Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

LICI1903 L. Licinius (104) L. f. L. n. Lucullus Ponticus

• Print

Status

• Nobilis Expand

  Cic. Acad. 2.1.1, Cic. Att. 13.12.3, Auct. Vir. Ill. 74.1, Macrob. 3.15.6, Epig. Bob. 22, Schol. Bob. Arch. 177 Stangl

Life Dates

• 117, birth (Rüpke 2005)
• 56, death (Broughton MRR II)

Relationships

grandson of

L. Licinius (102) Lucullus (cos. 151) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. acad. II 137, Plut. Luc. 1.1

son of

Caecilia (132) Metella (daughter of? L. Caecilius (83) Q. f. L. n. Metellus Calvus (cos. 142)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. p. red. in Sen. 37

L. Licinius (103) Lucullus (pr. 104) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. acad. II 1

brother of

M. Licinius (109) Lucullus (son of? L. Licinius (103) Lucullus (pr. 104)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

App. Ill. 30 (85), Auct. vir. ill. 74.8, Cic. acad. II 1, Cic. Att. XIII 6.4, Eutr. VI 7.1, Plin. n.h. XXXIV 36, Plut. Luc. 1.6

M. Terentius (90) Varro Lucullus (son of M. Terentius (A) Varro) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. off. II 57

M. Terentius (Licinius 109) M. f. Varro Lucullus (cos. 73) (Badian 1990)

married to

1 Clodia (67) (daughter of Ap. Claudius (296) Ap. f. C. n. Pulcher (cos. 79)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XXXVI 14.4, Varro r.r. III 16.1f.

2 Servilia (102) (daughter of Q. Servilius (40-42) Caepio (q.? 67)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. fin. III 8, Plut. Cato min. 29.3, Plut. Luc. 38.1

divorced from

1 Clodia (67) (daughter of Ap. Claudius (296) Ap. f. C. n. Pulcher (cos. 79)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mil. 73, Plut. Luc. 38.1

2 Servilia (102) (daughter of Q. Servilius (40-42) Caepio (q.? 67)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. acad. II 11, Plut. Cato min. 24.3(2), Plut. Cato min. 54.1

father of

1 Licinia (186) (daughter of L. Licinius (104) L. f. L. n. Lucullus Ponticus (cos. 74)) (RE)

2 M. Licinius (110) Lucullus (son of L. Licinius (104) L. f. L. n. Lucullus Ponticus (cos. 74)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. fin. III 8, Vell. II 71.1-3

