User:T8612/Scipio Aemilianus

Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus (c.185–129 BC), primarily known as Scipio Aemilianus, or also Scipio Africanus Minor, or Scipio Africanus the Younger, was a politician and general of the Roman Republic, who served as consul twice, in 147 and 134 BC, and censor in 142 BC. He was a natural son of Aemilius Paullus, but was adopted into the Cornelii Scipiones—one of the most prominent family of the time—by a son of the great Scipio Africanus.

Like his adoptive grandfather, Scipio was a formidable military commander. In 147, he was elected consul before the legal age in order to lead the final war against Carthage, which he defeated and razed in 146. This exploit earned him the nickname of Africanus and a great influence at home. The years 154–134 BC were also marked by the long war in the Iberian Peninsula, where Lusitanian and Hispanic tribes repeatedly inflicted humiliating defeats on the Roman magistrates sent against them. Eventually, Scipio was elected consul a second time in 134 BC—another constitutional violation—so he could recover the catastrophic situation in Hispania. He restored discipline in the army and took Numantia after a long siege. As with Carthage before, he razed the city and enslaved the population, thus putting an end to this war that Rome could not finish.

However great, his military achievements were tampered by the political resentment he created at Rome. His use of popular assemblies to bypass established constitutional conventions strained his relationship with the senate, and he also cultivated some personal feuds with the leading politicians that were Appius Claudius Pulcher, and Metellus Macedonicus. He even alienated his own adoptive family, notably his cousin Scipio Nasica Serapio. While he enjoyed an immense popularity after the taking of Carthage, his opposition to the social reforms advocated by his brother-in-law Tiberius Gracchus turned the plebs against him. He died in relative poverty and isolation as a result.

Scipio was also famous for his support of the arts and was a major proponent of Hellenism at Rome. He surrounded himself with artists and writers, some of them Greeks, collectively known as the Scipionic Circle, which notably counted the historian Polybius or the stoic philosopher Aelius. These authors' works often prominently feature Scipio and ensured his posterity; a large number of anecdotes on his life have survived thanks to them. For later authors Scipio was associated with the years of the triumphant conquests of the Mediterranean, and was seen as a model of political and military virtues. Cicero portrayed him several times in his dialogues; one of which, the Dream of Scipio, was one of the most influential classical texts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Family background
Born into the patrician gens Aemilia, Scipio Aemilianus belonged to the highest Roman aristocracy, and his later adoption and marriage placed him at the centre of a complex set of alliances among the most important families of the Republic.

His natural father was Lucius Aemilius Paullus, one of the most famous generals of the middle Republic, himself the son of the consul who fell against Hannibal at Cannae in 216. Paullus was twice consul in 182 and 168, censor in 164, and earned two triumphs in 181 and 168, the latter after his famous victory at Pydna against Perseus of Macedon, for which he was also awarded the agnomen Macedonicus. Paullus married Papiria, the daughter of the patrician Gaius Papirius Maso, consul in 231. Scipio was born in 185 or 184. Scipio already had an elder brother, as well as three sisters, of whom two are known: one married Marcus Porcius Cato Licinianus, elder son of Cato the Censor, the other Quintus Aelius Tubero, perhaps tribune of the plebs in 177.

In 182 or 181, Paullus divorced Papiria and remarried with an unknown woman, who gave him two new sons. Paullus then put his two elder sons for adoption, as the cost of raising four sons was probably too high for him. His eldest son was adopted by Quintus Fabius Maximus (grandson of the great Cunctator—five time consul and hero of the Second Punic War), and therefore became Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus. The second son was adopted by Publius Cornelius Scipio, the elder son of the great Scipio Africanus, whose victory against Hannibal at Zama in 202 had earned him the agnomen Africanus. He thus took the name of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. The alliance between the Aemilii and the Cornelii was an old one, dating at least from the beginning of the Second Punic War. Africanus was notably married to Aemilia, Paullus’ aunt. Scipio was therefore adopted by his older cousin.

Aemilianus’ adoptive father did not have the same career as his father Scipio Africanus because of a weak constitution. He was nonetheless an augur, and a noted historian, although nothing survives of his work. He also had a natural son who was flamen dialis, but died at an early age, probably just before 170. Etchteo therefore suggests this date for Scipio’s adoption into the Cornelii Scipiones, while he was about fifteen years old, in the purpose of keeping the descendance of the great Africanus alive.

Paullus gave him a Greek education. He also retained a strong connection with his family, which often put him at odds with the rest of the Scipiones later.

Inheritance

Marriage (160–155 BC)
Aemilianus waited until at least 25, and possibly 30 years old for his marriage with Sempronia, who was the daughter of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and Cornelia (Africanus’ younger daughter)—also the mother of the famous Gracchi brothers. This was unusual among the Scipiones, whose male members were often already married at 20. The reason for this delay is that he was deliberately made to wait until Sempronia was of age. Gracchus and Scipio’s adoptive father likely arranged this marriage long before it actually took place, and their agreement retained its value after the latter's death (some time before 163). The purpose of this marriage was to ensure that Scipio’s eventual children would be direct descendants of the great Africanus—through their mother. After his marriage, Aemilianus became Africanus’ grandson-in-law, while he was already his adoptive grandson, and his natural nephew.

Gracchus, Scipio's father-in-law, was also a faithful supporter of Scipio Africanus, one of the few to defend him during his trial in 184, and later a colleague of Africanus’ son in the college of pontiffs.

Battle of Pydna (168 BC)
Aemilianus accompanied his natural father in his expedition against Perseus of Macedon during the Third Macedonian War. Paullus also picked his elder son, Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, as well as another Scipio, Nasica Corculum. Paullus’ two sons were his personal legates, while the older Corculum was a military tribune.

The war against Perseus was declared on 171 after he had allegedly tried to murder Eumenes of Pergamon, a king ally to Rome. Perseus defended his kingdom with some success, but the Senate entrusted a strong army to Paullus to end the war. While only 17, Aemilianus fought at Pydna, the final battle of the war. He purchased the fleeing Macedonians until the night, when he came back covered in blood. His father thought him dead.

Greek education and friends
After his great victory, Paullus embarked in a tour of Greece, and Aemilianus remained with him.

Paullus gave Scipio access to Perseus’ hunting reserves and he became fond of the sport. The Greek historian Polybius details in lengths how Scipio was accused of indolence for favouring hunting over his duty of defending his clients in the courts, but adds that he ultimately gained a greater distinction thanks to his hunting prowess, as his avoidance of the judicial battles prevented him from making enemies. This passage has been interpreted differently; the traditional view set by Ferdinand Orth that hunting was a Greek pastime which Polybius taught Scipio, who then brought it to Rome, has been rejected, as the Romans already hunted well before him. Scipio is nevertheless the first Roman who is securely attested as practising hunting.

At his return from Greece, Scipio therefore met Polybius, at the time still a politician, taken as hostage to Rome as punishment for the neutrality of the Achaean League during the war against Perseus. Polybius soon acted as a mentor to the young Scipio and followed him for the remainder of his career. He often mentioned Scipio in his famous Histories, the main source of the period. At the same time Scipio also befriended the Seleucid prince Demetrios, likewise a hostage in Rome, whom he later helped to escape in order to reclaim his kingdom with the assistance of Polybius (in the summer of 162).

At the death of his father, he organised some costly games, sharing the cost with his brother.

First command in Spain (151 BC)
A war was ongoing in Spain since XX, but the consul Fulvius Nobilior made a disastrous campaign in 153. In 152, Claudius Marcellus received a third consulship-the first time someone had more than two consulships since the fifth of Marcellus’ own grandfather in 208; it was a clear violation of the Lex Villia. Marcellus was the greatest commander alive and was likely elected to restore the situation, which he did, but was merciful with the defeated Spaniards. His light approached was disavowed in the Senate, including by Aemilianus.

The next year, Lucillius Lucullus, a partisan of continuing the war, was elected consul, but he and his colleague Postumius Albinus had great difficulties raising the levy, because the conscripts thought the war in Spain was too difficult. The tribunes of the plebs even sent the consuls to jail for having denied them the right to spare some citizens from the levy. It is the first act of populism from the tribunes since the end of the conflict of the orders in 275.

The situation was resolved by Aemilianus who volunteered to serve in Spain. Since the sources are very hostile to Lucullus during his campaign, Astin conjectures that it reflects disagreement between him and Aemilianus.

The war was temporarily ended through a treachery of the praetor Gaius Sulpicius Galba, who massacred Lusitanians whom he had promised peace and lands.

The Third Punic War (149–146 BC)
After its defeat during the Second Punic War, Carthage was reduced to a minor power by Rome.

It seems that Aemilianus sabotaged the peace talks between Carthage and Massinissa to ensure that Rome would intervene in the conflict.

Scipio and Cato were on good terms. In 150 Scipio obtained from Cato the release of the Achaeans who were taken as hostages in the aftermath of the Third Macedonian War, including Polybius. Polybius however did not return to his homeland, as he was called by Manilius in Africa and rejoined with Scipio there.

Military tribune (149-148 BC)
He saved the army of the consul from capture

Mission in Numidia (148 BC)
Feeling death approaching, the old king of Numidia Massinissa called Scipio to advise him on his succession. Though he was already dead when Aemilianus arrived, he still carried on and divided the kingdom between his main sons.

While returning to the consul Manilius, Aemilianus won an important victory without a fight by securing the defection of the Punic cavalry leader, Phameas Hamilcar. His family had likely been a client of the Scipiones since Scipio Africanus.

First consulship (147 BC)
At his return to Rome, Aemilianus ran for the aedileship. However, Appian—the main source on the Third Punic War—tells that he was elected consul instead, while he was only 37 years old and had not been praetor, therefore violating twice the Lex Villia. He secured his election with the support of several tribunes of the plebs. One of them passed a plebiscite suspending the Lex Villia for a year in order to allow his election. Then, in another breach of established rules, the voters did not allow the allocation of the provinces between the consuls to go through sortition, and directly gave Aemilianus the military command of the war in Africa.

Appian says that Roman soldiers serving in Africa wrote to their relatives that Aemilianus was destined to lead the war, and might have influenced the elections.

Siege of Carthage (146 BC)
Aemilianus obtained the support of several Greek states, which sent him some ships to blockade Carthage. Rhodes likely sent some ships.

The deserters he had captured were given to savage beasts, and he also crucified some of them.

After his victory, he gave back the statues that Carthage took from Himera in

Aemilianus celebrated a triumph.

The tears of Scipio
One of the most famous events of the war was the tears that Scipio shed at the sight of Carthage burning. He also quoted two lines from Homer's Iliad predicting the destruction of Troy. Present at the scene, Polybius tells that Scipio wept and cited Homer because he knew that one day Rome would suffer the same fate as Carthage and Troy, and be ultimately destroyed. Many other precedents exist in ancient history of the victor crying over the vanquished's evil fortune, such as Antiochos III when his rebellious general Achaeus was brought to him in chains. Such attitude was typical of a Hellenistic ruler, but it had also occurred within Scipio's family: Scipio Africanus wept over the humiliation of the women of Carthago Nova, and Aemilius Paullus cried when he saw Perseus in chains after Pydna.

The Lusitanian War (147–139 BC)
After his triumph, Aemilianus could significantly, but not totally, influence Roman politics. This can be seen when he managed to get his natural brother Maximus Aemilianus elected at the consular elections for 145. However, his candidate for the plebeian spot, Metellus Macedonicus, failed against Lucius Hostilius Mancinus, a man he had criticised during the war against Carthage. He also secured the election as praetor for his friend Gaius Laelius Sapiens.

Soon after the elections, the tribune of the plebs Gaius Licinius Crassus proposed a bill to make priesthoods electable (priests were hitherto appointed by cooptation). Laelius made a speech against Crassus, and with the probable support of Aemilianus, the bill was rejected. Both Maximus and Laelius were then given command in Spain, the former to Hispania Ulterior, the latter to Citerior. A major war in the Peninsula had broken off in 147 under the leadership of the Lusitanian Viriathus, who had federated several tribes against Rome and defeated the Roman praetors sent against him in 147 and 146. While Laelius won a small victory, Maximus was defeated. Appian tells that Fabius' troops were inexperienced because veterans of the recent wars in Africa and Greece were exempted. This may however be an excuse Appian found in a lost passage of Polybius, who spared his patron's brother from criticism.

Perhaps as a result of Maximus' defeat, both consuls of 144 were personal enemies of Aemilianus: Servius Sulpicius Galba tried to prevent Paullus from being awarded a triumph after Pydna in 167, and Lucius Aurelius Cotta was later prosecuted by Aemilianus (in 138), while Metellus Macedonicus lost again against the latter. Galba likely won the election because he had already proven that he could defeat the Lusitanians (in 150)—through a treachery though; he was furthermore an outstanding orator. Nevertheless, the new consuls fought each other to receive the command of the war in Spain. While they were arguing in the senate, Aemilianus seized the opportunity to humiliate them both, saying: "I consider that neither should be sent, because the one [Cotta] possesses nothing and for the other [Galba] nothing is enough." He instead asked for the prorogation of his brother's command, which was granted. With trained troops, Maximus defeated Viriathus twice in 143. Servilianus obtained elephants and cavalry from Micipsa, one of the Numidian kings, doubtless thanks to Aemilianus, whose closeness to the Numidians is known.

