Franz Steiner Verlag Sonderdruck aus: Verlierer und Aussteiger in der ‚Konkurrenz unter Anwesenden‘ Agonalität in der politischen Kultur des antiken Rom Herausgegeben von Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp und Hans Beck Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2019 Inhalt Vorwort der Herausgeber ......................................................................................... 7 Herausgeber und Beiträger ...................................................................................... 9 karl-joachim hölkeskamp Verlierer in der ‚Konkurrenz unter Anwesenden‘. Agonalität in der politischen Kultur der römischen Republik ................................ 11 hans beck Pecuniam inlargibo tibi. Wahlbestechung und Wahlniederlage in der mittleren römischen Republik .......... 31 egon flaig Zum Verlieren und Scheitern römischer Senatoren. Überlegungen an den Rändern der historischen Kulturwissenschaft ..................... 55 christoph lundgreen Lucullus und die politische Kultur der römischen Republik. Konkurrenz und Distinktion zwischen Feldherren, Feinschmeckern und Fischteichbesitzern ............................................ 81 amy russell The Rhetoric of Losing and the Construction of Political Norms........................ 127 francisco pina polo Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians. Punishment and Survival...................................................................................... 147 elke stein-hölkeskamp Aussteigen, Absteigen, Umsteigen? Die Entwicklung konkurrierender Felder der Distinktion von der späten Republik zum frühen Prinzipat .................................................... 169 matthew roller Losing to Cicero. Asinius Pollio and the Emergence of New Arenas of Competitive Eloquence under Augustus .......................................................... 189 andreas klingenberg Zwischen republikanischer Tradition und kaiserzeitlicher Realität. Der soziale Abstieg von Senatoren und die senatorischen Rollenbilder im frühen Prinzipat .............................................................................................. 207 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians Punishment and Survival francisco pina polo “Peace has not come, victory has come”. Thus ends the Spanish film Las bicicletas son para el verano (1983), by Jaime Chávarri, based on the play of the same title written by Fernando Fernán Gómez in 1982. The play narrates the life of a family in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War, which took place between 1936 and 1939, and is written from the perspective of the losers, so could only be written and released after the death of the dictator. In the final scene, the adolescent son declares happily that the war has at last ended, but his father responds bitterly with the quote that opened this paper: for them, peace had not come, but rather, the victors’ triumph. This simple phrase perfectly summarises what happened in Spain after 1939. Far from seeking reconciliation, the victors unashamedly imposed their ideology, undertook the physical extermination and social and professional purge of the vanquished, and began a ruthless repression which lasted decades. Effectively, the Spanish Civil War lasted three years; the celebration of victory, in contrast, carried on for forty. The civil war between Caesarians and Pompeians took place between 49 and 45; it began in Italy, and the ultimate objective of both sides was the control of Rome and its political institutions. The war was, however, fought on so many different stages that it ultimately affected almost the entire Mediterranean: Italy, Hispania, Greece, Egypt, North Africa, and Hispania again. The war, like any armed conflict, brought with it destruction and death, and undoubtedly a high number of fatalities on both sides, a number which is impossible to determine even approximately. Civil wars, however, in Antiquity as now, tend to be particularly characterised by their cruelty, as if the fact that the combatants are fellow citizens and members of the same community unleashes the basest passions and prompts extreme and merciless violence that seeks to wipe out the opponent. Citing a few recent examples should suffice to illustrate this point: the Balkan war of the 1990s; the Rwandan genocide of the same period; the current war in Syria. In the civil war between Caesarians and Pompeians, tens of thousands of Roman citizens from across Italy fought on both sides, but also non-citizens who found themselves drawn into the conflict, for example in Hispania and Africa. Not only Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 148 francisco pina polo that, but, as always occurs in civil war, practically all the citizens must have found themselves in some way forced to take one side or another, including those who were not part of the armed forces. Historical experience shows that a civil war entails a rift at the heart of society that usually takes a long time to be forgotten. In the case of Rome, what did Caesar’s victory mean for the losing side: peace or repression, reconciliation or punishment? How did the defeat affect them in their private lives: could they continue with them largely unchanged once the war ended, or did they have to change course? How did the defeat influence the public lives of those who had already begun a political career, or wished to do so? Caesar was conscious that it was more politically expedient to create a public image of generosity towards the defeated than to take revenge upon them, and for that reason he made gestures of forgiveness towards some of his most high-profile enemies and publicised them as a sign of his clemency (clementia). As a result of this policy of clemency, famous anti-Caesarians were pardoned, could return to public life, and some of them could even continue to develop their political careers. This article seeks to analyse the main features of the (political) survival of the losers in the civil war, and the repercussions upon the political situation itself of Caesarian and post-Caesarian Rome.1 In reality, only a small proportion of the individuals directly involved in the civil war had taken a public path and aspired to develop a successful political career. The overwhelming majority of Caesarians and Pompeians who fought during the war were anonymous citizens, and it should certainly not be assumed that they participated on ideological grounds. Returning briefly to the Spanish civil war, the two factions held clearly different ideologies. The rebels, on one side, represented the most conservative, nationalist, and ultra-Catholic tradition. The Republicans, on the other side, comprised an awkward anti-fascist amalgam, including moderate liberals, socialists, communists, and anarchists. Volunteers, both Spanish and international, fought on both sides, above all the Republican (the International Brigades), and they did so because they were ideologically committed to fighting for their ideals, for what they believed was best for Spain and, indeed, for the world, within the historical context of the ascent of fascism in which the conflict took place. A recent study by James Matthews has demonstrated, nevertheless, that the volunteers who took part in the 1 This article defines “loser” as one who is recorded as having actively participated in the Pompeian faction during the civil war, only once or throughout. Obviously, those known to us are only a proportion of those who were involved. Some anti-Caesarians who nevertheless chose to remain on the margins once the war broke out, and may therefore be considered neutral, fall outside the scope of this study. A good example is C. Claudius Marcellus (RE 216), consul in 50, who during his consulate clearly confronted Caesar, but who retired to one of his villae during the civil war and preferred not to involve himself in the conflict (Cic. Att. 10,13,2; 10,15,2). On the politicians who chose to remain neutral, Shackleton Bailey 1960, 260–261; Bruhns 1978, 40–42; 46–48; 59. As Shackleton Bailey states (260), ‘in some cases ‘neutrality’ or support for Caesar might be a matter of interpretation.’ In other cases, there is simply not enough information to assign an individual to the Caesarian or Pompeian side. Be that as it may, it is clear that we do not have the complete picture, but only a portion of it. The prudent words of Shackleton Bailey in his study on the Roman nobility in the civil war should be borne in mind: ‘even for the Ciceronian age prosopographical data are defective and haphazard.’ Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 149 Spanish civil war constituted a minority of combatants.2 The majority, in contrast, were conscripts, recruited under duress, who did not voluntarily choose the side for which they would fight on ideological grounds, but who were forced to fight with the rebels or the Republicans simply due to the geographic region in which they found themselves when the rebellion took place. Later, during the war, some changed sides in order to fight in accordance with their own ideological convictions, but many died fighting for ideas in which they did not believe. There is no doubt that something similar took place in the Roman civil war. Caesar’s speech to the Thirteenth legion before crossing the Rubicon, and the legionaries’ enthusiastic response, according to Caesar, should not be taken as universally indicative:3 soldiers who had spent many years fighting for Caesar in Gaul may have felt their interests represented in their general’s speech and, consequently, it is possible that they fought on his side convinced that their cause was just, or did so simply because it was the most convenient side. Something similar may have occurred with other legions – including Pompeian ones – which consciously chose which faction they wished to fight for, but this was not always the case. It is important to bear in mind that, although a proportion of legionaries were volunteers, the overwhelming majority of the soldiers, both Caesarian and Pompeian, had been conscripted, a practice which had continued into the Late Republic and was used extensively by both Caesar and Pompey.4 It is therefore unlikely that those conscripts had any option to choose for whom they wished to fight, at least initially (desertions from the Pompeians seem to have increased as their defeats mounted, above all around the Battle of Thapsus in Africa). What happened to the Pompeian soldiers after their successive defeats? What happened to the legions that fought for Pompey after Caesar’s victory? The data available are sometimes imprecise and uncertain, but are sufficient to draw certain conclusions on the participation of originally Pompeian legions – at least some of them – during the civil war and after the death of Caesar in 44. The first major conflict of the civil war took place in Hispania in 49. Once Pompey had marched to Greece with his legions and a large number of loyal senators, Caesar opted, instead of following him, to secure the Hispanian flank. He went to Hispania, whose provinces had in recent years been under the legal control of Pompey. Caesar took Hispania thanks to a meteoric and triumphant military campaign, despite the large number of legions under the command of Pompeian legates.5 Caesar first defeated Afranius and Petreius in the Battle of Ilerda, thus gaining control of Hispania Citerior, and Varro later surrendered in Hispania Ulterior. According to Caesar’s own account, in the peace negotiations that followed the defeat of Pompey’s army in Hispania Citerior, it was agreed that the defeated legions would be disbanded, which Caesar presented as una atque extrema condicio for peace.6 This condition was 2 3 4 5 6 Matthews 2013. Caes. BCiv. 1,7,8. Brunt 1971, 409; Keppie 1983, 37; Cadiou 2018. On the Pompeian troops during the civil war, see Brunt 1971, 473–474. Caes. BCiv. 1,85. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 150 francisco pina polo well received by the soldiers, who preferred to be discharged rather than forced to integrate into Caesar’s troops and fight the Pompeians. In fact, one of the requests of the defeated was not to be obliged to swear the oath of allegiance (sacramentum) to Caesar. The final agreement stipulated that those soldiers who had their homes in Hispania or had property there should be discharged immediately, while the rest would be discharged once they reached the Var river, on the frontier between Gallia Narbonensis and Italy.7 Still according to Caesar’s account, a third of the Pompeian army was discharged within two days, and the rest when they arrived at the Var river.8 Cassius Dio confirms Caesar’s narrative: the defeated armies surrendered, but asked not to be forced to join Caesar’s army;9 Caesar respected this condition, and the majority of the vanquished were discharged. Cassius Dio adds, however, that Caesar accepted into his army all those who voluntarily showed an interest in joining it, ‘for the gains and honours in prospect.’10 Those soldiers seem not to have been the only ones who continued to serve, in their case by changing sides. In the Battle of Pharsalus, some Hispanian cohorts fought on the left flank of the Pompeian army alongside the Cilician legion. Those Hispanian cohorts, according to Caesar’s explanation, were brought to Pompey by Afranius, presumably after their defeat in Hispania, thus escaping the general discharge that had been agreed. 11 All this refers to the troops who had been under the command of Afranius and Petreius in Hispania Citerior. By contrast, the two legions (one of them a legio vernacula) serving under Varro in Hispania Ulterior – who did not actually find themselves confronting Caesar because their commander was forced to surrender before fighting – were immediately redeployed to swell Caesar’s ranks without apparently having any choice. Both remained in Hispania Ulterior under the command of Q. Cassius Longinus, whom Caesar installed as the new provincial governor, but their situation changed during the course of the war. The vicissitudes of the legio II are a good example. This legion was one of those that remained in Hispania Ulterior under the command of Cassius Longinus. The soldiers subsequently deserted the next governor of Hispania Ulterior, C. Trebonius, and marched to Africa to put themselves under the command of the Pompeian Metellus Scipio. The soldiers’ hatred for Cassius Longinus was instrumental in that decision.12 After the defeat at Thapsus, the legion returned to Hispania in 46 with the remnants of the Pompeian army, under the command this time of Pompey’s eldest son, Cn. Pompeius, and fought at Munda.13 After the defeat at Munda, it is possible that this unit was assimilated into the Caesarian army, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Caes. BCiv. 1,86. Caes. BCiv. 1,87. Brunt 1971, 230–231. Cass. Dio 41,224. Cass. Dio 41,23,1. Brunt 1971, 230 n.6, suggested that the Berones evocati who later accompanied Q. Cassius (BAlex. 53,1) could have come from these volunteers who joined Caesar. Caes. BCiv. 3,88. Brunt 1971, 475: ‘some cohorts escaped in the end to join Pompey in the east.’ Cf. Rodríguez González 2001, 184. BAlex. 53. BHisp. 7,4; 13. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 151 although the sources are ambiguous on this point. It is impossible to know how many of the soldiers who fought at the beginning of the civil war under Varro in Hispania were still part of the legion when it fought at Munda, but it is possible that a large number of them were part of this military to-ing and fro-ing.14 There were, therefore, three different outcomes for the defeated soldiers in the first major episode of the civil war in Hispania: discharge for the majority of those who had fought in Hispania Citerior; continuing war on the same Pompeian side presumably for a minority, although a sufficiently significant minority to compose a section of the Pompeian army at Pharsalus; finally, the troops from Hispania Ulterior also continued in active service, but on the Caesarian side, although a part of those ended up deserting and re-joining the Pompeians. Tens of thousands of soldiers fought at Pharsalus, which seems to have been a particularly bloody battle. According to Caesar, fifteen thousand Pompeians died there, while over twenty-four thousand surrendered. Many others managed to escape.15 What happened to the Pompeian soldiers who survived? Obviously, there is no information about individual soldiers, but there is information about the units into which the majority of those survivors assimilated after their defeat at Pharsalus. Many of the vanquished who escaped and remained loyal to the Pompeian side, even despite Pompey’s death in Egypt, must have joined the Pompeian troops who were attempting to hold out against the Caesarians in North Africa, and who were again defeated, at Thapsus in 46. One of the reasons for the new Pompeian failure appears to have been the lukewarm commitment that many soldiers showed in combat, in clear contrast to the loyalty at any cost displayed by some of the principal Pompeian commanders in Africa, such as Cato Uticensis and Metellus Scipio. Even before the Battle of Thapsus there had been frequent desertions from the Pompeian side, according to the account in the bellum Africanum. Numidians and Gaetuli serving in the Fourth and Sixth legions deserted en masse from Metellus Scipio’s camp, and while some returned home, others joined the Caesarian side.16 In fact, in one of the early skirmishes in the Battle of Thapsus, ‘an incredible number of the soldiers from the Fourth and Sixth legions’ of Metellus Scipio’s army took refuge in Caesar’s camp.17 After Thapsus, the sources do not mention the Sixth legion again. If, however, the Fourth legion coincides with the later Fourth Macedonica, this unit was in Macedonia preparing for the campaign against the Parthians in the east when Caesar died.18 A large number of the survivors from Thapsus would later form part of the Pompeian troops who would fight in the bellum Hispaniense in the Guadalquivir valley.19 To the thousands of vanquished who did not manage to escape, however, no choice remained but to join the victors’ army. On the left flank of the Pompeian army 14 15 16 17 18 19 Botermann 1968, 80; 187–190; Rodríguez González 2001, 71–72. Caes. BCiv. 3,99. Caes. BAfr. 32,3–4; 35. Caes. BAfr. 52,5. Rodríguez González 2001, 166–167. BHisp. 7,4. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 152 francisco pina polo in Pharsalus, two legions fought which had been handed over to Pompey by Caesar in 50 at the behest of a senatorial decree, supposedly with the objective of beginning a campaign against the Parthians. Both legions immediately passed to Pompey’s command, and the alleged campaign in the east was forgotten. They were the First and Third legions.20 It remains unclear whether they joined the Caesarian army after defeat, and if they did so retaining their numeral or changing it. It is likely that these same units formed part of the armies of the triumvirs during the wars that followed the death of Caesar.21 Something similar happened with the Fifth legion, which formed part of the Pompeian army in the campaign that culminated in the Battle of Pharsalus.22 After the battle, it may have been disbanded by Caesar, or incorporated into his army.23 In any case, contrary to what had occurred with the Pompeian troops from Hispania Citerior, who were discharged, Caesar used the thousands of prisoners taken at Pharsalus to create three or four new legions under his command.24 Thus was born the legio XXXV, which could have been one of the Caesarian legions which operated in Illyricum under Gabinius’ command in 47.25 Gabinius suffered several defeats, and in his march to the city of Salona, where he intended to take refuge, two thousand of his soldiers died.26 This was one of the legions which was in Apollonia preparing the campaign against the Parthians when Caesar was assassinated. After the Ides of March in 44, the XXXV legion became part of Antony’s army, and under his command took part in the Battles of Forum Gallorum and Mutina in 43.27 The legio XXXVI was also created by Caesar at the end of the summer of 48 after the Battle of Pharsalus,28 and went to Asia Minor under the command of the Caesarian legate Cn. Domitius Calvinus.29 In 48 the army of Domitius Calvinus was defeated by Pharnaces at Nicopolis, in Pontus, despite which the XXXVI legion managed to offer fierce resistance and only lost 250 men.30 Months later, the legion took revenge, participating in Caesar’s victory over Pharnaces in the Battle of Zela,31 and stayed in the eastern Mediterranean until the end of the civil war. After Caesar’s death, the legion joined the Republicans and took part in their defeat at Philippi in 42 at the hands of the triumvirs.32 The legio XXXVII took a similar trajectory. Like the XXXVI, Caesar also created this legion from the prisoners taken at Pharsalus (‘ex 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Caes. BCiv. 3,88. Rodríguez González 2001, 44–45; 140. Caes. BCiv. 3,69. Rodríguez González 2001, 184 and 193 Caes. BCiv. 3,107. Brunt 1971, 476; Keppie 1983, 23. BAlex. 42,4. Rodríguez González 2001, 438. BAlex. 43. Keppie 1983, 25. Rodríguez González 2001, 439. BAlex. 34,3. BAlex. 39–40. BAlex. 69. Keppie 1983, 25. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 153 dediticiis Pompeianis militibus’),33 and it later came under the command of Domitius Calvinus in Asia, whence in 48 it was sent to Alexandria because Caesar needed reinforcements in Egypt.34 After Caesar’s assassination, this legion also joined the armies of the ‘Liberators’ in Syria, which were defeated at Philippi in 42.35 It is possible that the legio XXXVIII was also created from Pompeian survivors of Pharsalus, and that it was also taken to Asia Minor under the command of Domitius Calvinus. It may have been the legion that did not arrive in Alexandria in time to support Caesar,36 and may also have been one of the legions that fought at Philippi on the Republican side against the triumvirs.37 The majority of the defeated who were made prisoners in Pharsalus, therefore, continued fighting after the defeat, perhaps for years, either for the Pompeians or the Caesarians. The history of the legions of which they were members has been handed down, although with important uncertainties, but despite this, it is impossible to know the legions’ precise composition. Between 47 and 44, many Caesarian veterans were discharged, and the dictator began a policy of founding colonies in which many of them were settled. The majority of those veterans came from the legions that had fought under Caesar’s command in Gaul, and had therefore spent much longer than necessary in military service.38 This means that there must have been a massive turnover of troops in many of the legions that had fought in the civil war, but it is by no means impossible that some legionaries – a few or many, it is not possible to determine – may have re-enrolled and continued serving in their units, many until Philippi, when a considerable number of the soldiers who had already fought in the civil war were discharged.39 In any case, at the point of discharge, many soldiers had served their legions for over six years, which seems to have been the maximum service period in normal circumstances; this is true both of those who fought on the Caesarian side from the start, and of those who began on the Pompeian side and were later integrated into the Caesarian. The exceptional circumstances created by the civil wars brought an extension, probably considerable, to the length of legionary service that was considered normal before a soldier was discharged.40 What is clear, in all events, is that the Pompeians taken prisoner at Pharsalus later swore sacramentum to Caesar and his legions, and it seems reasonable to suppose, after the dictator’s assassination, that some of those were then passed to the command of Antony, in the case of the XXXV, or the ‘Liberators’, in the cases of the XXXVI, 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 BAlex. 9. BAlex. 34. Keppie 1983, 25. BAlex. 34. Keppie 1983, 25; Rodríguez González 2001, 440. Keppie 1983, 49–50. Keppie 1983, 37: “it will be clear that the Civil Wars which followed Caesar’s death witnessed a lengthening out of legionary service, well beyond the six-year limit postulated above”; 38: “many of the recruits of 49–48 can only have been in their later twenties on discharge after Philippi.” Keppie 1983, 36. References to the prolonged service of the soldiers in the army in App. BCiv. 3,46; Cass. Dio 45,38,4; 45,39; Plut. Caes. 37,3. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 154 francisco pina polo the XXXVII, and perhaps the XXXVIII. The development of political and military events, as well as the changing alliances among the principal leaders during the tumultuous years that followed the death of Caesar, obliged the legions that had fought for the Pompeians until 48 to fight in different arenas, for different and opposing sides, not of their own volition but under obligation to follow their commanders, and the uncertain destiny of the legions was shared by their soldiers. If the majority of the legionaries were caught up in the civil war without the opportunity to choose sides, the majority of senators, magistrates in office, and all those who held some military office, in contrast, found themselves forced to join either the Caesarians or the Pompeians, for ideological reasons or through personal affiliation.41 The sources reveal some of the individuals who held control in both armies, fighting as military commanders with imperium in the cases of magistrates and promagistrates, or as legates and prefects.42 For many, the sources only record their intervention at a certain point in the war, and it is not possible to determine exactly what happened to them, whether they died during the war or survived it.43 Obviously, this paper is par41 42 43 Jehne 1997, 81–84. The prosopographic works by Broughton, MRR, Shackleton Bailey 1960, and Bruhns 1978 collect all the known names. For some individuals who took part in the war, scarcely even incomplete data exist, which does not permit reconstruction of their activities. This is the case, for example, with some Pompeian praetorians. Q. Minucius Thermus (RE 67) joined the Pompeian side during the first weeks of the conflict (Caes. BCiv. 1,12,1–3), but later disappears completely from the ancient sources, and does not reappear until 43, when he was sent by the senate to Sextus Pompey in Massilia (Cic. Phil. 13,13). M. Nonius Sufenas (RE 52) is known to have been a promagistrate in 49 who enlisted with Pompey’s faction, but nothing more is known of him (Cic. Att. 8,15,3). L. Caecilius Rufus (RE 110) was taken prisoner by Caesar in Corfinium in 49, alongside other Pompeians. He was released, but again, nothing more is known of him, although he appears to have lived until the Augustan period (Caes. BCiv. 1,23,2; CIL 1,639 = 14,2464). M. Aurelius Cotta (RE 109) was expelled from Sardinia in 49 and escaped to Africa. He then vanishes (Caes. BCiv. 1,30,2–3; Cic. Att. 10,16,3). The same happens with M. Considius Nonianus (RE 13), who must have succeeded Caesar in the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, but of whom nothing is known after 49 (Cic. fam. 16,12,3). P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (RE 75) was legatus pro praetore in Africa in 47–46, but his future thereafter is unknown (Broughton, MRR 2, 301; 3, 119). C. Coponius (RE 3 and 9) shared command of the Pompeian fleet with Marcellus in Rhodes in 48 (Caes. BCiv. 3,5,3; 3,26,2), and was later included in the proscriptions of 43, then to be pardoned. The praetor for the year 49, P. Rutilius Lupus (RE 27), took part in the first phase of the war in Italy, and then in Achaea in 48, but later disappears from the sources (Cic. Att. 8,12A,4; 9,1,2; Caes. BCiv. 3,56,3; Cass. Dio 41,43,2–3. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 43–45). M. Octavius (RE 33) fought for the Pompeians throughout the war, but nothing more is known of him after the Battle of Thapsus, where he perhaps died (App. BCiv. 2,47; Cass.Dio 41,40,1–2; Caes. BCiv. 3,9; Caes. BAfr. 44). In May 49, L. Ninnius Quadratus (RE 3) was a Pompeian in Italy (Cic. Att. 10,16,4). Nothing further is known of him. As tribune of the plebs in 49, L. Caecilius Metellus (RE 75) attempted to obstruct Caesar from accessing the treasury, and later joined Pompey in Greece. After the defeat at Pharsalus, his return to Rome was not authorised by Antony (Cic. Att. 9,6,3; 10,4,8; 11,7,2; Caes. BCiv. 1,33,3; App. BCiv. 2,41. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 259; Bruhns 1978, 49–50). What happened to him after that is not known. C. Vergilius (RE 3) was in charge of the Pompeian garrison in Thapsus and ended up surrendering, which is all that is known of him (Caes. BAfr. 93,3). C. Decimius held command in Cercina (Caes. BAfr. 34,2). M. Minatius Sabi- Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 155 ticularly interested in the Pompeian survivors of whom some information remains – that is, it will seek to explore what became of the vanquished. It should be borne in mind that, although it is known a posteriori that Caesar won, the protagonists in the war did not know what the final outcome would be, and their attitude changed, as is natural in the course of a conflict. In the case of the Pompeians, it seems clear that the defeat at Pharsalus and the later assassination of Pompey in the year 48 proved a turning point that meant that, while the most ideologically committed pursued the fight in North Africa and later even in Hispania until 45, others who were more opportunistic, or simply more realistic, opted to make peace with Caesar or even actively to change sides. Of course, individuals’ future destiny varied substantially, and only those who were pardoned by Caesar had any chance of remaining active in politics. The sources explicitly state that many Pompeian leaders fell in battle or were executed after being taken prisoner.44 The consulars Ap. Claudius Pulcher (RE 297) and M. Calpurnius Bibulus (RE 28) died before Pharsalus, at the beginning of 48. Although the date of his death is uncertain, C. Claudius Marcellus (RE 217), the consul of 49, must also have died before Pharsalus. The consular L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 27), who had been captured by Caesar in 49 and later released, and who had then recruited troops and returned to join Pompey, died at Pharsalus in 48. The praetorians C. Fannius (RE 9), propraetor in Sicily and later in Asia, and A. Plautius (RE 8), governor of Pontus and Bithynia, seem to have died in 48.45 Another fatality at Pharsalus must have been C. Valerius Triarius (RE 365), who was in charge of the Pompeian fleet in Asia alongside Laelius in 49–48.46 The other consul from 49, L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (RE 218), and the praetorian Q. Pompeius Bithynicus (RE 25)47 were assassinated in Egypt shortly after Pompey himself. They had escaped there after the defeat at Pharsalus. Another consular, P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (RE 238), took part in the first weeks of the war in the north of Italy with the Pompeians, was pardoned by Caesar, returned to join Pompey at Pharsalus, and escaped to Rhodes after the defeat. He must have died before the war ended, perhaps in Africa.48 L. Afranius (RE 6), a consular who had been defeated by Caesar in Hispania in 49 44 45 46 47 48 nus (RE 3) fought alongside Pompey’s sons in Hispania in 46–45 (Broughton, MRR 3,142). L. Nasidius (RE 3) was prefect of the fleet (Caes. BCiv. 2,3–4; Caes. BAfr. 64. Broughton, MRR 2, 271; 2, 292). L. Rubrius (RE 11) was taken prisoner in Corfinium in 49 and released by Caesar, but nothing else is known of him (Caes. BCiv. 1,23,2). Ser. Sulpicius (RE 21) was in Africa with Juba (Caes. BCiv. 2,44). Sex. Teidius (RE 2) followed Pompey to Greece in 49 despite his advanced years, but it is unknown what became of him (Plut. Pomp. 64,4). C. Sentius was a member of consul Lentulus Crus’ consilium in Ephesus in 49 and was therefore a Pompeian ( Joseph. AJ 14,229; Broughton, MRR 2, 496; 3, 191). To those mentioned in the text may be added L. Postumius (RE 15), who in 49 refused to go to Sicily without Cato and seems to have died during the war (Cic. Att. 7.15.2. Broughton, MRR 3, 172; Bruhns 1978, 44–45). Bruhns 1978, 44–45. Caes. BCiv. 3,5,3; 3,92,2; Cic. Att. 12,28,3. Bruhns 1978, 54–55. Oros. 6,15,28. Cic. fam. 9,18,2; [Aur. Vict.] de vir.ill. 78,9. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 156 francisco pina polo and had later re-joined Pompey’s ranks, was captured in 46 by Sittius in Africa after the Battle of Thapsus, when he was trying to escape to Hispania, and was executed. Exactly the same fate befell Faustus Cornelius Sulla (RE 377). C. Considius Longus (RE 11), a praetorian, was Pompey’s legatus pro praetore in Africa from 49 to 46, and was eventually assassinated by his own troops.49 L. Manlius Torquatus (RE 80) was praetor in 49, abandoned Italy with Pompey, fought at Dyrrachium, and eventually died in Africa in 46, along with Metellus Scipio.50 The senators Licinius Damasippus (RE 65) and Plaetorius Rustianus (RE 19) suffered the same misfortune.51 The praetorian P. Attius Varus (RE 32) managed to survive until the final chapter in 45, but after defeat by Didius in a sea battle, died in Hispania. The praetorian T. Labienus (RE 6) also died in the Battle of Munda in Hispania. Some of the most eminent and loyal Pompeian leaders preferred to commit suicide, rather than fall into Caesar’s hands, after the defeat at Thapsus in 46 when many anti-Caesarians considered the war to be irrevocably lost. This was the case for the ex-consul Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (RE 99) and the praetorian Cato Uticensis (RE 16).52 The praetorian M. Petreius (RE 3) fled Thapsus with Juba, with whom he made a death pact that required them to fight a duel, in which Petreius perished in a sort of induced suicide.53 It is striking that, of the ten consulars who joined Pompey in 49 – and, as such, the highest-ranking Pompeian senators – only Cicero and the consul from 51, M. Claudius Marcellus, survived the war, the only two who did not actively fight in it. All the others, as has just been demonstrated, fell in combat, were assassinated after being captured, or, in the case of Metellus Pius, killed himself. Marcellus survived because he managed to escape after the defeat at Pharsalus, and went into exile in Mytilene.54 He was eventually pardoned by Caesar at the end of 46, which prompted Cicero to deliver his speech Pro Marcello, to thank the dictator for his generosity.55 On his re49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Caes. BAfr. 93. Broughton, MRR 2, 300. Cic. Att. 7,12,4; 7,23,1; 9,8,1; Caes. BAfr. 96; Oros. 6,16,5. Caes. BAfr. 96; Caes. BCiv. 2,44. According to Plut. Cat. Mai. 66, Cato committed suicide because he did not want to give Caesar the opportunity to pardon him. Wistrand 1978, 48, believed that Cato intended to challenge Caesar’s policy of clemency. Caes. BAfr. 91; 94; 97. Exile was in fact the way out chosen by some Pompeians to survive the war. A. Manlius Torquatus (RE 13, 76), for example, although positioning himself at the start of the war with the Pompeians, soon left for Athens, where he remained throughout the whole war (Cic. Att. 9,8,1). The intellectual P. Nigidius Figulus (RE 3) died in 45 in exile without receiving pardon from Caesar, despite Cicero’s efforts (Cic. fam. 4,13. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 121 n.25; Rosillo-López 2017, 136–138. Rosillo-López 2009, argues that Nigidius Figulus and A. Caecina, RE 4, were not pardoned by Caesar because of the religious prophecies they made against him as haruspices). C. Toranius (RE 4), who had been aedile in 64 and of whom no later public activities are known, was in exile in 45 (Cic. fam. 6,20–21. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 49 and 121 n.25). Cn. Plancius (RE 4), curule aedile in 54, went into exile in Corcyra (Cic. fam. 4,14–15; 6,20. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 49 and 121 n.25). The quaestor L. Mescinius Rufus (RE 2) also went into exile (Cic. fam. 13,26. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 54–55 and 121 n.25). Cic. fam. 4,4,3. Cf. Wistrand 1978, 50–51. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 157 turn journey to Rome in 45, however, he was assassinated by one of his attendants, P. Magius Chilo.56 Cicero was therefore the only Pompeian consular who remained alive once the civil war had conclusively ended after the last Hispanian chapter.57 The case of the Pompeian praetorians is rather different. Although many died during the war, some managed to survive by opportunistically changing sides to join the Caesarians, or were pardoned by Caesar.58 In fact, throughout the civil war, a large number of Pompeian commanders were pardoned by Caesar, who used that as propaganda to boast of his clementia, which he himself converted into one of his main supposed personal characteristics, and used as a political weapon against his enemies.59 In a letter Caesar sent to Cicero in 49, after the Corfinium episode, when the future dictator had pardoned the Pompeian leaders that he had caught, he claimed that nothing was more alien to his character than cruelty, and that he did not intend to alter his policy of clemency, even though some of those released had re-joined the Pompeian ranks (in a clear veiled reference to Domitius Ahenobarbus and Lentulus Spinther).60 The later fate of the pardoned Pompeians varied widely, but only a few were able to progress in their political careers after the civil war, or at least to have a certain prominence in the senate and in political life in Rome generally.61 56 57 58 59 60 61 Cic. fam. 4,12. Bruhns 1978, 38. At the start of the civil war, only one consular joined the Caesarian side, Cn. Domitius Calvinus (RE 43), consul in 53. In 48, two others returned from exile and joined Caesar, A. Gabinius (RE 11), consul in 58, and M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (RE 268), consul in 53. All three fought in the civil war. C. Antonius Hybrida (RE 19), consul in 63, also returned from exile and may have sympathised with the Caesarians, but does not appear to have taken an active part in the civil war. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 39–40. Bruhns 1978, 117. Caes. BAfr. 89,5. The number of Pompeians who are known to have received Caesar’s pardon is relatively high, but of some of them nothing is known of their later lives, or at least, nothing of their public lives. This is the case with the praetorians Q. Tullius Cicero (RE 31) and T. Ampius Balbus (RE 1) (Cic. fam. 6,12,1). L. Livius Ocella, both father and son (RE 25, 26), may be included here, since they were pardoned by Caesar after the Battle of Thapsus (Caes. BAfr. 89,5). In his article in RE, Münzer identified L. Livius Ocella with L. Iulius Mocilla and with L. Pella (Plut. Brut. 35), who was expelled by Brutus in 42 and whom Atticus helped to escape after the defeat at Philippi (Broughton, MRR 2, 464; 3, 126–127; Bruhns 1978, 44–45). Some Pompeians pardoned by Caesar were recidivists in their support for Pompey. This was true of de L. Vibullius Rufus (RE 1), who was taken prisoner and pardoned twice, once in Corfinium, and again in Hispania, but on both occasions returned to join the Pompeian troops, although his end is unknown (Caes. BCiv. 3,10–11). Q. Ligarius (RE 4) (Caes. BAfr. 89,2) and M. Eppius (RE 2) (Caes. BAfr. 89,5) were also reprieved. Cic. Att. 9,16,2. Cicero described Caesar’s clemency as insidiosa clementia (Att. 8,16,2). Cf. Wistrand 1978, 46–48. In some cases, Caesar’s pardon was of little use. L. Iulius Caesar (RE 144), for example, prefect of a small fleet under the command of Attius Varius and later proquaestor under Cato in Utica, was pardoned by Caesar after the Battle of Thapsus, but shortly after was assassinated. Suetonius (Iul. 75,3) maintains that he was not assassinated on Caesar’s orders, nor that Caesar gave any order to assassinate Afranius and Faustus Cornelius Sulla, the only enemies of Caesar, Suetonius says, who did not die on the battlefield. T. Antistius (RE 22) was also pardoned by Caesar, but fell ill on his return journey to Rome and died in Corcyra (Cic. fam. 13,29). Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 158 francisco pina polo Two of the praetors in 44, Cassius and Brutus, had fought on the Pompeian side during the civil war, and are two of the very few Pompeians who managed to rise up the cursus honorum and occupy a higher magistracy after the war. C. Cassius Longinus (RE 59) had been tribune of the plebs in 49, and from the first moment was a declared anti-Caesarian.62 After Pharsalus, Cassius surrendered with his fleet to Caesar, who pardoned him.63 Caesar made him his legate, although Cassius did not actively participate in the campaigns in either Africa or Hispania.64 Once the war was conclusively over, Cassius returned to Rome and became peregrine praetor in 44, and from his magistracy, became one of the principal organisers of the plot that ended with the assassination of Caesar.65 For his part, M. Iunius Brutus (RE 53) acted in 49 as legate to Sestius in Cilicia.66 Like Cassius, he stayed with the Pompeians until the defeat at Pharsalus, after which he sought pardon from Caesar, who conceded it and initiated Brutus into his circle of friends, as well as putting him in charge of Cisalpine Gaul in 46.67 Like Cassius, Brutus also became praetor in 44, in his case urban praetor, and, like Cassius, was one of the architects and perpetrators of the plot against Caesar.68 Although Brutus and Cassius only reached the praetorship, both obviously had fundamental roles in the civil wars after the assassination of Caesar. A third praetor in 44 may likewise have fought in the Pompeian army at the start of the civil war,69 M. Pupius Piso Frugi (RE 11, 12). He may have been Pompey’s legate in Delos in 49 tasked with recruiting soldiers, but nothing more is known of him until he participated in the senate session in November 44.70 A very few Pompeians managed to hold the consulship many years after the death of Caesar, when their defeat in the civil war had been blurred by the new circumstances of the triumviral period. L. Scribonius Libo (RE 20) stood out as one of Caesar’s fiercest enemies, and one of Pompey’s most trusted followers.71 After Bibulus’ death, Libo became the commander of the Pompeian fleet in 48.72 In spite of his leading role, however, he was the only one among the Pompeian praetorians who fought actively in the civil war and later went on to hold the consulship.73 After the defeat at Pharsalus, Libo seems to have made peace with Caesar, abandoned the Pompeian 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Cic. Att. 7,21,2. App. BCiv. 2,88. Cic. fam. 6,6,10; 15,15; Att. 11,13,1; Cass. Dio 42,13,5. Cicero speaks of a dubious attempt on Caesar’s life by Cassius in Cilicia: Cic. Phil. 2,26. Plut. Brut. 8–10; App. BCiv. 2,113. Cf. Yavetz 1983, 190–191. Plut. Brut. 4,2. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 53–54. Plut. Brut. 6; Cass. Dio 41,63,6; App. BCiv. 2,111. Cf. Gelzer 1941, 320–321. Meier 1982, 569–570. P. Sextius Naso (RE 33), also praetor in 44, participated in the conspiracy against Caesar (App. BCiv. 2,113), but there is no record that he had fought on the Pompeian side during the civil war. Cf. Broughton, MRR 3, 199; Bruhns, 1978, 54–55. Joseph. AJ 14,231; Cic. Phil. 3.25. Broughton, MRR 2, 319; 3.177; Bruhns 1978, 54 and 56. Caes. BCiv. 3,18,3. Cass. Dio 41,48,1. Bruhns 1978, 43 n.42: in contrast, of the eight Caesarian praetorians, four ended up holding the consulship. On the difficulties of ascertaining Libo’s political career, Welch 2012, 114. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 159 ranks, and distanced himself from politics. There is no record of exactly when Libo returned to Rome, but it was only after Caesar’s death that he reappeared in public life.74 He was proscribed in 43, but managed to escape with his life. His fate thereafter was closely linked with that of Sextus Pompeius, with whom he had family connections since Sextus Pompeius had married Libo’s daughter.75 Libo was a prominent negotiator in the talks that led to the Treaty of Misenum in 39, a pact which included the assurance that he would attain the consulship in the following years.76 When the war between Octavian and Sextus Pompeius re-ignited in 36, Libo abandoned his son-in-law and joined Mark Antony, and was finally rewarded with the appointment to consul ordinarius in 34.77 Cicero’s son, who shared his name, Marcus Tullius Cicero (RE 30), also managed to hold the consulship. A confirmed Pompeian, he led a cavalry wing as prefect in Pompey’s army in 49–48,78 but, like many other Pompeians, the defeat at Pharsalus made him lose hope in ultimate victory. The young Cicero received pardon from Caesar in the autumn of 47, along with his father, and could return to Rome, although initially he remained completely removed from public life in the Urbs. In fact, the young Cicero undertook a journey in 45–44 to Athens to broaden his education. After Caesar’s death he joined Brutus at the end of 44, again as prefect of the cavalry, the same post that he had held in Pompey’s army,79 and was proscribed by the triumvirs at the end of 43.80 He fought in the battle of Philippi, and after the defeat managed to escape to Asia, where he joined the troops of Cassius Parmensis. The young Cicero eventually joined Sextus Pompeius in Sicily.81 Probably after the Treaty of Misenum was signed in 39,82 Cicero returned to Rome, where he was politically close to Octavian in the following years. This allowed him, after Antony’s defeat at Actium, to finish his career as consul suffectus in 30. The young Cicero entered office on the Ides of September as the second suffect of the year, sharing the fasces with Octavian.83 Choosing the son of the famous orator as consul had a symbolic and ideological character, since it could be interpreted by the victims of the proscriptions as a sort of revenge against Antony, whom later historiography would have to blame for the cruelty exercised against the proscribed.84 In fact, it was during the consulship of the young Cicero that the death of Antony was announced to the Roman people, his statues toppled, and all the other honours that had been conceded to him annulled.85 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Cic. fam. 11,7,1. Cf. Welch 2002, 51–53; 2012, 93 and 114. Hinard 1985, 516–517; Welch 2012, 114–115. Syme 1939, 221. App. BCiv. 5,139. Syme 1939, 232 and 269; Welch 2012, 299–300. Cic. off. 2,45. Plut. Cic. 45,2; Brut. 24,2; App. BCiv. 4,20. App. BCiv. 4,19,1. Hinard 1985, 537. App. BCiv. 4,51. Welch 2012, 301. Plin. HN 22,13 Welch 2012, 300. Plut. Cic. 49,6; Cass. Dio 51,19,3–4. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 160 francisco pina polo The consulship of the originally Pompeian Cicero, later active in the ranks of Brutus and Sextus Pompeius, was therefore to a large degree an act of propaganda and image-building by the young Caesar.86 In this brief catalogue of the losers in the civil war who afterwards gained the highest magistracy of the extinct Republic should be included Cn. Calpurnius Piso (RE 95), one of Caesar’s bitterest enemies.87 Piso’s proquaestorship in Hispania Ulterior is known through some denarii dated to 49 on whose obverse appears the inscription CN·PISO·PRO·Q, and on the reverse MAGN above and PRO·COS below.88 Piso was therefore proquaestor in Hispania Ulterior in 49 under Pompey’s command.89 Despite the reversals suffered by the Pompeians, Piso remained faithful to his convictions, which found him fighting in Africa in 46.90 There is almost no information about him in the years that followed, but it seems probable that he joined Sextus Pompeius.91 Eventually, Piso was made consul suffectus in 23, sharing the consulship with Augustus himself. Again, rather than an act of generosity to the formerly vanquished, it was instead a political operation to benefit Augustus, who, in the words of Welch, “wanted to emphasise his ‘Republican’ credentials” with the aim of winning the Republicans’ favour, in particular the Republicans connected with Sextus Pompeius.92 Finally, there is the case of Q. Lucretius Vespillo (RE 36). In 49–48 he was firstly a prefect in the Pompeian side and later a commander in a division of the Pompeian fleet.93 After Pharsalus he must have been pardoned by Caesar, although there is no record of this in the sources; in any event, he does not seem to have been particularly politically active during Caesar’s rule. He is known to have been proscribed by the triumvirs in 43, but survived thanks to his wife, Turia.94 He reappears in 19, when he was designated consul by Augustus, undoubtedly at an advanced age.95 Other Pompeians active during the civil war also survived politically, but kept a low profile and did not progress up the cursus honorum, although they did dis86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Welch 2009, 195: ‘as soon as it could decently be done, Caesar Octavian entrusted consulships and armies to those who had fought him only a very short time before.’ Some of the consuls from 34–29 had attested links to the opposition (see Welch 2009, 210 n. 2). Tac. ann. 2,49: …insita ferocia a patre Pisone qui civili bello resurgentis in Africa partis acerrimo ministerio adversus Caesarem iuvit, mox Brutum et Cassium secutus concesso reditu petitione honorum abstinuit, donec ultro ambiretur delatum ab Augusto consulatum accipere.’ Syme 1939, 334–335, defined him as ‘a republican of independent and recalcitrant temper’. Crawford, RRC 463, no.446. Broughton, MRR 2, 261; Bruhns 1978, 53–54. Caes. Caes. BAfr. 3,1; 18,1. This is Hinard’s inference (1985, 442–443). Cf. Welch 2012, 301. Welch 2012, 301. In fact, in 23 another Republican, L. Sestius (RE 3), was also consul; he had provided a fleet for Brutus and Cassius in 44 (Cic. Att. 16,4,4. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 326). For two years following that he served as proquaestor under the command of Brutus in Macedonia (Crawford, RRC, 515 no.502; Broughton, MRR 2, 362 f.). Caes. BCiv. 1,18; 3,7,1; Cic. Att. 8,4,3; App. BCiv. 2,54; Oros. 6,15,4. Cf. Bruhns 1978, 54–55. App. BCiv. 4,44; Val. Max. 6,7,2. Hinard 1985, 491–492. Cass. Dio 54,10,1–2; App. BCiv. 4,44. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 161 charge some public duties.96 The praetorian P. Sestius (RE 6), for example, served as a promagistrate with Pompey in 49 and 48 in Cilicia.97 After Pharsalus, he switched to the Caesarian side, for which Caesar rewarded him by allowing him to keep his imperium,98 and during 48 and 47 served the Caesarians under the command of Cn. Domitius Calvinus in Asia Minor.99 Sestius returned to Rome and must have been an active senator. He is mentioned in the following years by Cicero in some of his letters, for example referring to his involvement in the senatorial session of the Ides of March in 43.100 He never held the consulship. The Tuberones, father and son, respectively Lucius and Quintus Aelius Tubero (RE 150 and 156), took part in the war together on the Pompeian side. In 49, the senate allotted Lucius Tubero the province of Africa, but he was prevented from taking up the command by the opposition of P. Attius Varus, so instead he went with his son to meet Pompey.101 Both were present at the defeat at Pharsalus,102 after which they were pardoned by Caesar and returned to Rome. No other public activity by the father is known. In 46, Quintus Tubero denounced Ligarius before Caesar, which is recorded in the defence speech delivered by Cicero (Pro Ligario). It is possible that he was quaestor during Caesar’s rule, in 47 or 46, which would position him among the Pompeians retrained as Caesarians.103 In any event, Quintus Tubero subsequently won fame as a lawyer, but not for his political activities. Something similar happened to another praetorian, the famous writer M. Terentius Varro (RE 84). In 49 he was a Pompeian legate in Hispania Ulterior, and surrendered to Caesar after the latter’s victory over Afranius and Petreius in Hispania Citerior, meaning the whole of Hispania rapidly came under Caesarian control (see 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 It is unclear whether the Minucius (RE 9) who was praetor in 43 should be identified with Minucius Rufus (RE 50), who was prefect of the Pompeian fleet in 48. If he was the same man, he would be another of the Pompeians pardoned by Caesar who managed to win a higher magistracy after Caesar’s death (App. BCiv. 4,17; Caes. BCiv. 3,7,1. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 283; 339; Bruhns 1978, 54–55). It is known that Sex. Quinctilius Varus (RE 17) was taken prisoner in Corfinium in 49, the year in which he held the quaestorship, but was released by Caesar. He immediately returned to the Pompeians and served in Africa (Caes. BCiv. 1,23,2; 2,28–29). No other information is known about him, although he may be the same Varus Quinctilius who asked one of his freedmen to kill him after the Battle of Philippi (Vell. Pat. 2,71,2). Broughton, MRR 3, 178, believes that he may have held some other magistracy between 49 and 42, perhaps the praetorship, but there is no reliable record of that other than the claim by Velleius Paterculus that he died wrapped in the insignia of the honores which he had received (cum se insignibus honorum velasset). Bruhns 1978, 44–45. Cic. Att. 11,7,1. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 278; Bruhns 1978, 117. BAlex. 34,5. Cic. Ad Brut. 2,6,4. Caes. BCiv. 1,30–31; Cic. Lig. 21. Broughton, MRR 2, 259 f.; 3, 4. Cic. Lig. 9. His questorship was proposed by Ryan 1999, based on Cic. Lig. 35. Ryan recognised, nonetheless, that Aelius Tubero’s quaestorship must remain a postulation, since it is not clear that he was one of the Caesarian quaestors attested in Cicero’s speech. Broughton, MRR 3, 5: “he was almost certainly a senator before 31.” Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 162 francisco pina polo above).104 Varro was with Cicero at the Pompeian camp in Dyrrachium, but both finally decided to retire and were allowed to leave the camp before the Battle of Pharsalus.105 After the Pompeian defeat, Varro reconciled with Caesar, who offered him pardon,106 and both apparently maintained a cordial relationship over the following years.107 From then on, Varro kept his distance from politics and dedicated himself primarily to literature until his death in 27, after evading the proscriptions.108 In 45, Caesar entrusted him with the task of creating a great library in Rome.109 It is the only public activity that is known of him after the civil war, but, although he was not a magistrate, his appointment reveals that he had a certain influence, as it was an important office to Caesar. Theophanes of Mytilene (RE 1) is a case apart: he was neither a senator, nor had political ambition in Rome. As a loyal friend of Pompey, however, he had joined him from the outset, formed one of his inner circle of advisors, and was named praefectus fabrum in 48, remaining in the Pompeian military camp in Greece in the months running up to the Battle of Pharsalus.110 Once the defeat at Pharsalus had been concluded, Theophanes advised Pompey to flee to Egypt, as indeed he did.111 After Pompey’s death, however, Theophanes was pardoned by Caesar and must have returned to Rome. In fact, in 44 Cicero mentions him in one of his letters, from which it may be deduced that Theophanes was in Italy.112 C. Ateius Capito (RE 7), tribune of the plebs in 55, was pardoned by Caesar after Thapsus, which obviously implies that he had served the Pompeian side.113 His name appears again in 44, when he was appointed prefect by Caesar, with the task of assigning land to his veterans.114 No other public office is recorded. M. Favonius (RE 1) served in 48, probably as a propraetor, with Metellus Scipio in Macedonia and Greece; he was with Pompey at Pharsalus, and helped him to escape after defeat.115 Once Pompey was assassinated, Favonius must have been pardoned 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Caes. BCiv. 1,38; 2,17–20. Cic. div. 1,68; 2,114; Plut. Cic. 39,1–2; Cat. min. 55,3. Cf. Welch 2012, 78. Bruhns 1978, 44 f.; 117. Varro dedicated his Antiquitates rerum divinarum to Caesar. Cf. Yavetz 1983, 46 and 111; Peer 2015, 178: “that Varro dedicated his book to Caesar is no indication of the time of their reconciliation – if it ever occurred, especially since the book, which concerned religious matters, was dedicated to Caesar in his role as pontifex maximus. But if as suggested BC II was published in late 49 or early 48, Caesar’s subsequent relations with Varro have no bearing on its publication.” App. BCiv. 4,47. Suet. Iul. 44,2; Isid. Etym. 6,5. Cic. Att. 9,11,3; Caes. BCiv. 3,18,3 Plut. Pomp. 76,5. Cic. Att. 15,19. Caes. BAfr. 89,5. Broughton, MRR 2, 332; 3, 26; Bruhns 1978, 49. Welch 2012, 222 and 354 (index) seems to identify him with the Ateius mentioned by Appian (B Civ. 5,33) as an officer of Antony in 41–40. Broughton, MRR 2, 373 and 2, 533 distinguishes between the two men. Cic. Att. 7,12,4; 7,23,1; Cass. Dio 41,43,2–3; Caes. BCiv. 3,36; 3,57; Vell. Pat. 2,53,1; Plut. Pomp. 67,3; 73,6–7. Cf. Welch 2012, 69. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 163 by Caesar, and returned to Italy. He reappears in the sources in 44, when, according to Plutarch, he declared that a civil war was worse than an unjust monarchy and refused to take part in the conspiracy against Caesar.116 Favonius nevertheless immediately ranged himself alongside the self-proclaimed ‘Liberators’ after the dictator’s assassination and shared their final destiny.117 He was proscribed, and in 42 fought at Philippi in Brutus and Cassius’ ranks. He was taken prisoner and executed.118 Favonius was not the only man fighting for the Pompeians during the civil war who lived in Rome after his pardon, apparently accepted Caesar’s rule, but after his assassination fought against the Caesarians in the civil wars that followed. This is also true of C. Lucilius Hirrus (RE 25), active in the war in 49–48.119 In 48, Hirrus was sent by Pompey to the Parthian court, where, according to Cassius Dio, he was taken prisoner,120 which prevented him from taking part in subsequent military events. When he returned to Rome, he was pardoned by Caesar and, according to Pliny, in 45 contributed six thousand moray eels to the banquets in Rome that accompanied the celebration of the dictator’s triumph.121 When Caesar died, nonetheless, it is possible that Hirrus joined the ‘Liberators’ and may have been included by the triumvirs in the proscriptions in 43.122 His end is unknown. The senator M. Aquinius (Aquinus) (RE 2, 5), in turn, was pardoned by Caesar after the Battle of Thapsus, in which he participated as legatus in the Pompeian army.123 He is probably the same man as the one who later joined the ‘Liberators’ and fought in 43–42 as a legate under Cassius’ command.124 Cicero, the old consular, and Decimus Laelius (RE 6) were expressly and exceptionally authorised to live in Italy in 48 by a decree issued by Antony after the Battle of Pharsalus.125 Laelius, tribune of the plebs in 54, had previously been prefect of the Pompeian fleet in Asia and Syria in 49 and 48.126 After the civil war, his involvement in Roman politics appears to have been non-existent, or at least, there is no mention of it, and he did not hold any further public office. Something similar was true of the praetorian L. Lucceius (RE 6), who received pardon from Caesar after Pharsalus and 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Plut. Brut. 12,3. App. BCiv. 2,119; Cic. Att. 15,11,1 Suet. Aug. 13,3; Cass. Dio 47,49,4. Hinard 1985, 467–468; Welch 2012, 204. Caes. BCiv. 1,15,5; 1,23,2; Cic. Att. 8,11A. Caes. BCiv. 3,82,5; Cass. Dio 42,2,5. Plin. HN 9,171. Syme 1939, 193–194. Hinard 1985, 472, however, casts doubt upon this reconstruction, which relies upon replacing the name Hirtius with Hirrus in App. BCiv. 4,43. In his opinion, it is plausible that C. Lucilius Hirrus was proscribed, but not certain. 123 Caes. BAfr. 57; 89,5. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 300; Bruhns 1978 49 f. 124 App. BCiv. 2,119. Broughton, MRR 3, 25; Hinard 1985, 429. On his coinage in 43–42, Crawford RRC, 513 no.498. 125 Cic. Att. 11,7,2. 126 Caes. BCiv. 3,5,3; 3,7,1. Bruhns 1978, 49 and 119. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 164 francisco pina polo was authorised to return to Rome, but of whom neither political activities nor public offices are known.127 Finally, although for very different reasons, Sextus Pompeius (RE 18) and Marcus Tullius Cicero (RE 29) provide exceptional cases of Pompeians who survived the civil war politically, although with very different paths after it ended. After receiving pardon from Caesar and the specific authorisation to remain in Italy, Cicero spent the years of Caesar’s rule writing an important portion of his literary output, above all in his villae, voluntarily distancing himself from politics.128 After the death of the dictator, however, Cicero progressively returned to the front line of politics – although he held no public office – and stood out for his radical opposition to Mark Antony, as his Philippics convey, which led him to be included among the proscribed and eventually murdered. For his part, Sextus Pompeius, the younger son of Pompey, was active throughout the civil war and managed to escape after the Pompeians’ final defeat at Munda in 45. He regrouped in Sicily, where he succeeded in building a powerful fleet with which he confronted the triumvirs, thus becoming one of the decisive characters in the years of civil war that followed the Ides of March in 44. In 43 he was included in the proscriptions by the triumvirs,129 but the Treaty of Misenum, signed in 39, stipulated that Sextus Pompeius would be consul in 35. After his defeat at the decisive Battle of Naulochus in 36, however, Sextus Pompeius fled to Asia, where he was finally captured and executed in 35, precisely the year in which he should have been consul.130 In summary, for the majority of the Pompeian vanquished, the civil war fought between 49 and 45 meant death, either physically or politically, or in some cases permanent exile.131 With the exception of Cicero, all the Pompeian consulars died as a consequence of the war, and with them died any opposition that senators of the highest rank could have exercised in the new majority-Caesarian senate. During the time that Caesar exercised power, Cicero himself preferred to slip away from a political scene in which, in any case, his influence would have been very limited, only regaining that influence after the dictator was assassinated. Other Pompeians of lower rank survived the war once they had been pardoned by Caesar, including some who actively defected to the Caesarian side.132 What is certain is that people like Libo, the young Cicero, Laelius and Varro (who notwithstanding was commissioned to create a great library) seem to have remained on the margins of political life until Caesar’s death and even beyond. The praetors of 44, Cassius, Brutus, and Pupius Piso, as well, to a lesser extent, as P. Sestius and perhaps Q. Tubero, were the only Pompeians that 127 128 129 130 131 132 Cic. Att. 9,1,3; fam. 5,13; Caes. BCiv. 3,18,3. For his reasons, see Cic. Marc. 14. Hinard 1985, 505–506. On Sextus Pompeius see the detailed study by Welch 2012. Cf. Cic. fam. 9,18,2. C. Messius (RE 2) may be among the Pompeians who defected to the Caesarian side. At the start of the war in 49, he seems to have been with the Pompeians (Cic. Att. 8,11D2), but was with Caesar in Africa in 47–46 at the latest (Caes. BAfr. 33; 43. Cf. Broughton, MRR 2, 301; Bruhns 1978, 49). Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 165 evidence shows retained real political influence while Caesar was alive. There may have been more, but in any case they seem to have been a minority in a political scene dominated by Caesarians. It should not be forgotten that those men were losers apparently converted into winners, since they deserted the Pompeian ship in time to participate actively in the Caesarian victory. Be that as it may, Brutus, Cassius and Pupius Piso were the only Pompeians that are known to have gained a higher magistracy while Caesar was alive, something that the dictator no doubt must have regretted, since it was from their offices that Brutus and Cassius led the conspiracy that ended in his assassination. As Appian highlights, Caesar was murdered by men whom he himself had taken prisoner but had pardoned, had even converted into friends, so that his clemency was ultimately one of the causes of his death.133 The losers from the civil war fought between 49 and 45 continued to find it difficult to scale the higher magistracies of the cursus honorum after Caesar was assassinated. In fact, only four of the individuals who fought in the Pompeian side managed to become consuls after 44: Libo in 34, the young Cicero in 30, Piso in 23, and Lucretius Vespillo in 19. None of them had held an important command during the war, and Libo and Cicero in particular were very young at the time. In any case, the ascent to the consulship of those former Pompeians of modest lustre and undistinguished political careers should be understood in the context of the historical circumstances and the political vagaries that followed the Ides of March in 44, and was a consequence of the power struggles and power balances among the various protagonists of the civil wars of the triumviral period. In fact, their status as Pompeians – in the sense of supporters of Pompey the Great and combatants in the civil war against Caesar – was already a secondary issue by that time, and the determining factor in their appointment as consuls was their position on the political chessboard dominated by Sextus Pompeius and the triumvirs (in the case of Libo) and by Octavian-Augustus (in the cases of Cicero, Piso, and Lucretius Vespillo). The initial civil war between Pompeians and Caesarians was already little more than a memory, surpassed by the successive civil wars that followed it, and the fact that Libo, Cicero, Piso and Lucretius Vespillo should have formed part of a conglomerate of former losers was not a decisive circumstance. There were other factors that bore them to the consulship. Some of the losers who had been pardoned by Caesar, for example Favonius, Lucilius Hirrus and Aquinius (or Aquinus), swelled the ranks of the Republicans after his assassination, were included in the lists of the proscribed in 43, and fought for their side until suffering a new defeat in Philippi in 42. As Cassius Dio states, many died in this battle or after it; others ended up joining Sextus Pompeius.134 They went from one military disaster to another, some of them having been combatants in all the main Pompeian defeats during the civil war and later in the Republican disaster at Philippi, and even in Sextus Pompeius’ final defeat. The fact that many of the protag133 App. BCiv. 4,8. Cassius, one of his killers, learnt the lesson of what leaving an enemy alive could entail, and was therefore in favour of assassinating not only Caesar, but also Mark Antony, on the Ides of March; Brutus, however, resisted, because in his opinion only the tyrant should die (Vell. Pat. 2,58,1). 134 Cass. Dio 47,49,4. Cf. Welch 2009, 198. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 166 francisco pina polo onists were the same in the successive civil wars that took place from 49 to the Battle of Actium in 31 demonstrates an ideological continuity that united many of the surviving Pompeians – or perhaps it would be better to define them as anti-Caesarians or Republicans – beyond their original, personal support for Pompey the Great. The perseverance of the contenders indicates in turn that the Battle of Munda in 45 was not really the end of the civil wars, as neither Pharsalus nor Thapsus had been before it, but rather a hiatus in the struggle between two profoundly opposing sides. The hiatus was forced by the Pompeians’ successive defeats, and by the resultant, apparently solid, position held by Caesar in Rome. The Ides of March revealed the failure of his policy of reconciliation and clemency, because many of the losers in the war, including those such as Brutus and Cassius who had managed to occupy influential offices in Caesar’s state, did not accept his rule. The hiatus ended abruptly, and the civil war resumed. Many of the defeated who had survived the campaigns in Italy, Hispania, Macedonia, Africa, and Hispania again, returned to combat and returned to defeat, becoming multiple losers. Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19 Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians 167 Bibliography Botermann 1968 = H. Botermann, Die Soldaten und die römische Politik in der Zeit von Caesars Tod bis zu Begründung des zweiter Triumvirats, Munich Broughton, MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols. Atlanta 1951–1952, 1986 Bruhns 1978 = H. Bruhns, Caesar und die römische Oberschicht in den Jahren 49–44 v. Chr. Untersuchungen zu Herrschaftsetablierung im Bürgerkrieg, Göttingen Brunt 1971 = P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 B. C.-A. D. 14, Oxford Cadiou 2018 = F. Cadiou, L‘Armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République, Paris Crawford, RCC = M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge 1974 Gelzer 1941 = M. Gelzer, Caesar. Der Politiker und Staatsmann, Munich (11921) Hinard 1985 = F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine, Rome Jehne 1997 = M. Jehne, Julio César, Munich Keppie 1983 = L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 BC, London Matthews 2013 = J. Matthews, Soldados a la fuerza. Reclutamiento obligatorio durante la Guerra Civil, 1936–1939, Madrid Meier 1982 = Chr. Meier, Caesar, Berlin Peer 2015 = A. Peer, Julius Caesar’s Bellum Civile and the Composition of a New Reality, Abingdon Rodríguez González 2001 = J. Rodríguez González, Historia de las legiones romanas, 2 vols., Madrid Rosillo-López 2009 = C. Rosillo-López, La guerra civil de las letras: religión, panfletarios y lucha política (49–44 a. C.), in: Klio 91, 104–114 Rosillo-López 2017 = C. Rosillo-López, Public Opinion and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge Ryan 1999 = F. X. Ryan, The Quaestorships of T. Ligarius and Q. Aelius Tubero, L’Antiquité Classique 68, 243–245 Shackleton Bailey 1960 = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, The Roman Nobility in the Second Civil War, in: Classical Quarterly 10, 253–267 Syme 1939 = R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford Welch 2002 = K. Welch, Sextus Pompeius and the res publica in 42–39 BC, in: A. Powell / K. Welch (eds.), Sextus Pompeius, Swansea – London, 31–64 Welch 2009 = K. Welch, Alternative Memoirs: Tales from the ‘other side’ of the Civil War, in: C. Smith / A. Powell (eds.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, Swansea, 195–223 Welch 2012 = K. Welch, Magnus Pius. Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic, Swansea Wistrand 1978 = E. Wistrand, Caesar and Contemporary Roman Society, Göteborg Yavetz 1983 = Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image, London Th is m a t e ria l is u n d e r co p yrigh t . An y u se o u t sid e o f t h e n a rro w b o u n d a rie s o f co p yrigh t la w is ille ga l a n d m a y b e p ro se cu t e d . Th is a p p lie s in p a rt icu la r t o co p ie s, t ra n sla t io n s, m icro film in g a s w e ll a s st o ra ge a n d p ro ce ssin g in e le ct ro n ic syst e m s. © Fra n z St e in e r Ve rla g, St u t t ga rt 20 19