Career

• Tribunus Militum? 89 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Plut. Luc. 2.1, an officer under Sulla during the Social War, and before his quaestorship. Cichorius suggests that the persons named in the following list of members of the staff of Pompeius Strabo at Asculum were Tribunes of the Soldiers (ILS 8888; RS 144-155). The identifications are those of Cichorius. (Broughton MRR II)
• Quaestor 88 Achaea, Aegyptus (Broughton MRR III) Expand
  • 5 Lucullus' quaestorship is dated, perhaps rightly, in 88 by Sobeck (29) along with the consulship of Sulla. This year is the latest possible date and receives some slight support from the distinction made by Cicero between Lucullus' service, as Quaestor and as Proquaestor (Acad. 2.1 and 4 and 11). See also 1. de, Delos 4.1.1620. (Broughton MRR II)
  • SIG³ 743, cf. SEG 1.153; Cic. Acad. 2.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 74.1. Sent in advance by Sulla to Greece, he made Bruttius Sura, the Legate of Sentius, return to Macedonia (Plut. Sull. 11.5; cf. Cimon 1.2). He had charge of Sulla's mint in Greece (Plut. Luc. 2.1-2; cf. Grueber, CRRBM 2.459-460). At the end of the year he was sent to Egypt and elsewhere to assemble a fleet (Cic. Acad. 2.11 and 61; Plut. Luc. 2.2-6; App. Mith. 33). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proquaestor 87 Achaea (Broughton MRR III) Expand
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proquaestor 86 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor (SIG³ 745; CIL 12.2.714-ILS 865-1. de Delos4.1. 1620; Cic. Acad. 2.11; Arch. 11, quaestore). See below, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Legatus (Envoy) 86 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Sent by Sulla to Crete, Cyrene, Egypt, Syria , and Rhodes, where he had most success, to raise a fleet among the free and allied states (Plut. Luc. 2.2-3.3; App. Mith. 33, and 51; Auct. Vir. Ill. 74.2; cf. Cic. Acad. 2.11; Joseph. AJ 14.114), late in 87 and through 86. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proquaestor 85 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor (see 85, Promagistrates). Bringing a fleet into the Aegean, he freed Chios and other places, and after refusing to assist Fimbria against Mithridates at Pitane aided Sulla to cross the Hellespont (Plut. Luc. 3.3-4.1; App. Mith. 52, and 56; Oros. 6.2.10). Sulla placed him in charge of the collection of indemnities and taxes in Asia, and of the coinage (Plut. Luc. 4.1; cf. Cic. Acad. 2.1; Plut. Sull. 25.2; Luc. 20; App. Mith. 62; Grueber, CRRBM 2.459f.). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proquaestor 84 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proquaestor in Asia. See 85, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proquaestor 83 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor in Asia (Cic. Acad. 2.2; cf. 85, and 84, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proquaestor 82 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor in Asia (SIG³ 745; see 86-80, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proquaestor 81 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor in Asia. See 86-80, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proquaestor 80 Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proquaestor in Asia (CIL 12.2.714; IGRP 4.701, 1191; see 86-81, Promagistrates). Probably the actual captor of Mitylene (Plut. Luc. 4.3; see below, on Minueius Thernius). He probably returned in 80 from his service in Asia, since he was elected Aedile in absence (Cic. Acad. 2.1; see 79, Aediles). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Aedilis Curulis 79 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 2 Pliny attests a date 20 years after the aedileship of C. Claudius Pulcher (99 B.C.), Granius Lieinianus the fact that they were Curule Aediles. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Cic. Acad. 2.1; Off. 2.57; Val. Max. 2.4.6; Plin. NH 8.19; Plut. Luc. 1.6; Gran. Lic. 39B. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Praetor 78 Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 2 The date depends on a phrase in Cic. Acad. 2. 1, absens factus aedilis, continuo praetor, - licebat enim celerim legis praernio. See 79, Aediles, Curule. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Cic. Acad. 2.1; of. Elogium, Inscr. Ital. 13.8.84-CIL 12.1, p. 196ILS 60. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
  • p. 751, footnote 359 (Brennan 2000)
• Augur? 77 to 57 (Rüpke 2005)
• Promagistrate 77 Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Governor of Africa, probably pro praetore (Cic. Acad. 2.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 74.3, praetor). (Broughton MRR II)
