Pompieus

Cicero, like Cato before him, tried to raise up one military dynast (Octavian) to destroy another (Antonius), thinking he could dispose of the young man if he proved intractable. Like Cato, he failed dismally. His "dupe" was far more clever and ruthless than Pompieus...or Cicero.

The Senate needed to be convened by a magistrate, and could meet in any inaugurated space (templum); and was preceded by a sacrifice and the taking of the auspices. (according to Gellius 14.7) In addition to those mentioned by "Novosedoff", meetings were held in the temple of Fides (before the killing of Tiberius Gracchus) and in the temple of Tellus. There was also a curia associated with Pompey's Theater complex in the Campus Martius. The meeting at which Caesar was assassinated was apparently held there.

Homework ? In general the Senate, even reinforced by the new members co-opted by Sulla did not vigorously defend the Sullan system against the many discontented elements that opposed it (Italians, exiles, those who's property had been confiscated, equites and businessmen, the plebs). The thrust of Sulla's reforms was to hamstring the tribunate and to control the military commanders. Agitation to emancipate the tribunate was almost immediate. The tribunate was of great value to any aspirant for a political career as it provided a stage as champion of the people and an opportunity to propose laws to benefit powerful patrons; and the plebians looked to the tribunes for land allotments and cheap grain. As soon as 75 BC the consular lex Aurelia ended the prohibition on tribunes holding higher office (and opened the juries to equites, apparently without serious opposition) and Pompey and Crassus removed the other restrictions in 70. Catullus and Senate managed to crush the revolt of Aemilius Lepidus in 77, but agreed to send Pompieus and his army to Spain to deal with Sertorius though he was still an eques, and sent Antonius Creticus against the pirates with imperium infinitum. Then came the Slave war. The failure of the consuls to deal effectively with it, and the absence of the Luculli in the East left command in Italy to Crassus who succeeded in defeating Spartacus. Pompeius returned from Spain in time for the consular elections for 70, the two were duly elected and dismantled much of what remained of Sulla's settlement. The Sullan senate was simply not monolithic in its support of the strictures of the Sullan system. Most were not adverse to a gradual loosening of oligarchic control when circumstances required it.

Probably most prominent among them was Crassus (who could afford it). Rumor had Caesar abetting several of Crassus' intrigues in 65-64 BC, and in 61 BC Crassus underwrote Caesar's debts so he could depart for Spain as propraetor (Plutarch Caes xi).

Both were appointed to the commands by the senate. Pompieus on a motion by L Marcius Philippus (cos 91) though he had held no magistracy and was still an eques. (Plutarch Pomp 17, Cicero Leg Man 62, Phil 11) Crassus either as praetor or proconsul (it's not clear if he was praetor in 73 or 72). (Plut Crassus 10, Appian BC 118, 121)

Was the Senate the actual government of Rome or a particularly distinguished and prestigious advisory council for the magistrates? Apparently this was a controversy in antiquity...Cicero called the Senate an eternal council (consilium sempiternum) in charge of the republic and the magistrates mere servants. Many consuls like L Postumius Megillus, L Marcius Phillipus and M Popilius Laenas, not to mention Marius, Sulla and Caesar refused to be ruled. Any strong opinions?

What evidence is there that the senate could meet without being convened by a magistrate?

It is extremely unlikely that the ladies mentioned were members of the patrician Claudii or even of the plebian Claudii Marcelli. Pontius Pilate was an equestrian official and not even close to the nobility of those prominent republican consular families...if they still existed.

During the Republic a legion had no single commanding officer. The military tribunes rotated as a sort of "officer of the day". An army commander (consul, praetor, proconsul or propraetor) possessing imperium, might assign one of his legati to control a legion if circumstances required, but only temporarily. The legatus legionis was an innovation of Augustus, created when the legions became permanent organizations. The theory was the same as Augustus held proconsular imperium over all the provinces where legions were stationed.

