ppian’s work includes a significant irregularly distributed number of
formal speeches that he uses to describe different characters and situations of
particular interest. The Mithridateios is an example of this use of
rhetoric; the placement of the oratorical passages and the choice of
protagonists reveal certain aspects of Appian’s working methodology, including
the sources he used and the criteria he adopted when conceiving this part of his
Roman History. In the present
contribution, I reflect on the issues underpinning the Mithridateios, an ostensibly simple but extraordinarily complex
text.[2] My aim is to underscore Appian’s selection of the speeches he encounters
in his sources on Mithridates, while also highlighting certain details that may
guide us in identifying the origin of the main oratorical passages recorded in
this book.
The Mithridateios
was not conceived entirely as a biography of King Mithridates Eupator—just as
Appian’s book on Hannibal, which focuses on the vicissitudes of the Second
Punic War in Italy, was not a biography of the Carthaginian leader. As I have
stated elsewhere, it seems that the author’s original intention was to write a
history of the province of Bithynia and Pontus, a well-differentiated region
within the Roman Empire. The book begins with the mythical origins of the
Bithynian royalty and concludes with Caesar’s victory over Pharnaces II, son of
Mithridates, and the definitive incorporation of the Anatolian territories of
the Pontic crown under Roman rule.[3] Appian, or
his source, might have wanted to downplay Pompey’s involvement in the victory
over Pontus while representing Caesar’s triumph over Pharnaces II in Zela as
the extinction of a royal house that had caused so many problems for Rome.[4]
Mithridates dominates much of the book, a diachronic narrative spanning from
the king’s involvement in the dispute over the Cappadocian throne in the early
first century BC to his death in 63 BC. Appian might have found it easier to
write about the life of Mithridates than the lives of the Bithynian kings,
which would have required the use of more varied and scattered sources.
Nevertheless, the Mithridatic Wars were the most significant episode in the
history of the region before it was definitively annexed by the Romans.
2. Developed, outlined, and implicit
speeches
in the Mithridateios
The Mithridateios contains a
considerable number of oratorical passages that characterize not only the king
himself but also other protagonists, both Roman and Eastern. Let us begin by
identifying the passages we are referring to, putting the corresponding chapter numbers in parentheses: the speech given by the Pontic emissary Pelopidas to the Roman mission
and Bithynian dignitaries (12); the response of the envoys of Nicomedes IV of
Bithynia (13); Pelopidas’ response to the previous speech (14); Pelopidas’
speech to the Roman generals after the Pontic conquest of Cappadocia (and a
summarized reply from the Romans) (15-16)[5]; the statement of the strategos Archelaus to Sulla in the peace negotiations after the
Pontic debacle in Greece (54)[6]; Sulla’s response, with a brief reply from
Archelaus (54-55); exchanges between Sulla and the envoys dispatched by
Mithridates to negotiate peace (56); Mithridates’ speech to Sulla before an
agreement was concluded at Dardanus (56); Sulla’s reply (57-58); Sulla’s
oration to the representatives of the cities in the province of Asia (62);
Mithridates’ harangue before commencing the final war against Rome (70); and a
summary of a discourse by Mithridates rejecting any kind of agreement with Rome
when Pompey proposes he surrender (98).[7]
In addition to these
passages, we can add other speeches that Appian must have found in his sources
but chose not to develop (in particular, the exhortations during battles would
correspond to the type known as the epipolesis):
orders of Mithridates, during the siege of Rhodes, sailing among his ships,
directing them to encircle the enemy vessels (24);[8] the king’s exhortation, as he sailed around his
fleet, urging his men (25);[9] Sulla’s words to his soldiers encouraging them to
persist in the siege of Athens (40);[10] Archelaus’ words to his troops before engaging the
Romans at the battle of Chaeronea (44); the plea of the Pontic soldiers for
their comrades to open the camp gates in the same battle (44); a phrase uttered
by Sulla during the battle of Orchomenus, reproducing the topos of defending one’s insignia against the enemy (probably part
of a longer exhortation to his troops) (49);[11] Sulla’s exhortation to his men (given on horseback)
in the same battle, when he urges them not to cease until victory (49);[12] Sulla’s exhortation to his soldiers in the same
battle that they continue fighting until they take the enemy camp (50);[13] Mithridates’ final words upon accepting Sulla’s
conditions at Dardanus (58); Sulla’s order to Fimbria to surrender and the
latter’s reply (59); the Pontic ambassadors’ appeal to L. Licinius Murena and
his reply (64); Lucullus’ words to his troops before the siege of Cyzicus (72);[14] a message from an envoy of Lucullus to Mithridates
(72); exchange between the
defenders of Cyzicus and the king's prisoners (73); an exchange between the king and his philoi,
who recommend lifting the siege on that city (75); Mithridates’ proposal to the prefect Pomponius and his response (79);[15] exhortation of Mithridates to his troops during the
battle of Cabira (80); a harangue given by Tigranes II of Armenia to his men (85);[16]
exchange between Tigranes and Pompey (104-105); a transcription (in quotation marks) of the words of Pharnaces’
supporters when he rebels against his father (110) (it is unclear whether this
final example comes from a formal speech or was simply an isolated phrase
within the narrative); and an exchange between deserters and troops loyal to
Mithridates (111).
