What do you think?
Rate this book
The Civil Wars
Appian's Civil Wars offers a masterly account of the turbulent epoch from the time of Tiberius Gracchus (133 BC) to the tremendous conflicts which followed the murder of Julius Caesar. For the events between 133 and 70 BC he is the only surviving continuous narrative source. The subsequent books vividly describe Catiline's conspiracy, the rise and fall of the First Triumvirate, and Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, defeat of Pompey and untimely death. The climax comes with the birth of the Second Triumvirate out of anarchy, the terrible purges of Proscriptions which followed, and the titanic struggle for world mastery which was only to end with Augustus's defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. If Appian's Roman History as a whole reveals how an empire was born of the struggle against a series of external enemies, these five books concentrate on an even greater ordeal. Despite the rhetorical flourishes, John Carter suggests in his Introduction, the impressive 'overall conception of the decline of the Roman state into violence, with its sombre highlights and the leitmotif of fate, is neither trivial nor inaccurate'.
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 165
59 people are currently reading
2888 people want to read
About the author
Appian
259 books25 followersAppian of Alexandria (/ˈæpiən/; Ancient Greek: Ἀππιανός Ἀλεξανδρεύς, Appianós Alexandreús; Latin: Appianus Alexandrinus; ca. AD 95 – ca. AD 165) was a Roman historian of Greek ethnicity who flourished during the reigns of Emperors of Rome Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius.
He was born circa 95 in Alexandria. He tells us, after having filled the chief offices in the province of Aegyptus (Egypt), he went to Rome circa 120, where he practised as an advocate, pleading cases before the emperors (probably as advocatus fisci), that in 147 at the earliest he was appointed to the office of procurator, probably in Egypt, on the recommendation of his friend Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a well-known litterateur. Because the position of procurator was open only to members of the equestrian order (the "knightly" class), his possession of this office tells us about Appian's family background.
His principal surviving work (Ῥωμαϊκά, known in Latin as Historia Romana and in English as Roman History) was written in Greek in 24 books, before 165. This work more closely resembles a series of monographs than a connected history. It gives an account of various peoples and countries from the earliest times down to their incorporation into the Roman Empire, and survives in complete books and considerable fragments. The work is very valuable, especially for the period of the civil wars.
The Civil Wars, five of the later books in the corpus, concern mainly the end of the Roman Republic and take a conflict-based approach to history.
He was born circa 95 in Alexandria. He tells us, after having filled the chief offices in the province of Aegyptus (Egypt), he went to Rome circa 120, where he practised as an advocate, pleading cases before the emperors (probably as advocatus fisci), that in 147 at the earliest he was appointed to the office of procurator, probably in Egypt, on the recommendation of his friend Marcus Cornelius Fronto, a well-known litterateur. Because the position of procurator was open only to members of the equestrian order (the "knightly" class), his possession of this office tells us about Appian's family background.
His principal surviving work (Ῥωμαϊκά, known in Latin as Historia Romana and in English as Roman History) was written in Greek in 24 books, before 165. This work more closely resembles a series of monographs than a connected history. It gives an account of various peoples and countries from the earliest times down to their incorporation into the Roman Empire, and survives in complete books and considerable fragments. The work is very valuable, especially for the period of the civil wars.
The Civil Wars, five of the later books in the corpus, concern mainly the end of the Roman Republic and take a conflict-based approach to history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
August 24, 2016
Leave all your presupposes at the table of contents; Appian and his Civil Wars isn’t going to bore you with a dry tale - he’s going to knock your socks off. Fans of Game of Thrones, House of Cards, or even the not so historically accurate but very watchable HBO series Rome will find plenty between the covers to keep their interest.
First a note on the version to buy. John Carter’s modern translation is easy to read and follow throughout Apian’s five books. There are excellent footnotes that shouldn’t be missed (yes, a two bookmark special) – but before you even begin the main text, I highly recommend Carter’s fantastic introduction and also the appendices. I didn’t know my consul from proconsul, a tribune from an imperium – Carter straightens all of this out in a few important pages and prepares the reader for the Roman political world (as well as great short pieces on the Roman Army, the Senate and other germain topics). I also love singing the praises of any paper book versus an electronic version; I started this on an e-reader and it was so terrible I stopped to do more research and found out that the Penguin Classic / John Carter edition was the way to go. Score one for the trees.
How crazy is it that Appian’s work is the only surviving continuous narrative of history encompassing 133 to 35 BCE of the Roman Empire? And what a shit-crazy time it was. There was basically a period of 100 years of ongoing civil war in the Republic/Empire – so much instability it is really a wonder that the entire populous wasn’t bled white. The Julius Caesar assassination and fallout that many readers may find familiar takes the better part of half of the book, but there are so many other really interesting stories and characters leading up to JC’s stage time that are worth knowing.
The one thing about this book that I couldn’t believe – and had one of those literal draw drops – was that it ended before the big showdown between Mark Antony and Octavian. You can sense and see it coming, after the fall of Cassius and Brutus and the preparation for power grabbing in the vacuum, but we don’t learn the end of the that story in this narrative. It would be like watching Star Wars up until the point where all of the rebels leave to attack the Death Star and then the movie ends.
Yet another great book of antiquity that Vollmann has lead me to read. I can’t recommend this enough to my friends interested in Roman history or books of political intrigue.
