Please contact the author should you wish to obtain a complete copy.

From Thucydides to Kalyvas, civil war is associated with wickedness and personal animosities. This article seeks to comprehend the violence during the civil war of the Late Republic. It will claim that behaviour during the Roman civil war period was actually typical of comparable conflicts, in particular in terms of indiscriminate and selective violence. with a focus on two case studies: the murder of Cicero during the proscriptions in late 43 BCE and the use of violence by Young Caesar after the civil war at Perusia, ending early in 40 BCE. Violence was not only a conspicuous part of civil war, but had a distinct purpose to it: the elimination of personal enemies and securing power.

In this essay, I first discuss the Roman concept of civil war and compare it to the Greek concept of internal discord (stasis). I then go on to offer some thoughts on the methodological implications of long-term intellectual history and the role concepts and institutions play in it. The essay concludes by discouraging the hunt for contingency, but encouraging historians to write about the ideas and institutional arrangements that have been devised over the long term in response to the breakdown of political and social order.

Book review of Y. Le Bohec's latest general history of Roman Imperial warfare down to the end of the reign of Severus Alexander. It is a less useful work than it might otherwise have been as it provides little information on the army's Republican predecessor.

Was the Roman Empire just? Did Rome acquire her territories through just wars, and did Rome's rule exert a civilizing effect, ultimately beneficial for its subjects? Or was Roman imperialism a massive injustice - the bellicose conquest and absorption of countless peoples and large swaths of territory under false pretences, driven by greed and a lust for domination and glory? In The Wars of the Romans (1599), the important Italian jurist and Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford University Alberico Gentili (1552-1608) argues both sides of the debate. In the first book he lays out the case against the justice of the Roman Empire, and in the second book the case for.