DOCSLIB.ORG

(RRR 10.3) LEGION REQUEST TABLE ROMAN POLITICAL And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(RRR 10.3) LEGION REQUEST TABLE ROMAN POLITICAL And ROMAN PPlayerOLITICAL Aid Card #1 — RISE AN OFD THE M ROMANANPO REPUBLICWER CHarts (RRR 5.48) SENATE (RRR 10.3) LEGION PERMISSION CENSURE REQUEST TABLE Request Permission Granted if Legions in Existence or [Scenario for NS Level] Leaving Province DR ≤ Campaign Rating Adj. [Reinf][a] [Thunderbolt] [Eagle] Place Consul for Rome DR 0-6 7-11 12-16 17-20 21+ Outside Italy –0 No No No No No All other Operations 1 1 [4] No No No No DIE ROLL MODIFIERS: 2 1 [4] 1 No No No –1 if leader is Field Consul 3 1 [4] 1 1 No No +1 if leader is a Proconsul 4 2 [8] 1 1 1 No +2 Urban Legions of the Rome Garrison leaving city 5 [S] 2 [8] 1 1 1 1 +2 if the magistrate has been Prorogued to his province –1 for each Guile Point used 6 2 [8] 2 1 1 1 7 2 [8] 2 2 1 1 Any one of these: +1 if there are no enemy combat units in Roman Italy 8 [E] 3 [12] 2 2 2 1 +5 if there are no enemy units in Italy, Sicily or any of the 9 [b] 4 [16] 3 2 2 2 Gallic provinces. 10 [b] 5 [20] 4 3 3 3 –4 if there is enemy force of 20 SP’s or more within five hexes 11+ 5 [20] 5 4 3 3 of Rome. –2 if enemy Force of 20 SP’s or more is within ten hexes of No = Sorry, cash flow is tight, make do with what you have for now. Entering Rome [a] DR ≤ Campaign Rating # = Raise that number of new, Recruit double legions (one citizen, one ala of same number); in the Samnite Wars and Alexander DIE ROLL MODIFIERS: scenarios only the citizen (RL) legion is used, OR –4 if there is enemy force of 20 SP’s or more within five hexes [#] = The number of reinforcement SP of Rome OR [a] = This column used to determine number of Reinforcement SP, –2 if enemy Force of 20 SP’s or more is within ten hexes of as per 10.23. Rome, but farther than five. [b] = In addition to the Legions raised, the Roman Player may add a = The Urban Legions of the Rome Garrison do not need to any one Force just raised one contingent of Auxiliaries; see 10.28 DR ≤ Campaign Rating [S] = Adjusted DR greater than 5 are treated as 5 in the Samnite Request a Triumph Wars and Alexander of Epirus scenarios DIE ROLL MODIFIERS: [E] = Adjusted DR greater than 8 are treated as 8 in the Eagle Has –1 for each Guile Point used Rating Landed scenario Expanding Army: DR ≤ Campaign Rating Die roll Modifiers +1 if Dictator making request Above 8 Legions (Dictator only) +1 if request made by Dictator or Consul for Rome and he is actu- ally “in” Rome DIE ROLL MODIFIERS: None +1 for each Guile Point used (OC only) +2 for each enemy Major Victory that year Magistrate Censured if: DR ≤ Campaign Rating +2 *if enemy force of 40 SP’s is within five land hexes of Rome; OR DIE ROLL MODIFIERS: if enemy occupies any city within five land hexes of Rome –3 if the non-permissible movement resulted in a Triumph. +/–? as per any Augury Event in effect that turn. Sieges do not count. +2 if request is to Reinforce existing legions. –1 for each Guile Point expended –1 if request made by the Field Consul (not the Consul for Rome) –1 if the non-permissible movement resulted in a Roman Vic- –1 for each Roman Major Victory that year tory, other than a Triumph. –1 for each Roman Italian province controlled by enemy; maximum adjustment is –3 +1 if no battle occurred as a result of the non-permissible –1 if there is no enemy Force of 20 SP’s or more within 20 land movement hexes of Rome +3 if the non-permissible movement resulted in an enemy Vic- –3 if there are less than 20 enemy SP’s in Italy tory, other than a major one. –4 Rome is enemy-occupied. If this is the case, the adjustment with +6 if the non-permissible movement resulted in an enemy an asterisk (*) does NOT apply © 2008 GMT Games, LLC Roman Political and Manpower Charts — Rise of The Roman Republic (RRR 5.0) ROMAN MAGISTRATE QUICK REFERENCE CHART ROMAN MAGISTRATE QUICK REFERENCE CHART Chosen Placed in/with Senate Permission Office How? Imperium his … Required to … Notes Rome Elected One • Rome • Leave Roman Italy • Consular Army must Consul Consular • Consular Army • Leave starting province (except be that of the previ- Army to return to Roman Italy) ous Rome Consul if • Replace Disbanded Consular possible Army • No specific province assigned Field Elected One • Assigned Province • Leave assigned Province • Consular Army must Consul Consular • Consular Army • Leave starting province (except be that of the previous Army to return to assigned Province) Field Consul if possible • Replace Disbanded Consular • Assigned province must Army be either the placement province or a province outside Roman Italy Proconsul Elected or One • Consular Army • Leave assigned Province • Elected: Assigned prov- Prorogued Consular • Leave starting province (except ince is the placement Army to return to assigned Province) province • Prorogued: Assigned province is the place- ment province, previous province, or any province outside Roman Italy Praetor Elected or One • Legion • Leave assigned Province • Only receives 1 LAM Prorogued Legion • Leave starting province (except to return to assigned Province) Dictator Elected Two • Consular Army • Emergency only Consular • Rome or any • No Imperium if Dicta- Armies Army if no army tor stays in Rome; select is assigned Magister Equitum • Assignment of Armies optional Magister Selected Two • Consular Army • Emergency only Equitum Consular • Rome or any • Only selected if Dictator Armies Army if no army stays in Rome is assigned • Assignment of Army optional Praetor Elected Urban • Rome • Leave Rome • May only leave Rome if Urbanus Legion an Emergency exists PROROGUE ELIGIBILITY Office Prorogued as … Consul • Proconsul for the army he had as Consul if available or if Besieged (RRR 5.34) • Proconsul for any other army in any location. • Praetor of any Legion Praetor Praetor for the same Legion he had in the prior turn Other Dictator, Magister Equitum, Proconsul, Praetor Urbanus: Not allowed © 2008 GMT Games, LLC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Book I. Title XXVII. Concerning the Office of the Praetor Prefect Of
    Book I. Title XXVII. Concerning the office of the Praetor Prefect of Africa and concerning the whole organization of that diocese. (De officio praefecti praetorio Africae et de omni eiusdem dioeceseos statu.) Headnote. Preliminary. For a better understanding of the following chapters in the Code, a brief outline of the organization of the Roman Empire may be given, but historical works will have to be consulted for greater details. The organization as contemplated in the Code was the one initiated by Diocletian and Constantine the Great in the latter part of the third and the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era, and little need be said about the time previous to that. During the Republican period, Rome was governed mainly by two consuls, tow or more praetors (C. 1.39 and note), quaestors (financial officers and not to be confused with the imperial quaestor of the later period, mentioned at C. 1.30), aediles and a prefect of food supply. The provinces were governed by ex-consuls and ex- praetors sent to them by the Senate, and these governors, so sent, had their retinue of course. After the empire was established, the provinces were, for a time, divided into senatorial and imperial, the later consisting mainly of those in which an army was required. The senate continued to send out ex-consuls and ex-praetors, all called proconsuls, into the senatorial provinces. The proconsul was accompanied by a quaestor, who was a financial officer, and looked after the collection of the revenue, but who seems to have been largely subservient to the proconsul.
