Civil war is a war fought between citizens and not a war fought between allies (socii) or foreign states. On the surface, it may seem strange that Carsten Lange’s new monograph traces the origins of civil war in Rome to the rebellions of the Second Punic War. However, it was Rome’s relationship to its allies and its own debates about war which created—in an antebellum period of the 2nd century BCE—the Roman civil wars (88–30 BCE). This book strongly rejects the idea that the destruction of Carthage (146 BCE) or political stasis after 133 BCE created the conditions necessary for civil war. Instead, the origins of a bellum civile can be traced in Roman historiographical and political debates about the changing nature of war in Italy. The language which described foreign and internal wars slowly changed and culminated in the creation of the term bellum civile in the 80s BCE.
A popular theme in Roman historiography has been the increased attention given to the voices of those defeated by Rome. This is felt acutely in the field of Romanisation, embodied in Terrenato’s re-assessment of elite social networks across Italy and their direct collaboration with Roman elites.[1] But Casten Lange reiterates an important message, that the Roman perspective remains vital if we are to understand the spread of violence inside the Roman state in the 2nd-1st centuries BCE. It is not unprecedented to look beyond Sallust’s interest in the destruction of Carthage or Appian’s narrative of the Gracchi to explain an antebellum of the civil wars. Ross Taylor recognised that the Gracchi were not the source of an unprecedented shift in violence in Roman political life.[2] And more recently, Kathryn Lomas and Roman Roth have argued that the Social War was a continuation of the rebellions of the Second Punic War.[3] However, Lange’s contribution to this narrative is two-fold. Firstly, the book addresses ‘the problem of language’ (p. 194), which examines Roman historiographical debates about what they called the different types of wars they fought: whether a foreign war, internal war, sedition or civil war. Secondly, Lange addresses how the perception of the socii as a threat changed within Rome in the 2nd century BCE. To explain this the book deals with several episodes: the Bacchanalian affair of 186 BCE, an internal War at Patavium in 174 BCE and the rebellion of Fregellae in 125 BCE. As the 2nd century BCE progressed, the question of what to do about internal wars within Italy reflected real Roman anxieties about the faithfulness of non-citizens and citizens. Thus, the line started to blur between an internal war and a citizen war.
The narrative is broken down into an introduction, eight named chapters and an epilogue. The introduction gives the reader a satisfactory and necessary definition for antebellum and civil war. The rest of the monograph can be divided into three sections. The first section addresses the language of war, the second section involves examples of internal wars and the final section explains how civil war unfolded.
Chapter one is notable for including an analysis and comparison between the 2021 Capitol Riots in America and the antebellum period of the 2nd century BCE. The contentious events surrounding Donald Trump and the American election do serve a purpose in the research of ancient history. For Lange it was ‘so obvious an example of stasis and antebellum, regardless of whether a civil war proper will actually follow it’ (p. 34). One example was Trump calling Biden an enemy of the state, which was deemed analogous to the use of the term hostis in Rome. Hostis evolved from meaning a foreign enemy to being used to describe a civil war enemy (p. 36). Modern examples can prove useful, as they reiterate an important theme of this work; namely, how we name something (like a war) is vital to how we perceive it. However, how far we should push contemporary and ancient comparisons is contentious. This book was completed before the results of the 2024 election, and is too brief to draw a complete conclusion on how comparable these events truly are. Nevertheless, the fact that both contemporary and ancient sources find it difficult to identify the language of insurrection, rebellion and ultimately civil war is relevant and compelling.