During the principate the governors of the military provinces (Upper and Lower Germany, Syria, Tarraconensis, Dalmatia, Moesia, Pannonia, Numidia) called legatus Augusti pro praetori, commanded all the legions and auxilia cohorts and alae stationed in their province. These were usually senators, ex-consuls or ex-praetors appointed by the Princeps. The exception was Egypt which was governed, and its army commanded, by an equestrian praefect. This was a flexible system and the Emperor sometimes combined several provinces and their armies under a single commander if necessary (often a member of the Imperial family) As "caldrail' says Constantine created the Offices of Magister Equitum and Peditum to command subdivisions of the permanent field army he created (comitatus). Diocletian (probably) had also created the rank of dux to command the border garrisons in groups of the smaller provinces he had created.

Does a fellow ex-Pittsburgher dare to nit-pick? Plutarch says Caesar raised 10 cohorts when he was pro-praetorian governor of Further Spain but doesn't call them a "legion". There were a few citizen settlements in Spain at the time, but were there enough to form a "iusta legio" ? (especially in peace time). They were very likely Spanish auxiliaries. Nor could a legion (if it existed), formed in 61BC be controlled by Caesar until he took over as pro-consul in Gaul, as his imperium lapsed while he ran for consul. Anyway, the Xth legion, famous in the Gallic and civil wars, was already in the province when Caesar arrived in 58, possibly raised by Gaius Pomptinus to suppress the Allobrogian revolt (61BC). There's no evidence connecting "Caesar's Favorite" Xth legion with Caesar's governorship of Farther Spain. The Xth legion of the Gallic and civil wars was discharged by Caesar in 44BC and the veterans settled at Narbo Martius in Gaul. After Caesar's assassination Lepidus reconstituted the Xth in winter 44/43 including (probably) what veterans he could recruit from the colony at Narbo. This legion fought at Philippi and in the east with Antonius, and sometime after 31 was merged with another legion, given the title "Gemina", and served in Spain et al under the principate. X Fretensis was most likely raised by Octavian in 41/40, fought against Sextus Pompey et al and saw long service in Syria and Judaea. This is somewhat controversial and mostly follows Keppie "Making the Roman Army"

I'd agree (fwiw) Its much too simplistic an assertion unless the author means that military power is always the "ultima ratio" in any conflict.

In 49 BC there were two legions in Italy (I and XV) both of which had served with Caesar and were intended for the war with Parthia. Pompieus was authorized by the consuls of 49 to raise troops in Italy, but Caesar moved so quickly that many recruits dispersed or joined his forces, and Pompieus was only able to salvage 30 cohorts of recruits (3 legions). With these and legions I and XV (later re-numbered III) he sailed to Greece. In Greece Pompeius formed one legion by consolidating the 2 weak legions that formed the garrison of Cilicia, and 2 legions from Syria joined later. These men had been serving overseas for some time (some for 6+ years). Levies of veterans and Italian residents in Crete and the province of Asia formed 3 more ("stiffened" by 15 Caesarian cohorts captured in Dalmatia and a few Pompeians who evaded capture in Spain) so that Caesar says Pompey controlled 11 legions (110 cohorts) in 48 BC. When Brutus crossed to Greece in 44 BC he took over 1 legion that was in Macedonia, 3 in Illyricum and raised 4 more from exiles, veterans and Italian residents in Greece (including the poet Horace), but he must also have recruited non-citizens in Macedonia and Asia as well. Cassius later joined Brutus with 7 legions that had been in Syria, 4 from Egypt and 1 from Asia. Cassius probably also controlled 2 or 3 legions of non-citizens recruited in Egypt, Syria and Pontus (legio vernacula) like Caesar's Alaudae. Pompeius and Brutus/Cassius would have also controlled considerable forces provided by allied and client kings. Most of the legionaries were the troops that happened to be in the eastern provinces, bolstered by exiles and Italians who were residing overseas (there were few overseas military colonies prior to Augustus). Plus (in a pinch) non-citizen provincials. In a Civil War commanders and recruiting officers are apt to overlook the details of a potential recruit's qualifications (viz Roman citizenship) or even his personal inclinations when they need men. Afranius and Petrieus in Spain had one "native" legion. As did Caesar. Recruitment of non-citizens (willingly or by compulsion) and forming them into "legions" was more common in the armies of Metellus Scipio in Africa in 46, and Sextus Pompey and Lepidus in Sicily after 44 BC. See P A Brunt "Italian Manpower" for sources etc.

