A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

534 CAEPIO.
No. 2 (Liv. xli. 26) curule aedile B. c. 179, when
he celebrated the Roman games over again, on account of prodigies which had occurred; and praetor
B. c. 174, when he obtained the province of Further Spain. On his return to Italy, he was one of
the ambassadors sent into Macedonia to renounce
the Roman alliance with Perseus; and he was consul in 169 with Q. Marcius Philippus. Caepio remained in Italy; his colleague had Macedonia as his
province. (Liv. xl. 59, xli. 26, xlii. 25, xliii. 13,
14, 17; Cic. Brut. 20, de Senect. 5.)
4. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS SERVILIANUS, son of
No. 3, consul in B. c. 142, was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus. [MAXIMUS.]
5. CN. SERVILIUS CN. F. CN. N. CAEPIO, son of
No. 3, was consul B. c. 141 (Cic. ad Att. xii. 5, de
Fin. ii. 16), and censor in 125. In his censorship
one of the aquaeducts, the Aqua Tepula, for supplying Rome with water, was constructed. (Frontin. de Aquaed. 8; Cic. Verr. i. 55; Vell. Pat. ii.
10.)
6. CN. SERVILIUS CN. F. CN. N. CAEPIO, son of
No. 3, consul B. c. 140 with C. Laelius (Cic. Brut.
43; Obsequ. 82), succeeded his brother, Q. Fabius
Maximus Servilianus, in the conduct of the war
against Viriathus in Lusitania. His brother had
made a treaty of peace with Viriathus, which had
been confirmed by the senate; but Caepio, by representing that the treaty was unfavourable to the
interests of Rome, persuaded the senate to allow
him at first to injure Viriathus, as far as he could,
secretly, and finally to declare open war against
him. Hereupon, Viriathus sent two of his most
faithful friends to Caepio to offer terms of peace; but
the consul persuaded them, by promises and great
rewards, to assassinate their master. Accordingly,
on their return to their own party, they murdered
Viriathus while he was asleep in his tent, and afterwards fled to Caepio. But this murder did not
put an immediate stop to the war. After burying
the corpse of Viriathus with great magnificence,
his soldiers elected Tantalus as their general, who
undertook an expedition against Saguntum. Repulsed from thence, he crossed the Baetis, closely
pursued by Caepio, and, despairing of success, at
length surrendered, with all his forces, to the Roman general. Caepio deprived them of their arms,
but assigned them a certain portion of land, that
they might not turn robbers from want of the necessaries of life. (Appian, Hisp. 70, 75, 76; Liv.
Epit. 54; Flor. ii. 17; Eutrop. iv. 16; Oros. v. 4;
Vell. Pat. ii. 1; Val. Max. ix. 6. ~ 4; Aurel. Vict.
de Vir. Ill. 71; Diod. xxxii. Ecl. 4.) Caepio treated
his soldiers with great cruelty and severity, which
rendered him so unpopular, that he was nearly
killed by his cavalry on one occasion. (Dion Cass.
Frag. lxxiii. p. 35, ed. Reimar.)
The two last-mentioned brothers, Nos. 5 and 6,
are classed by Cicero (Brut. 25) among the Roman
orators. He says, that they assisted their clients
much by their advice and oratory, but still more
by their authority and influence. They appeared
as witnesses against Q. Pompeius. (Val. Max. viii.
5. ~ 1; Cic. pro Font. 7.)
7. Q. SERVILIUS Q. F. CN. N. CAEPIO, son of
No. 6, was praetor about B. c. 110, and obtained
the province of Further Spain, as we learn from
the triumphal Fasti, that he triumphed over the
Lusitanians, as propraetor, in B. C. 108. His triumph is mentioned by Valerius Maximus (vi. 9.
~ 13); but Eutropius (iv. 27) is the only writer,

CAEPIO.
as far as we are aware, who refers to his victories
in Lusitania. He was consul, B. c. 106, with C.
Atilius Serranus, and proposed a law for restoring
the judicia to the senators, of which they had been
deprived by the Sempronia lex of C. Gracchus.
That this was the object of Caepio's law, appears
tolerably certain from a passage of Tacitus (Ann.
xii. 60); though many modern writers have inferred, from Julius Obsequens (c. 101), that his law
opened the judicia to the senate and the equites in
common. It seems, however, that this law was
repealed shortly afterwards.
As the Cimbri and Teutones were threatening
Italy, Caepio received the province of Gallia Narbonensis. The inhabitants of Tolosa, the capital
of the Tectosagae, had revolted to the Cimbri; and
as it was one of the most wealthy cities in those
districts, and possessed a temple which was celebrated for its immense treasures, Caepio eagerly
availed himself of the pretext which the inhabitants
had given him to enrich himself by the plunder
both of the city and the temple. The wealth which
he thus acquired was enormous; but he was thought
to have paid for it dearly, as the subsequent destruction of his army and his own unhappy fate
were regarded as a divine punishment for his sacrilegious act. Hence too arose the proverb, "Auruin
Tolosanum habet." (Strab. iv. p. 188; Dion Cass.
Frag. xcvii. p. 41; Gell. iii. 9; Justin. xxxii. 3;
Oros. v. 15.) He was continued in his command
in Gaul in the following year (B. c. 105), in which
some writers place the sack of Tolosa; and, that
there might be a still stronger force to oppose the
Cimbri, the consul Cn. Mallius, or Manlius, was
sent with another consular army into Gallia Narbonensis. As however Caepio and Mallius could
not agree, they divided the province between them,
one having the country west, and the other the
country east, of the Rhone. Soon afterwards,
M. Aurelius Scaurus was defeated by the Cimbri,
and Mallius sent for Caepio, that they might
unite their forces to oppose the common enemy.
Caepio at first refused to come, but afterwards,
fearing lest Mallius should reap all the glory by
defeating the Cimbri, he crossed the Rhone and
marched towards the consul. Still, however, he
would hold no communication with him; he encamped separately; and that he might have an
opportunity of finishing the war himself, he pitched
his camp between the consul and the enemy. At
this juncture, with such a formidable enemy in
their front, the utmost prudence and unanimity
were needed by the Roman generals: their discord
was fatal. The Roman soldiers saw this, and
compelled Caepio, against his will, to unite his
forces with those of Mallius. But this did not
mend matters. The discord of Mallius and Caepio
increased more and more, and they appear to have
separated again before they were attacked by the
Cimbri, as Florus speaks of the defeat of Mallius
and Caepio as two separate events. But whether
they were attacked together or separately, the result
was the same. Both armies were utterly defeated;
80,000 soldiers and 40,000 camp-followers perished;
only ten men are said to have escaped the slaughter.
It was one of the most complete defeats which
the Romans had ever sustained; and the day on
which it happened, the 6th of October, became one
of the black days in the Roman calendar. (Dion
Cass. Frag. xcviii. xcix. pp. 41, 42; Liv. Epit. 67;
Oros. v. 16; Sall. Jug. 114; Flor. iii. 3; Tac.