Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

CAEC2347 Q. Caecilius (99) Q. f. Q. n. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio = P. Cornelius (352) Scipio Nasica

Status

  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. 2 Verr. 4.37.81 ("P. Scipio"), Cic. ap. Ascon. Corn. 74C, Eutrop. 6.23

Life Dates

  • 95?, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

    Sumner R152 (by 95/94), MRR (ca. 95).

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

    Suicide, evading capture.

Relationships

great grandson of
Q. Caecilius (94) Q. f. L. n. Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 143) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. dom. 123

P. Cornelius (354) P. f. P. n. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 138) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Att. VI 1.17, Cic. Brut. 213

son of
Licinia (183) (daughter of L. Licinius (55) L. f. C. n. Crassus (cos. 95)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 212

? P. Cornelius (351) P. f. P. n. Scipio Nasica (pr.? 93) (Zmeskal 2009)
adopted son of
Q. Caecilius (98) Q. f. L. n. Metellus Pius (cos. 80) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XL 51.2

brother of
? L.? Licinius (76) Crassus Scipio? (son of P. Cornelius (351) P. f. P. n. Scipio Nasica (pr.? 93)) (DPRR Team)
married to
Aemilia (166) Lepida (married to Q. Caecilius (99) Q. f. Q. n. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio = P. Cornelius (352) Scipio Nasica (cos. 52)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Cato min. 7.1

father of
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, Eutr. VI 23.2, Val. Max. IX 5.3

Career

  • Pontifex? 63 to 58 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Quaestor? 60 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Son of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98), Cos. 80, by testamentary adoption, he made, as Shackleton Bailey notes, frequent use of the cognomen Scipio but none of Nasica (Studies 107-110). The election in the spring of 60, in which he defeated Favonius, who promptly prosecuted him, probably for ambitus, remains a puzzle (Cic. Att. 2.1.9, early in June). As it was too early in the year for the regular elections for 59, it .must have been held for the election of a suffect magistrate. L. R. Taylor's view that Metellus Scipio thus became an aedilis suffectus for the rest of 60 (Ullman Studies 79- 85) is unsatisfactory since, Favonius did not reach the aedileship until 52 (MRR 2.235, 240, note 2). So, too, is a tribunate of the plebs, which I accepted in MRR .2.189, since a suffect tribune newly elected within his year of office would normally have entered upon office at once, and would have been exempt from prosecution during it (Weinrib, Phoenix 22, 1968, 33, note 8; Sumner, Orators 112). Moreover, Metellus Scipio's position as a tribune of the plebs seems quite inconsistent with his holding of the patrician office of interrex in 53 (ILLRP 1046; MRR 2.29; Sumner, loc. cit.). It was, however, Alford's suggestion (CR 41, 1927, 216-218), and appealed both to Chr. Meier (Historia 10, 1961, 96-98) and to Shackleton Bailey (CLA 1.350351), who later favored an aedileship (Phoenix 24, 1970, 164). Sumner, rejecting a tribunate, opted for a quaestorship (Orators 112), while Wiseman, thinking the quaestorships too numerous and too unimportant for such a struggle, returned to the tribunate (JRS. 65, 1975, 198, rev. of Sumner). For Metellus Scipio, born ca. 95, a quaestorship in 60 seems long delayed, but appears to suit conditions best. Neither a quaestorship nor a tribunate in 60 would affect dating his possible aedileship to 57 (MRR 2.201). Praetor 55, Proconsul 54? Metellus' triumph is mentioned in Varro RR 3.2.16 as no longer so recent (ut tunc fuit). The dramatic date of this book now appears to be 50, as Ap. Claudius Pulcher was present as an augur. There were no aedilician elections in 54, and none in 53 until too late for him to be present, as he was away as proconsul in Cilicia (53-51); cf. Varro RR 3.2.1-2; Badian, Athenaeum 48, 1970, 4-5. Badian suggests that Metellus held an otherwise unknown province after his praetorship, but Shatzman, rejecting the aedileship, dates the praetorship and the province in 56 and 55. Badian (loc. cit.) observes that the preserved fragment of the Fast. Triumph. shows no triumphs between Pompey in 61 and an unknown in 54 (Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.1.85, 566). This unknown is taken to be Pomptinus (MRR 2.225), who celebrated a triumph in 54, but could be Metellus, or Pomptinus could precede him. J. S. Richardson (CQ 33, 1983, 456-463) would date his triumph to 54, or at the latest before June 53, and so suggests a praetorship in 56, and his aedileship, if he held one, earlier than his games in 57. He believes that the dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is ""best placed before 53"" since Appius Claudius Pulcher (297), Cos. 54, who participates in this dialogue as augur at the time of an aedilician election, was away from Rome early 53 to late in 51 as proconsul in Cilicia. In answer to the objection that there were no elections of curule magistrates in 54, nor in 53 until July, he suggests that in the case of such long delays exceptions might be made to the regular order of election to permit the election of aediles and quaestors. He offers as examples the possible election of C. Cassius Longinus (59) and M. Iunius Brutus (53) to quaestorships in 53. But Cassius could have been elected in 55 to office in 54 (see below, on him, and Linderski, CPh 70, 1975, 35-37), and so, too, could Brutus, whose quaestorship is mentioned only in Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.3-4 (see the Supplement, below, on M. Iunius Brutus [58]). The dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is more probably 50, as Varro is not mentioned in his command in Spain until the beginning of 49 (MRR 2.253, 269). We can assume that Appius Claudius, though censor in 50, could continue to function as an augur too. At any rate, the Villa Publica would not be a strange place for a censor. See now J. Linderski, ""The Dramatic Date of Varro De Re Rustica, Book III, and the Elections in 54,"" Historia 34, 1985, 248-254, who holds that the opposition between tunc and nunc in Varro RR 3.2.15-16 is decisively in favor of a date for Metellus' triumph in 54 or 53 and a dramatic date in 50 for Varro's Book III. Proconsul in Africa, 48-46. On the coins inscribed Q. Metel, with Plus below, and Scipio Imp on the reverse, see now Crawford, RRC 1.471, 473, nos. 459-462, 47-46 B.C.[41x][42]" (Broughton MRR III)
