Точнее говоря, "благодаря нескольким поражениям, нанесенным им Германиком"
Кембриджская История Древнего Мира, том 9 (Римская Республика в 146-43 г. г. до н. э.):
However, the recruitment problem was not all: the record of the army
in the field was not beyond reproach. The early debacles against
Jugurtha may be put down to corruption and poor leadership. Yet there
were a series of disasters and near-disasters in the fighting on the
northern frontier — Sex. Pompeius in Macedonia in 119, C. Cato in
Thrace in 114, Cn. Carbo in Norican territory in 113, M. Silanus in the
Rhone valley in 109, L. Cassius on the west coast of Gaul in 107, Q.
Caepio and Cn. Mallius at Arausio in 105. These failures and the patchy
record of the army in Spain in the Viriathic War earlier cast doubt not
only on the quality of the generals and their troops but on the tactical
effectiveness of the Roman army. Apart from the change in recruitment,
our sources ascribe to Marius some limited changes in military practice.
The eagle became for the first time the chief legionary standard...
The Gauls were comprehensively defeated at the confluence of
the Rhone and the Isere (according to Roman sources, with enormous
casualties) and Domitius eventually celebrated his success by riding
through the new province on an elephant.11
As a result the Gauls as far as Toulouse were subjected to tribute; a
Roman road was built along the old route from Emporiae to the Rhone;
further, in 118 Domitius Ahenobarbus joined with a young orator, L.
Licinius Crassus, in legislating for the foundation of the colony Narbo
Martius (Narbonne), south of the Celtic settlement of Montlaures. The
subjected peoples did not rebel against Roman administration, but
within a few years Roman armies suffered serious defeats by tribes from
outside the province - L. Cassius by a section of the Helvetii who had
migrated to Aquitania (107), M. Silanus (109), Q. Caepio and Cn. Mallius
(105) at the hands of the Cimbri from beyond the Rhine at Arausio
(Orange). During his campaign Caepio seized 15 million denarii-worth
of uncoined silver and gold from the Celtic sacred treasuries near Tolosa
(Toulouse). The area then became the base for C. Marius' defence of the
empire against the Germanic tribes in 104—102, which led to the defeat of
the Teutones and Ambrones near Aquae Sextiae. A by-product was the
construction of the Rhone canal, whose transit-dues Marius assigned to
the Massiliots as a reward for their services against the Germans.
The initial invasion could be justified by the need to protect Massilia,
but the subsequent operations seem to reproduce the familiar Roman
pattern of the pursuit of military glory for its own sake, while political
support for the establishment of Roman power may have been furnished
by Romans who had realized the economic potential of the region and
wished to be able to buy land there. Fifty years after its foundation the
province abounded with Roman citizens, especially businessmen.
(из главы о римском войске, реформах Мария):
It has been argued that the evidence suggests a more gradual
introduction of the cohort, and that this can be explained in part by the
requirements of campaigning in Spain, where a number of self-sufficient
detachments were required, in part by the need to have a more solid basic
unit in pitched battles when confronting the concentrated charges of
Celts or Iberians; the process was then completed by Marius in order to
create a suitable defence against the Cimbri. This is more convincing
than simply to explain the change as a sudden response to the German
threat, but perhaps is itself not quite sufficient. In one sense the
formation of the legion becomes less complex and sophisticated. The
challenge of the great Hellenistic armies was absent after Pydna.
Meanwhile the army suffered a shortage of recruits and, more important
— to judge from Marius'efforts in 107 —a shortage of experienced men reenlisting.
Instead men formerly capite censi were pressed into legionary
service. The grading of ranks by age would in these circumstances have
become inappropriate and the specialization of the triarii in the use of the
basta a luxury. The soldiers may well have become man for man poorer
soldiers through lack of battle experience and this in turn may have made
the maniple too small to be secure as a unit. Marius still deserves credit as
a reformer, but as one who brought to a close a period of evolution,
which was as much a decline in Roman fighting-power as a response to
new challenges. Faced with an army which was becoming less differentiated,
skilled and disciplined, Marius made a virtue of uniformity by
training every legionary properly in one repertoire of skills.
VIII. GENERALS AND TRIBUNES
While Marius was conducting his long campaign in Numidia, the story
elsewhere was the increasingly familiar one of defeat and corruption
followed by retribution in the courts at Rome. In 107, after the defeat of
L. Cassius by the Tigurini in Aquitania, C. Popillius saved the lives of the
remaining soldiers at the price of a humiliating agreement. Before he was
prosecuted on this count in an assembly, the tribune C. Coelius enacted
that secret ballot should be used in capital trials before the people and in
the event Popillius was condemned. (It should be remarked that
condemnation on a capital charge in an assembly was rare - the other
certain recent example was that of P. Popillius Laenas, charged by C.
Gracchus in 123.) The following year the consul Q. Servilius Caepio
passed a lex de repetundis, which provided that the jurors should be drawn
from a mixed panel of senators and equites. It is not clear whether this was
the first law of this kind since the work of C. Gracchus: this depends on
whether the Lex Acilia referred to by Cicero is to be taken as part of the
Gracchan legislation or a subsequent law. However, it seems clear that in
any case the basic principles of Gracchus had been preserved until 106,
Caepio's law may also have introduced the procedure called divinatio,
whereby the jury selected the prosecutor from a number of applicants. L.
Crassus is said to have supported the proposal with an impassioned plea
to the people to save senators from the jaws of ravening beasts. This is
normally taken to refer to the equestrian jurors, but it may also apply to
the prosecutors, who were, as Cicero's Brutus shows, becoming a
recognized class at this time.79
However, on 6 October the following year Caepio himself and
Mallius, consul of that year, shared responsibility for the disastrous
defeat by the Cimbri near Arausio (Orange) in the Rhone valley, while
Caepio himself was alleged to have plundered gold from a sacred lake
near Tolosa (Toulouse) belonging to Roman allies. Caepio was deprived
of his imperium — perhaps at the instance of the tribune C. Norbanus, if his
office began in December 105, as has been plausibly suggested. This
would then have been the occasion when two tribunes, who tried to veto
a bill of Norbanus, were driven by violence from the temple where the
proposer stood, and theprinceps senatus, Scaurus, was struck by a stone -
the so-called seditio Norbana. Another tribune, L. Cassius, who was an
enemy of Caepio, passed a law expelling from the Senate any man
condemned in a trial before the people or deprived of his command by
them. A special tribunal was later set up to investigate the matter of the
gold taken from Toulouse. Caepio seems to have been condemned both
by this tribunal and by the assembly. Certainly, he was thrown into
prison because he had been condemned on a capital charge and only
released through the intervention of the tribune L. Reginus in 104 or
103. Meanwhile another active tribune of 104, Cn. Domitius, unsuccessfully
tried to prosecute M. Silanus for his earlier defeat by the Cimbri in
109. (Silanus, we are told, had wronged a Gallic client who had been a
79 Lintott 1981 (F 104) 186-91.
family friend of Domitius' father, the conqueror of the Arverni.)
Domitius, however, did secure the adoption of a bill which put an end to
the co-option of the ordinary members of the colleges of priests,
substituting election by a minority (i.e. seventeen) of the tribes. He thus
evaded religious objections to election by the people en masse by a
sophism.80
80 Ferrary 1979 (c 49) 92-101.
Thanks to the diplomacy of his legate Sulla, who persuaded king
Bocchus of Mauretania to surrender Jugurtha, Marius had been able to
complete his Numidian campaign by the time that the news of Arausio
reached Rome. He was then elected consul for the second time in his
absence. This may be simply ascribed to the wave of popular feeling that
simultaneously overwhelmed Caepio, but we cannot exclude the possibility
that both in 105 and 104 the Senate acquiesced in the dispensation of
Marius from the law limiting re-election in order to placate the rest of the
people. After his first major victory over the Teutones and Ambrones in
102 his re-election was said to have been by common consent. Moreover,
there seem to have been no special political implications in his policy of
recruitment and military training in 104, such as there had been in 107.
Capite censi may well have been recruited, but this was the sort of crisis in
which restrictions on recruitment and exemptions from military service
were normally suspended - in Roman terminology a tumultus. In fact no
more than six Roman legions may have been used to fight the Germans
but these were supplemented by more than their equivalent in allies.82
Marius' absence from Rome kept him aloof from the bitterness caused
by the prosecutions of 104. However, the following year he was
associated with a tribune, L. Appuleius Saturninus, who secured for him
the settlement of demobilized soldiers on land in Africa. When faced
with an attempt by his colleague Baebius to veto the bill, Saturninus
drove him away with a hail of stones, brutally cutting short any
argument about the proprieties of Baebius' action. The principle of
settlement in the provinces was already firmly established and the
arguments used by Ti. Gracchus against Octavius (pp. 66-7) could have
been applied with equal force to Baebius. He in turn might have argued
that the allotments of 100 iugera were too generous (in spite of the
precedent set by the Lex Rubria) and would have cost the treasury the
rent or sale price which the land would otherwise have produced. In any
event the bill was implemented and the father of Julius Caesar, who was
Marius' brother-in-law, was among the land commissioners. The
location of the settlements has been already discussed (ch. 2, p. 30).
Another agrarian bill of the period, proposed by L. Marcius Philippus,
was voted down — perhaps because it concerned Italy, where there were
by now vested interests even among the poor — but left its mark by virtue
of the comment by its proposer, that there were not 2,000 men at Rome
who really possessed property.83
Saturninus joined in the harrying of incompetent magistrates. He not
only prosecuted Mallius and drove him into exile but, probably in his
first tribunate in 103, created a new permanent court to deal with those
82 Brunt 1971 (A 16)430-1,68).
83 Cic.Off. 11.75.0" Saturninus, Glaucia and Marius sec Badian 1958 (A I) 198-210; Ferrary 1977
(c 49)-
who damaged the majesty of the Roman people (quaestio de maiestate).
This vague phrase came to cover a multitude of sins, and it is impossible
to be sure what the original legislator intended it to mean. It certainly
could be applied to the cases of treason or military incompetence by a
commander, such as had been recently prosecuted before assemblies. It is
also likely that it was aimed at tribunes or other magistrates, who
deliberately obstructed the people's will - for example Octavius in 13 3
and more recently Baebius and the tribunes who had protected Caepio.
Ironically, it was later interpreted as a measure against tribunes who used
violence. For C. Norbanus was himself accused in this court in 95. The
jurors were equites and the procedure was probably modelled on that of
the quaestio de repetundis. It is possible that we have part of the text of this
law on a fragment of bronze from Bantia, but other identifications of the
fragment have been proposed.84
In 102 Saturninus supported a L. Equitius, when he claimed to be the
son of Ti. Gracchus at the censorship. The censor, Metellus Numidicus,
the man from whose patronage Marius had broken away, refused to
register Equitius where he wished (presumably in the rural tribe of the
Sempronii, as opposed to an urban tribe, where freedmen and other
humble men at Rome were enrolled). Metellus would have also expelled
Saturninus and Glaucia from the Senate, if his colleague Metellus
Caprarius had permitted this. One source tells of the censor being
blockaded on the Capitol and rescued by equites. This personal clash and
Saturninus' dismissal from his quaestorian post by the Senate a few years
earlier are cited by our authorities as explanations for Saturninus'
embittered violence. Saturninus was certainly a more abrasive personality
than the Gracchi, but his violence cannot be simply explained in these
terms. There is also an element of political calculation: he used force to
surmount swiftly hurdles which his political opponents thrust in his
path, assuming that fears of popular hostility would make his opponents
reluctant to risk military action in Rome and that Marius would in the
last resort support him.85
Marius' army meanwhile defeated the Teutones and Ambrones near
the Roman fort of Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence). A more serious
invasion of the Cimbri through the Alpine passes was eventually repelled
the following year at Vercellae (Campi Raudii) in Cisalpine Gaul. M'.
Aquillius, Marius' colleague in the consulship of 101, brought to an end
the Sicilian slave-war. However, new theatres of war had opened in the
East...
84 Ferrary 1985 ( c 5o) (dating law to 100); on Bruns no. 9 (p. ; 3) see Tibiletti 1953 ( F 160) 57-75;
Lintott 1978 (B 190).
