Rafferty - Cisalpine Gaul

Historia 66, 2017/2, 147–172
David Rafferty
Cisalpine Gaul as a Consular Province in the

Late Republic*
Abstract: In the late Republic the consular provincia of Italy no longer existed. In its place
was the province of Cisalpine Gaul: Roman territory for more than a century, relatively peace-
ful and studded with citizen communities. Yet it was also under the control of a Roman gover-
nor with imperium. Analysis of the provincial fasti shows the Senate almost always sent consular
rather than praetorian governors. It is argued this was to avoid distorting the consular elections
by allowing one prospective candidate to exert a governor’s influence over a sizeable part of the
electorate.
Keywords: Cisalpine Gaul – provincial government – Roman Republic – consulship – praetor-
ship – elections
Introduction
There is copious evidence that in the late Republic Cisalpine Gaul was a regularly-as-
signed province of the Roman people.1 This only became the case in the early first cen-
tury, and the region ceased to be a provincia in 42.2 For the intervening period, then,
Cisalpine Gaul was one of the ten (later twelve) regularly-assigned territorial provinci-
ae, but it differed from the others in important respects.3 The land area which constitut-
ed the province was not newly conquered or inherited and in need of a governor, but
one which throughout the second century had been included in the consuls’ general
responsibility for Italy.4 Yet at some point in the early first century, the province of Italia
ceased to be regularly allocated as such (although military provinciae within Italy were
of course still created to wage war in the peninsula, as for example in 78, 73–1 and 63–2),
* I am grateful to the anonymous readers of Historia, who greatly improved this article by their suggestions,
and to Dr Frederik Vervaet for his untiring feedback and support. Any remaining errors are my own.
1 Laffi, “Gallia Cisalpina”, 5–7. Note that throughout this article, the English “province” and the Latin pro-
vincia are used interchangeably. All dates are BCE unless specified otherwise.
2 No longer assigned as a province: Cass. Dio 48.12.5; App. B Civ. 5.3. On the period at which Cisalpine Gaul
was first regularly assigned, see below.
3 The ten regularly-assigned territorial provinciae at the time of Sulla’s dictatorship were Cisalpine and
Transalpine Gaul, Hispania Citerior and Ulterior, Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Macedonia, Asia and Cilicia. By
the late sixties BCE, Bithynia et Pontus and Syria had been added to this list. While Illyricum, Crete and
Cyrenaica are occasionally attested as provinciae in this period, there is no strong reason to believe they
were regularly assigned as such.
4 On the consuls’ general responsibility for Italy during the second century, see Mommsen, Ges. Schr.,
4.96–9.
This material is under copyright. Any use outside of the narrow boundaries
of copyright law is illegal and may be prosecuted.
This applies in particular to copies, translations, microfilming
as well as storage and processing in electronic systems.
© Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2017
148 david rafferty
and the province of Cisalpine Gaul was assigned in its stead. Also, Cisalpine Gaul con-
tained a large number of Roman citizens living in citizen communities.5 These citizens
looked for their legal remedies not only to the governor (who held regular assizes), but
also to the praetor in Rome.6 And finally, despite an almost complete lack of fighting,
and despite Rome’s ongoing need for senior military commanders in other provinces,
Cisalpine Gaul was almost invariably assigned as a consular province.7 While these in-
dividual facts have sometimes been noticed in passing, the surprising juxtaposition of
consular governors and a largely peaceful province with a majority citizen population
has never been systematically investigated.8 The present study is an attempt to solve
this problem. It will initially determine when we can speak of the provincia of Cisal-
pine Gaul and what that actually means in this context. It will then explore how Rome
benefited from the new provincial arrangement. After this, evidence will be amassed
to demonstrate that Cisalpine Gaul was almost always assigned to consuls rather than
praetors, before the final section seeks to explain why that was the case.
1. When was the Province Established?
The Romans had been active in the area which would later become Cisalpine Gaul
from the 220s. Warfare against the Gallic tribes inhabiting the Padus valley, and lat-
er against those inhabiting the Ligurian hills to the west, continued on a large scale
into the 170s, interrupted only by the greater emergency of the Hannibalic War.9 The
outcome was the occupation by Roman and Italian settlers of the bulk of the good
agricultural land south of the Padus, one of the few examples of genuinely large-scale
colonization in Roman history.10 Our knowledge of these wars comes from Livy, who
was meticulous in his description of provinciae (although sometimes not accurate in
naming them, possibly owing to his divergent sources). And Livy consistently “gives
Italy as the provincia of magistrates who were to fight in Gaul, though in the second
Punic war, when many provinciae were in Italy, he specifies Gaul or Ariminum”.11 That
is, when Gaul, Liguria or some other provincia is reported instead of Italy, this is due to
multiple concurrent provinciae within Italy. And in the period covered by Livy (books
5 Ewins, “Enfranchisement”, 73–83; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 157–9.

6 Caes. B Gall. 1.54.3, 5.1.5, 6.44.3. See Greenidge, Legal Procedure, 96–7 for the idea that judgments issued by
the praetor in Rome were valid for Roman citizens wherever they lived, although of course the governor
could easily disrupt these judgments being put into effect.
7 See below.
8 So for instance Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 906: “Yet Cisalpina was a province, and even consular gov-
ernors are attested (as we shall see). Even after full enfranchisement of the Transpadani it remained a
province, and as such we shall meet it in the Philippics”. Badian’s focus is elsewhere in this article, but it is
surprising that a scholar so attentive to provincial questions never investigated this matter further.
9 For the second-century campaigns, see the works cited at Williams, Beyond the Rubicon, 4 n. 14.
10 See the summary by Gabba, “Rome and Italy”, 212–21.
11 Brunt, Italian Manpower, 167 n. 1. Ariminum as a provincia is not strictly confined to the Hannibalic War:
it is also named as such at Livy 32.1.2 (199 BCE).
Cisalpine Gaul as a Consular Province in the Late Republic 149
21–45), at least one of the consuls operated in Italy every year (with the exception
of 188, when both were in the East; we have no information for 174).12 It is of course
much more difficult to trace consular provinces after Livy’s account breaks off, but we
do get some glimpses before the end of the century which confirm Brunt’s suspicion
that Italy continued to be regularly assigned as a consular provincia.13 For instance, at
least one consul operated in northern Italy (or defending its approaches) in 118, 115,
113, 109, and every year from 107 to 101.14 Mommsen worked this fact into a theory of
general consular responsibility for Italy.15 Moreover, the legal arrangements obtaining
north of the Apennines resembled those to the south: a mixture of citizen, Latin and
allied territory. As in peninsular Italy, Roman methods of control were complex.16 The
fundamental point here is that, in the second century, there was no administrative
division of Italy at the Rubicon.
By 75 BCE we can certainly speak of the provincia of Cisalpine Gaul, and a prov-
ince it remained until the triumviral period.17 Yet the meaning of provincia is not
straightforward in this context, especially when we consider Cisalpine Gaul among
the other permanent, territorial provinces in Rome’s late republican empire. While
Laffi’s treatment of Cisalpine Gaul’s provincial status is excellent, he is too quick to as-
sert “nel I sec. a.C. l’accezione del termine provincia nel senso di distretto territoriale
e amministrativo è ormai quella prevalente”.18 As recent research has made clear, two
meanings of the word provincia persisted into the first century. In the second century
and earlier, the word provincia “may or may not relate to a geographical area, but it in-
variably carries the meaning of a responsibility allotted to a holder of imperium”.19 Yet
provinces such as Sicily and Africa were continuously decreed, so that a Roman im-
perator was always present.20 This necessarily turned these men into administrators as
much as garrison commanders.21 So, by the Ciceronian period, a provincia could either
be a group of communities in a particular administrative relationship with Rome (me-
diated through the imperator who was permanently present), or it could be (as it had
been earlier) a task, usually a war, assigned to an imperator.22 In practice, provinciae of
the first kind tended to be praetorian, while those of the second type were usually con-
12 So Willems, Le sénat, 2.263–4; Brunt, Italian Manpower, 567.

13 Brunt, Italian Manpower, 567 (writing of the later second century): “in my judgment Italy must have been
allotted as a province more often than is recorded, and the primary function of the consul who received it
was to protect the north”. See the examples in Willems, Le sénat, 2.264 nn. 1 and 2.
14 See Broughton, MRR under the relevant years.
15 Mommsen, Ges. Schr., 4.96–9, although the idea is reproduced frequently in his work.
16 Sartori, “La Cisalpina”, 11–3.
17 For evidence of this, see Laffi, “Gallia Cisalpina”, 5–7.
18 Laffi, “Gallia Cisalpina”, 12
19 Richardson, Language of Empire, 48. Richardson is here referring specifically to the use of the word in
epigraphic texts.
20 Throughout this paper, “imperator” denotes any holder of independent imperium, which was the normal
republican usage of the term. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1.123
21 On the changing meaning of provincia in the second century, see the excellent summary in Drogula, Com-
manders & Command, especially 235–55, 263–73.
22 Richardson, Language of Empire, 80.
150 david rafferty
sular.23 Therefore, to determine when Cisalpine Gaul became a province, we need to

examine whether the legal and administrative arrangements changed, as well as when
imperators were regularly sent there. These questions will now be explored in turn.
Administratively, the key period is 90–89, with the mass enfranchisement of Italy
and parts of Cisalpine Gaul. The lex Iulia in 90 probably bestowed the Roman citi-
zenship on the existing Latin colonies in the region, while the lex Pompeia, proposed
in 89 by the consul Cn. Pompeius Strabo, elevated the Transpadane communities to
Latin status.24 These laws certainly caused administrative turmoil: many communities
changed status, which required various enabling laws and probably alterations to city
boundaries.25 Yet many scholars have asserted that the lex Pompeia also established
Cisalpine Gaul as a province and served as its provincial charter.26 At first glance it
seems reasonable to connect these two great administrative upheavals, especially if
we agree with Laffi that the creation of a provincia was a highly formal process marked
by the phrase redactio in formam provinciae.27 If this were true, it would support re-
garding the lex Pompeia as the foundational law of this province. Yet this argument is
entirely inappropriate for Cisalpine Gaul. To begin with, the phrase redactio in formam
provinciae, as Laffi himself notes, refers to an area being brought within the power of
the Roman people and provided with the customary laws: it is entirely inappropriate
for an area which had been in Roman control for a century.28 Second, Laffi connects
the phrase to the arrangement of legal circuits for governors, but (as Lintott shows)
these conventus were simply administrative conveniences, as much at the discretion of
each governor as most other arrangements.29 While the lex Pompeia doubtless caused
administrative upheaval in the Padus valley, what was affected was the relationship
each community (and its citizens) had with Rome, not the relationship with any gov-
ernor.30 Nothing about the legal or administrative position of the Cisalpine commu-
nities following the lex Pompeia required the presence of an imperator, let alone a
regular one, and neither did it alter the relationship with any imperator who might be
active in the region.31 Cisalpine Gaul’s status as a province was not the consequence of
23 Drogula, Commanders & Command, 255–63 (see also 285).