  • Tribunus Plebis? 59 (Thommen 1989) Expand
    • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)
  • Pontifex 57 to 46 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • 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)
    • See above, Promagistrates. Succeeded by Ti. Claudius Nero. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cic. Dom. 123. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Aedilis? 57 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Son of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98), Cos. 80, by testamentary adoption, he made, as Shackleton Bailey notes, frequent use of the cognomen Scipio but none of Nasica (Studies 107-110). The election in the spring of 60, in which he defeated Favonius, who promptly prosecuted him, probably for ambitus, remains a puzzle (Cic. Att. 2.1.9, early in June). As it was too early in the year for the regular elections for 59, it .must have been held for the election of a suffect magistrate. L. R. Taylor's view that Metellus Scipio thus became an aedilis suffectus for the rest of 60 (Ullman Studies 79- 85) is unsatisfactory since, Favonius did not reach the aedileship until 52 (MRR 2.235, 240, note 2). So, too, is a tribunate of the plebs, which I accepted in MRR .2.189, since a suffect tribune newly elected within his year of office would normally have entered upon office at once, and would have been exempt from prosecution during it (Weinrib, Phoenix 22, 1968, 33, note 8; Sumner, Orators 112). Moreover, Metellus Scipio's position as a tribune of the plebs seems quite inconsistent with his holding of the patrician office of interrex in 53 (ILLRP 1046; MRR 2.29; Sumner, loc. cit.). It was, however, Alford's suggestion (CR 41, 1927, 216-218), and appealed both to Chr. Meier (Historia 10, 1961, 96-98) and to Shackleton Bailey (CLA 1.350351), who later favored an aedileship (Phoenix 24, 1970, 164). Sumner, rejecting a tribunate, opted for a quaestorship (Orators 112), while Wiseman, thinking the quaestorships too numerous and too unimportant for such a struggle, returned to the tribunate (JRS. 65, 1975, 198, rev. of Sumner). For Metellus Scipio, born ca. 95, a quaestorship in 60 seems long delayed, but appears to suit conditions best. Neither a quaestorship nor a tribunate in 60 would affect dating his possible aedileship to 57 (MRR 2.201). Praetor 55, Proconsul 54? Metellus' triumph is mentioned in Varro RR 3.2.16 as no longer so recent (ut tunc fuit). The dramatic date of this book now appears to be 50, as Ap. Claudius Pulcher was present as an augur. There were no aedilician elections in 54, and none in 53 until too late for him to be present, as he was away as proconsul in Cilicia (53-51); cf. Varro RR 3.2.1-2; Badian, Athenaeum 48, 1970, 4-5. Badian suggests that Metellus held an otherwise unknown province after his praetorship, but Shatzman, rejecting the aedileship, dates the praetorship and the province in 56 and 55. Badian (loc. cit.) observes that the preserved fragment of the Fast. Triumph. shows no triumphs between Pompey in 61 and an unknown in 54 (Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.1.85, 566). This unknown is taken to be Pomptinus (MRR 2.225), who celebrated a triumph in 54, but could be Metellus, or Pomptinus could precede him. J. S. Richardson (CQ 33, 1983, 456-463) would date his triumph to 54, or at the latest before June 53, and so suggests a praetorship in 56, and his aedileship, if he held one, earlier than his games in 57. He believes that the dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is ""best placed before 53"" since Appius Claudius Pulcher (297), Cos. 54, who participates in this dialogue as augur at the time of an aedilician election, was away from Rome early 53 to late in 51 as proconsul in Cilicia. In answer to the objection that there were no elections of curule magistrates in 54, nor in 53 until July, he suggests that in the case of such long delays exceptions might be made to the regular order of election to permit the election of aediles and quaestors. He offers as examples the possible election of C. Cassius Longinus (59) and M. Iunius Brutus (53) to quaestorships in 53. But Cassius could have been elected in 55 to office in 54 (see below, on him, and Linderski, CPh 70, 1975, 35-37), and so, too, could Brutus, whose quaestorship is mentioned only in Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.3-4 (see the Supplement, below, on M. Iunius Brutus [58]). The dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is more probably 50, as Varro is not mentioned in his command in Spain until the beginning of 49 (MRR 2.253, 269). We can assume that Appius Claudius, though censor in 50, could continue to function as an augur too. At any rate, the Villa Publica would not be a strange place for a censor. See now J. Linderski, ""The Dramatic Date of Varro De Re Rustica, Book III, and the Elections in 54,"" Historia 34, 1985, 248-254, who holds that the opposition between tunc and nunc in Varro RR 3.2.15-16 is decisively in favor of a date for Metellus' triumph in 54 or 53 and a dramatic date in 50 for Varro's Book III. Proconsul in Africa, 48-46. On the coins inscribed Q. Metel, with Plus below, and Scipio Imp on the reverse, see now Crawford, RRC 1.471, 473, nos. 459-462, 47-46 B.C.[41x][42]" (Broughton MRR III)
  • Praetor before 54 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • A possible candidate for the consulship of 52, apparently with Pompey's support (Cic. QF 3.8.6, where Gutta is the reading of M; emended to Cotta, Oxford text). On the name, see Cic. Cluent. 127. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Son of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98), Cos. 80, by testamentary adoption, he made, as Shackleton Bailey notes, frequent use of the cognomen Scipio but none of Nasica (Studies 107-110). The election in the spring of 60, in which he defeated Favonius, who promptly prosecuted him, probably for ambitus, remains a puzzle (Cic. Att. 2.1.9, early in June). As it was too early in the year for the regular elections for 59, it .must have been held for the election of a suffect magistrate. L. R. Taylor's view that Metellus Scipio thus became an aedilis suffectus for the rest of 60 (Ullman Studies 79- 85) is unsatisfactory since, Favonius did not reach the aedileship until 52 (MRR 2.235, 240, note 2). So, too, is a tribunate of the plebs, which I accepted in MRR .2.189, since a suffect tribune newly elected within his year of office would normally have entered upon office at once, and would have been exempt from prosecution during it (Weinrib, Phoenix 22, 1968, 33, note 8; Sumner, Orators 112). Moreover, Metellus Scipio's position as a tribune of the plebs seems quite inconsistent with his holding of the patrician office of interrex in 53 (ILLRP 1046; MRR 2.29; Sumner, loc. cit.). It was, however, Alford's suggestion (CR 41, 1927, 216-218), and appealed both to Chr. Meier (Historia 10, 1961, 96-98) and to Shackleton Bailey (CLA 1.350351), who later favored an aedileship (Phoenix 24, 1970, 164). Sumner, rejecting a tribunate, opted for a quaestorship (Orators 112), while Wiseman, thinking the quaestorships too numerous and too unimportant for such a struggle, returned to the tribunate (JRS. 65, 1975, 198, rev. of Sumner). For Metellus Scipio, born ca. 95, a quaestorship in 60 seems long delayed, but appears to suit conditions best. Neither a quaestorship nor a tribunate in 60 would affect dating his possible aedileship to 57 (MRR 2.201). Praetor 55, Proconsul 54? Metellus' triumph is mentioned in Varro RR 3.2.16 as no longer so recent (ut tunc fuit). The dramatic date of this book now appears to be 50, as Ap. Claudius Pulcher was present as an augur. There were no aedilician elections in 54, and none in 53 until too late for him to be present, as he was away as proconsul in Cilicia (53-51); cf. Varro RR 3.2.1-2; Badian, Athenaeum 48, 1970, 4-5. Badian suggests that Metellus held an otherwise unknown province after his praetorship, but Shatzman, rejecting the aedileship, dates the praetorship and the province in 56 and 55. Badian (loc. cit.) observes that the preserved fragment of the Fast. Triumph. shows no triumphs between Pompey in 61 and an unknown in 54 (Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.1.85, 566). This unknown is taken to be Pomptinus (MRR 2.225), who celebrated a triumph in 54, but could be Metellus, or Pomptinus could precede him. J. S. Richardson (CQ 33, 1983, 456-463) would date his triumph to 54, or at the latest before June 53, and so suggests a praetorship in 56, and his aedileship, if he held one, earlier than his games in 57. He believes that the dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is ""best placed before 53"" since Appius Claudius Pulcher (297), Cos. 54, who participates in this dialogue as augur at the time of an aedilician election, was away from Rome early 53 to late in 51 as proconsul in Cilicia. In answer to the objection that there were no elections of curule magistrates in 54, nor in 53 until July, he suggests that in the case of such long delays exceptions might be made to the regular order of election to permit the election of aediles and quaestors. He offers as examples the possible election of C. Cassius Longinus (59) and M. Iunius Brutus (53) to quaestorships in 53. But Cassius could have been elected in 55 to office in 54 (see below, on him, and Linderski, CPh 70, 1975, 35-37), and so, too, could Brutus, whose quaestorship is mentioned only in Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.3-4 (see the Supplement, below, on M. Iunius Brutus [58]). The dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is more probably 50, as Varro is not mentioned in his command in Spain until the beginning of 49 (MRR 2.253, 269). We can assume that Appius Claudius, though censor in 50, could continue to function as an augur too. At any rate, the Villa Publica would not be a strange place for a censor. See now J. Linderski, ""The Dramatic Date of Varro De Re Rustica, Book III, and the Elections in 54,"" Historia 34, 1985, 248-254, who holds that the opposition between tunc and nunc in Varro RR 3.2.15-16 is decisively in favor of a date for Metellus' triumph in 54 or 53 and a dramatic date in 50 for Varro's Book III. Proconsul in Africa, 48-46. On the coins inscribed Q. Metel, with Plus below, and Scipio Imp on the reverse, see now Crawford, RRC 1.471, 473, nos. 459-462, 47-46 B.C.[41x][42]" (Broughton MRR III)
    • p. 755, footnote 470 (Brennan 2000)
  • Triumphator? c. 54 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph?. MRR III.41-2 (with query), Rich no. 260 (54/53).. (Rich 2014)
  • Proconsul? before 53 Cilicia (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Son of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98), Cos. 80, by testamentary adoption, he made, as Shackleton Bailey notes, frequent use of the cognomen Scipio but none of Nasica (Studies 107-110). The election in the spring of 60, in which he defeated Favonius, who promptly prosecuted him, probably for ambitus, remains a puzzle (Cic. Att. 2.1.9, early in June). As it was too early in the year for the regular elections for 59, it .must have been held for the election of a suffect magistrate. L. R. Taylor's view that Metellus Scipio thus became an aedilis suffectus for the rest of 60 (Ullman Studies 79- 85) is unsatisfactory since, Favonius did not reach the aedileship until 52 (MRR 2.235, 240, note 2). So, too, is a tribunate of the plebs, which I accepted in MRR .2.189, since a suffect tribune newly elected within his year of office would normally have entered upon office at once, and would have been exempt from prosecution during it (Weinrib, Phoenix 22, 1968, 33, note 8; Sumner, Orators 112). Moreover, Metellus Scipio's position as a tribune of the plebs seems quite inconsistent with his holding of the patrician office of interrex in 53 (ILLRP 1046; MRR 2.29; Sumner, loc. cit.). It was, however, Alford's suggestion (CR 41, 1927, 216-218), and appealed both to Chr. Meier (Historia 10, 1961, 96-98) and to Shackleton Bailey (CLA 1.350351), who later favored an aedileship (Phoenix 24, 1970, 164). Sumner, rejecting a tribunate, opted for a quaestorship (Orators 112), while Wiseman, thinking the quaestorships too numerous and too unimportant for such a struggle, returned to the tribunate (JRS. 65, 1975, 198, rev. of Sumner). For Metellus Scipio, born ca. 95, a quaestorship in 60 seems long delayed, but appears to suit conditions best. Neither a quaestorship nor a tribunate in 60 would affect dating his possible aedileship to 57 (MRR 2.201). Praetor 55, Proconsul 54? Metellus' triumph is mentioned in Varro RR 3.2.16 as no longer so recent (ut tunc fuit). The dramatic date of this book now appears to be 50, as Ap. Claudius Pulcher was present as an augur. There were no aedilician elections in 54, and none in 53 until too late for him to be present, as he was away as proconsul in Cilicia (53-51); cf. Varro RR 3.2.1-2; Badian, Athenaeum 48, 1970, 4-5. Badian suggests that Metellus held an otherwise unknown province after his praetorship, but Shatzman, rejecting the aedileship, dates the praetorship and the province in 56 and 55. Badian (loc. cit.) observes that the preserved fragment of the Fast. Triumph. shows no triumphs between Pompey in 61 and an unknown in 54 (Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.1.85, 566). This unknown is taken to be Pomptinus (MRR 2.225), who celebrated a triumph in 54, but could be Metellus, or Pomptinus could precede him. J. S. Richardson (CQ 33, 1983, 456-463) would date his triumph to 54, or at the latest before June 53, and so suggests a praetorship in 56, and his aedileship, if he held one, earlier than his games in 57. He believes that the dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is ""best placed before 53"" since Appius Claudius Pulcher (297), Cos. 54, who participates in this dialogue as augur at the time of an aedilician election, was away from Rome early 53 to late in 51 as proconsul in Cilicia. In answer to the objection that there were no elections of curule magistrates in 54, nor in 53 until July, he suggests that in the case of such long delays exceptions might be made to the regular order of election to permit the election of aediles and quaestors. He offers as examples the possible election of C. Cassius Longinus (59) and M. Iunius Brutus (53) to quaestorships in 53. But Cassius could have been elected in 55 to office in 54 (see below, on him, and Linderski, CPh 70, 1975, 35-37), and so, too, could Brutus, whose quaestorship is mentioned only in Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.3-4 (see the Supplement, below, on M. Iunius Brutus [58]). The dramatic date of Varro RR 3 is more probably 50, as Varro is not mentioned in his command in Spain until the beginning of 49 (MRR 2.253, 269). We can assume that Appius Claudius, though censor in 50, could continue to function as an augur too. At any rate, the Villa Publica would not be a strange place for a censor. See now J. Linderski, ""The Dramatic Date of Varro De Re Rustica, Book III, and the Elections in 54,"" Historia 34, 1985, 248-254, who holds that the opposition between tunc and nunc in Varro RR 3.2.15-16 is decisively in favor of a date for Metellus' triumph in 54 or 53 and a dramatic date in 50 for Varro's Book III. Proconsul in Africa, 48-46. On the coins inscribed Q. Metel, with Plus below, and Scipio Imp on the reverse, see now Crawford, RRC 1.471, 473, nos. 459-462, 47-46 B.C.[41x][42]" (Broughton MRR III)
  • Interrex 53 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 12.2.2663c, dated Ides of June; cf. Cic. Fam. 7.11. 1. See Münzer, Hermes 71 (1936) 222ff., on the opening of the office to a plebeian by adoption. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Triumphator? c. 53 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph?. MRR III.41-2 (with query), Rich no. 260 (54/53). (Rich 2014)
  • Consul 52 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 12.2.933, Id. Sept.; Val. Max. 9. 1. 8; Dio 40, Index; Fast. Hyd. (see above), Chr. Pasc. (see above); (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 49 Syria (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Syria (Caes. BC 1.6.5, cf. 1.4.3; 3.31.1, and 33.1; Cic. Att. 9.11.4; cf. Att. 8.15.3; 9.1.4; Plut. Pomp. 62.2). There and in Asia, where he wintered, he collected ships, troops and money, often by oppressive means (Caes. BC 3.31-33). He put Alexander of Judaea to death (Joseph. AJ 14.123-125; BJ 1.183-185, and 195; cf. Dio 41.18.1, on Aristobulus). He was acclaimed Imperator for alleged victories in the Amanus mountains (Caes. BC 3.3 1. 1, quibusdam detrimentis acceptis; cf. B.M.Cat., Mysia xxxi, 126; Head HN² 535; SIG³ 757). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 48 Syria, Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul and Imperator (see 49, Promagistrates). He brought his forces from Asia to Greece, where he manoeuvred against those of Domitius Calvinus and L. Cassius until he was joined by Pompey, and at Pharsalus he held command of the center (Caes. BC 3.4.3, and 36-38,and 57, and 78-83, and 88, and 90.2; Plut. Caes. 39.7, and 42, and 44; Pomp. 66-69; Comp. Pomp. and ges. 4.7; App. BC 2.60, and 65, and 76; Dio 41.51.2). He fled after Pharsalus to Africa where, at Cato's urging, he received the chief command of the Pompeian forces, probably early in 47 (Liv. Per. 113; Vell. 2.54.2-3; Plut. Cat. Min. 56-58; App. BC 2.87; Dio 42.57; Auct. Vir. Ill. 80.3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 47 Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul and Imperator (see 49, and 48, Promagistrates). He received at Cato's urging chief command of the Pompeian forces in Africa (Plut. Cat. Min. 57-58; Dio 42.56-57; cf. Auct. Bell. Afr. 1.4, and 4.4; Val. Max. 8.14.5; see 48, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Moneyer? 47 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 459 (RRC)
    • ref. 460 (RRC)
    • ref. 461 (RRC)
  • Proconsul 46 Africa (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul and Imperator in command of the Pompeian forces in Africa (Grueber, CRRBM 2.570-574; Auct. Bell. Afr., passim; see 48, and 47, Promagistrates). He was defeated at Thapsus, and committed suicide when attacked while attempting to escape by sea (Bell. Afr. 75-86, and 96; Cic. Fam. 9.18.2; Liv. Per. 114; Vell. 2.54.2; Val. Max. 3.2.13; Senec. Ep. Mor. 24.10; 71.10; Suet. Iul. 35.2, and 37.1, and 59; Plut. Caes. 53; Cat. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Moneyer? 46 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 459 (RRC)
    • ref. 460 (RRC)
    • ref. 461 (RRC)

< Back to results