The Crisis of Rome Page 30

157 Flor. 1.39.4 and App. Illyr. 5 respectively.

  158 Plut. Mor. 284, See Eckstein, A, ‘Human Sacrifice and Fear of Military Disaster in Republican Rome’, American Journal of Ancient History 7, 1982, pp.69–95.

  159 Flor. 1.39, Fest. It has been argued that both sources mistake this Didius for a late commander in Macedon and that there was no commander between Cato and Metellus. However, given that we have two clear sources stating this and that there was no need for this Didius to be a consul or governor, merely an ad-hoc commander, the evidence favours his inclusion here.

  160 Vell. 2.8.2; Eutrop. 4.25.1

  161 See Papazoglu (1979), pp.288–291.

  162 The tribune who had opposed C. Gracchus, in 122 BC.

  163 Flor. 1.39

  164 Amm. Marc. 27.4.10. This can also be found in Festus Brev.9.2 and Iord. Rom. 219

  165 C. Scribonius Curio between 76 and 73 BC, see Syme (1999), pp.134–136.

  166 Levick, B, ‘Cicero, Brutus 43. 159 ff., and the Foundation of Narbo Martius’, Classical Quarterly 21,1971, pp. 170–179

  167 Frontin. Str. 4.3.13, de vir ill. 72.7

  168 Strabo. 5.214, App. Gall. 13, Vell.9.1

  169 Plin. NH. 37.35–36. See Cunliffe, B, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek (New York, 2001).

  170 Plut. Mar. 11

  171 Faux, D, (2007) ‘The Cimbri Tribe of Northern Jutland, Denmark, During the La Tene Period: 400 BC to 15 AD’, (2008a) ‘The Cimbri Tribe of Jutland, Denmark: Their Origins and Descendants as Indicated by the Archaeological, Historical and Genetic Data’, & (2008b) ‘The Cimbri of Denmark, the Norse and Danish Vikings and Y-DNA Haplogroup R-U152’. All can be found on the internet.

  172 Plut, Mar. 11. Homer. Odyssey. 9.14.19, Herodotus. 4.11–14

  173 Plut. Mar. 11.5, Strabo. 7.2.1–2

  174 Plut. Mar. 11.2

  175 Aug. Res Gest. 5.26, Strabo. 7.2.1

  176 Liv.5.34

  177 Strabo. 7.2.2, based on Poseidonius. Strabo (4.43) and Caesar BG. 5.4 also preserve an encounter between the Belgae and the Cimbri and Teutones, with the Belgae winning the encounter.

  178 Faux (2008b), p.42.

  179 Appian (Gall.13) merely states that he took up position where the pass was the narrowest without giving us a specific location.

  180 Ibid

  181 Ibid

  182 Plut. Mar. 16.5

  183 The seemingly erratic reports of the Cimbri throughout this period may be the result of there being more than one tribal group.

  Chapter Four

  184 Given the fragmentary records for office-holding (except the consulship), we can only say that he is the first recorded one.

  185 Cic. Brut. 128. The date of his tribunate is uncertain, though Broughton argued for 121 BC; Broughton, T, Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1 (New York, 1952), p.524.

  186 Oros. 5.15.6

  187 Sall. Iug. 28.4

  188 Ibid. 28.6–7

  189 Sall. Iug. 29.1–2

  190 Ibid. 31.1–29

  191 Sall. Iug. 32.2–4

  192 Ibid. 35.1–6

  193 Sall. Iug.35.2

  194 Ibid. 36.1–4.

  195 From the consul Q. Fabius MaximusVerrucosus in the Second Punic War.

  196 Sall. Iug.37.1–3

  197 Orosius (5.15.6) names the city as Calama, which may be the Roman name for the city of Suthul.

  198 Sall. Iug.38.4–10

  199 Oros. 5.15.4

  200 Oros. 5.15.5

  201 Sall. Iug.39.4

  202 See Hayne, L, ‘The Condemnation of Sp. Postumius Albinus’, Acta Classica 24, 1981, pp. 61–70.

  203 Ibid. 40.1–5

  Chapter Five

  204 It was custom for the choice to be made by the drawing of lots.

  205 Sall. Iug. 65.1

  206 Ibid. 46.4

  207 Possible the modern river Wäd Mellag.

  208 Sall. Iug. 48.3–49.2.

  209 Ibid. 49.6.

  210 Sall. Iug. 50.4–5.

  211 Ibid. 52.2

  212 Sall. Iug.51.4

  213 Ibid. 53.4

  214 Sall. Iug.54.4

  215 Ibid. 54.6

  216 Sall. Iug. 54.10

  217 Ibid. 56.3–6

  218 Sall. Iug. 58.4–7

  219 Ibid. 61.5

  220 Sall. Iug. 66.3

  221 Ibid. 69.3

  222 Sall. Iug. 69.4

  223 Plut. Mar. 8

  224 Sall. Iug.73.1

  225 Ibid. 74.2–3

  226 Pliny (NH. 5.17) names three separate tribes: the Autoteles, the Baniurae and the Nesimi.

  227 Sall. Iug. 80.1

  228 Liv. 23.18.1

  229 Bocchus was Jugurtha’s son in law; Sall. Iug. 80.6, Plut. Mar. 10

  230 Sall. Iug. 80.4

  231 See Paul, G, A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum (Liverpool, 1984), pp.192–194. Also see Pelham, H, ‘The Chronology of the Jugurthine War’, American Journal of Philology 7, 1877, pp.91–94, Canter, H, ‘The Chronology of Sallust’s Jugurtha’, Classical Journal 6, 1911, pp.290–295 & Holroyd, M, ‘The Jugurthine War: Was Marius or Metellus the Real Victor?’, Journal of Roman Studies 18, 1928, pp.1–20.

  232 Sall. Iug. 74

  233 Sall. Iug. 83.1

  234 Ibid. 88.3–5

  235 Flor.1.36.2

  Chapter Six

  236 Flor.1.38.1–4

  237 Liv. Per. 65

  238 Vell. 2.12.2, Eutrop.4.27.5

  239 Cic. Corn 2, Ascon.80C

  240 Evans, R, ‘Rome’s Cimbric Wars (114–101 BC) and their Impact in the Iberia Peninsula’, Acta Classica 48, 2005, p41.

  241 Ibid.

  242 Oros. 5.15.23–24

  243 Caes. BG. 1.7.4 7 & 1.12.5, though he is the only source who mentions this.

  244 Ascon. 68C (Trans. S. Squires, 1990).

  245 Which forms part of the border between Greece/Turkey and Bulgaria.

  246 Flor. 1.39

  247 Amm. Marc. 27.4.10

  248 Fest. Brev. 9.2

  249 Frontin. Str. 2.4.3

  250 Vell. 2.8.3

  251 Liv. Per. 65

  252 Eutrop. 4.27

  253 CIL. I2692, ILS 8887, SIG3, ILLRP 337, though the Greek and Latin versions differ slightly in the wording.

  Chapter Seven

  254 Evans, R, Gaius Marius, A Political Biography (Pretoria,1994), pp.18–51.

  255 This was an important distinction during this period of Roman history, as it was not until 89 BC that all Italians received Roman citizenship. Marius, however, was born a Roman citizen.

  256 Evans (1994), p. 23.

  257 Wiseman, T, New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.-A.D.14 (London, 1971).

  258 Plut. Mar. 3.2

  259 Evans (1994), pp.28–32.

  260 Sall. Iug. 63.5

  261 Val Max. 6.9.14

  262 Ibid, also see CIL.121.195

  263 Val Max. 6.9.14

  264 Plut. Mar. 4.1

  265 Cic. Leg. 3.38–39

  266 Plut. Mar. 4.2. See Bicknell, P, ‘Marius, the Metelli and the Lex Maria Tabellaria’, Latomus 28, 1969, pp.327–348.

  267 L. Caecilius Metellus ‘Delmaticus’ was consul this year.

  268 Plut. Mar. 4.3

  269 Plut. Mar. 4.4. There is no direct evidence that it was tribunician, but that is the most likely source.

  270 Two places each. Plutarch states that he lost both elections on the same day. This has been widely dismissed on account of it being considered both impractical to hold both elections on the same day and that this was not the custom. See Evans (1994), pp.44–45.