24 Lex Iulia: Gell. NA 4.4.3; Lex Pompeia: Ascon. 3C. Ewins, “Enfranchisement”, 77–8 debates the question
of where the provisions of the lex Iulia ended, but correctly observes that, unless Cisalpine Gaul had al-
ready been administratively excluded, all Latin communities everywhere would have benefited. The lack
of any mention of the Roman citizenship in ancient sources on the lex Pompeia reinforces this conclusion.
See also Bispham, Asculum to Actium, 161–87 (esp. 173).
25 Bispham, Asculum to Actium, 173–5.
26 See Sartori, “La Cisalpina”, 16–8 for a list.
27 Laffi, “Gallia Cisalpina”, 13–4. See Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 18–29 for a wholesale attack on this
formalist attitude to provinciae.
28 Cf Livy Per. 45, which records Aemilius Paullus’ success in 167 as Macedonia in provinciae formam redacta.
See Richardson, Language of Empire, 25 n. 34.
29 Laffi, “Gallia Cisalpina”, 13–14; Lintott, Imperium Romanum, 56, 61–2, 124.
30 This point is emphasised by Dahlheim, “Staatsstreich”, 106 (in regard to the effect of municipalization on
Italy as a whole): “Tradition und Geschichte der neu geschaffenen municipia verboten die Unterwerfung
unter das Spruchrecht römischer Magistrate”.
31 See again Dahlheim, “Staatsstreich”, 105–6, who points to the relationship municipia had with Roman law
and Roman magistrates in the City.
any change in the status of its communities or their administrative relationship with
Rome.32 Rather, Cisalpine Gaul as a province is a function of the regular presence of
an imperator assigned to it, and the expectation (both by its inhabitants and by the
Senate) that an imperator would continuously be present. That is, a province exists
when it regularly receives a governor.
We have seen that, in the second century, Italy was a normal consular provincia. In
the first century, the area of Cisalpine Gaul was split off to form a separate province:
the reasons for that will be examined below. Yet Badian and Ferrary have erroneous-
ly suggested that Cisalpine Gaul was instead the result of dividing a larger provincia
Gallia which had included Transalpine Gaul.33 Badian argues against the notion that
Transalpine Gaul had been annexed about 121, but believes that the experience of the
Cimbric war taught the Senate that they could not afford to leave this region with-
out an imperator to supervise it. That is a reasonable belief, but Badian then argues
that, as both the Cisalpine and Transalpine territories could be described as “Gaul”
by first-century Romans, “by about 100 B. C., with two Gallic territories that had had
no proper arrangements made for them, nothing was easier or more obvious than to
throw them together under one imperium”.34 This is incorrect: as we have seen, Cisal-
pine Gaul was normally included within the consular provincia of Italy. It was a long
way from having no proper arrangements made for it. Moreover, as the first imperator
known to hold both Gallic territories was C. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 67), there is no
reason to think that the two Gallic provinces were “thrown together” as early as 100.
Partially following Badian (although without citing him), Ferrary believes that the
two provinces Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul were created by the division (dédouble-
ment) of an original provincia Gallia, which he appears to date from the 120s.35 He lik-
ens this original provincia to Roman possessions in Asia Minor which were eventually
split into the provinciae of Asia and Cilicia but could be reunited if needed. But again,
while Cisalpine Gaul could be united with the Transalpine province if convenient,
historically it formed part of Italy. It was also just as easy for the Transalpine province
to be combined with Hispania Citerior if circumstances warranted.
When, then, can we speak of regular imperators in Cisalpine Gaul? As we will see
below, after 75 there is a fairly continuous record, so we may safely regard 75 as the ter-
minus ante quem (although as the province was decreed in 80, and very probably also
in 78, that date could be raised). But there are two tantalizing earlier possibilities –
both, however, too isolated to answer the question decisively. First, L. Licinius Cras-
sus (cos. 95) is recorded by Valerius Maximus as having received provincia Gallia as his
32 Contra Polverini, “L’estensione”, 118–9, who sees the history of the provincia in terms of the degree of
urbanization of its communities, and thus the abolition of the province in 42 as a sign that the north was
now fully urbanized.
33 Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 907; Ferrary, “Provinces, magistratures et lois”.
34 Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 907.
35 Ferrary, “Provinces, magistratures et lois”, 11.
152 david rafferty
consular province; Cicero clarifies that he operated in citeriore Gallia.36 By itself, this
is not decisive: as mentioned above, in the period for which we have Livy, Italy was a
normal consular provincia and included the north. However, the northern command
might be labelled Gallia or Ariminum (as distinct from Italia proper) if there were mul-
tiple concurrent provinciae within Italy. It is very probable that in this year there were
not: Crassus’ colleague Q. Mucius Scaevola renounced his consular provincia, in an act
which Asconius regarded as a demonstration of Scaevola’s probity and contempt for
cupiditas triumphi.37 Unfortunately, Crassus’ tenure is isolated in our sources: we have
no indication whether other imperators held Cisalpine Gaul in the following years.
For instance, Q. Sertorius is the only official who can confidently be placed in the area
of Cisalpine Gaul during the Social War and he was only a quaestor.38
Second, there is a strong possibility that, as proconsul in 83, and perhaps already
as consul in 84, Cn. Papirius Carbo held Cisalpine Gaul as a provincia distinct from
Italy. Cicero says of Verres’ quaestorship in 84 that he was allotted the consul Cn.
Carbo as his provincia and then venit expectatus in Galliam ad exercitum consularem
cum pecunia.39 Shortly afterwards, Cicero tells us that Verres deposited the remaining
public money at Ariminum.40 The orator says this was because that town had just been
plundered and so was convenient for covering Verres’ embezzlement, but it is surely
more likely that Ariminum was the base of Carbo’s army.41 These events took place in
Carbo’s consulship in 84 and then his proconsulship in 83, and during the subsequent
civil war he is only ever recorded as being active in the north. If we posit Cisalpine
Gaul as Carbo’s provincia, this fits with several other pieces of evidence. It clarifies why
Cicero (and his scholiast) say that Verres went into Gaul to Carbo’s army (although
this may of course be simply an anachronism, as Cicero was speaking at a time when
36 Val. Max. 3.7.6: nam cum ex consulatu provinciam Galliam obtineret; Cic. Inv. 2.111: L. Licinius Crassus consul
quosdam in citeriore Gallia nullo inlustri neque certo duce neque eo nomine neque numero praeditos … Note
that Cicero does not say that citeriore Gallia was Crassus’ provincia.
37 Ascon. 15C: idem provinciam, cuius cupiditate plerique etiam boni viri deliquerant, deposuerat ne sumptui
esset †oratio. This difficult passage has been widely debated: see the excellent summary of views by Lew-
is, Asconius, 210–2. To my thinking, Scaevola’s attested Asian proconsulship must be ex praetura, and
the renounced province his consular one. However, the main issue here is whether Asconius is speaking
of Scaevola’s particular province or of the desire for a province generally: linguistically, the latter is the
preferred reading. But in any case, if Scaevola’s provincia was Italy (or a province within Italy), then his
actions as represented by Asconius make no sense. While provincia Italia might allow scope for a triumph,
this was only true through operations on the north, which was Crassus’s province. Scaevola could hardly
demonstrate contempt for triumph-hunting by giving up a province with no possibility of a triumph. I am
grateful to Dr Andrew Turner for advice on this problem.
38 Broughton, MRR, 2.20–37; Dart, Social War, 117–8.
39 Cic. Verr. 2.1.34: “he came into Gaul, where he had been for some time expected, to the army of the consul
with the money” (Yonge translation). Note also that the Groningen scholiast names Carbo’s province
as Gallia (333 Stangl). The significance of Cisalpine Gaul during this civil war is noted in Lovano, Age of
Cinna, 86–90, who also discusses Carbo’s actions in the north.
40 Cic. Verr. 2.1.36.
41 As is stated by Pseudo-Asconius (280 Stangl): Nisi Cn. Carbonem. Carbo Marianae partis dux idemque
consul desertus Arimini est a quaestore suo Verre, spoliatus pecunia publica quam quaestor in exercitu de ae-
rario sumpserat, cum ad Syllam ille transiret proditor partium Marianarum. Compare Sumner’s argument
about Metellus Celer in 63 (n. 96 below).
Cisalpine Gaul certainly was a province, while he may also be thinking of Gaul as an
ethnic region rather than a province). It also tallies with Strabo’s otherwise confusing
statement that Rome’s hegemones shifted the border of Italy from the Aesis (south of
Ariminum) to the Rubicon (north of it).42 From a strategic point of view, Ariminum
was the logical place for Carbo to base himself if he wanted to be able to move quickly
either into the Padus valley or south into peninsular Italy. Lastly, giving himself Cisal-
pine Gaul as a provincia (with the Aesis as its southern border) allowed Carbo to re-
tain the summum imperium auspiciumque (high command) within that provincia in 83
although he was only proconsul, while L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus and C. Norbanus
(the consuls of 83) held command in Italy proper. Had Carbo’s proconsular provincia
in 83 been Italy (or a part of Italy), then he would have been subordinate to the consuls
of the year, who also held that provincia.43
2. Reasons for the Existence of the Province
In the second century, as we have seen, the provincia of Italy normally included the
area of Cisalpine Gaul. So why, in the early first century, was the Cisalpina separated
off to become a province, especially when we consider that it was full of Roman citi-
zens? Why not simply leave it as a part of Italy? Carbo may have had specific reasons
for giving himself a separate province and, while those reasons would change in later
years, the need remained the same. Italy was not decreed as a provincia in the post-Sul-
lan period except in the event of armed rebellion. But the main reason for creating the
provincia of Cisalpine Gaul was that the peninsula still required military protection
from the north, against the same threats which had ensured a regular consular army
was needed in the area during the second century. The Alpine tribes were not pacified
and their raids remained a threat to the lowland communities of the Padus valley –
they were responsible for at least one massacre at Comum in this period, after which
Pompeius Strabo planted additional colonists – until the campaigns of Tiberius and
Drusus in 17–16.44 The more remote but existential threat of Gallic invasion also re-
quired that the Alps be watched closely. An additional benefit of a separate province
was that, unlike during the second century, the governor of Cisalpine Gaul could easi-
ly be prorogued: Mommsen’s general consular responsibility for Italy could never be a
proconsular responsibility. Only three times in the second century were both consuls
sent overseas during their consulship.45 Yet in 79 and 74 both consuls were sent across
42 Str. 5.2.10.
43 See Vervaet, High Command ch. 3 (esp. 66–7) on how the principle of the summum imperium auspicium-
que interacted with provinciae.
44 Str. 5.1.6. Sartori, “La Cisalpina”, 15 connects this massacre with the consular campaign of L. Crassus in 95.
Augustan campaigns: Hor. Od. 4.14.
45 Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, 293 (only once were they both sent east: in 189 to operate against An-
tiochus and the Aetolians); Livy 37.50.1. Both consuls of 149 were sent against Carthage, while the consul-
ar provinces for 110 were Macedonia and Numidia: Broughton, MRR, 1.458, 543.
154 david rafferty
the Adriatic, while in 68 the sole consul was sent to Cilicia. The Senate thus gained a
measure of flexibility in responding to crises. The newly-available option of sending
both consuls to overseas provinces (which was used on several occasions in the fif-
ties, when Cisalpine Gaul was held by Caesar) might have been a reason for bringing
the consular elections forward to July. Experience had shown that it was not easy for
consuls active outside Italy to return to Rome at short notice to hold the elections.
The new timing of elections meant consuls could hold them before departing for their
provinces rather than being required to return to Rome late in the year.46
If the military situation required a large garrison (and hence a provincia) in Cisal-
pine Gaul, the political situation required that it be separate from peninsular Italy. The
eighties had shown the damage that consuls with armies in Italy could do to the res
publica: Sulla’s march on Rome in 88, the mutual slaughters of Cinna and Octavius,
the intimidation by Cinna and Carbo over the next few years, and finally the massa-
cres of 82 were all the work of consuls in Italy. After Sulla’s dictatorship had re-estab-
lished conditions in which republican (that is, civilian) politics could take place, many
would have deemed it necessary to remove the threat of consular army commanders
intervening in politics. For those senators with short memories or an over-optimistic
judgment of the effect of Sulla’s reforms, the bellum Lepidanum reinforced the les-
son. Consular armies in Italy were best avoided.47 If this reasoning is accepted, then it
becomes clear why the lex Pompeia of 89 could not have created Cisalpine Gaul as a
province. Far from being demilitarized, Italy in 89 was still a military zone absorbing
the efforts of most magistrates in the field.
Ronald Syme famously claimed that “Sulla could not abolish his own example and
preclude a successor to his domination”.48 This knowledge stood as a warning (or a
temptation) to Romans of the succeeding generation: Sulla potuit, ego non potero?49 We
can thus assign the military garrison in Cisalpine Gaul another function: it could be a
potential counterweight to a rebellious proconsul from another province. Ariminum
was a relatively short march from Rome, and the Cisalpine army could quickly reach
46 There are only two certain instances in the generation before the Social War of a consul’s holding an
overseas province returning to conduct the elections: L. Calpurnius Bestia in 111 (Sall. Iug. 29.7) and Sp.
Postumius Albinus in 110 (Sall. Iug. 36.4), both of whom held Numidia. There is doubt whether Sp. Albi-
nus actually held the elections, although he certainly returned to Rome for that purpose. It is also possible
that in 107 C. Marius may have returned to Rome from Numidia to hold the elections after his colleague
L. Cassius was killed in battle in Gaul (Livy Per. 65). It is also relevant that there is no certain instance
before the Social War of a consul’s first departing for his overseas province late in the year and after he had
conducted the elections.
47 It is relevant to point out that, while post-Sullan consuls retained a general cura for Italy, their imperium
in this regard was exercised domi, that is, with the normal restrictions curtailing magisterial power in
civilian life. Only in the (exceptional) circumstances of open revolt within Italy did the consuls depart
Rome paludatus to operate within the peninsula. In these circumstances they were empowered to exer-
cise command within Italy militiae (as demonstrated by wearing the general’s cloak). On domi/militiae
as in essence adverbial modifiers of imperium, see for instance Giovannini, Consulare Imperium, 7–30
(although Giovannini still sees them as separable components); Vervaet, High Command, 21–2.
48 Syme, Rom. Revolution, 17.
49 Cic. Att. 9.10.2 (imagined as spoken by Pompey).
the capital if necessary. Still, it was essential to ensure that this army was commanded
by the right man, and on several occasions Cicero expresses his fear of it’s falling into
the hands of the wrong man.50 The increasing inability of the Senate to ensure that it
made all important decisions meant that this fear was eventually realized. Yet Sulla
had also provided the Senate with a means of ensuring that any rebellious governor
would need to make his treason explicit: the lex Cornelia de maiestate, and specifically
those clauses ordering imperators not to lead their armies beyond the provincial bor-
ders. It may be objected that these clauses were tralatician: Cicero himself says that
they appeared in plurimae leges veteres, and they are also found in the epigraphic lex
de provinciis praetoriis (Knidos col. III, ll. 1–15) which itself says that they originated
in an earlier lex Porcia.51 Yet these earlier laws of which we have knowledge do not
seem to be directly concerned with the crimen maiestatis, and it is probable that the
lex Cornelia was the first time when the relevant actions fell within the purview of a
quaestio publica.52 While defining maiestas was notoriously tricky (actions could often
be defended as undertaken rei publicae causa), the clause forbidding a governor to
lead his army outside his province provided a way in which rebellion by the governor
of Cisalpine Gaul could instantly and universally be recognized as such, and (among
other things) make it clear to that governor’s soldiers that they were now acting be-
yond the law.53 This becomes clearer if we imagine the crisis of 49 in the absence of this
law: despite a year of brinkmanship and the passage of the SCU, the moment when
everyone knew that a civil war had begun was the moment Caesar led his army across
the Rubicon into Italy. Without such a law, Caesar might plausibly have reached near
Rome before matters came to a head.
With the civil wars of the forties, the political situation no longer existed which
had required a province of Cisalpine Gaul. Caesar enfranchised the Transpadanes in
49, yet he did not cease to assign the province. It was only in 42, under the triumvirs,
that Cisalpine Gaul was absorbed back into Italy.54 This was decades before the cam-
paigns of Tiberius and Drusus against the Alpine tribes, so that threat still existed. It
was not because the military threat had disappeared that the province was abolished,
but because the situation in Italy was different. After the creation of the triumvirate,
Italy was no longer a demilitarized zone. It was Octavian’s base against Sextus Pom-
50 Cic. Att. 2.16.2: oppressos vos tenebo exercitu Caesaris (clearly referring to the Cisalpine army, so Syme,
“Review: Gelzer, Caesar”, 98), Prov. cons. 39, Phil. 3.34.
51 See Crawford, RS, 1.260 for a discussion and further evidence, and Drogula, “Lex Porcia” for a compre-
hensive discussion of the lex Porcia.
52 See Sherwin-White, “Review: Bauman, Crimen Maiestatis” (contra Bauman, Crimen maiestatis); Cloud,
“Constitution”, 520. Lintott, Imperium Romanum, 128 believes that these provisions may have been incor-
porated in repetundae laws prior to Sulla. See also Drogula, “Lex Porcia” who in his extended (and valu-
able) discussion of the lex Porcia does not specify whether infractions of that law fell within the purview
of a permanent court, although he places the law within the context of earlier repetundae legislation.
53 Drogula, “Lex Porcia”, 96 intriguingly suggests that the rei publicae causa defence shifted the burden of
proof in a criminal trial, inasmuch as the defendant would need to prove his actions were undertaken rei
publicae causa.
54 Cass. Dio 48.12.5; App. B Civ. 5.3.
156 david rafferty
peius and indeed was soon disrupted by the Perusine War. Moreover, Cisalpine Gaul,
like peninsular Italy, had to provide land for the veterans. No purpose was served by
keeping it as a province. This fact helps to demonstrate that the existence of Cisal-
pine Gaul as a province was not the result of a long-running policy, but of a series of
responses to contemporary situations. After the eighties, it was essential that Rome
defend Italy as much as possible without keeping armed commanders in the penin-
sula. Once those armed commanders seized control of the res publica, such a concern
was an anachronism.
3. Cisalpine Gaul Allocated as a Consular Province, 80–52
An analysis of the provincial fasti demonstrates that Cisalpine Gaul was almost in-
variably decreed to consuls in the late Republic. To establish the list of governors,
Broughton’s Magistrates of the Roman Republic is an obvious starting point. Brennan’s
The Praetorship in the Roman Republic is a useful corrective on many points of detail
on all provinces (often building on work by Badian).55 Yet a slightly different question
is being asked here: not just who governed the provincia of Cisalpine Gaul, but also
who was assigned it by the Senate or People, even if they never took it up. There was
more than one occasion when an initial senatorial decree de provinciis was altered ow-
ing to changed circumstances. For instance, L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) drew Cis-
alpine Gaul in the provincial allotment at the start of his year in office, but the Senate
changed this to Cilicia (and prorogued the incumbent governor of Cisalpine Gaul)
when word came of the death of L. Octavius (cos. 75) in Cilicia.56 For our purposes,
then, Cisalpine Gaul still counts as a consular province for 74, as our main focus is on
the decisions taken in Rome, not on events on the ground. Luckily we have copious
sources for this period, and it is possible to build a fairly comprehensive list of men
who were allocated Cisalpine Gaul between Sulla’s dictatorship and the passage of the
lex Pompeia de provinciis in 52. Of course we do not have information for every year.
Occasions when the province was (probably) decreed prior to 80 have been exam-
ined above. Therefore, first in our list is L. Cornelius Sulla, consul for the second time
in 80, who was assigned (or assigned himself) Cisalpine Gaul in that year: data erat
et Sullae provincia Gallia cisalpina.57 It is doubtful that any regular procedure was fol-
lowed: Appian’s wording implies that the decision to send Sulla’s consular colleague
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius to Spain was made late and in response to Sertorius’ unex-
pected success.58 In any event, Sulla did not take up his provincial posting, preferring
to retire to Campania some time after the end of his consulship. Nonetheless, further
analysis suggests that the decision to assign the province to him is a significant pointer
55 Brennan, Praetorship.
56 See below.
57 Gran. Licin. 36.24 (Criniti).
58 App. B Civ. 1.97.
to the future. Next, Badian suggests that Mam. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 77) received
Cisalpine Gaul as his consular province (possibly to clean up the mess of the bellum
Lepidanum) and may even have held it into 75.59 Badian bases this on Sumner’s acute
observation that Mam. Lepidus is recorded as commanding an army for an extended
period.60 If Badian’s surmise is correct, Mamercus can only have received his provincia
several months into 77. When M. Lepidus’ (cos. 78) revolt was suppressed (in Janu-
ary–February 77), the consular elections for 77 had not yet been held, and even after
the new consuls were installed time must be allowed for both of them to refuse to go
to Spain.61 All this points to provincial allocations for 77 having taken place some way
into the year, and we can only very tentatively identify Cisalpine Gaul as consular for
that year.62
The Senate next assigned Cisalpine Gaul as a consular province for 75, when it was
held by C. Aurelius Cotta, the man described by Sallust as a consul ex factione media.63
He was, as one would say, a safe pair of hands. Cotta retained the province for 74 (after
Lucullus was reassigned: see below) and was awarded a triumph, although he died
before celebrating it.64 Interestingly, he was the only governor of the province to win
a triumph in our period (other than Caesar, although of course Caesar’s triumph did
not derive from his exploits in Cisalpina). The province was also decreed consular for
74 and fell to L. Licinius Lucullus in the sortitio at the beginning of that year.65 How-
ever, with the death of the current Cilician governor L. Octavius (cos. 75) and with
the Mithridatic War looming, Lucullus managed to have Cilicia assigned to himself,
and so C. Cotta was prorogued in Cisalpina.66 The province was again made consular
for 73, this time falling to C. Cassius. While commanding an army of 10,000 men, he
was defeated the following year by Spartacus at Mutina with heavy losses, and so it is
unclear whether he was prorogued further.67
It is worth bearing in mind that during the seventies Rome’s military resources
were stretched to the limit. From 77 onwards, two large armies commanded by pro-
consuls were maintained in Spain. There was also one in Macedonia throughout the
59 Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 913.

