Elusive 3 times Consul

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Marcus Claudius Marcellus

 

Was the son of Marcus Claudius Marcellus (Cos. 196) and grandson of the famous Marcus Claudius Marcellus who fought Hannibal .

He became Consul in 183 - So far so good

He became Consul for the second time in 155 - One of only 8 people (all of them were great generals and statemens) to achive this honor since 200 ! Why ?

The amazing thing comes next - He became Consul for the 3rd time in 152 !!! against the Law (Lex Annalis) , the onlt person to achive it in 105 years ! Why ? What happened there ? What crisis ? Why him ? What he have done ? Why he is the only one in 105 years (until Marius) ?

 

The sources are silent !

 

Help

[Primus Pilus]

Marcus Claudius Marcellus

 

Was the son of Marcus Claudius Marcellus (Cos. 196) and grandson of the famous Marcus Claudius Marcellus who fought Hannibal .

He became Consul in 183 - So far so good

He became Consul for the second time in 155 - One of only 8 people (all of them were great generals and statemens) to achive this honor since 200 ! Why ?

The amazing thing comes next - He became Consul for the 3rd time in 152 !!! against the Law (Lex Annalis) , the onlt person to achive it in 105 years ! Why ? What happened there ? What crisis ? Why him ? What he have done ? Why he is the only one in 105 years (until Marius) ?

 

The sources are silent !

 

Help

 

Just a bit of a correction to your timelime... The M. Claudius Marcellus in question was actually first Consul in 166, then in 155 and 152. The one who was Consul in 183 was actually a different person. Regardless, you are still right that the ancient sources are largely silent on the reason.

 

Several ancillary writings I've read but cannot recall in exact detail have suggested that a law was passed sometime after 152 BC and before the election of Gaius Marius, making it illegal for election to consul twice within 10 years. However no source, nor law has ever been specifically named and just a presumption seems to be implied. This presumption would also ignore the Lex Genucia in which Livy states that the 10 year gap was made a law some 40 years prior to Marcellus' 3rd consulship.

 

Now, it could very well be that Livy was simply wrong on the matter, or that the Lex Genucia was either overturned at some point or simply ignored. Rather, I think perhaps the election of Marcellus to his 3rd consulship was simply in reaction to the emergency in Hispania (revolt of the Lusitanii and the Celtiberians) and the emergency superseded the law.

 

Regardless, it might seem strange that there is no mention of the election of 152 BC (being either an oddity or unlawful), though unfortunately there are major gaps in the surviving texts for this period. With that in mind, it might not be that the sources are silent, but rather that the evidence is unfortunately lost to us.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks .

 

Just a bit of a correction to your timelime... The M. Claudius Marcellus in question was actually first Consul in 166, then in 155 and 152. The one who was Consul in 183 was actually a different person -

 

Of course !!

 

Several ancillary writings I've read but cannot recall in exact detail have suggested that a law was passed sometime after 152 BC and before the election of Gaius Marius, making it illegal for election to consul twice within 10 years. -

 

It was the Lex Vilia Annalis but of 180 (Livy) .

 

was simply in reaction to the emergency in Hispania (revolt of the Lusitanii and the Celtiberians) and the emergency superseded the law

 

But such an emergency ? It was so far from Rome . And Marcellus ?

 

Regardless, it might seem strange that there is no mention of the election of 152 BC (being either an oddity or unlawful), though unfortunately there are major gaps in the surviving texts for this period. With that in mind, it might not be that the sources are silent, but rather that the evidence is unfortunately lost to us.

 

Damn !

 

Do you think we will ever know the guy and his actions that led to his popularity and supremacy ?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Primus Pilus]

Do you think we will ever know the guy and his actions that led to his popularity and supremacy ?

 

Polybius mentions his deeds in Hispania almost as an afterthought, but unfortunately the lead up to these events is the book that happens to be terribly fragmented (book 35 off the top of my head if I remember right).

[Primus Pilus]

This may be helpful to you C...

 

From the Periochae of Livy book 47

 

It also contains an account of several unsuccessful campaigns in Hispania by various commanders.

 

In the five hundred and ninety-eighth year after the founding of the city, the consuls began to enter upon their office on 1 January. The cause of this change in the date of the elections was a rebellion in Hispania.

 

Envoys sent to negotiate between the Carthaginians and Massinissa said they had seen lots of timber in Carthage.

 

Several praetors were charged with peculiation and condemned.

 

Also from book 48

 

The Spanish War had been waged unsuccessfully and resulted in such a great confusion among the Roman citizens that no one wanted to go there as tribune or commander, but Publius Cornelius [scipio] Aemilianus came forward and said he would accept any kind of military task to which he should be assigned. This example gave everyone an appetite for war.

 

Although Claudius Marcellus appeared to have pacified all Celtiberian nations, his successor consul Lucullus subdued the Vaccaeans and Cantabrians and several other hitherto unknown nations in Hispania. Here, tribune Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, the son of Lucius [Aemilius] Paullus, and the grandson of [Publius Cornelius Scipio] Africanus (although by adoption), killed a barbarian challenger, and added an even greater danger when the town of Intercatia was stormed, because he was the first to climb the wall.

