Roman Triumph

Пількевич А.Л. Деструктивні процеси в системі військової організації Риму та формування ранніх елементів професіоналізації армії в ІІ ст. до Р.Х. // Етнічна історія народів Європи. 2015. №45. С. 17-20.

В статті проаналізовано ключові прояви кризи військової організації Стародавнього Риму. Запропоновано розширену хронологію витоків професіоналізації римської армії. Ключові слова: Римська республіка, військова організація, професіоналізація армії, ценз, легіони, тріумф.

In the article author analyzed main manifestations of the crisis of the military organization of ancient Rome. Extended chronology of the origins of the professionalization of the Roman army is
studied.
Keywords: The Roman Republic, military organization, professionalization of the army, census,
legions, triumph.

Among the most-dicussed findings of the past decades' excavations in the 'Valle del Colosseo' in Rome are the remains of an Augustan-time version of the 'Meta Sudans', one of largest monumental fountains of the city, situated below the north-eastern slope of Palatine Hill. While the symbolic message of the fountain's architecture and decoration have been well-explained in a series of recent studies as those of a triumphal monument (Apollo Agyieus = Apollo Actius), this article attempts to reconstruct the cultural symbolism of the fountain square in the urban life of Rome, thus shifting the view from the architect's intentions ('Baumeisterperspektive') to the cultural practices attested at this spot of the city, to which communal and imperial festivities (compitalia, religious processions) belong just as well as individual daily activties in urban traffic or private water supply.
The archeological record suggests that the fountain had some relation to the sacred precint of the Roman brass players ('aenatores Romani') across the street. That the activities (from training to religious performance) of musicians around this precint dominated the public connotations of the whole fountain square is demonstrated by the remarks of Seneca - who regards the Meta Sudans as a place of excessive instrumental noise - as well as Propertius, who envisions the area as a symbol of the antagonism of aetiological (Apollonian) and erotic (Dionysiac) poetry in his fourth book of elegies.

Many of the wars of the Late Republic were largely civil conflicts. There was, therefore, a tension between the traditional expectation that triumphs should be celebrated for victories over foreign enemies and the need of the great commanders to give full expression to their prestige and charisma, and to legitimize their power.Triumphs in the Age of Civil War rethinks the nature and the character of the phenomenon of civil war during the Late Republic. At the same time it focuses on a key feature of the Roman socio-political order: the triumph, and argues that a commander could in practice expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could also be represented as being over a foreign enemy, even if the principal opponent was clearly Roman. Significantly, the civil aspect of the war did not have to be denied.Carsten Hjort Lange provides the first study to consider the Roman triumph during the age of civil war, and argues that the idea of civil war as "normal" reflects the way civil war permeated the politics and society of the Late Roman Republic. -


Reviews

“The first comprehensive monograph on the Roman triumph in the momentous civil war era, this insightful and thought-provoking study is as much a study of a well-known but poorly understood aspect of late republican Roman political life as an alternative viewpoint on the historic transition from Republic to Empire. This original and readily accessible book much advances our understanding of one of the Roman aristocracy's foremost rituals in a transformative period and is bound to stimulate further debate and reflection.” –  Frederik J. Vervaet, Associate Professor of Ancient History, The University of Melbourne, Australia

“Carsten Hjort Lange's book is the first to tell the story of what happened to the triumph – Rome's highest military honor – in a long period of civil war. In doing so, he offers new answers to the urgent question of how societies end civil war and come back together as one. There is bold and confident argument throughout, culminating in a superb discussion of the triumph's development under the emperor Augustus and its foundational role in the establishment of imperial government.” –  Josiah Osgood, Professor of Classics, Georgetown University, USA

See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/triumphs-in-the-age-of-civil-war-9781474267847/#sthash.zJIWwL0U.dpuf

SEE PROMOTIONAL CODE!

This paper extends one published in 2006 where I addressed the question: can we estimate the proportion of coined gold and silver in Hellenistic times out of the total amount of available precious metals? There a rather coherent answer emerged from different approaches to the problem: only a small proportion (not more than 25%) of all the available precious metals was monetized. In this paper, on the other hand, I try to estimate the amount of gold in ancient Greece that was not converted in coins. Such an enquiry clearly entails large uncertainties. My focus is on the weights of extant Greek gold jewellery, the total sum of which I estimate to be c. 70kg (+/- 30kg?). When compared with the total weight of the great treasures of the period (Vergina, Thracian royal tombs, Georgia [Vani]: c. 25kg), this estimate seems reasonable. Other avenues for research are presented (providing still other estimates) for what appears to be a stimulating new perspective on the problem of metal availability and coinage, which will further help us to build a better and narrower framework for our speculations.

One of the great maxims of history is that it is written by the victors, and nowhere does this find greater support than in the later Roman Empire. Between 284 and 395 AD, no fewer than 37 men claimed imperial power, though today we recognize barely half of these men as 'legitimate' rulers and more than two thirds died at their subjects' hands. Once established in power, a new ruler needed to publicly legitimate himself and to discredit his predecessor: overt criticism of the new regime became high treason, with historians supressing their accounts for fear of reprisals and the very names of defeated emperors chiselled from public inscriptions and deleted from official records. In a period of such chaos, how can we ever hope to record in any fair or objective way the history of the Roman state?

Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire is the first history of civil war in the later Roman Empire to be written in English and aims to address this question by focusing on the various ways in which successive imperial dynasties attempted to legitimate themselves and to counter the threat of almost perpetual internal challenge to their rule. Panegyric in particular emerges as a crucial tool for understanding the rapidly changing political world of the third and fourth centuries, providing direct evidence of how, in the wake of civil wars, emperors attempted to publish their legitimacy and to delegitimize their enemies. The ceremony and oratory surrounding imperial courts too was of great significance: used aggressively to dramatize and constantly recall the events of recent civil wars, the narratives produced by the court in this context also went on to have enormous influence on the messages and narratives found within contemporary historical texts. In its exploration of the ways in which successive imperial courts sought to communicate with their subjects, this volume offers a thoroughly original reworking of late Roman domestic politics, and demonstrates not only how history could be erased, rewritten, and repurposed, but also how civil war, and indeed usurpation, became endemic to the later Empire.


CONTENTS:
Frontmatter
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Typographical Note
PART I
I: Usurpation, Legitimacy, and the Roman Empire
I.1: Why usurpation?: the problem of the imperial succession
I.2: 'This litany of manifest usurpers and rebellious generals': why had the imperial succession become so unstable by the third century?
I.3: 'The difference between a tyrant and a king is one of deeds, not of name': how was usurpation understood in the late Roman Empire?
I.4: 'Let these things go unspoken': usurpation and modern research
II: Usurpation, Legitimacy, and Panegyric
II.1: Known unknowns, and unknown unknowns: how to use panegyric as a source
II.2: 'In which I would tell many lies': who dictated the content of panegyric?
II.3: 'And would be viewed with favour by those who knew them to be such': panegyric, audience, and influence
II.4: Propaganda and power
PART II
III: A House Divided Against Itself
IV: 'At last Roman, at last restored to the true light of Empire': Dyarchy, Tetrarchy, and the Fall of the British Empire of Carausius
IV.1: Birthing the late Roman state: dyarchs, tetrarchs, and a new language of power
IV.2: Emperors and bandits: the British Empire under Carausius and Allectus
V: Tyranny and Betrayal: Constantine, Maximian, Maxentius, and Licinius
V.1: Constantine's usurpation: Constantine, Galerius, and Maximian
V.2: The tyrannus: Maxentius and the rewards of civil war
V.3: Notable by his absence: Licinius and the rise of the Constantinian dynasty
VI: Tyranny and Blood: Constantius, Constans, Magnentius, and Vetranio
VI.1: Smiling for the cameras: the sons of Constantine, 337-50
VI.2: The son of the father: Constantius the tyrant-slayer
VII: Usurper, Propaganda, History: The Emperor Julian
VII.1: The voice of a usurper: Julian's rise to power
VII.2: Bleaching the stains: Julian's sole rule
VIII: Panegyric and Apology: The Accession of Jovian and the Usurpation of Procopius
VIII.1: The need for victory: Jovian and the demands of imperial rhetoric
VIII.2: The enemy inside: Valentinian, Valens, and Procopius
VIII.3: 'He who sought rule for himself behind the cloak of a little boy': the usurpation of Valentinian II
IX: Dismembering the House of Valentinian: The Usurpation of Theodosius and the War with Magnus Maximus
IX.1: 'And nobly he made the vote his own': the usurpation of Theodosius
IX.2: Divided loyalties: the usurpation of Magnus Maximus
X: Crisis and Transformation: Imperial Power in the Fifth Century
XI: Conclusion: Those Made Tyrants by the Victory of Others
Appendix I: The Panegyrics
Appendix II: Quantifying Usurpation: Notes to Accompany Figure I.2
Endmatter
Bibliography
Index

