STAI2588 L. Staius (2) Vol.? Murcus
On his offices, refer also to CIL 1(2).796-ILS 885-ILLRP 444. See Wiseman, NM 263, no. 411. (Broughton MRR III)
Life Dates
Career
-
Legatus (Lieutenant)
48
Macedonia
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- Legate of Caesar, through whom, along with Acilius, a conference between Caesar and Libo was arranged (Caes. BC 3.15-16; on the name, see ILS 885). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Legatus (Lieutenant)
47
Macedonia?, Africa?
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- See 48, and 46, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
-
Legatus (Lieutenant)
46
Africa
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- Probably continued as a Legate under Caesar (see 48, and 47, Legates). He served in the campaign in Africa (Cic. Att. 12.2.1). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Praetor?
45
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- Probably Praetor in 45, since he became Proconsul of Syria in 44, (see 44, Promagistrates). (Broughton MRR II)
- Praetor 45? His praetorship in 45 is inferred from his proconsulate in Syria in 44 (MRR 2.307, 330), but should be queried (Sumner, Phoenix 25, 1971, 361). On his coins as imperator, see Crawford, RRC 1.519, no. 510, 42-41 B.C. On his offices, refer also to CIL 1(2).796-ILS 885-ILLRP 444. See Wiseman, NM 263, no. 411.
(Broughton MRR III)
-
Proconsul
44
Rome, Syria
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- He received command of Syria as Proconsul (Cic. Phil. 11.30), but was still in Rome on the Ides of March and associated himself with the Liberators (App. BC 2.119). He left immediately for Syria to deal with Caecilius Bassus, but suffered a reverse and summoned aid from Marcius Crispus in Bithynia. Together they hemmed Bassus in at Apameia and won late in 44 or early in 43 acclamations as Imperatores (Cic. Fam. 12.11.1, and 12.3; Vell. 2.69.2; App. BC 3.77; 4.58; Dio 47.27.5; see above, on Marcius Crispus). See Sternkopf, Hermes 47 (1912) 332. (Broughton MRR II)
-
Proconsul
43
Syria
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- Proconsul in Syria (see 49, Promagistrates) and Imperator (Cic. Phil. 11.30, pro consule; Fam. 12.11.1, and 12.3 imperatorum; Vell. 2.69.2). Like Marcius Crispus (see above) he yielded his army of three legions to Cassius, but continued in service with him as Proconsul and Imperator (Cic. Fam. 12.11, and 12; Ad Brut. 2.3.3; Phil. 11.30; Vell. 2.69.2; Joseph. AJ 14.272 and 279-280, Cassius left him for a time in charge of Syria; BJ 1.219 and 224; App. BC 3.78; 4.59; Dio 47.28). His fleet aided in overthrowing Dolabella (Dio 47.30.~l). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Moneyer
42
(RRC)
Expand
-
Proconsul
42
Rhodes, Achaea, Calabria
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- 1 The use of the terms Legate and Proconsul under the Second Triumvirate is of necessity attended by uncertainty and confusion. Commanders, like Ventidius Bassus, who were for the most part ex-Consuls, held command over large and important areas and armies, and apparently acted with considerable initiative, are termed Legati in Latin sources such as the Periochae of Livy and Florus and # in Dio (Liv. Per. 127, 128; Flor. 2.19; Dio 48.41.5; cf. 49.21, and Act. Tr. for 38, on the title and triumph of Ventidius), and yet many of them appear in the lists of triumphs as Proconsuls. In mentioning the triumph of Domitius Calvinus, Dio (48.42.3-4) remarks that those in power granted honors at will # (see also 49.42.3; 54.12.1-2). Mommsen finds the beginning of this contradiction in Caesar's grant of triumphs at the end of 45 to his Legates Fabius Maximus and Q. Pedius (see 45, Promagistrates). Like these, the later commanders were Legates also under the superior imperium of the Triumviri, and their appearance as Proconsuls depended upon a fictive grant of imperium for the day of their triumph (Str. 1.125, 130f.; 2.245, note 1). The term Proconsul cannot refer to their status in command since a Legate never had more than an imperium