In 342 BC the tribune L Genucius passed several reforming laws including a lex that required a hiatus of ten years between iterations of the consulship. (Livy vii.42) In 210 BC during the crisis of Hannibal's invasion, the dictator, tribunes and senate agreed to suspend the law as long as there was war in Italy. (Livy xxvii.6) This allowed the people to elect proven commanders to oppose Hannibal (viz: Q Fabius Maximus, M Claudius Marcellus, Q Fulvius Flaccus, T Sempronius Gracchus). When the 2nd Punic War ended in 202 BC, the lex Genucia went back into effect, and iterations of the consulship returned to 10 year intervals (viz: L Aemilius Paullus 182 & 168, M Aemilius Lepidus 187 & 175, Q Marcius Philippus 186 & 169 et al). However, even before Marius, there were a couple of exceptions. In 162 C Marcius Figulus and P Cornelius Scipio Nasica were elected consuls, but a fault in religious procedures caused both men to resign. Marcius was then elected consul in 156, and Nasica in 155. In 152 BC M Claudius Marcellus(iii) who had been consul in 166 and 155 BC was elected a third time to handle the "Fiery War" in Spain. Polybius and Appian pass over this event without comment, and Livy's account is lost, so we don't know if suspension of the law in 152 met serious opposition; but soon after another law was passed precluding second consulships altogether. Thus there were laws, and a long tradition that only in a crisis should the laws be suspended. And, of course, there was a political aspect in 107 BC as Marius (a novus homo) was trying to supersede the proconsul Q Caecilius Metellus who had a strong following. Also...it is anachronistic to use terms like "liberal" or "conservative" in relation to Roman politics (actually it is also probably true NOW!). Roman political groupings were personal, often temporary and rarely reflected any sort of "ideology". Mostly they were concerned with who should hold power, and what should be done with it in the short term.

By the fourth century senate membership was predominantly hereditary, but the Emperors often added new members. Constantius II founded a second senate at Constantinople, and the number of senators grew in the fourth century due to honorary appointments, and the large number of offices that came to carry senatorial status during service or on retirement (possibly as many as 2,000 in each.) A.H.M Jones "The Later Roman Empire" chapter XV gives an overview.

Rather than just concentration of wealth, isn't it really a question of how "deep" into the population of a society does the desire (willingness?) to preserve and defend it go? If the elites and the masses are not BOTH willing to defend a society from external (or internal) challenges and divisions, can it survive? A little too much Toynbee ?

C C Strachan's "Nobilitas" site (www.strachan.dk) is a very useful source.

Tacitus (xiv.31-33) says two Roman towns were destroyed by the rebels. Camulodunum (Colonia Victricensis) the provincial capitol - now, supposedly, Colchester; and the municipium Verulamium - southwest of modern St Albans. London was also sacked and destroyed, and though it was a significant settlement (probably as populous as either of the others) it was not yet 'officially' a Roman town. Cassius Dio also says two towns were destroyed, he took his account mostly from Tacitus. A glance at the map shows Chelmsford in the path of destruction (between London and Camulodunum), and there was a settlement there in 61 (Caesarmagus). So it may well have been destroyed in the revolt but was too small to be mentioned in the sources.

Lintott ("Constitution of the Roman Republic" pg 75) says that the Senate could meet "on any day - including dies nefaste" but gives no reference. William Smith's Classical dictionary says "meetings could be convoked on "any day that was not atri (?)." Both agree that regular meetings (senatus legitimus) were held every month on the calends, nones and ides, and that extraordinary meetings (senatus indictus) could be held on any other day, except when the comitia were meeting. However, the Senate was summoned to meet during the assembly meetings that led to the deaths of the Gracchi. Lintott pg 44 refers to Macrobius (Saturnalia) 1.16.30 which mentions a Lex Hortensia which made market-days fasti but not comitiales. (?)

