Lost Sources – Non Roman
As always we must remember that many of the other races of the ancient world had a corpus of literature as well. As already noted (Chapter 2) the Numidian court of Micipsa was famous for its patronage of scholars. Sallust refers to a number of now-lost native works detailing the Numidian peoples. Further more, the royal court received many of the works salvaged from the sacking of Carthage. It must be noted, however, that any Numidian writing a history of the Jugurthine Wars would be taking a grave risk if it took anything other than a pro-Roman bias, as a loyal client of Rome.
Perhaps the greatest problem for the historian is the lack of any material from the tribal nations involved in these wars. For the Cimbri and Scordisci there were no such chroniclers, though there may have been a flourishing bardic tradition which maintained elements of their histories in an oral tradition. Without such counter-balancing evidence we always risk the danger of only seeing these wars from the Roman point of view.
Appendix VI
African King Lists
Numidia (Unified Kingdom)
Syphax 206 – 202 BC
Masinissa 202 – 148 BC
Micipsa 148–118 BC
Gulassa 148 – unknown
Mastanabal 148 – pre–134
Jugurtha 118 – 105 BC
Adherbal 118 – 112 BC
Hiempsal 118 BC
Gauda 105 – pre 88 BC
After Gauda, we have no clear dates for the monarchs that followed, only their names and the period they came into contact with Rome.
Mastanabal II Unknown
Hiempsal II c.80s–60s
Juba I c.60s–46
46 BC Massinissan Dynasty removed from the throne, eastern Numidia annexed and becomes the Roman province of Africa Nova.
29 BC Massinissan Dynasty restored to Western Numidia by Augustus.
Juba II 29 – 25 BC
25 BC Augustus removes Juba from the throne of Numidia to that of Mauretania and annexes the remainder of Numidia to Roman Africa.
Mauri Kingdom
Bocchus Late second – early first century BC
On Bocchus’ death the Mauri kingdom was split between his two sons Bocchus II and Bogud, on a geographic basis. When Bogud backed Antony in the Second Civil War, his kingdom was annexed to that of Bocchus’.
Bocchus II Early First Century – 33 BC
33 BC Bocchus II wills his kingdom to Rome.
25 BC Augustus installs Juba II, king of Numidia, as king of the Mauri.
Juba II 25 BC – AD 23
Ptolemy I AD 23 – AD 40
AD 40 Ptolemy murdered by Emperor Caius (Caligula).
AD 44 Mauri kingdom annexed by Emperor Claudius, becomes the provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana.
Notes
Chapter One
1 Book 45 is the last one we have intact, taking events up to the defeat of Macedon in 167 BC.
2 Sall. Iug. 10.
3 Polyb. 35.1.1–2
4 C. Calpurnius Piso and L. Quinctius Crispinus; Liv. 39.42.2–4
5 Appian. Iber. 56
6 The Third Punic War in Africa, the Fourth Macedonian War in Greece (followed by the Achaean War) and the Lusitanian and Celtiberian Wars in Spain.
7 App. Iber. 67
8 In 140 BC. App. Iber. 69
9 They have different names due to Servilianus being adopted into the family of the Fabii.
10 Diod. 33.21a
11 App. Iber. 76–78
12 App. Iber. 83. The Numantines refused to accept him.
13 Cicero states that this was in absentia (Cic. Lael. 11).
14 App. Iber. 84
15 App. Iber. 89, twelve elephants along with archers and slingers.
16 App. Iber. 84–98
17 Eutrop. 4.15, Liv. Per. 53, Varr. RR. 2.4.1–2
18 Obseq. 16 is the only source that names the Scordisci. Other references to the war can be found in Liv. Per 47, Flor.2.25 and App. Illyr 11. There is much debate over the role the Scordisci played in the war; main protagonists or minor allies of other Pannonian tribes? See Papazoglu, F, The Central Balkan Tribes in pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, 1978), pp.284–285
19 Liv. Per. 54
20 App. Illyr. 14
21 Gwyn-Morgan., M, ‘Cornelius and the Pannonians’: Appian, Illyrica 14, 41 and Roman History, 143–138 B.C.’, Historia 23, 1974, pp.183–216.
22 App. Illyr. 10, Liv. Per. 56.
23 App. Illyr. 10. Liv. Per. 59
24 For a fuller account, see Bradley, K, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World 140 BC-70BC (Indiana, 1989), pp.46–65.
25 Diod. 34/35.2.5
26 Diod. 34/35.2.15–16
27 Diod. 34/35.2.18
28 Liv. Per. 56, Oros. 5.9.6
29 Oros. 5.9.6, Val. Max.2.7.9 & 4.3.10, Frontin. Str. 4.1.26.
30 Oros. 5.9.7
31 Diod. 34/35.2.23
32 Q. Caecilius Metellus and Cn. Servilius Caepio crushed 4,000 slaves at Sinuessa, whilst a Heraclitus had to deal with that in the Athenian mines (Oros. 5.9.2, Diod. 34/35.2.18).