In 143, Metellus Macedonicus was finally elected consul, albeit with Appius Claudius Pulcher—Aemilianus' arch-enemy—as colleague. Metellus was assigned Spain, where he defeated the Arevaci and possibly received a triumph. Ancient sources tell that Pulcher, jealous of Metellus Macedonicus' achievements in Hispania, wanted to earn some military glory. He therefore provoked a war against the Salassi—a tribe in the Val d'Aosta—but, although he conquered the tribe, his casualties were the same as the enemy. Despite this, Pulcher still requested a triumph, which the senate refused on the ground that his losses were too high. He then organised a triumph at his own expense, which a tribune of the plebs tried to prevent, but Pulcher was protected by his daughter, a sacrosanct vestal virgin, who was in the triumphal chariot beside him, thus countering the tribune's attempt.

In fact, these events were likely the result of a factional opposition from Scipio Aemilianus, who might have been behind the senate's rejection of the triumph, as well as the tribune of the plebs' effort to prevent Pulcher from organising his private triumph. The bad treatment that Pulcher receives in ancient sources may derive from Aemilianus' "mud". Whether Pulcher could get this triumph or not was indeed of capital importance, because he and Aemilianus had views on the censorial elections of 142, and a triumph would have greatly helped Pulcher to get elected.

Electoral campaign
The electoral campaign between Aemilianus and Pulcher for the patrician censorship of 142 was "particularly nasty". After Aemilianus had caused the rejection of Pulcher's triumph, the latter tried to damage the popularity of Aemilianus by spreading slurs on him, several of which have survived in the sources. He mocked his company of men of lesser status, such as publicans and freedmen, likely because the upper-class had more weight in the Centuriate Assembly (which elected censors); he said: "O Paullus Aemilius, groan beneath the earth when you learn that your son is escorted by Aemilius the herald and Licinius Philonicus the tax-collector". Pulcher added that, contrary to Aemilianus, he could salute all the Romans he met by their name; Scipio retorted "You are absolutely right: it is my concern not to know many people, but to be known by everyone." It echoes a statement of Polybius, who wrote that Aemilianus preferred practising sports and military exercises over oratory battles on the Forum, as it was customary for Roman aristocrats, but by doing that, he may have overlooked the ritual of the salutatio, hence Pulcher's attack. Finally, Pulcher seems to have questioned Aemilianus' bravery, which the latter countered by suggesting to be both sent as legates or tribunes of the soldiers in Hispania so the people could see who was the bravest in combat.

Although Pulcher might have had the upper hand on the political class and social networks, Aemilianus was still elected censor prior, possibly thanks to his popularity among voters. His victory was only partial though, as his plebeian colleague was another of his enemies: Lucius Mummius Achaicus, the destroyer of Corinth in 146. Some slurs mocking his boorishness have survived as well, and possibly came from Aemilianus.

Though, the two consuls of 142 were probably Aemilianus' allies, Metellus Calvus was Macedonicus' brother, and Fabius Maximus Servilianus was an adoptive brother of Maximus Aemilianus.

Building program
Aemilianus had high ambitions for his censorship, but they were thwarted by Achaicus, who systematically opposed his actions.

Achaicus could rely on the formidable booty he seized from the sack of Corinth to spend on a munificent building program. He therefore built the Temple of Hercules, and added gilded tiles to the Temple of Jupiter.

Aemilianus’ building program comprised the completion of the Pons Aemilius. With his colleague he built something on the Capitol. They completed the XXth lustrum and registered XX citizens, an increase of XX citizens from the previous census.

The censors also reappointed Scipio Corculum as Princeps Senatus, although it does not mean Aemilianus had reconciled with him since the princeps senatus was in practice always reappointed.

Towards the end of the year, Aemilianus broke his friendship with Quintus Pompeius when he refused to withdraw his candidacy to the consulship for 141 in favour of his other friend Gaius Laelius.

Valerius Maximus says that Aemilianus wanted to end the expansion of Rome because he modified the prayer closing the lustrum. However he likely followed a piece of propaganda dating from the Augustan era.

The consuls for 140 were Laelius and Quintus Servilius Caepio, the former Aemilius' best friend, the latter a probable ally, as he was Maximus Aemilianus' natural brother. Moreover, it seems that Claudius Pulcher tried to hinder his campaign in Lusitania, because he successfully promoted a decree preventing more than one levee that year. The tribune Tiberius Claudius Asellus, Pulcher's ally, also tried to veto Caepio's move to Lusitania. In addition, Asellus prosecuted Aemilianus for having tried to remove him from the senate. Aemilianus had trouble to deflect the accusation, as he needed to make several speeches in his defence. Asellus' attack was an attempt to terminate Aemilianus' career in the same way as his adoptive grandfather.

Diplomatic mission to the East (140–139 BC)
After his censorship, Aemilianus was named at the head of an embassy to the Hellenistic states of the East. This was not a traditional embassy sent to arbitrate between conflictual Greek states, but rather a long inspection of these kingdoms, in order to review the geopolitical situation of the area. There might have also a need to reassure the Greeks after the destructions of Carthage and Corinth.

Aemilianus was accompanied by Spurius Mummius (Achaicus' brother) and Metellus Calvus. Aemilianus was likely chosen for his name that bore such weight among the Greeks; and because his father Paullus had been the conqueror of Macedon. He might have suggested this embassy to the senate.

The exact itinerary of the embassy is lost, but Diodorus, following Posidonius, mentions that he visited Attalus II, the Pergamese king friendly to Rome. The ambassadors then went to Egypt, where he met Ptolemy VIII Physcon in Alexandria and Memphis. Then they sailed to Cyprus and finally Syria. Lucillius tells that the ambassadors even went to Ecbatane, now in Iran, but it is an exaggeration.

Harold B. Mattingly suggests an earlier date for the embassy, in 144-3, but his view has remained in minority.

He also became augur in 140.

Political enmities (139–135 BC)
After his return to Rome, Aemilianus became embroiled in a number of bitter political battles, which alienated him the majority of the senate. All the consuls of the period between 139 and 134 were hostile to him—except for the year 136 and his own consulship in 134. His opponents apparently coalesced against him in the centuriate assembly. His successes had provoked jealousy, and his disregard for constitutional rules triggered resentment.

With Metellus Macedonicus and the other Scipiones
Astin suggests that Macedonicus was initially a friend of Aemilianus, but broke out in 138. Gruen thinks he was an enemy from the beginning. Although Cicero insisted that the enmity between Metellus Macedonicus and Aemilianus was only political, a large amount of evidence show that they were bitter opponents. The best example of this struggle happened in 139, or perhaps 138, when Aemilianus prosecuted Lucius Aurelius Cotta (the consul of 144) for corruption in his province. Macedonicus defended Cotta, who was finally acquitted after seven hearings, perhaps thanks to bribery. Gruen showed that this trial took place before the quaestio perpetua, a criminal court judging provincial governors created by the Lex Calpuria of 149. Initially this court was not used at all; until 139, when Macedonicus and his allies the Servilii Caepiones attacked Quintus Pompeius in a charge that was indubitably political. The court was by now seen as a political weapon against opponents, and this is how Aemilianus used it against Cotta, just after he had seen Macedonicus using it against Pompeius.

Macedonicus additionally married one of his daughters to the son of Scipio Nasica Serapio, the adoptive cousin of Aemilianus. For a long time, modern scholars considered Aemilianus firmly headed the Scipiones, seen as a clan behind him, but since the 1970's several studies have shown that he also became estranged from his adoptive family. This separation originated in the first consulship of his father—Scipio Nasica Corculum—in 162, which was cancelled by Tiberius Gracchus, Aemilianus' father-in-law. Corculum also seemed to have had a bad relationship with Aemilius Paullus during the campaign of Pydna in 168. Aemilianus' later support of the war against Carthage strengthened the resentment. During the 130's, Aemilianus reorganised the ancestral Tomb of the Cornelii Scipiones. He notably added a sumptuous facade with three large statues of Scipio Africanus and Asiaticus, as well as the poet Ennius, a friend of the family, but none of Corculum, whose exceptional career should have awarded him a statue there. Serapio showed his resentment in the writing of the epitaph of his cousin Scipio Hispanus, who died during the 130's, which emphasises that Hispanus "made children". This was a clear attack against Aemilianus, who did not have any, whereas the entire family strategy behind his adoption was precisely for him to make children. Etcheto suggests that the tomb was abandoned soon after, because the family had become so disunited. This accusation of not making children was also made publicly by Macedonicus during his censorship in 131.

In 137, Aemilianus supported the Lex Tabellaria by the tribune Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, but was opposed to the conservatives in the senate. He might have already supported the Lex Gabinia of 139. Aemilianus compensated his weakness in the senate by appealing to popular support in the tribal assembly. He supported the ballot laws precisely to lower the influence of his enemies on these assemblies (p. 183). He was known to have agitators around him who could influence a crowd by shouting (p.188). The Lex Tabellaria was sponsored by Aemilianus after his failure against Cotta. His goal was likely to create another judicial weapon against his opponents. Since he could not rely on other senators in the extortion court, he turned to the popular assembly, where he could rely on his popularity among the populus. The principal opponent to the law was Marcus Aemilius Lepidus Porcina. This man was a friend of Galba, and had links with Appius Claudius Pulcher.

In 137, the tribune of the plebs Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla proposed a bill enforcing the use of secret ballots for all the votes but that of perduellio, in order to remove the traditional influence of the aristocracy on voting. The bill was strongly supported by Aemilianus; Astin even thinks he was the author of the law. The bill was logically opposed by the senate, whose leading member against it was Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who vetoed the bill through another tribune, Marcus Antius Briso. Apparently, Aemilianus applied some unknown pressure on Briso to force him to withdraw his veto, and the Lex Tabellaria passed. Scipio was a popularis in the formation of these factions.

The Nasicae may have also had a feud with the Cassii Longini, as Corculum destroyed the theatre built by Cassius Longinus, censor in 152, while his son was later a firm ally of Aemilianus.

Aemilianus also successfully prosecuted Porcina by using the Lex Cassia, and sentenced him to a large fine.

The war in Lusitania essentially ended in 139 with the assassination of Viriathus by Caepio, whose command had been extended. In 138, Junius Brutus continued his campaign to the north, defeating the Calaici (from which he took the agnomen Calaicus). Scipio spoke on this, perhaps against Brutus. Brutus Calaicus had marriage ties with Porcina

With Appius Claudius Pulcher and the Gracchi
Although the war in Lusitania was over, the war against the Celtiberians went on. In 137, the consul Gaius Hostilius Mancinus was forced to make a treaty with the Numantines in order to save his army; the Numantines also demanded that Mancinus and his staff to make oaths. The treaty was negotiated by Mancinus' quaestor, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Aemilianus' brother-in-law.

The break with Gracchus has been traditionaly dated from the Numantine Treaty, but it might have started earlier, since being the quaestor of Mancinus, Aemilianus' enemy, is already a proof of that.

The major political topic of these years was the conduct of the war in Hispania. Although the war against Viriathus in Lusitania was over, the one in Hither Spain was not abating, especially against the Numantines. The consul Gaius Hostilius Mancinus was cornered in an indefensible position and forced to negotiate a treaty with the Numantines in order to save his army, who also demanded a sacred oath from him. The treaty was negotiated by his quaestor Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus—Aemilianus' brother-in-law—because his father had served earlier in Spain and left a great impression on the Hispanic tribes. At his return, Gracchus was welcomed as a hero by the Roman plebs, who thought he saved many soldiers from certain death. However, the treaty triggered an outrage in the senate, including from Aemilianus. The consul of 136, his friend Lucius Furius Philus led an enquiry to know whether it was possible to cancel the treaty, since Mancinus and his staff had made an oath. He proposed three bills to the centuriate assembly proposing to hand over to the Numantines Mancinus, his staff, and his predecessor Pompeius. Only the first one was voted, with the support of Mancinus himself, but the Numantines did not want him and he returned to Rome.

Aemilianus' enmities cost him the office of Princeps Senatus, given to Pulcher, who seem to have been very powerful in these years, as all consuls between 135 and 133, except Aemilianus, were his allies. Appius made him pay by overlooking Aemilianus as princeps senatus when he became censor in 136. Likewise, both censors of 131 were his enemies. Whereas Aemilianus was doubtless the princeps civitatis, normally the criteria used to designate the princeps senatus (since Fabius Maximus in 209).

His rebuttal of the treaty led Gracchus to marry the daughter of Pulcher.

Election
In Hispania, the streak of defeats continued, with that of consul Quintus Calpurnius Piso in 135. This new failure triggered the election of Aemilianus as consul.

Aemilianus received his second consulship thanks to a process similar to the elections of 148. He did not formally ran for the consulship, he wanted to appear as "the spontaneous choice of the Roman People", and the Senate then grudgingly asked the tribunes of the plebs to vote a special legislation enabling Aemilianus' election. Aemilianus second consulship was again marked by irregularity. This time, it violated the law against iteration of the consulship. He was supported by Fabius Maximus (the future Allobrogicus), his nephew.

The assembly then gave Scipio the command of the Numantine War, against the whish of the Senate.

Recruitment
Aemilianus however faced the hostility of the senate, which refused to give him the funding he needed to wage his campaign. He therefore called his friends and allies and managed to build a personal bodyguard force of 500 men and 4,000 infantry. Several Helenistic powers answered his call. Micipsa sent troops, as well as Jugurtha, who was congratulated by Aemilianus.

He brought his brother Fabius Aemilianus with him to Spain, as well as the poet Lucillius, who served in the cavalry.

The senate refused him funds to wage the war and he had to use his personal wealth to pay the troops. He also used his patronage network among Italian tribes to receive the support of 4000 volunteers. Perhaps Gaius Marius. Jugurtha and Gaius Gracchus were also there.

Operations
He restored the discipline in the army. Many anecdotes survived.

Scipio's operations are recorded with good details in Appian's Spanish Wars, who probably summarised Polybius. Literary evidences are largely completed by an exceptional number of archaeological findings. Numantia was minutiously excavated by Schulten in 1911-1927. Once at Numantia, Scipio built two camps on either side of the city; one camp for him, the other for his brother Maximus. He then built five smaller camps around Numantia, and connected them with a wall, thus completely besieging the city. The total length of the wall was a bit above 7.5kms, a formidable task. It was called the circumvallation. The tactics was later reused by Julius Caesar for his siege of Alesia.

Triumph
Scipio kept 50 slaves for himself to parade in his triumph.

At his return, he dedicated a temple to Virtus.

The war was very costly for him and he could only offer 7 denarii to his veterans. At the end of his life Aemilianus was much less rich than before.

The Gracchean crisis (133–129 BC)
In addition to the tensions with the Nasicae, Aemilianus progressively broke with the Sempronii Gracchi, his in-laws. The cause might derive from his unhappy marriage, as they remained childless. Since Aemilianus was adopted into the Scipiones precisely to perpetuate Africanus’ lineage, the failure to produce heirs might have strained the couple’s relationship.

Initially, Aemilianus was like a father for the two Gracchi, since their father died early.

Aemilianus’ rejection of Tiberius treaty with the Numantines is the first recorded disagreement between them. His friends then fought his reforms. Aemilianus finally declared that Tiberius was justly slained. It is therefore logical that the Sempronii were accused of being behind his death.

He did not adopt, perhaps because his own adoption had been a failure.

Tiberius Gracchus may have timed his reforms while Aemilianus was abroad and could not counter him.

Aemilianus returned from Hispania at the end of 133, and found Rome in a bloody crisis, following the massacre of Tiberius Gracchus and his supporters by Scipio Nasica Serapio. He was certainly aware of the situation though, and his friends had all opposed Gracchus. Aemilianus had hoped that his victory in Hispania would have renewed his influence an prestige, but this foreign victory was by now irrelevant in the current political situation. After this comment on Gracchus and the poor booty of his troops, the situation was reversed: Aemilianus had become unpopular, and Pulcher was favoured by the plebs. In 131, the supporters of Gracchus received both consulships and the post of Pontifex Maximus. The tribune Gaius Papirius Carbo proposed a bill allowing reelection of the tribunes. Laelius and Aemilianus spoke against the bill. Carbo interrupted him by asking him what he thought of the death of Tiberius Gracchus. It seems that he won the vote by using the traditional social pressures on voters. Carbo retaliated by extending ballot voting to assemblies (not just elections). He expected to receive the command against Aristonicus.

Death (129 BC)
Illustrating the tensions between Aemilianus and the other Scipiones, none of the latter were found at his funerals. His Laudatio funebris was written by Laelius and read by Fabius Aemilianus’ son (therefore Scipio Aemilianus’ natural nephew). The last supper was organised by Quintus Aelius Tubero (also Paullus’ grandson), and the four sons of Metellus Macedonicus carried his body. Macedonicus was perhaps making a political calculus; he knew that the dead would soon become a legend. Since throughout his life Aemilianus had remained closer to his family of birth, it seems that the Scipiones deliberately ignored the funerals. Aemilianus might have also designated his natural nephews as his legal heirs, instead of another Scipio. Indeed, in the first century BC, the Fabii Maximi counted him among their ancestors, while Metellus Scipio, the last important member of the family, did not build his statue on the forum.

Aelius Tubero organised his funerals by covering his death bed with skins in a stoic manner. However, the people thought that Tubero did not spend enough for Scipio's funerals, and he lost the nextelection to the praetorship because of this.

The Scipionic Circle
From his meeting with Polybius to his death, Aemilianus surrounded himself with philosophers and artists, Greek and Roman. Many modern scholars have talked of a "Scipionic circle" to describe this group, the first being the German classicist in 1850. This theory of a "circle" have been contested in recent times.

Members of the Circle:

Polybius: Greek Historian

Terence: Roman playwright

Panaetius‎: Greek Stoic philosopher

Legacy
"Cicero immortalized his character and this unsurpassed role in the state in De Republica and De Amictia".

Plutarch opened his Parallel Lives with a biography of a "Scipio"—the name given in the list of Plutarch's works—who was paired with Epaminondas, the Theban statesman. This first pair of biographies is however lost. There has been a very long debate in academia over the identity of this "Scipio", one side arguing for Africanus, the other for Aemilianus. The majority of opinions has shifted towards Aemilianus, but is not yet consensual. Plutarch probably matched Epaminondas, who defeated Sparta, the dominant power in Greece at the time, with one of the Scipiones who defeated Carthage.

Aemilianus’ proximity with Greek authors ensured his posterity, while his political life was not that great.

Cervantes wrote a play on the siege of Numantia, La Numantia.

Ancient sources

 * Appianus Alexandrinus (Appian), Punica.
 * Marcus Tullius Cicero, Brutus.
 * Fasti Capitolini.
 * Titus Livius (Livy), Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Periochae.
 * Plutarch, Parallel lives.
 * Polybius, Historiae (The Histories).
 * Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium (Memorable Deeds and Sayings).
 * Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History.

Modern sources

 * Alan E. Astin, "Scipio Aemilianus and Cato Censorius", in Latomus, T. 15, Fasc. 2 (April–June 1956), pp. 159–180.
 * ——, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford University Press, 1967.
 * ——, Cato the Censor, Oxford University Press, 1978.
 * T. Corey Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Oxford University Press, 2000.
 * John Briscoe, "Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 64 (1974), pp. 125–135.
 * T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association, 1952–1960.
 * Paul J. Burton, Friendship and Empire, Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic (353–146 BC), Cambridge University Press, 2011.
 * ——, Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
 * Filippo Coarelli, Revixit ars. Arte ideologia a Roma. Dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana, Quasar, 1996.
 * ——, "I ritratti di ‘Mario’ e ‘Silla’ a Monaco e il sepolcro degli Scipioni", Eutopia nuova serie, II/ 1, 2002, pp. 47–75.
 * Tim Cornell (editor), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, Oxford University Press, 2013.
 * Michael Crawford & Filippo Coarelli, "Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla", in Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 45 (1977), pp. 1–23.
 * J. A. Crook, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (editors), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VIII, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., Cambridge University Press, 1989.
 * Robert Develin, “Scipio Aemilianus and the Consular Elections of 148 B.C.”, in Latomus, T. 37, Fasc. 2 (avril-juin 1978), pp. 484–488.
 * Henri Etcheto, Les Scipions. Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l’époque républicaine, Bordeaux, Ausonius Éditions, 2012.
 * Gary Forsythe, "A Philological Note on the Scipionic Circle", in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 112, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 363–364.
 * C. M. C. Green, "Did the Romans Hunt?", Classical Antiquity, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Oct., 1996), pp. 222–260.
 * Erich S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley & Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1984.
 * Kevin Herbert, "The Identity of Plutarch's Lost Scipio", in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 78, No. 1 (1957), pp. 83–88.
 * Ian Gray Kidd, Posidonius, Cambridge University Press, 1972–2004.
 * Jerzy Linderski, "Roman Officers in the Year of Pydna", in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 111, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 53–71.
 * David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton University Press, 1950.
 * Iain McDougall, "The Reputation of Appius Claudius Pulcher, Cos. 143 BC", Hermes, 120. Bd., H. 4 (1992), pp. 452–460.
 * Friedrich Münzer, Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families, translated by Thérèse Ridley, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999 (originally published in 1920).
 * Nathan Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic, Edinburgh University Press, 2012.
 * Francis X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998.
 * Howard Hayes Scullard, Roman Politics 220–150 B. C., Oxford University Press, 1951.
 * Philip A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch's Pericles, Chapel Hill and London, University of North Carolina Press, 1989.
 * Ronald Syme & Anthony R. Birley (editor), Roman Papers, vol. VI, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.
 * Lily Ross Taylor and T. Robert S. Broughton, "The Order of the Two Consuls' Names in the Yearly Lists", Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949), pp. 3–14.
 * ——, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, University of Michigan Press, 1960.
 * Frank William Walbank, A Commentary on Polybius, Oxford University Press, 1957–1979.
 * ——, Polybius, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1972.