The Triumph in the Roman Republic

Carsten Hjort Lange & Frederik Juliaan Vervaet

THE ROMAN REPUBLICAN TRIUMPH BEYOND THE SPECTACLE

Edizioni Quasar

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.















The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond the Spectacle

EDITED BY CARSTEN HJORT LANGE & FREDERIK JULIAAN VERVAET















Analecta Romana Instituti Danici – Supplementum XL XLV V Accademia di Danimarca, via Omero, 18, I – 00197, Rome

© 2014 Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon srl, Roma ISBN 978-88-7140-576-6

Published with the support of grants from: The Carlsberg Foundation

Cover: The Fasti Capitolini, containing the Fasti Consulares and the Fasti Triumphales. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala della Lupa. Photo: Courtesy of © Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini.















The Triumph in the Roman Republic: Frequency, Fluctuation and Policy by JOHN RICH

Abstract. This paper focuses on the list of triumphs as preserved on inscriptions and, where they are lost, in literary sources. The reconstructi re construction on and reliability of the t he list li st is discussed, and its it s evidence evi dence is used u sed to t o analyse analy se and an d account acco unt for triumphal frequency and fluctuations. The senate’s policy on the award of triumphs is then interpreted in the light of this material. It is argued that the fluctuations in the pattern of triumphs were chiefly the result of changes in Roman warfare and military commitments, comm itments, and that the t he senate showed rather more con sistency in awarding awardi ng triumphs than has sometimes been supposed. su pposed. Senatorial deliberation deliberationss on individual applications chiefly sought to determine det ermine whether the applicant had won victories meriting a triumph. tr iumph. In time, t ime, an increasing i ncreasing part was played play ed by applicants’ claims to have h ave ended their war, but this never became a necessary requiremen t. As Roman commitments changed , triumphs were sometimes sought in circumstances which did not meet customary expectations, and in such cases ovations were sometimes used as compromise solutions.

Although recent years have been richly productive in the study of the Roman triumph, relatively little attention has been paid to the institution’s development over time. Of the major recent treatments, only that of Bastien (2007) takes even a partially diachronic approach. In this paper I seek to use the list of recorded triumphs to analyse the evolution of Roman R oman triumphal practice. I dealt briefly with this topic in an earlier paper (Rich 1993, 47-53) as part of a critique of the interpretation of Roman warfare and imperialism advanced by Harris (1979) and North (1981). They presented a model of the Roman social system under the Republic as geared to continuous war and requiring a regular flow of the opportunities and profits of war. In response, I drew attention to fluctuations both in Roman war-making and in benefits such as triumphs, illustrating the case with a bar-chart showing triumphs per decade for the period 330-91 BC. Here I offer a more refined analysis of the triumphal record down to the triumph in 19 BC of L. Cornelius Balbus, the last non-member of the imperial family to hold a full triumph, and explore the implications of the record for the understanding of Roman practice and policy policy.. The paper also engages with the much disputed issue of the senate’s decision-making on applications for triumphs. Discussion of this topic t opic has focused largely on Livy’s ample reports of triumphal debates. Some new light may be shed by considering the question in the broader perspective of the triumphal record across the whole Republican period. In Section 1 I discuss the problems of reconstructing the list of triumphs, and in Section 2 its reliability. Section 3 presents a tabular analysis of the list by historical periods (Tables 2-5), showing changes in the frequency of triumphs overall, and also changes relative to the various types of triumphs, to commanders’ status, and to the regions in which triumphs were won. After a brief discussion of the authorization of triumphs (Section 4), the remaining sections (Sections 5-14) analyse the implications of the tabular data for successive historical periods. The Appendix presents the reconstructed triumphal list in a simplified form as a numbered table (Table 6, at pp. 246-252), incorporating the triumphs attested in the inscribed lists and, where they are not extant, by other















198

JOHN RICH

1. Reconstructing the list of triumphs Our primary source for the list of triumphs is the inscription recording consuls and triumphs which was erected on Luna marble in the Forum Romanum Ro manum under Augustus. Extensive fragments of these inscribed lists were discovered in 1546-1547 and set up in the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline Hill, where they still remain. As a result they are customarily known as the Fasti Capitolini, Capitolini, and I refer to them below by this term and as the Capitoline consular and triumphal lists . Further fragments of both lists continued to be discovered up to the early twentieth tw entieth century. century. These and other inscribed lists of consuls and triumphs have been intensively studied since the Renaissance, and are now consulted in the superb edition by Degrassi (1947). 1 Degrassi used the term Fasti Triumphales for Triumphales for the inscribed lists of triumphs, and, since the publication of his edition, it has become established in scholarly usage. However, However, the term not only lacks ancient authority, authority, but is inappropriate, since the t he word fasti word fasti was was in fact used solely for f or calendars and 2 lists of chief magistrates, and I have accordingly avoided it below. Nedergaard’s recent research has confirmed Degrassi’s Degrassi’s view that the structure on which the Fasti were originally set up was the triple Arch of Augustus in the Forum Romanum, immeCapitolini were Capitolini diately to the south of the Temple of Divus Julius, and not, as has often been supposed, the Regia. 3 The identity of the arch is disputed: many scholars suppose that it was erected in celebration of Augustus’ Parthian settlement of 20 BC, but I have argued that it was originally erected in honour of his Actium victory and subsequently remodelled to commemorate the Parthian settlement as well.4 The list of consuls was inscribed on the arch on four tablets, each set in a Corinthian framing. The triumphs were inscribed on four Doric pilasters flanking two of the tablets. The first and second triumphal pilasters flanked the third consular tablet, and the two lower courses of the whole of this wall have survived virtually intact.5 Degrassi, like earlier editors from Henzen on, supposed that the third and fourth pilasters flanked the fourth tablet, and that, since the blocks comprising this tablet had the same measurements as those of the third, these pilasters were accordingly commensurate with the first two. However, Nedergaard has argued that these pilasters must have flanked not the fourth, but either the first or second tablet, with some corresponding changes to the measurements of their component blocks.6 The four pilasters listed triumphs from Romulus down to Balbus in 19 BC. 41 fragments survive from these pilasters. The first two pilasters, covering triumphs down to respectively 302 and 222 BC, are relatively well preserved. Only small fragments survive of the third pilaster, covering triumphs down to 129, and there are extensive gaps also in the fourth pilaster. Building on the work of his predecessors, Degrassi was able to establish the placing of each of the fragments on the pilasters and to calculate the number of missing lines where there are gaps between fragments: his reconstruction is illustrated on his Tab. XX-XXI.7 For the larger l arger gaps complete precision is not possible, but Degrassi’s estimates are likely to be accurate within one or two lines. However However,, Nedergaard’s Nedergaard’s hypothesis would entail recalculation of some of the missing lines on the third and fourth fo urth pilasters.