First a note on the version to buy. John Carter’s modern translation is easy to read and follow throughout Apian’s five books. There are excellent footnotes that shouldn’t be missed (yes, a two bookmark special) – but before you even begin the main text, I highly recommend Carter’s fantastic introduction and also the appendices. I didn’t know my consul from proconsul, a tribune from an imperium – Carter straightens all of this out in a few important pages and prepares the reader for the Roman political world (as well as great short pieces on the Roman Army, the Senate and other germain topics). I also love singing the praises of any paper book versus an electronic version; I started this on an e-reader and it was so terrible I stopped to do more research and found out that the Penguin Classic / John Carter edition was the way to go. Score one for the trees.
How crazy is it that Appian’s work is the only surviving continuous narrative of history encompassing 133 to 35 BCE of the Roman Empire? And what a shit-crazy time it was. There was basically a period of 100 years of ongoing civil war in the Republic/Empire – so much instability it is really a wonder that the entire populous wasn’t bled white. The Julius Caesar assassination and fallout that many readers may find familiar takes the better part of half of the book, but there are so many other really interesting stories and characters leading up to JC’s stage time that are worth knowing.
The one thing about this book that I couldn’t believe – and had one of those literal draw drops – was that it ended before the big showdown between Mark Antony and Octavian. You can sense and see it coming, after the fall of Cassius and Brutus and the preparation for power grabbing in the vacuum, but we don’t learn the end of the that story in this narrative. It would be like watching Star Wars up until the point where all of the rebels leave to attack the Death Star and then the movie ends.
Yet another great book of antiquity that Vollmann has lead me to read. I can’t recommend this enough to my friends interested in Roman history or books of political intrigue.
July 15, 2025
It's easy to forget the sheer scale of political violence in the Later Roman Republic, especially if you only remember the big names like Sulla or Caesar. For each of those men there were many others at the same time trying to grab power or resist another resulting in a revolving door of men at war with each other.
September 19, 2018
A solid piece of writing formed from 5 books: Sulla, Caesar, War of Mutina, War against Brutus and Cassius and the war against Sextus Pompeius. These books originally formed part of Appian's 24 book history of Rome but only some survive.
Reading the first part of the book I was enjoying, but not quite impressed by, the work. Detail is decent and the writing style reasonably good. However, much of the this part of the work is a subject area much covered by other historians such as Tacitus, Plutarch and Caesar himself (whose accounts and style I prefer). It is the second half of this work where I really began to appreciate it. In particular, the discussions of the proscriptions of the second triumvirate and the war against Brutus and Cassius were of great interest.
That being said, much of the work must be taken with a grain of salt. Appian cites almost no sources, although his general narrative is corroborated by other historians. This draws into question much of the anecdotal examples and talking points, such as supposed conversations of the main figures, and the discussed cases of proscriptions. Appian also clearly has his biases, as with all historians, and combined with the aforementioned lack of cited evidence, creates a problem for consideration in our appraisal of his work.
Even so, Appian is by no means a sensationalist like Seutonius who obviously distorts the truth. What Appian writes is plausible given what we already know, but the lack of sources creates problems for his reliability and accuracy.
Reading the first part of the book I was enjoying, but not quite impressed by, the work. Detail is decent and the writing style reasonably good. However, much of the this part of the work is a subject area much covered by other historians such as Tacitus, Plutarch and Caesar himself (whose accounts and style I prefer). It is the second half of this work where I really began to appreciate it. In particular, the discussions of the proscriptions of the second triumvirate and the war against Brutus and Cassius were of great interest.
That being said, much of the work must be taken with a grain of salt. Appian cites almost no sources, although his general narrative is corroborated by other historians. This draws into question much of the anecdotal examples and talking points, such as supposed conversations of the main figures, and the discussed cases of proscriptions. Appian also clearly has his biases, as with all historians, and combined with the aforementioned lack of cited evidence, creates a problem for consideration in our appraisal of his work.
Even so, Appian is by no means a sensationalist like Seutonius who obviously distorts the truth. What Appian writes is plausible given what we already know, but the lack of sources creates problems for his reliability and accuracy.
August 5, 2016
The collapse of the Roman republic is one of the most absorbing events in all of world history. Lately I have been somewhat fixated with it; this summer I finally have the long awaited leisure to pursue more in depth reading on the subject. There is a great wealth of historical writers who wrote about the events at issue: Sallust, Caesar, Cicero, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. There is an impressive roster of famous personalities who dominate this era: the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Sertorius, Lucullus, Crassus, Cato, Brutus, Cassius, Caesar, Marc Antony, Octavian, and a huge cast of lesser characters.
A great nation begins with an initial period of monarchy (Romulus and his six successor kings ruled from 753 to 509). After expelling the last king, a decision is reached that individual liberties are best preserved through the mechanism of a republican government, which then lasts over four hundred years. There follows a chaotic century of internecine violence, civil war, and bloody political upheaval from 133 B.C. (death of Tiberius Gracchus) to the Battle of Actium and the start of the Augustan principate / monarchy (31 B.C.).
How did it happen? When you look at the Roman constitution and its development, the manner in which it evolved and adapted itself over the centuries to new and changing circumstances, the Roman genius for political give and take, compromise, and careful deliberation -- all within a culture that revered tradition and the ancient customs of those who served the state in prior generations -- the persistent question that keeps surfacing is: how could this governmental system have broken down?
The fundamental political concept of checks and balances is drilled repeatedly into the heads of American h.s. students (unfortunately, little mention is made that the Framers were intimately familiar with classical history or that checks and balances were invented by the Romans). Those checks and balances which we revere -- which, admittedly, have been refined considerably with the benefit of historical hindsight -- failed the Romans. The republic was supposed to have endured. It did not, and gave way to monarchy and the loss of those precious freedoms that had been enjoyed for centuries.
There are various theories as to how it happened. A senate that had outlived its usefulness, a government designed to run a small city-state that was no longer up to the task of governing a vast and far flung empire; the influx into Rome of unemployed citizens whose agricultural work was overtaken by vast numbers of slaves; changes within the military that altered the rules of who served and caused soldiers to look to their commanders rather than the state for their personal fortunes; powerful warlords who manipulated military power to serve their own purposes; a clash between the so called populares and the optimates or senatorial class that was unable to adapt to changing circumstances and solve the social problems that plagued Rome; etc., etc.
My fascination with the breakdown of the Roman republic is not unrelated to my dismay both with the current dysfunction of our own federal government and the political chaos that has flared up in so many corners of the world. The fragility of political systems around the globe and the way in which a great nation such as Rome ultimately bowed its neck to accept the yoke of servitude are constant reminders of how the precious freedoms that we take for granted in America could be lost overnight. The great lesson from ancient Rome is very simple: nothing lasts forever. Our current decline -- the rampant greed, corruption and incompetence that mark so much of daily life in both public and private spheres -- is strikingly similar to the problems that arose in the late Roman republic. Economic forces and political shifts that were beyond the capable management of the senate and other institutions marked the fall of the republic. There is much to learn from what went wrong two millennia ago.
A great nation begins with an initial period of monarchy (Romulus and his six successor kings ruled from 753 to 509). After expelling the last king, a decision is reached that individual liberties are best preserved through the mechanism of a republican government, which then lasts over four hundred years. There follows a chaotic century of internecine violence, civil war, and bloody political upheaval from 133 B.C. (death of Tiberius Gracchus) to the Battle of Actium and the start of the Augustan principate / monarchy (31 B.C.).
How did it happen? When you look at the Roman constitution and its development, the manner in which it evolved and adapted itself over the centuries to new and changing circumstances, the Roman genius for political give and take, compromise, and careful deliberation -- all within a culture that revered tradition and the ancient customs of those who served the state in prior generations -- the persistent question that keeps surfacing is: how could this governmental system have broken down?
The fundamental political concept of checks and balances is drilled repeatedly into the heads of American h.s. students (unfortunately, little mention is made that the Framers were intimately familiar with classical history or that checks and balances were invented by the Romans). Those checks and balances which we revere -- which, admittedly, have been refined considerably with the benefit of historical hindsight -- failed the Romans. The republic was supposed to have endured. It did not, and gave way to monarchy and the loss of those precious freedoms that had been enjoyed for centuries.
There are various theories as to how it happened. A senate that had outlived its usefulness, a government designed to run a small city-state that was no longer up to the task of governing a vast and far flung empire; the influx into Rome of unemployed citizens whose agricultural work was overtaken by vast numbers of slaves; changes within the military that altered the rules of who served and caused soldiers to look to their commanders rather than the state for their personal fortunes; powerful warlords who manipulated military power to serve their own purposes; a clash between the so called populares and the optimates or senatorial class that was unable to adapt to changing circumstances and solve the social problems that plagued Rome; etc., etc.
My fascination with the breakdown of the Roman republic is not unrelated to my dismay both with the current dysfunction of our own federal government and the political chaos that has flared up in so many corners of the world. The fragility of political systems around the globe and the way in which a great nation such as Rome ultimately bowed its neck to accept the yoke of servitude are constant reminders of how the precious freedoms that we take for granted in America could be lost overnight. The great lesson from ancient Rome is very simple: nothing lasts forever. Our current decline -- the rampant greed, corruption and incompetence that mark so much of daily life in both public and private spheres -- is strikingly similar to the problems that arose in the late Roman republic. Economic forces and political shifts that were beyond the capable management of the senate and other institutions marked the fall of the republic. There is much to learn from what went wrong two millennia ago.
September 5, 2020
This is easily one of the best historical narratives I've ever read concerning the period of civil war resulting in Rome's transition from democracy to autocracy and finally monarchy. Beginning with Marius and Sulla's quests for power clear through until Sextus Pompey's removal as a political and military threat on the sea, Appian's account provides fascinating information that fills in many gaps left by more popular and even many scholarly narratives.
For those interested in the political maneuvering between the various players like Cicero, Cato, and Julius Caesar, there is a great deal of that here. There is also a great deal of good information on the military front. In fact, it should be obvious to anybody sustaining an interest in Roman history that political and military matters are all but indivisable. Yet most modern historians focus on one or the other depending on specialization. The result is that we get only part of the picture, often a skewed one.
On top of that, it's the kind of historical narrative that is difficult to put down. Each account is full of rising tension that increases to the very end.
So, why only 3 stars? Unfortunately, Appian's history stops with Pompey the Younger's capture by forces commanded by Antony and Octavian. Shortly after this, we know that with every other threat removed Octavian and Antony increasingly turn against one another, resulting in that epic struggle for power. Writing during the reign of Hadrian, Appian should have been able to complete the story and I'm not currently aware why his record stopped where it does. Maybe it didn't survive, or maybe he had good reason for stopping where he did. I don't know. In any case, it was frustrating.
[Later note: The work as we have it contains only five surviving books. The rest did not survive.]
