Question in Dio on no grants for Legionaries

[Andy De Cusati]

Am reading "The Roman History; The Reign of Augustus" and in book 51 section 3 Cassius Dio says that after Actium, Octavian merged his and Antony's legions together and posted back to Italy all those who were above military age and gave them no land grants or money. Dio mentions further on that there was some grumbling but nothing ever came of it. My question is why did Octavian do this? The men in question were not just from Antony's Legions but from his too. Did I miss something?

I see later in the same book (51) section 4 he made things right, but didn't he open himself up to trouble by just discharging these men with no promise of reward? Kind of an unusual step is it not?

Also, this is the first time I am reading Dio so forgive me if I did not cite him properly.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Andy De Cusati

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Good question Andy!

I think the key must lay in the premise that he did not trust the lot of them, whether they be his (which not too long before, some of them were actually Lepidus' that he bribed over to his side) or Anthony's.

I believe his distrust was rooted in their revolts in Sicily (Dio, Book 49, Chapter 13). I think Octavian saw them as potential trouble makers, or at least the more salty veterans among them (those above military age especially since they had the most to gain AND lose). I gather he figured it was better to send them off as quickly as posible before they could start another revolt than to wait and settle all of the financial affairs first. Then, when things were in better order he could go back and take care of them.

This is something I want to look into further, but I believe this could be a likely simple overview of his rationale.

-Severus

[Andy De Cusati]

Thank you Serveus. That does sound good.

I guess I should have started reading Dio from the begining. I just happened to have "The Reign of Augustus" so I started with it. Just how many books of Dio are out there?

Andy

[Publius Nonius Severus]

I believe there are 80 books (what we would really call chapters). Luckily, they can all be found online right here:

Cassius Dio: Roman History on LacusCurtius

[Andy De Cusati]

Thank you Severus. Sorry I spelled your name wrong! :oops: Thanks for the link!! Its outstanding!

Andy De Cusati

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, yes, there are supposed to be 80 books, but not everything has survived. It's mostly complete from about book 34 (1st C BC) until book 59 (Claudius). Then there are many longer and shorter fragments of other books and (very) extensive extracts by early Medieval authors.
See Jona's introduction here and the introduction to the Loeb translation.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Andy-

Don't worry about the misspelling...that' what I get for taking the traditional Roman three-part name. :wink:


Jasper-

Excellent point...I forgot how much of Dio was fragmented. There are so many lost books by the greats and even complete works missing <sigh>.