This article analyses the major events that intervened during Appius Claudius Pulcher's career, notably his consulship in 143 BC and his censorship in 136 BC. Differently from the traditional opinion (which is based on Cassius Dio's account), here it is asserted that the campaign against the Salasses in Cisalpine Gaul (143-140 BC) is led by the consul with the approval of the senate, which even decides to consult the Sibylline Books in order to remedy the defeat suffered by the Romans. Then, Appius' final triumph, funded by himself and contested by his opponents, effaces his reputation as an imperator victus and, some years later, helps him to complete his cursus honorum with the censorship. This article, indeed, sets a relationship between the census figures of the 2nd century BC, their historical context, and the prior military fortune of the censors. Among the reasons that might explain the variations of census data in the 2nd c. BC, such a comparison shows how the wartime background and, perhaps, the personal reputation of the magistrates may affect the tendency of the incensi to register themselves at the census. In such a context, Appius' triumph may be considered also as a way to encourage citizen registration (preparatory to military recruitment) when the Numantine War puts Rome in serious trouble.

Augustus’ success in implementing monarchical rule at Rome is often attributed to innovations in the symbolic language of power, from the star marking Julius Caesar’s deification to buildings like the Palatine complex and Forum Augustum to rituals like triumphs and funerals. This book illumines Roman subjects’ vital role in creating and critiquing these images, in keeping with the Augustan poets’ sustained exploration of audiences’ role in constructing verbal and visual meaning. From Vergil to Ovid, these poets publicly interpret, debate, and disrupt Rome’s evolving political iconography, reclaiming it as the common property of an imagined republic of readers. In showing how these poets used reading as a metaphor for the mutual constitution of Augustan authority and a means of exercising interpretive libertas under the principate, this book offers a holistic new vision of Roman imperial power and its representation that will stimulate scholars and students alike. (forthcoming with Cambridge University Press, spring 2018)

As its name implies, Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11:1-11 is often interpreted as a satire of the Roman ritual of the military triumph. In contrast with the parades of Roman generals celebrating their conquest of imperial foes, Jesus' triumph hails the imminent arrival of God's kingdom. However, scholars have suggested that authorial intent is only half the equation of satire and we must also consider its wider reception by audiences other than those for whom the text was written. This article locates Jesus' triumphal entry among other mock triumphs of Republican and Imperial Rome, arguing that an unsympathetic (i.e. elite, Roman, and non-Christian) audience would be unlikely to see the scene as satirical or "subversive" in the manner scholars often suggest. Rather, they would likely have regarded the scene as more akin to depictions of slaves and other socially marginalized figures who were unaware of their own inability to achieve military excellence.

