oros. 5.15.25, Strabo. 4.1.13, Gell. 3.9.7, Iustin. 32.3.9–11

317

Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus gives a figure of 110,000 talents of silver and 1,500,000 talents of gold. Orosius puts it as 100,000 talents of gold and 110,000 talents of silver. Strabo, quoting Poseidonius, stated it as 15,000 talents in total.

318

Dio. 27, fr.90.

319

Brunt, P, Italian Manpower 225 BC-AD 14 (Oxford, 1971), pp.430 & 685.

320

Dio. 27, fr.91.

321

Liv. Per. 67 Gran.Lic 17.

322

Plut. Mar. 25.2

323

Oros. 5.16.2

324

The date comes from Plutarch (Luc.27), when the anniversary of the battle was mentioned as a bad omen.

325

Gran. Lic. 17

326

Dio.27.fr.91.1–4

327

Oros.5.16.1–7

328

Liv. 67

329

Eutrop.5.1.1

330

Vegit. RM.3.10

331

Plut. Sert. 3.1

332

Plut. Mar. 11.1 & 11.8

333

Liv. Per.67, Oros. 5.16.7, Gran. Lic. 17, Diod. 36.1

334

See note 325.

335

Polyb. 3.11, though this figure has been disputed as is in itself inconsistent in Polybius’ own works, see Daly. (2002), pp.201–202.

336

Liv. 22.49.15, Liv. Per. 67, albeit the latter figure is taken from the epitome of Livy’s history, not the history itself.

337

Diod. 34/35.37

338

Gran Lic.21

339

Val. Max.2.3.2

340

Sall. Iug. 114.1–2

341

Plut. Mar. 12.5

342

He would have been made a senator at the next census after his quaestorship, the office giving him the right to be enrolled in the Senate.

343

Strabo 4.1.8

344

The notable exception to this is Evans’ recent article; Evans, R, ‘Rome’s Cimbric Wars (114–101 BC) and their Impact in the Iberia Peninsula’, Acta Classica 48, 2005, pp.37–56.

345

Liv. Per. 67

346

Evans (2005), p.52.

347

Eutrop. 4.27.5, Val. Max. 6.19.3

348

Obseq. 42

349

This is most usually dated as c. 113/112, see Broughton.

350

App. Iber. 99

351

Ibid. 100

352

Liv. Per.67

353

The tone of the Epitome of Livy evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Cimbri were not defeated by loyalist tribes under Roman command.

354

Diod. 36.3.2, though this seems to replicate a request made in 107 BC (see chapter seven). Diodorus clearly states that it was for the war against the Cimbri though he could have been mistaken himself.

355

Frontin. Str. 4.2.2

356

Strabo. 4.1.8

357

Frontin. Str. 1.2.6

358

In the 190s and 180s BC.

359

Plut. Sull. 4. Also see Keaveney, A. (1981). ‘Sulla, the Marsi, and the Hirpini’, Classical Philology 76, pp.292–296.

360

Plut. Mar.14.7

361

Liv. Per. 67

362

This is the division of the tribes as stated by Livy (Per.68) and Plutarch (Mar.15.4–5). Orosius (5.16.9), however, has the Tigurini and the Ambrones and the Cimbri and Teutones. Given the uncertain role played by the Tigurini, in the latter stages of the war and the certainty of the other, earlier, sources, we must assume that Orosius has made an error in his understanding of the tribal dispositions.

363

Fest. 15L

364

Strabo. 7.2.2

365

Oros.5.16. 9

366

Plut. Sert.3.2–4. Plutarch states that Sertorius infiltrated their camp in Gallic dress and using the Gallic tongue, more evidence for Gallic origin of the Cimbri.

367

See note 352.

368

Oros.5.16.10

369

Plut. Mar. 16.1–2

370

Ibid. 18.1

371

18 miles north of Massilia

372

Plut. Mar. 18.2–3

373

Ibid. 18.4

374

The presence of the Ligurians is interesting, especially given Marius’ suspicions of them earlier in this campaign (Frontin. Str. 1.2.6).

375

Plut. Mar.19.4–5

376

Oros.5.16.11

377

Frontin. Str. 2.7.12

378

Oros. 5.16.11

379

Plut. Mar. 20.5

380

Ibid.

381

Plut. Mar.21.2

382

Oros.5.16.12

383

Plut. Mar. 21.3

384

Ibid. 24.4

385

Flor. 1.38.10

386

IPlut. Mar.22.3

387

Q. Lutatius Catulus, a Roman commander in 241BC.

388

Cic. Planc. 5.12

389

Plut. Sull. 2.