1. On the Fasti Capitolini Capitolini and their location see Degrassi 1945/46 and 1947, 1-23, with Tab. I-XXVI. For his edition of the triumphal lists see Degrassi 1947, 64-87, 338-345, 534-571, with Tab. XLVIII-LIV, XLVIII-LIV, XCVIII-CIV. Degrassi’s edition replaced the previously standard edition by G. Henzen and C. Hülsen in CIL 12 (1893), pp. 1-15, 43-54, 7578, 168-181. Degrassi 1954 is a briefer edition of the Fasti Capitolini alone. For recent discussions of the inscribed

term used in CIL 12, but this too lacks any ancient authority. 3. Nedergaard 1993, 1993, 1994-95, 2001, 2004. 2004. For the Regia as the location see most recently Simpson 1993. 4. Rich 1998, 97-115. For other recent discussions of the arch see Nedergaard 1994-95, 2001; Scott 2001; Rose 2005, 28-36. 5. See the reconstruction drawing drawing by G. Gatti at Degrassi















THE TRIUMPH IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC: FREQUENCY, FLUCTUATION AND POLICY

199

Each entry normally records the following information: the full name (including filiation) of the triumphing commander; his official status when triumphing (king, consul, dictator dictator,, praetor, praetor, proconsul or propraetor); the enemy or enemies from whom the triumph had been won, using the preposition de tion de,, or for many later entries the t he region from which it had been won, using using ex ex;; the calendar date of the triumph; and (at the end of the first line) the year from a dating of 752 BC for the foundation of Rome.8 We are also informed when a celebration fell into one of the following special categories: ovations, that is, lesser triumphs in which the commander wore the normal toga praetexta of a magistrate and a myrtle rather than a laurel wreath and processed not in a chariot, but on foot; naval triumphs; and triumphs celebrated outside Rome on the Alban Mount, by commanders who had been refused a triumph in the city. (It is a notable feature of the list that triumphs of this last type were included, although unauthorized and held outside Rome.) The formulae by which these special categories are indicated are respectively ouans respectively ouans,, naualem egit (these egit (these entries are the only ones containing a main verb), and in monte Albano. Albano. 9 In a few cases some further information is included: thus our attention is drawn to the first triumphs of each of the special types and the first triumph t riumph by a proconsul, and to the fact that C. Cicerius, who triumphed in 172, was a former scribe. The great majority of the surviving entries occupy two lines. Some 32 occupy three lines, usually because the enemies listed require the additional space. Five entries, for triumphs against single enemies won by commanders without cognomina (king Servius Tullius and three commanders in cognomina (king the 40s BC), are accorded just one line (nos. 11, 12, 269, 273, 274). Two triumphs occupy four lines, namely that of Cn. Cornelius Blasio in 196 (no. 168), where the extra space is taken up by the notice of his appointment extra appointment extra ordinem without ordinem without a magistracy, and Pompey’s third triumph (no. 258), for which an unparalleled number of enemies are listed. The entry for Marcellus’ triumph in 222 (no. 154), which closes the second pilaster, pilaster, has an additional sentence reporting his winning spolia winning spolia opima opima by killing the enemy commander, and as a result uniquely runs over to a fifth line. 213 entries are preserved, in whole or in part, on the surviving fragments of the Capitoline triumphal list. For a good many most of the entry is lost, but in almost all cases the triumph referred to can be securely identified with the help of literary sources and the Capitoline consular list.10 Other sources also enable us to identify a substantial number of triumphs which will have been listed in sections of the Capitoline record which are now lost. Scanty fragments survive of two other inscribed triumphal lists, to which Degrassi gave the titles Fasti Triumphales Urbisalvienses and Fasti Triumphales Barberiniani. Barberiniani.11 The former, from Urbs Salvia (modern Urbisaglia) in Picenum, was, like the Capitoline triumphal list, accompanied by a list of consuls.12 Two marble fragments survive from this list, covering triumphs of 195-194 and 175-166 BC (nos. 169-172, 194-202), all of which are also extant on the Capitoline list (though some wording wo rding is better preserved in this version). The five f ive peperino peperino fragments surviving from the Barberini list are so called because, after their discovery during the Renaissance at an unknown location in Rome, they were installed at the staircase of the Palazzo Barberini until their removal to the Vatican Museum in 1910. These fragments preserve the list’s entries for the triumphs of 43-21 (nos. 271-288,

8. The Capitoline consular and triumphal lists allowed one year less for the period of the kings than the so-called Varronian chronology (in fact pioneered by Atticus in his liber annalis composed in 47 BC) which dated the foundation to 753: see further Werner 1963, 192-209; Drummond 1978, 550-563; Burgess and Kulikowski 2013, 161-162. 9. On naval triumphs triumphs see Dart and and Vervaet Vervaet 2012. On Alban Mount triumphs see Brennan 1996; Baudou 1997; Rosenberger 2009; Lange, in this volume. Rohde 1942

calendar date and the final letters of the commander’s name (read by Degrassi as “-mus”) and of the enemy’s name (“-us”). Degrassi restores an otherwise unknown suffect consul, which seems unlikely, not least because suffects are not attested before 305 BC (Livy 9.44.15; Oakley 2005a, 582-585). Earlier editors’ restoration of the dictator Mam. Aemilius Mamercinus, attested as triumphing in that year against the Veientes and Fidenates by Livy 4.20.1 and Lyd. Mag. Mag. 1.38, 1.38, seems more plausible

















200

JOHN RICH

290-297), for some of which the Capitoline entries are lost (nos. 285-291).13 The entries in both the Urbisalvian and Barberini lists omit the years of each triumph and the commander’s filiation, while the Barberini entries also omit the commander’s status and include at the end the words “triumphauit palmam dedit” [“... triumphed, dedicated the palm”]. 14 Both lists probably derive from the same original as the Capitoline list. 15 Numerous references to individual triumphs survive in a wide range of ancient historical works, in literary works of other kinds, and in inscriptions other than the triumphal lists, for example elogia example elogia 16 relating to the triumphing commanders. Dionysius gives a nearly comprehensive listing for the period down to 443 for which his history is extant.17 Livy gives only selective triumphal notices in his first decade, but an almost complete listing l isting in the extant later part of his work (Books 21-45) cov18 ering the years 218-167. Outside these years, only the inscribed lists give a comprehensive record, including 62 triumphs unattested elsewhere. As a result, although we are able to supply many of the entries missing from the inscribed lists from other sources, some gaps remain. Table 1 provides data on the twelve lacunae between the surviving fragments of the Capitoline triumphal list in which one or more triumphs will have been recorded. The first three columns indicate the placing of these gaps in the reconstructed Capitoline list. The fourth column gives the number of lines which will have been occupied by missing triumphs in each lacuna according to Degrassi’s reconstruction. (The numbers specified do not include lines which can be assigned to partially sur viving triumphs.) Where Nedergaard has dissented, both their calculations calculations are shown, distinguished by ‘D’ and ‘N’. The fifth column gives the number of triumphs attested by other sources for the periods to which the lacunae relate, and the final column gives an estimate of the number of additional triumphs, if any, any, likely to have appeared in the Capitoline list when intact. Given the variation in the number of lines per triumph, only the likely range can be estimated for the triumphs missing in the larger lacunae, not the precise number. Table 1. Lacunae in the Capitoline triumphal list Pilast Pil aster er Last Last triu triumph mph bef before ore lacuna (BC date/no.)

First triumph after lacuna (BC date/no.)

