oble houses of Rome and the principal allies of the various political leaders enter into their own at last. The method has to b

he seizure of power and redistribution of property by a revolutionary leader . The happy outcome of the Principate might be hel

ctatorship of Caesar, revived in the despotic rule of three Caesarian leaders , passed into the predominance of one man, Caesar’

and heirs to a great tradition, not as mere lieutenants of a military leader or subservient agents of arbitrary power. For tha

ttempt to discover the resources and devices by which a revolutionary leader arose in civil strife, usurped power for himself

, the one term presupposes the other. The career of the revolutionary leader is fantastic and unreal if told without some indi

tions, the alliances and the feuds of the dynasts, monarchic faction- leaders as they were called, the Free State perished No

narchy brought concord. 6 During the Civil Wars every party and every leader professed to be defending the cause of liberty an

nt, no mere manifestation of Roman conservatism or snobbery, that the leaders of revolution in Rome were usually impoverished o

itician, for his legionaries were a host of clients, looking to their leader for spoil in war and estates in Italy when their

me: there was no Ciceronian party. The Roman politician had to be the leader of a faction. Cicero fell short of that eminence

largely based on economic interest, of classes even, and of military leaders . Before long the Italian allies were dragged into

ote, among them the great political lady Servilia and the redoubtable leader of the oligarchy in its last struggles, M. Porciu

lliances among the nobiles. The Optimates stood sorely in need of a leader . There were dangerous rifts in the oligarchy, the

vival or for power, would ally themselves with the strongest military leader , with Sulla’s heir as before with Sulla. The im

y his father, he was saved by Philippus, Hortensius and by the Marian leader Papirius Carbo (Cicero, Brutus 230; Val. Max. 5,

n with his proposals in the next year, causing bitter opposition from leaders of the government. The Senate proclaimed a state

. 3 But the great triumph was Cato’s, and the greater delusion. The leader of the Optimates had fought against the consuls a

eius in peace and in war, and now Caesar had become a rival political leader in his own right. In every class of society the d

Ap. Pulcher was no adornment to the party of Cato. Already another leader , the consular Ahenobarbus, had suffered defeat in

peian general Afranius and the orator Cicero, pathetically loyal to a leader of whose insincerity he could recall such palpabl

led among the gods of the Roman State by the interested device of the leaders of the Caesarian party. It might appear that subs

statesman is nothing. He sometimes forgets that awkward fact. If the leader or principal agent of a faction goes beyond the w

his adherents combined with Republicans and Pompeians to remove their leader . The Caesarian party thus split by the assassinat

d vested interests led by the Dictator’s political deputy until a new leader , emerging unexpected, at first tore it in pieces

tic in unity of theme than the careers and exploits of the successive leaders , will yet help to recall the ineffable complexiti

was often stronger. Whatever their class in society, men went with a leader or a friend, though the cause were indifferent or

monopoly of the bankrupts and terrorists; 2 while Pompeians and their leader himself, when war broke out, made savage threats

was an ardent Caesarian. 4 His father, C. Curtius, is designated as a leader of the equestrian order: not only that Curtius wa

e, LE, 530; Münzer, P-W III, 1612. C. Carrinas, the son of the Marian leader , became cos. suff. in 43. 5 W. Schulze, LE, 268

storic name. 8 Other dynastic families of Italia, providing insurgent leaders in the Bellum Italicum, gain from Caesar the dign

, 1, 15), clearly of the family of Vettius Scato, a Marsian insurgent leader . Note also Phil. 11, 4: ‘Marso nescio quo Octavio

re had been scant prospect in the past. But the triumph of a military leader , reviving the party of Marius, might promise chan

ons could all take effect, civil war broke out again and the military leaders accelerated the promotion of the most efficient o

long standing who had fought in Gaul, conspired to assassinate their leader . 4 The soured military man Ser. Sulpicius Galba a

nced upon the Capitol. Their coup had been countered by the Caesarian leaders , who, in negotiation with them, adopted a firm an

nment again. Concord was advertised in the evening when the Caesarian leaders and the Liberators entertained one another to ban

e avenged; an assertion of liberty had been answered by the Caesarian leaders with concord in word and action. As the coalition

the councils of Caesar. Antonius was an intrepid and dashing cavalry leader : yet at the same time a steady and resourceful ge

ic formula Antonius was never accused of dissimulation: the Caesarian leader was later to be taunted with inconsistency on thi

he last into civil war again. Deplored by the Liberators, the lack of leaders in the Senate was a strong factor for concord. Th