pro praetore. The term Legatus pro consule does not occur, and indeed cannot occur because it is intrinsically self-contradictory (ibid. 1.130f.). Moreover it was simply this permission to triumph that made it logically possible for some of these Legates to accept acclamation as Imperator (see, on Sosius, Mommsen Str. 1.125). Mommsen's doctrine is difficult to test because in nearly all cases no official inscriptions remain from the period of command, and several of the commands are known only from the record of the triumph (see 34-32, Promagistrates, on Norbanus Flaccus, Statilius Taurus, Marcius Philippus, Olaudius Pulcher, and L. Cornificius). The term Legatus in Livy and Florus is strongly in his favor, since Die might have been affected by the regular system of Legati pro praetore in the Empire. However, as Canter saw (46-55), the situation was more complicated. The illogicality of a subordinate with an imperium pro consule occurs under Antony on the official coinage in Greece of M. lunius Silanus, who terms himself Quaestor pro consule (see 34, Promagistrates; note that in the Empire Pliny could be given the exceptional position of Legatus pro praetore consulari potestate), and raises the question how many commanders senior to Silanus may not also have held an imperium pro consule under the superior imperium of the Triumviri. Moreover, Sosius (Cos. 32) apparently termed himself Imperator on his coinage from 37 B. C. (see 37, Promagistrates), on a rather distant anticipation of the moment of a fictive grant of imperium pro consule for a day in 34; and there were others, like Laronius (see 33, Consules Suffecti), who took the title Imperator and did not triumph at all. The period of the Second Triumvirate was a period of transition in which irregularities and illogicalities could frequently occur in the government of the Roman Empire, before the Augustan regime rebuilt the pattern anew. I have therefore been inclined to keep the question open; and to list among the Promagistrates the holders of important commands under Octavian and Antony who received acclamation as Imperatores or celebrated triumphs. It must be granted that the superior position of the Triumvirs in this period made the difference between the functions of a Promagistrate and of a Legate much less than it had been before. See Ganter 46-55. (Broughton MRR II)
- Proconsul and commander of a fleet under Brutus and Cassius (see 43, Promagistrates). He aided Cassius against Rhodes (Dio 47.33.3), and was sent with sixty ships to the Peloponnese to guard against aid by sea from Cleopatra to the Triumvirs (App. BC 4.74; 5.8). Learning of the wreck of her fleet he went on to the Adriatic and beset Brundisium, but could not prevent the crossing of Antony and Octavian (App. BC 4.82, and 86, and 99; Dio 47.35-36). Joined by Domitius Ahenobarbus (see above) with 50 ships, he destroyed a convoy commanded by Domitius Calvinus and cut off supplies for the army in Macedonia (App. BC 4.115-117; Dio 47.47.4; cf. Plut. Brut. 47.2-3). He maintained the sea patrol in the Adriatic after Philippi (Vell. 2.72.4; App. BC 5.2; Dio 48.18.3- 4). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Moneyer
41
(RRC)
Expand
-
Proconsul
41
Sicilia
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- See 43, and 42, Promagistrates. With his fleet and followers he joined Sextus Pompey in Sicily, thus providing a considerable addition to Pompey's strength (App. BC 5.2, and 25; Dio 48.19.3-4; cf. Veil. 2.72.4, and 77.3). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Promagistrate
40
(Broughton MRR II)
Expand
- See 43-41, Promagistrates. He operated in co-operation with Sextus Pompey and gave refuge to many fugitives from the Perusine war, but Pompey preferred his own Lieutenants Menas and others to him, and late in 40 or more probably early in 39 put him to death (Vell. 2.77.3; App. BC 5.50, and 70). (Broughton MRR II)
-
Promagistrate
39
(DPRR Team)
Expand
- Command must have continued into 39 if, as seems more likely, he was executed in 39 rather than in 40. (DPRR Team)