Talk:Aemilia gens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gens, or is there some connection to a geographic region of Turkey? Richardsidler (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the links to the other four then? --Wetman 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look in gens. Stan 19:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gente, or is there a link to geographic regions in Turkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsidler (talkcontribs) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to rearrange the family into (1) notable Aemilii of Republic (2) notable Aemilii of Empire; the Republic will be further divided by familly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg (talkcontribs)

Just a coincidence?[edit]

I deleted the following sentence

(However, the similarity of the name "Aemilius" and the Greek word aimilios is most likely just a coincidence.)

ok, how you tell someone HOW some can write the word "Aemilius" if not "Αιμίλιος"??? Why some people have so much complex??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of splitting[edit]

This really needs to be two articles, Aemilius, a disambiguation of the proper name, and Aemilia gens, an article on the family itself. If no one has any strong objections, I'd like to perform the split in a couple days. Ford MF 14:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ti. Aemilius Mamercinus[edit]

According to S. P. Oakley in his commentary on Livy "The filiation of Aemilius is not known, but it is possible that he was the son of the Lucius discussed at vi.32.3 [the consul of 366 and 363] and the brother of the Lucius discussed at 39.17 [the consul of 341]" This claim seems to contravene the filiation given in this article Fornadan (t) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The filiation here is from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. No filiation is given by Broughton. It's not apparent where the filiation in DGRBM comes from; the article isn't signed. But it could have been inferred from the praenomen Tiberius, since it was very common for Roman families to pass praenomina from father to son; a later Tiberius Aemilius was likely to be descended from the earlier one than through a collateral branch. Of course I don't know whether it's speculation; I don't know where the filiation came from. But Oakley doesn't give us anything more solid; he's still offering speculation, and makes it perfectly clear that it's just a possibility.
The question here is whether to change the existing filiation, and that I don't think we should do unless we're sure that it's wrong. If we at least knew that the DGRBM entry also relied on speculation, there would be a better argument, but we don't know if that's the case. However, if someone would like to start a stub on Aemilius, the uncertainty about his descent and the speculation (or attributions) made by others would certainly belong in it. P Aculeius (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. Aemilius Scaurus[edit]

What are the sources for the contention that Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, cos.115, was also suffect consul in 107 BC? I have checked several standard reference works: there is no mention of this in Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, nor Münzer's Roman Parties and Aristocratic Families, nor Brennan's Praetorship in the Roman Republic. Equally, it does not feature on the Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic website (neither under Scaurus' page nor under 107 BC). Indeed, there is no mention of it on Scaurus' own Wikipedia page either.

Perhaps there is confusion here with Marcus Aurelius Scaurus? He was indeed a suffect consul, though in 108 rather than 107, and has a very similar name: is this maybe the source of the confusion? --Drivingrevilo (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion seems to be of long standing, and took over an hour to unravel—mostly—just now. Here's his biography from the DGRBM: "In B.C. 107, he was elected consul a second time, in place of L. Cassius Longinus, who had fallen in battle against the Tigurini." Link The citations aren't in-line, and I had to check them one-by-one, a task made more difficult because many of them aren't translated into English, and Google Translate's Latin is rather poor compared to say, German or French (at least it's a lot better than mine, although I can sometimes get the gist of passages that throw GT completely). And of course many sources have been divided into books, chapters, and sections differently by various editors (to say nothing of the Perseus navigation system, which can be very frustrating to search). But I located the statement in Krause, here, at page 224, where it's clear as day. However, not finding it in any of the cited sources there, or the fragments listed at the end of the article, I looked for possible inscriptions tying Scaurus and Longinus together, with no success.
Now, you wouldn't think it possible to confuse Aurelius Scaurus and Aemilius Scaurus in sources that clearly distinguish between the two and correctly indicate a consulship for Aurelius Scaurus in 108 (turn over the page in the DGRBM for that). And of course if he succeeded Longinus, who fell in battle in 107, then he couldn't be the same man. But the lack of a clear statement in a Roman source kept throwing me. Finally, as I was writing this reply, I remembered to check PW. GT would do a decent job translating the German if not for the constant in-line citations, abbreviations, interspersed parenthetical references, and Latin quotations... nonetheless I was able to find an explanation at the end of Aemilius 140, our subject, concluding that second consulship "found in all the recent handbooks" since Drumann and Orelli is a phantom, and if I read the translation correctly they are concluding that it originated from a misreading of the fasti, in which the cognomen of Aurelius Scaurus was erroneously assigned to 107 and Aemilius Scaurus. Is this correct? Well, given the authority of PW and the logical explanation given, I would say probably, but I don't feel sufficiently clear about the statement in Drumann, here and whether PW is correctly deducing the source of the presumed error to say that it's certain.
What we have is three or four generally reliable sources that may have concluded erroneously that Scaurus was consul a second time in 107, and deduced from that that he was elected in place of Longinus, which would be a reasonable assumption, if the evidence shows that there was a consul Scaurus in 107. If the only reason they concluded that he was consul then is because of a misreading/misplaced fragment of the fasti, which actually belonged to 108, then PW is correct and the second consulship is a phantom. I can only guess that this is what Broughton followed, because he does not address the possibility of a consulship in 107, although under 108 he states that it is proven that the consul of that year was Aurelius, not Aemilius. And even if we agree that the consulship is a phantom, the possibility needs to be addressed in his article because it's mentioned in many reliable sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh: that is quite a puzzle there. I would have checked Pauly-Wissowa myself, but am currently away from any library with access to it. Many thanks for doing so! I've added the relevant information to Scaurus' own article. Drivingrevilo (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RE is available on Wikisource; here is the article for Aemilius Scaurus. T8612 (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus or Mamercinus?[edit]

I got on this page a bit by accident and I spotted what seems to be an inconsistency, but since I know nothing of the subject, I wasn't going to edit it myself...

How come the list contains "Tiberius Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercus, consul in 470 and 467 BC." when the underlying link identifies this person as "Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus"? Okay, his page does also say "or Mamercus" in the first line, but then continues on to only ever use Mamercinus.

Furthermore, when one follows the "filiation" link right above the list and arrives at, an explanation is given that uses this very same person as an example:

"Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus, the son of Lucius and grandson of Mamercus" would be written Ti. Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercinus.

Looking at the rest of Wikipedia, the listing on this page seems to be the odd one out and should perhaps be corrected? --Falc (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mistake, Broughton, the PW, and Ogilvie call him Mamercus. It's fixed now. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) According to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is the principal source for most of the articles on major gentes, the two forms were interchangeable, particularly in early generations, with the earliest members using the root form as a cognomen, and subsequent generations gradually adopting the derivative form. In the section on this branch of the family, Mamercus is the form given for the first two: Lucius, the consul of 484, and Tiberius, the consul of 470 BC; subsequent members are given as Mamercinus. It's not particularly desirable to explain what's really a minor variation in each biographical article about a member of this family; it might be noted in the lead sentence without difficulty, but presumably the authors of each article simply followed the source preferred in whatever they were following, which is why it's not there now. Unless the source clearly explains why one should be preferred over the other, it's simply a matter of personal preference. P Aculeius (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]