At the end of the Republic, the Romans regarded Triumph as the most magnificent ceremony and the status of the triumphant general as the highest attainable. This rite, officially awarded by the Senate, permitted the general to make a processional entry into the city of Rome and glorify his prestigious victory in front of his fellowcitizens. However, the critical analysis of sources reveals that the data related to Triumphs are unreliable. The first Triumph of Romulus was reconstructed by Augustus for ideological reasons : to emphasize the paralell between himself and the founder of the Urbs. Moreover, during the third century BC, families made up fake Triumps which were then integrated into annal and epigraphs. Such inventions mostly concern the period 322 BC -291BC  -because it was at this point in time that Triumphs became highly political as the Romans adopted the Theology of victory current in the hellenistic world. Military victory was what the nobilitas, the emerging Roman aristocraty, valued most and its celebration, the Triumph, became the occasion for asserting the hereditary dimension of victory and power. In the third century BC, the desire for Triumph intensified, which led the Senate to impose stricter rules and conditions. The resulting conflicts between the senate and the generals explains the emergence of new ceremonies such as the Ovatio and the Triumph on Mount Alban. Triumphant generals had a variety of ways of commemorating their victories and reminding the Romans of them, especially at election time. But the most efficient way was the building of temples financed by spoils of war. The adoption of new cults enabled them to celebrate divine protection, under which they fell, but also to integrate the memory of their victories in both the history and architecture of Rome. Indeed, close historical examination often reveals an interesting ‘coincidence’ between the dates of the consecration of temples and those of the Triumphs.

Justinian’s triumphal column was the tallest free-standing column of the pre-modern world and was crowned with arguably the largest metal equestrian sculpture created anywhere in the world before 1699. The Byzantine empire’s bronze horseman towered over the heart of Constantinople, assumed new identities, spawned conflicting narratives, and acquired widespread international acclaim. Because all traces of Justinian’s column were erased from the urban fabric of Istanbul in the sixteenth century, scholars have undervalued its astonishing agency and remarkable longevity. Its impact in visual and verbal culture was arguably among the most extensive of any Mediterranean monument. This book analyzes Byzantine, Islamic, Slavic, Crusader, and Renaissance historical accounts, medieval pilgrimages, geographic, apocalyptic and apocryphal narratives, vernacular poetry, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Italian, French, Latin, and Ottoman illustrated manuscripts, Florentine wedding chests, Venetian paintings, and Russian icons to provide an engrossing and pioneering biography of a contested medieval monument during the millennium of its life.

This examination of C. Duilius (consul in 260 BCE) and his achievements consists of a series of linked hypotheses, each suggested by direct evidence for Duilius' activities and contextualized by near-contemporary precedents (wherever possible) or relevant analogues from slightly later periods. Taken together, these hypotheses suggest that the elogium on Duilius’ rostral column may be read not only as an account of a capable commander who destroyed the myth of Carthaginian supremacy at sea, but also as an encomium on a generous benefactor to Rome’s citizenry. The inscription’s redactor successfully asserted Duilius’ preeminence among his peers, symbolized by the imagery and position of the rostral column commemorating his naval victory that was erected by order of the Senate and Roman people near the Comitium and Rostra. The cumulative evidence also suggests that the inscription’s reference to Duilius’ distribution of ‘naval booty’ to the Roman people involved the conversion of massive amounts of captured bronze, including the rostra removed from Punic ships, into “coinage,” i.e., the brick-sized aes signatum coins dated to c. 260 which bear naval imagery. Thus, by turning a mundane medium of exchange into a vehicle of propaganda through which his exploits and generosity could be ‘broadcast’, Duilius was able to reemphasize his new status as the first Roman celebrate a naval triumph. He could do this because the coins constituted a special triumphal/manubial issue under his authority, and he was therefore not subject to the constraints, real or implied, that kept Rome’s annual moneyers from issuing coins with personally significant types for another 125 years. His sudden emergence as a leading figure in Rome was rewarded with other honors, including a prestigious censorship in 258 and a perpetual personal honor, also bestowed by the SPQR, that allowed him to “triumph” to the end of his long life.