390

This has been interpreted both as Marius trying to get rid of Sulla from his own staff due to the supposed enmity caused over the capture of Jugurtha or Marius wanting to make up for Catulus’ inexperience. See Cagniart, P, ‘L. Cornelius Sulla’s Quarrel with C. Marius at the time of the Germanic Invasions (104–101 B.C.)’, Athenaeum 67, 1989, pp.139–149.

391

Plut. Sull.4.3

392

Lewis, R, ‘Catulus and the Cimbri, 102 B.C.’, Hermes 102, 1974, pp.91–92

393

Liv. Per.68

394

Plut. Mar. 23.2

395

Frontin. Str. 1.5.3

396

Lewis (1974), pp.99–101.

397

Plut. Mar. 23.2

398

Liv. Per. 68, Frontin. Str. 1.5.3

399

Plut. Mar. 23.4

400

Ibid. 23.5

401

Plut. Mar. 23.6

402

Liv. Per. 68

403

Plin. NH. 22.11, Frontin. Str. 4.1.13, Val. Max. 5.8.4, Ampel. 19.10, de vir ill. 72.10

404

Plut. Mar. 24.1

405

Flor. 1.38.14

406

Plut. Mar.24.3

407

Vell. 2.12.5, Flor. 1.38. 14, Liv. Per. 68, Plut. Mar.25.3 de vir. Ill. 67

408

Plut. Mar. 24.4

409

Plut. Mar. 25.6, Frontin. Str.2.2.8

410

Carney, T, ‘Marius Choice of Battle-field in the Campaign of 101’, Athenaeum 36, 1958, pp.229–237.

411

Plut. Mar. 25.4

412

Plut. Mar. 25.4, Oros. 5.16.14

413

Plut. Mar.25.7

414

Ibid. 26.1–2

415

Plut. Mar. 27.1–2

416

Liv. Per. 68, Vell. 2.12.5, Eutrop. 5.2.2

417

Flor. 1.38.18

418

Oros. 5.16.22

419

Val. Max.8.15.7

420

Orosius actually comments upon the Roman mistreatment of the civilians, which involved some method of scalping.

421

Oros.5.16.9

422

Flor.1.38.19

423

Eutrop.5.2.2

424

Polyb. 35.1.1–2

425

Especially given that Romans only developed their own coinage in the third century BC.

426

Cicero states that the level is 1,500 asses (Rep. 2.40). It has long been argued that this limit predated Marius’ time. See Gabba, E, Republican Rome; The Army and the Allies (Oxford, 1976), p.6.

427

Polybius giving this value in drachmas not asses is merely an added complication to this question.

428

Liv. 22.11.8

429

Sall. Iug. 86.2–3

430

Plut. Mar. 9

431

Flor. 1.36.13

432

Val. Max.2.3.1

433

Exsuper. 2. It can also be found in Lydus. (de mag. 1.48).

434

This is repeated in the work of the Pseudo-Quintilian (3.5)

435

Gell. 16.10.14

436

Sall. Iug. 87.1–2, Evans, R, ‘Resistance at Home: The Evasion of Military Service in Italy during the Second Century B.C.’, in D.Yuge & M. Doi (eds.) Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity (Leiden, 1988), p. 132.

437

Rosenstein, N, Rome at War (Chapel Hill, 2004), pp.26–56.

438

Rawson, E, ‘The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army’, Papers of the British School of Rome 39, 1971, pp.13–31.

439

Frontin. Str. 4.1.7. This can also be found in Festus (267L)

440

Plut. Mar. 13.1

441

Plut. Ant. 38

442

Plut. Mar. 25.1–2

443

Plin. NH. 10.5.16

444

Bell, M, ‘Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army’, Historia 14, 1965, p.404.

445

Parker, H, The Roman Legions (Cambridge, 1928), p.27.

446

Polyb. 11.23.1 & 11.33.1. An added complication is that the text is Greek not Latin.

447

Liv.25.39.1, 27.18.10, 28.13.8, 28.14.17, 28.23.8, 28.25.15, 28.33.12, 34.12.6, 34.14.1, 34.14.7, 34.14.10, 34.15.1, 34.19.9, 34.19.10, 34.20.3 & 34.20.5. Sall. Iug. 49.2. See Bell (1965), pp.404–409

448

Plut. Mar.28.3–4

449

If it was indeed Numidicus, it would technically have been illegal for him to hold a second consulship so soon after his first, unless he too received special exemption from the assembly.

