Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (born c. 89 BC) is best known for his alliance with Mark Antony and Gaius Octavius (later Emperor Augustus) in the Second Triumvirate. Before that, he was one of Julius Caesar’s closest allies as his magister equitum (Master of the Horse) from 46 BC to the dictator’s death in 44 BC.
Caesar’s confidence in Lepidus was evident. He entrusted Lepidus to govern Rome twice in his absence in 49 and 46 BC, assigned him as governor of Hither Spain in 48—47 BC, and made him a praetor in 49 BC and a consul in 46 BC. Yet, Lepidus has gone down in history as one of the most incompetent Romans in the late Roman Republic. It is worth considering why he earned this reputation and whether this accurately represents the man who was one of Caesar’s closest and most trusted allies.
Caesar’s confidence in Lepidus was evident. He entrusted Lepidus to govern Rome twice in his absence in 49 and 46 BC, assigned him as governor of Hither Spain in 48—47 BC, and made him a praetor in 49 BC and a consul in 46 BC. Yet, Lepidus has gone down in history as one of the most incompetent Romans in the late Roman Republic. It is worth considering why he earned this reputation and whether this accurately represents the man who was one of Caesar’s closest and most trusted allies.
Representation in History
Lepidus has received criticism from ancient and modern writers alike. His ancient detractors are the most significant since their views have helped shape how people perceive him today. By far, the most prominent critic of Lepidus was Marcus Tullius Cicero, a famous orator in the late Roman Republic. In his letters, he condemned Lepidus as a ‘turncoat’ who was ‘lacking in principle and character’ among other things. Decimus Brutus, an assassin of Caesar, called him a ‘weathercock’ – essentially, someone who changes sides frequently. It is likely that these criticisms, among comments from other ancient writers, played an instrumental role in shaping Lepidus’s reputation throughout history. However, it is essential to consider the context in which these charges were made. Cicero and Decimus made these comments after Lepidus sided with Antony after the Battle of Mutina. In Cicero’s eyes, it was thanks to Lepidus that the Caesarian cause, of which Decimus and Cicero were both opponents. This would have engendered considerable bitterness towards Lepidus, thus explaining the comments about Lepidus that have endured throughout history.
Later depictions of Lepidus followed these accusations, further tarnishing his legacy. The most famous example is William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. In the former, he is called a ‘slight, unmeritable man,’ while in the latter, he is depicted as a largely incompetent drunk. In the TV series HBO Rome, he is portrayed as inept and weak. This is the picture painted of him in several historical fiction and non-fiction books as well.
Later depictions of Lepidus followed these accusations, further tarnishing his legacy. The most famous example is William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. In the former, he is called a ‘slight, unmeritable man,’ while in the latter, he is depicted as a largely incompetent drunk. In the TV series HBO Rome, he is portrayed as inept and weak. This is the picture painted of him in several historical fiction and non-fiction books as well.
Lepidus in Spain and as Magister Equitum
Arguably, however, the reality is much different. Based on the extant information about him, there is no reason to believe that Lepidus was as incompetent and negligible as popular depictions of him have claimed. Caesar clearly put a lot of trust in Lepidus, given the appointments he bestowed upon him. During his praetorship in 49 BC, Lepidus was placed in charge of Rome whilst Caesar was off fighting the beginning of the civil wars between him and Pompey. The following year, he was appointed as governor of Hither Spain. Until recently, hostilities in Spain had been rife, and the atmosphere in the province was still uncertain. It is doubtful that Caesar would have entrusted the governorship of Spain to an incompetent governor since the threat of rebellion was still a distinct possibility. Besides, Lepidus soon proved that Caesar’s decision was wise. During his governorship, Lepidus succeeded in maintaining order in the province. Although he faced a rebellion during his term, he defeated the rebels without resorting to much violence or bloodshed.
Caesar was impressed with his administration, so much so that he granted Lepidus a triumph upon his return to Rome. Overall, Lepidus’s term as governor was largely successful. Certainly, it does not align with the perception of Lepidus as unremarkable and incompetent but rather a judicious administrator possessing the skill and judgment needed to prevent another rebellion and re-establish control in an unstable province.
Caesar’s confidence in Lepidus was further established when he made Lepidus magister equitum (Master of the Horse) in 46 BC. It is improbable that Caesar would have granted such a vital role to Lepidus if he felt that the latter was incapable, and there is nothing to suggest that Lepidus failed in his capacity as magister equitum, either. At any rate, Caesar did not have a reason to distrust Lepidus, and he presumably remained Caesar’s second in command until the latter died in 44 BC.
Caesar was impressed with his administration, so much so that he granted Lepidus a triumph upon his return to Rome. Overall, Lepidus’s term as governor was largely successful. Certainly, it does not align with the perception of Lepidus as unremarkable and incompetent but rather a judicious administrator possessing the skill and judgment needed to prevent another rebellion and re-establish control in an unstable province.
Caesar’s confidence in Lepidus was further established when he made Lepidus magister equitum (Master of the Horse) in 46 BC. It is improbable that Caesar would have granted such a vital role to Lepidus if he felt that the latter was incapable, and there is nothing to suggest that Lepidus failed in his capacity as magister equitum, either. At any rate, Caesar did not have a reason to distrust Lepidus, and he presumably remained Caesar’s second in command until the latter died in 44 BC.
Aftermath of Caesar’s Assassination and the Second Triumvirate
Lepidus reacted swiftly and decisively in the chaos that followed Caesar’s assassination. He had a legion sitting on Tiber Island and decided to use it to calm the situation in Rome. Overnight, he led his soldiers off the island and occupied the Forum, a presence that likely discouraged any further chaos. Then, when Lucius Cornelius Cinna – a praetor and former brother-in-law of Caesar – was attacked by the mob after making a scathing speech against Caesar, Lepidus and his soldiers intervened and stopped the violence. Additionally, he protected the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, which was at risk of being burned down for a funeral pyre by a mob of people whose anger had been instigated by the events of Caesar’s funeral. Once again, Lepidus demonstrated sound administration skills and quick thinking by acting decisively to calm a situation that threatened to spiral out of control, preventing any further significant chaos and violence from erupting in the city.
Lepidus remained powerful during the first few years following the Ides of March. In 43 BC, he formed the Second Triumvirate with Antony and Octavian. In its early years, Lepidus retained much of his power; when he and his two colleagues divided the provinces between them, he was assigned Narbonese Gaul along with Hither and Further Spain. All three of these were important Roman provinces.
In 42 BC, Lepidus was elected consul again. At the same time, Antony and Octavian headed off to the east to fight against Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius—two leaders of the conspiracy against Caesar—in the Battles of Philippi. At their request, Lepidus gave seven of his ten legions to Antony and Octavian to help them fight against the conspirators.
Lepidus remained powerful during the first few years following the Ides of March. In 43 BC, he formed the Second Triumvirate with Antony and Octavian. In its early years, Lepidus retained much of his power; when he and his two colleagues divided the provinces between them, he was assigned Narbonese Gaul along with Hither and Further Spain. All three of these were important Roman provinces.
In 42 BC, Lepidus was elected consul again. At the same time, Antony and Octavian headed off to the east to fight against Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius—two leaders of the conspiracy against Caesar—in the Battles of Philippi. At their request, Lepidus gave seven of his ten legions to Antony and Octavian to help them fight against the conspirators.
Downfall
From this point on, Lepidus’s power slowly began to decline. After emerging victorious from Philippi, Antony and Octavian proceeded to redistribute the provinces in a new agreement, which unjustly stripped Lepidus of his former provinces and left him with virtually nothing. His influence continued its steady decline over the next five years, culminating in 36 BC. After a successful battle against Sextus Pompey, Lepidus suffered a mass desertion of his soldiers, who defected to Octavian. With few options at his disposal, Lepidus had no choice but to submit to Octavian. In the end, Octavian sent him back to Rome, ousting him from the triumvirate and committing him to permanent exile in Circeii. Here, Lepidus remained until he died in 13 or 12 BC.
The prevailing perception is that Lepidus was lazy, incompetent and negligible, but the comments made about Lepidus by his contemporaries and later ancient writers did not accurately reflect his abilities. Unfortunately, the issue has been further exacerbated by Lepidus’s lack of ambition compared to his contemporaries, like Antony and Octavian. He did not seek individual power. All his influence and appointments until 44 BC had been achieved through Caesar. He was content to work under Caesar rather than attain individual power. Moreover, he displayed remarkable diplomacy and adaptability; although he was not opposed to using force, he generally tried to achieve success through negotiation first. These qualities are far from unadmirable, but to Lepidus’s contemporaries, who placed a higher value on military prowess and the accumulation of personal power, these aspects of his character were indeed ‘unmeritable.’ It is likely, too, that writers were inclined to criticise Lepidus to make Octavian look more favourable in comparison – especially those who were writing after Octavian had become Emperor Augustus.
However, his actions as governor of Hither Spain and Caesar’s confidence in him strongly indicate the contrary. Someone as shrewd as Caesar would not have bestowed such vital offices on Lepidus. Nor would he have shown significant trust in someone he considered utterly incapable. This, alongside his decisive actions in the aftermath of the Ides, shows that Lepidus had greater merit than he has been given credit for.
The prevailing perception is that Lepidus was lazy, incompetent and negligible, but the comments made about Lepidus by his contemporaries and later ancient writers did not accurately reflect his abilities. Unfortunately, the issue has been further exacerbated by Lepidus’s lack of ambition compared to his contemporaries, like Antony and Octavian. He did not seek individual power. All his influence and appointments until 44 BC had been achieved through Caesar. He was content to work under Caesar rather than attain individual power. Moreover, he displayed remarkable diplomacy and adaptability; although he was not opposed to using force, he generally tried to achieve success through negotiation first. These qualities are far from unadmirable, but to Lepidus’s contemporaries, who placed a higher value on military prowess and the accumulation of personal power, these aspects of his character were indeed ‘unmeritable.’ It is likely, too, that writers were inclined to criticise Lepidus to make Octavian look more favourable in comparison – especially those who were writing after Octavian had become Emperor Augustus.
However, his actions as governor of Hither Spain and Caesar’s confidence in him strongly indicate the contrary. Someone as shrewd as Caesar would not have bestowed such vital offices on Lepidus. Nor would he have shown significant trust in someone he considered utterly incapable. This, alongside his decisive actions in the aftermath of the Ides, shows that Lepidus had greater merit than he has been given credit for.
University graduate in History and Social Sciences, with a particular interest in Early Modern history, Ancient Rome, and Shakespeare.
