This is a paper I wrote on the reliability of the work by the Greek Historian Appian called "History of Rome". This is not to be copied or used as a source, it is merely a help at further understanding of historical works and historians; as well as to educate on the history of Rome and Greece. NOTE : THIS IS NOT TO BE USED IN ANY WAY AS A SOURCE IN ANY RESEARCH PAPER OR ANY PAPER, IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT CHECK THE SOURCES BELOW.
John
McInnes
HIS
111-A
(excluded for privacy reasons)
March
6, 2012
The
Reliability of Appian’s “History of Rome”
During his time as a procurator in Rome, the historian
Appian wrote a history of Rome, that started at the beginning of Rome’s history
and continued up until the A.D. 160’s.[1] In
his account of Roman history, Appian goes throughout the stages of Rome’s
history starting with its founding it then continues with the peoples Rome
conquers, the Civil Wars, [2]
and gives mention of many important people in Roman history such as Julius Caesar,
and Tiberius Gracchus.[3] Appian
begins with telling the difficult struggle of the Roman people, and tells of
how they chose to have a republican form of government rather than a monarchy.
In their greatness and strength they flourished and prospered. When Julius
Caesar came to power he brought with him the time of the emperors. The emperors
were actually kings, but were called imperatores which made them seem like an
ordinary citizen, but actually meant that they were the head ,or first citizen.
In The Civil Wars, he talks about the
conflicts between the Plebians and the Senate of Rome and of how they never had
open conflict with each other, until the banished Marcius Coriolanus and the
Volsci attacked. There was really no bloodshed in the Senate until Tiberius Gracchus,
and others, were murdered for trying to pass laws some of the senators did not
like. This started a time of fighting
between the opposing sides that involved open conflict, sometimes leading to
people assassinating one another. Appian concludes The Civil Wars ,Book I, with the
beginning of the reign of Octavius, Augustus, and the empire.[4] The reliability of the document however is
questionable in that Appian was biased, he did not get all the information, and
he tended to romanticize what he was saying.
The time at
which Appian wrote, History of Rome,
was the Pax Romana. During this time the
Roman Empire experienced great prosperity and peace. It was this time when
Appian was born, and when he began his career. Appian liked the Roman Empire
and even held the position of procurator Augusti,[5] during
which he wrote, History of Rome.[6] His bias toward Rome is easy to see when
reading; he portrays the Romans as people of great virtue and ardor saying
things as,” Through prudence and good fortune has the empire of the Romans
attained to greatness and duration in gaining which they have excelled all
others in bravery, patience, and hard labor.”[7] By
doing so he makes the Romans sound more noble than they probably were. Appian
was also a monarchist and showed a clear pro-monarchy position in his work. [8]
When he talks about the emperors, especially Julius Caesar, he portrays them as
keepers of the peace and eliminators of dissention, which had plagued the
Senate and Plebians.[9] He
portrayed the republican form of government as being unable to keep the peace,
to have only caused strife, and to be full of people who were power hungry, and
were always close to causing armed conflict with each other.[10] Because of his biases, it is critical to look
through the document and to try to decipher truth from fact, and to back up
what Appian has said with other writers.
We know that not every single iota of history is possible
to record, due to the fact that people are not always present, and that some
accounts are lost. Still, Appian left much out of his history of Rome. Choosing
rather to focus on the wars, he neglected, and sometimes misunderstood, the
ways and history of the Republic.[11] One
example of how he did this is in how he describes the selections of the
Consuls; he says that the consuls are chosen by the senate, when in fact they
were chosen by all the people.[12] Appian actually reduced the material he
obtained in order to accommodate an entire history of Rome, up until his
present, in one single work.[13] His
leaving out of materials can easily be seen when comparing the lengths of his
accounts of wars and battles, compared to that of other things, save the
account of Tiberius Gracchus’s trial.[14] The fact that Appian did not say too much
about things other than wars, or other matters, does not change the valuable
material that he covers in the thirteenth chapter on the Civil Wars.
Being born in Alexandria meant Appain was a Greek, and
being a Greek meant that he grew up with the stories of people like Achilles,
and Jason, and Alexander the Great and stories like Jason and the Argonauts and
The Iliad and The Odyssey, and all the classical Greek literature. This
influenced Appian and you can see it in his work. Throughout his history of
Rome you see his dramatic flair like those you see it told almost like a
classical Greek story. One example is the duel between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus.
[15] When
he wrote his book, Appian directed it toward his fellow Greeks, perhaps to give
them a history of the conquerors that sounded like being conquered by the
Romans was a great honor. The way Appians portrays Rome at its beginning is
that of a people struggling for centuries to make themselves great, that they
are a people of great virtue, and that they cannot be stopped by anything.[16] Greek mythology is also seen when he
describes Rome’s vast territory,” Then entering the Mediterranean by the Pillars
of Hercules and circumnavigating the same we find under their rule all the
islands washed by that sea…”[17]
He may have also copied Thucydides, in that in some parts he may have made up
his own speeches that he thought some of the people in his work would say. [18]
This makes it hard for readers to be able to understand which is made up and
what is actual fact, and the same can be said for Greek mythology; it also
makes it hard to know if some of these events actually happened and if these
people said the things they said.
Appian’s History of
Rome could be a good summary of the history of the Roman Empire up to AD
160, [19]and
is a good source for a historian to use if he needs to have a quick overview of
its history. Unfortunately his work needs to be cross referenced with other sources
of the events he is recording. His bias means that he has taken a side and is
more likely to promote an idea, power, or nation, over another. In his attempt
to right an entire history of Rome, he left out some of the information he
obtained in order to make it all fit into one book, which means that a
historian cannot use this as a main source for research. Also, he did not
totally understand the republican form of government. Finally, it cannot be
trusted to have totally accurate description to some of these places, or facts
due to his use of Greek mythology, and his own personal input. His account
gives us a romantic, and interesting account of Roman history that would spark
a person’s imagination, and desire for adventure, but cannot be a truly
reliable source for some of Rome’s history, and should never be used as the
truest account of Roman history.
[1]H. White, The Oxford Classical Dictionary,
3rd ed. ,Appian, (Loeb
1912-1913) 130
[2] Oxford 130
[4] Appian, Roman History, translated by Horace White, The Leob Classical
Library ( Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1912-1913)
[5] Michael Grant, Greek and Latin
Authors, 800 B.C.-A.D. 1000 (New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1980), 28.
[6] Greek and Latin 28
[7] Appian1
[8] Oxford 130
[9] Appian 1-2
[10] Appian 2
[11] Cambridge 886
[12] Appian 2
[13] Oxford 130
[14] Cambridge 886
[16] Appian 1
[17] Appian 1
[18] Oxford 130
[19] Greek and Latin Authors 28