450

Vell. 2.12.6

451

Plut. Mar. 28.5

452

Liv. Per. 69

453

After Romulus, and M. Furius Camillus, who defeated the Gauls that had sacked Rome in c.390/386 BC (see Plutarch’s Life of Camillus).

454

Plut. Mar. 27.4–5

455

Ibid.27.6

456

Plut. Mar. 31

457

Diod. 36.12, Cic. Sest. 39, Har Resp. 43.

458

Though there is no clear chronology of the measures he undertook during his first two tribunates and many are interchangeable depending upon ones’ own preferences.

459

Plut. Mar.28.4

460

Vell. 2.12.6

461

Plut. Mar. 30.2. The murder of Memmius can also be found in Liv. Per. 69 and de vir ill. 73.5

462

Evans (1994), pp.158–159.

463

See Beness, J, ‘The Urban Unpopularity of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus’, Antichton 25, 1991, pp.33–61.

464

App. BC. 1.32, Plut. Mar. 30.3. See also Seager, R, ‘The Date of Saturninus’ Murder’, Classical Review 17, 1967, pp.9–10, Badian, E, ‘The Death of Saturninus, Studies in Chronology and Prosopography’, Chiron 14, 1984, pp.101–147 and Evans, R, ‘Saturninus and Glaucia: a quest for power’, Questioning Reputations (Pretoria, 2004), pp.99–131.

465

Oros. 5. 17.6–10

466

Vell. 2.12.6

467

Plut. Mar. 31.1

468

Ibid. 32.2

469

App. BC. 1.33; Oros.5.17.11

470

Dio. fr.28. He had been a former follower of Saturninus and Glaucia, who had been stripped of his equestrian status by Metellus as censor.

471

For other reasons as to why Marius was out in the east see Broughton, T. (1953), pp.210–211.

472

Different versions of the fragments of Diodorus preserve different names. Diod. 36.8.4

473

Diod. 36.8.

474

Diod. 36.10.1, Flor. 2.711

475

Diod. 36.10.2–3

476

See Sherk (1984), pp.58–66.

477

Those with Roman citizenship not Latin or Italian status, see Sherwin White, A, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 2nd Edition, 1973).

478

Brunt, P, Italian Manpower 225 BC-AD 14 (Oxford, 1971), pp.13–14.

479

See Evans (1988), pp.121–140.

480

Liv. 1.43, Dion. Hal. 4.16–21, Polyb. 6.19.3, Cic. Rep. 2.40, Gell. 16.10.10. See Rathbone, D, ‘The census qualifications of the assidui and the prima classis’, in H. Sancisci-Weerdenburg (ed.) De Agricultura: In Memoriam Pieter Willem de Neeve (Amsterdam, 1993), pp.121–152.

481

Gell. 6.13.My thanks to Professor Tim Cornell for his thoughts on this fragment.

482

Frederiksen, M, ‘The contribution of archaeology to the agrarian problem in the Gracchan period’, Dialoghi di archeologia 4–5, 1970/71, pp.330–357.

483

See Morley, N, ‘The Transformation of Italy, 225–28 B.C.’, Journal of Roman Studies 91, 2001, pp.50–62 and de Ligt, L, ‘Poverty and demography. The case of the Gracchan land reforms”, Mnemosyne 57, 2004, 725–757.

484

Keaveney, A, The Army in the Roman Revolution (London, 2007), p.20.

485

Evans (1988), pp.121–140.

486

See note 426.

487

Van Ooteghem, J, Les Caecilii Metelli de la République (Brussels, 1967).

488

Polyb. 2.19.8. Also see Gwyn Morgan, M, ‘The Defeat of L. Metellus Denter at Arretium’, Classical Quarterly 22, 1972, pp. 309–325 and Salmon, E, ‘Rome’s Battles with Etruscans and Gauls in 284–282 B.C.’, Classical Philology 30, 1935, pp. 23–31.

489

Valerius Maximus (8.13.2) states that he served for 22 years and was elected four years after his consulship.

490

See Wiseman, T, ‘The Last of the Metelli’, Latomus 24, 1965, pp.52–61.

491

Matthews, V, ‘The Libri Punici of King Hiempsal’, American Journal of Philology 93, 1972, pp.330–335.

492

Hendrickson, G, ‘The Memoirs of Rutilius Rufus’, Classical Philology 28, 1933, pp.153–175.