85 App. BCiv. 1.28.126-7; Val. Max. ix.7.2; De Vir.lll. 73; Oros. v.i7.3;Cic. Har. Resp. 43; Sest.
101; Inscr. I/a/, xm.3, no. 16; Badian 1962 (c 8) 218-19.
...
In 101 Glaucia, the author of the latest lex de repetundis, was tribune.
After Marius' victory he presided over the tribunician elections, in
which Saturninus was elected for the second time with the assistance of
soldiers returned from the war, and a competitor A. Nunnius (or
Ninnius) was killed. One somewhat confused source states that L.
Equitius sought the tribunate unsuccessfully in the latter's place.86
Marius himself was re-elected to a sixth consulship, allegedly after
bribery (presumably he had distributed some of the Cimbric spoils to his
soldiers, who were the electors). However, it is not clear how and on
what grounds he was freed from legal restrictions on candidature this
time. Glaucia himself became praetor immediately following his tribunate,
something not illegal, since the tritribunate was outside the normal
cursus of offices, but distinctly unusual.
However, the recruitment problem was not all: the record of the army
in the field was not beyond reproach. The early debacles against
Jugurtha may be put down to corruption and poor leadership. Yet there
were a series of disasters and near-disasters in the fighting on the
northern frontier — Sex. Pompeius in Macedonia in 119, C. Cato in
Thrace in 114, Cn. Carbo in Norican territory in 113, M. Silanus in the
Rhone valley in 109, L. Cassius on the west coast of Gaul in 107, Q.
Caepio and Cn. Mallius at Arausio in 105. These failures and the patchy
record of the army in Spain in the Viriathic War earlier cast doubt not
only on the quality of the generals and their troops but on the tactical
effectiveness of the Roman army. Apart from the change in recruitment,
our sources ascribe to Marius some limited changes in military practice.
The eagle became for the first time the chief legionary standard...
The Gauls were comprehensively defeated at the confluence of
the Rhone and the Isere (according to Roman sources, with enormous
casualties) and Domitius eventually celebrated his success by riding
through the new province on an elephant.11
As a result the Gauls as far as Toulouse were subjected to tribute; a
Roman road was built along the old route from Emporiae to the Rhone;
further, in 118 Domitius Ahenobarbus joined with a young orator, L.
Licinius Crassus, in legislating for the foundation of the colony Narbo
Martius (Narbonne), south of the Celtic settlement of Montlaures. The
subjected peoples did not rebel against Roman administration, but
within a few years Roman armies suffered serious defeats by tribes from
outside the province - L. Cassius by a section of the Helvetii who had
migrated to Aquitania (107), M. Silanus (109), Q. Caepio and Cn. Mallius
(105) at the hands of the Cimbri from beyond the Rhine at Arausio
(Orange). During his campaign Caepio seized 15 million denarii-worth
of uncoined silver and gold from the Celtic sacred treasuries near Tolosa
(Toulouse). The area then became the base for C. Marius' defence of the
empire against the Germanic tribes in 104—102, which led to the defeat of
the Teutones and Ambrones near Aquae Sextiae. A by-product was the
construction of the Rhone canal, whose transit-dues Marius assigned to
the Massiliots as a reward for their services against the Germans.
The initial invasion could be justified by the need to protect Massilia,
but the subsequent operations seem to reproduce the familiar Roman
pattern of the pursuit of military glory for its own sake, while political
support for the establishment of Roman power may have been furnished
by Romans who had realized the economic potential of the region and
wished to be able to buy land there. Fifty years after its foundation the
province abounded with Roman citizens, especially businessmen.
(из главы о римском войске, реформах Мария):
It has been argued that the evidence suggests a more gradual
introduction of the cohort, and that this can be explained in part by the
requirements of campaigning in Spain, where a number of self-sufficient
detachments were required, in part by the need to have a more solid basic
unit in pitched battles when confronting the concentrated charges of
Celts or Iberians; the process was then completed by Marius in order to
create a suitable defence against the Cimbri. This is more convincing
than simply to explain the change as a sudden response to the German
threat, but perhaps is itself not quite sufficient. In one sense the
formation of the legion becomes less complex and sophisticated. The
challenge of the great Hellenistic armies was absent after Pydna.