Lines occupied by missing triumphs

Triumphs attested in other sources

1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4

Ancus Marcius (no. 7) 486 (no. 27) 367 (no. 52) 282 (no. 104) 197 (no. 166) 189 (no. 176) 178 (no. 190) 129 (no. 215) 98 (no. 238)

9 4 25 19 31 2 D, 3 N 18 D, 21 N 33 D, 29 N 10

4 (nos. 3-6) 2 (nos. 25-26) 12 (nos. 40-51) 6 (nos. 98-103) 11 (nos. 155-165) 1 (no. 175) 9 (nos. 181-189) 8 (nos. 207-214) 5 (nos. 233-237)

Romulus II (no. 2) 494 (no.24) 437 (no. 39) 291 (no. 97) 222 (no. 154) 191 (no. 174) 187 (no. 180) 155 (no. 206) 104 (no. 232)

Estimated additional triumphs

1-3 1-3

6-8 D, 4-6 N


















201

85 triumphs are attested by other sources for the periods covered by the lacunae in the Capitoline list and may have stood in the list. A few of these are problematic, and are discussed below. 19 With these exceptions, we can be confident that these attested triumphs will have appeared in the now lost portions of the Capitoline list. These triumphs are sufficient to fill the majority of the list’s gaps, and only for four of its lacunae is it necessary to postulate further triumphs of which no record happens to survive.20 The lacuna between triumphs recorded for 291 and 282 BC, estimated by Degrassi as nineteen lines, may be restored as containing either seven, eight, or nine triumphs. 21 If the six triumphs attested elsewhere all appeared in the Capitoline list, we would therefore have to postulate between one and three further entries as completing this lacuna. Two commanders in this period for whom no triumph is recorded but who are likely to have triumphed are Cn. Domitius Calvinus, consul in 283, for his destruction of the surviving Gallic Senones, and Q. Aemilius Papus, consul in 282, probably in command at the decisive victory over the combined Etruscans and Boii. 22 However, two of the attested triumphs for these years are questionable: Dionysius, our only source for L. Postumius Megellus’ triumph in 291, tells us that he celebrated it without authorization, so duplicating information given for Postumius’ triumph in 294 by Livy, Livy, whose version may be preferable, and we know of Curius Dentatus’ ovation against the Lucani solely from a problematic notice in a late source. 23 At the top of the third pilaster there is a lacuna, estimated by Degrassi as 31 lines, between triumphs recorded for 222 and 197 BC. The ovation won in Spain by L. Cornelius Lentulus in 200 (no. 163) probably occupied four lines like that won by Cn. Cornelius Blasio in 196 (no. 168), since Lentulus, like Blasio, held proconsular imperium imperium extra extra ordinem ordinem,, and the notice relating to him is likely to have reported this with the same lengthy formula.24 The remaining 27 lines are likely to have accommodated at the most five three-line triumphs, with the remainder occupying two lines each. It follows that the total number of triumphs for this period was probably between twelve and fourteen, that is, at least one and no more than three in addition to the eleven attested by other sources. 25 All these additional triumphs are likely to have been won in 221-220, when the consuls campaigned successfully against the Histri and up to the Alps, since Plutarch ( Marc. 8.1) tells us that Marcellus in 222 triumphed without his colleague, both consuls are attested as triumphing in 219, and it is unlikely that any unattested triumphs occurred in the better documented period from 218. 26 The large lacuna near the bottom of the third pilaster, pilaster, between triumphs recorded for fo r 155 and 129 BC, is by far the most problematic, since only eight triumphs are attested in other sources for that period. If Degrassi is correct in calculating the gap at 33 lines, the maximum number of triumphs recorded in the lacuna will have been sixteen (allowing for just one three-line entry), and the number

19. Another problematic case is A. Cornelius Cornelius Cossus (no. 41; Degrassi 1947, 538). Augustus (reported by Livy 4.20.511) held that Cossus dedicated his spolia opima

22. Domitius: App. Samn. 6.4, Celt. 11.4; accepted as probably triumphing by Pais 1920, 72, and Degrassi 1947, 545 (Degrassi includes him in his listing, although no tri-

















202

JOHN RICH

can hardly have been lower than fourteen (implying five three-line entries). If Nedergaard’s calculation of 29 lines is to be preferred, the number of triumphs is correspondingly reduced to between twelve and fourteen. Thus the additional triumphs for this period, over and above those attested, may be between six and eight (Degrassi) or between four and six (Nedergaard). A further problem is that Florus’ report (2.7.8) that M. Perperna won an ovation (no. 214) for finishing the First Sicilian Slave war is likely to be erroneous: our other sources do not mention Perperna in connection with this war and portray it as ended by P. Rupilius as consul in 132. It was thus probably Rupilius who held the ovation, and I have accordingly attributed it to him in my tables.27 Pais identified a further eight commanders likely to have triumphed in the period, four consular commanders in Spain, two other consulars, and two praetorians, both commanding in Macedonia. 28 The lacuna between triumphs recorded for 81 and 62 BC is estimated by Degrassi at 29 lines. Twelve triumphs are attested in other sources for this period, but it is likely that at least one and perhaps two others figured on the list. 29 Degrassi listed seven triumphs as attested in other sources for the period covered by the lacuna between triumphs recorded for 54 and 45 BC. Subsequent scholarship has drawn attention to an eighth triumph (no. 260), won, in 54 or 53, by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, following his praetorship and from an unknown province, and attested by Varro ( Rust. 3.2.16). Rust. 3.2.16).30 The attested triumphs can be comfortably accommodated in the seventeen lines estimated for the lacuna by Nedergaard, but, if Degrassi’s estimate of fifteen lines is correct, one entry must have occupied a single line. The triumphs listed in Table 6 in the Appendix comprise the 213 for which entries are preserved in the surviving parts of the Capitoline list, plus the 85 attested by other sources for its lacunae, together totalling 298. To these must be added our estimates of the additional, unattested triumphs which will have stood in the four lacunae which cannot be filled just by attested triumphs. These total between nine and sixteen on Degrassi’s calculations of the line lengths, or between seven and fourteen on Nedergaard’s revision. Thus the total number of triumphs which will have been recorded on the intact Capitoline list may be estimated in the range 307-314 on Degrassi’s calculations, or 305-312 on Nedergaard’ Nedergaard’s. s. To the Christian historian Orosius (7.9.8) the joint triumph of Vesp Vespasian asian and Titus over the Jews in AD 71 presented the spectacle of a father and a son in the same chariot bringing back a most glorious victory over “those who had offended against (God) the Father and (Christ) the Son”, such as had not been seen in any of the 320 triumphs which had preceded it since the foundation of the City.. Eight celebrations – four full triumphs, and four ovations – had been held City hel d since the triumph of 31 Balbus in 19 BC with which the Capitoline list closed. Thus, although Orosius’ figure is likely to be

27. Rupilius holding the ovation: Pais 1920, 194-195; Münzer 1937, 894-895. Rupilius capturing Enna and finishing the war: Diod. 34-35.2.20-23; Livy Per. 59; Val. Max. Per. 59;

Ligurians; Ser. Fulvius Flaccus ( cos. ( cos. 135), in Illyricum. Praetorians (see Brennan 2000, 226-229): Licinius Nerhailed imperator for a victory by his quaestor


















203

a rounded total, it was clearly based on the same reckoning as the Capitoline record, and supports our estimate of the total number of triumphs in that listing. As this section has shown, the so-called Capitoline list of triumphs, as set up on the Arch of Augustus in the Forum Romanum, can be reconstructed with near completeness, with the single exception of the lacuna between the triumphs recorded for 155 and 129 BC, where a greater degree of uncertainty subsists. The list thus constitutes a rich resource for analysis. A further question must, however,, first be addressed, namely the historical reliability of the record. however

