No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2013
The compact formed between Antonius, Lepidus and Octavian near Bononia in November 43 b.c. (Dio Cass. 46.55.1–3), commonly named the second triumvirate, was characterized by civil conflict. The major battles at Philippi, Perusia and Naulochus led to the presence of many legions in Italy. In addition, a large number of time-served soldiers were settled throughout the peninsula. The requirement of land for the veterans meant conflicting interests arose with landowners who were dispossessed to make way for them. The impact of the army on Rome itself and on the population of the Italian countryside was great during the late first century b.c.
I am indebted to the anonymous readers who made helpful suggestions for the final version of this article.
1 Keppie, L., Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47–14 bc (London, 1983), 101–4Google Scholar; Osgood, J., Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2006), 46–7Google Scholar.
2 Lepidus was deprived of his triumviral position (Dio Cass. 49.12.4).
3 Linderski, J., ‘Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the genera militiae and the status of Octavian’, JRS 74 (1984), 74–80Google Scholar, at 78–9. Cf. Suet. Aug. 10.
4 Linderski (n. 3), 79 emphasizes the grand scale of Octavian's recruiting in 32 b.c.
5 The war had been declared against Cleopatra (Dio Cass. 50.4.4) but Antonius' alliance with her legalized Octavian's action against him too.
6 On the timing of the declaration of war against Cleopatra, see Kearsley, R.A., ‘Octavian in the year 32 BC: The S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus and the genera militiae’, RhM 142 (1999), 52–67Google Scholar, at 56.
7 Antonius had planned to do battle with Octavian in Italy but, when he misinterpreted the arrival at Corcyra of an advance party as the arrival of Octavian's whole force he withdrew to southern Greece to wait out the winter months (Dio Cass. 50.9.2–3). Octavian's legions did not depart Italy until spring of 31 b.c. (Dio Cass. 50.11.1–5).
8 For the Julian Calendar, see Gagé, J., Res Gestae Divi Augusti ex monumentis ancyrano et antiocheno latinis, ancyrano et apolloniensi graecis (Paris, 1977 3), 163–85.Google Scholar The calendar comprises entries from various fragmentary Roman fasti (ibid. 159).
9 Dio (50.6.2) reports that men of fighting age were rapidly assembled on both sides. In addition, an April swearing by the veterans and troops in Italy leaves the rest of the year available for the administration of the oath in the western provinces; cf. Mon. Anc. 25.2. The provision of ships and other resources may have prolonged Octavian's preparations however (cf. App. B Civ. 5.80).
10 Gagé (n. 8), 171.
11 On the use of the official calendar in military camps, see Ridley, R.T., ‘“A fanatical yet rational devotion”. Augustus and the legions’, Antichthon 39 (2005), 48–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 57.
12 Those who fought at Mutina were devoted to Octavian (Dio Cass. 46.40.4). On the problematic relationship between Antonius and Octavian during their second five-year period as triumvirs, see Kearsley (n. 6), 53–5.
13 Osgood (n. 1), 56.
14 Suet. Aug. 9, written well over a century later, may reflect the sort of association drawn between the two conflicts by Octavian in 32 b.c. Suetonius bracketed Mutina and Actium in the most prominent position when he commented on Augustus' five civil wars.
15 All accepted that Antonius would be bound to Cleopatra in enmity against Rome (Dio Cass. 50.4.3–4).
16 Fast. 4.627–8.
17 Fast. 4.673–6; April 15–16 are conflated by Ovid.
18 Bosworth, A.B., ‘Asinius Pollio and Augustus’, Historia 21 (1972), 441–73Google Scholar, at 468–73 succinctly relates the course of the Perusine war.
