CLAU1784 M. Claudius (226) Marcellus

Life Dates

  • 150, birth (Zmeskal 2009)

Relationships

father of
? M. Claudius (227) M. f. Arn. Marcellus (pr.? before 74) (Brennan 2000)
? P. Cornelius (230) Marcelli f. Lentulus Marcellinus (monetal. 100) (Zmeskal 2009)
M. Claudius (231) Marcellus Aeserninus (son of M. Claudius (226) Marcellus (pr.? before 102)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 136

grandfather of
M. Claudius (232, cf. 233) M. f. Marcellus Aeserninus (q. 48) (RE)

Career

  • Praetor? before 102 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • M. Claudius Marcellus (226), Praetor, uncertain date; M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus (227), Praetor, uncertain date. The former was senior legate of Marius in 102 (MRR 1.569, 570, note 6), whom Sumner considers to be already a praetorius (Orators 91-93). He was also a senior legate under L. Iulius Caesar in 90 and was the defender of Aesernia under siege (E. Gabba, Comm. on App. BC 1.4042; cf. MRR 2.28). He had already come under attack from L. Licinius Crassus, Cos. 95, in the later 90s and was acquitted (Cic. Font. 24; Val. Max. 8.5.3; cf. Gruen, RPCC 194, 204). Sumner distinguishes him from the curule aedile of 91 (Orators 93; cf. MRR 2.21, note 7), and with Munzer on RE no. 227 identifies the latter with the M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus, the senior praetorius listed in the consilium of 73 (SIG(3) 747; Sherk, RDGE 133-138, no. 23), who must have held the praetorship many years before. It is not certain how offices should be divided between nos. 226 and 227 (Sumner, loc. cit.; Syme, CPh 50, 1955, 132). (Broughton MRR III)
    • Before 90. p. 744, footnote 197 (Brennan 2000)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 102 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Marcellus' praenomen is given in Cic. Brut. 136. No title is preserved. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Served under Marius at Aquae Sextiae (Frontin. Str. 2.4.6; Plut. Mar. 20.4; 21.1; Polyaen. 8.10.2). (Broughton MRR I)
    • M. Claudius Marcellus (226), Praetor, uncertain date; M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus (227), Praetor, uncertain date. The former was senior legate of Marius in 102 (MRR 1.569, 570, note 6), whom Sumner considers to be already a praetorius (Orators 91-93). He was also a senior legate under L. Iulius Caesar in 90 and was the defender of Aesernia under siege (E. Gabba, Comm. on App. BC 1.4042; cf. MRR 2.28). He had already come under attack from L. Licinius Crassus, Cos. 95, in the later 90s and was acquitted (Cic. Font. 24; Val. Max. 8.5.3; cf. Gruen, RPCC 194, 204). Sumner distinguishes him from the curule aedile of 91 (Orators 93; cf. MRR 2.21, note 7), and with Munzer on RE no. 227 identifies the latter with the M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus, the senior praetorius listed in the consilium of 73 (SIG(3) 747; Sherk, RDGE 133-138, no. 23), who must have held the praetorship many years before. It is not certain how offices should be divided between nos. 226 and 227 (Sumner, loc. cit.; Syme, CPh 50, 1955, 132). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 90 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 14 His son was named Aeserninus (RE, no. 231). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Legate under L. Iulius Caesar. Besieged and captured at Aesernia (Liv. Per. 72, and 73; cf. Diod. 37.19.1-2; App. BC 1.40-41). (Broughton MRR II)
    • M. Claudius Marcellus (226), Praetor, uncertain date; M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus (227), Praetor, uncertain date. The former was senior legate of Marius in 102 (MRR 1.569, 570, note 6), whom Sumner considers to be already a praetorius (Orators 91-93). He was also a senior legate under L. Iulius Caesar in 90 and was the defender of Aesernia under siege (E. Gabba, Comm. on App. BC 1.4042; cf. MRR 2.28). He had already come under attack from L. Licinius Crassus, Cos. 95, in the later 90s and was acquitted (Cic. Font. 24; Val. Max. 8.5.3; cf. Gruen, RPCC 194, 204). Sumner distinguishes him from the curule aedile of 91 (Orators 93; cf. MRR 2.21, note 7), and with Munzer on RE no. 227 identifies the latter with the M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus, the senior praetorius listed in the consilium of 73 (SIG(3) 747; Sherk, RDGE 133-138, no. 23), who must have held the praetorship many years before. It is not certain how offices should be divided between nos. 226 and 227 (Sumner, loc. cit.; Syme, CPh 50, 1955, 132). (Broughton MRR III)