Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hailing the dux "Imperator"
#1
Hey all,

I'm writing a fairly important undergrad research paper about the Roman Triumph, and more specifically, the Triumphator. However, in my somewhat limited cache of sources, I've been unable to find anything concering the most basic prerequisite for the triumph, the commander being hailed as Imperator. I'd like to give a brief explanation of this in my paper, but I haven't a clue where to look. A brief explanation of what the meaning of this was and a reference would be much, much appreciated!

Edit: The sources I have used, which do include H.S. Versnel's Triumphus seem to pass over this, along with many other more basic aspects of the subject.
Marshal White

aka Aulus FABULOUS 8) <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" />8) . . . err, I mean Fabius

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it."
- Pericles, Son of Athens
Reply
#2
It has always appeared to me, that the General was hailed by the troops as
Imperator, which gave him the right? to request a triumph. Now my sources are always second hand translations in english, so I may be picking it up incorrectly!

I'm sure the experts will keep us right! Smile

Regards
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#3
For a brief treatment (in English) of the procedure regarding the acclamation of a general as imperator and the granting of a triumph see
J.Linderski, "A Missing Ponticus", American Journal of Ancient History 12.2 (1987) 148f
Reply
#4
Quote:For a brief treatment (in English) of the procedure regarding the acclamation of a general as imperator and the granting of a triumph see J.Linderski, "A Missing Ponticus", American Journal of Ancient History 12.2 (1987) 148f
Does it say something about the possibility that the custom to give the title imperator to a general, originated in Iberia? The first to receive the title was Scipio, but before him, the Carhaginian commanders were already greeted as autokrator by their Iberian troops.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#5
Thanks for the help, I had known this happened as a regular course of events, but it seems important to include some brief explanation in the early stages of the paper.

If anybody likes reading this kind of stuff, I'm always open to critiques, and I'll have about half of it finished by this weekend. Its a pretty short paper.
Marshal White

aka Aulus FABULOUS 8) <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" />8) . . . err, I mean Fabius

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it."
- Pericles, Son of Athens
Reply
#6
No Jona, Linderski does not refer to the possibility that the custom originated in Iberia since this is hardly likely. The triumph was an age old Roman custom apparently borrowed, at least in part, from the Etruscans. The term autokrator, by the way, is the usual Greek translation of the Latin imperator.
Reply
#7
Quote:No Jona, Linderski does not refer to the possibility that the custom originated in Iberia since this is hardly likely. The triumph was an age old Roman custom
I may be wrong, but as I see it, the title and the triumph are two things and are completely unrelated. The evidence for the Iberian origin is, in my view, pretty straightforward: Polybius and Livius are explicit that the first to be acclaimed as imperator was Scipio after the battle of Baecula. Here is a summary. I wanted to write this piece anyhow.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply


Forum Jump: