The curious deaths of Pansa and Hirtius

[G-Manicus]

In April of 43 BC, the Roman Senate sent both Consuls, Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Vibius Pansa, into the field to face Antony's troops. They also sent along with them young Octavian. Antony ending up routing Pansa's forces at the Battle of Forum Gallorum. Pansa was mortally wounded and died several days later from his wounds. A week later, Hirtius and Octavian confronted Antony at the Battle of Mutina where, though victorious, Hirtius somehow died in battle.

 

In the span of 1 week, both consuls of Rome were killed and Octavian was now in command of their legions.

 

Question: does anyone besides me smell a rat here? Ie - knowing what we know about Ancient Rome at the time in general, and Octavian in particular, does anyone think it quite possible that Octavian may have played a role in Hirtius' convenient death? Has this been speculated before that you're aware of?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Hirtius and Pansa were loyal Caesarians who had a bone to pick with Antony. If anything, Octavian should have been their allies. Not that I'd put it past the little power-luster to kill the consuls for leadership of the Caesarian faction.

[G-Manicus]

Hirtius and Pansa were loyal Caesarians who had a bone to pick with Antony. If anything, Octavian should have been their allies. Not that I'd put it past the little power-luster to kill the consuls for leadership of the Caesarian faction.

That's my point. Antony was a loyal Caesarian as well. I would think that it would have seemed clear by then that the way to power was through control of the legions. Octavian, being an historic opportunist, surely would have grasped that. At the time, he had the backing of the Optimates (by way of Cicero) as well did he not?

 

PS - Once I get done with my investigation of Cato the Qaestor, I'm going to open up a new case here I think. :-)

[P.Clodius]

Hirtius and Pansa were loyal Caesarians....

That's my point. Antony was a loyal Caesarian as well....

Well you are both right to an extent. Hirtius and Pansa were moderate Caesarians who would probably have advocated a 'return' to the status quo of pre-civil war politics while seeking to implement some of the more widely acceptable policies of Caesar. Antony didn't appear to have much of a vision beyond his own dignitas initially, and sought to maintain it via the Gallic legions. He had, on the face of it, appeared to try to find common ground with some of the Parricides and would therefore been at loggerheads with Octavian over this issue, who, as Caesar's adopted son was duty bound to seek revenge, thus making him a radical Caesarian because of the obligation he would owe the army that would enable him to pursue his policy. I believe all the Parricides were dead within three years of the Ides of March.

[Pompieus]

Clodius, I think, is on the right track. Hirtius and Pansa (moderate Caesarians) were looking for some common ground with the majority of the senate and with Cicero (who was taking a hard line). Antonius too, I think, was amenable to some form of a compromise with the senate, as long as he could maintain his leadership of the Caesarian "party" if that anachronistic word can be used i nthis case.

 

Cicero was the one standing in the way of compromise - as Cato had in 48BC. He insisted that Antonius - the legally appointed pro-consul of the Roman state- had to be destroyed. Even justifying the revolutionary and illegal levy of troops by Octavian to carry it out (as if he had not executed Roman citizens without trial for doing the same thing). Trying to use Caesars heir to destroy the Caesarian party ("lifted-up and lifted-off")! Obviously he had no idea what sort of fellow he was dealing with!

 

There's no evidence Octavian had anything to do with the deaths of the consuls - but who had more to gain from the event?

Edited December 22, 2007 by Pompieus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero was the one standing in the way of compromise - as Cato had in 48BC. He insisted that Antonius - the legally appointed pro-consul of the Roman state- had to be destroyed.

What are you talking about? There is no such thing as "the proconsul of the Roman state," only proconsuls of provinces. And Antony's allotted province was Macedonia, though Antony decided that he would rather have Decimus Brutus' province in Cisalpine Gaul. This is what led Antony to besiege Brutus at Mutina, which is what led the consuls Pansa and Hirtius to attack Antony. There was no "compromise" offered by Antony, only a one-sided demand.

 

Even justifying the revolutionary and illegal levy of troops by Octavian to carry it out (as if he had not executed Roman citizens without trial for doing the same thing).

How's that? If you're talking about the confessed Catilinarian conspirators, then I assume you realize that they were guilty of conspiring with the Allobroges to attack Rome itself. You're certainly right to criticize Cicero's justification of Octavian's private army, but the comparison between Octavian and Catiline is stretched.

[Pompieus]

Did not Antonius exchange provinces via a vote of the people (Lex de permutatione provinciarum)? Wasn't that "legal" as things went at the time? Wasn't that as "legal" as the senate taking the side of Decimus Brutus who was at least a magistrate (by the acta of Caesar) and more "legal' thanlegalizing the private army of a 19 year old privatus?

 

Octavian was more subtle and clever than Catiline but no less ruthless. Like Pompeius he raised a private army then betrayed his allies, like Lenin he split the "party" in order to take control of it.

