Caesar CXXXVII

1. If our main source (dear Dio) did not know who were the Consuls Ordinarius for 23 BCE (!!! ) how I (and others) can trust his words about a minor Imperial post like the Corula Aedilat . But realy , is it matter ? Marcellus was dead in 09/23 and that's it 2. As I said in post no. 1 - "Any information is welcome" . I don't chalenge anything about the subject , just want to get more detailes . So , yes I "wish to discuss each conspiracy in turn and perhaps come to some conclusion about how it changed the course of the Principate" . Since I saw some 200 entries to this thread I came to a conclusion that people have interest , so I posted all I know about it . Me so altruist...

Caesar and legality , facts

Okay Caesar137, so it's really a thread about the nature of Roman Law, and yes, people throughout the republican period sometimes acted outside of that law and violated it. That's my only point, that there was a law, and they broke it, hence their actions were "illegal". It's not a matter of perspective in my opinion. The US Government commits murder by executing convicted murderers, just because they too commit the act of murder, does not make the law against homocide invalid. It's still a law. Would you say , Germanicus , that the Law is above anything ? To take it again Ab Absurdum - What about the Nazi law ? Who cares what they had to say about their outlaws . And you know that many thinks that the Americans are war criminals (in Iraq) , surely Bush is acting under the law . Caesar crossed the Rubicon with soldiers , a crime by Roman law but by the same Roman law that was violated by the "keepers of the law" . But you have said it - They too broke the law and I say - Caesar was no saint (as Pompey was not and dearest Marcellus was not) . That should be our perspective .

Dio places the election of Tiberius and Marcellus in 24BC in my copy in the year when Augustus and Norbanus were consuls! The elections took place while Augustus was on his way back from Spain. Therefore Marcellus was aedile in 23. And after all - he did stage those silly games of his in 23 (Dio). Ach , I wish things were more simple ! The Chronology of the years 23 BCE and 22 BCE is one of great debate - Dear dio Cassius even did not know that the conspiracy of Murena was in 23 !!! According to Dio it was in 22....So you can accept his notion about Marcellus as an Aedile in 23 , I don't . You can read about Dio's mistaken chronology in the articles named above .

The thread pertains to Caesar, and the legality of his march on Rome. As has been stated, marching an army from your province against Rome was illegal. No one is saying that illegal actions had not happened before in the Republic. No , Germanicus , the thread is about the "Republicans" use of the term Illegal to attack Caesar . And if you accept my argument (and you did) that Illegal acrions were used before caesar (and by the legal government) than there is nothing in such an attack . this is my argument . Anybody here knows about the army and the Pumerium but since others , including the legal government itself , were using Illegal acts , the "Republicans" argument on that matter becomes worthless . Law - If one's ignores it one's should not used it against othres and say "you are an outlaw" . Again I say - Caesar march on Rome was Illegal or not , it does not matter when his enemies were outlaws by themselvs . That is the point that Barnes reffered to when he comment on cicero's comment (above) . The old Jewish Law said that you can't kill a human being , pure and simple , no matters what . So if you killed someone you are an outlaw , pure and simple . But , according to the same Jewish law , you can kill a Man when you feel that he is going to kill you , Now is this man became an outlaw ? It does not matter anymore , the whole issue becomes subjective and irrelevant . But I feel that we are walking on parallel lines here .

Tacitus was the first (?) to refer to ireland - the year is 72 CE - "...Agricola began with a sea passage, and in a series of successful actions subdued nations hitherto unknown. The whole side of Britain that faces Ireland was lined with his forces. But his motive was rather hope than fear. Ireland, lying between Britain and Spain, and easily accessible also from the Gallic sea, might, to great general advantage, bind in closer union that powerful section of the empire. Ireland is small in extent as compared to Britain, but larger than the islands of the Mediterranean. In soil, in climate and in the character and civilization of its inhabitants it is much like Britain. Its approaches and harbours are tolerably well known from merchants who trade there. Agricola had given a welcome to an Irish prince, who had been driven from home by a rebellion; nominally a friend, he might be used as a pawn in the game. I have often heard Agricola say that Ireland could be reduced and held by a single legion and a few auxiliaries, and that the conquest would also pay from the point of view of Britain, if Roman arms were in evidence on every side and liberty vanished off the map". So , they desided not to take the island .

Very important article for an alusive period . but - "Maurice married Tiberius

I'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to get across. If laws have nothing to do with morality, then why bother making laws at all? More pertinently - if no one in your society has qualms about commiting murder, then surely there is no need to outlaw it. But as laws are generally based on the moral consensus of the general populace, anything outlawed ought to be harmful to the commonwealth of the people. For Caesar's assault to be morally justified, he would have had to liberate the people from conditions that were harmful to the commonwealth as a whole. But as it is, all Caesar "liberated" the people from was their liberty. Are you talking about the Roman Republic of 49 BCE ? I am realy amazed to see that you think that the Roman people had "Liberty" . As I have said to you before - less than 1 % of Roman citizens had the majority in the Comitia Centuriata !!! , a Consul/Praetor could kill his soldiers without a trial ! Rome was based on slavery , 99 % of the Fasti were composed from less than c. 30 families ! The provincials had no say in government , Sulla , the pride of the nobility and in the name of Liberty and restoration acted as a terrorist against Roman citizens , Marcellus ignored the Senate decision of 12/50 in the name of whose Liberty ? What Liberty are you talking about ? Rome was not a Democracy , it was ruled by an Oligarchy since its foundation . For Caesar's assault to be morally justified, he would have had to liberate the people from conditions that were harmful to the commonwealth as a whole. - Yes ! And because of that he won the war . Who were his soldiers ? mercenaries ? No . They were ten of thousands of Roman citizens , the people . Why The Gracchi started the revolution ? Why the italians started their war ? Who gave them Rights ? A Caesar , A Popularis ! Why Sertorius Fought in Spain ? Why Marius , the savior of rome was outlaw ? Why Sulla's march was a Legal ? I can give you tons of Examples for "liberty" in Rome . To say that Caesar ,march was Illegal is to say nothing with regard to the situation in 49 . To say that Pompey or Marcellus or Cato or Shmato had more moral than Caesar is to give a subjective opinion , no more and no less . To say that Caesar was bad and Pompey was good is childish . Hypocrisy - If you attack Ceaser on Legal grounds than you should attack Brutus and Cassius for murdering Caesar without a trial , Sulla for his attack on Rome , the Senate of 133 for killing Gracchus in a linch , the Senate of 120 for killing his brother in another linch and on - Such Liberty ! Killing the People's Tribune ! As I have said before - It is all in one's point of view . We are not talking about black and white situation .

'Castricius' was Caepio's freedman - Thanks for that In which of your sources is it stated that Marcellus was praetor? Or are you meaning that he was given a pro-praetorian rank during his military service in Gaul? - Yes he was given a pro-Praetorian rank but with no connection to his military service in Gaul . It was the Senate prerogative to use this method in that period and after . "Marcellus was given the right to be a senator among the ex-praetors..." (Dio) . And in which of your sources is he named as aedile for 22BC and not 23BC? - He was elected Aedile for 22 and did not serve as such in 23 - "...and he (Tiberius) was at once elected quaestor and Marcellus aedile..." (Dio) . The notion was for 23 so if the election was in that year than Marcellus was electad for 22 . But let's not forget the most important piece of legislation from this settlement - the tribunician power - Of course ! He had already been involved in the conspiracy at that stage. If he had been warned, why the heck would he then 'join a conspiracy' unless he had a death wish? - Prior to Terentia's warning , murena was not in the conspiracy but in the opposition (as showed in the trial of Primus) . After the warning there was nothing for him to lose and the logical step was to eliminat the threat , so he joined Caepio ! I wish you a happy holiday !

Not for the British , they saw them as outlaws exactly as the "Roman nobility"/cato's faction saw Caesar . That is the whole point . I am returning to my first post (above) - It is all in ones point of view . Surely Washington (sp) did not saw himself as an outlaw . Now if Law had nothing to do with moral (as you said ?) so what is the point to call Caesar an outlaw ? If Law and moral are the same , surely the "legal government" of Rome had had no moral ! and to call Ceasar an outlaw on that basis does not mean anything .

Yes it was according to British law. Thank you .

1. Legality , legitimacy , Republic etc' , O.K. let say that the Senate was all that , now what happened in 12.01.50 ? - "...Curio...he demanded one of two things: either that Pompey also should be required to give up his soldiery...To this Marcellus the consul replied by calling Caesar a robber, and urging that he be voted a public enemy unless he should lay down his arms; nevertheless, Curio...prevailed so far as to have the opinion of the senate taken. He therefore moved that those should withdraw to one side who wished that Caesar only should lay down his arms and that Pompey should remain in command; and the majority withdrew. But when he moved again that all those should withdraw who wished both to lay down their arms and neither to remain in command, only twenty-two favoured Pompey, while all the rest sided with Curio. Curio, therefore, felt that he had won the day, and with a joyful countenance rushed before the people, who clapped their hands in welcome and pelted him with garlands and flowers...Marcellus, however, rose and declared that he would not sit there listening to speeches..." There you have a legal procedure and a popular support . What the Legal government did ??? - "Marcellus...marched through the forum to meet Pompey, and standing before him said: "I bid thee, Pompey, to defend thy country, to employ the forces now in readiness, and to levy others." Lentulus also said the same, being one of the consuls elected for the coming year..." There you have Ilegal step by the "legal government" . 2. To take it ab absurdum - The American revolution was also Ilegal !

Thanks , good points . I am still confused but now I say 75% that it was a title (republican times) . I hope P P will come up with more material .

Yes . But the two above are not talking about the people but about the nobility . In Cicero and the republicans view nobility = legality . Now if most of the nobility stood by Caesar (such is the claim) , what was legal and what was not ? Did Ceaser assasination was Legal ? It was without a "legal" trial...

Cicero was the first (or one of the firsts) to claim Caesar's March on Rome as "Illegal" . Since , it became the prime accusation against Caesar . I say , it is all in our point of view . This is , in short T.D. Barnes and D.R. Shackleton Bailey (two Giants) view - "Shackleton-Bailey showed in 1960 that the great mass of the nobility did not stand with Pompey against Caesar

A tie...like in 49...

Thanks The Augusta , but surely someone knows the answer...no ?

"509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - Part II In c. 505 BCE the successful "superbus" found himself facing an Opposition that no other Roman king faced . Tarquinius also had supporters . It is very important to understand that the movements in Rome at that moment were a part of a larger movements in whole of Latium , Etruria , Campania and beyond . The Opposition to Tarquinius - 1. First of all - In the Palace , that is in the Tarquinian family itself represented in the tradition by "Lucius Iunius Brutus" , his sons and brothers in low , by "Egerius Collatinus Tarquinius" and his nephews and more . why ? Because the house of Tarquinius was no different than any Tyrant/King house . 2. In Rome - The Patricians led by the Cornelii , Aemilii , Fabii and more . Why ? The Patricians (as represented in the Comitia Curiata) had lost their supremacy in Rome at the end of the reign of "Priscus" to the Hoplite army (as represented in the Comitia Centuriata , See part I) . So why now ? Maybe they saw an opportunity ! 3. In Rome - The poor ("Plebeians" , not to be confused with the Hoplite army , the "clientes") . Why ? Tarquinius orderd the building of the largest temple in Rome ever for Iupiter Capitolinus Optimus Maximus (at the time , the leagest building in Latium , Central Italy and maybe in all of Italy , One of the largest buildings in the Mediterranean !) and the burden fell on the poor . 4. In Latium - The latin league that was centered in Aricia . Why ? The Aricia center was the no. 1 religious center in Latium until "Servius Tullius" build his center of Diana near Rome . So why now ? Again , The Latins saw an opportunity . 5. In Latium and Etruria - The "Condotieri" (see above) . People like Lars Porsenna of Clusium (or Volcii or Veii) , Poplius Velasius of Satricum , Attus Clausus of Regilum and others who thought that they can take Rome as Kings as Tarquinius did . Tarquinius allys - 1. In Rome - The hoplite Army (Comitia Centuriata) . Their situation was much more better in the Tyrani than the traditional (determined by the Patricians) kingship . The same phenomenon can be seen in ancient Greek Tyranies . 2. In Latium - The Latins who were not under the Aricia Center , mainly , Gabii and Tusculum . Gabii had a personal agremment with Tarquinius (Foedos Gabinium) and Tusculum was under the rule of Octavus (not Octavius) Mamilius , the son in low of Tarquinius . 3. In Campania - Other Tyrants led by Aristodemus of (Greek) Cumae . Aristodemus was a bitter enemy of the Etruscans and feared Poeple like Etruscan Porsenna who had strong war bands and threaten Campania . These were , more or less , the powers who would take their part in "509" .

There must be some evidence somewhere that we are simply overlooking. I see . IMHO (after reading CAH 7.2 and cornell) only the Plebeians places were confimed by law . The 172 case is a proof for that "fact" cause Livius took it as a normal step since Var. 343 did not ban a 2nd place for the Plebeians . So why did the Patricians succeded to get one place for 170 years - Tradition , religion , agreements etc' (that is another big story but off topic) . About the Plebeian candidates running for their place and the Patrician candidates running for theirs - It is the simple solution and I think , the best . As you said , there is no direct evidence except Livius narrativs about the elections . IMHO no other solution can stand against the Fasti , it is impossible (statisticly) to get 170 Consular pairs with Plebeians and Patricians just like that . There are other solutions .

They say That Publius Cornelius Scipio (Cos. 205 and 194) was the first Roman to get a name after the people he conquered (There was a Consul named Mesala after he took Messena in PW1 and others) . Did Scipio took "Africanus" as a title ? If the answer is yes Then his sons could not used it . But we know that the Emperor Claudius inherited the name/title "Germanicus" from his father so the answer must be no , that is , Scipio took it as a name . If so , why the sons of Scipio (Publius and Lucius) did not used it ? Because it was a title ? If they had used it the problem is solved . Did Scipio Aemilianus got the name/title "Africanus" because he was the adopted son of the great Scipio or because he took Carthage ? Any information will be welcome .

Regardless, are only you allowed to offer evidence on the matter? What ? Me don't understand , me confused , how...I...when... 1. Where did I said that ? 2. You did offer evidence , didn't you ? 3. I am Just kidding here 4. Peace

Interesting . Thanks .

So that's how it worked... But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls? No this is after there were already 2 Plebeian consuls elected in 215 BC. From Livy book 23, 31: Note that Livy does not indicate it was illegal for 2 Plebes to be consul but that the augurs were displeased by the omens. Additionally the election of 192 referred to in a post above does not mean that the Lex Genucia was definitely responsible for the idea of split class candidate elections From Livy 35, 10: If the notion that Patrician and Plebeian candidates consistently ran for office on a "split ticket" so to speak, how then do 2 Plebes get elected in 172 BC (C. Popilius Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus.. Livy book 42.9). After this, two Plebeian consuls is a somewhat common occurrence. If the election law provided that Patrician and Plebeian candidates should be split for each consular position, it was a very short term circumstance, and despite the clear circumstantial evidence, I am not entirely convinced that the Lex Genucia provided for this. Of course, Livy was writing his description of the Genucia some 300 years after its passing, so clearly some details could've been lost over time. 1. Where did I say that the Patrician place was confirmed by low ? 2. I have mentioned 172 BCE as the end of the system , didn't I ? 3. The outcome of the eletions of 215 BCE is another proof for the sysrem to work until 172 ! Marcellus abdicated , didn't he ? More important - Livy said the the political rules were ignored in times of emergency , and the eletions that you refer to were after Canae . 4. As I said , the system worked for some 170 years and not for a short term .

So that's how it worked... But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls? Good question , if I may The answer is no . The normal situation was that the Consulate was non plebeian as the Tribunate was non patrician . In Var. 367 BCE Plebeians could stand for the consulship and some of them won . In the fasti after 367 you can see that in some years the voters choose to have this normal situation again - 2 patricians . So now (343) the Plebeians ensured one place . The Patricians did not had to ensure anything ! It was theirs . The amazing thing is that the Patricians (less than 1 % of the citizens) ensured for themselve 1 place in the Consulate for some 170 years ! (until 172) .

Hi , Yes , The Marcellus affair Was an important event in the 23 crisis but not a part of the conspiracies against Augustus (IMHO) . Despite this "fact" , this is the full version of the 23 BCE crisis (sources - books Ronald Syme , "The Roman Revolution , Ronald Syme - "Augustan Aristocracy" , Tvi Ya'avets "Augustus - Moderation's Victory" , Dio Cassius "The History of Rome" . Articles - Varrones Murenae, by G. V. Sumner , Varro Murena, by William C. McDermott , Primus, Murena, and 'Fides': Notes on Cassius Dio Liv. 3, by Barbara Levick , The Consular Fasti of 23 B. C. and the Conspiracy of Varro Murena, by Michael Swan , Maecenas' Retirement, by Peter White , The Imperium of Augustus, by A. H. M. Jones , The Problem of Octavia Minor and Octavia Maior, by Mary White Singer , The Mission of Agrippa to the Orient in 23 B. C., by David Magie, Jr and more . The 23 BCE crisis (full version) - At the end of 24 BCE Augustus gets information about a conspiracy in the senate againt him . He desided to go for the 2nd settlement . The first days of 23 BCE - Marcus Primus , the former governer of Macedonis is brought to trial because he attacked the Odrisians without permission . Primus said that Augustus and Marcellus gave him the permission , than he said that the Consul Aullus Terentius Licinius Varro Murena gave him the order...Augustus (as Consul) arrvied to the scene and asked by the Praetor "did you gave the order ?" Augustus swear thad he did not . Murena (his sister Terentia is married to Maecenas) asked Augustus what he was doing on the trial and who summoned him, Augustus said - "The People's will !" . Primus was convicted but by small majority . Augustus was (by now) sure about the conspiracy . Maecenas told his wife that her brother Murena is in danger . By now Murena joined a real conspiracy to kill Augustus , led by one named Faenius Caepio . By Livia's instigation , her son Tiberius Claudius Nero married his fiancee (for the last 9 years) Vipsania Agrippina the daughter of Agrippa . This marrige confirmed the alliance between Agrippa and Livia against Marcellus and his aly , Maecenas . Castricius (who is he ?) told Augustus about the Murena-Caepio conspiracy . The cospirators fled from the city and brought to trial in absentia . Tiberius wes the prosecuter in the trial against Caepio . A crisis betweem Augustus and Maecenas to the joy of Agrippa . Augustus is "sick" and dying , he gathered the Senate (the Senators are expecting the nomination of Marcellus "to the throne") and gave the state papers to the Consul Frugi and his seal to Agrippa ! Marcellus position is in decline . Augustus is saved by his Doctor Antonius Musa . June - The romurs about the crisis between Agrippa and Marcellus makes there way to Augustus ears . The Princeps tryed to stop the unrest in the palace , he gathered the Senate and intented to read his (former) will , in it there is no mention of a heir "to the throne" . The Senators asked Agustus not to read his will - Augustus agreed . 1 july - Augustus abdicated from the Consulate , the second settlement (Now we should look at it in a new perspective) . Augustus is trying to appeas Marcellus and his strong faction by passing a bill in the Senate that allowed him to stand for the Consulate 10 yeras earlier . Marcellus becomes Senator (as an ex Praetor) and Aedilis Curula for the nest year . To compensate Agrippa , Augustus gave him Imperium Proconsulari for 5 years in all of his Provinces . The Princeps did not adopt Marcellus (he wanted to) as a son because of the strong opposition of the "Caesarian" faction led by Agrripa , Taurus and others . The Senators are in favor of the conspirators ! Augustus passes a bill for open vote in their trial and they are convicted . Murena , Caepio and the others are killed . Marcellus is "sick" , Mussa failed to cure him . September - Marcellus is dead ! Rumors about Livia's hands in the death - No proofs . Maecenas - "Augustus had no choise but to make Agrippa his son in low or to smash him" . The end to the year - Augustus sends Agrripa to Syria (also) to remove its governer , Marcus Terentius Varro , the brother of Murena . Rumors (false) in Rome that Agrippa's departure is connected to his disatisfaction about Augustus political game . Another false rumor is that Augustus is trying to get rid of Agrippa . Agrippa becomes popular becaus of his "Republican" views in contrast to the young and arrogant Marcellus . The election for the Consulate - The Consul elected...Tedius Afer is making accusations agains Augusts , the Princeps was furious , Afer is dead and Varro vannished . Agrippa is in Lesbos , he sends his officers to the east and deside to stay in the island ! In Rome they say that Agrripa no longer accept Augustus commands . As I see it , Marcellus had his moves but I can't see a connection to the Murena conspiracy . The important thing is that Augustus went to the 2nd settlement because he saw 3 things - Conspiracies , opposition in the Senate and wars in the palace between factions led by Livia , Agrippa , Maecenas , Marcellus and more .