• Promagistrate 76 Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 5 The duration of the command of Lucullus in Africa remains uncertain. Cicero's phrase inde ad consulatum (Acad. 2. 1) need not mean that his consulship in 74 followed immediately upon the conclusion of his command. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Governor of Africa, probably pro praetore (see 77, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
• Consul 74 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 1 Additonal Note. The dates of the activities of Lucullus in Asia Minor depend upon two disputed questions. The first and major one is the date of the outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War, and the second is the date when the province of Asia was added to his command. Many distinguished scholars, including Mommsen, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Ormerod, have supported the view that this war broke out in the spring of 74, and another distinguished group, including T. Reinach, Geyer, Brandis, and most recently, Magic, have decided in favor of the spring of 73. 1 see no certain solution, but believe that the weight of evidence on the whole supports the earlier date and have arranged the lists accordingly. According to Eutropius (6.6) Nicomedes died in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, and the evidence of Bithynian coins indicates that the date was at any rate later than October of 75. It may have been very early in 74 or even, given some slight inexactitude on the part of Eutropius, have occurred at the end of 75. According to Cicero Lucullus and Cotta were sent to the war during their consulship (Mur. 33), but in another passage (Acad. 2. 1) Cicero, after referring to the industry and ability of Lucullus in his consulship, adds the phrase post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus. And it is not clear whether post means "after your consulship" or "after these praiseworthy acts in your consulship." Appian makes a close relation between the election of Lucullus as Consul and his choice as commander in the war (Mith. 72), and Plutarch (Luc. 5-6) connects Pompey's threatening letter demanding men and money for his Spanish campaign, which was read in the Senate at the beginning of the consular year 74, with the ambition of Lucullus to exchange his assigned province of Cisalpine Gaul for the promising eastern command, and makes clear that the expectation of a war was immediate when news came of the death of Octavius, governor of Cilicia. According to both the Periochae of Livy and Eutropius fighting began when Lucullus and Cotta were Consuls, and in answer to the claim that the word consules is as often used loosely for proconsules it should be noted that the epitomizer of Livy distinguishes between the commencement of operations when Lucullus was Consul (Liv. Per. 94) and his victory at Cyzicus when he was Proconsul (Per. 95). Moreover in estimating the time to be allowed for the opposition in Rome between Lucullus and the Tribune Quinctius, it should be remembered that Tribunes, who entered upon office on the tenth of December, were usually most active at the beginning of their year of office, and that Lucullus did induce Quinctius to restrain himself before long. The most important evidence against a date in the spring of 74 is found in Velleius (2.33. l): cum esset in fine bellum piraticum et L. Lucullus, qui ante septem annos ex consulatu sortitus Asiam Mithridati oppositus erat ..., who goes on to mention the introduction of the Manilian law. The collocation of the phrase ex consulatu with a date seven years before the passage of the Manilian law in early 66 points to 73. Yet it is not irrelevant to point out that the war with the pirates was actually in fine if not confeclum by midsummer of 67 (Cic. Leg. Man. 35, media aestate confecit), and the phrase sortitus Asiam appears to be inaccurate since his province by sortition had been Cisalpine Gaul. And he was appointed to Cilicia before he received the governorship of Asia. The transport of an army to Asia need not have taken very long. Lucullus brought only one legion with him (Plut. Luc. 7.1; App. Mith. 72), which may have been recruited from the beginning of the year, and of his forces in Asia Minor two legions had recently seen service under Servilius Isauricus. It was quite possible for him to begin active operations in Phrygia by the autumn. [106x] Admittedly this scheme compresses a good deal of action into one year. Is it possible to do so? Cisalpine Gaul had probably been made consular before the elections in 75 in accordance with the Sempronian law. The danger from Mithridates was already evident in that year (Sall. Hist. 