Meanwhile the army suffered a shortage of recruits and, more important
— to judge from Marius'efforts in 107 —a shortage of experienced men reenlisting.
Instead men formerly capite censi were pressed into legionary
service. The grading of ranks by age would in these circumstances have
become inappropriate and the specialization of the triarii in the use of the
basta a luxury. The soldiers may well have become man for man poorer
soldiers through lack of battle experience and this in turn may have made
the maniple too small to be secure as a unit. Marius still deserves credit as
a reformer, but as one who brought to a close a period of evolution,
which was as much a decline in Roman fighting-power as a response to
new challenges. Faced with an army which was becoming less differentiated,
skilled and disciplined, Marius made a virtue of uniformity by
training every legionary properly in one repertoire of skills.
VIII. GENERALS AND TRIBUNES
While Marius was conducting his long campaign in Numidia, the story
elsewhere was the increasingly familiar one of defeat and corruption
followed by retribution in the courts at Rome. In 107, after the defeat of
L. Cassius by the Tigurini in Aquitania, C. Popillius saved the lives of the
remaining soldiers at the price of a humiliating agreement. Before he was
prosecuted on this count in an assembly, the tribune C. Coelius enacted
that secret ballot should be used in capital trials before the people and in
the event Popillius was condemned. (It should be remarked that
condemnation on a capital charge in an assembly was rare - the other
certain recent example was that of P. Popillius Laenas, charged by C.
Gracchus in 123.) The following year the consul Q. Servilius Caepio
passed a lex de repetundis, which provided that the jurors should be drawn
from a mixed panel of senators and equites. It is not clear whether this was
the first law of this kind since the work of C. Gracchus: this depends on
whether the Lex Acilia referred to by Cicero is to be taken as part of the
Gracchan legislation or a subsequent law. However, it seems clear that in
any case the basic principles of Gracchus had been preserved until 106,
Caepio's law may also have introduced the procedure called divinatio,
whereby the jury selected the prosecutor from a number of applicants. L.
Crassus is said to have supported the proposal with an impassioned plea
to the people to save senators from the jaws of ravening beasts. This is
normally taken to refer to the equestrian jurors, but it may also apply to
the prosecutors, who were, as Cicero's Brutus shows, becoming a
recognized class at this time.79
However, on 6 October the following year Caepio himself and
Mallius, consul of that year, shared responsibility for the disastrous
defeat by the Cimbri near Arausio (Orange) in the Rhone valley, while
Caepio himself was alleged to have plundered gold from a sacred lake
near Tolosa (Toulouse) belonging to Roman allies. Caepio was deprived
of his imperium — perhaps at the instance of the tribune C. Norbanus, if his
office began in December 105, as has been plausibly suggested. This
would then have been the occasion when two tribunes, who tried to veto
a bill of Norbanus, were driven by violence from the temple where the
proposer stood, and theprinceps senatus, Scaurus, was struck by a stone -
the so-called seditio Norbana. Another tribune, L. Cassius, who was an
enemy of Caepio, passed a law expelling from the Senate any man
condemned in a trial before the people or deprived of his command by
them. A special tribunal was later set up to investigate the matter of the
gold taken from Toulouse. Caepio seems to have been condemned both
by this tribunal and by the assembly. Certainly, he was thrown into
prison because he had been condemned on a capital charge and only
released through the intervention of the tribune L. Reginus in 104 or
103. Meanwhile another active tribune of 104, Cn. Domitius, unsuccessfully
tried to prosecute M. Silanus for his earlier defeat by the Cimbri in
109. (Silanus, we are told, had wronged a Gallic client who had been a
79 Lintott 1981 (F 104) 186-91.
family friend of Domitius' father, the conqueror of the Arverni.)
