Aurelianus Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 After a fast rise under caesar, and then part in the triumvirate, he is quickly sidelined by Octavian. Why did he let this happen, and what is everyones perception of him as a man, general and politician? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 After a fast rise under caesar, and then part in the triumvirate, he is quickly sidelined by Octavian. Why did he let this happen, and what is everyones perception of him as a man, general and politician? Several reasons for his less prominent role. First he was relegated to the minor third position because most importantly, he didn't participate in the victory over the Republicans. Additionally his relegation to this minor role and to the province of Africa was also because of suspected treasonous interaction with Sextus Pompey. By this point he truly was a minor player who was kept "in the loop" likely because of his social prominence as the leading living consular patrician and the associated influence that follows this position (and he was Pontifex Maximus). Lepidus didn't originally go to war over his lost importance probably because he feared the senior triumvirs. He wasn't completely expelled by Antonius and Octavian, because both probably felt that he could be used to their advantage. It's interesting that Octavian finally let Lepidus take his assigned province of Africa in part because Octavian didn't trust him and (the Antonian legions assigned to him) and didn't want him to close by. Frankly he holds such a minor role in the memory of history, because his involvement pales in comparison to the struggles of Octavian, Brutus, Cassius and Antonius. His role lacked the dramatics of the other players in the eyes of contemporaries. As for his final defeat and expulsion from the Triumvirate... he didn't let it happen. His attempt to take Sicily from Octavian backfired. His own army defected as a result of Octavian's political shrewdness, and without it, he was powerless. His move against Octavian's position in Sicily was bold and decisive (one of the few such examples of decisiveness shown in the sources). Unfortunately for him, he simply didn't have the loyalty of his legions necessary to carry it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 His move against Octavian's position in Sicily was bold and decisive (one of the few such examples of decisiveness shown in the sources). Unfortunately for him, he simply didn't have the loyalty of his legions necessary to carry it out. Is is another enigama . Why Lepidus took this step ? Why in 36 ? Why in Sicily ? What was his object ? Why his soldiers abandoned him ? How come that Lepidus survived this episode and even his son's conspiracyand death in 30 ? There is a very good biography for Lepidus - "Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir" , by Richard D. Weigel; Routledge, 1992 On Lepidus last days - "Dio Cassius says that Octavian made Lepidus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.