19 Cf. Suet. Aug. 17.1.
20 Cf. Laurence, R., The Roads of Roman Italy: Mobility and Cultural Change (London, 1999), 179–80.Google Scholar
21 Octavian excused Bononia from swearing allegiance to him because of the veterans' link with Antonius (Suet. Aug. 17.2). Like the ‘freedom’ which Octavian gave the two consuls of 32 b.c. (ibid.), this was probably a calculated political gesture of generosity. Bononia actually received a new charter so that it appeared the colony was founded by Octavian (Dio Cass. 50.6.3). Dio characterizes the new charter as a benefit and the anecdote related by Pliny the Elder (HN 33.82–3) regarding a shared meal between a veteran of Bononia and Augustus indicates a friendly relationship with at least some of its civic leaders.
22 Cf. App. B Civ. 3.40.
23 On Octavian's imperium and the circumstances surrounding the declaration of war, see Kearsley (n. 6), 54–61; Scheid, J., Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Hauts faits du divin Auguste (Paris, 2007)Google Scholar, 68. Osgood (n. 1), 369 ignores Dio's narrative in placing the declaration after, rather than before, the oath.
24 Linderski (n. 3), 80; Osgood (n. 1), 358. Nevertheless it has been alleged that Octavian illegally seized power through that process: Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 284–5Google Scholar; Ridley, R.T., The Emperor's Retrospect. Augustus' Res Gestae in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary (Leuven, 2003)Google Scholar, 190.
25 Cf. Gonzales, J., ‘The first oath pro salute Augusti found in Baetica’, ZPE 72 (1988), 113–27Google Scholar, at 126.
26 See Wiseman, T.P., Remembering the Roman People (Oxford, 2009), 228–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His analysis of events at the time of Caesar's funeral reveals the prominence of Caesar's veterans among the mixed crowd as well as the dramatic character of events, especially Antonius' speech.
27 Cf. App. B Civ. 3.28–9, 88.
28 Pietas was an attribute which Octavian had used to his advantage in the past (Dio Cass. 46.48.1–2). According to Suetonius (Aug. 10.1), the purpose in all five of Octavian's civil wars was to avenge Caesar. Octavian's relationship with his men was constructed to suit his needs at the time. During the civil wars he addressed them as commilitones, after Actium he used only milites (Suet. Aug. 25.1; cf. Phang, S.E., Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate [Cambridge, 2008], 87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Cf. Suet. Aug. 26.1 for use of ducem depoposcit in a military context; for iuravit in verba, see Kearsley (n. 6), 65–6; Scheid (n. 23), 68.
30 Gonzales (n. 25), 113–14, dated 6–5 b.c.; cf. Osgood (n. 1), 360–4.
31 Gonzales (n. 25), 125; Bispham, E., From Asculum to Actium: The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus (Oxford, 2007), 443–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 See Gonzales (n. 25), 113 for the full text of the inscription.
33 Bispham (n. 31), 273; cf. App. B Civ. 5.128.
34 Cic. Sest. 15.35; Dom. 35.90; Q Fr. 1.2.16 (SB 2); cf. Kearsley (n. 6), 62–3.
35 Similar treatment was accorded to the events of 28 b.c., another difficult period for Octavian: Kearsley, R., ‘Octavian and augury: the years 30–27 b.c.’, CQ 59 (2009), 147–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 163–6.
36 The low level of urbanization in Southern Picenum relative to many other areas of Italy in the triumviral and early Augustan periods meant large tracts of land were available for soldier settlement. The impact of triumviral and Augustan decisions about veteran settlement there is being fruitfully traced from archaeological evidence: see, for example, Paci, G., ‘Sistemazione dei veterani ed attività edilizia nelle Marche’, Memorie Accademia Marchigiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Ancona 33 (1998), 209–44Google Scholar, at 212–25 (northern and central Picenum including, as well, Firmum); Delplace, C., La romanisation du Picenum: L'exemple d'Urbs Salvia (Rome, 1993), 60–8Google Scholar; Giorgi, E., ‘Riflessioni sullo sviluppo urbano di Asculum’, Ocnus 13 (2005), 207–28Google Scholar, at 218–22; cf. Bispham (n. 31), 471–2.
37 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Mutatas formas: the Augustan transformation of Roman knowledge’, in Galinsky, K. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus (Cambridge, 2005), 55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 55–8; Bispham (n. 31), 443.