Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

FULV1248 Q. Fulvius (95) M. f. M. n. Nobilior

Life Dates

  • 204?, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

    Sumner R24 (by 197), Evans & Kleijwegt p. 193 (204/203).

Relationships

son of
M. Fulvius (91) M. f. Ser. n. Nobilior (cos. 189) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 79

brother of
? M. Fulvius (93) M. f. M. n. Nobilior (cos. 159) (DPRR Team)
father of
Q. Fulvius (30) Q. f. M. n. (Nobilior?)? (praef. Capuam Capuas? c. 120) (RE)

Career

  • Triumvir Coloniis Deducendis 184 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Colonized Potentia and Pisaurum (Liv. 39.44.10; cf. Cic. Brut. 79). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 153. Both Livy (39.44.10) and Cicero (Brut. 79) identify the IIIvir col. deduc. of 184 (MRR 1.377) with the future consul of 153. Sumner finds this incredible since he and his older brother Marcus (Cos. 159) must have suffered a most improbable delay in their careers if Quintus was old enough to be a colonial commissioner by 184 (at 43 years of age in 153 he would be only 13 or 14 in 184). His suggestion is that the commissioner was not Quintus but his brother Marcus, then about 20 years of age, and that M. Fulvius M. f. (Nobilior) and Q. Fulvius M. f. (really a Flaccus) in the original records received the wrong cognomina (Orators 40, and stemma, 41). It must remain a hypothesis. On the difficulty of identifying the different Fulvii of this period, see MRR 1.391, note 3. Quintus may well have been the Q. Fulvius M. f. (29) who became IIIvir Epulo in 180 (Liv. 40.42.7, tum praetextatus). See Sumner, loc. cit. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Epulo? after 181 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Cos. 153. Both Livy (39.44.10) and Cicero (Brut. 79) identify the IIIvir col. deduc. of 184 (MRR 1.377) with the future consul of 153. Sumner finds this incredible since he and his older brother Marcus (Cos. 159) must have suffered a most improbable delay in their careers if Quintus was old enough to be a colonial commissioner by 184 (at 43 years of age in 153 he would be only 13 or 14 in 184). His suggestion is that the commissioner was not Quintus but his brother Marcus, then about 20 years of age, and that M. Fulvius M. f. (Nobilior) and Q. Fulvius M. f. (really a Flaccus) in the original records received the wrong cognomina (Orators 40, and stemma, 41). It must remain a hypothesis. On the difficulty of identifying the different Fulvii of this period, see MRR 1.391, note 3. Quintus may well have been the Q. Fulvius M. f. (29) who became IIIvir Epulo in 180 (Liv. 40.42.7, tum praetextatus). See Sumner, loc. cit. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Aedilis Curulis 160 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • These Aediles are correctly dated to 160, since the second prologue to the Hecyra of Terence assumes that the poet is still alive (lines 20ff.), and in 160, an even-numbered year, the Curule Aediles were plebeians. Seidel (39) holds that Q. Fulvius is not the Consul of 153, and would date these Aediles in 156. See Dziatzko, RhM 21 (1866) 72ff. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Didasc. Ter. Hec. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Praetor before 155 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • The latest year under the Lex Villia. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 737 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 153 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Cic. Brut. 79; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 52f., 124, 464f. ([- - - -]n. Nobilior, T. Annius T. [- - - -]); Chr. 354 (Nobiliore et Fuso); Fast. Hyd. (Nobiliore et Lausco), so also Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; and on Fulvius, Fast. Ant., Degrassi 160f. (Q. Fulvi. N[- - - -]). Fulvius received the command against the Celtiberi in Hither Spain and suffered serious reverses (App. Ib. 45-47; cf. Polyb. 35.4.2). Beginning this year Consuls entered office on January (Cassiod.). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Censor 136 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Fast. Cap., Degrassi 52f., 125, 468f. ([Q. Fulv]ius M. f. M. n. Nobilior). Claudius exercised his office harshly but Fulvius was more moderate (Dio fr. 81; Fest. 360 L). Claudius was named Princeps Senatus (Plut. TG 4.1). They completed the lustrum in 135 (Liv. Per. 56). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Willems (Sénat 1.113) holds that Scipio Nasica Serapio, Cos. 138, was chosen Princeps Senatus in 136, but the passage of Diodorus (34.33) on which he bases his argument has confused three generations of Nasicae. The evidence of Plutarch strongly indicates that Claudius was Princeps Senatus in 133. (Broughton MRR I)

< Back to results