Domitius, however, did secure the adoption of a bill which put an end to
the co-option of the ordinary members of the colleges of priests,
substituting election by a minority (i.e. seventeen) of the tribes. He thus
evaded religious objections to election by the people en masse by a
sophism.80
80 Ferrary 1979 (c 49) 92-101.
Thanks to the diplomacy of his legate Sulla, who persuaded king
Bocchus of Mauretania to surrender Jugurtha, Marius had been able to
complete his Numidian campaign by the time that the news of Arausio
reached Rome. He was then elected consul for the second time in his
absence. This may be simply ascribed to the wave of popular feeling that
simultaneously overwhelmed Caepio, but we cannot exclude the possibility
that both in 105 and 104 the Senate acquiesced in the dispensation of
Marius from the law limiting re-election in order to placate the rest of the
people. After his first major victory over the Teutones and Ambrones in
102 his re-election was said to have been by common consent. Moreover,
there seem to have been no special political implications in his policy of
recruitment and military training in 104, such as there had been in 107.
Capite censi may well have been recruited, but this was the sort of crisis in
which restrictions on recruitment and exemptions from military service
were normally suspended - in Roman terminology a tumultus. In fact no
more than six Roman legions may have been used to fight the Germans
but these were supplemented by more than their equivalent in allies.82
Marius' absence from Rome kept him aloof from the bitterness caused
by the prosecutions of 104. However, the following year he was
associated with a tribune, L. Appuleius Saturninus, who secured for him
the settlement of demobilized soldiers on land in Africa. When faced
with an attempt by his colleague Baebius to veto the bill, Saturninus
drove him away with a hail of stones, brutally cutting short any
argument about the proprieties of Baebius' action. The principle of
settlement in the provinces was already firmly established and the
arguments used by Ti. Gracchus against Octavius (pp. 66-7) could have
been applied with equal force to Baebius. He in turn might have argued
that the allotments of 100 iugera were too generous (in spite of the
precedent set by the Lex Rubria) and would have cost the treasury the
rent or sale price which the land would otherwise have produced. In any
event the bill was implemented and the father of Julius Caesar, who was
Marius' brother-in-law, was among the land commissioners. The
location of the settlements has been already discussed (ch. 2, p. 30).
Another agrarian bill of the period, proposed by L. Marcius Philippus,
was voted down — perhaps because it concerned Italy, where there were
by now vested interests even among the poor — but left its mark by virtue
of the comment by its proposer, that there were not 2,000 men at Rome
who really possessed property.83
Saturninus joined in the harrying of incompetent magistrates. He not
only prosecuted Mallius and drove him into exile but, probably in his
first tribunate in 103, created a new permanent court to deal with those
82 Brunt 1971 (A 16)430-1,68).
83 Cic.Off. 11.75.0" Saturninus, Glaucia and Marius sec Badian 1958 (A I) 198-210; Ferrary 1977
(c 49)-
who damaged the majesty of the Roman people (quaestio de maiestate).
This vague phrase came to cover a multitude of sins, and it is impossible
to be sure what the original legislator intended it to mean. It certainly
could be applied to the cases of treason or military incompetence by a
commander, such as had been recently prosecuted before assemblies. It is
also likely that it was aimed at tribunes or other magistrates, who
deliberately obstructed the people's will - for example Octavius in 13 3
and more recently Baebius and the tribunes who had protected Caepio.
Ironically, it was later interpreted as a measure against tribunes who used
violence. For C. Norbanus was himself accused in this court in 95. The
jurors were equites and the procedure was probably modelled on that of
the quaestio de repetundis. It is possible that we have part of the text of this
law on a fragment of bronze from Bantia, but other identifications of the
fragment have been proposed.84
In 102 Saturninus supported a L. Equitius, when he claimed to be the
son of Ti. Gracchus at the censorship. The censor, Metellus Numidicus,
the man from whose patronage Marius had broken away, refused to
register Equitius where he wished (presumably in the rural tribe of the
Sempronii, as opposed to an urban tribe, where freedmen and other
humble men at Rome were enrolled). Metellus would have also expelled
Saturninus and Glaucia from the Senate, if his colleague Metellus
Caprarius had permitted this. One source tells of the censor being
blockaded on the Capitol and rescued by equites. This personal clash and
Saturninus' dismissal from his quaestorian post by the Senate a few years
earlier are cited by our authorities as explanations for Saturninus'
embittered violence. Saturninus was certainly a more abrasive personality
than the Gracchi, but his violence cannot be simply explained in these
terms. There is also an element of political calculation: he used force to
surmount swiftly hurdles which his political opponents thrust in his
path, assuming that fears of popular hostility would make his opponents
reluctant to risk military action in Rome and that Marius would in the
last resort support him.85
Marius' army meanwhile defeated the Teutones and Ambrones near
the Roman fort of Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence). A more serious
invasion of the Cimbri through the Alpine passes was eventually repelled
the following year at Vercellae (Campi Raudii) in Cisalpine Gaul. M'.