2. The reliability of the list of triumphs The list of triumphs as it was inscribed on the Arch of Augustus is a compilation by Augustan scholars, but the value of its information varies greatly across its length. The notices of relatively recent triumphs must derive ultimately from an archival source and may be taken as historically accurate. At least the section dealing with the kings must be simple invention, effected at some stage in the Romans’ imaginative expansion of their past. However However,, for the early centuries of the Republic, R epublic, scholars disagree as to how much of what we are told may be sound and how much invented, for the triumphal list, as for the rest of the historical tradition. 32 The chief archival source from which the triumphal list derives may may,, as has often been supposed, have been the so-called Annales so-called Annales Maximi Maximi,, the annual record of events posted by the Pontifex Maximus on a whitened board outside his residence and then retained in a more permanent form. How far back information from this source may have been available to later Roman enquirers is disputed: some suppose that the record may have been compiled and preserved from the fifth century, others (unconvincingly,, in my view) that it went back no further than the third. In any case, it is not certain (unconvincingly that this was the archive drawn on for the triumphal list, and at least l east the entries relating to triumphs held after the Pontifex Po ntifex Maximus’ record was discontinued by P. P. Mucius Scaevola (Pontifex Maximus from 130 to c. to c. 115 BC) must derive from a different archival source. 33 Triumphs also figured prominently in aristocratic family traditions, as preserved in, for example, funeral speeches and the labels attached to imagines imagines.. Such traditions were notorious for exaggerations and inventions, scathingly remarked on in well-known passages of Cicero ( Brut. 62, with specific reference to ‘false triumphs’) and Livy (8.40.4). Modern sceptics hold ho ld that many of the triumphs in the list may have been inventions from such sources, but it is not easy to demonstrate this in individual cases. Roman historians, as we have seen, included frequent references to triumphs, and this will have been established practice from an early stage in Roman historiography, as is shown by a verbatim fragment of the historian Sempronius Asellio, writing in the late second or early first century: criticizing predecessors whose works he calls annales annales,, Asellio describes it as characteristic of them to write “under whom as consul a war was undertaken and under whom it was ended and who en-

















204

JOHN RICH

The Roman historical tradition, as preserved for us chiefly by Livy and Dionysius, gives a detailed, and largely consistent, annual record of events, including frequent notices of warfare, from the foundation of the Republic with its annual magistrates (traditionally dated to 509). With a few exceptions, the information in the Capitoline triumphal list is in agreement with Livy and Dionysius for the period from the foundation of the Republic down to the long lacuna for the years 437-367. 34 However,, although a good deal of authentic tradition will certainly have survived, much of what our However sources tell us about the Republic’s wars down to the early fourth century cannot be historical. The detailed campaign narratives are mostly stereotyped literary confections, and in my view successive historians’ expansion of the past is likely to have extended also to the invention or duplication of wars and campaigns to fill out the annual record. 35 The triumphal notices themselves are likely to have been included in this process. Thus, although some of the triumphs reported for the early Republic are likely to be authentic, many are probably fabrications, like those reported for the kings from Romulus on. One of Livy’ Livy’ss incidental comments on his sources brings out the use of relatively late historians’ versions by the compilers of the triumphal list. The Capitoline list, Livy (3.24.8) and Dionysius (10.21.8) all agree that both consuls of 459 triumphed. One of them, L. Cornelius Maluginensis Uritinus (no. 34), is stated in the Capitoline entry to have triumphed “de Volsceis [A]ntiatib(us)”. This implies the version in which Antium rebelled and was captured in that year, which is narrated by Dionysius (10.20.4, 21.5-7), but which w hich Livy (3.23.7) hesitates to affirm because, although altho ugh he found it in several authors (“apud plerosque auctores”), nothing was said about it by older writers (“apud uetustiores scriptores”). From the fourth century and particularly for the Second Seco nd and Third Samnite Wars (327-290) there is a discernible change in the character of our information. For this period, closer to the beginning of Roman historical writing at the end of the third century, stronger traditions will have been available, and Livy’s narrative now becomes fuller down to 293, after which his account is lost to us. However, much fabrication and distortion persists, and there is also a good deal of source conflict over the activities of individual commanders, reflected both in the discrepancies between our sources and in Livy’s own notices of variants. Some of these conflicts affect the triumphal record. 36 Sometimes the compilers of the Capitoline list appear to have opted for the better version: thus both for 322 and for 305 (nos. 75-76, 85), the list’s entries agree with the variant version noted by Livy rather than with the account he used for his main narrative, and in each case this appears the more plausible. 37 Elsewhere matters are more complex. Thus the Capitoline list reports L. Papirius Cursor as triumphing over the Samnites as consul in 319 (no. 77), but Livy (9.15.9-11, 16.11) shows that there were variant versions of this triumph and of the magistrates for 320-319, and the historicity of the reported Roman successes in the immediate aftermath of the Caudine Forks disaster is very questionable.38 For 294 Livy (10.32-37) reports warfare in Samnium and Etruria and a single triumph, but notes differing versions as to where the consuls operated and which of them triumphed, appending to his main narrative variants ascribed to Claudius Quadrigarius and the earliest Roman historian, Fabius




















205

(nos. 79-81), not mentioned by Livy, and the claim that the enemies triumphed over in 299 (no. 90) included the Samnites, although other sources date t he renewal of war against them to the following year.40 However However,, as the detailed analysis in Oakley’s superb Livy commentary has shown, there is no strong reason to disbelieve most of the triumphs reported by the Capitoline list for the Samnite War period. Following the lacuna in the years 291-282, the Capitoline list resumes with entries for the period of the Pyrrhic War and the completion of the conquest of Italy which there is mostly no reason to question. Only eight of the 21 triumphs it records for 282-266 are attested by other sources, but, in view of the thinness of our sources for these years, this t his is no cause for concern. Some doubt does, however,, subsist over the entries for the year 266, according to which both consuls triumphed twice, however over the Umbrian Sassinates and four months later over the Sallentini of SE Italy (nos. 121-124). Although, as Rosenstein has argued, this is not impossible, Beloch’s Beloch’s suggestion remains attractive that duplication has occurred, and each consul in fact won a single triumph from individual campaigns in these widely separated regions. 41 From 264 and the start of Rome’s overseas wars, the triumphal list, in so far as it can be reconstructed, can be accepted as both accurate and comprehensive. No valid grounds have been advanced for questioning the authenticity of any triumph listed in the extant inscribed lists for this period. Two triumphs not included in the Capitoline list are reported by some sources, but in each case they must be in error: these may be taken as instances of the false triumphs of family tradition, and it is reassuring that the inscribed list was not contaminated by them. 42 The first of these is the triumph over the Carthaginians and king Hiero of Syracuse attributed by Eutropius, Silius Italicus and (by implication) Suetonius to Ap. Claudius Caudex, who as consul in 264 opened the First Punic War: the triumph may well have been mentioned by Livy (Eutropius’ usual source in this period), but, since there is no reference to it either in the inscribed list or in Polybius, Diodorus or Zonaras, our main sources for Claudius’ campaign, we can be sure that it was not held. 43 The second case relates to L. Aemilius Paullus. Paullus triumphed twice, as proconsul after each of his consulships (nos. 185, 199): his first triumph, in 181 over Ligurians, falls at a point for which no inscribed list survives, but his triumph in 167 over Macedonia and its king Perseus is recorded as his second in ex-



















206

JOHN RICH

The conclusions of this section may be summed up as follows. The record of triumphs, as it sur vives in the inscribed lists or can be reconstructed for their lacunae, can command little confidence down to the early fourth century. For the later fourth and still more for the early third century, the record appears largely accurate, although a number of triumphs remain problematic. Thereafter the accuracy of the record can be taken as assured.

3. Frequency patterns in the list of triumphs This section presents tables analysing frequency patterns for successive periods of Roman republican history in the list of triumphs as reconstructed by the means ex plained in Section 1 (that is, from what survives of the inscribed lists supplemented, for their lacunae, by t he triumphs attested by other sources) and as reproduced in Table 6 in the Appendix. In what follows the term ‘listed triumphs’ is used to refer to the triumphs comprising this reconstructed record. The terminal points of the selected periods are mainly key dates in the development of Roman external warfare and expansion: the Gallic Sack (in fact in 387, but dated to 390 on the Varronian chronology); the outbreak of the First Samnite War (343); the outbreak and end of the First Punic War (264, 241); the outbreaks of the Second Punic and Second Macedonian Wars (218, 200). Internal conflicts supply suitable turning points in the early and late Republic: the overthrow of the Decemvirate (449), and the outbreaks of the Social War and the war between Pompey and Caesar (91, 49). The year 300 makes a convenient mid-point between the Second and Third Samnite Wars. The year 166 marks the end of the intensive fighting in Northern It aly and the Greek East which had been typical of the early second century. The year 130 is used as a cut-off point simply as the end of the lacuna in the Capitoline list with the most significant shortfall of entries supplied from other sources.47 As shown above, the list of triumphs must be regarded as of low historical reliability for the first three periods (509-344), of greater reliability for the next two (343-265), and full reliability for the




















207

Table 2. Triumphs 509-19 BC Listed triumphs 509-449 448-390 389-344 343-301 300-265 264-241 240-219 218-201 200-166 165-130 129-91 90-50 49-19

22 11 15 26 35 19 13 6 41 11 26 21 37

Total 509-19 Total 343-19 Total 343-50

2 83 2 35 198

Estimated additional triumphs

1-3 1-3

6-8 1-2

9-16 9-16 9-16

Listed triumphs per year 0.36 0.19 0.36 0.67 0.97 0.79 0 .5 9 0. 3 9 1. 17 0 .3 1 0. 6 7 0 .5 1 1.19

Estimated triumphs per year

0.59 0.73 0.68

0.60-0.62 0.76-0.78 0.71-0.74

1.00-1.06 0.64-0.73

0.47-0.53 0.54-0.56

mate is based on Degrassi’s calculation of the number of missing lines; if Nedergaard’s calculation is correct, the estimate should be reduced to 4-6. Column 4 gives the rate of listed triumphs per year, as implied by the totals in Column 2. Column 5 gives, for the four periods affected, the annual rate implied by the totals in Column 2 plus the estimated additional triumphs given in Column 3: the difference from Column 4 is marginal except for the period 165-130. The table reveals remarkable variation in the frequency of recorded triumphs. Down to the mid fourth century, triumphs are recorded as occurring on average only about once every three years,



















208

JOHN RICH

Table 3. Listed triumphs by type 509-19 BC 509-449 448-390 389-344 343-301 300-265 264-241 240-219 218-201 200-166 165-130 129-91 90-50 49-19 Total 509-19 Total 343-19

Standard 18 8 14 26 34 12 11 3 29 10 25 20 33 243 203

Ovation 4 3 1

Naval

Alban Mount

1 (?) 7 1 2 (?) 7 1 1 1 4 25 17

3

1 1 2

11

4

Standard per year 0 .3 0 0 .1 4 0 .3 3 0 .6 7 0 .9 4 0 .5 0 0.50 0.17 0.83 0.28 0.64 0.49 1.06 0.50 0.63

The data in this table thus yield a refinement in respect of the peak periods for triumphs overall shown on the previous table: in the first peak period, the early third century, century, almost all the triumphs t riumphs recorded are of the standard type, but naval and Alban Mount triumphs and especially ovations make a substantial contribution to the high overall total of celebrations for the early second century. Table 4 analyses the listed triumphs by the commander’s status at the time of his triumph down to 50 BC. I have omitted the period 49-19 from this table because of the rupture of the link between magistracy and triumph which occurred first through Pompey’s law of 52, which imposed a five-year interval between tenure of consuls’ and praetors’ tenure of their magistracy and of a province, and then from 49 through the irregularities of the civil war period. Columns 2, 4 and 6 show the numbers of triumphs held by commanders during their term of office as respectively consuls, praetors and dictators. A few of these commanders only took up the



















209


Table 4. Listed triumphs by commander’s status 509-50 BC Consuls 509-449 448-390 389-344 343-301 300-265 264-241 240-219 218-201 200-166 165-130 129-91 90-50 Total 509-50 Total 343-50

19 7 8 21 32 11 12 3 10 3 5 1 132 98

Ex-consuls Praetors Ex-praetors Dictators

1 2 6 1 3 11 5 18 9 56 56

Privati

3 4 7 4 1 (?) 1

1

3 3

1

17 3 3 7 31 31

2

1 19 5

3 5 5

Consular per year 0.31 0.12 0.19 0.56 0.94 0.71 0.59 0.33 0.60 0.22 0.59 0.24 0.42 0.53

Praetorian per year

0.03 0.08

0.51 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.12

Column 8 gives the annual averages for triumphs celebrated by those commanding either in their consulship or by prorogation following their consulship (as totalled in Columns 2 and 3). Column 9 gives the annual averages for triumphs celebrated by those commanding either in their praetorship or by prorogation following their praetorship (as totalled in Columns 4 and 5). Well known developments in the character of the Roman command system are naturally reflected in the table. In the early Republic R epublic triumphs were celebrated during their term of office by consuls o r dictators. However, the military dictatorship fell out of use after the fourth century, and so the two dictators who triumphed in 302 (nos. 88-89) were the last to do so until Sulla and Caesar. Prorogation was first resorted to in the Samnite Wars and became increasingly important from the Punic Wars on, until in the last years of the Republic military command came to be exercised exclusively by promagistrates.





















210

JOHN RICH

Table 5. Regions yielding listed triumphs, 264-19 BC

264-241 240-219 218-201 200-166 165-130 129-91 90-50 49-19 total

Italy

Sicily

3 6 3 14 3 4 2 1 36

12

Sardinia Corsica 2 4

2

Africa

1 17

Spain

Macedonia other eastern

Transalpine Gaul

15 3 5 4 .5 11 38.5

3 1 4 3 3 14

4 1.5 4 9.5

2 3 1

2 1 1

Illyricum

2 1? 11

1 2 1 6 13

1 1 2 2 9

6 1 2 7 6 22

4. The authorization of triumphs In the developed Republic the right to authorize triumphs rested with the senate. Formally, a commander’s request to the senate was for funding for the triumph. 56 However, only on a very few occasions did commanders hold triumphs in Rome despite having been refused refuse d senatorial approval. In 223






















211

The senate’s exercise of its control over triumphs has spawned a huge modern bibliography. 63 The topic will be explored over the following sections, but some preliminary remarks are in order here. Customary practice for seeking a triumph, as it can be discerned from the third century on, generally ran as follows. A commander who won a significant victory was acclaimed as imperator by by his troops, had his fasces his fasces decorated decorated with laurel, and then continued to use the laurel and the title until his return. Following such an acclamation the commander usually sent a despatch, with laurel attached, to the senate announcing the victory and requesting that a thanksgiving ( supplicatio) supplicatio ) be decreed to the gods. On his return to Rome, the commander addressed a meeting of the senate specially convened outside the pomerium the pomerium,, at which he reported his achievements, and asked that a triumph be decreed on their account (and also a supplicatio a supplicatio,, if not already awarded).64 The senate’s primary task in response to such requests was to determine whether the commander had acquitted himself in his command sufficiently well to merit a supplicatio a supplicatio and triumph, as is illustrated by the formulaic wording used. Livy Livy,, in a speech, tells us that decrees honouring commanders with supplicationes with and triumphs included as standard the words “because he has conducted public supplicationes and business well and successfully” [38.48.15: “quod bene ac feliciter rem publicam administrarit”]. Other texts confirm the use of this or closely clo sely similar language both in the senate’ senate’ss decrees and in the 65 commanders’ requests.





















212

JOHN RICH

He has endowed his compatriots with booty, land and glory, and for the Theban king Creon has made his kingdom secure. 67

Ablative absolute phrases recording achievements, as in these passages, occur also in the dedicatory inscriptions and in Livy’s versions of commanders’ reports, and were evidently typical of the genre. 68 Commanders will usually have centred their triumphal claims on having won one or more victories, supported by assertions of enemy rout, numbers of enemies killed and captured, and details of booty won. They will also have drawn on other successful features of their command, and, when they could, will have made much of having ended their war by securing the t he enemy’s submission, as 69 in these Plautine parodies. However However,, as we shall see, although it may have come to be given increasing weight, finishing the war was never a necessary requirement for a triumph. When triumphal applications were opposed, critics might draw on diverse aspects of the applicant’s command, as the accounts of Livy and other sources show. Lines of attack included disputing the commander’s claims, denigrating the defeated enemy as insignificant, and calling attention to high numbers of Roman casualties. Thus, according to Livy, Q. Minucius Rufus found himself obliged to content himself with an Alban Mount triumph in 197 when the senate refused him a triumph at Rome following tribunes’ claims that “in Liguria he had f ought trivial engagements hardly worthy of mention and in Gaul had lost a large number of soldiers”.70 When they could, command-






















213

acknowledge.73 However, while the senate certainly did not operate with a precise set of rules specifying the minimum requirements for a triumph, as Mommsen’s celebrated treatment might appear to imply, some recent discussions have overstressed the inconsistency and ad hominem character hominem character of the senate’s triumphal decision-making. 74 As Livy’s reports bring out, appeals to precedent will have played an important part in the senators’ deliberations,75 and it will be argued below that a fair degree of consistency can in fact be discerned in the senate’ senate’ss responses to the novel triumphal issues with which it had to deal. The copious information on triumphs in the period 218-167 in the later books of Livy provides our best evidence for the senate’ senate’ss triumphal decision-making, but it must be used with care, for two rea76 sons. In the first place, for all its detail, Livy’s coverage of triumphs in these books remains selective and patchy. patchy. Only in eleven el even passages in these books does Livy give details about the deliberative process relating to triumphs as well as the ceremony, while for seventeen triumphs he just reports the ceremony, either without mentioning the senate’s decree or merely stating that it took place.77 No doubt many of these seventeen triumphs will have been awarded by the senate ‘with a great consensus’, as Livy notes for seven others, but this will not have been true of them all, for example where the outcome was not a full triumph, but an ovation.78 Livy mentions unsuccessful triumphal applications to the senate from Scipio in 206 and from four commanders in the early second seco nd century, century, 79 but more are likely to have occurred. Secondly, although often vividly detailed, Livy’s accounts of





















214

JOHN RICH

In view of the difficulties posed by our direct evidence, some progress may be made on these questions by assessing the evidence of the triumphal record itself across the various phases of Republican history, and it is to this undertaking that we now turn.

5. Triumphs Triumphs in the early Republic, c. 509-344 BC We need not concern ourselves here with the much discussed question of the origins of the triumph.83 There seems no good reason to doubt that before the end of the monarchy the essential features of the triumph had already become established, namely a parade through the city by the victorious commander and army, preceded by their booty and captives, which culminated in sacrifice on the Capitol in fulfilment of a vow made by the commander when he set out.84 Much warfare in the archaic period may have been raiding and reprisals conducted by individuals and groups, and, as Armstrong (2013) has suggested, the institution of the triumph may have been one of the ways by which the community brought it under its control. As noted above (at n. 35), our sources’ detailed annual record of Roman warfare in the early Republic cannot be trusted, but the broad outlines are clear enough. Early in the fifth century the Romans formed alliances with their fellow Latins and with the Hernici, which stayed firm until the
























215

Few campaigns in this period will have lasted more than a few weeks or produced any form of peace settlement. Most of its triumphs will thus have been merely celebrations of the return of an army with its plunder after a successful engagement. The triumphal record attributes all the triumphs of the period to consuls or to military dictators, then frequently appointed. In many years in the later fifth and early fourth century (traditionally, from 444 to 367) the chief magistrates were not consuls, but consular tribunes, that is, boards of between three and six tribuni militum consulari potestate. As potestate. As Zonaras noted (7.19.5, epitomizing Cassius Dio), no consular tribune is recorded as triumphing. 87 It is possible, as many scholars have supposed, that the nature of their appointment was for some reason felt to disqualify them from























216

JOHN RICH

enemies, but they also fought the Gauls of the north, the Etruscans, and almost all the other peoples of Italy, and finally King Pyrrhus. By the 260s, all Italy except the north had submitted to Roman rule. Thus in about seventy years the Romans had completed the conquest of most of Italy and had become habituated to nearly continuous war and to the profits of war -- booty, land confiscations and the glory of victory. The sharp increase in the frequency of triumphs in this period shown by the triumphal record is thus entirely plausible. As Table 2 shows, the annual rate of recorded triumphs rises to 0.67 for the years 343-301, and to around 1.0 for 300-265. As we saw in Section 2, there are a good many problems of reliability for the triumphs reported for the later fourth century, and some for those of
























217

umphed on their return to Rome. The first prorogation took place in 326 to enable Q. Publilius Philo to complete the siege of Naples. Both Livy (8.26.7) and the Capitoline list note his triumph (no. 73) as the first to be celebrated by a proconsul, but there is no indication that any objection was raised to the innovation. The prorogations which took to ok place in 296-295 merely gave support to the consuls in the critical period leading up to the decisive battle of Sentinum, but the two later commanders to be prorogued, in 291 and 280, both triumphed (nos. 97, 107). 100 Occasional resort continued to be made to military dictators in the late fourth century, four of whom are recorded as triumphing (nos. 74, 82, 88, 89). However However,, from 300 on such dictators ceased to be appointed, except at critical moments in 249 and 216. Thus, with one possible exception, the























218

JOHN RICH

mastery in Sicily, eventually resolved in 241 when the Carthaginians accepted a peace treaty under which they withdrew from Sicily and paid a substantial indemnity. Of the nineteen triumphs held in these years, three were won in Italy It aly,, for the suppression of revolts by Volsinii in 264 (no. 125) and the Falisci in 241 (nos. 142-143), but the remaining sixteen were all won against the Carthaginians, either alone or with allies. One of the triumphs was for successes in Sardinia and Corsica (no. 128) and two for naval victories off Africa (nos. 134-135), but all the rest were for victories in Sicily or off its coast. The winning of so many triumphs from this single, long-drawn out war demonstrates that victories on their own were still, as before, enough for a triumph, with no requirement to have achieved a peace settlement.
























219

and A. Postumius Albinus were each appointed to command in Sicily, but the pontifex maximus L. Caecilius Metellus prevented Postumius from going because of his duties as flamen as flamen Martialis, Martialis, and the praetor Q. Valerius Falto was accordingly sent out in his place. Catulus was then injured while besieging Drepana before the sea-battle. 111 The Capitoline list shows that both Catulus and Falto triumphed on return, respectively as proconsul and propraetor: Catulus is recorded as triumphing “over the Carthaginians from Sicily” [“de Poenis ex Sicilia”], and Falto three days later “from Sicily” [“ex Sicilia”]. Valerius Maximus (2.8.2) tells us that the triumph was decreed just to Catulus; when Falto applied for one too, Catulus objected; Falto then challenged him under the sponsio the sponsio procedure, procedure, claiming that Catulus had been confined by his injury to a litter during the battle and he himself




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Hickson-Hahn, F. 2004 “The politics of thanksgiving”. In: Konrad, C.F. (ed.), Augusto (ed.), Augusto augur io: rerum reru m humanarum et diuinarum diuina rum commentationes in honorem Jerzy Linderski Linderski,, Stuttgart, 31-52. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 1993 “Conquest, competition and consensus: Roman expansion in Italy and the rise of the nobilitas nobilitas”, ”, Historia Historia 42, 42, 12-39. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2011 Die 2011 Die Entstehung der Nobilität Nobilität2, Stuttgart.

255

Lange, C.H. 2013 “Triumph “Triumph and civil war in the Late Republic”, Papers of the British School at Rome Rome 81, 67-90. Laqueur, R. 1909 “Über das Wesen des römischen Triumphs”, Hermes Triumphs”, Hermes 44, 215-36. Linderski, J. 1985 “The dramatic date of Varro, De re rustica, Book III and the elections in 54”, Historia Historia 34, 34, 248-254 (= Linderski, J., Roman Questions. Selected Papers ( Heidelberger Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien Studien 20), Stuttgart 1995, 100-106).

Hoyos, B.D. 1998 Unplanned Wars. The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 50), Geschichte 50), Berlin & New York.

Loreto, L. 1993 Un’epoca di buon senso. Decisione, consenso e stato a Roma tra il 326 e il 64 64 a.C., a.C., Amsterdam.

Humphrey, J. & Reinhold, M. 1984 “ Res Gestae 4.1 and the ovations of Augustus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Papyrologie und Epigraphik 57, 60-62.

Lundgreen, C. 2011 Regelkonflikte in der römischen Republik ( Historia Historia Einzelschriften 221), Stuttgart.

Hurlet, F. 2001 “Les auspices d’Octavien/Auguste”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz 12, 155-180.

Marasco, G. 1995 “Appiano e il proconsolato di P. Vatinio Vatinio in Illiria (4543 a.C.)”, Chiron Chiron 25, 25, 283-297.

Hurlet, F. 2006 Le 2006 Le proconsul et le prince d’Auguste à Dioclétien ( Dioclétien ( Au 18), Paris. sonius Éditions. Scripta Antiqua Antiqua 18),

McDougall, I. 1992 “The reputation of Appius Claudius Pulcher, cos. 143 BC”, Hermes BC”, Hermes 120, 120, 452-460.

Hurlet, F. 2012 “Pro “Pro consule uel pro praetore? praetore? À propos des titres et des pouvoirs des gouverneurs prétoriens d’Afrique, de Sicile et de Sardaigne-Corse sous la République romaine (227-52 av. J.-C.)”, Chiron 42, 95-106. Chiron 42,

Mommsen, T. 1887 Römisches 1887 Römisches Staatsrecht 13 ( Handbuch Handbuch der Römischen Altertümer 1), 1), Leipzig.

Itgenshorst, T. 2004 “Augustus und der republikanische Triumph. Triumphalfasten und summi und summi viri-Galerie viri-Galerie als Instrumente der imperialen Machtsicherung”, Hermes Machtsicherung”, Hermes 132, 132, 436-458. Itgenshorst, T. 2005 Tota illa pompa. pompa . Der Triumph in der römischen Re publik ( Hypomnemata. Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 161), Nachleben 161), Göttingen. Knapp, R.C. 1979 “The legions in Spain (200-179 BC)”, Homenaje a García Bellido 4, Madrid, 87-93. Kondratieff, E. 2004 “The column and coinage of C. Duilius: innovations in iconography in large and small media in the Middle Republic”, Scripta Classica Israelica 23, 1-39. Konrad, C.F. 1996 “Notes on Roman also-rans”. In: Linderski, J. (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic ( Historia Historia Einzelschriften 105), Stuttgart, 103-143. Koortbojian, M. 2010 “Crossing the pomerium the pomerium.. The armed ruler at Rome”. In: Ewald, B.C. & Noreña, C.F. (eds.), The Emperor at Rome. Space, Representation and Ritual (Yale Classical Studies 35), Studies 35), Cambridge, 247-274.

Mora, F. 1999 Fasti e schemi cronologici. La riorganizzazione annalistica del passato remoto romano ( romano ( Historia Historia Einzelschriften 125), Stuttgart. Morgan, M.G. 1969 “Metellus Macedonicus and the province Macedonia”, Historia nia”, Historia 18, 18, 422-446. Morgan, M.G. 1973 “Villa “Villa Publica and Publica and Magna Mater . Two notes on manubial building at the close of the second century BC”, Klio 55, 215-245. Münzer, F. 1937 “M. Perperna (4)”. In: G. Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclo(ed.), Realencyclo pädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 19, Altertumswissenschaft 19, Stuttgart, 894-896. Nedergaard, E. 1993 “ Arcus Augusti”. Augusti”. In: Steinby, E. (ed.), Lexicon TopoTopo (Rome), 1.80-85. graphicum Urbis Romae Romae (Rome), Nedergaard, E. 1994-95 “La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini e Capitolini e gli archi di Augusto nel Foro Romano”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 96, 33-70. Nedergaard, E. 2001 “Facts and fiction about the Fasti Capitolini”, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 27, 107-127. Nedergaard, E.















256

JOHN RICH

Niebuhr, B.G. 1848 The History of Rome 22, transl. Hare, J.C. & Thirlwall, C., London. North, J.A. 1981 “The development of Roman imperialism”, Journal of Roman Studies 71, Studies 71, 1-9. North, J.A. 2010 Review of Flower 2010, Journal of Roman Studies 23, 469-472. Oakley, S.P. 1993 “The Roman conquest of Italy”. In: Rich, J. & Shipley, G. (eds.), War and Society in the Roman World ( Leicester-Nottingham 5), Lon Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Society 5), don & New York, 9-37. Oakley, S.P. 1997 A 1997 A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X. 1: Introduction and Book VI , Oxford. Oakley, S.P. 1998 A 1998 A Commentary on Livy Livy Books VI-X. 2: Books Books VII and VIII , Oxford. Oakley, S.P. 2005a A 2005a A Commentary on Livy Books Books VI-X. 3: Book IX , Oxford. Oakley, S.P. 2005b A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X. 4: Book X , Oxford. Ogilvie, R.M. 1965 A 1965 A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5, 1-5, Oxford. Orlin, E.J. 1997 Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic,, Leiden, New York & Köln. lic Östenberg, I. 2009 Staging the World. Spoils, Captives and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Triumphal Procession ( Procession (Oxford Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation), Representation), Oxford. Paci, G. 1981 “Appendice epigraphica: Fasti consolari ed altri frammenti epigraphici dagli scavi del criptoportico di Urbisaglia (terza campagna, 1978)”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità8 35, 59-76. Pais, E. 1920 Fasti Triumphales Populi Romani ( Romani (Collezione Collezione di Testi e Monumenti Romani), Romani), Rome. Pais, E. 1921. “Lo scoppio della prima guerra Punica e le gesta dei consoli Appio Claudio e Manio Valerio nel 264-263 a.C.”. In: Pais, E., Ricerche E., Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma 4, Rome, 339-374. Petrucci, A. 1996 Il 1996 Il trionfo nella storia costituzionale costituzionale romana dagli dagli ini zi della repubblica ad Augusto ( Augusto ( II Università degli Studi di Roma, Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Se zione di storia e teoria del diritto 2), diritto 2), Milan.

Pittenger, M.R.P. 2008 Contested Triumphs. Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy’s Republican Rome, Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London. Poucet, J. 1968 “‘Acta “ ‘Acta triumphalia’ et ‘falsi triumphi’ . Le triomphe remporté sur les Samnites et les Nequinates par le consul Fulvius en 299 avant Jésus-Christ et les falsi triumphi de la gens Fulvia Fulvia à à l’époque des guerres samnites”. In: Re cueil commémoratif du X e Anniversaire de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres (Publications de l’Université Lovanium de Kinshasa 22), Louvain and Paris, 205-219. Poucet, J. 1971 “Romains, Sabins et Samnites. Réflexions sur les événements de 304 a. C. n., sur les contacts romano-sabins aux Ve et IVe siècles, sur les triomphes de la gens Sulpicia, et sur la valeur de Fastes triomphaux”, L’Antiq L’Antiquité uité Classique 40, 134-155. Rich, J.W. 1988 “Review of Richardson 1986”, Journal of Roman Studies 78, 212-214. Rich, J.W. 1993 “Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making war-mak ing in the middle Republic”. In: Rich, J. & Shipley, G. (eds.), War and Society in the Roman World ( Leices Leicester-Nottingham ter-Nottingh am Studies in Ancient Society 5), Society 5), London and New York, 38-68. Rich, J.W. 1996 “Augustus and the spolia the spolia opima”, 26, 85-127. opima”, Chiron Chiron 26, Rich, J.W. 1998 “Augustus’s Parthian honours, the temple of Mars Ultor and the arch in the Forum Romanum”, Papers of the British School at Rome 56, 71-128. Rich, J.W. 1999 “Drusus and the spolia opima”, opima ”, Classical Quarterly 49, 544-555. Rich, J.W. 2005 “Valerius Antias and the construction of the Roman past”, Bulletin past”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 48, 137161. Rich, J.W. 2007 “Warfare and the army in early Rome”. In: Erdkamp, P. (ed.), A (ed.), A Companion to to the Roman Army Army, Malden, MA, & Oxford, 7-23. Rich, J.W. 2012a “Review of Flower 2010”, Journal 2010”, Journal of Roman Studies 102, 306-307. Rich, J.W. 2012b “Making the emergency permanent: auctoritas auctoritas,, potestas and potestas and the evolution of the principate of Augustus”. In: Rivière, J. (ed.), Des (ed.), Des réformes augustéennes ( augustéennes (Collection Collection de l’École Française de Rome Rome 458), Rome, 37-121. Rich, J.W. 2013a “ Annales Maximi Maximi:: Introduction”. In: Cornell, T.J. et al. (eds.), al. (eds.), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, OxHistorians, Oxford, 1.141-159.
















Rich, J.W. (forthcoming) “The origins of Roman annalistic historical writing”. In: Sandberg, K. & Smith, C.J. (eds.), Omnium annalium monumenta. Historical Evidence and Historical Writing in Republican Rome ( Rome ( Historia Historia Einzel Einzelschri schriften ften), ), Stuttgart. Richard, J. 1992 “Tribuns militaires et triomphe”. In: La Rome des premiers siècles. Légende et histoire, histoire, Florence, 235-246. Richardson, J.S. 1975 “The triumph, the praetors and the senate in the early second century BC”, Journal BC”, Journal of Roman Roman Studies Studies 65, 50-63. Richardson, J.S. 1986 Hispaniae: 1986 Hispaniae: Spain and the Development Development of Roman Im perialism, 218-82 BC, BC, Cambridge.

257

Schön, G. 1893 Das 1893 Das Capit Capitolini olinische sche Verzeic erzeichnis hnis der römis römischen chen Triump riumphe he,, Vienna. Schumacher, L. 1985 “Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der Triumvirn und die Auspicia des Augustus”, Historia 34, 191-222. Historia 34, Scott, R.T. 2000 “The triple arch of Augustus and the Roman triumph”, Journal triumph”, Journal of Roman Archaeology Archaeology 13, 13, 183-191. Sehlmeyer, M. 1999 Stadtrömischer Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Historia Einzelschriften 130), Stuttgart. Zeit ( Zeit ( Historia

Richardson, J.S. 2008 The Language of Empire. Rome and the Idea of Em pire from the Third Century BC to the Second Century AD, AD, Cambridge.

Simón, F.M. 2011 “The Feriae Latinae as Latinae as religious legitimation of the consuls’ imperium ”. In: Beck, H. et H. et al. (eds.), Consuls and imperium”. Res Publica. Publica. Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, Republic , Cambridge, 116-132.

Ridley, R.T. 1983 “Falsi “ Falsi triumphi, plures consulatus”, consulatus”, Latomus Latomus 42, 372-382.

Simpson, C.J. 1993 “The original site of the Fasti Capitolini”, Historia 42, 61-81.

Ridley, R.T. 1986 “The ‘consular tribunate’: the testimony of Livy”, Klio 68, Klio 68, 444-465.

Smith, C.J. 2012 “The Feriae Latinae”. Latinae”. In: Brandt, J .R. & Iddeng, J.W. (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals. Content, Meaning and Practice,, Cambridge, 267-288. Practice

Rohde, C. 1942 “Ovatio”. In: Wissowa, G. (ed.), Realencyclopädie (ed.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 18, Stuttgart, 18901903. Roller, M. 2009 “The exemplary past in Roman historiography and culture”. In: Feldherr, A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to The Roman Historians, Historians, Cambridge, 214-230. Rose, C.B. 2005 “The Parthians in Augustan Rome”, American Journal of Archaeology 109, 21-75.

Spannagel, M. 1999 Exemplaria Principis. Principis . Untersuchungen zu Entste hung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums ( Archäologie Archäologie und Geschichte 9), Heidelberg. Stewart, R. 1998 Public Office in Early Rome. Ritual Procedure and Political Practice, Practice, Ann Arbor. Sumi, G.S. 2005 Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire, Empire, Ann Arbor.

Rosenstein, N. 2004 Rome 2004 Rome at War. War. Farms, Families and Death in the Mid dle Republic (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome), Rome), Chapel Hill & London.

Sumner, G.V. 1965 “A new reading in the Fasti Triumphales Capitolini”, Capitolini”, Phoenix 19, Phoenix 19, 24-26.

Rosenstein, N. 2012 Rome 2012 Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 146 BC (The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome), Rome), Edinburgh.

Thiel, J.H. 1954 A History of Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War , Amsterdam.

Rosenber ger, V. Rosenberger, V. 2009 “Verwehrte Ehre: zur Verwertigkeit des triumphus 91, 29-39. in monte Albano”, Albano”, Klio Klio 91,

Urso, G.P. 2013 Cassio Dione e i sovversivi. La crisi della repubblica nei frammenti della “Storia romana” (XXI-XXX) (Quaderni di Erga-Logoi 1), Erga-Logoi 1), Milan.

Rüpke, J. 1990 Domi 1990 Domi Militiae: Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Rom, Stuttgart. Rüpke, J. 2006 “Triumphator “Triumphator and ancestor rituals: between symbolic anthropology and magic”, Numen Numen 53, 53, 251-289. Šašel Kos, M. 2005 Appian 2005 Appian and Illyricum Illyricum ( ( Dissertationes Dissertationes Musei Nationa-

Versnel, H.S. 1970 Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Roman Triumph Triumph,, Leiden. Versnel, H.S. 2006 “Red herring? Comments on a new theory concerning the origin of the triumph”, Numen Numen 53, 53, 290-326.















258

JOHN RICH

Vervaet, F.J. 2012 “The praetorian proconsuls of the Roman Republic (211-52 BCE). A constitutional survey”, Chiron 42, 45-96.

Werner, R. 1963 Der 1963 Der Beginn der römischen Republik. Historisch-chroHistorisch-chronologische Untersuchungen über die Anfangszeit der libera res publica, publica, Munich.

Vervaet, F.J. 2014 The High Command in the Roman Republic and the Principle of the summum imperium auspiciumque from 509 to 19 BCE ( BCE ( Historia Historia Einzelschriften 232), Stuttgart.

Wilkes, J. 1969 Dalmatia 1969 Dalmatia,, London.

Waller, M. 2011 “Victory, defeat and electoral success at Rome, 34391 BC”, Latomus BC”, Latomus 70, 70, 18-38.

Wiseman, T.P. 1998 “Rome and the resplendent Aemilii”. In: Jocelyn, H. (ed.), Tria Lustra, Liverpool, 181-192 (= Wiseman, T.P., Roman Drama and Roman Histor Historyy, Exeter, 106120).

Weinstock, S. 1971 Divus Julius, Oxford.

The Triumph in the Roman Republic

Recommend Documents