How Did Milo Influence Roman Politics

In the 50s B.C., Roman political matters were controlled by 2 major factions: the optimates who supported the senate and nobles and the populares who supported the plebeians and lower class. The conflicts and disputes between the two groups are resolved through violence and threats.
Publius Clodius Pulcher, a politician, manipulated the poor for his own advantage. Titus Annius Milo was influenced by Pompey and the optimates to defeat Clodius. He also, after confronting a harsh opposition from Clodius, brought Cicero back from exile. In 52 B.C., Clodius and Milo encountered each other on the Appian Way, in which Milo assassinated Clodius. Cicero defended Milo in court, but he presented his arguments defectively due to Clodius’s intimidating

men. Asconius, a historian, wrote what he believed to be the most factual account of the murder of Clodius.
Asconius stated that on January 18th, Milo set out to Lanuvium to appoint a priest due to the fact that he was the chief magistrate of that town.

He also revealed that “Clodius, who was returning from Aricia... ran into him… a little beyond Bovillae” (Asconius 3). However, in Cicero’s account, Clodius already knew about Milo’s plans: “Clodius knew—and it was not hard to know it—that Milo was forced to take a yearly, legitimate, necessary journey” (Cicero section 27). Clodius departed on the same day in order to set up an ambush in front of his farm. In Asconius’ account, prosecutors proclaimed that it was Milo himself that had made an ambush on Clodius. Cicero argued that it was a lie: “for that attack had come about by chance... that an ambush had been set by Clodius against Milo” (Asconius 15). In order to place the blame even more on Clodius, Cicero included that Clodius deliberately missed his chaotic public meeting as his overwhelming desire urged him to commit his

crime.
Additionally, Asconius presented it was one of Milo’s gladiators who attacked Clodius: “ When Clodius looked back at this disturbance with a threatening aspect, Birria wounded his shoulder with a thrust” (Asconius 3).

The fight commenced, and several of Milo’s men rushed to the commotion. Milo strongly deemed that if Clodius was still alive, he would not have a tranquil peace of mind. To Milo, he was an obstacle that prevented him from obtaining consulship. Thus, he ordered his slaves to haul the body from the tavern to be finished off and left on the road. Nevertheless, Cicero twisted the actual events to benefit Milo’s position. He pointed out when the fight broke out, several men of Clodius drew their weapons and began to attack Milo from behind. Milo’s slaves began to slaughter Clodius’s slaves because “they thought that he [Milo] was already slain” (Cicero section 29). Cicero implied that Milo’s slaves were the ones that killed Clodius since they struck him without their master commanding it or even knowing

it.
Cicero tried to argue by questioning why Milo killed Clodius in haste when he could have done it at night. He even declared “it was even desirable for Milo that Clodius should live” (Cicero section 52). Although Clodius’s death would be advantageous to Milo, he bore no hatred for him. Cicero added that Clodius knew about Milo’s journey, but Milo did not know about Clodius’s return. Despite this argument, Cicero was interrupted by the catcalls of Clodius’s men and “so he spoke without the firmness (constantia) which was his habit” (Asconius 16). Eventually, Milo was condemned and was set out into exile to Massilia.
Clodius was a hindrance to Milo from acquiring his consulship; therefore, he ordered his slaves to kill him. In exchange for bringing him back from exile, Cicero defended Milo’s accusation against the murder of Clodius. However, Asconius’ account revealed the truth behind the violent and bloody slaughter of the politician: Milo was indeed guilty of killing Clodius.