Manlius Vulso, Gnaeus

The Roman Republican Triumph Before the Spectacle, ed. C.H. Lange and F.H. Vervaet, pp. 197-258, 2014

Study of Greek perceptions of Roman generals and statesmen in the second century BCE.

Working out the date of the battle of Magnesia ; 12 Nov. 190 BC = 19 Mart. 189(R) during the interregnum beginning that year. Rejects the tradition synchronizing the delay at the Hellespont with the Salian sacral month, repositioning the latter to Scipio Africanus' long stay at Elaia. Attributes the influence and endurance of the erroneous tradition to the historia Graeca of P. Scipio Africanus the augur and the influence of Scipiones pontifices maximi on the first, strictly annalistic, part of the Annales Maximi

Hsd, 1900

the magistrates of the roman republic

In: Lange, C.H. & Vervaet, F.J. (eds.) (2014) The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Suppl. 45) (Rome), 67-81, 2014

Modern scholarly discussion has concentrated on the question as to whether the Alban Mount triumph was a ‘real’ triumph or not: Mommsen, for example, prioritises the fact that these ceremonies are mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales and were thus by definition recognised as triumphs, perhaps even equal to the triumph proper. Many other scholars, however, disagree. This article seeks to reconsider the development of the Alban Mount triumph from the third century to the time of Augustus. It will be argued that the Alban Mount triumph developed from voices of protest into ceremonies that merited mention on the Fasti Triumphales. The Alban Mount triumphs of the past were retrospectively introduced into the triumphal list, even though it was celebrated by the virtue of the commander’s imperium and not officially sanctioned. Caesar’s ovation in 44 was the first to coincide with the Feriae Latinae, on the Alban Mount. The ovation was not celebrated on the Alban Mount, but in Rome: his entry into Rome was on returning (adventus) from the Feriae Latinae. Just as Caesar may well have invoked the exemplum of Marcellus’ ovation of 211, Young Caesar later thought it wise to mention Caesar’s ovation of 44 as the precedent for his own problematic joint ovation with Antonius in 40, listing them on the Fasti Triumphales. This intriguing decision continues to create problems of conceptualising the Alban Mount victory celebration.

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 360 Rome and the Seleukid East Selected Papers from Seleukid Study Day V, Brussels, 21-23 August 2015, 2019

Antiochos IV Epiphanes’s persecution of the Judaeans in the 160s BC is perceived as an enigma in Hellenistic history. The restrictions on the observance of Judaism seem to constitute the first known persecution of a people and its religion in its own land. The most popular theories state that the king himself was not the initiator of the attack on Judaism. If, however, we see this persecution not as an isolated event but in the context of his life, the event may make more sense. Antiochos IV’s hostage-ship in Rome in the 180’s BC as one of the provisions of the Treaty of Apameia structured his life and influenced his ambitions and policies. It was his special relationship with Rome that may be read into many events in his life including his rise to power, and the Day of Eleusis, and may help explain Roman actions after his death. As Goldstein suggested, Antiochos IV may have modelled his persecution of the Judaeans on one against the Bacchants in Rome and Italy when he was a hostage there. Antiochos could have learned a great deal about religious persecution as a means of defining a society and achieving greater power for the state. What primarily motivated Antiochos IV, as both Bringmann and Gruen have emphasized, was the assertion of power in a chaotic situation and so he responded to political instability in Judaea with a show of force that would resound throughout his huge and politically-restless kingdom.

During the middle Republic, boards of Roman colonial commissioners, tresviri coloniae deducendae, founded colonies throughout the Italian peninsula. The boards' composition suggests that there were several ways to create the commission beyond assumed senatorial appointment, including prearranged, cooperative boards or direct election of individuals. The commissioners each had a personal combination of motivations to seek a place on one of these boards, such as regional affiliations or the hope of increased clientele, political favor or economic resources. The combination of these perquisites establishes the colonial commission as a valuable, if optional, tool in aristocratic competition during the middle Republic.