Aquillius, Marius' colleague in the consulship of 101, brought to an end
the Sicilian slave-war. However, new theatres of war had opened in the
East...
84 Ferrary 1985 ( c 5o) (dating law to 100); on Bruns no. 9 (p. ; 3) see Tibiletti 1953 ( F 160) 57-75;
Lintott 1978 (B 190).
85 App. BCiv. 1.28.126-7; Val. Max. ix.7.2; De Vir.lll. 73; Oros. v.i7.3;Cic. Har. Resp. 43; Sest.
101; Inscr. I/a/, xm.3, no. 16; Badian 1962 (c 8) 218-19.
...
In 101 Glaucia, the author of the latest lex de repetundis, was tribune.
After Marius' victory he presided over the tribunician elections, in
which Saturninus was elected for the second time with the assistance of
soldiers returned from the war, and a competitor A. Nunnius (or
Ninnius) was killed. One somewhat confused source states that L.
Equitius sought the tribunate unsuccessfully in the latter's place.86
Marius himself was re-elected to a sixth consulship, allegedly after
bribery (presumably he had distributed some of the Cimbric spoils to his
soldiers, who were the electors). However, it is not clear how and on
what grounds he was freed from legal restrictions on candidature this
time. Glaucia himself became praetor immediately following his tribunate,
something not illegal, since the tritribunate was outside the normal
cursus of offices, but distinctly unusual.
Куница
Претор
Ого как тема разрослась 
Согласен насчёт грабительства, они оказались в том регионе где Рим так или иначе уже присутствовал. Значит чтобы спокойно заниматься своим любимым делом, прежде нужно разобраться с главной угрозой, то бишь Римом. А если кимвры просто искали бы места для поселения, то выбрали бы регион по-спокойнее.
1.Тру-германцы по Тациту не имеют жрецов, кельты и кимвры-да.
2.Германцы не придают большого значения жертвоприношениям. кимвры и кельты придают этому значение и ещё какое. Вспомните как кимвры после одного из сражений принесли в жертву всех кто попал к ним в плен как людей так и животных.
3.Кимвры отличались достаточно передовым оснащением и страстью к разного рода украшениям, вспомните описание расфуфыренной кавалерии кимвров.Всё это также являлось отличительной чертой кельтов. Германцы же никак себя не украшали, даже спустя сотню лет пользовались крайне примитивным оружием, мечи и вообще железо для них большая редкость. Лошади маленькие и невзрачные.
4. У кимвров были даже боевые трубы, как и у кельтов. У германцев-нет.
5.Кимвры имеют схожие с кельтами имена. Чтобы проникнуть в лагерь кимвров или тевтонов, римляне учат кельтский язык. Кроме того кимвры на своём языке используют кельтское наименование для обозначения Балтийского моря или какого то из его заливов. Данных мало, но из того что есть понятно, что их языком был скорее всего кельтский.
6.Такие дальние экспедиции какие предпринимали кимвры/тевтоны представляют собой очень сложную задачу. Неслучайно, что германцы сподобятся на нечто подобное только в эпоху поздней империи, примерно через пол тысячи лет.Для кельтов же к тому времени это было делом обычным. Так что наиболее вероятно, что кимвры и тевтоны были выходцами именно из кельтского мира.
7.Германцы не строили не то что крепостей и городов, но даже и больших деревень у них не было. Напротив кимвры вероятно возводили достаточно внушительные поселения, раз даже через 200 лет они производили впечатление на Тацита. Мощные крепости-это опять таки исключительно кельтская черта если говорить о варварской Европе
Согласен насчёт грабительства, они оказались в том регионе где Рим так или иначе уже присутствовал. Значит чтобы спокойно заниматься своим любимым делом, прежде нужно разобраться с главной угрозой, то бишь Римом. А если кимвры просто искали бы места для поселения, то выбрали бы регион по-спокойнее.