Persians? In the first century BC Iran was controlled by the Arsacid dynasty. The Arsacids were Parthians, originally from northern Iran. "Persia" usually means southern Iran, from which the Achaemenid and Sassanian dynasties arose. There is not a lot of data on the Parthians other than coins and references in surviving Greek and Latin literature. Even the Arsacid "king list" is not totally clear, but probably included Mithridates II ~123-88BC, Artabanus II or Orodes ~80, and Sinatruces ~77-70. Mithridates II sent an envoy to Sulla requesting friendship and alliance in 92BC, and in 72BC Sinatruces refused a request for help from Mithridates of Pontus.

Cincinnatus was no "emperor" (?!), he was (probably) appointed suffect (substitute) consul of the Roman Republic in 460BCE upon the death of the sitting consul, and dictator in 458 to meet a military crisis. He may (possibly) have been dictator again in 439 to deal with the supposed usurpation of Spurius Maelius. Cincinnatus was legendary for civic virtue and simple life, and was a strong opponent of plebian rights. The story (legend?) is in Livy books iii and iv, and he is mentioned by Pliny and Cicero.

According to Cheeseman, Holder and Spaul all Auxiliary units attested as serving in Britain were originally recruited elsewhere (mainly Spain, Gaul and Illyria). Evidence of the 18 or so Alae and Cohortes known to have been recruited in Britain (Britonum/Britanica/Britanorum) is also found elsewhere (Mauritania, Germany and the Danube). This applies mainly to the 1st & 2nd centuries AD. Later, local recruiting became the norm and evidence of soldiers origins becomes rare. But some units like the oriental archers, and possibly units from Britain, received drafts of men from home well into the 2nd century AD.

As you say, Roman political alliances were personal, various and shifting. Several prominent men supported Tiberius Gracchus. Appius Claudius Pulcher the princeps senatus was his father in law, Publius Licinius Crassus Dives cos 131 and soon to be pontifex maximus was Gaius Gracchus' father in law. Other prominent supporters were Marcus Fulvius Flaccus (cos 125), Gaius Porcius Cato (cos 114) grandson of the censor, Publius Mucius Scaevola (cos 133) and Gaius Papirius Carbo (cos 120). It is possible that the enmity between Scipio and Tiberius Gracchus dated from the Mancinus episode in 137. Gaius Cato and the Metelli had also once been friends of Scipio but had become estranged for some reason according to Cicero. In 138 Scipio personally prosecuted Lucius Aurelius Cotta, the father of Marius' opponent in 119 for bribery, and Metellus Macedonicus, the father of Delmaticus, defended him. If Marius was originally a client of the Metelli (as Plutarch says) he could possibly have served under Metellus Belearicus in 123-122. Sallust says Marius was elected military tribune, but not when (134-133?). Broughton (Magistrates of the Roman Republic) says he was probably quaestor in 121 or 120.

There is nothing specific in the sources about Marius' attitude toward the Gracchan reforms, but during his tribunate (119BC) Marius proposed a "popularis" law that altered the procedure in elections. Apparently, it involved narrowing the pontes over which the voters approached the ballot boxes with the intention of reducing the ability of the nobles or their agents to pressure the voters. The measure was violently opposed by the consul L Aurelius Cotta who demanded Marius appear before the senate and explain his action (possibly Marius had not previously obtained senatorial approval). This resulted in an angry debate during which the other consul L Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (Marius' erstwhile patron) supported Cotta. Marius is said to have ordered Metellus' arrest, whereupon the opposition collapsed and the bill passed. Possibly this irritated the nobility enough that they used their influence to defeat Marius' election to the aedileship, and to prosecute him for bribery after he won the last place in the praetorian election (115BC). The sources don't specifically say whether Marius ever met his nephew either

Sometime between ages 15-17 a Roman boy "came of age", hung up his bullae, donned the toga virilis and was registered on the roll of Roman citizens. But, if his father was still alive, didn't the father legally control any property the son might possess under patria potestas? In what property class did the censors register a son who's father still lived? Was there some legal way for the son of a living senator or equestrian father to hold property so as to be registered in the centuries of equites or the iuniores of the First Class?