 

I don't pretend Antonius was trying to save the republic, but had at least made a peaceful arrangement with the liberators and used "constitutional" methods to retain primacy. Caesars heir had no interest in orderly government, only revolution and civil war could get him what he wanted.

 

But "legality" was academic by this time and like Asinius Pollio one feels despair at the whole greedy crowd.

[Marcus Cicero]

In April of 43 BC, the Roman Senate sent both Consuls, Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Vibius Pansa, into the field to face Antony's troops. They also sent along with them young Octavian. Antony ending up routing Pansa's forces at the Battle of Forum Gallorum. Pansa was mortally wounded and died several days later from his wounds. A week later, Hirtius and Octavian confronted Antony at the Battle of Mutina where, though victorious, Hirtius somehow died in battle.

 

In the span of 1 week, both consuls of Rome were killed and Octavian was now in command of their legions.

 

Question: does anyone besides me smell a rat here? Ie - knowing what we know about Ancient Rome at the time in general, and Octavian in particular, does anyone think it quite possible that Octavian may have played a role in Hirtius' convenient death? Has this been speculated before that you're aware of?

 

 

As Hirtius lost his life in battle during this war, and Pansa shortly afterwards from a wound, the rumour spread that he had caused the death of both, in order that after Antony had been put to flight and the state bereft of its consuls, he might gain sole control of the victorious armies. The circumstances of Pansa's death in particular were so mysterious, that the physician Glyco was imprisoned on the charge of having applied poison to his wound. Aquilius Niger adds to this that Augustus himself slew the other consul Hirtius amid the confusion of the battle.

 

Suet Aug 11

[Primus Pilus]

In April of 43 BC, the Roman Senate sent both Consuls, Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Vibius Pansa, into the field to face Antony's troops. They also sent along with them young Octavian. Antony ending up routing Pansa's forces at the Battle of Forum Gallorum. Pansa was mortally wounded and died several days later from his wounds. A week later, Hirtius and Octavian confronted Antony at the Battle of Mutina where, though victorious, Hirtius somehow died in battle.

 

In the span of 1 week, both consuls of Rome were killed and Octavian was now in command of their legions.

 

Question: does anyone besides me smell a rat here? Ie - knowing what we know about Ancient Rome at the time in general, and Octavian in particular, does anyone think it quite possible that Octavian may have played a role in Hirtius' convenient death? Has this been speculated before that you're aware of?

 

 

As Hirtius lost his life in battle during this war, and Pansa shortly afterwards from a wound, the rumour spread that he had caused the death of both, in order that after Antony had been put to flight and the state bereft of its consuls, he might gain sole control of the victorious armies. The circumstances of Pansa's death in particular were so mysterious, that the physician Glyco was imprisoned on the charge of having applied poison to his wound. Aquilius Niger adds to this that Augustus himself slew the other consul Hirtius amid the confusion of the battle.

 

Suet Aug 11

 

The first bit regarding Pansa is semi-plausible, but considering Octavian's rather dubious record on the actual battlefield, I would highly doubt his personal involvement in killing Hirtius (let alone actually getting involved in hand to hand combat). Had Suetonius said that Octavian ordered someone to do it, or perhaps even that Agrippa were involved, I might at least understand it, but otherwise it seems to be wild Suetonian titillation. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Suetonius seems to be validly reporting an honest rumor of the time.

[G-Manicus]

As Hirtius lost his life in battle during this war, and Pansa shortly afterwards from a wound, the rumour spread that he had caused the death of both, in order that after Antony had been put to flight and the state bereft of its consuls, he might gain sole control of the victorious armies. The circumstances of Pansa's death in particular were so mysterious, that the physician Glyco was imprisoned on the charge of having applied poison to his wound. Aquilius Niger adds to this that Augustus himself slew the other consul Hirtius amid the confusion of the battle.

 

Suet Aug 11

Ah, fascinating. Thank you!

 

It's funny that my first thought was that it wouldn't shock me if Octavian was involved in Hirtius' death.

[Ingsoc]

The first bit regarding Pansa is semi-plausible, but considering Octavian's rather dubious record on the actual battlefield, I would highly doubt his personal involvement in killing Hirtius (let alone actually getting involved in hand to hand combat). Had Suetonius said that Octavian ordered someone to do it, or perhaps even that Agrippa were involved, I might at least understand it, but otherwise it seems to be wild Suetonian titillation. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Suetonius seems to be validly reporting an honest rumor of the time.

 

Zvi Yavetz seem to think that this rumor was part of Marcus Antonius propoganda war against Octavius.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Had Suetonius said that Octavian ordered someone to do it, or perhaps even that Agrippa were involved, I might at least understand it, but otherwise it seems to be wild Suetonian titillation.

 

For what it's worth, Tacitus relates the same rumor in the Annals, where he describes the opposing views on Augustus' legacy expressed at his funeral.