    [Show full text]
  • Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century Doug Lee Roman
    Emperors and Generals in the Fourth Century Doug Lee Roman emperors had always been conscious of the political power of the military establishment. In his well-known assessment of the secrets of Augustus’ success, Tacitus observed that he had “won over the soldiers with gifts”,1 while Septimius Severus is famously reported to have advised his sons to “be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and despise the rest”.2 Since both men had gained power after fiercely contested periods of civil war, it is hardly surprising that they were mindful of the importance of conciliating this particular constituency. Emperors’ awareness of this can only have been intensified by the prolonged and repeated incidence of civil war during the mid third century, as well as by emperors themselves increasingly coming from military backgrounds during this period. At the same time, the sheer frequency with which armies were able to make and unmake emperors in the mid third century must have served to reinforce soldiers’ sense of their potential to influence the empire’s affairs and extract concessions from emperors. The stage was thus set for a fourth century in which the stakes were high in relations between emperors and the military, with a distinct risk that, if those relations were not handled judiciously, the empire might fragment, as it almost did in the 260s and 270s. 1 Tac. Ann. 1.2. 2 Cass. Dio 76.15.2. Just as emperors of earlier centuries had taken care to conciliate the rank and file by various means,3 so too fourth-century emperors deployed a range of measures designed to win and retain the loyalties of the soldiery.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Perspective on the Early Roman Dictatorship, 501-300 B.C
    A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE EARLY ROMAN DICTATORSHIP, 501-300 B.C. BY Jeffrey A. Easton Submitted to the graduate degree program in Classics and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of Arts. Anthony Corbeill Chairperson Committee Members Tara Welch Carolyn Nelson Date defended: April 26, 2010 The Thesis Committee for Jeffrey A. Easton certifies that this is the approved Version of the following thesis: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE EARLY ROMAN DICTATORSHIP, 501-300 B.C. Committee: Anthony Corbeill Chairperson Tara Welch Carolyn Nelson Date approved: April 27, 2010 ii Page left intentionally blank. iii ABSTRACT According to sources writing during the late Republic, Roman dictators exercised supreme authority over all other magistrates in the Roman polity for the duration of their term. Modern scholars have followed this traditional paradigm. A close reading of narratives describing early dictatorships and an analysis of ancient epigraphic evidence, however, reveal inconsistencies in the traditional model. The purpose of this thesis is to introduce a new model of the early Roman dictatorship that is based upon a reexamination of the evidence for the nature of dictatorial imperium and the relationship between consuls and dictators in the period 501-300 BC. Originally, dictators functioned as ad hoc magistrates, were equipped with standard consular imperium, and, above all, were intended to supplement consuls. Furthermore, I demonstrate that Sulla’s dictatorship, a new and genuinely absolute form of the office introduced in the 80s BC, inspired subsequent late Republican perceptions of an autocratic dictatorship.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Rome
    Ancient Rome William E. Dunstan ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK ................. 17856$ $$FM 09-09-10 09:17:21 PS PAGE iii Published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright ᭧ 2011 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. All maps by Bill Nelson. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. The cover image shows a marble bust of the nymph Clytie; for more information, see figure 22.17 on p. 370. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunstan, William E. Ancient Rome / William E. Dunstan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7425-6832-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6833-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-7425-6834-1 (electronic) 1. Rome—Civilization. 2. Rome—History—Empire, 30 B.C.–476 A.D. 3. Rome—Politics and government—30 B.C.–476 A.D. I. Title. DG77.D86 2010 937Ј.06—dc22 2010016225 ⅜ϱ ீThe paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/ NISO Z39.48–1992. Printed in the United States of America ................
