Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

POMP1976 Cn. Pompeius (31) Cn. f. Sex. n. Clu. Magnus

• Print

Status

• Nobilis Expand

  Caes. Bell. Afr. 22.5, Liv. Per. 85, Lucan. BC. 7.582-585, 8.756-758, 10.386, 10.713, [Acro.] Hor. Carm. 1.14, SHA. Tres Gord. 17.1-3

• Eques R Expand

  Nicolet Ref 277. Cic. Leg. Man. 62. eques Romanus

Life Dates

• 106, birth (Rüpke 2005)
• 48, death - violent (Broughton MRR II) Expand

  Murdered by L. Septimius.

Relationships

son of

Lucilia (33) (daughter of? M. (or M'.) Lucilius (11) M. f. Pom. (Rufus?)? (sen. 129)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Horat. sat. II 1.74ff., Vell. II 29.2

Cn. Pompeius (45) Sex. f. Cn. n. Strabo 'Menogenes' (cos. 89) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

App. b.c. I 40 (179), Asc. Pison. 14C, Asc. Pison. 3C, Cic. Manil. 28, Cic. Pis. 58, Dio frg. 107.1 (XXX-XXXV), Gell. XV 4.3, Liv. per. 85, Plin. n.h. VII 54, Plut. Pomp. 1.1, Strab. V 1.6 (213 C), Suet. rhet. 3, Vell. II 15.3, Vell. II 21.1f., Vell. II 29.1, Vell. II 29.5

brother of

Pompeia (56) (daughter of? Cn. Pompeius (45) Sex. f. Cn. n. Strabo 'Menogenes' (cos. 89)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Pomp. 11.2

Pompeia (53) (daughter of? Cn. Pompeius (45) Sex. f. Cn. n. Strabo 'Menogenes' (cos. 89)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Oros. V 23.12, Plut. Pomp. 11.2, Plut. Sert. 21.1(2)

married to

1 Antistia (60) (daughter of P. Antistius (18) (aed. 86)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Pomp. 4.2, Plut. Pomp. 4.5

2 Aemilia (154) (daughter of M. Aemilius (140) M. f. L. n. Cam. Scaurus (cos. 115)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 33.3(4)

3 Mucia (28) Tertia (daughter of Q. Mucius (22) P. f. P. n. Scaevola 'Pontifex' (cos. 95)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Asc. Scaur. 19C

4 Iulia (547) (daughter of C. Iulius (131) C. f. C. n. Fab. Caesar (cos. 59)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XLI 53.1, Dio XLI 57.4, Dio XLII 8.1, Dio XLIV 28.3, Dio XLIV 44.3, Dio XXXVIII 9.1, Plut. Pomp. 49.3, Plut. Pomp. 70.4, Suet. Caes. 21, Suet. Caes. 50.1f., Vell. II 47.2

5 Cornelia (417) (daughter of Q. Caecilius (99) Q. f. Q. n. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio = P. Cornelius (352) Scipio Nasica (cos. 52)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XL 51.2, Dio XLII 2.3, Dio XLII 49.2, Dio XLII 5.7, Flor. II 13.52, Plut. Pomp. 55.1, Plut. Pomp. 74.1, Plut. Pomp. 74.3, Plut. Pomp. 76.6(5), Sen. ep. 24.9, Val. Max. III 8.7, Val. Max. IX 5.3, Vell. II 54.2

divorced from

1 Antistia (60) (daughter of P. Antistius (18) (aed. 86)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Pomp. 9.2f.

3 Mucia (28) Tertia (daughter of Q. Mucius (22) P. f. P. n. Scaevola 'Pontifex' (cos. 95)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Att. I 12.3, Plut. Pomp. 42.7, Plut. Pomp. 44.2, Suet. Caes. 50.1f.

father of

3 Pompeia (54) (daughter of Cn. Pompeius (31) Cn. f. Sex. n. Clu. Magnus (cos. 70)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Oros. VI 16.5, Suet. Caes. 50.1f.

3 Cn. Pompeius (32) Cn. f. Cn. n. Magnus (promag. 45) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

App. b.c. II 87 (366), Auct. vir. ill. 78.8, Caes. b.Afr. 23.3, Dio XLII 12.4, Dio XLII 2.3, Dio XLII 5.7, Dio XLIII 30.1, Eutr. VI 24, Flor. II 18.4, Liv. per. 113, Liv. XXXIV 9.3, Oros. VI 16.6, Oros. VI 16.8, Sen. dial. X de brev. vit. 5.2, Strab. III 2.2 (141 C), Strab. XIV 1.47 (650 C), Suet. Caes. 50.1f., Vell. II 55.2

3 Sex. Pompeius (33) Cn. f. Cn. n. Magnus Pius (sen. 43) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Ampel. 41.4, App. b.c. IV 83 (348), Auct. vir. ill. 78.8, Auct. vir. ill. 79.2, Cic. Phil. XIII 50, Cic. Phil. XIII 8, Dio XLII 2.3, Dio XLII 49.2, Dio XLII 5.7, Dio XLIX 17.5, Dio XLV 10.1, Dio XLV 10.6, Diod. XL 4, Eutr. VI 24, Eutr. VII 4, Flor. I 41.9, Flor. II 13.52, Flor. II 13.74, Flor. II 14.2, Flor. II 14.3, Flor. II 18.4, Liv. per. 123, Liv. XXXIV 9.3, Lucan. II 631f., Lucan. II 727ff., Lucan. IX 120ff., Lucan. IX 125ff., Lucan. IX 145ff, Lucan. IX 163ff., Lucan. IX 51ff., Lucan. IX 85, Lucan. VI 420, Lucan. VI 589, Lucan. VI 593ff., Lucan. VI 716ff., Lucan. VI 802ff., Lucan. VI 826ff., Lucan. VII 376f., Lucan. VIII 204ff., Lucan. VIII 579ff., Lucan. VIII 632ff., Oros. VI 15.28, Oros. VI 16.6, Oros. VI 16.8, Oros. VI 18.2, Plut. Cato min. 56.1, Strab. III 2.2 (141 C), Strab. III 4.10 (161 C), Strab. XIV 1.47 (650 C), Suet. Aug. 9, Suet. Caes. 35.2, Suet. Caes. 50.1f., Vell. II 53.1, Vell. II 72.4, Vell. II 73.1, Vell. II 73.3

Career

• Officer (Title Not Preserved) 89 (Suolahti 1955) Expand
  • D.30. On consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 89 (CIL 1(2).709=ILS 8888). (Suolahti 1955)
• Propraetor? 83 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 5 Pompey's position was technically illegal, since he apparently raised a private army, but Sulla soon gave him an independent command (see 82-80, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Raised an army on his own responsibility in Picenum, where he checked the Proconsul Carbo, then proceeded to join Sulla, overcoming several Marian officers on the way, and received from him a salutation as Imperator (Plut. Pomp. 6-8; Crass. 6.4; cf. Cic. Leg. Man. 28 and 61; Balb. 9; Phil. 5.43; Auct. Bell. Afr. 22.2; Diod. 38.9- 10; Liv. Per. 85; Vell. 2.29.1-2; Val. Max. 5.2.9; Plut. Apophth. Pomp. 1; Comp. Pomp. and Ages. 1.1; Dio 30- 35, fr. 107.1; 36.25.1). (Broughton MRR II)
• Propraetor 82 Italia, Sicilia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Propraetor (see 83, Promagistrates; cf. Plut. Apophth. Pomp. 2; Sull. 28.8; and in 81, Gran. Lic. 39 B). Served with Metellus in Picenum and Umbria, and with Sulla in Etruria (Plut. Pomp. 8.4-6; App. BC 1.88-92; Oros. 5.20.5 and 7). Sulla then sent him against Perperna in Sicily, where he drove Perperna out, captured and put to death the Consul Papirius Carbo, and reorganized the island (Plut. Pomp. 10.1-11.1; App. BC 1.96; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.2.110 and 113; and 3.42 and 45; Leg. Man. 30 and 61; Bell. Afr. 22.2; Diod. 38.20; Val. Max. 5.3.5; 6.2.8; 9.13.2; Plin. NH 7.96; Plut. Apophth. Pomp. 2-3; Praec. Rei Pub. Ger. 19.12; Auct. Fir. Ill. 77.1). See above, Consuls, on Papirius Carbo. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Addendum. I was mistaken, as Keaveney points out, in assuming that Pompey had been sent to Sicily before the battle at the Colline Gate, as he was still in the region north of Rome just before it (App. BC 1.92; cf. Plut. Sull. 29.3; and see Gabba, ed. Of App. BC 1, p. 246). His imperium in Sicily (it was pro praetore) was conferred by the Senate (Cic. Leg. Man. 61; Liv. Per. 89; cf. Gran. Lic. 36.2, Criniti), and after the death of Carbo, when Sulla became dictator, his imperium pro praetore was extended to Africa by both Sulla and the Senate (Plut. Pomp. 11.1). See A. Keaveney, AC 51, 1982, 111-139, esp. 126-127, on Pompey’s first triumph. Note also an inscription of Tarraco, naming him with the title Imp. (probably iterum) and dating from his victory over Sertorius in Spain (Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4/5, 1953/54, no. 487-Aepig. 1957, no. 3096. Alföldy, Die römische Inschriften von Tarraco no. 1). (Broughton MRR III)
• Triumphator c. 81 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Africa. MRR II.84, III.101, 161, 165, Itgenshorst no. 246 (79), Rich no. 246 (81/80). (Rich 2014)
• Propraetor 81 Sicilia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Propraetor (Gran. Lic. 39B) in Africa. In a campaign of forty days he overcame the Marians in Africa under Domitius and Iarbas, put Domitius to death, and was saluted as Imperator (Cic. Leg. Man. 30-31 and 61; Sall. Ad Caes. 1.4.1; Bell. Afr. 22; Liv. Per. 89; Val. Max. 6.2.8; Plut. Pomp. 11.1-13.5; Apophth. Pomp. 4; App. BC 1.80; Eutrop. 5.9.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.2; Oros. 5.21.13-14, and 24.16; Zonar. 10.2). (Broughton MRR II)
• Triumphator c. 80 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Africa. MRR II.84, III.101, 161, 165, Itgenshorst no. 246 (79), Rich no. 246 (81/80). (Rich 2014)
• Propraetor 80 Sicilia, Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 5 On the cognomen Magnus, see D.-G. 4.341-344. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Propraetor in Africa (Gran. Lic. 39B). Completed his ordering of Africa (see 81, Promagistrates). Saluted as Imperator by his troops, he resisted Sulla's proposal that he should dismiss his army and await a successor, and demanded a triumph (Cic. Leg. Man. 61; Sall. Hist. 2.21M; Plut. Pomp. 13.1-14.3; Apophth. Pomp. 5). (Broughton MRR II)
  • The variations in the traditions regarding Pompey’s age when he celebrated his first triumph leave the year in dispute. March 12, 79 is the latest possible date, but the text in Criniti’s edition of Gran. Lic. 36.1-3, Pompeius annos natus XXV . . . pro praetore in Africa triu[mph]avit IIII Idus. Martias, is strongly in favor of an earlier date, as Pompey was still 25 years of age on March 12, 80. And the order of the triumphs is also in favor of a date before 79. Badian (Hermes 83, 1955, 107-118; 89, 1961, 254-256) demolished the case for 79, and has presented a strong case for a date in 80, or perhaps in 81. The interval of time after his departure from Italy in 82 needed for his campaigns in Sicily and in Africa, and for his negotiations about a triumph, seems very short, even with the help of an intercalation, for a triumph on March 12, 81. Yet he did move speedily, and 80 is not without difficulties since in both 80 and 81 the significance of the attitude of Servilius, who became consul in 79, is not apparent. Moreover, it is difficult to attribute the fragment from Sallust’s Histories (2.22M) to Pompey’s father, for the phrase in Gellius (10.20.10), De Cn. Pompei reditu, would more naturally refer to Pompey himself. See Gellius 15.4 for the usual form of reference to Pompey’s father. On balance, the evidence appears to favor a date in 80; but see A. Keaveney, AC 41, 1981, 111-139. See above, on L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (392) regarding the date of his abdication of the dictatorship. In MRR 2.77, refer also to ILLRP 380. On Pompey’s conduct in 80 and 77, see R. E. Smith, Phoenix 14, 1960, 1-13. (Broughton MRR III)