 

Clearly there are details missing, but perhaps it's no so unimaginable to think that the problems in Hispania truly were considered a crisis. Maybe something to start with anyway.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

In the five hundred and ninety-eighth year after the founding of the city, the consuls began to enter upon their office on 1 January. The cause of this change in the date of the elections was a rebellion in Hispania.

 

 

So strange , don't you think ?

 

When I combine this change in 153 , the election of Marcellus in that same year (for 152) against the Lex Vilia and the situation in Hispania my little brain starts to produce (sp?) such speculations that even my 2.9 years old kidd begin to look at me in a very strange look that my wife had for some years...

 

Such an enigma , How the Senate agree to let Marcellus a third Consulship ? Maybe the cenuriata forced the Senate ? What Marcellus did for the people ? Endless questions...even the great Ronald Syme asked (in an article) these questions in 1953 when T.R.S. Broughton published his "Magistrates..." and ended with nothing !

 

Maybe we should leave history for a more absolute science like cartoons ?

[Primus Pilus]

In the five hundred and ninety-eighth year after the founding of the city, the consuls began to enter upon their office on 1 January. The cause of this change in the date of the elections was a rebellion in Hispania.

 

 

So strange , don't you think ?

 

When I combine this change in 153 , the election of Marcellus in that same year (for 152) against the Lex Vilia and the situation in Hispania my little brain starts to produce (sp?) such speculations that even my 2.9 years old kidd begin to look at me in a very strange look that my wife had for some years...

 

Such an enigma , How the Senate agree to let Marcellus a third Consulship ? Maybe the cenuriata forced the Senate ? What Marcellus did for the people ? Endless questions...even the great Ronald Syme asked (in an article) these questions in 1953 when T.R.S. Broughton published his "Magistrates..." and ended with nothing !

 

Maybe we should leave history for a more absolute science like cartoons ?

 

It's hard to imagine that anything terribly abnormal occurred in the centuriate without it being referenced later either as a precedent or as a cause for strife by later writers. Might it simply be that the Senate and the people agreed that Marcellus was the man for the job and therefore he was elected without overwhelming historical/political fanfare.

 

A possibility I suppose, but it seems that's all we are left with is speculation and possibilities.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

It's hard to imagine that anything terribly abnormal occurred in the centuriate without it being referenced later either as a precedent or as a cause for strife by later writers.

 

I agree with you on that .

 

"But one would give a lot to know more about M. Claudius Marcellus , from whose remarkable third Consulship in 152 so much was expected but , in the way of success , so little came..." Roms Kriege in Spanien, 154-133 v. Chr., Review author: J. P. V. D. Balsdon The Classical Review 1963

 

1. If Balsdon would give a lot , I woild give 10$ , and you PP ?

2. Balsdon notion confirms your suggestion that Marcellus was elected for his most strange thitd Consulship , to end the crisis in Hispania .

3. The enigma remains , as Balsdon said , an idea for a book - "Some enigmas in ancient Rome history"

Edited January 11, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Segestan]

Marcellus it would seem was governor of Sicily; it is said the Sicilian deputies said they "would rather be swallowed up in Etna than have Marcellus a second time to rule over them". He also served during the spanish War, he and Mummius were with no more success Calpurnius Piso who was or the routed A.Fulvius Nobilior , with the loss of 6000 men, and who saw his Army destroyed at Numantia. These men were famous for extracting huge tributes with the blood of those they governed.

 

regards,

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's hard to imagine that anything terribly abnormal occurred in the centuriate without it being referenced later either as a precedent or as a cause for strife by later writers. Might it simply be that the Senate and the people agreed that Marcellus was the man for the job and therefore he was elected without overwhelming historical/political fanfare.

 

Popular opinion could cause Marcellus to receive many votes, but popular opinion wouldn't make Marcellus legally eligible to stand for candidacy--that's a matter for censors to decide. The question then is: how could Marcellus legally stand for election, given an express law against two consulships within 10 years?

 

The key, I think, lies in the strange second consulships of C. Marcius Figulus and Scipio Nasica Corculum. In 162, there was a religious irregularity in the election of the two men, forcing them to resign their first consulships in vitio creati. Then, in 159, Nasica was elected censor, as if he had legally held the consulship; whereas Marcius and Nasica were elected consuls for 156, as if they had not legally held the consulships. How they argued that their initial consulships did not really count isn't preserved, but it's easy to imagine: since they didn't actually get to serve their elected roles due to a religious technicality, they ought not be barred for 10 years lest the religious officials become corrupted by competing political rivals eager to prevent one another from having their turn.

 

Whatever their argument, however, their consulships--and not Marcellus'--were the ones to break with a half century of tradition. From here, Marcellus could cite their example as a precedent when he wished to stand for repeated consulships. After a third consulship, however, the reaction to this trend had grown sufficiently strong in the senate that the senate passed Cato's law which prohibited any imitation of Marcellus' course.

 

Thus, there was a half-precedent for breaking the law; Marcellus tested the other half; and the Roman senate acted to re-assert the original law.

 

BTW, there is a nice discussion of this episode in A. E. Astin (1967), Scipio Aemilianus.