    [Show full text]
  • Governors of Asia in the Nineties B.C. Sumner, G V Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 2; Periodicals Archive Online Pg
    Governors of Asia in the Nineties B.C. Sumner, G V Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 2; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 147 Governors of Asia in the Nineties B.C. G. V. Sumner HE CASE for attaching the governorship of Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola T to his consulship (95 B.C.) is not as good as the case for connecting it with his praetorship. The decisive point is that, according to Asconius (15 Clark), Scaevola as consul vetoed the senatus consultum granting his colleague a triumph (late 95) and had refused to take up his own province.1 Scaevola, then, did not administer a consular province, and his administration of Asia must have been a praetorian provincia. Asia, of course, normally was a praetorian province in this period. The date of Scaevola's praetorship happens not to be attested, but it can be defined within close limits by reference to the normal oper­ ation of the cursus honorum. He and L. Crassus were aequales and were colleagues in the quaestorship, curule aedilate, praetorship and con­ sulate (Cic. Brut. 145, 161), and this suggests that their careers followed the normal pattern particularly closely. They were both born in 140,2 so could not have held the praetorship before 100. By virtue of the requisite biennium between praetorship and consulate they could not have been praetors after 98, since they were consuls in 95. Of the three years 100, 99 and 98, the least likely is 100, but there is no obvious reason to prefer 98 over 99, or vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Triumphs of Cilicia and Cicero's Proconsulship
    The Triumphs of Cilicia and Cicero’s Proconsulship Over barely 50 years, at least 9 of the Romans assigned Cilicia requested a triumph and at least 6 received one. Given that many of them had multi-year assignments, this leads to a state of near constant campaigning in southern Asia Minor during the early first century. Even factoring in the conflicts with Mithridates (and perhaps especially then), it is puzzling to see Cilicia as such a volatile province. Clearly, these triumphs did not entail any sort of permanent settlement (see Pittenger 2008). Relying chiefly on the testimony of Cicero, I argue here that Cilicia, which at the time was one of the largest and richest provinces, was also the ideal low-risk province for the triumph-seeker. While triumphal motives have been discussed recently (e.g. Beard 2007, Pittenger 2008), I present Cilicia as an exemplar of typical triumphal machinations. Cicero did not want to be governor of Cilicia. Nevertheless, in some of his letters (ad fam. 2.10 and 8.5), he alludes to the possibility of provoking a fight and attaining a triumph from Cilicia, despite the fact that he arrived as late as he could and left as early as he could. While Cicero’s personal motivations here have also been assessed (see Correa 2013, Wistrand 1979), less is said about the ramifications for the province. Among his other letters, he reveals the activities others, such as Appius Claudius Pulcher, pursued in seeking Cilician triumphs. Hunting for a triumph was not regarded poorly. Cicero rather frankly attributes triumph- hunting to Crassus (cos.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/02/2021 03:34:06PM Via Free Access  F.J
    REDUCING SENATORIAL CONTROL OVER PROVINCIAL COMMANDERS: A FORGOTTEN GABINIAN LAW OF 67BCE F.J. Vervaet I. Introduction At two critical junctures in Roman history, M. Tullius Cicero (cos. ) bit- terly complained that Caesar’s legally-guaranteed second quinquennium in the Gauls and Illyricum (from March to March ) had put him in a formidable position of power vis-à-vis a frustrated Senate.*1 On the th of December , less then a month before the outbreak of civil war between Caesar and his opponents in the Senate, Cicero indicates in Ad Atticum .. (Trebula) that this second five-year term, protected by law, was one of the main factors that had made Caesar nigh-irresistible. He complains, Curimperiumilliautcurillomodoprorogatumest?Curtantooperepugna- tum ut de eius absentis ratione habenda decem tribune pl. ferrent? His ille rebus ita conualuit ut nunc in uno ciui spes ad resistendum sit; qui mallem tantas ei uiris non dedisset quam nunc tam ualenti resisteret. Why was his command extended, and in such a fashion [i.e., in under the terms of the lex Pompeia Licinia]? Why was there such pressure to get the ten tribunes to bring in the law about his candidature in absentia [i.e., for a second consulship in , passed with the support of Cn. Pompeius as consul sine conlega]? By these steps, he has become so strong that hope of resistance now depends on one man; and I would rather that he [i.e., Pompeius] had not given Caesar such formidable strength in the first place than that he should resist him now that he is so powerful.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, C.319–50 BC
    Ex senatu eiecti sunt: Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, c.319–50 BC Lee Christopher MOORE University College London (UCL) PhD, 2013 1 Declaration I, Lee Christopher MOORE, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Thesis abstract One of the major duties performed by the censors of the Roman Republic was that of the lectio senatus, the enrolment of the Senate. As part of this process they were able to expel from that body anyone whom they deemed unequal to the honour of continued membership. Those expelled were termed ‘praeteriti’. While various aspects of this important and at-times controversial process have attracted scholarly attention, a detailed survey has never been attempted. The work is divided into two major parts. Part I comprises four chapters relating to various aspects of the lectio. Chapter 1 sees a close analysis of the term ‘praeteritus’, shedding fresh light on senatorial demographics and turnover – primarily a demonstration of the correctness of the (minority) view that as early as the third century the quaestorship conveyed automatic membership of the Senate to those who held it. It was not a Sullan innovation. In Ch.2 we calculate that during the period under investigation, c.350 members were expelled. When factoring for life expectancy, this translates to a significant mean lifetime risk of expulsion: c.10%. Also, that mean risk was front-loaded, with praetorians and consulars significantly less likely to be expelled than subpraetorian members.
    [Show full text]
  • Cicero a Study of Gamesmanship in the Late
    CICERO A STUDY OF GAMESMANSHIP IN THE LATE REPUBLIC A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History by Eugene H. Boyd FALL 2018 © 2018 Eugene H. Boyd ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii CICERO A STUDY OF GAMESMAN SHIP IN THE LATE REPUBLIC A Thesis by Eugene H. Boyd Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Nikolaos Lazaridis, PhD. __________________________________, Second Reader Jeffrey Brodd, PhD. ____________________________ Date iii Student: Eugene H. Boyd I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Jeffrey Wilson, PhD Date Department of History iv Abstract of CICERO A STUDY OF GAMESMANSHIP IN THE LATE REPUBLIC by Eugene H. Boyd Roman politics during the final decades of the Late Republic was a vicious process of gamesmanship wherein lives of people, their families and friends were at the mercy of the gamesmen. Cicero’s public and political gamesmanship reflects the politics, class and ethnic biases of Roman society and how random events impacted personal insecurities. ______________________ _, Committee Chair Nikolaos Lazaridis, PhD. ____________________________ Date v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The process of obtaining a Master’s degree, I have found, is not an independent, isolated experience. Citing a contemporary adage, “It takes a village.” Truer words have never by spoken. To that end, I would like to recognize in the most warmly and thankful manner, the people in my “village” who helped me through the graduate study program and eventual master’s degree.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gods and Governors of the Roman Empire
    The Gods and Governors of the Roman Provinces A thesis presented by Jill Ruth Carlson to The Department of the Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree with Honors of Bachelor of Arts in the subject of Classical Languages and Literature Directed by Kathleen Coleman and Duncan MacRae Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts March 9, 2012 Acknowledgments With deepest gratitude to Kathleen Coleman for her inspired ideas, perceptive comments, and constant support and with tremendous thanks to Duncan MacRae for first inspiring my interest in this topic and for his outstanding knowledge of Roman religion. With much appreciation also for the insightful input of Rowan Dorin, Andrew Johnston, and Daniel McGlathery. Finally, thanks are due to Jack Carlson, John Carlson, Susanne Carlson, Schuyler Daum, Claire Lefevre, Michaela Pewarski, and Elliott Rosenbaum for their feedback and encouragement. All remaining errata are, of course, my own. 2 Table of Contents Title Page 1 Acknowledgments 2 Table of Contents 3 Note Regarding Translations and Citations 4 Timeline 5 Map 6 I. Religion, Government, and Power in the Provinces 7 II. Imperial Cult 14 Pliny and the Cults of Claudius and Trajan 17 Arrian and Hadrian 20 The Decree of Fabius on the Provincial Calendar 22 The Cult of Augustus at Lugdunum 23 Governor Cult 26 III. Christian Criminals and Roman Officials 30 Pliny and the Trials of the Christians of Bithynia 32 Tertullian on Roman Government 36 The Trial of Christ 38 The Trial of Saint Paul 42 The Acts of the Christian Martyrs 45 IV. The Jews and the Roman Government: Cooperation and Conflict 51 The Jews of Berenice 52 Pontius Pilate and the Jewish People 54 Flaccus and the Jews of Alexandria 57 Petronius and Gaius 62 Gessius Florus and the War 64 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    Athens between East and West: Athenian Elite Self-Presentation and the Durability of Traditional Cult in Late Antiquity Edward Watts T IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED that the urban centers of the Greek-speaking east more quickly dismantled traditional religious infrastructure and disrupted traditional religious I 1 customs than did cities in the west. The city of Athens, how- ever, has always fit awkwardly in this narrative. Alexandria, long Athens’ rival for cultural supremacy in the Greek world, saw its urban infrastructure violently and effectively Christian- ized in the early 390s by the campaigns and construction projects of the bishop Theophilus.2 Alexandria’s civic and political life arguably followed suit after the violence that accompanied the consolidation of episcopal power by Theo- philus’ successor Cyril and the murder of the philosopher Hypatia in the early 410s.3 Antioch and its hinterland saw its pagan institutions disrupted gradually, first through isolated incidents like the conversion (and ultimate destruction) of the 1 See, among others, C. P. Jones, Between Pagan and Christian (Cambridge [Mass.] 2014) 107–143. 2 J. Hahn, “The Conversion of Cult Statues: The Destruction of the Serapeum 392 A.D. and the Transformation of Alexandria into the ‘Christ- Loving’ City,” in J. Hahn et al. (eds.), From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity (Leiden 2008) 335–363. Cf. E. Watts, Riot in Alexandria (Berkeley 2010) 191–205. 3 On Hypatia see C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity (Baltimore 1997) 295–316; M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (Cambridge [Mass.] 1995) 88– 93; E. Watts, Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher (Oxford 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Senatus Consultum Ultimum
    Biuletyn Polskiej Misji Historycznej Bulletin der Polnischen Historischen Mission Nr 7/2012 ISSN - Hanna Appel (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Instytut Historii i Archiwistyki) Pompeius Magnus: his Third Consulate and the senatus consultum ultimum A senatus consultum ultimum (SCU) was a decree passed by the Senate which authorized the magistrates referred to in such an act to take measures in order to overcome an emergency situation faced by the state1. Th e SCU included a formulary expression that 1 See Ch. Meier, Der Ernstfall im altem Rom, in: Der Ernstfall, ed. R. Alt- mann, (Schrift en der Carl-Friedrich-von Siemens-Stift ung 2, 1979), p. 51: “Der Ausdruck senatus consultum ultimum ist nicht technisch, Caesar benutzt ihn gelegentlich, um die Sache zu beschreiben. Heute ist er der übliche”. C. Iulius Caesar, Bellum Civile, I 5,3: “illud extremum atque ultimum senatus consultum”. Cf. T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, II 4,9: “forma senatus consulti ultimae neces- sitatis”. Cf. G. Plaumann, Das sogenannte senatus consultum ultimum, die Quasidiktatur der späteren römischen Republik, “Klio”, 13 (1913), p. 321ff ., who suggests: “Senatus Consultum de republica defendenda”; S. Mendner, Videant Consules, “Philologus”, 110 (1966), p. 258 argues: “Angesichts der Tatsache, dass die antiken Schrift steller das SCU immer mit der Formel zitieren, irritiert eine Bewertung wie “richtiger” (e.g. J. Bleicken); J.E. Gaughan, Murder was not a Crime. Homicide and power in the Roman republic, (2010), p. 124 empha- sizes that: “Th e SCU was not a declaration of a state of emergency; therefore, 342 Hanna Appel had no fi xed form and was related to the specifi c nature of the decree itself.
    [Show full text]