• Propraetor 79 Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 5 According to the Periochae of Livy and Eutropius, Pompey, who was born on September 29, 106, triumphed at the age of 24, but Granius Licinianus, who dates his birth in 105, has him triumph at 25, and the Auct. Vir. Ill. at 26. Sallust however, who attributes to the Consul of 80 the bill for his recall from Africa, and Frontinus, who mentions the Consuls of 79, make 79 a practically certain date for the triumph. See Degrassi 564. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Propraetor (Gran. Lic. 39B). Returned from Africa to celebrate a triumph pro praetore for his victory there (Cic. Leg. Man. 61, of. 28; Pis. 58; Phil. 5.43; Auct. Bell. Afr. 22.3; Liv. Per. 89; Voll. 2.40.4, and 53.3; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Lucan 6.817; 7.685; 8.24; Plin. NH 7.95; 8.4; 37.13; Plut. Pomp. 14.3-6; Crass. 7.1; 12.1; Sert. 18.2; Apophth. Pomp. 5; App. BC 1.80; Gran. Lic. 39B; Auet. Vir. Ill. 77.2; Eutrop. 5.9.1; Jerome Chr. ad ann. 78, p. 152 Helm; Zonar. 10.2, and 5; of. Frontin. Str. 4.5. 1). See Degrassi 564; and D. -G. 4.341-346. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 77 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Receiving a special grant of imperium, probably pro praetore (Plut. Pomp. 17.4), to combat Lepidus and his supporters, he besieged M. Iunius Brutus at Mutina, accepted his surrender on conditions, then put him to death, and turned to Etruria (Liv. Per. 90; Plut. Pomp. 16.2-5; Brut. 4.1-2; of. Cic. Att. 9.14.2; Leg. Agr. 2.89 and 92; Sall. Hist. 1.79M; Val. Max. 6.2.8; Frontin. Str. 1.9.3; App. BC 2.111; Flor. 2.11.6-8, wrongly places Pompey's battle at Rome; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.3; Oros. 5.22.17, and 24.16; Zonar. 10.2). He kept his army under arms, though ordered to disband it by Catulus, until he received command pro consule against Sertorius in Spain (Liv. Per. 91; Plut. Pomp. 17.1-4; App. BC 1.108; of. Cic. Leg. Man. 30 and 62; Phil. 11.18; Vell. 2.29.5, and 30.2; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Plin. NH 7.96; Plut. Sert. 18.1-2; App. Ib. 101; Flor. 2.10.5; Iul. Exup. 8; Eutrop. 6.1.3; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.4; Oros. 5.23.8-9). He wintered in Gaul on his way to Spain (Sall. Hist. 2.9831; of. App. BC 1.109). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Propraetor (or Legatus?) in 77. The nature of Pompey’s command against Lepidus in 77 remains somewhat uncertain. He is not named in the text of Philippus’ motion for an SCU (Sall. Hist. 1.77.22M) and was probably at that time not among those quibus imperium est. Twyman’s view that he was perhaps appointed by the interrex, Ap. Claudius Pulcher, with imperium pro praetore is attractive, since he acted, as he had under Sulla, with considerable independence against Brutus and Scipio (Lepidus’ son) in Cisalpine Gaul (MRR 2.90), but Plutarch’s statement is not specific (Pomp. 16.2; 17.1-4; cf. Twyman, ANRW 1.1, 1972, 842-844), and Catulus’ order to disband the army, which Pompey continued to keep after the end of hostilities, suggests that he may have had authority over Pompey as his legatus pro praetore (cf. Criniti: “come pro praetore sotto Catulo,” Mem. Ist. Lombard. 30, 1969, fasc. 4, 433). But he may simply have acted as senior colleague. (Broughton MRR III)
• Augur? 77 to 72 (Rüpke 2005)
• Proconsul 76 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Nearer Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). His advance toward the plain of Valencia was stopped by his defeat at Lauro, and he retreated to winterquarters near the Pyrenees (Sall. Hist. 2.29-33 M, and 98.5M; Liv. 91, fr. 22W; and Per. 91; Frontin. Sir. 2.5.31, cf. 2.3.11; Plut. Sert. 18; Pomp. 18; App. BC 1.108-110; Flor. 2.10.7; Oros. 5.23.6-10). See also Quaestors, on Memmius; and Legates, on Laelius. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 75 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). He was defeated by Sertorius on the Sucro, and almost so along (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 74 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). His attempt to carry on sieges while wintering in Celtiberia met with fierce resistance (San. Hist. 2.88-97M; Liv. Per. 93; cf. Plut. Pomp. 19.6). He sent a sharp demand for money and reinforcements to Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 20.1; Sert. 21.5-6; Luc. 5.2-3). When he returned to his strategy of sieges he was forced to leave Palentia, and though he captured Coca, he had to retire from Calagurris, and to winter in Gaul (Cic. Font. 16; Sall. Hist. 3.46M; Liv. Per. 93; Frontin. Str. 2.11.2; App. BC 1.111-112; cf. Val. Max. 7.6, ext. 3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 73 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). He spent this year reducing the strongholds of Sertorius until few were left him except in the upper Ebro valley (Liv. Per. 94; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1. 113; cf. Sall. Hist. 3.47 M; Diod. 37.22; Plut. Pomp. 31.6-7). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 72 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). After the murder of Sertorius Pompey defeated Perperna and crushed the remnants of resistance in Spain, and then proceeded with his organization of the provinces (Sall. Hist. 3.84-87 M; Liv. Per. 96; Val. Max. 6.2.8; 7.6, ext. 3; Frontin. Str. 2.5.32; Plut. Sert. 27.1-4; Pomp. 20.2- 21.1; App. BC 1.114-115; Ib. 101; Flor. 2.10.8-9; Eutrop. 6.1.3; Iul. Exup. S; Jerome, Chr. ad ann. 72, p. 152 Helm; Oros. 5.23.13-15; cf. Iuven. Sat. 15.93-96). On his grants of citizenship, see above, Consuls. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Triumphator 71 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Hispania Citeriore. MRR II.124, Itgenshorst no. 253, Rich no. 253. (Rich 2014)
• Augur 71 to 48 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
  • Functioned as an Augur at the adoption of Clodius by the plebeian Fonteius (Cic. Att. 8.3.3; Dio 38.12.2). Note that the insignia of the augurate appear on coins which he issued probably about 61 (Grueber, CRRBM 2.464f.). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Cic. Phil. 2.4; coins with the lituus and capis as emblems, dated ca. 61 (Grueber, CRRBM 2.464; dated ca. 81 by Mommsen, RMW 609, no. 240, and Bahrfeldt, CIL 12.2, p. 757, no. 292). (Broughton MRR II)
• Moneyer 71 (RRC) Expand
  • ref. 402 (RRC)