For those interested in the political maneuvering between the various players like Cicero, Cato, and Julius Caesar, there is a great deal of that here. There is also a great deal of good information on the military front. In fact, it should be obvious to anybody sustaining an interest in Roman history that political and military matters are all but indivisable. Yet most modern historians focus on one or the other depending on specialization. The result is that we get only part of the picture, often a skewed one.
On top of that, it's the kind of historical narrative that is difficult to put down. Each account is full of rising tension that increases to the very end.
So, why only 3 stars? Unfortunately, Appian's history stops with Pompey the Younger's capture by forces commanded by Antony and Octavian. Shortly after this, we know that with every other threat removed Octavian and Antony increasingly turn against one another, resulting in that epic struggle for power. Writing during the reign of Hadrian, Appian should have been able to complete the story and I'm not currently aware why his record stopped where it does. Maybe it didn't survive, or maybe he had good reason for stopping where he did. I don't know. In any case, it was frustrating.
[Later note: The work as we have it contains only five surviving books. The rest did not survive.]
May 10, 2025
This is how Appian should be done in English. He has a way of dropping you straight in as he’s not about to start explaining things that would have been common knowledge 1900 years ago. This edition has so many notes, appendices, and a really good introduction. It’s a shame the earlier parts of the book are only available from Loeb.
Fast-paced at times, exceptionally vivid and intense. It’s got everything, really. Spartacus, Cleopatra. Loads of famous Romans. Men who rank as high as anyone. Particularly good is the whole Julius Caesar part. You can clearly see it all in your mind’s eye, if you have one. Also worth looking out for are the proscriptions of Octavian and Mark Antony which are done as a montage.
It’s a cautionary tale. At this point America has been changed out of all recognition by her own success and has now herself become the prey. Yet she still has the constitution of a city state and this has left her open to the predations of men with a lust for ultimate power. Watch helplessly as the Republic falls. Sorry, I’ve just realised I wrote ‘America’ just now. I did of course mean Rome. Rome has been changed out of all recognition.
Fast-paced at times, exceptionally vivid and intense. It’s got everything, really. Spartacus, Cleopatra. Loads of famous Romans. Men who rank as high as anyone. Particularly good is the whole Julius Caesar part. You can clearly see it all in your mind’s eye, if you have one. Also worth looking out for are the proscriptions of Octavian and Mark Antony which are done as a montage.
It’s a cautionary tale. At this point America has been changed out of all recognition by her own success and has now herself become the prey. Yet she still has the constitution of a city state and this has left her open to the predations of men with a lust for ultimate power. Watch helplessly as the Republic falls. Sorry, I’ve just realised I wrote ‘America’ just now. I did of course mean Rome. Rome has been changed out of all recognition.
May 22, 2021
Somewhat dry reading (if descriptions of battles aren't your thing) interspersed with detailed insights into Roman politics (Sulla's Civil Wars, the Catiline Conspiracy, Proscriptions) in the Republic's final decades. Also note that Appian is a Greek writing for a Greek audience, writing more than a century after the fact.
This particular edition (Penguin Paperback) includes a concise yet informative introduction by John Carter, demonstrating, among other things, how Appian's work functions as imperial propaganda. Explanatory endnotes and a timeline are also provided.
Ultimately a wide-ranging history of the period, but more dynamic and energetic accounts are available elsewhere (although non as comprehensive, cf.Plutarch).
This particular edition (Penguin Paperback) includes a concise yet informative introduction by John Carter, demonstrating, among other things, how Appian's work functions as imperial propaganda. Explanatory endnotes and a timeline are also provided.
Ultimately a wide-ranging history of the period, but more dynamic and energetic accounts are available elsewhere (although non as comprehensive, cf.Plutarch).
March 17, 2023
The entire run up to the assassination of Caesar was great and the immediate aftermath has to be my favorite part of the entire book. One of my first in-depth looks into the period that was not from Plutarch. Slightly disappointed by what happens when Octavian arrives on the scene. The books tone slightly changes, I'm assuming to match the curated sources that Appian had to work with. Maybe I was hoping for more of the Augustan policy in Rome over the repeated back and forth relationship between Octavian and Antony/co. But that's to be expected when the premise is focused on the civil war. Makes me wish that we still had Livy's missing books.
Read
October 10, 2022for uni •_•
September 17, 2019
This book is hard reading if for no other reason than its a depressing tale of butchery and murder that culminates in an absolute dictatorship. For me as a modern person, the best part of the book is at the beginning when Appian lays out his thesis for the cause of the decline and fall of the Republic. The view point is surprisingly materialistic, or what we would label as "marxist school of history" in that he attributed the decline and fall of the Republic to larger economic trends and considered the individual actors, no matter how skilled or talented, as symptoms of a sickness rather than the cause.
He is quite blunt in his diagnosis: the public lands that the Romans won while conquering Italy ought to have been distributed to the plebs which would have strengthened the middle (i.e. soldiering) class and kept the civic minded citizen militia strong. He rightly saw that landowning soldiers were more likely to support strong republican government as the foundation and protector of their property rights. As he saw it, through basic greedy human nature, the senatorial class (and some non-Roman Italian allies) illegally farmed the public lands and after several generations came to see the lands as their property and not public lands at all. After the Punic Wars the Roman military class was devastated both in population and economically and the trend towards large wealthy landowners displacing smallholders accelerated.