60 Sumner, “Manius or Mamercus?”, 46, citing Cic. Clu. 99.
61 The final passage of Sallust’s Oratio Philippi calls on the interrex and promagistrates to save the state, with the
consuls and other current magistrates conspicuous by their absence: see Sall. Hist. 1.77.22 Maurenbrecher =
1.67.22 McGushin. The refusal of the consuls of 77 to go to Spain was the occasion of L. Marcius Philippus’
(cos. 91) famous quip that Pompey was sent non pro consule, sed pro consulibus (Cic. Leg. Man. 62).
62 While the consuls of 78 did not return to Rome to hold the election for their successors, it is entirely
possible that the Senate had already decreed the consular provinces for 77 according to the lex Sempronia.
However, the tense situation in Italy makes this unlikely.
63 On Cisalpine Gaul as one of the consular provinces for 75, see Sall. Hist. 2.98.11 Maurenbrecher = 2.82.11
McGushin. For Macer’s description of Cotta, see Sall. Hist. 3.48.8 Maurenbrecher = 3.34.8 McGushin.
64 Cic. Pis. 62; Ascon. 15C.
65 Plut. Luc. 5.1: διὸ καὶ λαχὼν τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ὁ Λεύκολλος τὴν ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλατίαν ἤχθετο, πράξεων
ὑποθέσεις μεγάλων οὐκ ἔχουσαν. “Therefore when the province of Cisalpine Gaul was allotted to Lucullus,
he was displeased, since it offered no opportunity for great exploits” (Loeb translation).
66 Plut. Luc. 5–6; cf Cic. Mur. 33.
67 Livy Per. 96; Plut. Crass. 9.7.
158 david rafferty
decade, while P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 79) kept a sizeable army in Cilicia. That Cili-
cian army was then absorbed into Lucullus’ massive force when the Mithridatic War
began in 74. Yet despite this pressure on Rome’s military manpower – and on the
ranks of her senior commanders – Rome continued to send consuls to Cisalpine Gaul.
These consular governors commanded significant military forces, as we can see from
Cassius’ 10,000 men, which is probably a conventional way of describing an army of
two legions. In view of the heavy commitments elsewhere, these facts are surprising.
The consular provincial assignments of the next few years are unclear. The consuls
of 72 were both sent to stamp out Spartacus’ revolt within Italy, a task at which they
failed spectacularly.68 No provinces are on record for the consuls of 71 (one of whom
was expelled from the Senate the following year), while both Pompey and Crassus in
70 refused provincial commands.69 Of the consuls for 69, Q. Caecilius Metellus went to
Crete while Q. Hortensius refused a province.70 In 68, the early deaths of one consul and
then of the suffect meant that Q. Marcius Rex was free to take over Cilicia. We should
note in all these cases that we are only aware of the outcomes: it is entirely possible that
in some or all of these years Cisalpine Gaul was decreed a consular province before cir-
cumstances got in the way. The province next appears in 67, when it was combined with
Transalpine Gaul and assigned to C. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 67).71 Cassius Dio refers to Pi-
so’s interfering in Transalpine Gaul in 67 (at a time when the consul was certainly still in
Rome) while it is clear from Piso’s trial in 63 (during which he was criticized for flogging
a Transpadane) that he also held authority in the Cisalpina.72 Moreover, in a letter of July
65, Cicero notes that he intends to join Piso’s staff later in the year as Gaul looks like it
will be important in the voting. This confirms Piso’s presence in the Cisalpine province,
as there were few citizens on the far side of the Alps.73 It is also clear from Cicero’s letter
that Piso was prorogued more than once. The trial reference in Sallust indicates the gov-
ernor had returned to Rome by the autumn of 63 at the latest.74 The combination of both
Gallic provinces is not surprising at a time when there was a significant shortage of im-
perators – not least because so many were serving as Pompeian legates. Yet the difficulty
of land transport meant that any governor holding both provinces would need to give
any legate(s) operating in the other province significant autonomy.75 Another reference
in Cicero indirectly suggests that Piso was given command of both provinces because he
68 See now the discussion of the Roman command in the Spartacus war by Vervaet, “Crassus’ command”.
69 Vell. Pat. 2.31.1; Plut. Pomp. 23.3.
70 Cass. Dio 36.1a. Of course, provinces would still have been assigned for 70 and 69, but we do not know
what they were.
71 Larsen, “One Governor”.
72 Cass. Dio 36.37.2; Sall. Catil. 49.2; cf Cic. Flac. 98. For a more detailed account of the way in which Piso
obtained both Gallic provinces, see Vervaet, “Reducing senatorial control”, 284–90; see also Vervaet,
High Command, 222 n. 23, where it is suggested that the Senate may have authorised Piso to control both
provinces through legati during his consulship. The fear among some senators that Pompey would use his
command against the pirates to launch a coup d’état makes this very possible.
73 Cic. Att. 1.1.2; cf Larsen, “One Governor”, 428.
74 Sall. Catil. 49.2.
75 A point made by Rivet, Narbonensis, 54.
was expected to subdue the Alpine tribes. In January 61, Cicero calls Piso the “conqueror
of the Allobroges”; written at a time when the Allobroges were in open revolt, this tag
is clearly sarcastic in tone.76 When the Alpine tribes were eventually subdued under Au-
gustus, it was only after a coordinated campaign by Tiberius and Drusus operating from
either side of the mountains; as Piso also commanded the territory on both sides, it is
possible that he too was given the task of conquering these tribes. If so, he clearly failed.
A successful conqueror might be expected to request a triumph on returning to Rome,
but Piso’s only reward was a prosecution.
The provincial allocation in 63 is discussed in greater detail below. The final decree
de provinciis consularibus which we need to examine is that in 60. It is unclear which
(if any) provinces had been decreed lege Sempronia for the consuls of that year, but in
March word reached Rome that the Allobroges and the Helvetii were about to erupt
and that the current governor of Transalpine Gaul was about to be overwhelmed:77
Senatus decrevit, ut consules duas Gallias sortirentur, dilectus haberetur, vacationes ne valerent, lega-
ti cum auctoritate mitterentur qui adirent Galliae civitates darentque operam ne eae se cum Helvetiis
coniungerent.
The Senate has decreed that the Consuls should cast lots for the two Gauls, that a levy should
be held with all exemptions cancelled, and ambassadors with full powers sent to visit the Gallic
communities to stop their making common cause with the Helvetii.
Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer received Transalpine Gaul and L. Afranius received Cis-
alpine Gaul.78 However, word soon came that the current governor had recovered the
situation, to the annoyance of Metellus Celer, who had wanted a triumph.79 We have
no reason to doubt that Afranius took up his post in Cisalpina and so he was probably
the governor from whom Caesar took over in early 58.80 Caesar’s tenure of Cisalpine
Gaul (59–49) completes our inquiry. We may note that in the senatorial debate de
provinciis consularibus in June 56, several options were canvassed regarding Caesar’s
provinces, but naming them as praetorian was not one of them.81 Cisalpine Gaul was
thus certainly decreed a consular province for 80, 75, 74, 73, 67, 63 and 60 and possibly
so in 77, while it was also assigned to a consul by plebiscite in 59.
76 Cic. Att. 1.13.2: primum igitur scito primum me non esse rogatum sententiam praepositumque esse nobis pacifi-
catorem Allobrogum.
77 Cic. Att. 1.19.2 (Loeb translation).
78 It is usually asserted that Caesar obtained Transalpine Gaul ex senatus consulto in June 59 owing to the
death of Metellus Celer, thus furnishing proof that Metellus had received the Transalpine province. How-
ever, Broughton (“More Notes”, 74) suggests that Metellus had already given up the province before his
death; he still believes that Metellus was allotted Transalpine Gaul but bases this on Cic. Att. 1.20.5 (see
following note).
79 Cic. Att. 1.20.5 (speaking of Metellus Celer): unum reprehendo, quod otium nuntiari e Gallia non magno
opere gaudet. Cupit, credo, triumphare. “I have only one criticism, he is not overhappy at the news of peace
in Gaul. He wants a triumph, I suppose” (Loeb translation).
80 So Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 917.
81 As pointed out by Brennan, Praetorship, 583.
160 david rafferty
4. Occasions when Cisalpine Gaul may have been Assigned to a Praetor, 80–52.
There are three problematic cases in which Cisalpine Gaul may have been assigned to
a governor of praetorian rank. These need to be analysed in detail. First, Brunt sug-
gests that C. Cosconius (pr. II 79?), who operated in Illyricum in the years after 80, did
so from a base in Cisalpine Gaul.82 However while Orosius, who is our main source
on Cosconius’ command, refers to him as active in Illyria, he never mentions Cisal-
pine Gaul.83 While it is possible that Cosconius also held Cisalpina (on the model of
Caesar), he need not have done so. In view of the lack of any evidence, we cannot list
Cosconius as a (praetorian) governor of Cisalpine Gaul.
In the second case, Appian tells us that M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78) was allotted
Transalpine Gaul during his consulship: κληρωσάμενος δ’ ὁ Λέπιδος τὴν ὑπὲρ Ἄλπεις
Γαλατίαν.84 The historian places this allotment in the latter part of 78, after Sulla’s death
but before Lepidus’ open rebellion against the Senate. From this statement, scholars
have made two erroneous deductions. The first, put most authoritatively by Emilio
Gabba, is that Appian is correct in his dating and that Lepidus obtained the province
of Transalpine Gaul late in his consulship in order to govern it the following year.85
However, this assertion ignores the major revolt in Etruria which took place in mid-
78: Sallust and Granius Licinianus both tell us that after the inhabitants of Faesulae
evicted Sulla’s veteran settlers, both consuls were sent with armies into Etruria to quell
the disturbances.86 That is, whatever the consular provinces had previously been, the
Senate now made Etruria a joint consular provincia. Appian, though, knows nothing of
any revolt in Etruria and so his account betrays his clumsy attempt to explain events.
His chronology in this passage is as follows: Sulla dies, the consuls quarrel in the City,
Lepidus (in a bid to win extra support) proposes to give the Italians back their land,
82 Brunt, Italian Manpower, 464–5.