• Proconsul 71 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (see 77, Promagistrates). He set up a trophy at the Pyrenees to celebrate his victory in Spain and his settlement of the provinces (Caes. BC 1.61.3; cf. 3.19.2; Sall. Hist. 3.89 M; Strabo 3.4.9-10, 160-161c; 4.1.3, 178c; Plin. NH 3.18; 7.96; 37.15-16; Plut. Pomp. 21.1; Athen. 14.75,657F; Dio41.24.3; Iul. Exup. 8; Jerome Adv. Vigil. 4; Chr. ad ann. 72, p. 152 Helm; Isidor. 9.2.108). At the summons of the Senate he proceeded to Italy to aid Crassus against Spartacus, and arrived in time to crush the last remnants of the fugitives in the north (Cic. Leg. Man. 30; Plut. Crass. 11.2-5 and 7-8; Comp. Crass. and Nic. 3.2; Pomp. 21.1-2; App. BC 1.120; cf. Oros. 5.24.8). His illegal candidacy for the consulship won support from Crassus and the popular leaders to whom he promised the restoration of the powers of the tribunate and other reforms (Cic. Verr. 1.45; Leg. Man. 62; Sall. Hist. 3.48.21-23 M; 4.44-48, and 50 M; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Lucan 1.317; Plut. Crass. 12.1; Pomp. 21.3- 22.1; App. BC 1. 12 1 ; 3. 88; Gell. 14.7; Zonar. 10. 2; see Tribunes of the Plebs, on Lollius Palicanus). He celebrated his triumph from Spain on December 29 (Cic. Leg. Man. 62; Pis. 58; Sest. 129; Div. 2.22; Vell. 2.30.2, with the date; cf. 2.40.4, and 53.3; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Lucan 7.14; 8.809f., 814f.; Plin. NH 7.95-96; Plut. Pomp. 22.1; 23.2; 45.5; Crass. 11.8; 12.4; App. BC 1.121; Flor. 2.10.9; Dio 36.25.3; Eutrop. 6.5.2; Zonar. 10.2, and 5). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul in Spain, 77-71. The dates of Pompey’s arrival in Spain and of events in the Sertorian War remain in dispute. Maurenbrecher, T. Rice Holmes, Gelzer, and Gabba, and MRR, have him winter in Gaul and enter Spain in the spring of 76; another group, Bienkowski, Stahl, Schulten (whose construction of events is largely followed in MRR), and Spann, believe that he crossed the Pyrenees and wintered in Catalonia, while Crispo would place both his arrival in Spain and the battle of Lauro, with the death of his legate Laelius (5), all before the winter of 77/76 (NRS 36, 1952, 189-225), thus making it necessary to rearrange the events of the following years. Crispo is supported by Frassinetti (Studi Urbinati 49.1, 1975, 381-398), and accepted by Konrad (Sertorius 53-60). In favor of this view it can be urged that Pompey’s letter to the Senate (late in 75, Sall. Hist. 2.98M) makes no mention of his winter quarters in Gaul and admits no interruption in activities from the raising of his army to his settlement in winter quarters (inter saevissimos hostes) after his first battle with Sertorius, and Obsequens (58) records the death of Laelius at Lauro under the consuls of 77. This dating, moreover, is the one most consistent with the actions and situation presented in the fragments preserved of Livy 91 (fr. 22W), if it is properly dated to 77/76 (Frassinetti, 381-393; Konrad, 53-75). These describe the siege and capture of Contrebia by Sertorius, his winter camp at Castra Aelia, his arrangements in the spring, presumably of 76, for Perperna to protect the coastal regions against Pompey, and for Hirtuleius, previously at the Lauro (Sall. Hist. 31M), to guard against Metellus in the “other province,” while Sertorius reduced various Celtiberian and northern tribes, won the Ebro valley, and recruited troops and supplies through M. Marius his quaestor and C. Insteius his prefect of horse. The chief consideration against this reconstruction is the question whether there was sufficient time after the defeat and death of Lepidus in the spring or early summer of 77 (Criniti, 445) for Perperna to transfer his quite considerable forces from Sardinia by sea to Spain, and for Pompey, although he already had substantial forces under his command, some probably in Cisalpine Gaul, to win his Spanish proconsulate from the Senate, make his preparations, and carry through against some Gallic opposition the long march to Spain and down to Lauro, about halfway down the east coast. The very considerable problem of time and of the passage of troops and supplies might be met if a start could be made early in the summer, and there were no delays, of which Pompey gives no hint in his letter, or if it was not yet the union of Perperna’s troops with Sertorius after the death of Lepidus that made the need for Pompey’s command seem urgent to the Senate. The apparent implication of our sources that events from the defeat of Lepidus to Pompey’s defeat at the battle of Lauro may all be placed within 77 may be accepted as possible, if not certain. What of the resulting rearrangement of the events of 76 and 75? To early in 76, therefore, would be attributed Sertorius’ operations from Castra Aelia intended to secure control of the vital areas of Celtiberia, the northern tribes and the Ebro valley, while Perperna and Herennius were to keep watch on Pompey and the east coast, and Hirtuleius to obstruct Metellus in the south. After Metellus’ defeat of Hirtuleius in the heat of summer (see MRR 2.98, and Frontin. Str. 2.1.2) with the annihilation of his army, Sertorius moved from Segontia, apparently to join Perperna and Herennius in an attack on Pompey before Metellus could join him. Pompey moved first and won an engagement near Valentia (the battle of the Turia), killing Herennius and,capturing Valentia (Plut. Pomp. 18.3; cf. Sall. Hist. 2.53-55M). Sertorius, joining Perperna, came up and attacked Pompey near the Sucro, driving him back on his left wing while Perperna on the right was driven back by Pompey’s legate Afranius (Plut. Pomp. 19; Sert. 18; Cic. Balb. 5; Frontin. Str. 2.13.3). Renewal of a pitched battle was prevented by the arrival of Metellus, and Sertorius retreated to the highlands, followed by both Pompey and Metellus. If the reading in App. BC 1.110, #, is correct (see Gabba, ed. P. 3105; cf. Plut. Sert. 21.2: #) the next big engagment was forced upon Sertorius near modern Sigüenza, and despite some successes on either side, Sertorius’ defeat of Pompey, and the death of Pompey’s proquaestor Memmius, and Metellus’ defeat of Perperna, it ended in a clear win for Pompey and Metellus. Sertorius retreated to winter quarters in Clunia (Plut. Sert. 21.1-3; App. BC 1.110; Sall. Hist 2.66- 68M; Liv. Per. 92). Here under siege (winter 76/75?) he broke out to join new forces and cut off supplies from Pompey and Metellus until Pompey went to winter among the Vaccaei (Vascones?) and Metellus went to Gaul (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Sert. 19.4-6; Liv. Per. 92). This arrangement crowds many events into the years 77 and 76, and leaves a rather sparse record in our sources for the remaining years of the Sertorian War. Yet the situation at the end of 76 and the beginning of 75, the guerrilla war with the cutting off of supplies to the Roman forces, agrees with that implied in Cotta’s speech (Sall. Hist. 2.47M, probably delivered early in 75). In this year Sertorius, who kept contact with the east coast at such points as Dianium, made his alliance with Mithridates and continued to have help from the pirates (Plut. Sert. 23-24; App. Mith. 68; Sall. Hist. 2.79M, and 90M; Liv. Per. 93). He made difficulties by avoiding battle with Pompey and Metellus and cutting communications, though weakened by dissension in his own camp (Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112). By early in 74, Pompey demanded men, supplies, and money from Rome (Sall. Hist. 2.79M). Both sides devastated the land (Sall. Hist. 2.98M; Plut. Pomp. 19.6; Sert. 21.5-6). After Pompey failed to take Pallantia, and both he and Metellus Calagurris, they separated for the winter of 75/74; Metellus returned to Hisp. Ult., probably winning Bilbilis and Segobriga on the way (Strabo 3.4.13, 162C; Sall. Hist. 2.70M; Plut. Sert. 22), while Pompey was forced to go to Gaul, leaving his legate Titurius with fifteen cohorts in Celtiberia (Sall. Hist. 2.93-98M; Liv. Per. 93). In 74, Sertorius’ increasing difficulties with both his Roman and his Iberian supporters, and his increasing severity, weakened his support and turned many against him (Liv. Per. 92; Plut. Sert. 25; App. BC 1.112, 113; Diod. 37.22a). Pompey, meantime, received his needed troops, money, and supplies (Sall. Hist. 2.98M). While M. Antonius (MRR 1.101-102) attacked the pirates on the Spanish coast (Sall. Hist. 3.4-6), Pompey steadily increased his holdings although many tribes continued loyal to Sertorius (Strabo 3.4.10, 161C; Florus 2.10.9; Iul. Exup. 3; Oros. 5.23.14). Sertorius’ lack of success, defections from him, his own increasing severity, and rivalries among the Romans led to a conspiracy against him and to his assassination (see MRR 2.118, for sources). The date, whether in 73 or 72, has remained in dispute. Livy (Per. 96) provides a major text: interfectus est octavo ducatus sui anno (supported by Eutropius 6.1.3; octavo demum anno), and, counting inclusively from his return from Africa in 80, is in favor of 73. Another passage, to the effect that Pompey, after capturing and putting Perperna to death, recepit Hispanias decimo fere anno quam coeptum est bellum, suggests a space of two more years for the defeat and death of Perperna, the reduction of unsubdued communities, and the organization of the province before his own return (see MRR 2.118 and 124). Another piece of evidence, neglected until recently, strongly supports a date in 73. Appian, in his account of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates, reports that some of Mithridates’ advisors gave him deceptive advice upon learning during the siege of the death of Sertorius (App. Mith. 72). If this report is true, the siege, which in MRR 2.106-108 I favored dating to the winter of 74/73, cannot be earlier than 73/72, and the death of Sertorius, regularly dated to 72, cannot be later than 73. See W. H. Bennett, “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,” Historia 10, 1961, 459-472; cf. G. Perl, Stud. Zur Gesch. U. Philosoph. D. Altertums 290-330; and note also the criticisms of Crispo and Bennett by B. Scardigli, Athenaeum 49, 1971, 229-270. Whichever of the various annual arrangements seems best for the chief events of the war with Sertorius, it seems very probable that the death of Sertorius should be dated to 73, and the rest of Pompey’s proconsulship devoted to completion of the war, the postwar organization of Spain, and the return in 71. On Pompey’s part during this period of his command against Sertorius in the organization and settlement of Gallia Transalpina as a province, see E. Ebel, Phoenix 29, 1975, 358373, who favors also the series of somewhat later dates. Pompey is termed imperator in an inscription of Philadelphia of Lydia (Aepig. 1957, no. 18), and im[p. iter.] in one from Tarraco (Aepig. No. 309–Hisp. Ant. Epig. 4-5, 1953-1954, no. 487). (Broughton MRR III)
• Consul 70 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • CIL 12.2.901-903, datable also in 55 B.C.; Cic. Verr. 2.3.123; Div. 2.22. Sall. Cat. 38.1; Plut. Pomp. 22-23; Crass. 12; Apophth. Pomp. 6; Gell. 14.7.1; Chr. 354 (Magno et Grasso); Fast. Hyd. (Pompeio et Crasso), so also Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; on Pompey, Cic. Verr. 2.3.203; Val. Max. 8.15.8. See Degrassi 131, 486f. Pompey and Crassus co-operated in restoring the powers of the tribunate of the plebs, and in reviving the censorship (Cic. Div. in Caec. 8; Verr. 1.41-46; 2.5.175; Leg. 3.22 and 26; Corn. in Ascon. 76 C. Leg. Agr. 2.36; Sall. Cat. 38,1; Hist. 3.48.23 M; Caes. BC 1.7.2-4; Liv. Per. 97; Vell. 2.30.4; Tac. Ann. 3.27; Suet. Iul. 5; Plut. Pomp. 22.3; App. BC 1.121; 2.29; Dio 36.38.2; 38.30.3; Ps.-Ascon. 189, and 220 Stangl; Schol. Gron. 340 Stangl; see below, Censors), but were personally estranged and only reconciled publicly with difficulty (Sall. Hist. 4.51 M; Suet. M. 19.2; Plut. Crass. 12.2-3; Pomp. 23.1-2; App. BC 1.121). Pompey gave extensive votive games (Cic. Verr. 1.31; Ps.-Ascon. 217 Stangl), and Crassus a huge banquet to the people (Plut. Crass. 12.3; Comp. Crass. and Nic. 1.4). Both refused provincial commands (Plut. Pomp. 23.3-4; and on Pompey, Vell. 2.31.1; Zonar. 10.2). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Consul 70. Pompey’s candidacy in 71 was illegal because of his age, but did not require a professio in the city, which is demanded only from 63 on (Cic. De Leg. Agr. 2.24), and he could attend the elections which were held in the Campus outside the pomerium without losing his right to a triumph (J. Linderski, Mel. Michalowski 523-526, and bibliography cited there). Note also from Auximum, IMP. Cos. TER, ILLRP 382, 52 B.C. Consul III, 52. Sole consul from V. Kal. Mart. Mense intercalario (Ascon. 360 until the election of Metellus Scipio, probably in August. Note the inscription first published in 1957, dated with the name of Pompey alone, PRID(IE) NON(AS) QUINCT(ILES) CN. POMPEIO COS. TERT.: B. Andreae, Arch. Anz. 72, 1957, 235, no. 19; Aepig. 1959, no. 146; Degrassi, ILLRP 2.786a; A. E. Gordon, Latin Epigraphy no. 20, pp. 95-96. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 67 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • By the Gabinian law he received command with unlimited imperium for at least three years over the Mediterranean sea and its coasts for 50 miles inland, equal to that of the Proconsuls in the several provinces (see esp. Vell. 2.31.2-4; and the texts above, Tribunes of the Plebs, on Gabinius) in order to exterminate piracy. His excellent organization (see below, Legates), and his great concentration of ships, resources, and men, swept the Mediterranean from west to east, and during the summer brought the war to an effective end in a great battle off Coracesium in Cilicia (Cic. Leg. Man., passim; esp. 34-35; Diod. 40.4; Liv. Per. 99; Strabo 8.7.5, 388e; 11.1.6, 492e; 14.3.3, 665c, and 5.2, 668-669c, and 8, 671c; Vell. 2.32.4-5; Lucan 2.576-579; Plin. NH 7.93 and 98; Plut. Pomp. 24-29, esp. 26.3-28.4; App. Mith. 92-96; Flor. 1.41.6-15; Dio 36.17a-37, and 45.1; Eutrop. 6.12.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.5; Prob., and Serv., on Georg. 4.127; Schol. Bob. 98 Stangl; Zonar. 10.3; cf. Head, HN² 729). Pompey was acclaimed Imperator in 67 (SIG³ 749 A and B). See above, on Metellus Creticus. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 66 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (Act. Tr. for 61; Vell. 2.31.2-4; see 67, Promagistrates). Besides the powers granted for three years by the Gabinian law, he received under the Manilian law the command of the war against Mithridates and Tigranes, and the provinces of Bithynia and Pontus and Cilicia (see Tribunes of the Plebs, on Manilius). His achievements in this year included an alliance with the Parthians (Liv. Per. 100; Flor. 1.40.31, and 46.4; Dio 36.45.2-3, and 51.1; 37.5.2; Iustin 42.4.6), the defeat of Mithridates, and his expulsion from Pontus (Plut. Pomp. 30-32; Cat. Min. 29.3; App. Mith. 97-103, and 105, and 107, and 115; Flor. 1.40.2 and 22-26, and 46.4; Dio 36.45-50, cf. 49.39.3; cf. Cic. Mur. 34; Bell. Alex. 36.3; Liv. Per. 100; Strabo 12.5.2, 567c, and 3.28, 555c; Vell. 2.37.2, cf. 33.2; Val. Max. 1.8, ext. 13; 4.6, ext. 2; Plin. NH 6.120; Frontin. Str. 1.1.7; 2.1.12, and 2.2, and 5.33; Eutrop. 6.12.2-3; Auct. Vir. Ill. 76.7; Iulian Caes. 322 Sp.; Ruf. Fest. 16.1; Ammian. Marc. 16.7.10; Oros. 6.4.3-7; Iordan. Rom. 233, p. 30 M; Suidas, s. v. #, 2.354B; Zonar. 10.4), and the surrender of Armenia and the defeat of the Iberians on the Cyrus river (Vell. 2.37.2-5, and 40.1; Liv. Per. 101; Plut. Pomp. 32-34; Comp. Ages. et Pomp. 3.2; Comp. Cim. et Luc. 3; App. Mith. 104-105; Flor. 1.40.27-28; Dio 36.51-54; cf. Cic. Sest. 58-59; Strabo 11.14.10, 530c; Val. Max. 5.1.9-10; Eutrop. 6.13, and 14.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.5; Ruf. Fest. 16.2-3; Oros. 6.4.8; Iordan. Rom. 234, p. 30 M; Suidas, s. v. #, 2.354B; Zonar. 10.4). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 65 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 67, and 66, Promagistrates). Compelled the Albanian and other Caucasian and Colchian peoples to sue for peace (Plut. Pomp. 34-35, and 36.1, and 39.1; App. Mith. 103, and 116, and 117; Dio 37.1-5; cf. Cic. Mur. 34; Liv. Per. 101; Strabo 11.4.5, 502c, and 5.1, 503c; Lucan 8.222; Frontin. Sir. 2.3.14; Flor. 1.40.28; Iustin 42.3.4; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.6; Eutrop. 6.14; Ruf. Fest. 16.3; Oros. 6.4.8-9; Iordan. Rom. 235, p. 31 M; Zonar. 10.4; Suidas, s. v. # 2.354B). Entered into the dispute between Tigranes of Armenia and Phraates of Parthia, and occupied Gordyene (Plut. Pomp. 36.1-2; 38.2-3; Apophth. Pomp. 8; Dio 37.5.2-6.5, by spring of 64), and during the winter of 65 and the spring of 64 began his organization of the province of Bithynia and Pontus (Liv. Per. 102; Strabo 12.3.31, 556c; Plut. Pomp. 36-38; App. Mith. 107; Dio 37.6.5). Acclaimed Imperator (I. de Delos 4.1.1641 -SIG³ 749 A; SIG³ 749 B). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 64 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul, (see 67-65, Promagistrates). In 64 he advanced from Pontus into Syria, receiving the submission of Commagene, Ituraca, and other principalities, arbitrated a boundary dispute between Tigranes of Armenia and Phraates of Parthia, and set about the organization of Syria as a Roman province, while his Legates, and his Quaestor (Proquaestor) Scaurus, dealt with Aretas of Petra and the rival Jewish princes (Joseph. AJ 14.29-38; BJ 1.127-130; Plut. Pomp. 39-41; App. Mith. 106, and 118; Syr. 49-50, and 70; BC 5.10; Dio 37.6.4-7.4, 7a, and 15.1; cf. Strabo 16.2.8, 751c, and 18, 755c; Liv. Per. 101; Vell. 2.37.5, and 38.6; Iustin 40.2.2-5; Eutrop. 6.14.1- 2; Auct. Vir. Ill. 77.6; Ruf. Fest. 16.4; Oros. 6.6.1; Zonar. 10.5, cf. 5.6; see 65, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 63 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 67-62, Promagistrates). In this year he carried through his campaigns in Syria and Palestine, including the capture of Jerusalem, and the settlement of Judaea and Syria, and received during this period the news of the death of Mithridates. Leaving Scaurus in command, he proceeded to Pontus for the winter. (Joseph. AJ 14.36-79; BJ 1.131-158; Plut. Pomp. 39.2-42.3; App. Mith. 108-114; Syr. 49-50; Dio 37.14.1-17.3, and 20.1; cf. Cic. Mur. 34; Att. 2.9.1, Hierosolymarius; Flacc. 67; Diod. 40.2; Liv. Per. 102; Val. Max. 9.2, ext. 3; Yell. 2.40.1; Lucan 1.336f.; 2.55, and 590-594; Tac. Hist. 5.9; Plut. Superstit. 8; Flor. 1.40.26 and 30-31; Gell. 17.16.5; Galen 14.284 K; Hegesipp. 1.15-17; Sulp. Sev. 2.26; Eutrop. 6.12.3, and 14.2; Auct. Vir. Ill. 76.7-8; 77.6-7; Ruf. Fest. Brev. 16.1; Jerome Chr. ad ann. 67 and 63, pp. 153 and 154 Helm; Ammian. Marc. 14.8.12; Oros. 6.5-6; Suidas, s. v. Phot. Bibl. 53 B; Zonar. 5.6; 10.5). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 62 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (see 67-63, Promagistrates), and Imperator (Cic. Fam. 5.7; SIG³ 751, 752; cf. IGRP 4.49-56). He completed his organization of eastern and northern Asia Minor, gave his soldiers their bounties, and returned to Italy, probably arriving at Brundisium by December, and then disbanded his army (Cic. Prov. Cons. 27; Fam. 5.7; Sull. 67-68; Strabo 11.1.6; Vell. 2.40.3; Plin. NH 7.112; 37.14-16; Plut. Pomp. 42-43; App. Mith. 105, and 114-116; Dio 37.20.6, and 49.3; 41.13.2; Zonar. 10.5; cf. on his divorce from Mucia, Cic. Att. 1.12.3; Ascon. 20C; Suet. Iul. 50.1; Dio 37.49.3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • 1 On Pompey's organization of Asia Minor and Syria, see the texts cited and the works referred to in D.-G. 4.477ff.; Jones, CERP 63, 157ff., 177, 202f., 258ff.; and especially on Asia Minor, Broughton in Frank, ESAR 4.530-533; and Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor 1.368-378; 2.1230-1241. The date of his return can be inferred from the dates of Cic. Att. 1.12.3 (Jan. 1, 61) and 1.13. (Jan. 25, 61). (Broughton MRR II)
• Triumphator 61 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Asia, Ponto, Armenia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Scytheis, Iudaeis, Albania, pirateis. MRR II.181, Itgenshorst no. 258, Rich no. 258. (Rich 2014)
• Proconsul 61 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (Act. Tr. for 61; see 67-62, Promagistrates). He celebrated with special magnificence his triumph for victories over the pirates and Mithridates and Tigranes (Act. Tr., Degrassi 84f., 566; Diod. 40.4; Liv. Per. 103; Vell. 2.40; Plin. NH 7.93-98; 37.11-18 and 41; Plut. Pomp. 43-45; App. Mith. 116-117; Dio 37.21; Eutrop. 6.16; cf. Cic. Sest. 129; Balb. 9 and 16; Pis. 58; Div. 2.22; Yell. 2.34.2, and 53.3; Val. Max. 5.1.10; 8.15.8; Lucan 7.685; 8.147 and 513; 9.178 and 599; Dio 37.24. 1; Zonar. 10.5; on the new revenues from the newly acquired provinces, Plut. Pomp. 45; Cic. Att. 1. 19.2; 2.16.2; and on the treasure he brought home, Plin. NH 12.20 and 111; 33.151; Plut. Pomp. 36.6; App. Mith. 115-117). (Broughton MRR II)
• Vigintivir Agris Dandis Assignandis 59 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Cic. Att. 2.12.1, and 19.3; Dio 38.1.7. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 57 Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Received charge with an imperium. pro consule for five years of the grain supply throughout the Roman world with the right to appoint fifteen legates (Cic. Att. 4.1.6-7; Dom. 14-31; P. Red. in Sen. 34; Liv. Per. 104; Plut. Pomp. 49.4-5, and 50; Apophth. Pomp. 11; App. BC 2.18, 20 legates; Dio 39.9.3, cf. 24.1). See below, Legates; and on the proposal of Messius, above, Tribunes of the Plebs. On April 5, 56, 40,000,000 HS were appropriated to his use (Cic. QF 2.5.1). See D.–G. 4.517f. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 56 Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in charge of the grain supply (see 57, Promagistrates). He received an appropriation of 40,000,000 HS for his duties (Cic. QF 2.5. 1). After the conference of Luca he visited Sardinia and Africa (Cic. QF 2.5.3; Fam. 1.9.8-9). He wished to take a census of liberated slaves in order to provide a more orderly distribution of grain (Dio 39.24.1-2). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 55 Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in charge of the grain supply (see 57, Promagistrates; Dio 39.39.4). (Broughton MRR II)
• Consul 55 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • CIL 12.2.765, perhaps also 901-903; Caes. BG 4.1.1; Dio 39, Index, and 50.1; Eutrop. 6.18.1; Oros. 6.13.1; Chr. 354 (Magno II et Grasso); Fast. Hyd. (Pompeio II et Crasso); Chr. Pasc. (#); Cassiod. See Degrassi 132, 494f. Elected by violence after an interregnum (Cic. Att. 4.8a.1-2; QF 2.7.2; Vell. 2. 46; )Plut. Crass. 15; Pomp. 51.4- 52.2; Cat. Min. 41-42, of. Caes. 21.3-4; App. BC 2.17; Dio 39.27-31), they then administered the other elections in favor of their candidates (Cic. Fam. 1.8.1 and 4, and 9. 19; QF 2.7.3; Liv. Per. 105; Val. Max. 4.6.4; Plut. Pomp. 52-53; Cat. Min. 42; Dio 39.32; see Praetors, on Vatinius). Pompey carried a law to limit the selection of jurymen to the highest rating in the census (Cic. Phil. 1. 20; Pis. 94; Sall. Ad Caes. 2.3.3, cf. 7. 11; Ascon. 17 C); and dedicated his theater, portico, and temple of Venus Victrix with sumptuous games (for the many references, see R-G. 4.526-530, and add CIL 12.2.2710), while Crassus carried a Lex de sodaliciis, in which the selection of jurors to judge offences under it was limited to five tribes with right of rejection of only one (Cic. Planc. 36-48; Fam. 8.2. 1 ; Dio 39.37; Schol. Bob. 152 Stangl). Under the Lex Trebonia (see Tribunes of the Plebs, on Trebonius) Pompey received command of Spain for five years and Crassus of Syria for a like term. Both then carried a bill which either explicitly or in effect prolonged Caesar's term in Gaul for five years, since it forbade the discussion of a successor before March 1, 50 (Cic. Att. 7.7.6, and 9.4; 8.3.3; Cael., in Cic. Fam. 8.8.4, and 9.5; Vell. 2.46.2; Plut. Crass. 15.5; Cat. Min. 43.5-6; Pomp. 52.3, Lex Trebonia; Caes. 21.3; Suet. Iul. 24.1; App. BC 2.18; Dio 39.33.2-3, three years). Crassus departed for Syria in November, amid tribunicial opposition and evil omens (Cic. Fam. 1.9.20, cf. Att. 4.9.1, and 13.2; Div. 1.29; 2.84; Fin. 3.75; Strabo 16.1.28; Liv. Per. 105; Val. Max. 1.6.11; Plin. NH 15.83; Lucan 3.126; Plut. Crass. 15-16; Pomp. 52.3-4; Cat. Min. 43. 1; Cic. 26. 1; App. BC 2. 18; Flor. 1.46.1-3; Dio 39.33.2, and 39.1 and 5-7; Eutrop. 6. 18. 1; Oros. 6.13. 1), while Pompey remained in Italy and governed his provinces by means of Legates (Plut. Pomp. 53.1; App. BC 2.18; Dio 39.39.1-4). (Broughton MRR II)
  • 1 Niccolini (FTP 309) considers that the bill to prolong Caesar's command was a Lex Trebonia, but Cassius Die distinguishes clearly between the two bills, and Hirtius in Caes. BG 8.53 mentions the Lex Pompei et Crassi. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 54 Rome, Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain under the Trebonian law (see 55, Tribunes of the Plebs, on Trebonius). He remained in Italy in charge of the grain supply (Dio 39.39.4, and 63.3), and in touch with the increasing anarchy in Rome, to remedy which his friends began to suggest that he be named Dictator (Cic. Att. 4.18.3; QF 3.8.4; see D.–G. 4.531-533). At the end of the year he lent Caesar a legion he had recruited in Cisalpine Gaul during his consulship in 55 (Caes. BG 6.1.2-4; Plut. Caes. 25.1). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 53 Rome, Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul of both Spanish provinces under the Lex Trebonia (see 55, Tribunes of the Plebs, on Trebonius; Caes. BG 6.1.2; BC 1.85.9; Oros. 6.10.13). Probably also remained in charge of the grain supply. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 52 Rome, Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Continued as Proconsul of both Spanish provinces under the Lex Trebonia but his command was extended for another five years (Plut. Caes. 28.5; Pomp. 55.7, four years; App. BC 2.24; Dio 40.56.2, five years). (Broughton MRR II)
• Consul 52 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • CIL 12.2.769, 931-933; Gell. 10.1.7-9; Dio 40, Index; Chr. 354 (Magno III solo); Fast. Hyd. (Pompeio III et Metello Scripione); Chr. Pasc. (#); Cassiod. See Degrassi 132, 496f. Because of the violence which attended the candidacy of Milo, Metellus Scipio, and Hypsaeus for the consulship, and of Clodius for the praetorship, the murder of the latter on January 18 by Milo's followers in a brawl at Bovillae, and the subsequent disorder in Rome, the factions of Pompey and of Cato together with many moderates united to elect Pompey sole Consul, and secured his entrance into office V a. d. Kal. Mart. in the intercalary month (Ascon. 30-36 C; Plut. Pomp. 54; Dio 40.45-50; cf. Cic. Phil. 1.18; Att. 7.1.4; 8.3.3; Liv. Per. 107; Vell. 2.47.3; Val. Max. 6.2.11; 8.15.8; Plin. NH 15.3; 33.14; 34.139; Tac. Ann. 3.28; Suet. Iul. 26.1; Plut. Cat. Min. 47-48; Caes. 28.4-5; App. BC 2.20-25; Zonar. 10.7). He secured new legislation against violence and bribery, and reformed court procedure with measures designed to expedite actions, limit speeches, and increase penalties, including, 1. a Lex de vi, with special reference to the murder of Clodius and the subsequent rioting (Cic. Mil. 15 and 70 and 79; Ascon. 36 C; App. BC 2.23; Schol. Bob. 112 Stangl; Schol. Gron. 323 Stangl); 2. a Lex de ambitu, so drawn as to permit examination of past acts as far as 70 B. C. (Cic. Att. 13.49.1; 10.4.8; Ascon. 36 C; Plut. Cat. Min. 48.3; Tac. Dial. 38; App. BC 2.23-24). There followed the trial and conviction of Mlo, and of many other persons who had been involved. Later, after the passage of the law of the Ten Tribunes (see Tribunes of the Plebs), he secured passage of a law to compel candidates for office to make their announcement in person in Rome (Dio 40.56. Suet. Iul. 28.3; Flor. 2.13.16-17; cf. Cic. Att. 7.1.4, and 3.4; 8.3.3; Fam. 6.6.5; Phil. 2.24; Caes. BC 1.32; 3.82). He also enacted into law a senatorial resolution of the previous year that an interval of five years should elapse between a city magistracy and a provincial command (Dio 40.56.1, cf. 30.1, and 46.2; Caes. BC 1.85.9). He secured the election of Metellus Scipio, by then his father-in-law, &S his colleague for the last five months of the year. His command in Spain was prorogued (see Promagistrates). See D.-G. 4.534-536. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 51 Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in both Spanish provinces (see 55, Tribunes of the Plebs, and 52, Promagistrates). He continued to govern by Legates while remaining in Italy (Cic. Att. 5.11.3; Fam. 3.8.10, cf. Cael. in Cic. Fam. 8.4.4, and 8.9; Caes. BC 1.85.8-9; Dio 40.59.2). (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 50 Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in both Spanish provinces under the Lex Trebonia, with a further extension of his command in 52 (see 55, Tribunes, on Trebonius; 52, Consuls). He continued to govern Spain by Legates and remained in Italy, thus making the issue against Caesar more acute (see 51, Promagistrates; and on proposals that he go to Spain or else surrender his command, see above on Caesar, and Tribunes of the Plebs, on Curio; and esp. Cael. in Cic. Fam. 8.14.2; Cic. Att. 6.8.2; 7.9.3; Hirt. in Caes. BG 8.52, cf. BC 1. 1-7; Plut. Pomp. 58.3, cf. Caes. 30; App. BC 2.30; Dio 40.62.3-4, cf. 41.1-2). # Canini Sallustius (2A.1913and1919) Served as Proquaestor under Bibulus in Syria (Cic. Fam. 2.17). See 5 1, Quaestors. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 49 Hispania, Italia, Achaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul of Spain (see 54-50, Promagistrates, and below, Legates). At the outbreak of the war Cato demanded that Pompey be made commander in chief but the demand was rejected, and he was empowered, with the other possessors of imperium, to command armies against Caesar in Italy and elsewhere (Caes. BC 1.5.3; Plut. Cat. Min. 52; Pomp. 60-61, esp. 61.1; App. BC 2.36-37; cf. prescripts to Cic. Att. 8.11A-D, and 12A-D; Fam. 16.11, and 12). He was named commander in chief at Thessalonica at the end of the year (Caes. BC 3.16.4; Lucan 5.44- 47; Dio 41.43.1-2; cf. Vell. 2.49.2). See Caes. BC 1.1-3.6, esp. 3.3.1-2; Cic. Att. 7.10-10.18, esp. 9.9.2; Liv. Per. 109-110; Suet. Iul. 30-35; Lucan 1.1-5.460; Plut. Pomp. 59-65; Caes. 30-37; Cat. Min. 52-54; App. BC 2.32-54; (Broughton MRR II)
• Moneyer 49 (RRC) Expand
  • ref. 447 (RRC)
  • ref. 446 (RRC)
• Proconsul 48 Italia, Achaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul (Dio 41.43.5), but in fact accepted as commander in chief (see 49, Promagistrates). On his campaign in Epirus, his defeat at Pharsalus, and his death in Egypt, see the sources quoted above on Iulius Caesar, and D.-G. 3.432-472; 4.540f. Acclaimed Imperator, Caes. BC 3.71.3; Dio 41.52.1. (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results