The Battle of Drepana in 249 b.c. marks the most significant defeat of Roman naval forces at the hands of their Carthaginian opponents during the First Punic War. Attempting to take the Punic fleet in the harbour of Drepana by surprise, the consul P. Claudius Pulcher sailed with his ships from Lilybaeum about midnight, and reached Drepana at dawn. Yet, owing to swift and level-headed counter-measures taken by the Punic commander, Adherbal, the unfolding fight – partly in the harbour, mostly (...) off the shore – turned into a fiasco for the Romans. The consul got away; he returned to Rome, where the Senate instructed him to appoint a dictator. How soon he returned, and by what route, is the question. (shrink)

Curio’s six lictors with laureled fasces (Cic. Att. 10.4.9) are best explained by his holding command in 49 BC not as Caesar’s legatus, but pro praetore with imperium nominally in his own right, granted (‘extra-constitutionally’) by Caesar directly, without vote of Senate and People.

Recently in this journal, R. Shaw-Smith suggested reading ‘citra Kal. Ian.’: ‘circa, implying that the consul died either before or after 1st January, will not do.’ Will the example of citra at Aug. 43.4, adduced by Shaw-Smith ] in support of the meaning ‘ before’?

It is generally believed that Polybios mistook L. Iunius Pullus (cos. 249) for one of the consuls of 248 B. C. The internal evidence of Polybios’ narrative shows clearly that he knew the correct year of Iunius’ consulship, and inadvertently created a false impression of the date by structuring his account so as to tell the story of the Roman siege of Lilybaeum without interruption, from its inception in 250 to Claudius Pulcher’s defeat at Drepana in the following year. This (...) narrative objective led him to postpone the paragraph (1.52.4-5) detailing the Roman reaction to the disastrous siege operations of 250 and the consular elections for 249 until after his account of Drepana, without considering how such an arrangement could mislead readers two millenia hence. (shrink)

It is argued that (1) the alleged violation of the auspices by both the Consuls of 249 B. C. did in fact occur and (2) resulted in separate prosecutions directed at each of them; (3) the name ‘Pullius’, reported for one of the plebeian Tribunes that prosecuted P. Claudius Pulcher, is probably authentic; (4) the cognomen of L. Iunius Pullus is not spun out the violation of the auspices attributed to him and his colleague; and (5) the cognomen ‘Pulcher’, first (...) born by the Consul of 249, may actually derive from his drowning of the Chickens. (shrink)

Contrary to the widely held view that the Roman-Carthaginian naval encounter Polybios reports at 1.21.9-11 was separate from the one off Mylae (260 BC) told at length right afterwards (1.23), the battle at the ‘Cape of Italy’ is in fact - as suspected by some scholars long ago - identical with the one at Mylae. However, far from mistaking (as has been suggested) Philinos’ account of the latter for a separate engagement, Polybios knowingly and deliberately told the battle of Mylae (...) twice: first in a brief summary, stripped of all detail, to illustrate how the Roman commander Cn. Scipio Asina (cos. 260) and his Punic counterpart, Hannibal, were both guilty of equally inappropriate acts of recklessness; then for a second time in detail and in its proper chronological place. Compositional considerations prompted this approach: to wait with the moralizing parallel until after his full account of Mylae (preceded in turn by the long technical disquisition on the Roman boarding bridges) would spoil the effect, and Polybios chose to place it immediately after Asina’s capture. (shrink)