83 Oros. 5.23.23.
84 App. B Civ. 1.107. Appian is specific that the assignment was the result of an allotment, rather than nom-
inatim; cf Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 910, who says “in 78, M. Lepidus, Patrician consul and intending
revolutionary, had Gallia allotted to himself ”. See also Gabba, Appian, 293–4. On the sortitio for consular
provinces normally (although not always) being conducted on 1 January, see Cic. Prov. cons. 36 and Bals-
don, “Five Problems”, 139; cf Giovannini, Consulare Imperium, 92.
85 Gabba, Appian, 293–4. Gabba’s account is confused because his only understanding of consular provinces
is that put forth by Mommsen (that Sulla made a clean separation between tenure of a magistracy and
military command) and so he reads Appian in this light, accepting that Lepidus went to hold Transalpine
Gaul at the end of his consulship. Indeed he specifically refers to the supposed lex Cornelia de provinciis
ordinandis. This is despite his recognition in the same passage that Lepidus’ support during his revolt was
entirely based in Etruria: “Questo spiega il favore acquistato da Lepido in Etruria, che è concordemente
data come la base della sua azione nel 77 a. C. Alla notizia dei discorsi sediziosi del console (Sall. hist. I
55 Maur.) si ebbero subito in Etruria, per es. nella zona di Faesulae, massacri di coloni sillani” (Appian,
293). That Mommsen was mistaken about the existence of this law was shown conclusively by Balsdon,
“Consular Provinces I” and Giovannini, Consulare Imperium (especially pp. 77–83); cf. Pina Polo, Consul
at Rome, 225–48.
86 On the march into Etruria see Gran. Licin. 36.38 (Criniti): et consules dato...in Etruriam profecti sunt...
sed quom arma eodem comportarentur; cf Sall. Hist. 1.66 Maurenbrecher = 1.58 McGushin; Flor. Epit. 2.11;
Exsuperantius 38.
the Senate makes both consuls swear not to settle their differences by war (πολέμῳ)
and then Lepidus refuses to come back to Rome for the elections because he wants
to use his army the following year. What is lacking here is any mention of the revolt
in Etruria and of the consuls being sent with armies to suppress it. Appian therefore
needs to account for Lepidus being away from Rome and in command of an army, and
so in a position to wage war on his colleague Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78). Hence the
reference to his province of Transalpine Gaul, a detail not mentioned elsewhere in
Appian’s account and which was presumably taken straight from his source. It is much
more likely that Transalpine Gaul was one of the provinces decreed in 79 according
to the lex Sempronia and which Lepidus drew in the sortition at the beginning of 78,
before the revolt of Faesulae. That revolt then prompted the Senate to change the con-
sular provinces to Etruria, meaning that Lepidus never actually took up Transalpine
Gaul.
The second error scholars have made is supposing that Lepidus also held Cisalpine
Gaul and that M. Iunius Brutus (tr. pl. 83) (who is attested as active around Mutina
early in 77) was his legate there.87 This argument rests entirely on short references
in Plutarch and in the Livian Periochae which refer to M. Brutus holding Cisalpine
Gaul on Lepidus’ behalf. There are several problems with this interpretation. As ar-
gued above, the provincial arrangements for the consuls of 78 were completely revised
following the revolt in Etruria, so there is no reason to think Lepidus had originally
been assigned Cisalpine Gaul even if he were shown to be operating there later. Yet
nothing suggests Lepidus ever set foot north of the Apennines: all sources which refer
to the disturbances of 78/7 place them in Etruria.88 Only Plutarch mentions Lepidus
in connection with Cisalpine Gaul, and he refers to Brutus operating there as Lepi-
dus’s instrument.89 The question then becomes, in what capacity was Brutus holding
87 Brutus: Livy Per. 90.4; Plut. Pomp. 16.2–5; Oros. 5.22.17. For scholars who believe Lepidus was also as-
signed Cisalpine Gaul, see Badian, FC, 275–7 (especially 275 n. 8 where he argues “that [Lepidus] legally
held the Cisalpina is clear from what follows”); Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 910–1; Broughton, MRR, 2.91
(where he lists Brutus as “probably” a legate of Lepidus); Burton, “Lepidus”, 404 (who refers to Lepidus
in early 77 as “proconsul of Transalpine (and probably Cisalpine) Gaul”).
88 Sallust (Hist. 1.77.8 Maurenbrecher = 1.67.8 McGushin) and Granius Licinianus (36.38 Criniti) both place
the revolt in Etruria, as do Flor. Epit. 2.11 and Exsuperantius 38 (although Exsuperantius also has Pompey
defeating Lepidus). Brennan, Praetorship, 575 suggests that “Lepidus seems to have operated in Cisalpi-
na already while consul, perhaps aiming to score a triumph over some Alpine tribe”. He bases this on a
very corrupt fragment of Granius Licinianus which refers to Lepidus leading his army in <m>ontes (36.39
Criniti), but this is not a tenable reconstruction. As we have seen, all explicit references to the location of
Lepidus’ military operations place them in Etruria, and what we know of the political situation in late 78
suggests that Lepidus was engaged in manoeuvring with the Senate and the rebels in Etruria – and thus
not in a position to go off gratuitously hunting a triumph in the Alps. It is more probable that in <m>ontes
refers to Lepidus’ military manoeuvres in the Apennines in relation to Catulus’ forces.
89 Plut. Pomp. 16.2–5 (indeed, Plutarch’s wording at 16.2 implies Lepidus had sent Brutus to Cisalpine Gaul
from Italy): προσθεὶς δὲ τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἑαυτὸν ἀπεδείχθη στρατεύματος ἡγεμὼν ἐπὶ τὸν Λέπιδον ἤδη πολλὰ
τῆς Ἰταλίας κεκινηκότα καὶ τὴν ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλατίαν κατέχοντα διὰ Βρούτου στρατεύματι. “[Pompey]
took the side of the nobility, and was appointed commander of an army against Lepidus, who had already
stirred up a large part of Italy and was employing Brutus to hold Cisalpine Gaul with an army” (Loeb
translation).
162 david rafferty
Cisalpine Gaul? The Periochae specifically state that M. Brutus, qui cisalpinam Galliam
obtinebat, a Cn. Pompeio occisus est. Obtinere, in this context, normally refers to the
provincia which an imperator receives from the Senate, whether sortitus or sine sorte,
which in turn suggests that M. Brutus had been regularly assigned an independent
command in Cisalpine Gaul, almost certainly as a praetorian province.90 Broughton’s
objection that “there is no evidence that he had been praetor, an office he could hard-
ly have held before 78” is not a sufficient objection in view of the Livian language.91
Contra Badian and others, Cisalpine Gaul was never decreed to Marcus Lepidus as a
province, but was held by Brutus as his regularly assigned praetorian provincia. This,
in turn, implies that Brutus was probably praetor in 78. The possibility that Cisalpine
Gaul was decreed praetorian on this occasion only because the consuls were other-
wise engaged is an attractive one.
The final instance where Cisalpine Gaul was made praetorian was in 63, in wholly
exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the province’s inclusion in the praetorian sortitio
was an act of last resort. In 64, under the terms of the lex Sempronia, the Senate de-
creed Cisalpine Gaul and Macedonia as provinces for the consuls of 63.92 The sortitio
for these was held sometime in early January, and gave Macedonia to M. Tullius Cicero
and Cisalpine Gaul to C. Antonius.93 Cicero subsequently made a deal with Antonius
to swap provinces, as Antonius was eager for the plunder and triumph that would be
hard to obtain in peaceful Cisalpina.94 At a later date, both provinces were made orna-
ta by decree of the Senate and, at a later date still, Cicero publicly renounced any right
to a province in a contional speech, thus fulfilling the promise made in the Senate on
1 January. Cicero subsequently secured Cisalpine Gaul’s allotment to Q. Caecilius Me-
tellus Celer (pr. 63) in a regular sortitio, which shows that there were other praetorian
provinces to be assigned at the same time.95 When the Catilinarian conspiracy moved
into the open, Metellus Celer was also given a mandate to raise troops and investigate
90 On obtinere provinciam as the normal phrase for “governing a province” in various first-century authors,
see e. g. Cic. Att. 6.6.3: num est hoc non plus annum obtinere provinciam? Caes. B Civ. 3.53.1: qui praetor Asi-
am obtinuerat (cf Cic. Att. 5.21.5); Livy 33.25.11. See also Cic. Fam. 8.8.8 for its use in a senatus consultum:
itemque senatui placere in Ciliciam provinciam in VIII reliquas provincias quas praetorii pro praetore obtiner-
ent eos qui praetores fuerunt neque in provincia cum imperio fuerunt. To the best of my knowledge, obtinere
is never used under the Republic to refer to a legate holding a province.
91 Broughton, MRR, 3.112. On this point, Brennan, Praetorship, 888 attempted to show that “obtinere can be
used of a subordinate” with reference to Cn. Piso in Spain in 65, but his argument is entirely circular.
92 There are several modern accounts which attempt to explain the complicated chronology of provincial
allocations in 63. See, e. g. Allen, “Cicero’s Governorship”, Sumner, “Last Journey”, Spielvogel, “Metellus
Celer”, and Brennan, Praetorship, 401.
93 Cic. Leg. agr. 1.26, delivered on 1 January 63, implies it had not yet been decided which province Cicero
would receive.
94 The date of this arrangement is uncertain. Allen suggests that the concordia quam mihi constitui cum conle-
ga mentioned at Leg. agr. 2.103 shows that the deal between Cicero and Antonius had already been made
(“Cicero’s Governorship”, 235); if so, then the sortitio must have occurred between the first two speeches
de lege agraria, delivered only a few days apart. See also Cic. Pis. 5: ego provinciam Galliam senatus auctori-
tate exercitu et pecunia instructam et ornatam, quam cum Antonio commutavi, quod ita existimabam tempora
rei publicae ferre, in contione deposui reclamante populo Romano.
95 Cic. Fam. 5.2.3.
matters in Picenum and the ager Gallicus, apparently in addition to his assignment in
Cisalpine Gaul.96
The approximate date of Cicero’s public renunciation of Cisalpine Gaul is a matter
of some importance. Allen believes that Cicero renounced the province in May or
June: that is, before the consular elections. His reasoning, as he admits, is not strong:
essentially he assumes that, as in 56, the Senate decided the consular and praetorian
provinces at the same time, and that Cicero would not have “deliberately produced
confusion” by waiting until after the consular provinces had been decided to renounce
Cisalpine Gaul.97 Yet as Allen himself realises, praetorian provinces were normally de-
cided after the consular provinces, and he asserts (without evidence, although the
inference is reasonable) that Cicero’s great worry at this time was the prospect that
the Senate would decree Cisalpine Gaul a consular province, and Catiline would then
be elected consul and obtain that provincial command.98 Surely, then, it is more likely
that Cicero would have held on to Cisalpine Gaul until he had secured Catiline’s de-
feat at the elections and so removed that possibility. Thus Brennan must be correct
that Cicero’s public renunciation of his province came after the consular elections but
before the decree de provinciis praetoriis and consequent sortitio.99
There is another possibility which previous scholarship has not considered: that,
when Cicero renounced his province, the incumbent governor would simply have been
prorogued. Yet this clearly did not happen. The last certain governor of Cisalpine Gaul
before 63 is C. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 67).100 The date of his return to Rome is uncertain,
but we can make an estimate. Cicero notes how he defended Piso during his (Cicero’s)
consulship, in language which strongly suggests a criminal trial.101 That Piso was prosecut-
ed for repetundae is confirmed by Sallust, who says that during this trial Caesar attacked
Piso for mistreating a Transpadane.102 Thus, the terminus ante quem for Piso’s return to
Rome is the middle of 63, enough time for him to be prosecuted for repetundae before
December (when he tried to have Caesar implicated in the Catilinarian conspiracy). To
my thinking, the likeliest reconstruction is that Piso had been prorogued until he was to
96 Cic. Cat. 2.5, 2.26; Sall. Catil. 30.5. The likelihood is that Metellus Celer assumed authority in Cisalpine
Gaul at the same time he took up this mandate in Picenum and the ager Gallicus, especially if it is true
(as argued below) that Cisalpine Gaul was sine imperio at this time. See the excellent reconstruction by