Chapter two examines the origins of Roman historiography and subsequently Rome’s earliest attempts to understand the language of rebellion and empire. The Romans recognised since at least the 3rd century BCE that their allies were part of an empire (p. 62). This originates in Fabius Pictor, who described the Latin War (340–338 BCE) as an internal and not foreign war. The Latin states were described with the term apostasis, implying that they revolted or withdrew from Rome. Livy would later use the same concept for both the Latin War and Second Punic War. For Lange, this is proof that a debate in Rome existed since at least the time of Fabius Pictor concerning the nature of internal wars inside the polity of Rome. This meant that since the time of the Second Punic War, Rome was conscious of the risk their allies presented to their empire. Hence, rebello (‘I renew war’) was a renewal of a war against a victor and therefore an uprising against those who held power—i.e. a socius renewing war against Rome. Chapter five expands upon this idea and discusses Polybius’ digression on the Truceless War and the rebellion of Falerii. Emphulios polemos (civil war) was used by Polybius to describe both of these events. Polybius was influenced by Thucydides’ description of Corcyra, where stasis and strife caused war. However, since Polybius’ narrative reflected Roman historiographical debates—notably Fabius Pictor—emphulios polemos was used as a Greek translation of the contemporary Roman description of a bellum intestinum (an internal war). Internal wars after the Second Punic War shaped Roman attitudes to the socii. Rome became increasingly hostile and concerned about further rebellion. Internal wars were fought between Rome and the socii, and so were conflicts fought between allies who lived in the same polity. Civil wars were also a type of internal war, with the difference that they involved armies that were both comprised of Roman citizens. Therefore, the phrase bellum intestinum evolved and helped to conceptualise the term bellum civile. This argument is compelling, but would benefit from further deconstructing the relationship between the socii and Rome in the 2nd century BCE. Paul Burton’s analysis of friendship diplomacy used a constructivist approach, from international relations, to elucidate the Roman attitude toward their own practices of diplomacy in what the Romans wrote themselves.[4] Since Lange declares support for realism as the best—but not perfect—explanation of the nature of violence and war in the ancient world, it is not surprising that constructivist theories are left out (p. 40).
Chapters three, four and six provide examples from the 2nd century BCE concerning the increasingly fractious relationship between Rome and the socii. The Bacchanalian Affair provides an excellent example of how Rome interfered in allied affairs. This follows on from Edward Bispham’s explanation of the affair as a state emergency.[5] Lange argues that Rome feared a lack of morality and religious piety in their Italian allies would pose a threat to the integrity of the Roman polity. The author’s decision to dedicate chapter six to Lucius Opimius is also a useful addition. The construction of a temple to Concordia after the insurrection of Fregellae is described as a ‘monument to stasis’ (p. 145). It was used to remind the losing side that the victors had restored harmony to Rome, and was therefore a precursor to the civil war monuments that claimed concord for all Romans. Where the author may stray too far is in his claim that the Romans feared and expected that they were living in an antebellum period. Whilst the Romans were anxious about internal wars escalating into further violence, it is unclear how far the Romans were concerned about citizen-on-citizen violence emerging.
The final two chapters (seven and eight) address Sallust’s and Appian’s descriptions of the outbreak of the civil wars. This section compels us to question our assumption that later sources are of less value than earlier and more contemporary ones. Lange argues that as a historian Appian attempted to understand and reflect past Roman debates about internal wars. For Appian, the cause of a bellum civile had its origins in internal strife. And unlike the contemporary historian Sallust, Appian does not argue that the origin of civil war was the destruction of Carthage. This separation from current events, or the ‘benefit of hindsight’ (p. 160), can be a useful tool in understanding history. Later sources describing the outbreak of civil war do reconstruct genuine historical debates. Whilst it is treacherous to give too much leeway to our sources, we should not be too cynical either.
A further strength of the book is its use of underlining of Latin and Greek words in primary sources. Since the book provides both original and translated text, highlighting important words or phrases in both languages (Greek/Latin and English) is both helpful and accessible. It is therefore a shame that it is not used more often, both throughout the monograph and in other publications.
In conclusion, Carsten Lange has produced an excellent first volume in a new series of books on civil war in the ancient world for De Gruyter. It helps to place war as a central and more recently neglected component of Roman imperialism in the mid and late Republic. However, it leaves some important questions to be considered. Further analysis on the way words and diplomacy are influenced by social norms would prove fruitful. In particular David McCourt’s approach of New Constructivism could help further unpack how Roman sources viewed internal wars and their relationship to socii and cives.[6] This would also have the added benefit of further challenging the realist paradigm of interstate relations in the narrative of Roman imperialism. Nevertheless, this new monograph is a valuable addition to our understanding of how language alters our perception of violence and war in historiographical debates.
Notes
[1] Nicola Terrenato, The Early Roman Expansion into Italy, (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
[2] Lily Ross Taylor, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, Journal of Roman Studies, 52:1 (1962), 19-27.
[3] Roman Roth, Empire, hegemony or anarchy? Rome and Italy, 201-31 BCE, (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2019); Kathryn Lomas ‘Rome, Latins, and Italians in the Second Punic War’, in A Companion to the Punic Wars, ed. D. Hoyos. (Wiley Blackwell, 2011), 339-357.
[4] Paul Burton, Friendship and Empire: Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic, (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
[5] Edward Bispham, From Asculum to Actium: The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, (Oxford University Press, 2007).
[6] David McCourt, The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory, (Bristol University Press, 2022).