[Primus Pilus]

A valid theory. Couple this with the disasters in Hispania, it gives the electorate reason to overlook the Lex Genucia and allow the loosely established precedent.

 

Does Astin discuss Hispania as a catalyst?

[M. Porcius Cato]

A valid theory. Couple this with the disasters in Hispania, it gives the electorate reason to overlook the Lex Genucia and allow the loosely established precedent.

 

Does Astin discuss Hispania as a catalyst?

 

Here's what Astin writes (p. 38):

Although in the course of the year Marcellus was to become involved in a dispute about Roman policy in Celtiberia, it is unlikely that this had arisen as yet or that it influenced the outcome of the election. Marcellus is much more likely to have won his consulship on the strength of his military reputation; for he was clearly one of the foremost generals of the day. With the possible exception of Ti. Gracchus, who may still have been alive but would have been nearly seventy, Marcellus was almost certainly the only man living who had celebrated two triumphs, and the second of them was as recent as 155. Moreover he had had some experience in Spain, since as praetor he had governed both provinces together and had engaged in at least some successful warfare. It is probably that no one in Rome seemed more suitable for the command in Celtiberia in 152.

 

But in Rome a man needed to be not only suitable for an appointment but eligible in law. A considerable variety of conditions of eligibility had been laid down, and among them was the rule that one individual should not hold the consulship twice within ten years; yet Marcellus' second consulship had been in 155, only three years before. If it is easy to understand why many were willing to vote for him, it still remains to be explained how a man who by law was ineligible came to offer himself as a candidate, to be accepted as such by the presiding magistrate, and to be declared elected. [emphasis added]

 

Thus, the situation in Spain may have played some role in Marcellus winning, but a precedent was needed even to allow him to enter the race.

Edited January 23, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Gaius Octavius]

I know nothing about this, but I do have questions. Is it not possible that some ancient and/or obscure law was used? A twisting of words in the law? A precedent in some other office?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

A valid theory. Couple this with the disasters in Hispania, it gives the electorate reason to overlook the Lex Genucia and allow the loosely established precedent.

 

Does Astin discuss Hispania as a catalyst?

 

Here's what Astin writes (p. 38):

Although in the course of the year Marcellus was to become involved in a dispute about Roman policy in Celtiberia, it is unlikely that this had arisen as yet or that it influenced the outcome of the election. Marcellus is much more likely to have won his consulship on the strength of his military reputation; for he was clearly one of the foremost generals of the day. With the possible exception of Ti. Gracchus, who may still have been alive but would have been nearly seventy, Marcellus was almost certainly the only man living who had celebrated two triumphs, and the second of them was as recent as 155. Moreover he had had some experience in Spain, since as praetor he had governed both provinces together and had engaged in at least some successful warfare. It is probably that no one in Rome seemed more suitable for the command in Celtiberia in 152.

 

But in Rome a man needed to be not only suitable for an appointment but eligible in law. A considerable variety of conditions of eligibility had been laid down, and among them was the rule that one individual should not hold the consulship twice within ten years; yet Marcellus' second consulship had been in 155, only three years before. If it is easy to understand why many were willing to vote for him, it still remains to be explained how a man who by law was ineligible came to offer himself as a candidate, to be accepted as such by the presiding magistrate, and to be declared elected. [emphasis added]

 

Thus, the situation in Spain may have played some role in Marcellus winning, but a precedent was needed even to allow him to enter the race.

 

Yet , Astin himself did not came to a solution . He did answer one important question , that is "why Marcellus ?" And now "we know" that it was the crisis in Hispania that was the factor for Marcellus third Cos. As PP said , it is very odd that the sources did not tell us about the extraordinary election . I did not find a solution to the problem by any scholar .

 

PP , why are you ignoring the Lex Vilia of 180 and refer only to the lex Genucia of the 340' ?

 

About Corculum , he was elected Consul for 162 so he was of consular rank (he actually took office and was in his province) and eligible for Censorship (for 159). Crasus Dives was Censor before he became Praetor . Now he (corculum) was elected Consul for 155 by claiming that he did not serve as Consul in 162 (he left his province in seconds...) . In both cases (159 and 155) he had the law with him (more or less) . Marcellus had nothing in 152 . So again I think that the Senate used the 2nd Punic war custom - "We can ignore the law in times of crisis" .

Edited January 23, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Primus Pilus]

PP , why are you ignoring the Lex Vilia of 180 and refer only to the lex Genucia of the 340' ?

 

Because the Lex Villia only established minimum ages for magistracies and confirmed a bi-annual separation between eligibility for minor magistracies.

 

Neither Livy or Cicero (in relating various references on the post Sullan version of the law) claim that the law impacted Consular election (other than minimum age). Develin in "Patterns in Office-Holding, 366-49 B.C." and Astin in "The Lex Annalis Before Sulla" also do not mention a 10 year Consular gap in relation to that law.

 

From Livy book XL, XLIV:

A law was passed for the first time this year fixing the age at which men could be candidates for or hold a magistracy. It was introduced by L. Vilius, a tribune of the plebs, and from this his family received the cognomen of Annalis.