Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

LICI1981 M. Licinius (68) P. f. M. n. Crassus

Status

  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. ap. Ascon. Tog. Cand. 83C, Sall. Cat. 48.5, Ascon. Tog. Cand. 83C, Epig. Bob. 22

Life Dates

  • 115?, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

    Sumner R172.

  • 53, death - violent (Broughton MRR II) Expand

    Executed by Parthians.

Relationships

grandson of
M. Licinius (57) Crassus 'Agelastus' (pr. c. 127) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plin. n.h. VII 79

son of
? Venuleia (4) (married to P. Licinius (61) M. f. P. n. Crassus (Dives) (cos. 97)) (DPRR Team)
P. Licinius (61) M. f. P. n. Crassus (Dives) (cos. 97) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Pis. 58

brother of
? -. Licinius (50) Crassus Dives (son of P. Licinius (61) M. f. P. n. Crassus (Dives) (cos. 97)) (DPRR Team)
? P. Licinius (62) Crassus Dives (son of P. Licinius (61) M. f. P. n. Crassus (Dives) (cos. 97)) (DPRR Team)
married to
Tertulla (20) (married to P. Licinius (62) Crassus Dives) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Crass. 1.1-2(3)

father of
P. Licinius (63) M. f. (P.? n.) Crassus (q.? 55) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 281, Cic. fam. V 8.4, Dio XL 21.2, Dio XXXIX 31.2, Dio XXXIX 46.1, Dio XXXVIII 17.3, Eutr. VI 18.1, Flor. I 46.10, Iustin XLII 4.4, Iustin XLII 4.6, Liv. per. 106, Lucan. IX 64ff., Lucan. VIII 325ff., Lucan. VIII 356ff., Lucan. VIII 420ff., Lucan. VIII 90f., Schol. Bern. Lucan. VIII 91 p259 Usener, Lucan. X 50ff., Oros. VI 13.3, Plut. Crass. 25.1, Val. Max. I 6.11