This had the unfortunate consequence of reducing Rome's military manpower at a time when their ambitions were growing even larger, and also creating a mass of unemployed, angry poor in the city that would have previously been economically productive farmers. The Senatorial class violently opposed all land reform, and allowed the middle class to wither to an inconsiderable state when the only way to meet their military needs was to enlist landless poor into the army with the promise of land as a discharge bounty upon completion of their service.
This change in recruitment created an army loyal to their general (the person responsible for ensuring they received their land upon discharge) and not to the state. These broad trends, combined with the Roman aristocracy's desire to out-compete not only their peers but also their ancestors in terms of fame and political influence lead to a literal arms race and in the space of four generations the destruction of their political system.
And this, Appian manages to explain far more clearly and succinctly than I can. The achievement of Appian is that while he tells essentially the same narrative as Livy and Plutarch, he tells it with a much more critical historian's eye. Livy identified the same trends, but was extremely reluctant to editorialize, whereas Appian has no such reluctance and is more than willing to say that had the Gracchi been successful in their land reform plans the Republic would likely have been saved. Even if Livy believed that, and as a clear partisan of the senatorial class chances are that he didn't, he definitely didn't share the view, and simply decried the violence and lack of decorum on both sides.
He is quite blunt in his diagnosis: the public lands that the Romans won while conquering Italy ought to have been distributed to the plebs which would have strengthened the middle (i.e. soldiering) class and kept the civic minded citizen militia strong. He rightly saw that landowning soldiers were more likely to support strong republican government as the foundation and protector of their property rights. As he saw it, through basic greedy human nature, the senatorial class (and some non-Roman Italian allies) illegally farmed the public lands and after several generations came to see the lands as their property and not public lands at all. After the Punic Wars the Roman military class was devastated both in population and economically and the trend towards large wealthy landowners displacing smallholders accelerated.
This had the unfortunate consequence of reducing Rome's military manpower at a time when their ambitions were growing even larger, and also creating a mass of unemployed, angry poor in the city that would have previously been economically productive farmers. The Senatorial class violently opposed all land reform, and allowed the middle class to wither to an inconsiderable state when the only way to meet their military needs was to enlist landless poor into the army with the promise of land as a discharge bounty upon completion of their service.
This change in recruitment created an army loyal to their general (the person responsible for ensuring they received their land upon discharge) and not to the state. These broad trends, combined with the Roman aristocracy's desire to out-compete not only their peers but also their ancestors in terms of fame and political influence lead to a literal arms race and in the space of four generations the destruction of their political system.
And this, Appian manages to explain far more clearly and succinctly than I can. The achievement of Appian is that while he tells essentially the same narrative as Livy and Plutarch, he tells it with a much more critical historian's eye. Livy identified the same trends, but was extremely reluctant to editorialize, whereas Appian has no such reluctance and is more than willing to say that had the Gracchi been successful in their land reform plans the Republic would likely have been saved. Even if Livy believed that, and as a clear partisan of the senatorial class chances are that he didn't, he definitely didn't share the view, and simply decried the violence and lack of decorum on both sides.
July 17, 2025
Initially part of a complete Roman History that started in very abbreviated form with the kings and got more detailed the more recent the period, I guess this section from the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC to the Egyptian theatre of the civil wars in the third quarter of the first century BC, got saved and associated with the other work by centuries of scribes because it covers the "legions fighting legions" part of Appian's model. Here, though, Appian shows far better analysis of social conditions here, starting with the Gracchi championing the poor free farmers who were conscripted and missed essential agricultural seasons only to find that the land they'd conquered became the private property of Senators who turned it into slave plantations. Long-serving professionals replace conscripts and their generals, representing populism of the Senate/richest respectively, become the driving force in Roman politics. It's becoming a familiar story from modern retellings, but you heard it here first.
September 10, 2012
John Carter's translation of Appian's The Civil War is an extremely good translation of a key text of the Roman Civil War. Appian's work is less known than that of authors like Caesar or Sallust however, his history represents the only continuous narrative of the period of unrest which preceded the rise of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The five books cover from the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. to the death of Sextus Pompey in 35 B.C. The war against Antony and Cleopatra is not included because the Romans labeled that conflict an foreign war, separate from the civil war period.
Of the ancient authors I've read Appian is the only one to discuss the impact of the Gracchi brothers in the creation of the unrest which preceded the wars of Marius and Sulla, and later Caesar and the Senate. I imagine Plutarch says something about their impact in the Lives however I've yet to read his essays on Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus.
Nonetheless, Appian's focus on the social issues which preceded war is interesting and a highlight of his work. His most memorable sections were definitely in books III and IV. The political maneuverings of Antony against the Liberators and the distrust which existed between he and Octavian are rarely discussed topics, however Appian focuses intently on Antony during the weeks following Caesar's assassination.
The other high point of the narrative occurs in book IV when Appian relates the conflict between Octavian and Lucius Antony. Here like his writing about Antony and the Liberators Appian shines in relating and personalizing an often forgotten part of history. The campaign between Lucius Antony and Octavian is crisp and well developed with a definite appreciation for the persona of Lucius Antony.
Despite his excellent writing about obscure incidents Appian fairs poorly when it comes to his description of the Battle of Pharsalus. In all honestly Appian's Pharsalus is poorly written. Read Plutarch or Caesar for good descriptions of the battle, read Appian for the strength of his narration in every other area.
Other gripes include the numerous mistakes throughout the text which John Carter diligently provides footnotes and corrections for. Many ancient authors didn't worry too much about accuracy so if you're reading ancient literature you're probably aware of that fact and have made peace with it.