From the article's conclusion:
"Gaius Duilius has long been acknowledged as the first Roman to win a sea-battle, the first to celebrate a naval triumph, the first to be honored with a rostral column, and the first to present a gift derived from naval booty to the Roman people. Indeed, he came to be seen primarily as the man who set Rome on the road to maritime expansion and, ultimately, domination of the Mediterranean world. He was remembered also as the first (if not only) man to have a flute-player and wax-torch bearer accompany him home from feasts, as if he were perpetually triumphing. Now, we may add to Duilius’ list of firsts: he was the first politician to utilize Roman coinage to broadcast a new ideology of Rome’s (hoped for) naval greatness and dominance of the Mediterranean; he was also, it seems, the first Roman politician to use coinage as a medium for self-promotion, a century and a quarter before anyone would do it again."


Key words:

Gaius Duilius
Rostral Column
Naval Triumph
Naval Warfare
Battle of Mylae
Aes Signatum
Roman Navy
Roman Republic
Roman numismatics
Roman Topography
Punic Wars
First Punic War
Roman Epigraphy
Latin Epigraphy
Trireme
Quinquireme
Roman ships
Fasti Triumphales
Summi Viri
Octavian
Augustus
Forum Augustum / Augusti

A new fragment of the Severan marble plan of Rome allows a better knowledge of the Circus Flaminius. A series of discoveries documented during the excavations for the foundations of the Synagogue contributes to a better definition of the area. The discovery implies some further deductions about the Porta Triumphalis and the Triumphal procession.

The rule of Constantine I. (306–337 AD) marks a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman empire. On the threshold between Principate and Late Antiquity, the Roman monarchy experienced a profound social, political, religious, and cultural transformation. The book approaches the era focussing on the development of triumphal rulership. The attention lies on two main genera of historical sources that are analysed systematically: panegyrical texts (the Panegyrici Latini, but also the panegyrical figure poems of Publilius Optatianus and the Eusebius' tricennial oration) on the one hand and imperial coins and medallions on the other. Both Panegyrics and coins/medallions served as media of communicative interaction between the ruler and the ruled. On the basis of a close analysis of these sources, the book carves out fascinating tensions between tradition and innovation in the fields of military representation, court culture, religious change and social conflict. // —

Awards: Bruno-Snell-Preis (Mommsen-Gesellschaft); Walter-Hävernick-Preis (Numismatische Kommission) // —

Reviews: Latomus 75.2 (2016), 533—536 [Jean-Pierre Callu]; Journal of Late Antiquity 8.1 (2015), 235—237 [Noel Lenski]; KLIO 97 (2015), 360—372 [Frank Kolb]; Frankfurter Elektronische Rundschau 28 (2015), 63—71 [Raphael Brendel]; Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 5/6 (2014), 391—393 [Raimund Schulz u. Uwe Walter]; L'Antiquité Classique 83 (2014), 455—457 [Alain Chauvot]; Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 17 (2014), 1167—1177 [Horst Schneider]; Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 63 (2013), 377—385 [Kay Ehling]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 9 (2013), 332—333 [Bernhard Weisser]; Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 8 (2013), 314—315 [Karl Strobel]; H-Soz-Kult 8.4.2013 [Ulrich Lambrecht]. // —

"This is a formidable book. It demonstrates a remarkable mastery of a large and very complex body of sources. Wienand’s command of details as well as the big picture—the sweep of historical change over thirty-seven years—are heartily to be commended. In some ways, the book’s greatest virtue is also its main shortcoming. Wienand’s unflagging pursuit of precision, breadth, and depth can cause even the diligent reader to lose interest in—and track of—the argument. Overall, however, this is a very important book by a very accomplished young scholar.“
— Noel Lenski, in: Journal of Late Antiquity 8 (2015), 235—237