M. Licinius (56) M. f. P. n. Crassus (q. 54) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Iustin. 42.4.6

Career

  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 83 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • No title preserved. Sent by Sulla to recruit forces among the Marsi (Plut. Crass. 6.2-3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 82 Italia, Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 9 Appian calls both Crassus and Pompey # (BC 1.90), and Pompey may possibly, though not probably (see Plut. Pomp. 10.4-5), have been a Legate until he was sent to Sicily. Crassus' position as commander of the right wing in the battle at the Colline Gate suggests that he was a Legate. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Probably a Legate under Sulla (cf. Plut. Sull. 30.1). Along with Pompey, Crassus besieged Carrinas at Spoletium (App. BC 1.90), and bimself captured Tuder, appropriating much of the booty (Plut. Crass. 6.5). He took an important part in the battle at the Colline Gate (Plut. Crass. 6.6; Sull. 29.5-30.1; cf. App. BC 1.93). He gained a bad reputation for the property he acquired during the proscriptions (Plut. Crass. 2.3-6; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.3.81; Leg. Agr. 2.57; Sall. Hist. 1.55.18; 4.IM). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Aedilis? 76 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Cos. 70, 55. In the Index (MRR 2.580) and the other references to the career of RE no. 68, delete the cognomen Dives. It does not appear in any official lists that have been preserved (see Münzer RE 13.1.245, against Gelzer on no. 68). It properly belonged to P. Licinius Crassus Dives (69). Cos. 205, and became hereditary in the older branch of the family. Cicero's use of it as comparable to Pompey's Magnus in Att. 2.13.2 distinguishes the praetor of 57, P. Licinius Crassus Dives (71) from his contemporary the Triumvir. See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.379, and Studies 46; B. A. Marshall, Historia 22, 1973, 459-467, with a stemma of the Licinii Crassi. Aedile? 76. Remarks by Sicinius (9), Tr. pl. 76, may imply that Crassus was in office then (Plut. Crass. 7.9; see T. J. Cadoux, G&R 3, 1956, 154, note 5). If he was aedile, 73 becomes still more probable for his praetorship. Procos. 72. Shatzman (Athenaeum 46, 1968, 345-354) and Badian (ibid. 48, 1970, 6-8) both interpret Appian (BC 1.118) to mean that Crassus was praetor in 73, consistent with the Leges Annales, and, after the defeat of the consul of 72 in the war with Spartacus, was invested with command in 72- 71 as a privatus cum imperio. Cf. MRR 2.118, 121, note 2, and 123. Note also that Plutarch (Crass. 10.6) implies that by midwinter the campaign had been in progress for a considerable time. It had ended by April 1, 71 (T. Rice Holmes, Rom. Rep. 1.161, note 2). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Praetor before 72 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • The latest date possible under the Cornelian law. See 72, Promagistrates and note 2. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 70, 55. In the Index (MRR 2.580) and the other references to the career of RE no. 68, delete the cognomen Dives. It does not appear in any official lists that have been preserved (see Münzer RE 13.1.245, against Gelzer on no. 68). It properly belonged to P. Licinius Crassus Dives (69). Cos. 205, and became hereditary in the older branch of the family. Cicero's use of it as comparable to Pompey's Magnus in Att. 2.13.2 distinguishes the praetor of 57, P. Licinius Crassus Dives (71) from his contemporary the Triumvir. See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.379, and Studies 46; B. A. Marshall, Historia 22, 1973, 459-467, with a stemma of the Licinii Crassi. Aedile? 76. Remarks by Sicinius (9), Tr. pl. 76, may imply that Crassus was in office then (Plut. Crass. 7.9; see T. J. Cadoux, G&R 3, 1956, 154, note 5). If he was aedile, 73 becomes still more probable for his praetorship. Procos. 72. Shatzman (Athenaeum 46, 1968, 345-354) and Badian (ibid. 48, 1970, 6-8) both interpret Appian (BC 1.118) to mean that Crassus was praetor in 73, consistent with the Leges Annales, and, after the defeat of the consul of 72 in the war with Spartacus, was invested with command in 72- 71 as a privatus cum imperio. Cf. MRR 2.118, 121, note 2, and 123. Note also that Plutarch (Crass. 10.6) implies that by midwinter the campaign had been in progress for a considerable time. It had ended by April 1, 71 (T. Rice Holmes, Rom. Rep. 1.161, note 2). (Broughton MRR III)
    • p. 751, footnote 379 (Brennan 2000)
  • Proconsul 72 Campania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 2 The evidence regarding the date of the praetorship of Crassus is quite contradictory: in one passage (BC 1. 118) Appian remarks that in the third year of the war when other candidates in the praetorian elections were unwilling to come forward and undertake the command, Crassus offered himself, and in another (BC 1. 12 1) says that Crassus as a candidate for the consulship in 70 had held the praetorship "as the law of Sulla required." If Crassus followed the course regular in this period he held the praetorship in 73 and was invested with his command against Spartacus in 72 pro consule, as Eutropius says. The epitomator of Livy so frequently uses praetor in the sense of propraetor that his evidence is not decisive for the later date for Crassus' praetorship. Crassus therefore was probably Praetor in 73 and Proconsul in 72-71, and Appian correct only regarding his acceptance of the cominand when others were unwilling. He must have been in the field when the Consuls were in Rome in November (Cic. Verr. 2.2.95). See T. Rice Holmes, Roman Republic 1.389; Münzer, RE, on Crassus, col. 302; and against the view expressed above, D. -G. 4.91, note 5 and 6. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Proconsul (Eutrop. 6.7.2). After the defeat of the Consuls the Senate placed Crassus in charge of operations (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 70, 55. In the Index (MRR 2.580) and the other references to the career of RE no. 68, delete the cognomen Dives. It does not appear in any official lists that have been preserved (see Münzer RE 13.1.245, against Gelzer on no. 68). It properly belonged to P. Licinius Crassus Dives (69). Cos. 205, and became hereditary in the older branch of the family. Cicero's use of it as comparable to Pompey's Magnus in Att. 2.13.2 distinguishes the praetor of 57, P. Licinius Crassus Dives (71) from his contemporary the Triumvir. See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.379, and Studies 46; B. A. Marshall, Historia 22, 1973, 459-467, with a stemma of the Licinii Crassi. Aedile? 76. Remarks by Sicinius (9), Tr. pl. 76, may imply that Crassus was in office then (Plut. Crass. 7.9; see T. J. Cadoux, G&R 3, 1956, 154, note 5). If he was aedile, 73 becomes still more probable for his praetorship. Procos. 72. Shatzman (Athenaeum 46, 1968, 345-354) and Badian (ibid. 48, 1970, 6-8) both interpret Appian (BC 1.118) to mean that Crassus was praetor in 73, consistent with the Leges Annales, and, after the defeat of the consul of 72 in the war with Spartacus, was invested with command in 72- 71 as a privatus cum imperio. Cf. MRR 2.118, 121, note 2, and 123. Note also that Plutarch (Crass. 10.6) implies that by midwinter the campaign had been in progress for a considerable time. It had ended by April 1, 71 (T. Rice Holmes, Rom. Rep. 1.161, note 2). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proconsul 71 Campania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul (Eutrop. 6.7.2). He defeated and destroyed all but a small remnant of the forces of Spartacus (Sall. Hist. 4.33-41 M; Liv. Per. 97; Vell. 2.30.5-6; Lucan 2.554; Frontin. Str. 1.5.20; 2.4.7, and 5.34; Plut. Crass. 10- 11; Pomp. 21.1-2; Athen. 6.104, 273A; App. BC 1.118-121; Flor. 2.8.12-14; Eutrop. 6.7.2; Oros. 5.24.6-8; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.5.39-40). He celebrated an ovation (Cic. Pis. 58; Plin. NH 15.125; Plut. Crass. 11.8; Gell. 5.6.23; Jerome Chr. ad ann. 70, p. 152 Helm; see Degrassi 565). Regarding his candidacy for the consulship, see below, on Pompey. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 70, 55. In the Index (MRR 2.580) and the other references to the career of RE no. 68, delete the cognomen Dives. It does not appear in any official lists that have been preserved (see Münzer RE 13.1.245, against Gelzer on no. 68). It properly belonged to P. Licinius Crassus Dives (69). Cos. 205, and became hereditary in the older branch of the family. Cicero's use of it as comparable to Pompey's Magnus in Att. 2.13.2 distinguishes the praetor of 57, P. Licinius Crassus Dives (71) from his contemporary the Triumvir. See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.379, and Studies 46; B. A. Marshall, Historia 22, 1973, 459-467, with a stemma of the Licinii Crassi. Aedile? 76. Remarks by Sicinius (9), Tr. pl. 76, may imply that Crassus was in office then (Plut. Crass. 7.9; see T. J. Cadoux, G&R 3, 1956, 154, note 5). If he was aedile, 73 becomes still more probable for his praetorship. Procos. 72. Shatzman (Athenaeum 46, 1968, 345-354) and Badian (ibid. 48, 1970, 6-8) both interpret Appian (BC 1.118) to mean that Crassus was praetor in 73, consistent with the Leges Annales, and, after the defeat of the consul of 72 in the war with Spartacus, was invested with command in 72- 71 as a privatus cum imperio. Cf. MRR 2.118, 121, note 2, and 123. Note also that Plutarch (Crass. 10.6) implies that by midwinter the campaign had been in progress for a considerable time. It had ended by April 1, 71 (T. Rice Holmes, Rom. Rep. 1.161, note 2). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Triumphator 71 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Ovation de fugitivis et Spartaco. MRR II.123, Itgenshorst no. 252, Rich no. 252. (Rich 2014)
  • 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)
  • Censor 65 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Catulus thwarted the attempts of his colleague to enroll the Transpadanes as citizens (Dio 37.9.3; cf. Cic. Balb. 50), and to make Egypt tributary (Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.44; Suet. Iul. 11; Plut. Crass. 13.1-2), and both finally abdicated without completing the census (Plut.; Dio). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Pontifex? 60 to 58 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Quinquevir Agris Dandis Assignandis Iudicandis? 59 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Dio 38.1.7. It is uncertain to which board he belonged, if not to both. The board of five is mentioned also in Cic. Att. 2.7.4, cf. 2.6.2. Mommsen (Sir. 2.628, note 4, and cf. 633ff.) suggests that the board of five acted as a judicial committee for the whole board of twenty which carried out the assignments. The board of twenty founded the colony of Capua (Lib. Colon. 231 L). See Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im alten Italien 175, 188, note 2, and 201. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Pontifex 57 to 49 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • The successors to P. Mucius Scaevola, Sex. Quinctilius Varus, Mam. Aemilius Lepidus, D. Iunius Silanus and Q. Latatius Catulus were C. Fannius, M. Aemilius Lepidus, P. Cornelius Lentulus SPinther, M. Aemilius Scaurus, M. Licinius Crassus Dives, M. Licinius Crassus and C. Scribonius Curio. These lists of the Pontifices who died between the death of Metellus Pius in 64 or 63 (see 63, Pontifices) and that of Catulus (before May, 60, Cic. Att. 1.20.3; Dio 37.46.3-4), and of their successors, are based on the order of the lists of priests in Macrob. Sat. 3.13.11 (before 6913.C.) and in Cicero (Har. Resp. 12; Dom. 118; in 57 B.C.), and assume that in both cases they are named in the order of their inauguration into the college. The lower limit is drawn on the assumption that the two plebeians, Crassus, whether he be the Consul of 70 or his son, and Curio, are probably the successors of the two plebeians Silanus and Catulus. As the earlier list is not complete there is room for an additional name in the list of successors. On the whole question, see L. R. Taylor, AJPh 63 (1942) 384-412, esp. 388ff., and 411f. (Broughton MRR II)
    • The full list of the college of Pontifices, including the Flamen Martialis and the Flamen Quirinalis (no Flamen Dialis had been inaugurated since the death of Merula in 87) and the Pontifices Minores, as it was composed on September 29, 57, can be reconstructed from Cic. Har. Resp. 12: (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 Syria (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Syria under the Lex Trebonia (see 55, Tribunes of the Plebs, on Trebonius). Reaching his province after a stormy passage (Joseph. AJ 14.104; BJ 1. 179; Plut. Crass. 17; App. Syr. 5 1), he raided Mesopotamian territory (Plut. Crass. 17; Flor. 1.46.3; Dio 40.12-13; Ruf. Fest. 17.2; Oros. 6.13.2), and in the course of his preparations for the invasion of Parthia in 53 seized the temple treasures of Hierapolis and of Jerusalem (Joseph. AJ 14.105-109; BJ 1.179; Plut. Crass. 17; Hegesipp. 1.21.2; Oros. 6.13.1). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 53 Syria (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Syria under the Lex Trebonia (see 55, Tribunes of the Plebs). His invasion of Parthia ended in disaster at Carrhae on June 9, with the loss of nearly all his army and his own life (Plut. Crass. 18-33; Comp. Nic. et Crass. 4-5; Dio 40.17-27; cf. Cic. Div. 1.29; 2.22 and 84; Caes. BC 3.31.3; Dion. Hal. 2.6.4; Liv. Per. 106; Nic. Dam. in Athen. 6.252D, FGrH 2A.378; Prop. 2.10.14; 3.4.9; 4.6.83; Hor. Odes 3.5.5-12; Ovid Fasti 5.583-684; 6.465-469, on the date; Strabo 16.1.23 and 28; Vell. 2.46.3-4, and 82.2, and 119.1; Val. Max. 1.6.11; 6.9.9; Senec. Rhet. Contr. 2.1.7, and 5.7; Lucan 2.553; Plin. NH 2.147; 5.86; 6.47; Joseph.AJ14.119; BJ 1.179; Frontin. Str. 1.1.13; Tac.Germ. 37; Plut. Pomp. 53.5-6; Flor. 1.46.6-10; 2.13.13, and 20.1 and 4, and 34; App. Syr. 51; BC 2.18; 5.10; Iustin 42.4.4; Polyaen. 7.41; Obseq. 64; Jerome Chr. ad ann. 56, p. 155 Helm, who mistakenly asserts that Crassus was captured; Sid. Apoll. 2.454f.; 7.100; 9.251; Oros. 6.13.2-5; Zosim. 3.32.3; Zonar. 10.7). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results