e title of ‘Divi Julii filius’; and from 38 B.C. onwards the military leader of the Caesarian NotesPage=>112 1 On the f

e succeeded in playing off the Republican cause against the Caesarian leaders , survived the War of Perusia and lived to prevail

of his private fortune mattered little for the power rested with the leaders of the Caesarian party. Foreseeing trouble with A

egacies. Antonius answered with excuses and delays. 1 The Caesarian leader had left this competitor out of account. His prim

re shattered at a blow. The prospect of a split between the Caesarian leader and Caesar’s heir was distasteful to the sentimen

n a friend, whatever his character and station. Antonius imitated his leader which came easy to his open nature: Octavianus al

ed. Brutus and Cassius did not return to Rome and the rival Caesarian leaders were reconciled through the insistence of the sol

Schmidt, Philologus LI (1892), 198 ff. PageBook=>127 Caesarian leader his primacy was menaced. Senate, plebs and vetera

t contributors. The party did not appeal to the impecunious only. Its leader needed money to attract recruits, subsidize suppo

vicissitudes of craft and violence, extorts recognition as Caesarian leader beside Antonius, only eight men of senatorial ran

er to stir up another. But Octavianus wished to be much more than the leader of a small band of desperadoes and financiers, in

of the constitution, and of the majority of the active consulars. The leaders were Pompeius and Cato. It was clearly the better

despotism. He would stand as firm as Cato had stood, he would be the leader of the Optimates. It might fairly be claimed th

e disloyal Antonius was ready to compromise with the assassins of his leader and benefactor. Pietas and a state of public emer

at least were sincere. From personal loyalty they might follow great leaders like Caesar or Antonius: they had no mind to risk

m poverty and the prospect of pay and loot, regarded loyalty to their leaders as a matter of their own choice and favour. 1 Tre

State on whichever side they stood. 2 The conversion of a military leader might sometimes have to be enforced, or at least

ebus ipse sibi senatus fuit. ’ PageBook=>161 not everything. A leader or a party might find that the constitution was b

consulars in the defeated oligarchy, departed with their kinsman and leader M. Junius Brutus, whether or no they had been imp

eflected that next to Antonius he was the most hated of the Caesarian leaders , hated and despised for lack of the splendour, co

the youth Octavianus. The unnatural compact between the revolutionary leader and the constitutional party crumbled and crashed

directly. The soldiers refused to tolerate such a slight upon their leader , patron and friend. Octavianus, his forces augm

icero’s darling notion to play the political counsellor to a military leader ; and this was but the culmination of the policy t

still have hoped for an accommodation:7 the brother of the Caesarian leader was a valuable hostage. Brutus had been despera

the gathering power of Brutus and Cassius in the East, the Caesarian leaders were drawn irresistibly together. They were instr

e apportionment of power revealed the true relation between the three leaders . After elaborate and no doubt necessary precaut

with which the Pompeians requited Caesar’s clemency. 1 The Caesarian leaders had defied public law: they now abolished the pri

may have been impressive, but the prophecy was superfluous. The three leaders marched to Rome and entered the city in ceremonia

rs claimed only one consular victim, M. Tullius Cicero. The Caesarian leaders proscribed their relatives and other personages o

in. Capital could only be tempted by a good investment. The Caesarian leaders therefore seized houses and estates and put them

by a deputation of Roman ladies with a great Republican personage for leader , the daughter of the orator Hortensius, they abat

single man of consular rank in the party; its rallying point and its leaders were the young men of the faction of Cato, almost

the avenging of Caesar, the Caesarian armies made ready for war. The leaders decided to employ twenty-eight legions. Eight of

h Caesar’s heir there could be no pact or peace. 1 When the Caesarian leaders united to establish a military dictatorship and i

he knew where he stood. Brutus himself was no soldier by repute, no leader of men. But officers and men knew and respected t

rorum fuit. ’ PageBook=>206 Livius Drusus. 1 Brutus, their own leader , took his own life. Virtus had proved to be an em

f it went to Antonius and abode with him for ten years. The Caesarian leaders now had to satisfy the demands of their soldiers

force him by discrediting, if not by destroying, the rival Caesarian leader , and thus win for her absent and unsuspecting con

had been sadly mismanaged. This time the enemies of Octavianus had a leader . The final armed reckoning for the heritage of Ca

civil war had broken out between his own adherents and the Caesarian leader . 5 The paradox that Antonius went from Syria to

ised civil war with a fair prospect of destroying the rival Caesarian leader , might well seem to cry out for an explanation. I

