Talk:Roman aristocracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unsourced

This article has no sources. Per WP:PROVEIT, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." ...thus, it's basically a candidate for deletion. This needs to be rectified ASAP by those who wrote the article originally. RobertM525 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Equestrian (Roman) to Equestrian order as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - unopposed move. Keith D (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hy there, I'm herewith proposing that we move this article towards Equestrian Order asap. The term and name Equestrian Order is used by current historians when they are talking about this class of ancient Roman society in general. It appears as such in several books.

The same logic can also be followed in 'Roman citizens' and 'Roman citizenship'. A Roman citizen had Roman citizenship. It was this citizenship that gave him rights and duties. Wikipedia has an article about Roman citizenship where the subject is presented in a general fashion, but correctly doesn't has an article about the individual 'Roman citizen'.

I hope that you can follow my reasons. If you agree (or don't) please give some feedback asap. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eques would be better, if acceptable as an English loan word. If not, equestrian order would be an improvement; Wikipedia has a preference for lower case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, a 'NO' to the first, a 'maybe' to the second. In most books that I have they write 'Equestrian Order' with capital letters, but here and there I have also found 'equestrian order'. I personaly like the capital letters-version better. Flamarande (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support equestrian order as an improvement on the current name as it is a more common English name than 'eques' and avoids the unnecessary disambiguator in the title. The second word should be lower case in accordance with WP:CAPS because equestrian order is not a proper noun. Equestrian order already redirects here anyway. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are in favour of 'Equestrian order'? I must point out that in my books they write both words either with capital 'Equestrian Order' or with minor letters 'equestrian order'. Other than that fine by me. It beats "Equestrian (Roman)" by a mile. Flamarande (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support "equestrian order" (the "E" is capitalized only because it starts a sentence or title). Station1 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok, my mistake. Flamarande (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for information the article would have a capital first letter due to technical restrictions in the software, though can be displayed in lowercase see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Keith D (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prefects, commanders, and admirals

The term "prefect" is a perfectly good and widely-understood English word that comes to us almost unchanged from the Latin praefectus. Translating praefectus to a less good (and more vague) English word (such as "commander"), is thus nonsensical.

Conversley, translating praefectus classis ("prefect of a fleet") to an exact modern naval rank ("admiral of the fleet") is equally nonsensical. Why not "admiral"? Or better still seeing from had many fleets operating at the same time, "vice-admiral" or "rear-admiral"?! Catiline63 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about "admiral of the fleet". That should have read just "admiral". My point is that if you are going to translate terms, it is not a good idea to use just the Anglicised version of the Latin term, but better to use a modern term that conveys accurately the Latin meaning. PS: You appear to have embarked on a rewrite of the text. Normal protocol is to first suggest changes on the Discussion page, not simply to go ahead uninvited. EraNavigator (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Prefect" is a term which means exactly the same in English as in Latin (which is no surprise). What does the English word prefect mean to you, if not something like "one placed in charge of a group by a higher authority"? Not only this but the word prefect/praefectus has massive implications for the equestrian order, particularly during the imperial era when prefects were equestrian appointments made by the emperor alone (and not by the state). The words "admiral" or "commander" are thus too all-encompassing as they incorporates all those appointed to military command, irrespective of whether done so by the emperor or by the state: prefects, legates, (pro)consuls, (pro)praetors, (pro)curators, military tribunes, duces, magisters. Only prefects alway belonged to the ordo equester while many of the other offices were open to members of the ordo senatorius By employing catch-all terms such as "admiral" and "commander", the unique nature of equestrian prefectures thus becomes lost.Catiline63 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is normal courtesy (and best practice) to propose changes on the discussion page, to give the main author (and indeed others) the chance to comment. Here is my response to your changes:

1. I used the term "senatorians" advisedly to cover everyone of senatorial rank (i.e. including the sons/grandsons of senators) in order to distinguish from "senators" who are the members of the Senate itself. I know it's not a pretty term, so if you can think of a better one, do use that. But we do need the distinction for clarity e.g. we can't talk of senators providing the military tribunes, since of course most of the latter were not (at least yet) members of the Senate

Only senators were of senatorial rank, irrespective of whether under the Republic or the Empire. The rank did not come with birth. Your contention - "I used the term 'senatorians'" (original research?) - that sons and grandsons of senators were also senatorial is wrong. The best Imperial example against this is Claudius, who until he was made consul by Caligula ranked only as an equestrian - despite his father (Nero Drusus) and grandfathers (Ti. Claudius Nero, a praetor; and Mark Antony being senators).

You also make a mistake of treating the Republican equestrian and senatorial orders as seperate. Until the late 2nd Century BC, all senators were also members of the equestrian order but not all equestrians were senators. Note that in 203, the censors attempted to eject each other from the equestrian order. In 179, Cato the Elder took the equus publicus from Scipio Asiaticus, also a senator. Senators were equites. Naturally, sons of senator who were not themselves senators were ranked as equites. The book you really need to refer to is H. Hill (1952) The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period. Westport, Connecticut, or, if you read French, one of Claude Nicolet's tomes.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Only senators were of senatorial rank, irrespective of whether under the Republic or the Empire." This is your only substantive critique of the text. (What is your authority for this statement?) However, it's definitely wrong in the imperial period. This was technically true of the Republic (although differentiation had already advanced significantly in the later Republic). But it's not true of the Empire, since it's clear from Augustus' legislation that Senators' sons and grandsons did have senatorial rank. A quote from Cambridge Ancient History Vol X p326:

"It is clear that Augustus' experiment formed part of a wider effort to exalt not just senators themselves, but also members of their families, whom he actually defined for the first time as a separate, superior "senatorial class"... Membership belonged to senators and their descendants to the third generation, plus wives."

If you're using the CAH as a source, please cite it in the article.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited it. See the references and citations under Talbert EraNavigator (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Senators' sons held senatorial rank, as evidenced by their right to wear the tunica laticlava (broad stripe). The young senatorians (sorry, that word again) who filled the position of tribunus militum laticlavius (no. 2 in the legion) were almost all not (yet) members of the Senate. The cursus honorum for senatorians was a stint in the vigintiviri (Committee of 20) at Rome, followed by at least a year as tribunus militum laticlavius followed by election as quaestor and membership of the Senate. If they were all of equestrian rank, they would have served as tribuni militum angusticlavii (narrow stripe) alongside the sons of equites. (Your use of Claudius as an example is not ideal: if he was indeed of only equestrian rank - I have been unable to confirm this (your source please?)- then it was probably because his father died when he was only an infant, preventing him from inheriting his father's rank on attaining his majority at age 14)

On Claudius, see Suetonius, Claudius 6.1-2.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

During the Republic, senators' sons were indeed equites. I don't get this wrong, as my text states that "During the Republic, the senatorial order did not exist". However, a "senatorial class" (as opposed to formal order) had already differentiated itself from the rest of the equites. In 218 BC, the lex Claudia limited the size of merchant ship that senators and their sons could own. At about the same time, 6 of the 18 equestrian centuries were separated and reserved for senators and their sons.

Having said that, I agree that "senatorians" is not a mainstream term, so I have replaced it in the text with "men of senatorial rank"

1. I find your opposition to the terms "commander" and "admiral" absurdly overplayed. These terms are perfectly clear in normal English. Your distinction between appointments made by the emperor or the State is mistaken: its the emperor or the Senate. But in any case, it's artificial, as in practice the emperor decided all the appointments, directly or indirectly. I dislike the term "magistrates" for the Republic's executive officers, as in English terminology a magistrate is a judicial official. Again, you are transliterating, rather than translating, Latin terms

First, the article is on Roman matters, hence you should use the terminology familiar to the field. Ancient historians regularly use the term magistrates, so for you to veer from professional terminology with you own preferred terminology is inviting criticism. "I dislike the term 'magistrates'": it's not your place to choose, I'm afraid! That the word "magistrate" is commonly meant in English as a judicial official is moot.

Second, appointments to "Senatorial" provinces were (officially), made by the Senate. Appointments to "Imperial" provinces were made by the emperor. The division may well have been a pretence, but the pretence was important to the Romans (just as under the empire, the Romans "pretended" that they did not live in a monarchy). While provincial governors all had the same duties, during the empire those in charge of senatorial (i.e. unarmed) provinces retained the good old Republican term "proconsuls", while those of imperial (i.e. militarised) provinces were termed legati pro praetore Augusti ("legates of the emperor with praetorian power").Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) The fact that many scholars use the term "magistrates" does not mean we are prohibited from using alternatives. I stand by my "executive Officers of the Republic" which is not only a far more precise description than magistrates, but also much more intelligible to a lay reader who has not had the benefit of a classical education. The aim is not to establish a new terminology, but just to explain, in plain modern English, what the Roman terms mean. Let me illustrate the point. Take the term praefectus cohortis: you would presumably transl(iter)ate this term as "prefect of a cohort", whereas I would say "commander of an infantry regiment". Which of the two translations gives the average reader a clearer idea of what praefectus cohortis means? Your translation adds no value, as it simply Anglicises the Roman terms without explaining them.

You mean your alternatives, coined, approved, and sanctioned by you? As with "senatorians" you have used terminology not recognised by the field. Magistrates is the terminology used by the field, and magistrates it should be. Why not push the practice and call consuls "presidents" and quaestors "finance officers"?. By all means have something like "Roman magistrates (executive officers of the government)" but to suppress accepted terminology because you dislike it - and then claim that your own term is more accurate! - is not how encyclopaedic reference works are made. Indeed it is original research and thus prohibited by wiki conventions.

BTW one transliterates when going from one alphabet to another. Thus στρατηγός -> 'strategos' is an example of transliteration. 'Strategos' -> general, commander, etc. is translation.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the terminology was not coined by me. I'm following (mostly) that used in the Penguin translation of Tacitus' Annales EraNavigator (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I would support the idea of having both versions: the "transliteration" followed by the explanation EraNavigator (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What page? Something like "magistrates (executive officers of the government)" will be acceptable. Also, you've again used the word transliteration incorrectly. One cannot transliterate between two languages using the same alphabet. "Magistrate" cannot be a transliteration "magistratus".Catiline63 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(2) I am aware of the distinction between senatorial and imperial provinces, which was largely one of form rather than substance. In any case, we don't need to discuss it in this article as both types were run by senatorial, not equestrian, governors. PS: you appear to confirm my point that whether the province was senatorial or not, the appointments were in reality all made by the emperor.

1. I don't see why we should not mention Pliny the Younger's relationship to the Elder.

I had no problem with stating his relationship to Pliny, as nephew. You stated that he was his son, without qualification. PY was adopted posthumously by PE, thus was his nephew at the time of the Vesuvius eruption. Curiously, in his letter to Tacitus, PY still refers to PE as his uncle, even though at the time of writing, it would have been also correct to call him father.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken.

1. The vigiles primary function, for which they were formed, was as a fire brigade - you have removed the fire function and inserted their subsidiary role as watchmen (not only at night, BTW). The main police force were the cohortes urbanae

The Vigiles (Lat: "ones who keep watch") were indeed established as a fire brigade, but their responsibilities were soon expanded, and they enjoyed was some cross-over with the duties of the cohortes urbanae. Wilfried Nippel (1995) Public Order in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, discusses the evidence of the duties of the Vigiles: Supervising building regulations, pursuing thieves and runaway slaves, police functions. Note also that the Vigiles were used by Tiberius in prefernce to the Urban Cohorts when he moved against Sejanus in 31.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but but this section is not a detailed discussion of the functions of equestrian-controlled corps, but just a list of them, with a brief explanation. For this purpose, it is sufficient to describe the vigiles as a fire brigade, as that was their primary role. However, I've added "and minor constabulary" to fire brigade

1. I have always seen Augustus' reign denoted as starting after his defeat of Antony at Actium in 30 BC. What is the significance of 27 BC?

Actium was in 31 (2nd September). The Augustan settlement of January 27, when the Senate effectively handed all executive powers to Octavian (and awarded him the honourific "Augustus"), is usally seen as the beginning of Principate.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Actium was in 31 BC. But Antony continued fighting after Actium and was not finally defeated until September 30 BC, when he committed suicide in Egypt. Augustus' reign is conventionally dated from when he and Agrippa returned to Rome in late 30 BC and were elected elected Consuls for 29 BC.

Again this sounds like original research and is plain wrong. Please site a source for 30 BC. If you've always seen the date as 30 BC, a reputable citation cannot be hard to adduce. The date of the beginning of the Empire/Principate is conventionally accepted as the Ides of January 27 BC, when, as part of the First Settlement, when the Senate awarded Octavian the title "Augustus" he claimed to have "restored the Republic". See the Augustus entry for background.

Consul (for the 4th time) he may have been in 30, but he did not "rule" as consul any more than he "ruled" as consul for the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd times (43, 33, 31). Agrippa was not consul in either 30 or 29, but was for the 2nd time in 28.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean his consulship was the decisive factor. What I meant was that 30 BC is when the Second Triumvirate came to an end and was replaced by Octavian's sole rule EraNavigator (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Without providing a citation that the reign of Augustus started in 30 BC - as opposed to the widely-accepted Jan 27 BC - your date remains original research. The Second Triumvirate was terminated in 33 BC, when their second 5-year term expired and was not renewed by the Senate.Catiline63 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, technically the triumvirate ended earlier. But the split rule with Antony did not - Augustus sole rule began in 30 BC, that is the reason for dating his reign from then. i'm looking for a citation EraNavigator (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Antony was declared hostis (enemy of the state) in 32, when the Senate voted for war against Cleopatra and he sided with her. As hostis, Antony had no official status and he and those who followed him were rebels whom it was the patriotic duty of any 'loyal' Roman to kill. From 32 to the establishment of the First Settlement January 27, the governance of Rome belonged to the Senate and Octavian.Catiline63 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got an authoritative citation: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus (2005) ed Karl Galinski. The blurb on the back states that Augustus' rule is "commonly dated 30 BC to 14 AD" . This must be so, because the defeat of Antony marked the moment when he became undisputed master of the empire. Your legalistic objections aside (and the so-called "settlement" of 27 BC was just empty posturing) the fact is that his sole rule (in reality, if not in legal theory) started in 30 BC EraNavigator (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Close but no cigar, the full quote is "the age of Augustus, commonly dated to 30 BC-AD 14". The "age" of Augustus is not the same as his "reign". You appear to have Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army at hand. Try looking at page 10. Alternately, Goldworthy's In the Name of Rome p.388.

Antony's defeat meant nothing, constitutionally. It was simply the defeat of a rebel who enjoyed no legally held powers within the state. It certainly did not mark the beginning of a "reign". The Settlement of 27, constitutionally and legally, marked the shift of power away from the Senate and toward the new Augustus. Ultimately, one can only go with what the Romans saw as the legal start of the Empire, not what you think. That is original research.Catiline63 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No use putting "sole rule" either, as Antony, upon being declared hostis in 32, wasn't a member of the state. Going by this criterion of yours, Octavian's "sole rule" began in 32.Catiline63 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. You have in some cases removed wording that is needed for clarity. The reason I said the quaestorship carried automatic life membership is to make it clear that membership was not just for the one year the quaestor held office. You also removed my description of senators as life peers, depriving the reader of the info that senators held office for life.

During the empire, there was no such thing as "automatic life membership" of the Senate. All appointments were, ultimately, dependent on the emperor. Thus neither automatic nor for life. Maybe "entitled them to a seat in the Senate" would be better wording.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're simply wrong on this one. Election as quaestor entitled you to life membership of the Senate. The catch was that in practice you neededthe emperor's permission to stand for election.

Which is what I wrote. Please read my suggested amendation.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Adlectio was most certainly based on censorial potestas, as was the power to remove senators from the roll for improper conduct (See Senatus in Tuft's Perseus project)

The emperors had censorial potestas but they were not themselves censors. (Apart from Augustus (3 times), Claudius (in 47-48), Vespasian/Titus (70-71) and Domitian (85?-96) specifically took up the title for its prestige value). Similiarly, the emperors enjoyed tribunician potestas but were not themselves tribunes. Ultimately though, the emperors, whose potestas outranked all other offices, could adlect and expel anyone at any time for any thing. Tiberius, for example, though never actually holding the office of censor, could, in 17, expel 4 senators as if he were censor. Similarly, adlections could be made by the emperor on a whim.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)"

We're getting a little into hair-splitting here. But I've modified the wording from "the emperor, in his capacity as censor" to: "the emperor, using the powers formerly belonging to the Censors"

That is correct. Remember that what you may regard as hair-splitting is actually quite important when it comes to writing a encyclopaedia entry which is, after all, intended as a work of reference!Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The governor of Judaea was called a procurator (Tacitus Annales XV.44: procuratorem Pontium Pilatum). Although it's possible that praefectus was used loosely in some periods, it's clear that procurator was the normal title for an equestrian governor. The only exception is Egypt, as you rightly pointed out, was run by a praefectus. Why have you removed the point that some equestrian provinces were sub-units? e.g. Judaea, whose procurator was subordinate to the senatorial governor of syria?

The title of the equestrian governor of Judaea at the time of Pilate (26-36) was Praefectus Iudaeae. Indeed, a partial inscription to Pilate stating his actual (not "loose") title exists: see Pilate Stone. The governor's title seems to have changed to procurator at some point during the reign of Claudius. Tacitus' reference to Pilate as procurator may be explained as an anachronism: he was writing c. 80, at a time when Judaea was governed by officials with that title. See P.L. Maier (1968) Sejanus, Pilate, and the date of the crucifixion. Church History 37: 3-13.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, he was called praefectus in the early Julio-Claudian period, but it's clear that for most of 200 years covered in this section, he was titled procurator. Since the other equestrian govs (except Egypt) were also called procurators, it's sufficient to use that term for all (except Egypt)

Then your choice of Pilate is a bad example. Maybe another biblical procurator - Porcius Festus?, Antonius Felix? - would be a better.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As you will have noticed, I removed Pilate's namr from the text EraNavigator (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. clarissime, not clarissimus is the correct Latin address for senators (vocative case)

Vocative case is used only if you as speaker, are actually addressing a senator. Which you're not, you writing about them, in which case use the nominative case. Compare "et tu, Brute?" (voc. case; Caesar talking to Brutus) to Brutus' actual name (nom. case).Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My wording was "senators were addressed as clarissime", so the vocative is appropriate, as that is how someone would actually call them. But let's not labour this trivial point. PS Caesar's exact words were not Et tu, Brute, which is a Shakespearan invention (I think). He really said Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi (which is interesting, because the last 3 words are all in the vocative)

The historicity of the Shakespeare quote was not my point. British MPs may be directly addressed as "My Right Honourable Friend", but their actual title is "The Right Honourable". You are not directly addressing the senators, so while saying "they were addressed as clarissime" (voc. case) is technically correct, their actual title was clarissimus or clarrissimus vir. Similarly, Augustus would have been directly addressed as Auguste, Brutus, Brute (voc. case) but it was not their names/titles, which are properly represented in the nom. case. You also seem to undermine your own logic by stating that equites were addressed as egregius: surely egregi (voc. case)?

Note also that there was more than one honourific for equestrian officers. Equites ranking as prefects were called perfectissimus ("most perfect"). Praetorian prefects were called eminentissimus ("most eminent").Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if you are going to mention the other titles in the text, you have to explain who they relate to- which I notice you haven't done. I put egregius only because that was the general address for equitesEraNavigator (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The curator aquarum was not responsible for the banks of the Tiber. That was the job of another official, the curator alvei Tiberis, a post held by our friend Pliny the Younger

The curatores aquarum (note "aquarum", "of the waters", not "of the aquaducts") did have some responsibilities concerned with the flow of Tiber. For example, when in 15 the river flooded, the curator Ateius Capito was tasked with "coercing the stream" ("coercendi fluminis") in cooperation with a certain L. Arruntius (possibly the curator alvei Tiberis). Please, it is important to remember that due to the Romans' predilection for "checks and balances", there was a lot of crossover in the duties of Roman offices. Very seldom was just one type of magistrate solely reponsible for something (the same phenomenon is seen above, with the crossover between the Vigiles and the Cohortes Urbanae).Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The above may be true, but this section is not a detailed discussion of the duties of equestrian officials, but just a list of the offices they held, with a brief translation. For this purpose, the present wording ("director of the City's water supply, in charge of aqueducts") is quite adequate. PS: you are wrong about aquarum, because an aqueduct was actually called an aqua e.g. aqua Claudia (Claudian aqueduct), so curator aquarum lit. means "warden of the aqueducts"

The Latin for aqueduct is aquaeductus (lit. "carry water"), "aqua" is water. "Curator of the aqueducts" is thus curator aquaeductarum and "curator of the waters" (i.e. of the Tiber and the aqueducts) is curator aquarum. Regardless, the point is moot. The office of curator aquarum was held by consulars, and was not an equstrian appointment. See R.H. Rodgers (1982) Curatores aquarum. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86: 171-180, who discusses the prior careers of these curators.Catiline63 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. On the number of praefecti praetorio, it seems we are both wrong. Under Augustus, there were 2, but after him there was normally only 1 (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Err, no I'm right 8o). More often than not the office was actually collegiate, between two. This was not, however, a strict rule and sometimes there was only one (though such practice cannot be described as "normal"). The holders of the prefecture for the early empire are quite well known; for the later empire, see L.L. Howe (1942) The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian. Univ. Chicago.Catiline63 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, having checked this, I accept your point. I've changed the text to "normally a pair, but sometimes just one or even 3"

Having said all that, you have made 2 or 3 useful points. EraNavigator (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Recognitio Equitum

Is there a source stating that the recognitio equitum was abandoned after the Social War (i.e. after 88 BC)? Plutarch (Pompey 22.4-6) describes the recognitio conducted by the censors of of 70-69:

"It is customary for a Roman knight, when he has served for the time fixed by law, to lead his horse into the Forum before the two men who are called censors, and after enumerating all the generals and imperators under whom he has served, and rendering an account of his service in the field, to receive his discharge. Honours and penalties are also awarded, according to the career of each. At this time, then, the censors Gellius and Lentulus were sitting in state, and the knights were passing in review before them, when Pompey was seen coming down the descent into the forum, but leading his horse with his own hand. When he was near and could be plainly seen, he ordered his lictors to make way for him, and led his horse up to the tribunal. The people were astonished and kept perfect silence, and the magistrates were awed and delighted at the sight. Then the senior censor put the question: "Pompeius Magnus, I ask you whether you have performed all the military services required by law?" Then Pompey said with a loud voice: "I have performed them all, and all under myself as imperator." On hearing this, the people gave a loud shout, and it was no longer possible to check their cries of joy, but the censors rose up and accompanied Pompey to his home, thus gratifying the citizens, who followed with applause".Catiline63 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant in the period after the Social war, not necessarily immediately after it. I'll amend the text accordingly

EraNavigator (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Praefectus annonae

The page on the praefectus annonae states that they were of praetorian rank, hence the appointment was senatorial, not equestrian.Catiline63 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

CAH says it was an equestrian post (Vol X p. 341) EraNavigator (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Praefecti urbis Romae

What is the source on these being equites? For example, Statilius Taurus (16 BC- AD 14) and L. Piso (14-32) were consulars.Catiline63 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood theb sentence. It states that praefectus urbi was a senatorial post. EraNavigator (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The whole para consisted of one 5-line sentence, which befuddled me. I've broken it into 3 sentences, corrected the full title of the prefect of Rome: praefectus urbis Romae (according to the spelling in the PLRE, not to the wiki site - praefectus urbi), and clarified a bit on the the Urban Cohorts being the only armed force in Rome apart from the PG. Remember the Vigiles, and that Severus' legio II Parthica was stationed just outside Rome for maybe a decade or so.Catiline63 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Praefectus urbi is correct, as praefectus (from praeficere) takes the dative, not genitive, case e.g. praefectus praetorio not praefectus praetorii EraNavigator ref: Tacitus Annales VI.10 NB your "clarification" of the sentence does not help much: there is a verb missing and I don't see that "inferior" is a better term in this context than "lower-ranking". The Vigiles were not, as I understand it, an armed force in the sense of being equipped with the full armour and weapons of regular soldiers, whereas the cohortes urbanae were. Again, I don't think "main police force" is a more accurate description of their role than "public order guards": the latter was their exact function, which was to deal with popular disturbances, riots etc and to escort and protect officials. To call them a "police force" carries modern connotations such as investigative functions which are not appropriate.

The legio II Parthica is a red herring: it was outside Rome and not there long enough to warrant a mention in a section covering 200 years. I am going to have another go at rephrasing this sentence. EraNavigator (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tacitus should not be seen as the final authority on Roman administrative titles, as "procurator" Pilate shows. Praefectus urbi/urbis Romae is well attested as the correct full title of the prefect of Rome, with PVR as the common abbrevation (just as COS. and PR.PR. are abbrevaitions for consul and praetorian prefect, resp.). See a PLRE index for full sources and holders of the post of PVR. On whether urbis or urbi is to be preferred: a quick look at the papers on jstor shows that the former is preferred (84 instances) over the latter (74 instances). PLRE also goes for the former. Catiline63 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin.

Praefectus Urbis Romae

3d nom. sing. 3d gen. sing. 1d gen. sing.

Prefect Of the city Of Rome

Praefectus Urbi Romae

3d nom. sing. 3d dat. sing. 1d gen. sing.

Prefect To the city Of Rome

Both are valid, but as I've said, the first is preferred.

Dative case is the "to" case, not the "of" case.Catiline63 (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Praefectus praetorii would mean (praetorius being the singular, and praetorii the plural, of a senator of praetorian rank).Catiline63 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't need lectures on Latin grammar, seeing as I got an A at Latin "A-level" and a Distinction at "S-level" (and this in the days when you actually needed to know the language in order to pass!). You, on the other hand, evidently have no more than a superficial understanding of the language. Praefectus praetorii would not mean "prefect to those who had been praetors" (that would be praefectus praetoribus - praetores is 3rd declension, or praetoriis if you mean ex-praetors). The word in question here is praetorium, meaning the commander's headquarters building in a Roman camp, and, by extension the military command itself. Praefectus praetorio means literally "prefect to the headquarters". As I explained above, the verb praeficere (= "to put in command of"), from which praefectus derives, takes the dative case, which is why it's praefectus praetorio and not praefectus praetorii (in the genitive).

That is why the title is praefectus urbi (urbs in the dative) and not urbis (in the genitive). Furthermore, until the establishment of Byzantium as the second capital of the empire, there was only one Urbs, Rome itself, which is why the title did not include Romae during the Principate: Urbs meant the City of Rome. Tacitus is not the only one to call it praefectus urbi, Suetonius does also (e.g. Nero 7) as well as the Historia Augusta (e.g. Pertinax 3), which was written in the 4th c. Also several inscriptions e.g. CIL III.550. What you have done is take a late empire title (from PLRE) and transpose it to the Principate. After Constantine, there wwere two Urbes, so Romae had to be added to distinguish from Byzantium (which presumably had its own prefect). I cannot account for the use of the genitive case, that may be a late Roman usage or a mistake by PLRE editors. EraNavigator (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC) PS: I challenge you to find a single Principate source, literary or epigraphic, that does not call this office praefectus urbi. If you google "praefectus urbis Romae" you will get a short list of items, all dating from ca. 380 onwards. Conversely, "praefectus urbi" gets you a huge list with dates from all stages of the Principate. Als the Historia Augusta (Pertinax 3) EraNavigator (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Praetor is indeed 3rd decl. (masc.) singular, but the word I was using, Praetorius (an ex-praetor), is 2nd decl. (masc.) singular; praetorii being the plural. Hence adlectio inter praetorios is "adlected into the (ranks of) the ex-praetors". The same rule applies to ex-quaestors and ex-censors. Your first translations are thus wrong, as the declension is incorrect. (Yes, my first translation was wrong as I mixed the singular and plural.) I have no arguement with your translation of praefectus praetorio (indeed also 3rd decl.), but then I never did anyway.

Re PVR: Point conceded. Praefectus urbi (prefect for the city) does seem to be the version used to up to Constantine, while praefectus urbiS Romae (prefect of the city of Rome) seems to be used only in a post-Constantinian context. The case in the latter example is not a mistake on the part of the PLRE as a quick search on jstor shows. As an aside, I wouldn't use the SHA for the proprieties of titulature!Catiline63 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NB: I've now established that the title was praefectus urbi for the whole imperial period i.e. also beyond Constantine and into the 5th c. and beyond (see Petronius Maximus inscription and Digest I.12 of the Corpus Iuris Civilis 6th c). The praefectus urbis Romae form comes from a single original document, the Notitia Dignitatum, a manual of public offices drawn up (for its Western part) in ca. 425. The Romae was, as I mentioned before, to distinguish from the praefectus urbi of Constantinople. The genitive case, in all likelihood, is a spelling mistake made by one of the many medieval monks that copied the document over the centuries (the oldest extant manuscript of the Notitia dates from the 14th c.) This is consistent with several other spelling mistakes in the document e.g. saggitarii for sagittarii (archers). EraNavigator (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tacitus passage on Egypt (Ann. II.59) could be read as "prominent senators and knights" (as per Penguin Classics translation) rather than "all senators and prominent knights" - the adjective inlustribus could relate to both. However, I will leave it as you put it, since you've backed it with a citation: but I've removed "all" from senators just in case EraNavigator (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Loeb translation gives "all senators or Roman knights of the higher rank". A translator's note on this last clause reads "men of the type of Maecenas and Sallustius Crispus, possessed of senatorial census, but remaining within the equestrian order by choice". Such men may also be found in Suet., Claudius where the emperor, as censor, attempts to force them into the Senate against their will.Catiline63 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Mommsen... 27 BC redux

From A History of Rome Under the Emperors p.81, on the First Settlement of Jan 27, as part of which Octavian became Augustus and Princeps:

"The Princeps.

The new order was the 'restored commonwealth' (res publica restituta), as Augustus styled it, a Republic with a monarch at its head".

Dio uses the first half of Book LIII to explain the constitutional changes brought about by the Settlement, and concludes with "in this way the power of both People and Senate passed entirely into the hands of Augustus, and from his time there was, strictly speaking, a monarchy" (LIII.17.1). He then goes on to explain the nature of the emperorship before reiterating "in this way the government was changed at that time for the better". (LIII.19.1)

Thus Augustus' rule - the Principate (Princeps was a new title also) - began in 27. Shall I adduce more refs or does that suffice? 8o)Catiline63 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy any of the above. In 27 BC, as I understand it, Augustus gave up his formal command of provinces and armies and returned them to the Senate, the exact opposite of taking monarchical powers. If you place so much emphasis on the formal establishment of his authority, then it could much better be argued that the Principate began in 23 BC, when he assumed proconsular-in-chief, tribunician and censorial powers. My point is that all these constitutional manoeuvres were actually irrelevant. The fact is that, whatever the legal position, he became sole master of the empire after defeating Antony in 30 BC, through his control of the army. CAH also dates his rule from 30 BC. I suggest we follow suit and that you drop your fixation with 27 BC. EraNavigator (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) PS: Augustus' set-up was nothing like a monarchy in the medieval sense, of a hereditary crown ruling by divine right. It was far closer to the dictatorship-for-life (dictator perpetuus) assumed by Augustus' grand-uncle Julius Caesar. In fact, Augustus' set-up was the same as Caesar's in all but name EraNavigator (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a point of "buying" anything. Augustus became so in 27, when his powers were offically formalised and the res publica was divided into those provinces under senatorial control and those under his direct control (governed through legati). That he had power before 27 is irrelevant, nor am I arguing against it; but just as Napoleon, as First Consul (1799-1804) is not considered the "ruler" of France (his coronation was in 1804), Augustus is not considered the "ruler" of Rome before 27. Note also that future emperors would date their rule from their proclamation (by the Senate or the soldiers) as Augustus, not (for example) from their attainment of tribunician potestas or accession to Caesar. Following the Romans' own convention, ancient historians conventionally date the beginning of Augustus "rule" as the day the Senate awarded him the name. I've referenced verbatim Mommsen and Dio (a Roman senator for crying out loud), can you do the same in arguing for 30. Please also note that the "age of Augustus" and the "rule of Augustus" are not synonymous (in much the same way that the "age" and "rule" of Napoleon are not synonymous). Catiline63 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What equites did.

Just a note: While the article goes into great detail on the organisation of the equestrian order and their entitlements, I'm a bit concerned that apart from the brief reference to the lex Claudia, there's very little on their business and merchantile activities as publicani and negotiatores. If I have the time, I will attempt to remedy this somewhat, but it'll have to wait till I've ploughed through H. Hill and J.H. D'Arms... Catiline63 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you expand this section, I suggest that you do not get into too much detail. An extra paragraph on the publicani will do. We don't want to unbalance the article. EraNavigator (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The knights continued to be called eques Romanus throughout. At some stage in the Principate, they acquired the right to be addressed by the honorific egregius, in the same way that an ambassador is styled "His Excellency", and a knight of England "Sir". EraNavigator (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to follow your example.Catiline63 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Censors and adlections

Having looked at this more closely, I have established that my original wording, that adlectio to the Senate was conducted by emperors in their capacity as Censors, was essentially correct, with very few exceptions, during the 1st century. Thereafter, emperors appointed new members to the Senate directly. Here are the relevant quotes from CAH Vol XI pp215-6:

"During his censorship, Claudius had been the first to include in the ranks of the Senate individuals who did yet belong to the ordo senatorius... Vespasian followed suit on a large scale to fill the empty seats in the Senate due to the numerous executions under Nero and losses in the civil war. In a few cases, Vespasian carried out such an adlectio before holding the censorship... In both cases, the decisive factor would have been the immediate necessity to fill militarily important positions with trustworthy men. The great mass of adlectiones, however, took place during the censorship... When Domitian assumed the title of censor perpetuus, the censorship in its old form became no more than a sham. Previously, the opportunity to appoint new members had been tied to the period of tenure of the censorship. Now it was regarded as a permanent right of the emperor and after Domitian was no longer even identified as a specifically censorial right."

I have therefore amended the relevant wording as follows: "Direct appointment by the emperor (adlectio), normally in their capacity as censors during the 1st century and directly thereafter. This was, however, rarely granted except when Senate numbers were severely depleted e.g. after the Civil War of 68-9 when Vespasian's censorship saw large-scale adlectiones" EraNavigator (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not "normally in their capacity as censors", but "sometimes as censors, usually only with censorial power". By you wording, adlections would predominantly only have been made in 4 years between 19BC and AD 85: Hence 47-48 (Claudius and L. Vitellius censors), and 70-71 (Vespasian and Titus). Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, though possessing censorial potestas never held the office itself. The analogy of their holding of tribinician power, though not actually being tribunes, is valid.Catiline63 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing

As a general point, I am not happy with your re-wording the text just for its own sake, or to satisfy your personal preferences. It seems to me that unless the new wording is a evidently superior in factual accuracy, clarity or concision, you should leave the existing text well alone. All too often, your revisions have resulted in less accuracy, and also verbose and less fluent prose. EraNavigator (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Me istorum nihil credere (to quote M. Aemilius Lepidus, cens. 179-8). I shan't question the point of having a detailed account of the death of Pliny.Catiline63 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacus Curtius

The article currently says that the picture is of a Roman eques. However, as it is uncertain whether the horseman depicted is Roman (Marcus Curtius) or Sabine (Mettius Curtius), all that you can say is that it may be be a Roman - and could equally be a Sabine. Even the Romans didn't know the nationality of the Curtius whose name the lake bore.Catiline63 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely the Sabine, who got lost in the swamp (and gave his name to it), not the Roman who sacrficed his life for the public good when an earthquake opened a deep crevasse where the swamp had been in 362 BC. But this is beside the point. The image was made in ca. 150 BC, so it shows a Roman eques as he would have looked then, not hundreds of years before. EraNavigator (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman depictions of foreigners were never made to look like Romans - they were, after all foreigners and not worthy to be shown as Romans. Irrespective of when producted, a Roman depiction of a Sabine would have looked like a Sabine. No doubt a Roman cavalryman and a Sabine cavalryman looked similar, but reference should be made to Curtius' 'Sabinity'.Catiline63 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

.

Sorry, but you're talking nonsense on this one. The Sabine supposedly existed in the Roman kings era, some 400 years before this image was sculpted. The Roman, who is datable (Livy VII.6) and probably historical, existed some 200 years before. The image simply represents a knight wearing the typical equipment of the mid-2nd century BC, in the same way as medieval images of classical themes show the Romans/Greeks wearing medieval armour and dress. EraNavigator (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Livy (VII.6.6) states that the truth behind the naming of the lake is uncertain, despite admitting but the latter story (M. Curtius, in 362 BC) is the better known. Note: not because latter stories are more likely to be true. In light of the historian's uncertainty, your confidence is striking! Indeed, the antiquarian Varro, a specialist in the arcanities and obscurities of Roman institutions, gives a third version.

Nor were the Romans as loose in their depictions of others as were medieval artists. Foreigners were depicted as foreigners. There's no reason to believe that the Romans of the 2nd century didn't know what their predecessors looked like. Sabine armour may well have been preserved in familial and public spoila (war trophies), as was Etruscan and Samnite armour. Also, coin evidence from the late Republic shows that they were aware of the styles of the regal period and early Republic. Thus portraits of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Marcius, L. Brutus, Servilius Ahala, and the Sabine T. Tatius. Anyway, even if the relief does show a horseman in 2nd century equipment, he would have been depicted as a non-Roman of the time (Etruscan, Samnite horseman?).Catiline63 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) By 150 BC, Sabines had all been full Roman citizens for over a 2 centuries, and Etruscans military confederates of the Romans for the same period. By this time, Roman and Italian confederate equipment was almost certainly standardised. (2) Compare the Lacus Curtius image with the other images of cavalry: they are virtually identical. On the other hand, Polybius states that Roman cavalry before "Hellenisation" (which happeneed ca. 300 BC) was unarmoured. EraNavigator (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(3) The Lacus Curtius must be named after the Sabine, because by 362 BC, the swamp (lacus) had long since been drained to make space for the Roman Forum. Livy himself accepts this in I.13.5, contradicting what he says in VII.6. Most likely the Roman Curtius volunteered to sacrifice himself because he shared the Curtius name (and, no doubt, claimed descent from the Sabine). In any event, the relief clearly shows the Sabine, as his horse is entering water, not plunging into a crevasse. EraNavigator (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Military confederates" (socii) were not citizens; they retained their own customs and government until full citizenship was granted and they became Roman. Hence the Samnites and their allies among the south Italiac peoples did not become Roman citzens until after the end of the Social War (88 BC); the far north of Etruria in 49 BC.

Livy accepts what exactly at I.13.5? He states only that "as a reminder of this battle they gave the name of Lacus Curtius to the pool where the horse of [Mettius] Curtius first emerged from the deep swamp and brought his rider to safety". Livy does not contradict himself at VII.6; he gives the story of M. Curtius, reminds the reader of the alternate (Mettius) tradition which he has already recounted, then concludes that the truth of the matter is not known for sure. Of the two, the later story is unsatisfactory because, as you observe, M. Curtius is described as propelling himself into a gaping chasm, not water/swamp.

(Incidentally, you seem to vacillate between believing the two versions, thus "The Roman, who is datable (Livy VII.6) and probably historical, existed some 200 years before (the relief)".)

The fact remains that the relief is a later Roman representation of a individual who was a foreigner. I suggest slightly changing the legend to "Although Mettius Curtius was a Sabine, the image likely portrays the equipment of a Roman knight at the time it was made, ca. 150 BC."

We don't need the "although Curtius was a Sabine", as we have already stated that- but I'm happy with adding "likely". I know all about the socii (I wrote that article also). Not all the confederates had to wait till the Social War to get citizenship. The Sabines and Campanians (and several others tribes) were Roman citizens by 300 BC. NB I am not vacillating between the 2 versions, you are. I've said all along that the Lacus is named after the Sabine, as it has to be, because by the time the Roman guy leapt into the crevasse, there was no swamp: it was drained when Rome became a unified city in ca. 625 BC according to the archaeology. Before that, Rome was a group of hilltop settlements. The area between the Palatine, Capitoline, and Caelian hills, now the Roman Forum, was a large swamp. The point of the story is that one of the hills was occupied by the Sabines, and Curtius was trying to reach it after raiding the Roman-controlled Palatine, by crossing the marsh directly instead of using causeways that were doubtless guarded by the Romans. In later times, long after the swamp was gone, a small well-like structure in the Forum (which has been excavated and where the relief was found) was left to preserve the memory of the Lacus Curtius.

Having said that, it's quite possible that the earthquake incident also happened. But by then, there had been no swamp for 300 years, just the well was known as the Lacus Curtius. The earthquake apparently opened up a large crevasse where the well was and the Roman guy volunteered as a human sacrifice to appease the gods (presumably the Romans then filled in the crevasse). But it was not he who gave his name to the Lacus - it's almost the other way round. He gave his life because the Lacus carried his name already. The fact that the monument found at the site clearly depicts the Sabine (it's clearly a swamp he's entering, with reeds and water), not the Roman, is ample evidence that Livy I.35 and not VII.6 is correct. EraNavigator (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But, I never argued that it wasn't the Sabine.

Where the Lacus was:

Livy, I.13.5: Implies the Lacus Curtius was named after the spot in the Forum where Curtius' horse emerged onto solid ground; hence not all of Forum was marshy.

Livy, VII.6.1: In "the middle of the Forum" ("forum medium").

Dion. Hal., II.42.5-6: Has the battle on dry ground in the Forum, with Curtius backing into it "being about the middle of the Roman Forum".

Val. Max., V.6.2: "In the middle of the Forum ("in media parte fori").

Plut., Romulus 18.3: "It happened, too, since the river had overflowed not many days before, that a deep and blind slime had been left in the valley where the Forum is now."

Zonaras, VII.25: "The level land between the Palatine and the Capitoline".

You can look up Varro, Lingua Latina V.148-149, Pliny, Hist. Nat. XV.78, Festus, 49, and Orosius, III.5 for any further topographical clues.Catiline63 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, a small point on the Campanians: Many of the Campanian/Oscan peoples were not full citizens even in 91 - it's what the Social War was all about.

Second, don't read too much into Roman explanations for toponyms. They had a remarkable habit for making up feasible sounding personal names, associating them with pre-existing place names, and treating them as historical personalities. Hence the story of Sp. Maelius to explain the Aequimelium, the Capitoline being named after the detatched head of a man called Olus ("caput Oli") that was found on the hill, the Tiber after the Alban king Tiberinus who fell into it - even Romulus was likely made up just to explain why the city was called Rome (if one does not believed the alternate version that had Roma as a female companion of Aeneas). Personally, I doubt either Mettius or Marcus Curtius actually existed and were made up well after their supposed eras to explain the long-forgotten reason why the Lacus Curtius was called the Lacus Curtius. The existance of 3 completely seperate traditions means that someone was making up stories... Anyway, that's beside the point...Catiline63 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Paestum

"It is likely that the change from light to armoured cavalry (if it happened at all) took place in the period 350-300 BC, as a tomb fresco of that time from Paestum shows a Samnite horseman wearing Greek-style equipment". Can this be referenced? At the time, Paestum was a Lucanian city, not Roman. Before that it had been Greek. It became Roman in 273 BC. Catiline63 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the fresco was Roman (it's no doubt Lucanian, as you say). What I'm saying is if the Samnites had armour by this time, it's likely the Romans did too, as they were fighting them in this period. Read the rest of the para. Goldsworthy says the image is from the Art archive of the Museo Archeologico of Naples. The Paestum tomb murals were published in: Pontrandolfo & Rouveret Le tombe dipinte di Paestum (1993)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EraNavigator (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Spolia opima

Spolia opima were awarded only to Roman commanders (and only those who were not subject to a superior commander's imperium) who had killed an enemy commander in combat. Officers subordinate to another's imperium could not claim them. Hence in 29 BC M. Licinius Crassus was denied the spolia opima because, although holding proconsular imperium it was technically subordinate to that of Octavian.

According to Roman tradition, the spoils were won only thrice: by Romulus (king), A. Cornelius Cossus (consul, in 428 BC), and M. Claudius Marcellus (consul, in 222 BC), all for killing an enemy king in combat. Only the instance of Marcellus may be considered historical.Catiline63 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) PLINIO PRAEFECTO is in the dative of possession. As I recall from my schooldays, liber est mihi (literally "the book is to me") means "the book is mine". Romans normally used this construction when putting their names on pieces of their property, not the genitive case (an example are some early Roman coins, the carry the legend ROMANO = "belonging to the Roman"). It could also be a dedication, "to Pliny", as you suggested, but in this context "property of Pliny" seems more likely, as it was prob. inscribed to distinguish the bridle from other officers' where it was hung in the regimental stables. What it CANNOT be is "from Pliny". PS: the fact that the inscription is roughly made, by punching small holes into the metal, supports the "property of" thesis, as a dedicatory inscription by the silversmith would have been much more professional

(2) Aulus Cornelius Cossus was NOT Consul when he slew Lars Tolumnius, but a mere military tribune (the army was under the command of a Dictator at the time) Livy IV.19. Nevertheless, his spoils were hung in the temple of Jupiter Ferentinus. There was some confusion about the rules of spolia opima, as discussed in Livy IV.20. Varro stated that it could be won by any soldier who killed the enemy leader in battle. Furthermore, M. Licinius Crassus was the C-in-C when he slew the Bastarnae king: as proconsul, he had full consular imperium of the forces in his province and it seems his denial was due to Augustus' policy of restricting the highest honours (also full Triumphs) to members of the imperial family. I think there were two uses of spolia opima: the loose term, meaning the slaying of the enemy leader in battle by any soldier or at least any officer. And the strict term, meaning only such spoils as were granted permission to be dedicated in the Temple of Jup. Fer.

(3) Although you were right to raise the factual point about the spolia opima, your revision of the para as a whole has definitely not added value. It is disjointed and less readable and informative while losing the point that equites were striving to emulate Romulus, whether or not they could technically claim spolia opima. I therefore propose to restore the original wording, with some modification. EraNavigator (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Crassus' claim to the spolia was denied because he fought under the auspicia of Octavian; as I said, though he was a proconsul his imperium was subject to Octavian's higher authority. Triumphs - which could be held by any with imperium - were not restricted until after 19 BC, when L. Cornelius Balbus was awarded the "non-imperial" triumph.

Regarding Cossus, there are three dates recorded by the sources: 437 (tr. mil), 428 (cos.), and 426 (tr. mil. cos. pot). For the multiple sources see Broughton Magistrates of the Roman Republic vol 1 pp.59, 65, 66. Dionyius and Livy are the only ones to go for 437, although as you note, Livy is uncertain. If Livy is quoting "all previous historians", as he avers, then those historians do not appear to have been followed by later writers on the matter. According to Augustus, Cossus was consul when awarded the spolia: it was inscribed on the corslet of Tolumnius in the temple. Indeed, the fact that Livy quotes Augustus illustrates a major failing of Livy's historiographic technique: he never troubled himself to view primary sources, in this case, to the temple to see Cossus' dedication for himself! (the point is also made by Walsh Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods) Sure, Augustus may have had motives for restricting the spolia, but in doing so he referred to a dedication on a public monument. Note also that at IV.20.11, Livy reverses his opinion and positively states that Cossus WAS consul when the spolia were won! The editor's (B.O. Foster's) note in the Loeb edition suggests that this paragraph was a later addition by Livy, an amendment of his previous erroneous assertion that Cossus was tribune. Cf Niebuhr, Rom. Gesch. II.517 for the same observation.

Hence the question comes down to the quality of the evidence - Cossus' public dedicatory inscription or Livy, whose opinion of Cossus as tribune is not followed by other writers, indeed he changed his mind and later concluded that Cossus was consul.

Your opinion on there being two grades of spolia opima is unsupported by the evidence and appears to be OR.12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Catiline63 (talk)

Right, I have now checked this out thoroughly. In response to your points:

(1) Livy does NOT reverse himself by accepting that Cossus was Consul when he won the spolia opima. On the contrary, he says that Cossus is recorded as Consul in 428 BC, ten years after the slaying of Lars Tolumnius in 437 BC. He adds that there is a powerful objection to transferring the Lars incident to 428, namely quod imbelle triennium pestilentia inopiaque circa A. Cornelium consulem fuit that is, it was impossible that the war with Veii could have happened in 428 BC because there was plague and famine in Latium in that period. This is confirmed in IV.30, where Livy states that in the year of Cossus' consulship, hostilities with Veii were postponed until the following year due to drought and plague. Cossus makes his next appearance as Master of Horse in 425 BC, appointed by his old boss Aemilius Mamercus, who was made Dictator again (IV.32). In that year Cossus led another brilliant cavalry victory against the Veientines (IV.33). But even if he killed Lars Volumnius at this time, he could not clain spolia opima as he was not C-in-C.

Although it is true that the early Fasti are sometimes garbled, there appeares to be no confusion regarding 437 BC, where the names of both consuls are recorded (M. Geganus Macerius and L. Sergius Fidenas -the latter's surname is further support for the dating, as Rome was fighting Veii'a ally Fidenae and Livy specifically states that he won the surname as result of the Roman victory). A Dictator, Aemilius Mamercus, was regularly appointed by Geganus to prosecute the war, and named L. Quictius Cincinnatus (II) as his magister equitum (deputy). He also appointed a 3rd-in-command, M. Fabius Vibulanus. So Cossus does not figure in the high command at all. But his status as military tribune is entirely consistent, in seniority terms, with his becoming Consul 10 years later. Livy also states that the Dictator was granted a Triumph, in which Cossus was the star of the show for his feat of killing Lars Tolumnius in single combat. The Dictator dedicated a gold crown to Jupiter Capitolinus, while Cossus was allowed to hang his spoils in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. There is no reason to doubt this account, because the level of interconnected detail makes it highly unlikely to be wrong. The public records that historians such as Livy relied on recorded exactly these kind of details: public officials, triumph lists (which we know from partially preserved exemplars included the date and the enemy defeated) and religious dedications. Livy states that he is following all the other authorities in ascribing the rank of military tribune to Ciossus at the time.

So the only evidence that Cossus was Consul when he made the dedication was Augustus' verbal comment to Livy that he had seen the word Consul inscribed on the thorace linteo ("linen corslet": BTW, this confirms that our Sabine friend Mettius Curtius was not wearing elaborate metal armour 300 years earlier, and that Polybius was right that early equites were unarmoured) dedicated by Cossus. (One has to wonder why Livy did not go and see it for himself). Augustus may have been right - but then the inscription may have been painted on much later. Another intriguing explanation has occurred to me: COS was, in classical Latin (i.e. not the archaic Latin spoken in 437 BC, which was very different and probably unintelligible to Romans of Augustus' time), the normal abbreviation for "Consul". So if the inscription read A. CORNELIUS COS, Augustus might have mistaken that for A. CORNELIUS CONSUL, when it really stood for A. CORNELIUS COSSUS.

CONCLUSION: In any event, the evidence is overwhelming that Cossus was a military tribune when awarded the spolia opima, demolishing the thesis that it could only be awarded to a commander of the army.

(2) Regarding the status of M. Licinius Crassus, your argument that he did not have "overall command" does not stand up. Messalla was proconsul of Aquitania and granted a full Triumph in 27 BC for crushing the rebellious Aquitani. This proves he had full imperium at that time and therefore so did Crassus in 29 BC. So your correct point that full Triumphs were only restricted to imperials only after 19 BC simply reinforces my position: that before then, proconsuls had full imperium. Crassus was fully entitled to spolia opima but denied it on political grounds, just as he was denied the traditional title of imperator (general) that he was entitled to because of his victory, which was henceforth reserved for imperials. NB: Proconsuls were NOT subordinate to the Consuls. They were Consuls whose imperium had been extended by the Senate for one or more years.

(3) My point about a looser definition of spolia opima is not OR, as it is based on an ancient source. Festus in his Lexicon states that the antiquarian Varro ait opima spolia esse etiam si manipularis miles detraxerit dummodo duci hostium: "Varro says that it still counts as spolia opima even if a common soldier takes it, provided it is from the enemy leader" . Varro was a respected author on antiquities, most of whose work is unfortunately lost, but is often quoted by other authors.

Check out the footnote to the text I have added discussing these points and the revised text of the Ethos subsection EraNavigator (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "checked this out thoroughly" you meant "read Livy again", then so be it. I shall refer to further sources. Hence the opinions of those historians who have addressed the issue of the spolia opima - it is published sources who, after all, must be followed. Our opinions, on a wikipedia page, are little more than original research:

First, F.Lammert's entries on spolia and spolia opima in RE IIIA2.1843-5 and 1845-6, respectively. As RE entries are where anyone serious about writing on classical matters begins, I shall be generous and assume that you've read them and are aware of the matters raised - however I strongly suspect that you have not. Moving on.

Note the first Livius Drusus, who, according to Suetonius, Tiberius 3.2: "gained a surname for himself and his descendants by slaying Drausus, leader (dux) of the enemy, in single combat". S.P. Oakley (1985) Single combat in the Roman Republic. Classical Quarterly ns 35: 394, following F. Munzer RE XIII.853-4, identifies the Roman with M. Livius Denter who became consul in 302. Also Scipio Aemilianus, who as military tribune in 151 killed a Spanish chieftain in single combat. A.E. Astin (1967) Scipio Aemilianus p.46 n.4 gives full references for this very well-recorded example. Note that despite killing enemy commander, the dedication of spolia opima are nowhere connected with Livius Drusus or Scipio Aemilianus. Indeed, on the latter, see below. If your contention (following Festus'/Varro's terminology) were correct, Drusus and Scipio in killing duci hostium would both have been entitled to dedicate the spolia. Neither did. With regard to Scipio, a mistake of Florus is instructive. His statement that Scipio had won the spolia in this incident illustrates the recurrent carelessness and confusion of Roman historians with respect to the spoils.

After recounting the tales of Romulus, Cossus (curiously, as mag. eq. 326), and Marcellus, Val. Max. III.2.6a: "T. Manlius Torquatus (in 361), Valerius Corvinus (in 349), and Scipio Aemilianus showed the same valour in the same kind of combat. They too slew enemy leaders (hostium duces) whom they had challenged. But since they had acted under other men's auspicia, they did not place spoils to be consecrated to Jupiter Feretrius". It has already been shown that VM may have added Livius Drusus to this list of killers of enemy duces who were not entitled to claim the spolia opimia. Crassus also; on whom, see below.

One may also point out that numbers are not on your side. It is accepted that spolia opima were won only twice after Romulus. Following your contention, tens of thousands of Roman equites - all eager and competing to display their martial prowess - were, over 700 years, spectacularly and catastrophically unsuccessful in killing enemy duces who took to the field opposite them.

As an aside, you must read Oakley's paper of you are at all serious about writing on single combat during the Republican period. He also discusses the ethos of those who did fight, and the advantages of winning spolia (as opposed to spolia opima), and his conclusions are at variance with your basic assumptions. The episode of Manlius Torquatus is one of a eques attempting to gain spolia, not spolia opima.

The triumph of Mamercus is unrecorded outside Livy, and, following him, Lydus, despite the dictator also being mentioned in Eutropius. More tellingly, neither is the triumph listed on the fasti triumphales for 437/436. A triumph for a magistrate whose name ended in "MUS" (NOT "NUS") is, however, recorded for 13th August. A. Degrassi discusses the identity of this the triumphal "MUS" and concludes that a M. Valerius Lactuca Maximus was suffect consul (in place of Geganius) - a suffectship that is not recorded by Livy. T.R.S. Broughton (1951) MRR I.58-9 agrees with Degrassi, although R.M. Ogilvie (1955) Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 p.562 tentatively suggests that maybe Mamercus also bore the cognomen Maximus. If so, this too is unrecorded by Livy. Hence unless Mamercus was a Mamercus Maximus, Livy is likely in error when he states that Mamercus triumphed in 437, as the fasti triumphales suggest otherwise.

"MUS" notwithstanding, note also that the winning/dedication of the spolia (by Cossus or anyone) are not recorded on the fasti for 437/436. However, for 222/221: "M. Claudius M.f. M.n. Marcellus, proconsul, over the Insubrian Gauls and the Germans, k. Mart. (1st March) - he brought back the spolia opima after killing the enemy leader, Virdumarus, at Clastidium". The fasti for the majority of Romulus' reign is incomplete, but the absence of the spolia at 437/436 is instructive.

As I stated, Crassus' claim was turned down because he fought under the auspicia of Augustus and his imperium was inferior. Just as praetorian imperium was subordinate to that of a consul, and a consular imperium subordinate to that of a dictator. Depsite being proconsul, Crassus imperium was subordinate to that of Augustus. The concept is not difficult, and prescedents are supplied by Torquatus, Corvinus, Drusus, and Scipio Aemilianus, all of whom were ineligible to dedicate the spoils as, despite killing enemy duces, they had done so under the auspicia of others.

On Cossus' status:

"So the only evidence that Cossus was Consul when he made the dedication was Augustus' verbal comment to Livy". No. Try reading more of the ancient sources apart from Livy. Also try to read some academic papers and books. As well as the above-mentioned, more are refered to below...

H. Last (1928) CAH VII (2nd ed) pp.507-8 discusses the wars of 437-5 and 426-5, as described by Livy, and concludes that "in details at least, if not in essence, the earlier war is a retrojection of the latter". The first war may thus be dismissed as a typical Livian doublet, familiar to everyone who reads Livy and notices his repeated confusion when it comes to reconsiling discordant sources. On the corslet of Cossus: "this document may be accepted as conclusive evidence that at the time of his encounter with Tolumnius, Cossus was consul... it was in 428 that spolia opima were won by Cossus".

J.D. Bishop (1948) Augustus and A. Cornelius Cossus Cos. Latomus 7: 187-191, without discussing the wider problems and variant interpretations, concludes that Cossus was military tribune when the corslet was dedicated but that Consul had been added by Augustus' time.

R.M. Ogilvie (1955) pp.556-567 also supposes that the inscription on the corslet was not the original, as in the fifth century cognomina were not added to inscriptions nor were consuls called consuls. A. CORNELIO. COSSO or A. CORNELIO. COS. (or similar variants) would have been equally anachronistic. Your hypothesis about COS and COSSUS, though superficially clever, is thus anticipated and falls at the first hurdle. Ogilvie is ambivalent about whether Cossus' spolia were won in 437 or 428, but points out that Livy's (initial) version is not without difficulties and ancient and modern detractors.

T.J. Luce (1965) The dating of Livy's first decade. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 96: 211-218, while illustrating Livy's belief (following the testimony of Augustus) that Cossus was consul when he dedicated the spolia, discusses the historian's trouble in reconciling the new evidence with what he had already written. Luce, however, draws no conclusions as to whether the spolia were actually dedicated (i.e. Cossus was consul) in 437 or 428. Luce also points out that despite Livy's assertation that he is following omnes ante me auctores, at least two other traditions on Cossus were extant: "Livy exaggerates".

Despite your wish to believe in an Livy's unswerving opinion of himself, Ogilvie, Luce, and Foster (see previous) agree that the historian does some serious backtracking in light of Augustus' evidence, and in trying to reconcile the contradictions in his evidence gets himself into a pickle from which he never fully escapes.

"Demolishing the thesis" indeed.Catiline63 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My response to the above points:

A: COSSUS

1. Nothing that you quote conclusively (or even plausibly) establishes that Cossus was consul when he killed Tolumnius. If the inscription that he was a Consul was added later and is not contemporary, then that obviously undermines its value as evidence. As you rightly point out, in that era consuls were known as praetores, so any inscription describing him as consul would date from at least 50 years later. Even if Livy's account is a retrojection (I like that word!) of 426-5, you've still got problems, because Cossus was NOT consul in those years. Instead, as I mentioned, he was magister equitum. As such he won a substantial cavalry engagement against the Veientines. But even if he killed Tolumnius then, he could not, under your rules, claim spolia opima as he was not C-in-C (his boss dictator Mamercus was). In 428 BC, when Cossus WAS consul, he cannot have killed Tolumnius because military operations for that year were cancelled due to plague.
2. But in any case, there is no obvious reason to doubt Livy's chronology here: his consul list is corroborated by a separate source, the Fasti Consulares. As for the Fasti Triumphales, the critical point is that they confirm that a triumph was held in 437. Even if the -MUS refers to the suffect Lactuca Maximus, that is not a problem as the Dictator Mamercus would probably have terminated his 6 months' office by the time the triumph was held, and so officially the triumph would be under the presidency of the suffect consul. So Livy is corroborated by 2 independent sources. This is not surprising, since all 3 sources used the same ultimate source: the Annales Maximi, an annual record of important events kept by the Pontifex Maximus in the Regia (former royal residence). These Annales contained the names of magistrates, legions raised, declarations of war, census returns, triumphs, religious events and portents. As a contemporary record updated each year and stretching back to the first years of the Republic, the Annales were highly authoritative and the crucial chronological and factual framework on which all the ancient historians built their works (Cornell 1995 12-15). What the two Fasti prove is that Livy has accurately copied the Annales Maximi for the period 437-25 BC and has not garbled the chronology.
3. So we are back to what I said: that the only "evidence" for Cossus being consul when he made the dedication is a second-hand report by Augustus of what he saw in the temple. But Augustus could easily have been mistaken: if the inscription he was looking at was archaic, he may not have been able to make out the old-style writing. If more recent, then it was an inscription made possibly centuries after the event and therefore of minimal historical value. In any case, an uncorroborated rumour about an undated inscription, spread by Augustus 400 years after the event, cannot be regarded as more authoritative than the Annales Maximi. (NB: It is worth bearing in mind that Augustus had a vested interest in Cossus being C-in-C: i.e. to justify his denial of spolia opima to Crassus in 29 BC. Indeed his conversation with Livy about Cossus may have been a discussion of the Crassus case. It's not even impossible that Augustus himself had the inscription painted on in 29 BC!)

B: Other names:

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the process of triumphs. Triumphs were held only by the winner of the action once they had resigned and/or their imperium was up, not by their successors. One who had won a victory as a dictator (or as (pro)consul or (pro)praetor)), would triumph when his term was ended. Legally, he could not enter the city while still able to command an army. If Mamercus had won a victory as dictator, Lactuca would not and could not have held a triumph as Mamercus' "replacement". One could not celebrate another's triumph.

Festus (under opima spolia) terms Cossus "consul" when they were won - as well as defining the spoils as those won when a Roman commander killed an enemy commander. I have already cited Valerius Maximus' and Suetonius identical definition, as well as pointing you toward the many writers who mention Scipio Aemilianus' feat and ineligibility to dedicate the spoils. See also Plutarch (twice), below. All either state explicitly or presuppose that winners of the spolia had to hold imperium and fight under their own auspicia.

You fail to address why Torquatus, Drusus and Aemilianus, all killers of enemy duces were ineligible to dedicate their spolia as spolia opima.

In his discussion on the spolia, Plutarch, Romulus 17.7-8 gives that Cossus was "leader" of the Romans when he dedicated the spolia - after entering the city in triumph. The biographer describes the feats of Romulus and Marcellus in the same terms. While I don't have Plutarch's Greek immediately at hand - I will check tomorrow - you'll agree that a military tribune cannot be described as "leader". Nor indeed could they triumph. Plutarch is consistant at Marcellus 8.1-3. He describes the same: triumph and dedication and that the spolia were awarded "where general slays general" and gives Romulus, Cossus, and Marcellus. Cossus' superiority to a military tribune is presupposed by the biographer.

Your faith in Livy (and his sources) is disturbing. First, as already mentioned, he was not a historian who checked documentary sources. Many of the modern historians I have already cited - have you read even one of them? - and P.G. Walsh in particular discuss his stay-at-home methodology. As seen, he couldn't even be bothered to look at Cossus' trophy himself, but trusted Augustus' words. Also, when faced with information from discordant sources he is often unable to discern and edit out unlikely or infeasible feats. Also, when Source A says a war (for example) happened in Year X and Source B says that it happened in Year Y, then Livy, confused and unable to discern, creates two wars in X and Y, and a doublet is created. His ignorance of military terminology and technique is also apparent. All of this has been discussed by Walsh.

You are of course aware of the dangers of taking pre-390 sources at face value. I shall take your defence of the Annales Maximi as absolutely faithful documents as a tactic of desperation. If not, then please read Ogilvie (cited above) p.566, who discusses the confused state of the consular fasti for the 430s and 420s. Also read Ogilvie and Last for the Veientine war of the 430s as being a doublet of that of the 420s. Catiline63 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the limitations of the Annales Maximi. What I meant was that they are the MOST authoritative source, for the simple reason that, bar a few religious inscriptions, they were the ONLY contemporary documents for the early Republic available to later Roman historians such as Fabius Pictor, Polybius and Dionysius and Livy. So if you are going to contradict the Annales, and claim that Cossus was consul when he killed Tolumnius, you need hard evidence. And I don't regard an unsubstantiated rumour of 400 years later plus the musings of a grammar teacher (Festus) 600 years later as hard evidence. But even if you are right, and the events that Livy records for 438/7 are just a doublet for 426/5, you still have the problem that Cossus was NOT C-in-C in 425 either but only 2nd-in-command (as magister equitum) and so could not, under your rules, qualify for spolia opima. So you are trapped in a circular argument: that the spolia opima prove that Cossus was C-in-C, which in turn proves that spolia opima could only be awarded to C's-in-C! I am still working on the other candidates you have raised. EraNavigator (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Festus, like Varro and Gellius, was a grammarian and antiquarian and is a valuable source on the Latin language and terminology; describing him as a "grammar teacher" is churlish.

The Annales Maximi were not the only sources available for Republican historians. The fasti (for consuls and triumphators), the tabulae censoriae/libri censorii (books of the censors), and libri lintei (linen books) were all extant. Also, all noble families would have retained their own family records, detailing their ancestors' accomplishments and deeds. All of these documents, even family records, were open to interested parties. That the Annales Maximi were the "most authoritative" is your assumption. As they no longer exist, this is hard to assess. Suffice to say that the fasti were inscribed, while the Annales were written on perishable material. None of them were reliant on or mere copies of the information present also in the Annales Maximi. Livy consulted none of them, he was a stay-at-home historian. His sources for the 430s and 420s are Licinius Macer and Valerius Antias the former using one source, the later another. Ogilvie discusses this and shows that Livy, in trying to reconcile the discrepant information of Antias and Macer, blundered. It is not known which used the Annales for the 430s/420s - if, indeed, either of them did. That is your assumption. Indeed, Livy says (at IV.20.8) that Macer quoted the libri lintei (note, not the Annales) when he (Macer) gave that Cossus was consul with Quinctius Poenus "seven years later" (in 430, thus wrong). I need not point out the risks associated with using information written on centuries-old linen as a reliable source.

Last's CAH article also tackles Livy's doublet, and argues that Cossus was consul (and killed Tolumnius) during the "second" war (apologies for my misquote: Last gives this "second" war as occuring in 428-5, not 426-5). CAH VII (1st ed) pp.507-9.

In light of the confusion and debate over Cossus' status - discussed in all of the sources I have given - and the doubts over even the historicity of the "first" war (Ogilvie and Last), you cannot confidestly assert, as you do in the article, that Cossus was a tribune. More importantly, you cannot confidently assert, as you do in the article, that equites could earn the spolia opima. Catiline63 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor is my argument circular:

The absence of Mamercus' name (as triumphator) and Cossus' name (as dedicator) in the fasti triumphales for 437/6 suggests that Livy is in error regarding the victor over Veii and the killing of Tolumnius. A triumph was celebrated, by "MUS", but over whom is not preserved. It may even not have been Veii.

The apparent ahistoricity of the "first" war with Veii.

The later tradition, which Valerius Maximus, Festus, Plutarch, and others follow, that the spolia opima were dedicated only to those who had killed a dux hostium while holding imperium and fighting under their own auspicia. Torquatus, Drusus, Scipio Aemilianus, and Crassus, killers of duces were thus denied the honour. No doubt you would argue that the latter lost out on an Augustan "technicality", but prescedent was there irrespective of Cossus' status.Catiline63 (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking your last point first:

1. Valerius Maximus, festus and Plutarch were not independent authors: they are simply parroting Livy on spolia opima. So they add no weight to Livy's thesis. Against them, I deploy Varro (116-27 BC), who was a very authoritative source, a highly respected antiquarian. According to Cornell (1995 19): "the greatest Roman antiquarian (and perhaps the greatest antiquarian of all time)... this astonishing man is said to have written 490 books by the age of 77... we know of 55 titles, but possess only one complete work... Nevertheless, his influence was all-pervasive... His systematic organisation of knowledge provided the foundation for all subsequent Roman scholarship, and he was an indispensable source of factual information for later writers who occupied themselves in any way with the Roman past... Varro's most important work was the Antiquitates [in 41 books]". I also deploy Florus, who, as you yourself mentioned, said that Scipio Aemilianus won the spolia opima in Spain. You describe this as typical of the recurrent confusion about spolia opima among Roman sources. But this simply reinforces my point that there were two competing definitions of spolia opima until Augustus settled the issue in favour of the Livy definition.
2. I don't believe that Mamercus' name is missing from the Fasti Triumphales entry for 437 BC. My own (tentative) reconstruction of the entry is that it does not end in -MUS, but in -INUS, which because of erosion has become obscured. So the full entry read [MAMERCUS AEMILIUS ?f. ?n. MACER]INUS [DICTATOR DE VEIENTIBUS]. The absence of Cossus' dedication is by no means conclusive.
3. I do not confidently assert that Cossus was a tribune at the time. I simply report that Livy admits that he was not in command of the army at the time - which he does.
4. CAH or not, Ogilvie has to work with the same sources as we do. So his view that Cossus was Consul at the time is mere conjecture unsupported by the evidence.
5. I know that the Annales Maximi were not the only documentary source (although the Fasti were not inscribed until the Augustan era). What I am saying is that the other documents (e.g. linen rolls) contained little that could not be found in the Annales Maximi. The latter were a virtually "one-stop shop" for historians. Cornell has this to say about the Annales: (1995 13):

"The basic framework [that] is present in all the main narrative accounts consists of the names of the consuls, listed at the beginning of each year, together with other items of public business... [which] include the foundation of colonies, military operations, triumphs, treaties and alliances, extensions of Roman territory, grants of citizenship, temple construction and other public works, legislation, plagues etc, deaths of prominent people, eclipses, prodigies etc. Material of this kind must have been taken from documentary sources of an archival nature... Most scholars accept the authenticity of the consular list (the Fasti) which goes back in a continuous series to the beginning of the Republic. The list can be reconstructed from the main narrative sources, which show occasional minor discrepancies but a broad measure of general agreement on the identity and order of names... Cicero tells us in De Oratore... that the crabbed and meagre style of the earliest Roman historians was modelled on that of an official chronicle known as the Annales Maximi. This is an extremely important reference, because it... identifies an official document that could have provided most, if not all, of the archival material that [literary narratives] contain [my Italics]... Cicero and Servius make it clear that the Annales Maximi were a chronicle kept by the pontifex maximus and that they recorded, year by year, all important public events. Cicero says that the chronicle went back to the beginning of Roman history and continued to... the 120's BC. Servius says that... the whole compilation occupied 80 books... The chronicle went back to a very remote period. We can be sure of this because it recorded an eclipse of the Sun on the nones (ie. the 5th) of June "around 350 years after the foundation of the City [i.e. ca. 400 BC]. It so happens that there was an 80% solar eclipse visible from Rome on 21 June 400 BC. [The discrepancy in dates is due to the Republican calendar being adrift of the Julian calendar]... It is unlikely, however, that the Annales Maximi or any other systematic record atretched back as far as the regal period; indeed, they may not have gone back to the start of the Republic, although the consular list is probably genuine from the beginning... the narrative for the preceding regal age is quite different in character... most of it oral and much of it legendary."

Despite me pointing you toward him, it's clear you've still not read Degrassi's discussion on the triumphator of 437/436. He specifically states that what is left of the inscription clearly reads "MUS"; not "NUS", "INUS", "CUS", or any other variation you dream up. Your Original Research means nothing.

That Plutarch, Festus, Suetonius, et al are "parroting" Livy is again your own Original Research, and goes against several of the sources whom I cite who interpret the calling of Cossus as consul as a tradition indepedent of Livy. As I have also already said, there was even another tradition regarding Cossus' status: who is Valerius Maximus following when he gives that Cossus was magister equitum?

Don't put your faith in Florus, a terrible historian; his statement on Scipio is supported by no ancient or modern author. I need not cite the multiple instances where Romulus, Cossus, and Marcellus are termed the only men to have dedicated the spolia opima. Your statement that his confusion lends weight to your theory that there were two grades of spolia opima is, without citation to back you up, again Original Research. Quite how there can be superior and inferior grades of "the richest" spoils is beyond me. Your contention that Livy, Polybius, and all other ancient historians failed to mention Scipio Aemilianus' - SCIPIO AEMILIANUS'! - "winning" of the spolia is, frankly, ludicrous.

From your silence on Florus' qualities as a historian (compared against your laudation of Varro) I shall take it that you are well aware of his failings, but have kept them to yourself... Incidently, Varro's quote is known only through Festus, an authority you seem only to quote selectively...

You don't need to refer me to Cornell's book; I have it, thanks. Again, I reiterate that Livy did not refer to documentary sources, Annales Maximi, fasti, or otherwise. He merely copied other authors and where there was conflict, was largely undiscerning. I have cited my source for this, although any serious book on Livy would also tell you this and point out the more howling of his blunders. Thus a war again Veii dated to the 430s in one source, the 420s in another, is fractured into two wars by Livy (and contains the same Roman personnel, no less). I have also cited my sources for this: the CAH and the authoritative modern commentary on Livy's first pentad. Without citing sources, if you think your interpretation is better than theirs: tough.

The fact remains that in light of the uncertainty regarding Cossus' status, you cannot state, as you do so confidently in the article, that equites aspired and competed to emulate the illustrious deeds of those who won the spolia opima. By all means mention their desire to win normal spolia - indeed that argument is maintained in Oakley's paper on monomachy in Republican Rome - but spolia opima? The evidence does not support it. Catiline63 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as a general point, the fact that OR is prohibited in articles should not prevent us from speculating on the discussion page. As I said, all scholars have to work with the same sources and there is no reason why, in discussing these issues, we should not challenge their conjectures. But let me now deal with the other spolia candidates that you have raised: M. Valerius Corvinus (348 BC), T. Manlius Torquatus (340 BC), M. Livius Denter (295 BC) and Scipio Aemilianus (151 BC). The fact that these were not awarded spolia opima, you argue, proves that you had to be C-in-C to qualify. But on closer scrutiny, none of these cases is conclusive.

1. Torquatus is easily dealt with. Since he was beheaded in the field on his father's orders, you cannot use his failure to reach the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius in Rome as support for your thesis. Even if his life had been spared, the consuls would certainly have vetoed spolia opima on the grounds of his insubordination. In any case, his opponent Geminus Maecius was the commander of the Tusculan cavalry, but probably not the overall commander of Tusculan forces, and so Torquatus would not qualify for that reason. So this case proves nothing either way.
2. Valerius Corvinus. In this case, according to Livy, Valerius was challenged to single combat by a Gallus magnitudine et armis insignis ("a Gaul of outstanding bulk and armour" : Livy VII.26). In other words, a champion, probably of noble rank, but almost certainly not the overall leader of the Gallic host, otherwise Livy would surely have described him as Gallus dux magnitudine et armis insignis. So Valerius may have failed to qualify because he did not kill the enemy leader, not because he was not C-in-C of the Roman forces. It is true that later in the passage Livy reports Valerius' boss, Dictator Furius Camillus as describing the Gaul as ducem of the Gauls, but this likely just Valerian clan propaganda, designed to enhance the prestige of their ancestors. We can easily guess from whom Livy got the material for this story: Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus. Messalla was a close friend, advisor and general of Augustus' and contemporary of Livy's: as a putative descendant of the M. Valerius above, he would doubtless have embellished the story. So by putting the dux description in the mouth of Camillus and not in his own narrative, Livy has subtly distanced himself from this claim, in a way that would not offend such a powerful figure as Messalla.
3. Livius Denter. This claim is based on a single passage in Suetonius who states that the Livii Drusi derived their name from a Marcus Livius who killed a Gallic leader called Drausus in battle. This M. Livius has, as you say, been identified with M. Livius Denter who was Consul in 302 BC. The first question is whether this identification is plausible. Suetonius describes M. Livius (spolia) as the grandfather's grandfather of Marcus Livius Drusus (censor) who died in 108 BC. If we assume that the latter lived for 50 years (i.e. was born ca. 170 BC) and add 25 years (since Romans normally had children in their early twenties, or even in their teens) for each of 4 generations to 170 BC, we can estimate that M. Livius (spolia) probably was born around 270 BC, much too late for Denter. Still, it is not impossible that it was Denter. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it was. We know nothing about Denter's career before he became Consul. The only recorded occasion where he may have killed a Gallic leader is at the Battle of Sentinum (295 BC), where Denter, now a pontifex, was in attendance under his friend the Consul P. Decius Mus (Livy X.28). Mus decided to sacrifice himself for the sake of victory by charging alone into the enemy ranks. Before he did so, he appointed Denter commander of the left wing, as acting praetor. Denter then rallied his wing. But there is no mention of Denter killing the Gallic leader and it is inconceivable that Livy would have failed to mention such a signal event in his account of the battle, especially as it concerned a member of his own Livii clan. I think the whole story of Drausus, doubtless given to Suetonius by Livii Drusi of his time (ca. 100 AD), is suspect. And even if one of their distant ancestors did a Gallic chieftain called Drausus, the claim that it was the paramount leader of a Gallic host is very likely a fabrication. In the absence of corroborating evidence, it cannot be used to support your thesis (or mine).
4. Scipio Aemilianus. My first question is: how can we be sure that Aemilianus did NOT win the spolia opima and become the 3rd person after Romulus to hang his spolia in the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius? Florus said he did. As far as I am aware, the only authority to specifically deny it is Festus. But why should we prefer his view over that of his contemporary Florus? You say it's inconceivable that Polybius or Livy would have omitted it. I agree, but since both those authors' accounts of Lucullus' Spanish campaign in 151 BC are lost, you cannot draw any conclusions about what those accounts contained. As for Plutarch, it's true that he states that Marcellus was only the 2nd after Romulus to win spolia opima. But since Marcellus' award in 222 BC predated Aemilianus' claim by 71 years, Plutarch's wording does not exclude the possibility that Aemilianus was the next winner. But even if we accept that Aemilianus did not qualify, you run into the same problem as with the other candidates above. That you cannot be sure that he killed the paramount leader of the enemy, which we both agree was necessary for spolia opima. The passage in Florus says that he was challenged by a Celtiberian rex. It is important to realise that, in the context of Celtic/Germanic tribal societies, the Romans used the term rex very loosely, and is best translated, not as "king", but as "native chief". So, at the Battle of Strasbourg (another of my articles), the Alamanni side, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, was under two reges excelsiores (paramount chiefs), 7 reges (chiefs) and 14 reguli (petty chiefs). But only killing Chnodomar (one of the two paramount chiefs who was in overall command) would qualify for spolia opima. So, unless you accept Florus' argument that Aemilianus won the spolia opima, you cannot be sure that the rex he fought was the paramount leader: indeed he almost certainly was not, but just a champion, as in Valerius' case.