All in all I strongly recommend Appian. His writing is interesting and important to the study of the Roman Civil War. The translated text is about five-hundred pages but I finished it as part of a project in five days, it would've gone quicker if I'd avoided the footnotes, but I recommend glancing at them. Most of Appian's errors are minor, however occasionally Carter clues you into important mistakes by the ancient Alexandrian which you'll want to be aware of to better understand the Roman Civil War
Of the ancient authors I've read Appian is the only one to discuss the impact of the Gracchi brothers in the creation of the unrest which preceded the wars of Marius and Sulla, and later Caesar and the Senate. I imagine Plutarch says something about their impact in the Lives however I've yet to read his essays on Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus.
Nonetheless, Appian's focus on the social issues which preceded war is interesting and a highlight of his work. His most memorable sections were definitely in books III and IV. The political maneuverings of Antony against the Liberators and the distrust which existed between he and Octavian are rarely discussed topics, however Appian focuses intently on Antony during the weeks following Caesar's assassination.
The other high point of the narrative occurs in book IV when Appian relates the conflict between Octavian and Lucius Antony. Here like his writing about Antony and the Liberators Appian shines in relating and personalizing an often forgotten part of history. The campaign between Lucius Antony and Octavian is crisp and well developed with a definite appreciation for the persona of Lucius Antony.
Despite his excellent writing about obscure incidents Appian fairs poorly when it comes to his description of the Battle of Pharsalus. In all honestly Appian's Pharsalus is poorly written. Read Plutarch or Caesar for good descriptions of the battle, read Appian for the strength of his narration in every other area.
Other gripes include the numerous mistakes throughout the text which John Carter diligently provides footnotes and corrections for. Many ancient authors didn't worry too much about accuracy so if you're reading ancient literature you're probably aware of that fact and have made peace with it.
All in all I strongly recommend Appian. His writing is interesting and important to the study of the Roman Civil War. The translated text is about five-hundred pages but I finished it as part of a project in five days, it would've gone quicker if I'd avoided the footnotes, but I recommend glancing at them. Most of Appian's errors are minor, however occasionally Carter clues you into important mistakes by the ancient Alexandrian which you'll want to be aware of to better understand the Roman Civil War
July 30, 2018
Drie sterren voor Appianus van Alexandrië, de man wiens doorkliefde hoofd toch niet de voorkant van deze editie siert; het is Iulius Caesar, de man die sterven moest aan drieëntwintig dolksteken. Iemand schrijft: “Dit is voor de liefhebbers van Game of Thrones”, want: intrige, verraad en doodslag. Die uitspraak snijdt hout in zoverre dat ook de karakters in Game of Thrones te maken hebben met intrige, verraad en doodslag.
Tegenwoordig nog altijd gehuld in manhaftige ridderdracht, zwaarden, amazones met hun valse sensualiteit, toonbaar gemaakt voor een publiek dat de serie in acht-plus seizoenen slaafs wegkijkt. Nu moet ik denken aan 2018, waarin het Amerikaanse rijk er minstens zo fraai bij staat als het Romeinse Rijk van I. Caesar; verdeeldheid binnen de muren van het witte huis. Er zijn leugens, er is intrige, karakters in een boek, karakters op televisie en geluidsopnames; er is weinig veranderd.
Ik zal iets opschrijven over het boek, dat helaas pas halverwege op gang komt. Wanneer de moord is gepleegd, de moordenaars elk hun eigen kant op vliegen, elk richting hun alleenstaande sterfplaats. Ginder wordt er een dodenlijst gepubliceerd, de stadspoorten op slot. Er drijven lichamen in de Tiber, mensen steken hun eigen huis in brand, er wordt gefluisterd in de hal en even later rolt het hoofd van Trebonius als speelbal over straat; Maarten van Rossem zegt: “We zouden het Rome van toen niet anders herkennen dan en stad van eender welk derdewereldland van vandaag” (Dhaka, Asmara, Banjul, Belize City).
Het is gevaarlijk, gewelddadig en vies.
Appianus naast pak-ze-beet Tacitus en Josephus steekt zakelijk af; het tempo traag, de stof zwaar. Het gevoel van een ordelijke verslaglegging, een historisch dossier waarin personages prima gelijkvormig kunnen zijn, voordrachten stug, hoofdstukken veel. De drama van een belegering, hongersnood als wapentuig; het is gebeiteld in steen en veel verder komt het niet. Een gevoel van herkenning overstijgt een onoverbrugbare tijdsspanne; de mens met invloed vs. degene die nauwelijks vat krijgt op wat dan ook.
Tegenwoordig nog altijd gehuld in manhaftige ridderdracht, zwaarden, amazones met hun valse sensualiteit, toonbaar gemaakt voor een publiek dat de serie in acht-plus seizoenen slaafs wegkijkt. Nu moet ik denken aan 2018, waarin het Amerikaanse rijk er minstens zo fraai bij staat als het Romeinse Rijk van I. Caesar; verdeeldheid binnen de muren van het witte huis. Er zijn leugens, er is intrige, karakters in een boek, karakters op televisie en geluidsopnames; er is weinig veranderd.
