Quintus Aemilius Lepidus
Roman consul 21 BC
Quintus Aemilius Lepidus (possibly Quintus Aemilius Lepidus Barbula) (fl. 1st century BC) was a Roman senator and military officer who was appointed consul in 21 BC as the colleague of Marcus Lollius.
Biography
Quintus Aemilius Lepidus was a member of the Patrician gens Aemilia and the son of Manius Aemilius Lepidus, who was consul in 66 BC. He was a supporter of Marcus Antonius.
It is assumed that Quintus Aemilius Lepidus was the “Barbula” referred to in Appian’s Civil Wars. In it, Appian recounts that a certain Marcus (assumed to be Marcus Lollius) was a legate of Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger who, after the Battle of Philippi, had been proscribed. Hiding as a slave, he was purchased by Lepidus, whose identity was then revealed by a friend in Rome. Lepidus went to Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who interceded on his behalf with Octavianus, who then ensured that Lollius’ name was removed from the proscription lists.
Around 40-38 BC, Lepidus was a Monetalis for Marcus Antonius in Pergamum, minting cistophori on behalf of Antony. Then, in 31 BC, he fought alongside Antony at the Battle of Actium but was captured. He was released only when Marcus Lollius interceded for him before Octavianus, thereby returning the favour.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Quintus Aemilius Lepidus” is roman consul 21 BC. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Quintus, Aemilius and Lepidus, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “roman consul 21 BC” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q965231. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Quintus Aemilius Lepidus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Quintus Aemilius Lepidus primary sources, Quintus Aemilius Lepidus archive and Quintus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Quintus Aemilius Lepidus”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Quintus Aemilius Lepidus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.