По Страбону, их родные земли находились между озером Женева и западном берегом Рейна, то есть не в Германии. В каком-то другом источнике был такой момент что гельветы в своё время захватили какие-то земли в Германии.
На тот момент (1 век н.э.) термин "германцы", для римлян, скорее географический нежели этнический, германцы-это те кто живут за Рейном. Один только пассаж Цезаря о белгах полностью доказывает это. Страбон лишь следует за ним в вопросе о кимврах/тевтонах, таким образом навесив на них ярлык тру-германцев.
Почему это? В сообщении н.118 Стрелец по-моему достаточно убедительно показал, что этноним "тевтоны" мог принадлежать любому индо-европейскому народу, а синонимом современных немцев он стал только уже в развитом Средневокоьве. И окончание в имени тевтонских вождей как раз говорит об их не германском происхождении. Что то я не припомню ни одного аналогичного древне-германского имени в более позднее время. А каков был реальный этнический состав маркоманов-это ещё большой вопрос. Можно лишь предполагать, что германский компонент там был значителен.
1.Тру-германцы по Тациту не имеют жрецов, кельты и кимвры-да.
2.Германцы не придают большого значения жертвоприношениям. кимвры и кельты придают этому значение и ещё какое. Вспомните как кимвры после одного из сражений принесли в жертву всех кто попал к ним в плен как людей так и животных.
3.Кимвры отличались достаточно передовым оснащением и страстью к разного рода украшениям, вспомните описание расфуфыренной кавалерии кимвров.Всё это также являлось отличительной чертой кельтов. Германцы же никак себя не украшали, даже спустя сотню лет пользовались крайне примитивным оружием, мечи и вообще железо для них большая редкость. Лошади маленькие и невзрачные.
4. У кимвров были даже боевые трубы, как и у кельтов. У германцев-нет.
5.Кимвры имеют схожие с кельтами имена. Чтобы проникнуть в лагерь кимвров или тевтонов, римляне учат кельтский язык. Кроме того кимвры на своём языке используют кельтское наименование для обозначения Балтийского моря или какого то из его заливов. Данных мало, но из того что есть понятно, что их языком был скорее всего кельтский.
6.Такие дальние экспедиции какие предпринимали кимвры/тевтоны представляют собой очень сложную задачу. Неслучайно, что германцы сподобятся на нечто подобное только в эпоху поздней империи, примерно через пол тысячи лет.Для кельтов же к тому времени это было делом обычным. Так что наиболее вероятно, что кимвры и тевтоны были выходцами именно из кельтского мира.
7.Германцы не строили не то что крепостей и городов, но даже и больших деревень у них не было. Напротив кимвры вероятно возводили достаточно внушительные поселения, раз даже через 200 лет они производили впечатление на Тацита. Мощные крепости-это опять таки исключительно кельтская черта если говорить о варварской Европе
А с Записками о Галльской войне, скажем, что будем делать?
Про ярлыки ещё нужно обосновывать и обосновывать. Может статься, что ярлыки не Страбон вешал...
Лень искать. А в чём суть его поста? Тевтоны не могли бы быть греками, к примеру. Нелепо было бы иметь племя с названием ΤΟΥΤΩΝΟΙ
Потому что время более позднее, может быть. Ариовистов, Сегестов и Арминиев тоже не припоминаю позднее. Однако это не делает их имена негерманскими.
Допускаю такую мысль. Маркоманны - один из основных предков современных баварцев и австрийцев. Но это был германоязычный народ.
Пока лень комментировать все ваши примечания. Это очень интересно. Однако припомните - на каком языке общался Цезарь с Ариовистом? Насколько хорошо Ариовист знал язык кельтов? Или Ариовист тоже не был германцем?
Куница
Претор
А что с Записками? Страбон и Цезарь пишут о гельветах примерно одно и то же.Их земли соответствуют современной северной и западной Швейцарии. к западу от Рейна.
пост номер 118.
Корень слова имеет древнее индо-европейское происхождение и совсем не обязательно его связывать конкретно с германцами
Не очень верю в праиндоевропейцев. Сорри...