Wrong Torquatus. The stern father (cos. III 340) was also a monomachist, and the event occured in 361 when he was a military tribune. I refer you again to Valerius Maximus who described the victim as dux hostium.

Corvinus: Again, Valerius Maximus describes the victim as dux hostium. This also supports Livy's statement (put into the mouth of Camillus, though Livy's nonetheless) that the victim was the dux Gallorum (contra your theory that the Gaul was "almost certainly not the overall leader of the Gallic host"). Dion. Hal., XV.1 describes the Gaul as "chieftain"; Gellius, IX.11.5 dux Gallorum, then IX.11.8 dux hostium. I've not looked at Eutropius, II.6; "Victor", 29; or Orosius, III.6.5. In 349, Corvinus (cos. VI 299) was also military tribune, which Livy and others aver. The tale was well-known well before the time of Livy and was one of the "great tales" of the Republic.

The identity of Denter as the first Livius Drusus (no praenomen is provided by Suetonius) is only tentative. Not much more is known other than Suetonius' statement that he killed a dux hostium named Drausus, took his name, and that he was the grandfather of M. Livius Drusus' grandfather. A Gallic connention is avered by Suetonius - and we know how those Gauls loved to challenge Romans to monomachy! - but the nationality of the dux is not given. He never held the consulship although he was praetorius vir. Assuming that he flourished c. 240 (I agree with your calculation), then it is no wonder that Livy makes no mention of him: Livy is lost between 292 and 219. The Livii Drusi were extinct by the time of Suetonius' writing.

Scipio: Plutarch, Romulus 16.5: "Only three Roman leaders have attained this honour: Romulus first, for slaying Acron the Caeninensian; next, Cornelius Cossus, for killing Tolumnius the Tuscan; and lastly, Claudius Marcellus, for overpowering Britomartus, king of the Gauls". Plutarch, Marcellus 8.3: "The first was Romulus, who despoiled Acron the Caeninensian; the second was Cornelius Cossus, who despoiled Tolumnius the Tuscan; and after them Marcellus, who despoiled Britomartus, king of the Gauls; but after Marcellus, no man." Festus, Opima Spolia also states that only 3 men had won the spolia - a French translation is available: "Ce cas arrive si rarement qu'en un peu moins de cinq cent trente ans il n'a illustré que trois fois le nom romain : les premières dépouilles opimes furent enlevés par Romulus à Acron ; les secondes par le consul Cossus Cornelius à Tolumnius ; les troisièmes par M. Marcellus à Viridomar".

Your argument that there were different grades of "king" is a variation of the arguement that there were different grades of spolia opima: Valerius Maximus and Festus only define that one had to kill a dux hostium. Neither is 4th century Germanic usage to be transposed onto Gallic and Iberian examples occuring 600-1100 years prior.

The following conclusion may be drawn:

Spolia opima: Romulus - king

Spolia opima: Marcellus - cos., 222

Spolia opima: Cossus - tr. mil., 437; cos., 428; mag. eq., 426

No spolia opima: Torquatus - tr. mil., 361

No spolia opima: Corvinus - tr. mil., 349

No spolia opima: Drusus - praetorius c.240

No spolia opima: Scipio Aemilianus - tr. mil., 151.

The point of discussion pages is indeed to discuss the issues/questions surrounding the contents of the main page, and I've absolutely no problem with that. However, the section on the equestrian ethos, in stating that equites competed and aspired to win the spolia opima, is not supported either by the ancient sources or modern commentators. Catiline63 (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I must concede that the weight of the evidence is on your side and that spolia opima probably were limited to C's-in-C, at least after 400 BC (Cossus could of course be explained if the definition was changed around then). However, I hold to my view that the term was, during the Republic, used loosely to include spoils of any enemy leader captured by any Roman soldier. To avoid confusion, I have amended Ethos so that "quest for spolia opima" is now "quest for spolia ducis" (we have to add ducis, as spolia alone in Latin can refer to the spoils from any enemy, not just the enemy leader) and I have relegated the debate about spolia opima to a footnote. NB: you say it's absurd to claim that there were classes of spolia ducis, but that's exactly what Festus says: that there were 3 classes. Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities interprets Festus as follows: Class I: spolia ducis taken by a C-in-C; Class II taken by officers and Class III taken bu ordinary soldiers.

I also remain unconvinced that Cossus was consul when he gained the spolia opima. I can't comment further on the Triumphal entry for 437 BC until I can see a good photo of the relevant inscription. What I do know is that the Fasti Triuphales are highly fragmented and eroded. So it's possible that De Grassi's reading is not incontrovertible. But even if the ending is -MUS, that does not help you out. OK, Livy's obviously retrojected Mamercus' dictatorship of 425 BC, and the Triumph was awarded to suffect consul Lactuca Maximus (his is the only name of that period that fits -MUS). But that still means Cossus was not C-in-C (or if his combat was also retrojected from 425, then he was magister equitum). The theory that it happened in his consulship (428 BC) is scotched by the notice that military operations were cancelled in that year. Cossus remains a major prioblem for your thesis, because whicheverway you slice it, the available evidence is against you.

Only Livy's against me 8o) I've rewritten the ethos bit and footnote (before I read the above).77.96.103.219 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Livy is against you (and Varro, actually) but then only Livy has left an account of Cossus' career and a detailed discussion of the spolia opima difficulty. But we have debated the issue more than enough enough. I strongly object to your revisions as they stand, both to the Ethos para and to the Note. The equites were focused not just on spolia militaria from any foe, but on killing the enemy leader - the various examples we discussed above. It is this that brought special glory and renown. The eques at Heraclea was trying to kill Pyrrhus, not just any Greek opponent. This is not just my opinion, it's sourced (Sidnell Warhorse 153-4) and Festus' list of three classes of spolia ducis. As once before, you have censored awkward facts that don't fit your preconceptions. I intend to restore those facts, although I will conserve your wording as far as it goes. EraNavigator (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to re-open this debate, but I refer you to the entry on Spolia in W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890), which provides heavyweight academic support for my view that spolia opima was used loosely to mean spoils of an enemy leader taken by any Roman soldier. Note the classes spolia opima listed by Varro. But to avoid confusion, I will use the term used in Livy spolia duci hostium detracta. EraNavigator (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the above debate, which you have conceded, is that while there is some ambiguity in the term, it appears that only commanders with imperium acting under their own auspicia had the right to claim spolia opima. In the "Ethos" section you have done little more than alter opima to ducis/duci hostium detracta. Speaking of these spoils, then going on to state that the eques at Heraclea (not a Roman) and T. Torquatus (the son) were attempting to win them goes against everything that has been argued. Sidnell may well have stated that the guy at Heraclea was attemtping to win the opima, but the sources I have cited - and which it appears you STILL haven't even bothered to read - show that this is very unlikely to have been the case.

I add from Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome pp.6-7, commenting on Festus, 204L:

Spolia prima/opima: Sacrifice of an ox. Stripped armour dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius.

Spolia secunda: Sacrifice of solitaurilia to Mars at Altar of Mars at Campus Martius.

Spolia tertia: Sacrifice of male lamb to Janus Quirinus.

According to Beard, North and Price "only the first spoils" were the spolia opima - "won and dedicated by the commander under his own auspices; the other two ought then to be those of lesser offices or common soldiers, fighting under the auspices of a superior officer" (p.7. n.4). John North is probably one of the foremost modern scholars of Festus, as well as Roman religion and religious practice in general. Mary Beard and Simon Price are also very well recognised authorities on Roman religion and practice.Catiline63 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we have discussed this topic exhaustively. My revised wording in no way backtracks on our agreed position precisely because I use the term spolia duci hostium detracta to distinguish from spolia opima, which are given separate mention and clear definition in the same section. In view of all the examples we have looked at, you cannot surely deny that equites regarded killing the enemy leader as the ultimate spolia, even if they were not opima. Or are you argiung that they viewed killing an enemy foot soldier as being as glorious as killing the enemy leader? EraNavigator (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Then Festus' technical terms spolia secunda and spolia tertia are to be preferred, as per Beard, North, and Price (and Festus!). (SDHD is too general, meaning the opima, secunda, and tertia) The section on the spolia opima should also become its own paragraph, as to disambiguate this very special prize from its less prestigious cousins.Catiline63 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll settle for the latest wording, after the couple of minor factual corrections I've made. But you seem to have developed an obsession with what boils down to a trivial semantic quibble. Haven't you more useful things to do with your time? There are plenty of other articles on Roman history that need far more attention than mine. EraNavigator (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, ER, I think that overall you've made a very very good job on the article over the past month or so. However, it is sometimes those minor points which you have to be careful of, especially considering that what you're writing is a work of reference that will be seen by many. As the last week will illustrate, what some sources may present as "facts" are not always as clear cut as they present them to be. I've no vendetta against you, just that most of the other sites I like to "look after" are pretty well settled with little scope for new discussion.Catiline63 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I actually quite enjoyed our sideshow debate. Nor do I have any objection to factual corrections - on the contrary, I welcome them (providing they are correct!). But I can't help thinking that both of us should be spending our time more profitably (in terms of enhancing Wiki's offerings). You say there are not many articles that leave scope for improvement. But let me give you an example: Roman legion. This is a central topic in Roman military history, but the article is a joke. Not only is it unreferenced, but it is superficial, has no detailed chronology or historical development. In other words, it's crying out for expansion, improvement and referencing. So why don't you devote your undoubted talents to bringing it and others like it up to scratch? Another article that badly needs your laser-like attention to detail is Structural history of the Roman military. This is much better than legion, fully-referenced and chronological. But the author(s) overall have only a nebulous idea of the basic issues in Roman military history. For example, last time I looked at it, which was quite some time ago admittedly, there was no mention of the socii at all: a bit like an article on the US Army after World War II without mentioning NATO! Also, the authors did not seem to understand the distinction between peregrini (another of my articles) and barbari. There were also a number of serious factual errors and Latin grammatical howlers. EraNavigator (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)