d Italy in blood and desolation, and stood forth as the revolutionary leader , unveiled and implacable. Antonius, however, a fo

ds lay. Once again, however, the Caesarian legions bent the Caesarian leaders to their will and saved the lives of Roman citize

shed. Italy was to be common ground, available for recruiting to both leaders , while Antonius held all the provinces beyond the

se sister of Pompeius’ father-in-law. Brundisium united the Caesarian leaders in concord and established peace for the world. I

nation of the Caesarian faction, founded upon the common interests of leaders and soldiers and cemented by the most binding and

f pledges, offered a secure hope of concord at last. The reconciled leaders , escorted by some of their prominent adherents, m

eccable precedent set by the soldiers, they constrained the Caesarian leaders to open negotiations with After interchange of no

ollio, Plancus and Ventidius. Not to mention Ahenobarbus, himself the leader of a party. The majority of the Republicans were

nd the organs of government repaired or the position of the Caesarian leaders so far consolidated that they could dispense with

ies and a provincial clientela like that of Pompeius or the Caesarian leaders , he might still exert the traditional policy of f

edient Italian municipalities. 6 At Rome the homage due to a military leader and guarantor of peace was enhanced by official a

onal domination the name and pretext of liberty. The young military leader awoke to a new confidence in himself. Of his vict

m, the soldiers of fortune Salvidienus and Fango were dead: the young leader was short of partisans. The compact with Antonius

; which did not in any way hamper them from following a revolutionary leader or taking up an ally not of their own class, from

the Caesarian party and monarchy over all the world. Of the Caesarian leaders , neither could brook an equal. Should Antonius co

ame formidable. As a demagogue he had nothing to learn: as a military leader he needed to show the soldiery that he was the pe

nrelenting, took on the contemporary features of a Caesarian military leader . 5 Civil war, tearing aside words, forms and in

of Perusia. Since then seven years had passed. But he was not yet the leader of all Italy. In this NotesPage=>257 1 Nep

ive to his rule, because it was for monarchy that the rival Caesarian leaders contended ‘cum se uterque principem non solum urb

o at least in so far as concerned Roman politics, the rival Caesarian leader or even the parent himself. Antonius now acknowle

veloping and perhaps straining the balanced union between Roman party leader and Hellenistic dynast in one person; the latter

neutrality with safeguards, in fear of a new civil war between rival leaders . NotesPage=>266 1 Dio 49, 40, 2. 2 Pluta

ent in the contest, inevitable without her, between the two Caesarian leaders . Failing Cleopatra and her children, Octavianus w

osius and Antonius. None dared to raise a voice against the Caesarian leader . Octavianus then dismissed the Senate, instructin

them the semblance of a Senate. Bitter debate ensued among the party leaders , sharpened by personal enmities and rivalries.

its own accord swore an oath of allegiance to me and chose me as its leader in the war which I won at Actium. ’4 So Augustus

was perhaps not a single act, ordered by one decree of the Caesarian leader and executed simultaneously over all Italy, but r

n right, and implacable ambition. From the rivalry of the Caesarian leaders a latent opposition between Rome and the East, an

eople, no word. The oath of allegiance bound followers to a political leader in a private quarrel against his enemies, his ini

he price of peace and survival. There was no choice : the Caesarian leader would tolerate no neutrality in the national stru

luous. On Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt, the foreign enemy, the Roman leader declared war with all the traditional pomp of an

d Gellius Poplicola. It would not be long before the defection of the leaders , Roman senators or eastern princes, spread to the

istorian Velleius Paterculus fervently extols the clemency of Italy’s leader after Actium. 5 It is naturally difficult to cont

lso perished. Loyal to Antonius, he shared in the calumny against his leader and suffered a double detraction. They said that

ing the State to go, under what name were the Caesarian party and its leader to rule? He had resigned the title of Triumvir, b

have faith in men like Plancus and Titius. Ahenobarbus the Republican leader was dead; but Messalla and Pollio carried some au

the last and the greatest of them all. It could also fit a political leader —dux partium. But warfare and party politics were

armless flavouring that smacked of tradition and custom. The military leader wished to be known as a magistrate. An appellatio

t military despotism. Virgil in the Aeneid, when he matched the rival leaders , made Aeneas’ guide exhort Caesar to disarm befor

tizen. Names might change: Augustus was none the less a revolutionary leader who won supreme power through civil war. All that

tivity. Indeed, the precise formulation of the powers of the military leader in the res publica which he sought to ‘establish

a faction was to be permanent and unshaken: the era of rival military leaders had closed. 6 NotesPage=>324 1 Dio 53, 11,