Sumner (“Last Journey”), which demonstrates that Metellus Celer was active in Cisalpine Gaul by De-
cember 63, and probably based himself at Ariminum to be able to move either side of the Apennines as
necessary. See above on Ariminum as the likely base for Cn. Carbo’s army in 83.
97 Allen, “Cicero’s Governorship”, 236–7.
98 Allen, “Cicero’s Governorship”, 238–9. See the acute comments by Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 914 n. 3.
99 Brennan, Praetorship, 581.
100 The attempt by Allen (“Cicero’s Governorship”) to show that L. Licinius Murena (cos. 62) held both
the Cisalpine and Transalpine provinces in 64 and 63 (on the basis of the manuscript reading of citeriore
Gallia at Sall. Catil. 42.3) was refuted by Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 916. L. Murena (and his brother Gaius
as legate) should be regarded as operating only in Transalpine Gaul, as Cic. Mur. 89 indicates.
101 Flac. 98: Consul ego nuper defendi C. Pisonem; qui, quia consul fortis constansque fuerat, incolumis est rei pu-
blicae conservatus. “Recently, when I was consul, I defended Gaius Piso and because he had been a stout
and steadfast consul he was kept safe for the Republic” (Loeb translation).
102 Sall. Catil. 49.2.
164 david rafferty
be replaced by one of the consuls of 63, and that he returned to Rome in the middle of
that year.103 Only after Piso had returned did Cicero publicly renounce his claim to Cis-
alpine Gaul. Consider the situation facing the Senate then: the previous governor could
not now be prorogued, provinces had already been decided for the consules designati and
it was not a realistic option to leave the province sine imperio or in the hands of a legate.104
In these circumstances, allocating Cisalpine Gaul to one of the current praetors was the
only realistic option – but only because all other options had been exhausted.
We now need to consider this accumulation of evidence. Between 80 and 50 Cis-
alpine Gaul was decreed consular on seven (possibly eight) occasions by the Senate
and once by the People. It was certainly decreed praetorian in 63, but only because the
previous governor had returned to Rome, the consul to whom it had been assigned
had refused it, and there were no other prospective consular governors. The province
was probably also made praetorian in 78. Of late republican provinces, only Cilicia has
a comparable record of being allocated to consuls vis-à-vis praetors. Even consistently
warlike provinces such as Macedonia and Further Spain were given to praetors much
more often than Cisalpine Gaul.105 The only reasonable conclusion we can reach is that
the Senate deliberately avoided sending praetorian governors to Cisalpine Gaul.
5. Why Avoid Praetorian Governors in Cisalpine Gaul?
Why was this the case? And why should we consider it a problem? To answer these
questions we turn to J. P. V. D. Balsdon’s 1939 article on “Consular provinces in the late
Republic”, in which he notes the “real difference in [the] administrative functions” of
103 It is true that Piso’s return to Rome without a successor being in place would leave the province sine imperio,
but Caesar also returned from his province early in 60 without any objections being raised: Suet. Iul. 18.1. L.
Murena also stood for election in 63 while his brother still governed his province as legate: Cic. Mur. 89.
104 To clarify this point: while objections do not ever seem to have been raised about a governor leaving a leg-
ate in charge of the province so he could return early to Rome, this situation would still require the Senate
to arrange a governor for that province during the next round of provincial appointments, whenever that
took place. Drogula, “Lex Porcia”, 101–2 argues that the lex Porcia prohibited governors from leaving their
province early. However, this is a misreading of the text of the lex de provinciis praetoriis, which specifically
allows leaving the province for reasons of transit.
105 Known governors of Cilicia 80–52 (Brennan, Praetorship, 717–9): Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (pr. 81); P.
Servilius (cos. 79); L. Octavius (cos. 75); L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74); Q. Marcius Rex (cos. 68); Cn.
Pompeius Magnus (cos. III 52) (held the province 66–62); T. Ampius Balbus (pr. 59) (held the province
in 57); P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57) and Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 54). That is a total of seven
consular and two praetorian governors. Known (or probable) governors of Macedonia 80–52 (Brennan,
Praetorship, 709–12): Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 81); Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 79) (held the province
77–76); C. Scribonius Curio (cos. 76); M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (cos. 73); L. Iulius Caesar (pr. 71); L.
Aurelius Cotta (pr. 70); ‘Rubrius’ (unknown praenomen) (pr. by 68); L. Manlius Torquatus (cos. 65); C.
Antonius (cos. 63); C. Octavius (pr. 61); L. Appuleius Saturninus (pr. 59); L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 58); Q.
Ancharius (pr. 56) and C. Cosconius (pr. 54). That is a total of seven consuls and seven praetors. Known
(or probable) governors of Further Spain 80–52 (Brennan, Praetorship, 709–12): Q. Caecilius Metellus
Pius (cos. 80); M. Pupius Piso (pr. by 72); C. Antistius (pr. 69); C. Cosconius (pr. 63); C. Iulius Caesar
(pr. 62); Sex. Quinctilius Varus (pr. 57) and Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. II 55). That is a total of two con-
suls and five praetors (although admittedly both consular governors had long tenures).
consuls and praetors: “the primary function of the ex-praetor was to govern (though,
naturally, he was often required in an emergency to hold a military command); the
primary function of the consul and ex-consul, outside Rome, was to fight”.106 Some
provinces were almost always given to praetors, because they were peaceful: Sicily,
Africa, Sardinia and Asia (although Asia was a special case). On the other hand, major
wars were conducted by consuls or former consuls (Pompey’s career pre-70 being the
exception). Provinces with large military establishments and restless frontiers were
also frequently consular, as for instance Macedonia, Syria (towards the end of our
period) and Cilicia. Yet Cisalpine Gaul, regarded simply as one province among many
others in the empire, does not fit into these categories. Usually, the only fighting to
be done was to protect against the depredations of Alpine tribes: considerably less
fighting than in the Transalpine province or either of the Spains, even at their most
peaceful. Yet these provinces were often entrusted to governors of praetorian rank.
One might raise the relatively large military establishment in Cisalpine Gaul as an
objection: two legions, as we have seen, in the late seventies, and three legions by 58.107
Yet there were other praetorian provinces which often maintained significant forces:
one could point to the twenty cohorts which Caesar found on his arrival in Further
Spain in 61, or to the large forces commanded by C. Pomptinus in Transalpina.108 The
almost invariably consular status of Cisalpine Gaul is thus a problem which calls for
investigation.
The most convincing answer is that the Senate avoided awarding Cisalpine Gaul to
praetors because that would have made consular elections unacceptably unfair, for a
number of compelling reasons. Cisalpine Gaul was the only province in which a large
proportion (perhaps a majority) of the inhabitants were Roman citizens. Prior to the
Social War, there was a smattering of Roman citizen colonies, while the magisterial
class of the Latin colonies had also obtained the citizenship.109 As a result of the lex
Iulia of 90 and the lex Pompeia of 89, the large and numerous Latin colonies occupying
the good agricultural land south of the Padus were enfranchised (although it is possi-
ble that the new citizens, here as elsewhere, were not comprehensively registered until
the census of 70).110 Most other inhabitants of the area gained Latin status, with the
106 Balsdon, “Consular Provinces I”, 64. Cf Giovannini, Consulare Imperium, 66–9.
107 Brunt, Italian Manpower, 465. However, it is possible that the three legions Caesar found in Cisalpina had
been raised by him after the passage of the lex Vatinia in anticipation of a war of conquest.
108 Plut. Caes. 12.1. Caesar found only a single legion in Transalpina in March 58 (B Gall. 1.7), but Cassius
Dio’s narrative of Pomptinus’ campaigns suggests a sizeable army: 37.47–8.
109 On the acquisition of Roman citizenship per magistratum see Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 111–2,
215–6. The citizen colonies prior to 91 were Mutina, Parma and Eporedia and the Latin colonies were
Placentia, Cremona, Bononia and Aquileia.
110 See Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 157–9 for a more nuanced and detailed examination of the en-
franchisement of Cisalpine Gaul in the early eighties. See also Brunt, Italian Manpower, 166–72 and Dart,
Social War, 171–88. On the (probably sizeable) population of the Cisalpina see Broadhead, “Migration”
and De Ligt, “Population of Cisalpine Gaul”. Moreover, the famous wealth of this area makes it likely that
many of the resident citizens would qualify for the higher census classes: for a glimpse at the Cisalpine
aristocracy in the first century, see Chiabà, “Le aristocrazie cisalpine”.
166 david rafferty
right of obtaining citizenship per magistratum.111 There was not, as a cursory reading of
the evidence might suggest, a simple equation whereby citizenship stopped at the Pa-
dus: there were enfranchised communities north of the river (Comum, for example)
and unenfranchised ones south of it. The political consequence of these enfranchise-
ments was that in the post-Sullan period Cisalpine Gaul was the only regular Roman
province ruled by a Roman imperator, but whose inhabitants were largely Roman
citizens living in municipia. While other provinces may have possessed sizeable con-
tingents of citizens, Cisalpina was the only one with large numbers of citizen commu-
nities. Indeed, Wiseman has shown that Cisalpine municipia comprised a large portion
of four tribes: Pollia, Aniensis, Lemonia and Voturia.112 This made them politically
important, both in the tribal assembly (which passed most legislation and elected the
minor magistrates and tribuni plebis) and in the centuriate assembly (which elected
the higher magistrates). This in turn meant that anyone who was serious about stand-
ing for consul had to take account of these communities, and would probably want
to canvass them. We are entitled to assume this conclusion a priori, but there is also a
great deal of evidence to support it.
To begin with, some passages of Book 8 of the Bellum Gallicum show how seriously
Caesar took canvassing Cisalpine Gaul. The first regards Mark Antony’s (ultimately
successful) candidature for the augurate:113
Ipse hibernis peractis contra consuetudinem in Italiam quam maximis itineribus est profectus, ut mu-
nicipia et colonias appellaret, quibus M. Antoni quaestoris sui, commendaverat sacerdoti petitionem.
Contendebat enim gratia cum libenter pro homine sibi coniunctissimo, quem paulo ante praemiserat
ad petitionem, tum acriter contra factionem et potentiam paucorum, qui M. Antoni repulsa Caesaris
decedentis gratiam convellere cupiebant. Hunc etsi augurem prius factum quam Italiam attingeret
in itinere audierat, tamen non minus iustam sibi causam municipia et colonias adeundi existimavit,
ut eis gratias ageret, quod frequentiam atque officium suum Antonio praestitissent, simulque se et
honorem suum sequentis anni commendaret.
After the stay in winter quarters was over Caesar, contrary to his usual practice, went to Italy,
proceeding by forced marches, to make a personal canvass of the towns and colonies whose sup-
port he had solicited for his quaestor, Mark Antony, in his candidacy for the priesthood. He was
glad to lend his influence as Antony, whom he had sent ahead a little previously, to pursue his
election campaign, was his close friend. He was also keen to counter the small faction of influ-
ential men who wanted to secure Antony’s defeat in order to undermine Caesar’s own influence
when he returned from his province. The news that Antony had been made augur reached him
when he was still on the way to Italy. Nevertheless, he felt that he had still just as much reason
to visit the towns and colonies, both to thank them for turning out in large numbers to support
Antony and also to canvass for his own candidacy for office in the following year.
111 Ascon. 3C; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 111.

112 Wiseman, New Men, 139–40.
113 [Caes.] B Gall. 8.50 (Gardner translation).
The political importance of the province is made even more explicit shortly after-
wards: T. Labienum Galliae togatae praefecit, quo maiore commendatione conciliaretur
ad consulatus petitionem.114 We should not suppose that Labienus (or, indeed, Caesar)
would refrain from exploiting all the advantages which lay with a man who held the
awesome power of imperium over potential voters. We can also observe in Hirtius’
writings the ways in which an energetic governor could counteract the efforts of his
opponents to win voters to their side. Lastly, Cicero looks back on the days of the
libera res publica from the time after the Ides of March, speaking now of the consul
Antony: 115
Qui magister equitum fuisse tibi viderere, in proximum annum consulatum peteres vel potius rogares,
per municipia coloniasque Galliae, e qua nos tum, cum consulatus petebatur, non rogabatur, petere
consulatum solebamus.
You who looked upon yourself as a former Master of the Horse, who were standing for the con-
sulship, or rather requesting it for the following year, dressed in Gaulish slippers and a cloak,
you rushed through the towns and colonies of Gaul, the region where we used to canvass for the
consulship when that office was stood for and not asked for!
But it was not only Caesar and Antony who dedicated such efforts to the voters of Cis-
alpine Gaul. In another revealing passage (in one of his first letters to Atticus), Cicero
records the importance of Gallic voters to his own campaign for the consulship: 116
Nos in omni munere candidatorio fungendo summam adhibebimus diligentiam, et fortasse, quoniam
videtur in suffragiis multum posse Gallia, cum Romae a iudiciis forum refrixerit, excurremus mense
Septembri legati ad Pisonem, ut Ianuario revertamur.
For my part I shall spare no pains in faithfully fulfilling the whole duty of a candidate, and per-
haps, as Gaul looks like counting heavily in the voting, I shall run down to join Piso’s staff in
September, in the dead period after the courts have closed, returning in January.
This passage is instructive, not only about Cisalpina’s political prominence, but about
the potential power and gratia of the governor. As one of Piso’s legati, Cicero would
be in a position to wield some of the governor’s power to win friends and influence
people, or alternatively to lean on the friends and agents of his electoral rivals. The
administration of justice, at this period the key task facing the governor of a peaceful
province, could also work in the governor’s favour here (as well as to the advantage
of his less scrupulous legati).117 Notwithstanding his commitments in Gallia Comata,
Caesar’s commentaries record how he returned across the Alps nearly every winter
114 [Caes.] B Gall. 8.52: “He put Labienus in charge of Cisalpine Gaul, to further the latter’s candidature for
the consulship” (Gardner translation).
115 Cic. Phil. 2.76 (Loeb translation).
116 Cic. Att. 1.1.2 (Loeb translation).
117 See Cic. ad Q. Fr. 1.1.7 on the giving of justice as a governor’s most important job.
168 david rafferty
to hold the assizes in Cisalpina (the technical term used is ad conventus agendos).118
To return to the particular instance, Cicero’s service on Piso’s staff was of benefit to
Cicero, but it also benefited Piso by winning the gratitude of an able orator, gratitude
of which Piso availed himself when he returned to Rome and was defended at his trial
by Cicero.119 We learn two things from these passages. First, we learn that the voters
of Cisalpine Gaul mattered, really mattered, when it came to the consular elections –
they were worth candidates devoting time and effort to. And second, we learn that the
man placed in charge of them could have a great influence. These two reasons together
were why a praetor could not be allowed to govern them as a matter of course.
The late-republican governing class has long come in for criticism as weak, cor-
rupt, self-serving, and unable to avert catastrophe.120 Yet it had always taken very seri-
ously the fairness and competitiveness of the political system – and as Karl-Joachim
Hölkeskamp has pointed out, it had good reason to do so.121 The burgeoning number
of ambitus laws in the late second and first centuries testifies to the strident efforts of
the governing class to regulate access to office under conditions of escalating com-
petition.122 Indeed, intense competition was built into the cursus honorum and was
only exacerbated by Sulla’s decision to raise the number of praetors to eight: twenty
quaestors each year could only become eight praetors, of whom only two each year
could reach the consulship. For every competitor who died along the way or despaired
at the odds (and expense), there was an unsuccessful candidate from the previous year
who was ready for another try – Catiline and his three consular repulsae is only an ex-
treme example of this. However, intense competition had long been inherent in such
a political system as Rome’s, and: 123
The principle of election remained the only procedural mode that was able to reduce the po-
tential for conflict and channel the resulting centrifugal forces that would otherwise soon have
overburdened the capacity for regulation and de-escalation of the system, and would thus have
severely jeopardized the capacity to function and rule, and therefore in turn the very survival
of the political class.
Hölkeskamp’s nuanced application of the sociology of Georg Simmel to Roman re-