Ik zal iets opschrijven over het boek, dat helaas pas halverwege op gang komt. Wanneer de moord is gepleegd, de moordenaars elk hun eigen kant op vliegen, elk richting hun alleenstaande sterfplaats. Ginder wordt er een dodenlijst gepubliceerd, de stadspoorten op slot. Er drijven lichamen in de Tiber, mensen steken hun eigen huis in brand, er wordt gefluisterd in de hal en even later rolt het hoofd van Trebonius als speelbal over straat; Maarten van Rossem zegt: “We zouden het Rome van toen niet anders herkennen dan en stad van eender welk derdewereldland van vandaag” (Dhaka, Asmara, Banjul, Belize City).
Het is gevaarlijk, gewelddadig en vies.
Appianus naast pak-ze-beet Tacitus en Josephus steekt zakelijk af; het tempo traag, de stof zwaar. Het gevoel van een ordelijke verslaglegging, een historisch dossier waarin personages prima gelijkvormig kunnen zijn, voordrachten stug, hoofdstukken veel. De drama van een belegering, hongersnood als wapentuig; het is gebeiteld in steen en veel verder komt het niet. Een gevoel van herkenning overstijgt een onoverbrugbare tijdsspanne; de mens met invloed vs. degene die nauwelijks vat krijgt op wat dan ook.
December 16, 2018
This is a really fascinating read, tracing the civil strife from Sulla and Marius to the execution of Sextus Pompeius (arguably not the end of the civil wars really, which should probably roll on until Actium, but Appian didn’t apparently think so).
It is written as a continuous narrative, so for the first time, I really understood how one war rolled into the next, and began to grasp an answer to many things I’d always wondered: why the civil wars happened in the first place, why the republic never re-emerged after the civil war around Caesar’s asassination, why Octavian emerged as the winner of it all, and many more.
The answer to many of these questions is, in a nutshell, the wish of the powerful to hold onto their power, regardless of what they have to trade by way of morals and ethics along the way. There is no end of men who switch sides to save their skin, defect to the stronger party pretending they were compelled to be enemies, or agree to uphold decisions made by people they murdered, or who chopped their friends heads off, if it means they keep their good position.
I found it ironic that Appian wrote something along the lines of, thank goodness for Pompeius who saved all the aristocracy who fled to his protection when they were proscribed! Because it wasn’t the aristocracy that created every civil upheaval or anything, and went on doing so for hundreds of years to come...
Anyway - one last point. I’m writing about notes again, but John Carter really has done a brilliant job again, providing an accessible translation (without being dumbed down) and fulsome, interesting notes.
Highly recommended.
It is written as a continuous narrative, so for the first time, I really understood how one war rolled into the next, and began to grasp an answer to many things I’d always wondered: why the civil wars happened in the first place, why the republic never re-emerged after the civil war around Caesar’s asassination, why Octavian emerged as the winner of it all, and many more.
The answer to many of these questions is, in a nutshell, the wish of the powerful to hold onto their power, regardless of what they have to trade by way of morals and ethics along the way. There is no end of men who switch sides to save their skin, defect to the stronger party pretending they were compelled to be enemies, or agree to uphold decisions made by people they murdered, or who chopped their friends heads off, if it means they keep their good position.
I found it ironic that Appian wrote something along the lines of, thank goodness for Pompeius who saved all the aristocracy who fled to his protection when they were proscribed! Because it wasn’t the aristocracy that created every civil upheaval or anything, and went on doing so for hundreds of years to come...
Anyway - one last point. I’m writing about notes again, but John Carter really has done a brilliant job again, providing an accessible translation (without being dumbed down) and fulsome, interesting notes.
Highly recommended.
August 25, 2010
I need more stars. Compared to other ancient Roman or Greek writers I mrely thought him OK, but he is far better than two stars compared to most writers. I do not read latin and so I cannot compare translations or really comment upon what he might be like if read in Latin. Some writers simply translate better than others. For the past two or three years I have been reading translations of ancient Greeks and Roman writers. It just seemed like something I should do. When I first read Dante I was a bit confused as to why Brutus was placed in such an uncomfortable postion for eternity. After reading this book the hatred for Brutus made more sense. If you only get your history from plays and second source writers you are missing a great opportunty to learn on your own. The footnotes in this book are helpful and the maps of some use. I like reading books like this and stopping to google an event or a person referred to. It is a nice way to learn about the past. Appian records or makes up far fewer speechs than Livy but it is very interesting to see how speechs were made before the necessity of sound bits reduced thoughts into quips.
March 5, 2016
This is a difficult book to rate. On the one hand, it deals with an incredibly important subject: the transition of Rome from republican to imperial rule. On the other hand, it does so with the depth and accuracy of an average Facebook posting. Dates are wrong, names are wrong, events have inaccuracies, and it brings the whole narrative into some doubt. But unfortunately, for some aspects (such as the Social War) this is the only account we really have.
While I wouldn't discourage someone from picking this up, I'd recommend Sallust or Cicero or even Caesar first, depending on what one wants to get out of the reading. The first book is worth the effort, the accounts of both proscriptions should be read, and the idea that the Roman leaders faced a difficult choice between keeping the soldiers happy and maintaining the rule of law is important. If you do choose to read this, keep up with the footnotes.
While I wouldn't discourage someone from picking this up, I'd recommend Sallust or Cicero or even Caesar first, depending on what one wants to get out of the reading. The first book is worth the effort, the accounts of both proscriptions should be read, and the idea that the Roman leaders faced a difficult choice between keeping the soldiers happy and maintaining the rule of law is important. If you do choose to read this, keep up with the footnotes.