rippa as a soldier and an administrator: he had fought with the young leader in Sicily and in Illyricum, he had governed Afric

ublican. Not so Murena. Long ago Salvidienus the marshal betrayed his leader and his friend. Since that catastrophe until rece

not obscure the reality from which it arose the fact that he was the leader of a party. At the core of a Roman political gr

group are the family and most intimate friends of the real or nominal leader . In the critical year of Murena’s conspiracy and

rusilla, he kept his secret and never told his true opinion about the leader whom they all supported for Rome’s sake. The serv

us, not Augustus’, he lacked the unique auctoritas of the predestined leader . Therefore, even when Agrippa subsequently receiv

rant sense of those terms. But the Caesarian party had thwarted its leader in the matter of Marcellus. Ultimately Marcellu

as a national party. Over seven hundred senators accompanied Italy’s leader in the War of Actium, most of them with scorn and

arshals a number had perished Salvidienus a traitor to his friend and leader , Canidius for loyalty to Antonius, Saxa slain by

august and purified assembly that received from the hands of Italy’s leader the restored Republic did not belie its origin an

than one hundred and twenty thousand men received the bounty of their leader . This unofficial army of civic order was steadily

5346; Histonium, 915; Larinum, CIL IX, 730. 4 Florus described the leaders of the insurgent Italici as ‘municipalia ilia pro

s. His name, his ambition and his acts had denied the revolutionary leader the support of the nobiles in his youth. Before h

ge and the financial subsidy. Loyalty and service to the patron and leader of the Caesarian party continued to be the certai

chief favourite and minister of Tiberius. Seianus himself became the leader of a political faction. NotesPage=>384 1 V

f a party there may arise dissension among its directors, the nominal leader . may emancipate himself from control, or he may b

sed beyond the measure and proportions of a Roman politician or party leader . He had assumed the stature of a monarch and the

popular with Tiberius. Lacking Tiberius, the Claudian party lacked a leader of standing in war and politics. A heavy preponde

h a large class in Italy Augustus owed much of his success as a party leader and sufficient confidence to persist in the task

ias: pauper ubique iacet. 3 Laws were not enough. The revolutionary leader had won power more through propaganda than throug

izen might gaze upon Augustus in the shape of the young revolutionary leader , resolute and almost fierce in expression, or the

West had sworn a military oath of personal allegiance to the military leader in the War of Actium: it did not lapse when he be

n. 2 He was dealing with Asturians, a sufficient excuse. An insurgent leader of the Dalmatians invoked in palliation the rapac

ndictive noble a split in the party itself and dissension between its leaders . The crisis of 23 B.C., the secession of Tiberius

the soldiers of Brutus broke into the camp and tent of the Caesarian leader at Philippi: he was not there. After the exampl

they were not alarmingly outspoken about the career of the Caesarian leader in the revolutionary wars. Messalla praised Bru

ring of theirs could hope to receive the consulate from the Caesarian leader . But the Caesarians themselves seem to fare littl

ll as an anachronism it rested upon support and subsidy by a military leader , the enemy of their class, acquired in return for

s. From the beginning, from his youthful emergence as a revolutionary leader in public sedition and armed violence, the heir o

>538 Asinii, from Teate Marrucinorum, 382, 500. Asinius, Herius, leader of the Marrucini, 91. Asinius Gallus, C. (cos.

0, 404 f.; in relation to the Roman Commonwealth, 520 ff.; as a party leader , 288, 322 f., 340, 349 ff., 419 ff., 473 ff. (see

0, 212, 213, 216, 225, 227, 230, 241, 264, 405; as a Republican party leader , 268, 281, 495; in 32 B.C., 276, 278, 281; dislik

rusus, M. (tr. pl. 91 B.C.), 16, 19, 20, 87, 89, 229, 345; as a party leader , 87, 285; and Italy, 87, 285 f.; oath sworn to, 2

, 222 f., 266, 302 f., 328 ff., 333, 390 f., 398, 400 f. Machaeras, leader of Roman troops, 201. Machares, name in the Ponti

y Lepidus, 447; assumedby Augustus, 469. Pontius Telesinus, Samnite leader , 87. Pontus, client kingdom of, 260, 366. Poppa

company of Ventidius, 91, 200, 223, 359. Poppaedius Silo, Q., Marsian leader , 26, 87. Poppaeus Sabinus, C. (cos. A.D. 9), no

Porcius Cato, M. (‘Uticensis’), and the Catilinarians, 25 f.; as a leader of the Optimates, 26, 146; his connexions, 21, 23