33 Oros. 5.9.2, Diod. 34/35.2.19
34 IGRR IV. 289, see Sherk, R., (ed.), Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984), pp.39–40.
35 Ibid.
36 Strabo.14.1.38
37 CIL 12.2.2502, Plut. TG. 21.2, Cic. Flacc. 75, & Rep. 1.6, Val. Max. 3.2.17 & 5.3.2, Plin. NH. 7.120 de vir ill. 64.9
38 The son of King Eumenes II of Pergamum (197–159 BC) and a concubine.
39 Vell. 2.4.1
40 Vell. 2.4.1 & 2.38.5, Flor. 1.35.6, Iustin. 1.35.6, Eutrop. 4.20, Oros. 5.10.4–5, Liv. Per. 59, Strabo. 14.1.38, Val. Max. 3.4.5
41 Matyszak, P, Mithridates the Great (Barnsley, 2008).
42 Appian (BC. 1.34) claims that he was only dispatched by the Senate to prevent him from continuing his campaign on the issue of Italians receiving Roman citizenship.
43 Liv. Per. 60. See Benedict, C. ‘The Romans in Southern Gaul’, American Journal of Philology 63, 1942, pp.38–50 and Stevens, C. ‘North West Europe and Roman Politics (125–118)’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II (Brussels, 1980), pp.71–97.
44 Diod. 34/35.23, Eutrop. 4.22
45 Polyb. 33.8
46 Liv. Per. 61
47 Liv. Per. 61, the figure for the Roman forces can be found in Strabo 4.1.11. The battle is also referred to by Caesar (BG. 1.45.2).
48 There is a brief account in Florus 1.37
49 See Stevens (1980), pp.88–92 for a discussion on the size of the Arvernian Empire at the time.
50 Vell. 1.15.5, Eutrop. 4.23, Cic. Brut. 160
51 Named after the consul of 122, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus.
52 Flor. 1.44
53 Vell. 2.6.4, Liv. Per. 60, Val Max. 2.8 4, Cic. Fin. 5.62, Inv. 2.105, Phil. 3.17, Pis. 95 & Planc. 78
54 Taylor, L, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, Journal of Roman Studies 52, 1962, pp.19–27.
55 Just exactly what type of man held the tribunate is a much argued question. Old assumptions that all tribunes were members of the Senatorial oligarchy have been challenged by recent research on the holders of the office. See Sampson, G. A Re-examination of the Office of the Tribunate of the Plebs in the Roman Republic (494–23 B.C.), (Manchester, 2005, unpublished).
56 Anonymous tribunes in 151 BC (Liv. Per.48, App. Iber. 49). Tribunes C. Curiatius and S. Licninius in 138 BC (Cic. Leg. 3.20, Liv. Per.55 & Liv. Oxy.55).
57 Plut. TG. 8. It is not known which office Laelius was holding when he proposed it, but the tribunate is the most likely. Given that he was Praetor in 145 BC, it would have been prior to this.
58 See Astin, A, Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), pp.307–310
59 Cic. Leg. 3.35, Lael. 41, Leg. Agr. 2.4, Liv. Oxy. Per. 54
60 Cic. Brut. 97 & 106, Lael. 41, Leg. 3.35–37, Sest. 103, Ascon 78C
61 Liv. Per.50. App. Lib.112.
62 Liv. Per.51, App. Iber. 84
63 He was consul in 177 and 16
3, and censor in 169/168 BC.
64 The first man of the Senate; the elder statesman of the house.
65 Appian choose to start his work on Rome’s civil wars in 133, reflecting the widespread belief of those Romans who viewed this period. See Nagle, D, ‘The Failure of the Roman Political Process in 133 B.C.’, Athenaeum 48, 1970, pp.372–394.
66 The principal sources for this reform are; Plut. TG. 8–20 and App. BC. 1–17, Liv. Per. 58, Cic. Leg Agr. 2.10 & 2.31, Sest. 103, Off. 2.80, Diod. 34/35.6.1–2, Val. Max.7.2.6, Vell. 2.2.3, Flor. 2.2.3 & de vir ill. 64. There is an extensive number of modern works on the subject, see bibliography.
67 Notably the Lex Licinia of 367 BC. This in itself is a contentious point as it has recently been argued that the Licinian law was not restricted to ager publicus. See Rich. J, ‘Lex Licinia, Lex Sempronia: B.G Niebuhr and the Limitation of Landholding in eth Roman Republic’, in L. de Ligt & S. Northwood (eds.) People, Land and Politics, Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC-AD 14 (Leiden, 2008), 519–572 and Sampson. G, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Roman Historian: The Eighteenth Century in the Roman Historical Tradition’, in J. Moore, I. Macgregor-Morris & A. Bayliss (eds.) Reinventing History. The Enlightenment Origins of Ancient History (London, 2009), pp.206–208.