publican history makes it much easier for us to see the structural constraints of the
political system. Candidates for office were competing for the approval of a third par-
ty, the populus Romanus, and thus needed to communicate with it as extensively and
118 Caes. B Gall. 2.54, 5.1–2, 6.44, 7.1.

119 Cic. Flac. 98.
120 See Gruen, LGRR, 1–5, 10 n. 4 and 211 for a brief survey of views. Syme, Rom. Revolution, ch. 2 is the locus
classicus.
121 Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing, 94–104.
122 See, for instance, Gruen, LGRR, 212–24; Rosillo López, La corruption. The larger questions of the connec-
tion between elite competition, ambitus and the fall of the Republic are outside the scope of this article.
intensively as possible. However, such a “meritocratic” system could only work if its
procedural rules were commonly accepted. In Hölkeskamp’s words:124
One of these fundamental rules is that the competitors, their chances and hopes for success,
must be equal. Only then can the participants accept all possible outcomes of the competition
(victory or defeat) as fair, as based entirely on their individual achievement and merit. The
victor has the same chances as the loser, who thus, to put it bluntly, has only himself to blame
for his own failure.
It is unarguable that the chance for a praetor (and future consular candidate) to gov-
ern, even if only for a year, a sizable pool of voters (with all the potential for intimida-
tion and favouritism this implied) would have unfairly slanted the consular elections.
Any praetor in such a situation would be in an unrivalled position to win friends, give
favours, lean on opponents – and simultaneously hinder the efforts of his rivals, as
Hirtius tells us. Apart from its effect on the citizens of Cisalpine Gaul, such a situation
would also place unwelcome pressure on the yearly sortitio (the drawing of lots) by
means of which praetors were matched to available provinces. It would mean that
drawing the golden ticket of Cisalpine Gaul would instantly make the lucky praetor
frontrunner in the race to the consulship. If this sortitio could have such an effect, then
the consular contest would have become a double contest, with two hurdles to clear:
the praetorian provincial sortitio and then the consular election itself.125
By way of example, let us return to a praetor who we know did govern Cisalpine
Gaul: Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (pr. 63, cos. 60). That he was elected consul at the
earliest opportunity (suo anno) is not in itself surprising: he was, after all, a Caecilius
Metellus. But the letter which Cicero wrote to him early in 62 is nevertheless instruc-
tive here: 126
Ego si hoc dicam, me tua causa praetermisisse provinciam, tibi ipse levior videar esse; meae enim ra-
tiones ita tulerunt, atque eius mei consili maiorem in dies singulos fructum voluptatemque capio. illud
dico, me, ut primum in contione provinciam deposuerim, statim quem ad modum eam tibi traderem
cogitare coepisse. nihil dico de sortitione vestra; tantum te suspicari volo, nihil in ea re per collegam
meum me insciente esse factum. recordare cetera, quam cito senatum illo die facta sortitione coegerim,
quam multa de te verba fecerim, cum tu ipse mihi dixisti orationem meam non solum in te honorifi-
cam sed etiam in collegas tuos contumeliosam fuisse.
As to my own action, supposing that I were to say that it was for your sake that I allowed my
chance of a province to pass by, you would think me somewhat of a hypocrite myself; for my in-

125 Cf Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing, 94 (discussing why the greater honores had to be allocated by a neutral
third party, the populus Romanus, rather than an internal institution of the aristocracy): “the usual rival-
ries, and the permanent infighting over positions, rank, and prestige that were inscribed in such a highly
competitive system, would immediately and automatically have caused perpetual conflicts regarding the
status and competence of, and above all the right of participation in and access to, an internal institution
with the power to award the honores”.
126 Cic. Fam. 5.2.3 (Loeb translation).
170 david rafferty
terests pointed in the direction I took, and I get more and more enjoyment and satisfaction out
of that decision of mine every day of my life. What I do say is, that from the moment I waived
my claim to the province at a public meeting, I immediately began to consider how I could best
hand it over to you. About you and your fellow-praetors drawing lots, I say nothing; I only wish
to give you a hint that nothing was done in that matter by my colleague without my cognizance.
Just recall everything else that happened – how promptly I convened the Senate on that day
after the balloting was over, at what length I spoke about you; indeed, you yourself told me at
the time that my speech was not only complimentary to yourself, but went so far as to reflect
unpleasantly upon your colleagues.
Apart from emphasizing his own services to Metellus, Cicero presents the governor-
ship of Cisalpine Gaul as a tremendous prize – and yet this was a prize that Cicero ob-
tained “enjoyment and satisfaction” from passing up. But by then, having been elected
consul, Cicero had already reached the goal for which governing Cisalpine Gaul, even
for a year, would have been a great help. It becomes clear, therefore, that for the sake
of the governing class’s internal stability, and to prevent unfair advantages accruing
to one of the consular candidates, Cisalpine Gaul had to be a consular, rather than a
praetorian, province.
Bibliography
Allen, Walter. “Cicero’s Provincial Governorship in 63 B. C.”. TAPA 83 (1952): 233–41.
doi:10.2307/283388
Badian, Ernst. Foreign Clientelae (264–70 B. C.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.
–. “Notes on Provincia Gallia in the Late Republic.” In Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à
André Piganiol, edited by Raymond Chevallier, 901–18. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1966.
Balsdon, John. “Consular Provinces under the Late Republic, I. General Considerations.” JRS 29,
no. 1 (1939): 57–73. doi:10.2307/296421
–. “Roman History, 65–50 B. C.: Five Problems.” JRS 52 (1962): 134–41. doi:10.2307/297885
Bauman, Richard. The crimen maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate. Johannes-
burg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1967.
Bispham, Edward. From Asculum to Actium : the municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Au-
gustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231843.001.0001.
Brennan, T. Corey. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Broadhead, William. “Migration and Transformation in North Italy in the 3rd–1st centuries B. C.”
BICS 44 (2000): 145–66. doi:10.1111/j.2041–5370.2000.tb00601.x
Broughton, T. Robert. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. New York: American Philolog-
ical Association, 1951–2.
–. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, III: Supplement. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
–. “More Notes on Roman Magistrates.” TAPA 79 (1948): 63–78. doi:10.2307/283353
Brunt, Peter. Italian Manpower 225 B. C.–A. D. 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Burton, Paul. “The Revolt of Lepidus (cos. 78) revisited.” Historia 63, no. 4 (2014): 404–21.
Chiabà, Monica. “Le aristocrazie cisalpine di età Repubblicana. 2, Dalla guerra sociale (91–98 a.C.)
agli inizi del principato augusteo (27 a.C.).” In Forme di aggregazione nel mondo romano, edited
by Elio Lo Cascio and Giovanna Daniela Merola, 137–51. Bari: Edipuglia, 2007.
Cloud, Duncan. “The Constitution and Public Criminal Law.” In Cambridge Ancient History Volume
IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 B.C., ed. 2 edited by John Crook, Andrew Lintott
and Elizabeth Rawson, 491–530. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Crawford, Michael, ed. Roman Statutes. 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of
London, 1996.
Dahlheim, Werner. “Der Staatsstreich des Konsuls Sulla und die römische Italienpolitik der
achtziger Jahre.” In Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss, edited by Jochen
Bleicken, 97–116. Kallmünz: Lassleben, 1993.
Dart, Christopher. The Social War, 91 to 88 BCE: A History of the Italian Insurgency against the Roman
Republic. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.
De Ligt, Luuk. “The population of Cisalpine Gaul in the time of Augustus.” In People, Land, and
Politics: Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC–AD 14, edited
by Luuk de Ligt and Simon Northwood, 139–83. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Drogula, Fred. Commanders & Command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 2015.
–. “The lex Porcia and the Development of Legal Restraints on Roman Governors.” Chiron 41
(2011): 91–124.
Ewins, Ursula. “The Enfranchisement of Cisalpine Gaul.” PBSR 23 (1955): 73–98. doi:10.1017/
s0068246200006632
Ferrary, Jean-Louis. “Provinces, magistratures et lois: la création des provinces sous la République.”
In Die Römischen Provinzen. Begriff und Gründung (Colloquium Cluj-Napoca, 28. September – 1.
Oktober 2006), edited by Ioan Piso. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, 2008.
Gabba, Emilio. Appiani: Bellorum Civilium liber primus / introduzione., testo critico e commento con
traduzione e indici. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1958.
–. “Rome and Italy in the second century B. C.” In Cambridge Ancient History Volume VIII: Rome
and the Mediterranean to 133 B. C., edited by Alan Astin, Frank Walbank, Martin Frederiksen and
Robert Ogilvie, 197–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Giovannini, Adalberto. Consulare Imperium. Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1983.
Greenidge, Abel. The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901.
Gruen, Erich. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Paperback ed. Berkeley, Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1995.
Hölkeskamp, Karl-Joachim. Reconstructing the Roman Republic: an ancient political culture and mod-
ern research. Translated by Henry Heitmann-Gordon. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2010.
Kallet-Marx, Robert. Hegemony to Empire: the Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from
148 to 62 B. C. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995.
Laffi, Umberto. “La provincia della Gallia Cisalpina.” Athenaeum 80 (1992): 5–23.
Larsen, Jakob. “Were Narbonensis and Gallia Cisalpina under One Governor from 67 to 65 B. C.?”.
CP 26, no. 4 (1931): 427–29. doi:10.1086/361402
Lewis, R. Geoffrey. Asconius: Commentaries on speeches of Cicero Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006.
Lintott, Andrew. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London: Routledge, 1993.
Lovano, Michael. The Age of Cinna: Crucible of Late Republican Rome. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002.
Mommsen, Theodor. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 4, Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1906.
–. Römisches Staatsrecht. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1878–85.
Pina Polo, Francisco. The Consul at Rome: The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921377.
172 david rafferty
Polverini, Leandro. “L’estensione del nome Italia fino alle Alpi e la provincia Gallia Cisalpina.” Ge-
ographia antiqua : rivista di geografia storica del mondo antico e di storia della geografia 19 (2010):
115–21.
Richardson, John. The Language of Empire: Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century
B. C. to the second century A. D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. doi:10.1017/
cbo9780511575341.
Rivet, Albert. Gallia Narbonensis: Southern Gaul in Roman times. London: Batsford, 1988.
Rosillo López, Cristina. La corruption à la fin de la république romaine (IIe–Ier s. av. J.-C.): aspects
politiques et financiers. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010.
Sartori, Franco. “La Cisalpina nell’ultimo secolo della Repubblica.” In Catullo e Sirmione, edited by
Nicola Criniti, 9–25. Brescia: Grafo, 1994.
Sherwin-White, Adrian. “Review: The crimen maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Prin-
cipate by Richard Bauman.” Gnomon 41, no. 3 (1969): 288–93.
–. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
Spielvogel, Jörg. “Das Prokonsulat des Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (Prätor 63 V. Chr.).” Hermes 121,
no. 2 (1993): 242–6.
Sumner, Graham. “The Last Journey of L. Sergivs Catilina.” CP 58, no. 4 (1963): 215–19.
doi:10.1086/364820
–. “Manius or Mamercus?”. JRS 54 (1964): 41–8. doi:10.2307/298649
Syme, Ronald. “Review: Caesar der Politiker und Staatsman by Matthias Gelzer.” JRS 34 (1944):
92–103. doi:10.2307/296786
–. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939.
Vervaet, Frederik. “Crassus’ Command in the War against Spartacus (73–71 BCE): his Official Po-
sition, Forces and Political Spoils.” Klio 96, no. 2 (2014): 607–44. doi:10.1515/klio-2014-0047
–. The High Command in the Roman Republic: The Principle of the summum imperium auspiciumque
from 509 to 19 BCE. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2014.
–. “Reducing Senatorial Control over Provincial Commanders: A Forgotten Gabinian Law of 67
BCE.” Chap. 15 In Frontiers in the Roman World: Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the Interna-
tional Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16–19 April 2009), edited by Olivier Hekster and Ted
Kaizer, 265–90. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Willems, Pierre. Le Sénat de la république romaine. 3 vols. Louvain: Peeters, 1883.
Williams, Jonathan. Beyond the Rubicon: Romans and Gauls in Republican Italy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Wiseman, Timothy Peter. New Men in the Roman Senate. 139 B. C.–A. D. 14. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1971.
David Rafferty
Classics and Archaeology, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia, davidmr@student.unimelb.edu.au
Reproduced with permission of copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.

Rafferty - Cisalpine Gaul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rafferty - Cisalpine Gaul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historia 66, 2017/2, 147–172

Cisalpine Gaul as a Consular Province in the

1. When was the Province Established?

5 Ewins, “Enfranchisement”, 73–83; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 157–9.

12 So Willems, Le sénat, 2.263–4; Brunt, Italian Manpower, 567.

sular.23 Therefore, to determine when Cisalpine Gaul became a province, we need to

23 Drogula, Commanders & Command, 255–63 (see also 285).

2. Reasons for the Existence of the Province

3. Cisalpine Gaul Allocated as a Consular Province, 80–52

59 Badian, “Provincia Gallia”, 913.

82 Brunt, Italian Manpower, 464–5.

5. Why Avoid Praetorian Governors in Cisalpine Gaul?

111 Ascon. 3C; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 111.

Hölkeskamp’s nuanced application of the sociology of Georg Simmel to Roman re-

118 Caes. B Gall. 2.54, 5.1–2, 6.44, 7.1.

124 Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing, 103–4.

You might also like