  271 Plut. Mar. 5.2–5

  272 Plut. Mar. 6.1

  273 See Carney, T, A Political Biography of C. Marius (Assen, 1961), p.23.

  274 The exact length of his command in Spain is unknown and the source of some debate, again see Evans, 1994, pp.54–57.

  275 Plut. Mar. 6.2.

  276 Evans (1994), pp.57–62.

  277 Sall. Iug. 40.1–5.

  278 Far
ney, G, ‘The Fall of the Priest C. Sulpicius Galba and the First consulship of Marius’, Memoirs of the American Academy of Rome 42, 1997, pp.23–37.

  279 See Sall. Iug. 63–65 & Plut. Mar. 7.2–8.3

  280 Sall. Iug. 63–65

  281 App. Pun. 112

  282 Plut. Mar. 8.1–2

  283 Sall. Iug. 73.5

  284 Ibid. 85.1–50. See Skard, E, ‘Marius’ speech in Sallust, Jug. chap.85’, Symbolae Osloenses 21, 1941, pp. 98–102 & Carney, T, ‘Once again Marius’ speech after election in 108 B.C.’, Symbolae Osloenses 35, 1959, pp.63–70.

  285 Cic. Prov. Con. 19

  286 Sall. Iug. 84.2, Plut. Mar.9.1, Diod. 36.3.1. Diodorus does date this to the Cimbric War, c.105 BC, but Sallust places it in 107 BC.

  287 Sall. Iug. 84.2, Plut. Mar. 9.1

  288 Evans (1994), pp. 75–76.

  289 Sall. Iug. 91.6–7, not that it was particularly uncommon for the era.

  290 The modern Moulouya, the western border of Algeria.

  291 Sall. Iug. 92.5–94.6

  292 Plut. Mar. 10.2–3

  293 Oros. 5.15.9

  294 See Canter (1911) & Holroyd (1928).

  295 We are told the time of year, with the siege near Muluccha being the apparent last act of the campaigning season before Marius retired to winter quarters. From the timescale that this process must have taken, the year is assumed to be 106 BC, though this is never explicitly stated in Sallust.

  296 Sall. Iug. 87.4

  297 Ibid. 88.3–4

  298 Again, the date is implied rather than explicitly stated.

  299 Sall. Iug.97.2

  300 Ibid. 88.1 the triumph is detailed on the inscribed list of triumphs as well as Vell. 2.11.2, Gell. 12.9.4, Eutrop. 4.27.6, de vir ill. 62.1

  301 Sall. Iug. 97.4–99.3

  302 Oros. 5.15.9–18

  303 This story is also repeated by Frontinus (Str. 2.4.10) most likely taken from Sallust’s’ own account.

  304 Sall. Iug. 101.8–11

  305 Oros. 5.15.18

  306 Sall. Iug. 104.5

  307 Ibid. 106.2–3

  308 Sall. Iug. 108.3

  309 Ibid.

  310 Though if all were murdered it is not clear how the Romans got hold of Jugurtha’s sons at the same time. The handover was captured in both a signet ring which Sulla had commissioned, as well as a statue in Rome commissioned by Bocchus in the 90s (Plut. Sull. 3.44 & 6.1–2 respectively).

  311 Plut. Mar. 12.3–4

  312 Oros. 5.15.19. Jugurtha’s sons were spared and lived in exile in Italy (App. BC. 1.42).

  313 Caes. BA. 56.3

  314 See note 305.

  315 See Holroyd, M, ‘The Jugurthine War: Was Marius or Metellus the Real Victor?’, Journal of Roman Studies 18, 1928, 1–20 and Parker, V, ‘Sallust and the Victor of the Jugurthine War’, Tyche 16, 2001, 111–125.

  Chapter Eight

  316 Oros. 5.15.25, Strabo. 4.1.13, Gell. 3.9.7, Iustin. 32.3.9–11

  317 Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus gives a figure of 110,000 talents of silver and 1,500,000 talents of gold. Orosius puts it as 100,000 talents of gold and 110,000 talents of silver. Strabo, quoting Poseidonius, stated it as 15,000 talents in total.

  318 Dio. 27, fr.90.

  319 Brunt, P, Italian Manpower 225 BC-AD 14 (Oxford, 1971), pp.430 & 685.

  320 Dio. 27, fr.91.

  321 Liv. Per. 67 Gran.Lic 17.

  322 Plut. Mar. 25.2

  323 Oros. 5.16.2

  324 The date comes from Plutarch (Luc.27), when the anniversary of the battle was mentioned as a bad omen.

  325 Gran. Lic. 17

  326 Dio.27.fr.91.1–4

  327 Oros.5.16.1–7

  328 Liv. 67

  329 Eutrop.5.1.1

  330 Vegit. RM.3.10

  331 Plut. Sert. 3.1

  332 Plut. Mar. 11.1 & 11.8

  333 Liv. Per.67, Oros. 5.16.7, Gran. Lic. 17, Diod. 36.1

  334 See note 325.

  335 Polyb. 3.11, though this figure has been disputed as is in itself inconsistent in Polybius’ own works, see Daly. (2002), pp.201–202.

  336 Liv. 22.49.15, Liv. Per. 67, albeit the latter figure is taken from the epitome of Livy’s history, not the history itself.

  337 Diod. 34/35.37

  338 Gran Lic.21

  339 Val. Max.2.3.2

  340 Sall. Iug. 114.1–2

  Chapter Nine

  341 Plut. Mar. 12.5

  342 He would have been made a senator at the next census after his quaestorship, the office giving him the right to be enrolled in the Senate.

  343 Strabo 4.1.8

  344 The notable exception to this is Evans’ recent article; Evans, R, ‘Rome’s Cimbric Wars (114–101 BC) and their Impact in the Iberia Peninsula’, Acta Classica 48, 2005, pp.37–56.

  345 Liv. Per. 67

  346 Evans (2005), p.52.

  347 Eutrop. 4.27.5, Val. Max. 6.19.3

  348 Obseq. 42

  349 This is most usually dated as c. 113/112, see Broughton.

  350 App. Iber. 99

  351 Ibid. 100

  352 Liv. Per.67

  353 The tone of the Epitome of Livy evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Cimbri were not defeated by loyalist tribes under Roman command.

  354 Diod. 36.3.2, though this seems to replicate a request made in 107 BC (see chapter seven). Diodorus clearly states that it was for the war against the Cimbri though he could have been mistaken himself.

  355 Frontin. Str. 4.2.2

  356 Strabo. 4.1.8

  357 Frontin. Str. 1.2.6

  358 In the 190s and 180s BC.

  359 Plut. Sull. 4. Also see Keaveney, A. (1981). ‘Sulla, the Marsi, and the Hirpini’, Classical Philology 76, pp.292–296.

  360 Plut. Mar.14.7

  361 Liv. Per. 67

  362 This is the division of the tribes as stated by Livy (Per.68) and Plutarch (Mar.15.4–5). Orosius (5.16.9), however, has the Tigurini and the Ambrones and the Cimbri and Teutones. Given the uncertain role played by the Tigurini, in the latter stages of the war and the certainty of the other, earlier, sources, we must assume that Orosius has made an error in his understanding of the tribal dispositions.

  363 Fest. 15L

  364 Strabo. 7.2.2

  365 Oros.5.16. 9

  366 Plut. Sert.3.2–4. Plutarch states that Sertorius infiltrated their camp in Gallic dress and using the Gallic tongue, more evidence for Gallic origin of the Cimbri.

  367 See note 352.

  368 Oros.5.16.10

  369 Plut. Mar. 16.1–2

  370 Ibid. 18.1

  371 18 miles north of Massilia

  372 Plut. Mar. 18.2–3

  373 Ibid. 18.4

  374 The presence of the Ligurians is interesting, especially given Marius’ suspicions of them earlier in this campaign (Frontin. Str. 1.2.6).

  375 Plut. Mar.19.4–5

  376 Oros.5.16.11

  377 Frontin. Str. 2.7.12

  378 Oros. 5.16.11

  379 Plut. Mar. 20.5

  380 Ibid.

  381 Plut. Mar.21.2

  382 Oros.5.16.12

  383 Plut. Mar. 21.3

  384 Ibid. 24.4

  385 Flor. 1.38.10

  386 IPlut. Mar.22.3

  Chapter Ten

  387 Q. Lutatius Catulus, a Roman commander in 241BC.

  388 Cic. Planc. 5.12

  389 Plut. Sull. 2.

  390 This has been interpreted both as Marius trying to get rid of Sulla from his own staff due to the supposed enmity caused over the capture of Jugurtha or Marius wanting to make up for Catulus’ inexperience. See Cagniart, P, ‘L. Cornelius Sulla’s Quarrel with C. Marius at the time of the Germanic Invasions (104–101 B.C.)’, Athenaeum 67, 1989, pp.139–149.

  391 Plut. Sull.4.3

  392 Lewis, R, ‘Catulus and the Cimbri, 102 B.C.’, Hermes 102, 1974, pp.91–92

  393 Liv. Per.68

  394 Plut. Mar. 23.2

  395 Frontin. Str. 1.5.3

  396 Lewis
(1974), pp.99–101.

  397 Plut. Mar. 23.2

  398 Liv. Per. 68, Frontin. Str. 1.5.3

  399 Plut. Mar. 23.4

  400 Ibid. 23.5

  401 Plut. Mar. 23.6

  402 Liv. Per. 68

  403 Plin. NH. 22.11, Frontin. Str. 4.1.13, Val. Max. 5.8.4, Ampel. 19.10, de vir ill. 72.10

  404 Plut. Mar. 24.1

  405 Flor. 1.38.14

  406 Plut. Mar.24.3

  407 Vell. 2.12.5, Flor. 1.38. 14, Liv. Per. 68, Plut. Mar.25.3 de vir. Ill. 67

  408 Plut. Mar. 24.4

  409 Plut. Mar. 25.6, Frontin. Str.2.2.8

  410 Carney, T, ‘Marius Choice of Battle-field in the Campaign of 101’, Athenaeum 36, 1958, pp.229–237.

  411 Plut. Mar. 25.4

  412 Plut. Mar. 25.4, Oros. 5.16.14

  413 Plut. Mar.25.7

  414 Ibid. 26.1–2

  415 Plut. Mar. 27.1–2

  416 Liv. Per. 68, Vell. 2.12.5, Eutrop. 5.2.2

  417 Flor. 1.38.18

  418 Oros. 5.16.22

  419 Val. Max.8.15.7

  420 Orosius actually comments upon the Roman mistreatment of the civilians, which involved some method of scalping.

  421 Oros.5.16.9

  422 Flor.1.38.19

  423 Eutrop.5.2.2

  424 Polyb. 35.1.1–2

  Chapter Eleven

  425 Especially given that Romans only developed their own coinage in the third century BC.

  426 Cicero states that the level is 1,500 asses (Rep. 2.40). It has long been argued that this limit predated Marius’ time. See Gabba, E, Republican Rome; The Army and the Allies (Oxford, 1976), p.6.

  427 Polybius giving this value in drachmas not asses is merely an added complication to this question.

  428 Liv. 22.11.8

  429 Sall. Iug. 86.2–3

  430 Plut. Mar. 9

  431 Flor. 1.36.13

  432 Val. Max.2.3.1

  433 Exsuper. 2. It can also be found in Lydus. (de mag. 1.48).

  434 This is repeated in the work of the Pseudo-Quintilian (3.5)

  435 Gell. 16.10.14

  436 Sall. Iug. 87.1–2, Evans, R, ‘Resistance at Home: The Evasion of Military Service in Italy during the Second Century B.C.’, in D.Yuge & M. Doi (eds.) Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity (Leiden, 1988), p. 132.

  437 Rosenstein, N, Rome at War (Chapel Hill, 2004), pp.26–56.

  438 Rawson, E, ‘The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army’, Papers of the British School of Rome 39, 1971, pp.13–31.

  439 Frontin. Str. 4.1.7. This can also be found in Festus (267L)

  440 Plut. Mar. 13.1

  441 Plut. Ant. 38

  442 Plut. Mar. 25.1–2

  443 Plin. NH. 10.5.16

  444 Bell, M, ‘Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army’, Historia 14, 1965, p.404.