68 App. BC. 1.13, C. Sempronius Gracchus and Ap. Claudius Pulcher.
69 See Briscoe, J, ‘Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus’, Journal of Roman Studies 64, 1974, pp.125–135.
70 The implications of a tribunician veto (intercessio) and just how final it was is a matter of some debate. See Sampson (2005), pp.292–296.
71 Plut. TG. 10–12 & 14–15, Diod. 34/35.7.1, Flor. 2.2.5, Vell. 2.2.3, Oros. 5.8.3, Cic. Brut. 95, Leg. 3.24, Mil. 72, ND. 1.106
72 C. Licinius Stolo & L. Sextius Sextinius. They were elected tribunes each year between 376 and 367 BC. The caveats must be that we only have the names of just under 13% of all known tribunes, so we cannot say this for certain. There is evidence that second tribunates were held, though not consecutively. See Sampson (2005), pp.199–201.
73 Linderski, J, ‘The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus’, Athenaeum 90, 2002, pp.339–366
74 Plut. TG. 21.5
75 See Astin (1967), pp.227–241.
76 Liv. Per. 59, Oros. 5.10.9, Vell. 2.4.5, App. BC. 1.20, Plut. CG. 10.5, de vir ill. 58, Cic. Mil. 16, Val Max. 5.3.2
77 The actual law for the foundation of the colony of Iunonia was passed by a colleague of Caius’, Rubrius.
78 Diod. 34/35.25.1, Ascon. 68C
79 Plut. CG. 5.2, App. BC.1.21, Flor. 2.1.7, Vell. 2.6.3. Such a practice was to become a common feature of the late Republic and a fundamental right under the emperors; the so-called bread of the ‘bread and circuses’ fame.
80 Roman citizenship would be given to those of Latin status, and Latin status to those of Italian status. Inhabitants of Italy fell into one of a three citizenship classes, Roman, Latin or Italian, with fewer legal and electoral rights with each lesser category.
81 Many were related to the Senatorial class, including younger sons.
82 App. BC. 1.23, Plut. CG. 9.2
83 A fundamental aspect of the tribunate was that the holders of the office were not allowed to spend a night outside of the city of Rome. Several exceptions to this rule can be found in the surviving sources (in 310 and 204 BC, Liv.9.36.14 & 29.20.4 respectively). Apparently this dispensation could be granted by the assemblies. See Sampson (2005), pp.343–347.
84 Plut. CG. 13.1–2, App. BC. 1.24, Flor. 2.3.4 Oros. 5.12.5, de vir ill. 65.5
85 Plut. CG. 13–17, App. BC. 1.24–26, Diod. 34/35.29–30, Liv. Per. 61, Flor. 2.3, Oros. 5.12.5–8, Val. Max. 2.8.7, de vir ill. 65.5–6
Chapter Two
86 The name initially comes to use from Sallust’s work on the war.
87 Flor.1.36.1–2 ‘Quis speraret post Carthaginem aliquod in Africa bellum’.
88 Daly, G, Cannae; The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War (London, 2002), pp.81–112.
89 App. Iber. 15. Liv. 24.48–49.6
90 Liv.24.48
91 Liv. 24.49.4. We must always treat the casualties given in ancient sources with caution, given their tendency to exaggerate both the size of the armies and the total losses.
92 App. Iber.16
93 Polyb. 6.16.
94 Liv. 27.4.5–9
95 Liv. 28.17.1–18.12, 29.23.3–9 & 30.13.3–6, App. Iber. 29–30
96 App. Iber. 37
97 Liv. 29.29.4–33.10
98 Liv. 29.31.8–11
99 Carey, B, Hannibal’s Last Battle (Barnsley, 2007).
100 Liv. 30.12.2–3
101 Saumagne, C, La Numidie et Rome, Masinissa et Jugurtha (Paris, 1966) & Walsh, P, ‘Massinissa’, Journal of Roman Studies 55, 1965, pp.149–160.
102 Badian has an excellent summary and analysis of these events; Badian, E, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.) (Oxford, 1958), pp.125–137.
103 App. Pun. 67
104 Liv. 31.19.4, 32.27.2, 36.4.8 & 43.6.13
105 IG XI.4.1115–16
106 IG II.2.968
107 C. Little, ‘The Authenticity and Form of Cato’s Saying “Carthago Delenda Est’, Classical Journal 29, 1934, pp. 429–435.