March 29, 2022
This work more closely resembles a series of monographs than a connected history. The Civil Wars, concern mainly the end of the Roman Republic and take a conflict-based view and approach to history, it narrates the time of the Gracchan tribunates, through the civil wars of Marius, Sulla, Caesar and Pompey, to break off in the time of the Second Triumvirate.
Not himself an able historian, he nevertheless preserved much information of value by his transmission of earlier sources. His work on the civil wars, dealing with the period from Tiberius Gracchus (tribune 133 bc) to Lucius Sulla (died 78 bc), is a major historical source. Scholars have noted, however, that Appian used his sources rather creatively to support his views of the importance of Alexandria and the virtues of the Romans. As a conservative supporter of the imperial system, he was often critical of and unsympathetic toward republican institutions and popular movements.
Not himself an able historian, he nevertheless preserved much information of value by his transmission of earlier sources. His work on the civil wars, dealing with the period from Tiberius Gracchus (tribune 133 bc) to Lucius Sulla (died 78 bc), is a major historical source. Scholars have noted, however, that Appian used his sources rather creatively to support his views of the importance of Alexandria and the virtues of the Romans. As a conservative supporter of the imperial system, he was often critical of and unsympathetic toward republican institutions and popular movements.
October 1, 2023
A treatment of Rome from 133 to 35 BC, "The Civil Wars" constitute the majority of what is left of Appian's histories. This is a time where aristocrats battle each other with their own armies, and where people who are prevented from power when they think it is their due to rule decide to grab that power themselves. Briefly covering the civil war between Sulla and the Marians, and then the failed Catiline conspiracy, the book mostly covers the battles between Cesar and his opponents, and Octavian/Augustus and his opponents. Sadly, this was a time where respect for the Roman republican institutions gave way to money, corruption, partisanship, and the pursuit of power - and eventually to civil wars that embroiled the empire as a whole and its neighbors as well. Something we ought to take note of today.
May 21, 2007
A very fast paced roman history that covers the years from Sulla and Marius down to the betrayal and death of Sextus Pompeius. Very interesting read, this is the source that many books describing these years at the end of the republic make reference to. So the story may be familiar to people who know the course of events in the late republic and during the civil wars, but I found this to be a very engaging read with wonderful invented speeches delivered by many of the characters at crucial points in the story (because they were invented, these speeches are often dropped from the later books).
March 17, 2008
This had been on the nightstand for some time. It's something to savour and digest. The book (consisting of 5 books of Appian's Roman history) covers the internal struggles of the first and second triumvirates. There is also a short account of certain matters prior to the first triumviate, mainly concerned with the Gracchi. The Battle of Actium is not reached in this volume because it ends with the stage set for the face-off between Octavian and Antonius, all other pretenders to supreme power having been dealt with variously. For me, this is one of the most interesting periods in history Appian spins a good yarn.
November 4, 2014
Not the greatest of the ancient historians by any stretch of the imagination, but nonetheless gives the reader a flavor for these very interesting and tumultuous times. The 1st century BC may in fact be the true fall of Rome, because what emerged from the Civil Wars bore little resemblance to the Roman Republic that, for all its faults, had a mixed constitution with democratic elements and a diffusion of power, as well as a strong concept of civic virtue. Maybe it is this earlier "fall of Rome" that is a better analogy for our own times than the actual collapse of the Roman polity five centuries later so commonly cited.
June 5, 2015
If you want to know about the interesting times of Rome's Civil Wars from the time of Tiberius Gracchus (133 BC) to the tremendous conflicts which followed the murder of Julius Caesar, (events between 133 and 70 BC) Appian is the only surviving continuous narrative source. However you don't get anything that tell the reader as to why the wars started and what was the political out come. All you can say is that the Roman Republic died and Appian doesn't give any opinion on.
April 14, 2024
A dense text written in the second century AD about the final years of the Roman Republic. Focusing mostly on the two Triumvirates with a brief introduction featuring Marius, Sulla, and the Grachii. I found this book covered gaps in my knowledge that were mostly helpful in understanding Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” and “Anthony and Cleopatra”, even though I have already read Plutarch. Well written and interesting overall.
June 6, 2015
The brutality of 'civilisation' and progress, then as now, laid bare through epic struggles 2000 years ago. The people, the politicking, the armies, wars and slaughter, all detailed as Rome sets itself as master of the known world and becomes the foundation of today. Forget all those other 'must reads', this, and similar original sources, truly are.
January 10, 2020
You can find the "seeds of the end" of the Romans in this book.
The terrible civil wars of the Romans fought during the late republican period, were probably the most destructive civil wars fought since history began.
A great reference book for the lover of Roman history of the period as well as for those that want to know the price of the PAX ROMANA.
The terrible civil wars of the Romans fought during the late republican period, were probably the most destructive civil wars fought since history began.
A great reference book for the lover of Roman history of the period as well as for those that want to know the price of the PAX ROMANA.
February 3, 2008
Interested in the war between Antony and Octavian? Appian gives a nice narrative. Not as chatty as Plutarch.
December 4, 2008
About halfway through it. So far so good. Appian seems a pretty fair historian. You also get the feel for how much of a badass Caesar was. Veni Vidi Vici!
February 19, 2009
"The HBO series ROME should have started here. During the first Civil War. "
March 14, 2012
Interesting read for the Civil Wars. I did find that because very few dates are mentioned sometimes I had to look something up to reference it with what else was going on at the same time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews