M'. Aquilius 10
vol. II p.323-324
10) M’. Aquilius
M'. Aquilius M’. f. M’. n. (his complete name is given in the Act. triumph.), consul in 625 = 129 with C. Sempronius Tuditanus. When referred to as part of a date given by the names of the consuls in that year, he is called M.’ Aquilius in Vell. II 4, 5; M’. Aquillius Oros. V 10; Aquilius Cic. de rep. I 14; nat. deor. II 14; ad Q. fr. III 5, 1; in the fasti M. (sic) Aquilius Cassiod.; Aquilinus Chronogr.; Anullinus Chron. Pasch.; Anuilius f. Idat. <50>
As consul, he was tasked with sorting out matters in Asia. His predecessor M. Perpenna, the consul of 624 = 130, had already defeated Aristonicus and taken him captive, put down the revolt, and sent the Attalides’ valuables back to Rome, but after dying suddenly at Pergamon (Eutrop.) he was unable to fully complete the job he had started. <60> This is both the usual story and the correct one, as confirmed by the accounts of Strabo (XIV 646), Iustinus (XXXVI 4, 9ff.), and Eutropius (IV 20), or effectively Livy, and is also confirmed by Velleius (II 4, 1). <page break 323/324> The sentence Aristonicus qui mortuo rege Attalo -- -- mentitus regiae stirpis originem armis eam (= Asiam) occupaverat, is victus a M. Perpenna ductusque in triumpho. sed a M’. Aquilio, capite poenas luit mean: “Aristonicus was defeated by M. Perpenna, was later lead out in a triumph (this being M’. Aquilius’ triumph, however) and executed.” Neumann’s interpretation in Gesch. Roms während des Verfalles 273 that “Aristonicus was conquered by Perpenna and lead out in a triumph, but was executed by M’. Aquilius” is false; Neumann supports their interpretation with Valer. Max. III 4, 5, who however appears to assume that Perpenna had actually celebrated a triumph over Aristonicus before his right to citizenship that he had previously won was taken away. But even if his dazzling words (cuius vita triumphavit, mors Papia lege damnata est) are intended to have that meaning, they still hold no weight when compared with the sources of serious historians listed above, and the usual account which they give holds. <20>
Aquilius found that there was little warring left to be done: he allegedly captured a few cities by poisoning the water supply (Flor. II 34). His most important duty was establishing the borders of the new province of Asia, which, as usually happened, he accomplished with a commission of ten senators, Strab. loc. cit.; cf. Waddington Fastes p.21. Marquardt Röm. St.-V. I2 334. <30> In so doing, he left Phrygia Maior to Mithridates V of Pontus as a reward for the services he had provided the Romans with during the war against Aristonicus, Appian. Mithrid. 57; cf. Iustin. XXXVII 1, 2. XXXVIII 5, 3. The inscription of a milestone near ancient Tralles, CIG 2920 = CIL I 557, refers to his activities in Asia; its actual text is uncertain and full of lacunae, since it’s based on one single inadequate transcription. <40> Aquarius remained in Asia for two more years after his consulship as proconsul, since according to the Act. triumph. CIL I p.460 M’. Aquillius M’. f. M’. n. pro cos. triumphed an. DCXXVII (= 628 Varr. = 126 BCE) ex Asia pr. idus Novembr. Soon after his return, between 628/631 = 126/123 (as can be concluded from Appian. b. c. I 22), he was charged for allegedly taking bribes from Mithridates: P. Lentulus, is qui princeps senatus fuit, accusabat M’. Aquilium subscriptore C. Rutilio Rufo, Cic. div. in Caec. 60, though he was acquitted (Appian. loc. cit.). <50> M’. Aquilius cos. 651 = 103 (nr. 11) was probably his son.
([Klebs.])