Cassius Dio on Sextus Pompeius and Late Republican Civil War

Recent years have seen a revival of interest in the civil war period from the death of Caesar onwards, with notable contributions such as Osgood (2006) and Welch (2012). In contrast to the classic treatment by Syme—who in a Tacitean vein saw all the protagonists as opportunists and their ideological claims as mere “political catchwords” (1939, 149-61)—recent contributions have given more weight to ideological claims and their justifications. However, as this paper will suggest, although these factors played their part, opportunistic self-interest must have remained a key determinant. This is evident in Cassius Dio. Dio emulates Thucydides and his model of stasis (Thuc. 3.81.4-5; cf. 3.70-85), including Thucydides’ views on human nature, and expresses a somewhat bleak, or alternatively, “realist” take on the late Republic. One typical issue during the civil war was the changing of sides: that is, to stop supporting one person or group and start supporting another. But how do we, as historians, approach these defections? Börm considers three different approaches to civil war and stasis itself (2018, 56-7): firstly, stasis or civil war as a by-product of interstate war; secondly, class struggle as represented in economic inequality and social tensions; and finally, civil war as a product of power struggles among the elite. This latter possibility is especially important for my purposes: any analysis of defections and the shifting allegiances of elite protagonists must approach the Roman civil wars through the lens of elite power-struggles.