2.47.7 M). Early in 74, while Lucullus was attempting to meet Pompey's demands and his various civil duties, came the news of the death of Nicomedes of Bithynia, and soon afterwards of Octavius, governor of Cilicia, either in or on his way to his province (Balsdon has shown that even after Sulla's reforms Consuls often departed for their provinces before the end of their year of office in Rome, JRS 29 [1939] 58-63). Meantime, Iuncus, then governor of Asia, moved into Bithynia to organize the new inheritance, and the entrance of Roman tax-gatherers roused irritation in the cities, especially in the free city of Heracleia. It appears that Iuncus was in Bithynia when Caesar was captured by pirates and then captured his captors, an event that in view of his return to Italy in 73 seems best dated in the winter of 75-74 (Vell. 2.41.3-42.3; Suet. Iul. 4, and 74.1; Plut. Crass. 1.4.2-3; Auct. Vir. 1ll. 78.3; cf. Plut. Crass. 7.5; Polyaen. 8.23.1; Fenestella, GLK 1.365), since he had time both for study at Rhodes and operations in Asia against officers of Mithridates before his return (Suet.). Of Heracleia it should be noted that it did not go over to Mithridates at once, and also that it did not have or take time to send an embassy to Rome to protest its rights. The interval of time before it went over to Mithridates was probably not great (Memnon 38 in FGrH 3B.355). Lucullus secured the province of Cilicia by intrigue and in consequence the command against Mithridates by general consent, probably by midsummer at the latest. He and his single legion could have reached Ephesus and from there Phrygia by early autumn where the legions already mobilized were already concentrated. The action at Cyzicus is known to have been a winter campaign (Plut. Luc. 33.3). Is a date in 74 for the beginning of the war consistent with the course of the war itself? The siege of Amisus was also a winter operation (Plut. Luc. 33.3), either in 73-72 or in 72-71. Phlegon of Tralles places the march of Lucullus from Amisus to Cabira in the first year of the 177th Olympiad (July 72-July 71) and has him spend the subsequent winter there. This implies that the defeat of Mithridates and his flight to Armenia should be placed in the latter part of 72. According to Memnon (55) a year and eight months passed after this before Tigranes of Armenia accorded the defeated monarch a personal reception. Appian places this reception near the time of the battle of Tigranocerta in the autumn of 69 (Mith. 85), thus suggesting that the flight of Mithridates should be placed in 71, but Plutarch (Luc. 22. 1) and Memnon (55, cf. 46) clearly imply that the reception followed immediately upon Tigranes' refusal to surrender him to Lucullus' envoy, Ap. Claudius Pulcher, in the spring of 70, and support the view that the flight of Mithridates should be dated in 72. In Cat. 3.9 Cicero refers to the year 63 as the annus decimus post virginum absolutionem, a trial in which M. Pupius Piso, a man older than Cicero, had gained renown after a temporary eclipse in his career (1~rut. 236). Two such trials are known in this period, one, of Licinia (for incest with Crassus, at some time when he was no longer a youth, see 73, Vestal Virgins), is undated, and one, of Fabia, for incest with Catiline, is dated by Orosius to the year of the relief of Cyzicus (6.3.1). There is no proof that the trials to which Cicero refers included the trial of Fabia, but it is very tempting to suppose that the two trials that are mentioned in this period were the same ones, and that 73 was the date of the relief of Cyzicus. [107x] I am therefore inclined to assign as follows the activities of Lucullus' command between the years 74 and 69: 74. Outbreak of the Mithridatic war, appointment to Cilicia, perhaps also to Asia. 74-73. Siege of Mithridates at Cyzicus. 73. Clearing of much of Bithynia, and beginning of the invasion of Pontus. 73-72. Siege of Amisus. 72. Defeat of Mithridates at Cabira. His flight to Armenia. 71. Capture of other cities of Pontus. Lucullus returns to Asia. 70. Lucullus completes his reforms in Asia and returns to Pontus. 69. Lucullus invades Armenia. The second question remains. There is no doubt that Lucullus became Proconsul of Asia by 71 (Cic. Flacc. 85; see above, Consuls), and that his appointment to Asia was subsequent to the Cilician one. Noting that Varinius held a praetorship in 73 and was at some time governor of Asia (see 73, Praetors; and 65, Promagistrates) Lange suggested that he should be placed in 72 and the governorship of Lucullus in 71. The phrase in Velleius ante septem annos ex consulatu sortitus Asiam points to 73 however inexact the word sortitus may actually be (see above). According to Menmon (37) Lucullus was sent to Asia by the Senate, and Plutarch has him proceed directly there. It seems to me probable therefore that Lucullus became governor of Asia some years before 71- 70, the dates which are most clearly attested, and that Asia was added to his command when it became clear in Rome in the autumn of 74 that his most immediate military task lay in that province. Against a date in 71 may be urged the fact that with the resurgence of popular agitation, at that time supported by Pompey, and with two Pompeians in the consulship in 72, the political climate in Rome was extremely unfavorable to additions to the sphere of command of Lucullus. For discussions of these problems, with references to earlier literature, see T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic 1.398-403; and Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 2.1204, note 5, and 1127, note 47. (Broughton MRR II)
  • CIL 12.2.740, and 954; SIG³ 746, 747–I. de Delos 4.1.1758, cf. 4.2.2514 bis; Cic. Verr. 2.5.34; Sall. Hist. 2.98 M, at the end; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 56f., 130, 486f. (L. [Liciniu]s L. f. L. n. Lucullus, M. Au[re]lius M. [f. - n. Cotta]); Eutrop. 6.6; Chr. 354 (Lucullo et Cotta); Fast. Hyd. (Lucullo et Micotta), so also Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; on Lucullus, Cic. Cluent. 137; CIL 12.1, p. 196-Inscr. Ital. 13.3.84; Ps.-Ascon. 222 Stangl; and on Cotta, Ascon. 66C. In Rome Lucullus checked the Tribune Quinctius (Sall. Hist. 3.48.11 M; see Tribunes of the Plebs). He had been assigned the province of Cisalpine Gaul, but upon the death of Octavius, Proconsul in Cilicia, early in the year (see Promagistrates), he intrigued to get this province and the command against Mithridates (Plut. Luc. 6-7; App. Mith. 72; cf. Cic. Mur. 33; Acad. 2.1; Sall. Hist. 2.98M, at the end). He received also command of the former armies of Fimbria and of Servilius Isauricus (Cic. Flacc. 85; Sall. Hist. 3.19, and 33M; Plut. Luc. 7.1-3; 34.2; App. Mith. 72; Memnon 40 in FGrH 2 B.356; Porphyr. on Hor. Epist. 2.2.26; Dio 36.14.3, and 15.3, and 16.3, and 46.1), and probably also the province of Asia (Cic. Flacc. 85; Vell. 2.33.1; Plut. Luc. 7.1; Memnon 37 in FGrH 2B.355; cf. Dio 36.2.2; and see 70, Promagistrates, on Lucullus). Cotta received command of a fleet to protect his province of Bithynia and the Propontis, but was defeated on sea and on land, and shut up in Chalcedon until Lucullus relieved him (Cic. Mur. 33; Sall. Hist. 3.23-24M; 4.69.13M; Liv. Per. 93; CIL 12.1, . p. 196-Inser. Ital. 13.3.84; Plut. Luc. 5.1; 6.5; 8.1-3; App. Mith. 71; Menmon 37-39 in FGrH 3B.355f.; Eutrop. 6.6.2; Auct. Vir. Ill. 74.4; Oros. 6.2.13). The latter checked the forces of Mithridates in a battle at the Rhyndacus river, and during the winter of 74-73 brought him to disaster in a trap as he was besieging Cyzicus (Cic. Leg. Man. 20-21; Mur. 33; Sall. Hist. 3.17-42M; 4.69.4 and 13-14M; Liv. Per. 94-95; Inscr. Ital. 13.3.84-ILS 60; Strabo 12.8.11, 575-576c; Diod., excerpt in FHG 2, xxiv; Frontin. Str. 3.13.6; Plut. Luc. 8.1- 12.2, cf. Sert. 24.3-4; App. Mith. 72-76; Flor. 1.40.12-18; Memnon 37-40 in FGrH 3B.355f.; Eutrop. 6.6.2; Oros. 6.2.12-24; cf. CIL 12.2.743–ILS 37). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 73 Cilicia, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Asia and Cilicia (Liv. Per. 95; see 74, Additional Note). After his victory at Cyzicus (see 74, Additional Note), he cleared the forces of Mithridates out of Asia and Bithynia, and began his invasion of Pontus (Cic. Leg. Man. 21; Mur. 33; Arch. 21; Sall. Hist. 3.32-8 M; Liv. Per. 95; Plut. Luc. 11.5-5.1; 33.3; App. Mith. 76-78 Memnon 40-46, in FGrH 3B.356-360; Eutrop. 6.6.3, and 8.1-2; Oros. 6.2.20-24; cf. OGIS 447). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 72 Cilicia, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Asia, Cilicia, and Bithynia and Pontus (Liv. Per. 95). While part of his army under Murena was besieging Amisus, Lucullus faced Mithridates at Cabira. He finally drove Mithridates out of Pontus, captured Cabira, and reduced Amisus (Plut. Luc. 19; App. Mith. 78-83; Memnon 45-46, in FGrH 3B.359f.; Phlegon Trall. 12, in FHG 3.606; cf. Sall. Hist. 4.5-15 M; Strabo 12.3.11, 546c, and 14, 547c; Frontin. Str. 2.5.30). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 71 Cilicia, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Asia, Cilicia, Bithynia, and Pontus (Liv. Per. 95). After the capture of Amisus (see 72, Promagistrates) and other cities of Pontus (Sall. Hist. 4.12-15 M; Strabo 12.3.33, 557-558c; Plut. Luc. 18-19; App. Mith. 82; Memnon 45, in FGrH 3B.359), he returned to the debt-ridden province of Asia and carried through measures of relief (Cic. Acad. 2.3; Plut. Luc. 20; 23.1; App. Mith. 83; cf. ESAR 4.545, and 567f.). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 70 Cilicia, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Asia, Cilicia, Bithynia and Pontus (Liv. Per. 95). His alliance with Machares, king of the Bosporus (Liv. Per. 98; Plut. Luc. 24.1; App. Mith. 83; Memnon 54, in FGrH 3B.364), the capture of Sinope and Amasia of Pontus (Strabo 12.3.11, 546c; Plut. Luc. 23.2-7; App. Mith. 83; Memnon 53-54, in FGrH 3B.364f.), and his request that a senatorial commission be sent to assist in the organization of the former kingdom of Mithridates, may all be dated in this year (Plut. Luc. 35.5; 36.1, cf. 24.1; Dio 36.43.2, and 46.1; cf. Cic. Att. 13.6a). See below, Legates, Ambassadors. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 69 Cilicia, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-70, Promagistrates). During this year Asia was withdrawn from his command (Dio 36.2.2; cf. Sall. Hid. 4.71 M). He invaded Armenia, routed King Tigranes near Tigranocerta and captured the city, and during the autumn and winter engaged in negotiations with the Parthians and with a number of Armenian and Syrian vassal princes (Plut. Luc. 24-30; App. Mith. 84-86; Syr. 49; Dio 36.1-3; cf. Cic. Leg. Man. 22-23; Acad. 2.61; Sall. Hist. 4.58-72 M; Liv., fr. from book 98, and Per. 98; Strabo 11.14.15, 532c; 12.2.1, 535c; 12.2.9, 539c; 16.2.10, 753c; Frontin. Str. 2.1.14, and 2.4, Iustin 40.2.2; Memnon 55-58, in FGrH 2B.365f.; Phlegon Trall. 12, FHG 3.606; Eutrop. 6.9.1; Oros. 6.3.6-7; Jerome Chr. ad ann. 74, p. 152 Helm). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 68 Cilicia, Bithynia, Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-69, Promagistrates) in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cilicia in command against Mithridates. During this year Cilicia was assigned to Marcius Rex (see above, Consuls). After the diplomatic activity of the winter of 69-68, Lucullus planned to attack the Parthians, but when the Pontic garrison troops refused to join him he invaded northern Armenia, won a victory on the Arsanias, and returned southward to Nisibis and wintered there (Sall. Hist. 4.72-80 M; Plut. Luc. 30-34; App. Mith. 87; Dio 36.3-8; Eutrop. 6.9.1; Oros 6.3.7; cf. Cic. Leg. Man. 23-24; Liv. Per. 98; Ruf. Fest. 15.3). Se Legates, on Fabius, Sornatius, and Triarius. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 67 Bithynia, Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-68, Promagistrates). He was superseded in his provinces and in his command against (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 66 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-67, Promagistrates). He remained in Pontus until he met Pompey, who proceeded to strip him of honors, and to annul the arrangements already made by him and the senatorial commission (see 70, Legates), (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 65 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-66, Promagistrates). His opponents continued to obstruct his demand for a triumph (see 64, and 63, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 64 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 73-63, Promagistrates). His political opponents continued to obstruct his triumph. (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Triumphator 63 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Ponto de rege Mithridate et ex Armenia de rege Tigrane. MRR II.169, Itgenshorst no. 256, Rich no. 256. (Rich 2014)
• Proconsul 63 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • He was finally permitted at about the time of the elections for 62 to celebrate his triumph as Proconsul over Mithridates and Tigranes (Cic. Mur. 37 and 69; Arch. 21; Acad. 2.3; Elogium, CIL 12.1, p. 196-Inscr. Ital. 13.3.84-ILS 60; Strabo 12.5.2; Vell. 2.34.2; Plin. NH 14.96; 28. 56; Plut. Luc. 37.2-4; Pomp. 30.2; Cat. Min. 29.3-4; App. Mith. 77; Eutrop. 6.10; Serv. Ad Aen. 1.161; 4.261, quoting C. Memmius; Schol. Bob. 177 Stangl; see Degrassi 565). (Broughton MRR II)
  • See MRR 2.47, 52, note 5. If, as seems very probable, he was the quaestor (App. BC 1.57) who, alone among Sulla's officers, continued loyal to him in his march on Rome, the date should be 88. See Badian, Studies 153, note 10, 220; Sumner, Orators 178. Proquaestor in Greece and Asia, 87-80. See the list of honors he received, made by L. and J. Robert (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441), as # and # from 87 to 80, while under Sulla, from Athens, Delos, Synnada, Thyatira, Hypata, and Delphi. Praetor 78. In a passage that cites various examples of praetorian activity Dio (36.41.1-4) tells of the calmness with which a praetor # suffered the breaking of his curule chair by M'. Acilius Glabrio. The name Lucullus, the reading of all the MSS, is regularly emended to #, and the incident dated to the consulship of Acilius in 67 (MRR 2.143), but J. M. David and M. Dondin keep the manuscript reading, and place the incident in Lucullus' praetorship in 78, and so place there an otherwise unattested tribunate of Acilius Glabrio (MEFR 92, 1980, 199-219; see above, on M'. Acilius Glabrio [36], Cos. 67). As 78 falls within the period of the reduced tribunate, an Acilius is a rather improbable candidate for that time. Note that if the view of David and Dondin is correct, it would be Lucullus who refused the province of Sardinia the next year and later received Africa (Dio). Aed. cur. 79. In MRR 2.85, note 2, note that L. Lucullus waited for his brother's year (Plut. Luc. 1.6), which according to the normal working of the Leges Annales was 79. Lucullus advanced immediately to the praetorship legis praemio (Cic. Acad. 2.1). (TJC) Proconsul and imperator, 73-63. Note honors he received from Andros and Naxos (Bull. Epig. 1970, no. 441; J. M. Reynolds, JRS 66, 1976, 178). The date of Mithridates' siege of Cyzicus, and his defeat by Lucullus, has remained in dispute: was it in the winter of 74/73 as favored in MRR 1.106-108, or in that of 73/72, as in Magie, RRAM 1204-5, note 5? It has been noted that the order of the fragments of Diodorus (37-38, 22 b) which record the siege of Cyzicus after the assassination of Sertorius in Spain in 72 (73?) suggests that Diodorus placed the siege in the winter of 73/72. Two recent studies assert a date in 73/72 on the basis of the coins of Nicomedes IV, and one of them also shows how news of the death of Sertorius in Spain which, if correctly reported, reached Cyzicus while the siege was going on (App. Mith. 72) is evidence for a date in 73/72 and also for the death of Sertorius in 73, rather than 72 as usually assumed. See G. Per], "Zur Chronologie der Kînigreiche Bithynia, Pontus, and Bosporus," Studien zur Geschichte and Philosophie des Altertums 299-330; W. H. Bennett, "The Death of Sertorius and the Coin," Historia 10, 1961, 459-469. The annual numbers on the coins of the Bithynian kings begin with the autumn of 297 and continue to no. 224 on the latest coins of Nicomedes IV. Given this indication that Nicomedes did not die until late in 74, unless, possibly, some issue of his coinage continued after his death, and Eutropius' statement (6.6) that it was in the consulship of Lucullus and Cotta, there remains quite insufficient time for the operations of Iuncus (MRR 2.98) and the publicans in Bithynia, and the military preparations of Lucullus and Cotta, unless they had much of 73 at their disposal. In any case, Mithridates did not begin his advance until the spring after Nicomedes' death (App. Mith. 70). A shrewd estimate of coming trouble may be sufficient to explain the assignments of the eastern commands to the consuls (Cic. Mur. 33; Plut. Luc. 5-6; App. Mith. 72), and still confirm the implication of Cicero, Acad. 2.1, post ad Mithridaticum bellum missus a senatu. If so, the transfer of his legion to Asia Minor, the organization of his army, and his advance into Phrygia before proceeding to attack Mithridates at Cyzicus should be dated to 73. The same dating may hold for the actions of Cotta to protect the Bosporus, the Propontis, and the coasts of Bithynia (MRR 2.210). See above, on M. Aurelius Cotta (107), and below, on Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) and Q. Sertorius (5). The activities of Lucullus may be assigned to the years from 73 to 69 as follows: 73 - Beginning of hostilities. Defeat of Cotta at Chalcedon. Siege of Cyzicus begins. 73/72 - Cyzicus relieved. Defeat of Mithridates. 72 - Naval victory. Bithynia cleared. Flight of Mithridates to Pontus. Cotta besieges Heracleia. Lucullus begins invasion of Pontus. 72/71 - Siege of Amisus begins. Mithridates in Cabira raises a new army. Rout of the Pontic fleet. 71 - Engagements about Cabira. Mithridates abandons Cabira. Pontus occupied. Capture of Amisus and of Heracleia. 70 - Financial reforms in Asia. Sinope and Amasea surrender. Lucullus asks the Senate to send an organizing commission. 69 - Invasion of Armenia. Addendum. See B. C. McGing, Phoenix 38, 1984, 12-18, who points out that the presence of Lucullus in Rome in 74 until after the elections (Cic. Cluent. 137) and the sorry state of the troops he found in Asia Minor (Plut. Luc. 7.1-2) are strong indications in favor of dating the siege of Cyzicus to the winter of 73-72. (Broughton MRR III)
• Augur 56 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
  • P. Licinius Crassus succeeded L. Licinius Lucullus. (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results