Abstract: According to Livy (33.27.3-5), in 196 BCE the proconsul Lucius Stertinius set up three arches (fornices) upon his return from the victorious campaigns in Hispania Ulterior: two were built in the Forum Boarium in front of the Temples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta, while the third one was erected in the Circus Maximus. The three fornices, funded from the (proceeds of the) spoils (de manubiis) of the war, were surmounted by one – or more – gilded bronze statues/standards (signa aurata). Stertinius’s arches are the earliest recorded examples of a monumental type destined to gain enormous success in the decades to come, especially from the Augustan age onwards. Yet unlike the two fornices in foro bovario, the single fornix of Stertinius in maximo circo has usually been treated by scholars in a most cursory and perfunctory fashion. Particularly interesting is the issue of the precise position of Stertinius’s arch within the Circus Maximus, especially in connection with the vexed question of the route of the triumphal procession in the Vallis Murcia. By a process of elimination, it will be concluded that this honorary structure was most likely located in the centre of the south-east curved end of Rome’s most famous arena for chariot racing. Thus it is conceivable that the Fornix Stertinii may have been a precursor of the triumphal arch dedicated to Titus in 81 CE, an arch built to commemorate the Flavian capture of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the ensuing triumph de Iudaeis (71 CE). ********** Riassunto: Secondo la testimonianza di Livio (33.27.3-5), nel 196 a.C. il proconsole Lucio Stertinio fece erigere tre archi (fornices) al suo ritorno dalle campagne vittoriose nella Spagna Ulteriore: due furono costruiti nel Foro Boario, di fronte ai templi della Fortuna e della Mater Matuta, mentre il terzo venne innalzato nel Circo Massimo. I tre fornices, finanziati con i proventi del bottino di guerra (de manubiis), erano sormontati da una o più sculture di bronzo dorato (signa aurata). Gli archi di Stertinio sono i più antichi esempi di un tipo monumentale destinato a conoscere un immenso successo nei decenni successivi, soprattutto a partire dall’età augustea. A differenza però dei due fornices in foro bovario, il singolo fornix di Stertinio in maximo circo ha ricevuto finora scarsa attenzione critica ed è stato trattato in maniera alquanto sommaria e superficiale. Di particolare interesse risulta essere il problema della posizione dell’arco di Stertinio all’interno del Circo Massimo, specialmente in rapporto alla dibattuta questione del percorso del corteo trionfale nella Valle Murcia. Procedendo per esclusione, si giunge alla conclusione che il monumento onorario era verosimilmente ubicato al centro del lato curvo di sud-est del gigantesco edificio per spettacoli. Sembra dunque lecito ipotizzare che il Fornix Stertinii possa aver preceduto l’arco trionfale dedicato a Tito nell’81 d.C., eretto per celebrare la conquista flavia di Gerusalemme (70 d.C.) e il successivo trionfo sui Giudei (71 d.C.).

Andrea Mantegna's much-admired nine-panel monumental cycle Triumphs of Caesar (1480s-1506?) celebrates imperial power by visualizing in meticulous detail a Roman triumph.  Though their precise historical subject remains elusive, the panels are replete with careful representations of authentic, known ancient objects.  At the same time, a triumphal column surmounted by a colossal bronze horseman that features prominently on one of the panels remains a historiographic mystery.  I argue here that the legacy of two intellectuals steeped in knowledge of Byzantium, Manuel Chrysoloras and Cyriac of Ancona, provided the inspiration for this prominent elevated horseman.  Memories of the triumphal column of Justinian, the Constantinopolitan signifier of empire, were instrumental in Mantegna's decision to populate his historical landscape of old Rome with a colossal monument.  Mantegna inserted the column into his monumental vision of ancient Rome to elide the historical space between the Old and the New Rome, and in doing so implicitly expanded the category of monuments redolent of Rome's imperial past.
Manteqna's antiquarian relocation of Constantinople's greatest imperial monument to Rome brought Manuel Chrysoloras's ideas full circle.  Chrysoloras elevated monuments of the past as worthy evidence.  Cyriac of Ancona made them worthy of admiration, demonstrating their value to antiquarian pursuits and alerting scholars to the enormous importance of visual and epigraphic evidence.  After the fall of Constantinople, the lost monument was granted new life in intellectual spaces between the real and the imagined, the antiquarian and the allegorical.  It took Andrea Mantegna to give this lost monument a place in history.  Taking the greatest and most cross-culturally significant Byzantine sculptural monument, he projected it back into the past of Rome and into a vision of Roman and Western history cherished by antiquarians.

This paper focuses on how Roman commanders, while still overseas and in the field, managed the capitulation of the defeated enemy in preparation for triumph. Lucius Mummius’ deeds in Greece as consul and proconsul after the sack of Corinth offer some of the best evidence concerning the delicate questions that faced Roman commanders when assembling the booty: what artworks should be removed and shipped to Rome (and Italy) as evidence of victory, and what should be left in situ in order to avert the ongoing resentment of the Greek communities. Several documents and anecdotes describe Mummius’ activity and convey different attitudes towards him. The role of these artworks in his political plans, both in Italy and overseas, reveal a complex pattern from which we can identify their key-role in the aftermath of the Achaean war (146 BC). First, he razed Corinth and punished a great number of Achaean and Beotian towns by removing some of their artworks. Then, he not only offered many artifacts as ornamenta to the temples in the urbs or to the local communities in Italy, but he also relocated some statues in Greece to benefit sanctuaries and cities which had supported Rome during the war. Moreover, Mummius usually abstained from removing the anathemata, although some he rededicated in his name to the gods. At the end of the article Mummius’ conduct is compared to Scipio Aemilianus’ policy of repatriation of anathemata stolen by the Carthaginians and to the use of Greek artworks by Octavian after Actium.

On the base of a passage of Claudianus the so called Arco di Portogallo on the via Lata-Flaminia in Rome is identified as an entrance in the Pomerium used by emperor Honorius. The arch is probably the imperial Porta Triumphalis built by emperor Domitian after Vespasian’s enlargement of the Pomerium. There is a ritual and ceremonial connection with the temple of the Fortuna Redux which – on the base of several reliefs – can be located immediately outside the new Porta Triumphalis.

Many of the wars of the Late Republican period were largely civil conflicts, and there was thus a tension between the traditional expectation that triumphs should be celebrated for victories over foreign enemies and the need of the great commanders to give full expression to their prestige and charisma, and to legitimate their power. Most of the rules and conventions relating to triumphs thus appear to have been articulated as the development of Roman warfare brought new issues to the Senate’s attention. This paper will examine these tensions and the ways in which they were resolved. The traditional war-ritual of the triumph and the topic of civil war have both received renewed interest in recent scholarship. However, attempts to define the relationship between them have been hampered by comments in the ancient evidence that suggest the celebration of a triumph for victory in a civil war was contrary to traditional practices. Nevertheless, as this paper will argue, a general could expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could be represented also as over a foreign enemy (the civil war aspect of the victory did not have to be denied); only after a victory in an exclusively civil war was this understood to be in breach of traditional practices.

This paper tries to make sense of the strange case of the victories of C. Carrinas over the Morini and the Suebi in 30/29 BC, for which a triumph was awarded to both him and Octavian. Although a strict interpretation of the augural law (represented e.g. in Cic. div. 2, 9 and nat. deor. 2, 76–77) regarded the promagistrates as deprived of the auspices, centuries of practice and the triumph of Carrinas himself show that proconsuls were considered as having valid military auspices. What the sources tell us, is that in many cases a proconsul could accept to be subordinated to the auspices of a consul, notwithstanding their parity of imperium. Therefore, what Octavian tried to do was to have the preeminence of his auspices recognised by the senate with the concession of a triumph for Carrinas’ victories. Nevertheless the assembly did not completely conceded to Octavian and had the independent position of the proconsul confirmed by the award of a triumph to him as well. Finally, the case of Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, subordinated to the auspices of Augustus during his proconsulship of Africa in AD 6–8, shows that Caesar’s heir finally found a way to obtain the superiority that he had sought at the end of the triumvirate.