[1] He is, however, simultaneously criticised by ancient writers such as Cicero and Livy for his popular policies and disregard of Roman traditions, particularly during the terms of his tribunate and second consulship.

[17] Valerius Maximus claims the crowd respected Flaminius' pietas in this event and does not mention the subsequent maiestas trial described by Cicero.

He views choice of territory as part of an aggressive policy against Gallic threat advocated by the Aemilii who saw the Gauls as potential allies for Hannibal, and opposed by the Fabii.

[31] Roselaar argued that the senate was afraid that Flaminius would gain too much influence over the people for distributing the land to them, although Feig Vishnia points out that they were too far away to easily vote and settlers were only incorporated into two tribes which limited their political usefulness.

Flaminius' law may not have been as controversial as represented in later sources, as he was able to go on to hold the highest offices of the state and giving land to soldier veterans was simply a continuation of normal Roman policy.

[37] Despite chronological problems with Cicero, Fieg Vishnia argues that Spurius Carvilius Ruga's silence, even while not the consul, is significant in showing support among the senate for the law.

[42] Upon these grounds the senate sent letters commanding both consuls to return to the city with great speed, lay down their office, and forbade them from engaging the enemy.

[44] Even after the letters arrived, driven by his fiery and ambitious nature, Flaminius refused to read the senate's directive until after he had joined battle with the Insubrians, whom he soundly defeated.

[45] Polybius attributes Flaminius' victory not to the consul, but to his military tribunes, who from former battles had learnt the swords used by the Gauls after an initial onslaught became so bent they were unserviceable, unless the men had time to straighten them on the ground with their boots.

[48] Despite this apparent tactical oversight by Flaminius, the Romans were able to return to Rome with a large amount of booty and trophies due to their own skill and valour.

Plutarch details that upon Flaminius' return, the people would not go out to see him and due to his insolence and disobedience came close to denying him his triumph, compelled him to renounce his consulship, and made him a private citizen.

[51] While Livy labels his behaviour as insubordination towards both men and the gods,[52] Silius Italicus describes Flaminius' actions as resulting in an easy triumph and crushing a fickle and guileless people.

[57] While Plutarch and Valerius Maximus both recount how Flaminius' tenure as Master of the Horse ended as a result of poor omens—namely that a shrew-mouse was heard at an inopportune time—sources differ as to the course of events following said omens.

Over time, the area around the Circus Flaminius became extremely decadent, with Pompey, Caesar, and particularly Augustus building extravagant temples and public works there.

[65] Humphrey writes that "by the early third century AD, the open space had been reduced to a piazza in the front the great Augustan colonnades of Octavia and Philippus".

Based on Livy's claim that 'all moneymaking was held unseemly in a senator', modern historians have argued that Flaminius was concerned that maritime trade and profits might jeopardise the values of the Roman elite.

[70] D'Arms argues instead that only profits from the sea are disreputable as they were high risk and could swiftly ruin an entire family, which was problematic for the stability of the ruling class.

Prompted by senatorial hostility, which was inflamed by his support of the Lex Claudia in 218, and the advancing Hannibalic army, Flaminius bypassed the traditional vows and rituals of consulship within Rome to take up office at Ariminum instead.

[79] Despite remarks that he was acting against the will of the gods and the senate, Flaminius proceeded to ignore senatorial summons back to Rome and instead marched his troops to Etruria.

[81] Upon hearing this news, Flaminius hastened his army to Arretium and beat Hannibal there whilst Servilius, his colleague, travelled with other forces to Ariminum.

[82] Hannibal then pitched his camp in the marshes around Arretium and set to plundering the rich countryside of central Etruria, to incite Flaminius to give battle before Servilius arrived with reinforcements.

[84] This call to battle was, according to Livy's history and Cicero's later writings, followed by a double portent of Flaminius being thrown from his mount, and the legion's standard being unable to be moved.

[85] Despite the ill omens, Flaminius advanced with his men, straight into the ambush Hannibal had laid for the Roman troops on the plain between Lake Trasimene and the surrounding hills of Mt.

[88] The accounts of Flaminius' death vary amongst ancient sources; Polybius states he was killed by a group of Gauls, while Livy suggests it was a specific Insubrian horseman, Ducarius, who had recognised the Roman general.

[89] The overwhelming consensus, however, is that Flaminius was killed in the battle and his body never recovered, despite Hannibal searching for it in order to give his enemy a proper burial.

[93] Cassola challenges this, arguing for their political association by citing their mutual opposition to Roman expansion, support for Italian interests, disdain for religious convention and claims that the votes that gave Flaminius his second consulship appointed Fabius dictator after his death.

[96] He argues that no consistent factional alignment or popular movement can be attributed to Flaminius, claiming his electoral and political success was primarily due to his obvious military and administrative talents.