108 App. Pun. 68.
109 App. Pun. 71
110 App. Pun. 73
111 Kahrstedt argued that Rome attacked Carthage precisely to stop Numidia annexing the remaining Carthaginian state and thus create a buffer zone in North Africa; Kahrstedt, U, Geschichte Der Karthager, von O. Meltzer III (Berlin, 1913), p.615.
112 Ridley, R, ‘To be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage’, Classical Philology 81, 1986, pp.140–146.
113 Polyb. 36.16.1–10
114 Walsh (1965), pp.152–154
115 Sall. Iug. 5.4–6. Trans. S. Handford (1963).
116 App. Pun. 106. Trans. H. White (1982).
117 Liv. Per. 50
118 App. Pun. 106. Zon 9.27. The fragments of Polybius’ book 36 detail Masinissa’s death and mentions Scipio’s arrangements but with no detail (Polyb. 36.16).
119 Zonaras (9.27) has Micipsa placed in charge just of the Numidian finances.
120 App. Pun. 111.
121 App. Iber. 67
122 Sall. Iug. 7.1–7, App. Iber. 89
123 Diod. 34/35.35 (Trans. F. Walton. 1984).
124 Flor. 1–1.36.2
125 Sall. Iug. 6.1
126 Ibid. 7.1
127 Sall. Iugv. 7.5–7
128 Ibid. 9.2
129 Sall. Iug . 11.6
130 Ibid. 11.5
131 Sall Iug. 14–15.1
132 Ibid. 16.4–5
133 Sall. Iug. 21.1–3
134 For more on Scaurus, see Bates, L, “Rex in Senatu”: A Political Biography of M. Aemilius Scaurus’, Proceedings of the American Philological Society 130, 1986, pp.251–88.
135 This point is much debated; see Badian (1958), p.139.
136 Sall. Iug. 25.11
137 Sall. Iug. 26.1–3
138 The scope and severity of this ‘massacre’ have long been questioned. See Morstein-Marx, R., ‘The Alleged “Massacre” at Cirta and Its Consequences (Sallust Bellum Iugurthinum 26–27)’, Classical Philology 95, 2000, pp.468–476.
139 Sall. Iug.25.3
140 Sall. Iug.27.2
141 See Oost, S, ‘The Fetial Law and the Outbreak of the Jugurthine War’, American Journal of Philology 75, 1954, pp.147–159.
142 Rich argues that this assigning of provinces is evidence that the Senate had already decided to send a consul to Numidia before the siege of Cirta ended, but we have no clear chronology of the events and given the Senate’s previous reluctance to involve themselves directly, this does seem an unusual change of policy, derived from the benefits of hindsight; Rich, J, Declaring War in the Roman republic in the period of transmarine expansion (Brussels, 1976), pp.50–55.
Chapter Three
143 Liv. Per. 62.
&nbs
p; 144 Eutrop. 4.23.2
145 App. Illyr. 11
146 Morgan, M, ‘Lucius Cotta and Metellus. Roman Campaigns in Illyria during the Late Second Century’, Athenaeum 49, 1971, pp.271–301.
147 For a fuller discussion of this, see Syme, R, Rome and the Balkans 80BCAD14 (Exeter, 1999) and Papazoglu, F, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times (Amsterdam, 1979).
148 Strabo. 7.5.12, Iust. 32.3, Liv. Per. 63, Athen. 6.25, App. Illyr. 2, Flor. 1.39
149 Polyb. 1.6.5, 2.20.6 & 4.46.1, Paus. 1.4.4, 10.3.4, 10.8.3, 23.1–10; Iustin. 24.7.8–8.10 & 32.3.6, Ampel.32.2, Liv.40.58.3, Diod.22.9.1, Cic. Div.1.81
150 The traditional date for the Gallic Sack of Rome is 390 BC, based on consular years. However, given that there are four years without consuls or military tribunes in office, the so-called ‘Dictator Years’, the dating of all events in this period has a four-year margin of error. See Drummond, A, ‘The Dictator Years’, Historia 27, 1978, pp.550–572.
151 Strabo. 7.5.12 See Alföldy, G, ‘Des Territories Occupés par les Scordisques’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12, 1964, pp.107–127.
152 Gwyn-Morgan., M, ‘Cornelius and the Pannonians’: Appian, Illyrica 14, 41 and Roman History, 143–138 B.C.’ Historia 23, 1974, pp.183–216.
153 Diod. 34/35.30. The attestation of these two events is still somewhat speculative, though given the events of 114 BC, the Scordisci do remain the prime candidates for this invasion.
154 SIG3700, Sherk, R., (ed.), Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984) pp.51–53.
155 Papazoglu (1979), pp.295–296
156 The Periochae of Livy (63) states Thrace, whereas Florus (1.39) implies Macedon.
The Crisis of Rome Page 29