Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nascia

[spittle]

According to the notes on the DVD of Rome:

"Mettellus Scipio. Conservative Senator An affable pragmatist, he acts as a smiling counterbalance to his fierce ally Cato"

 

According to Tom Holland 'Rubicon':

"Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nascia was a vicious nonentity, pre-eminent at nothing save the staging of pornographic floorshows"

 

These two descriptions are polar opposites (especially after watching Rome and the portyrayal of Scipio as a decent, honourable person who, like Cato and even after being advised to surrender to Caesar by Cato, follows him into death by suicide).

Which one is closer to reality?

Did Scipio commit suicide?

 

Any other info of relevence?

 

Edited to add this:

According to Goldworthy's 'Caesar'- 'Scipio had charges against him quietly dropped after his daughter became betrothed to pompey'

I would say this was another tick under the pornographer box rather than the HBO lovable martyr one.

Edited November 2, 2006 by spittle

[Pertinax]

There was an oblique hint at his "entertainment preferences" in the meeting at the mime where the "lewd woman" was present. "I did not take you for a lover of the mime" was the ironic comment .

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my view, Scipio was neither a mere pornographer nor some benevolent counterbalance to Cato. Rather, Scipio appears more ferociously anti-Caesarian than Cato, and (if we are to believe Caesar's accounts) Scipio was less humane than Cato and often quite overwhelmingly petty.

 

As one might guess of a man with four to five names, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica was descended from among the most eminent plebeian families in the republic. Through his mother he was descended from the the Licinian line that established civil rights for plebeians, and through his father he was descended from the Cornelian line that had saved Rome itself from both Hannibal and the rapacious Marian Cinna. Seeming to live up to these illustrious ancestors, it was Scipio (along with Crassus and Marcellus) who brought the letters to Cicero that revealed the Catilinarian plot. Further, having been elected tribune of the plebs, and serving in the college of pontiffs in 59, he heard the case regarding Cicero's house, which had been destroyed by Caesar's creature Clodius.

 

We next hear of Scipio in 53, when--now backed by the Clodian mob--he ran for the consulship against Milo,who was backed by Pompey. The campaigning was marked by rampant bribery and open violence on the streets, mostly at the instigation of Pompey who had hoped to be named dictator to supress the violence that he himself initiated. Indeed, after the murder of Clodius and its aftermath, Pompey acheived his aim in the sense that he was named sole consul in February. However, in a turn of events occurring between February and August, Scipio and Pompey were reconciled, after Scipio offered his daughter Cornelia to Pompey, who then named Scipio as his co-consul. Thus, after a year of civil strife, Scipio had managed to unite the major opposing factions for the consulship, cemented above all by their common opposition to Caesar, who was menacing Rome with his rampant bribery and was conducting a completely unauthorized war against the poor Gauls.

 

As consul, Scipio was energetic in opposing Caesar. He sponsored a law restoring the power of the censors to review ranks of the Senate, presumably as an effort to remove those senators who had been bribed by Caesar, and he also introduced the motion that the Senate should review the Gallic provinces, where Caesar was conducting his illegal war. Finally, in 49, Scipio brought matters to a head by seconding Lentulus' proposal that Caesar lay down his arms or be declared an enemy of Rome.

 

In the ensuing civil war, Scipio was given the province of Syria, where (Caesar claims) Scipio viciously overtaxed the inhabitants both for purposes of opposing Caesar and also for his personal gain. Moving on to Pharsalus, Scipio led the center of Pompey's forces (again Caesar depicts him as a squabbling aristocrat, chiefly concerned with whether he would gain Caesar's office as pontifex maximus once Caesar was defeated). Finally, joining Cato at Utica, Scipio was said to have attempted to put the whole city to the torch, but he was stopped by Cato, who thereafter was much loved by the Uticans. (Indeed, the one surviving statue of Cato was discovered at Utica, and Cato was often known as Cato Uticensis.)

 

Scipio did commit suicide, though not as depicted in the series. Having been defeated by Caesar at Thapsus, Scipio and his troops fled, while others surrendered to Caesar. Those who surrendered were viciously slaughtered by the troops of Caesar the Merciful. Those who fled (including Scipio) were intercepted at sea, and it was at sea that Scipio stabbed himself and lept into the waters.

 

For sources, see:

Plut. Cic. 15 ; Dion Cass. xl. 51, xliii. 9; Appian, B. C. ii. 24,25, 60, 76, 87, 95

[spittle]

As always, the depth of your knowledge is staggering, Cato, however your absolute certainty concerning these people and events borders on fanatacism. Despite my lack of comparable learning (I am new to this era) I must question some of your theories.

 

I find it hard to accept that Pompey instigated the bribery and violence that accompanied the election. From my reading of these events Clodius and Milo took things to a higher level of criminality and Pompey was just lucky to be able to exploit the situation to his benefit. To suggest that Pompey created the situation is really just a conspiracy theory.

 

And to call Caesar a war criminal was little more than a political stick (similar to the crys of 'criminal' aimed at Bush/Blair by their opponents due to their involvement in Iraq since 9/11). There was no real ambition to punish Caesar for the good of mankind. The only rule of war was to win. A point that had been made very clear in 137BC when the consul Caius Hostilius Mancinus was left outside the walls of Numantia. The Senate did this not to expiate a wrong but to legally disassociate themselves with Mancinus in order to riddle out of honouring the treaty he had made with the Celtiberians. A treaty that the Senate found too unfavourable to Rome.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I find it hard to accept that Pompey instigated the bribery and violence that accompanied the election.

In your opinion, Milo's violence was not instigated by Pompey? Perhaps, then, you could explain the relationship between Pompey and Milo better. Please do. I'd love to hear how Milo, a creature almost entirely of Pompey's making and protection, went off the reservation without so much as a wink from his political benefactor.

 

The only rule of war was to win. A point that had been made very clear in 137BC when the consul Caius Hostilius Mancinus was left outside the walls of Numantia. The Senate did this not to expiate a wrong but to legally disassociate themselves with Mancinus in order to riddle out of honouring the treaty he had made with the Celtiberians. A treaty that the Senate found too unfavourable to Rome.

 

Actually, that wasn't the only rule of war--not by a long shot. The ius fetiale specifically proscribed wars of aggression and betraying Roman allies. Moreover, provincial governors were specifically forbidden from running off on their own against whatever neighboring villages caught their fancy. Furthermore, the case of Mancinus provides exactly the legal precedent for handing Caesar over to the Germans that Cato (perhaps jocularly) endorsed.

 

BTW, if I had wanted to be a fanatical supporter of Scipio, I could have easily glossed over Caesar's claims about him. On the contrary, I didn't pull any punches about this ally of Cato's, which is what a true fanatic would have done. Moreover, I provided you with all the major source material I could find on Scipio so you could make up your mind. If there's any fanaticism here, it was a fanatical helpfulness.

[spittle]

Yes it was helpful and I thank you but to be so annoyed at my disagreement seems harsh, even fanatical.

 

I was under the impression that Clodius, not Milo, raised the bar by encouraging his supporters to use violence and Milo (with Pompeys help) only responded to the threat when he answered in kind? (Goldworthy/T.Holland)

 

As for the prohibition of harming Roman allys didn't virtually all of Romes allys in Gaul swap sides and support Vercingetorix? And did not Caesar show extreme mercy to the Aediu because of their long standing alliance with Rome despite their support of the 'great revolt'? Others would have been harder on them for these reasons.

 

I'm not trying to insult you, Cato, and I genuinely value your opinions I just do not buy the image of Pompey sitting in the shadows pulling all the strings. likewise I disagree that Caesar set out to become all powerful and it was as much to do with the accidental circumstances that arrose as it was to do with intention.

 

If the Romans had a genuine dislike of wars of aggression why did they honour their victors so highly?

Why did important Romans always fight to get positions that would allow them to wage war and gain wealth and prestige?

 

The first Roman army to march on its own capital did so after a command was taken from Sulla and awarded to Marius! Why the desire to be called war criminal and face prosecution?

[M. Porcius Cato]

All fascinating questions; all off-topic. This is the Rome Television Series subfora. Pose the questions again in the Republic, and I'm sure many will weigh in with their two cents.

[spittle]

I asked for an evaluation of the character Scipio.

 

*You mentioned Pompey's instigation of violence.

*You brought up Caesars 'war crimes'.

 

I just responded so maybe its you who should be more attentive to the forum we are in. Either that or stop manipulating every thread into 'Why Caesar was bad'.

 

If one of the moderators would care to move these posts they have the power to do so.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Fair enough. I guess it's impossible to evaluate Scipio's character from his actions unless one has some prior position on whether opposing Caesar was a good or bad thing. In evaluating Scipio, I made my position on that matter clear. If you think Caesar should have gone unopposed, then Scipio was a very bad man.

[Horatius]

All fascinating questions; all off-topic. This is the Rome Television Series subfora. Pose the questions again in the Republic, and I'm sure many will weigh in with their two cents.

I agree great thread ! please move it to the Republic forum and get on with it:)

Edited November 6, 2006 by Horatius

[spittle]

To my way of thinking all of these questions form part of the larger picture of whether Caesar set out to gain absolute personal power for himself or was he attempting to serve the republic?

 

Did Scipio/Cato et al ignore the wishes of the masses in favour of an elite within the establishment?

 

"Caesar couldn't accept a superior and Pompey could not accept an equal" Lucan, a century after the events in question.