3. Appian’s interest in the First Mithridatic War
The above lists
indicate Appian’s particular interest in the First Mithridatic War; his account
of the second war includes hardly any speeches, and the third has only two that
are developed, albeit notably abbreviated.[17]
Moreover, the author drastically reduced the length of the speeches from which
the passages in the second list were drawn. The sources on the final conflict
between Mithridates and Rome would have contained many orations Appian chose to
omit or mention only in passing—for instance, Lucullus’ and Tigranes’ speeches marking
two climactic episodes, namely the siege of Cyzicus and the battle of
Tigranocerta.[18] At
the same time, if we acknowledge that Appian must have used the same source as
Memnon of Heraclea, we are bound to conclude that the former does not even hint
at some speeches, such as those delivered at this city on the Euxine in favour
of and against an alliance with Mithridates.[19] The
same could be said of Plutarch, whose account of this war sometimes bears
comparison with Appian’s and incorporates snippets of what must have been
orations in his sources.[20]
Appian was concerned principally with
the causes of the First Mithridatic War. If, as McGing has asserted, Appian’s
main interests were war and diplomacy, this book offers a good example.[21] Pelopidas’
arguments justifying Mithridates’ grievances—which are not found in any other
source—are well-developed, as are the responses from the representatives of
Nicomedes IV and, albeit summarised, the Roman ambassadors.[22]
Similarly, Sulla’s pronouncements in his negotiations with Archelaus and the
encounter with Mithridates at Dardanus detail Roman objections to the king’s
attitude. Another aspect worth highlighting is that Sulla’s speeches take up
more text than those of any other character; leaving aside the brief letter to
the Chians, the Pontic monarch merits only three rhetorical passages.[23]
Appian’s decision to combine direct and indirect styles in the first two
instances above was the result of the work that he carries out with respect to
his source.[24]
These criteria of selection lead us to think that, indeed, the author from
Alexandria did not write a biography of Mithridates but an analysis of the
decades-long struggle of Roman imperialism. Once the causes of the conflict are
presented, the characterization of the central figure becomes a secondary
matter.
Appian has a particular interest in
the struggle between Marius and Sulla, as can be seen in his account of the
Civil Wars.[25]
Sulla is one of the central protagonists of this turbulent period; his attitude
in the First Mithridatic War is particularly important because it predetermines
to a certain extent his actions upon returning to Italy. It is also striking
that Lucius Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74
BC), who played a leading role in the final conflict between Eupator and Rome,
is not assigned any developed oratorical passage. Appian may, therefore, have
regarded the general as a secondary actor.[26] As
with the account of the preliminary peace talks of the winter of 86/85 BC and
the exchanges between Sulla and Mithridates at Dardanus (85 BC), the king’s
words are boiled down to their essentials, in contrast with those of the Roman
commander.[27]
Meanwhile, Sulla’s address to the representatives of the cities of Asia
comprises a disquisition of his view of the region and a description of how the
Greeks were treated by the Roman Republic.[28] The
passage explores both the motives of the provincials in embracing Mithridates’
cause and the funding problems of the Roman state (one of the primary concerns
of our author).[29]
4. Noteworthy
parallels
As we have already suggested, an analysis of the content of the speeches
reveals certain things about their origins. For instance, the first discourses
of Pelopidas and Sulla before Archelaus (which, as McGing has observed, are
quite similar) must have come from the same source. For example, both passages
refer to Mithridates’ preparations for war, with particular reference to the
recruitment of ‘lookouts and helmsmen’ (πρῳρέας καὶ κυβερνήτας) for the royal fleet,
in almost identical prose.[30]
Moreover, Sulla’s oration
to the representatives of the cities of Asia is curiously precise,
chronologically speaking. He states that 23 years of peace have passed in Asia
from the end of the War of Aristonicus (129 BC) to the beginning of the
conflict with Mithridates. Interestingly, an obituary-like passage in the same
book (although doubts have been raised over where it should be placed) speaks
of Mithridates’ almost 42-year struggle against the Romans.[31] This claim has not
received a great deal of attention but seems to be an error, given several
sources state that the Mithridatic Wars lasted 40 years.[32] Appian may be alluding to the conquest of eastern
Paphlagonia by Eupator, who then shared the kingdom with Nicomedes III of
Bithynia. Only Justin mentions this episode, which must have taken place around
105 BC.[33] The author of the Epitome was
therefore able to assert that the Roman order for the Pontic king to evacuate
this territory would have constituted ‘another form of war’.[34] In my opinion, the reference to 42 years derives
from the same tradition that speaks of 40 years; the latter period has simply
been rounded down. Appian refers to 42 and 40 years in Chapter 118, so some
translators have considered the former figure to be a manuscript error.[35]
5. Reflection
on the sources
These and other parallels prompt us to reflect on the sources of these
speeches. The immediate assumption may be that Sulla’s prominence in the
narrative derives from Appian’s use of the dictator’s memoirs.[36] However, certain details rule out such a
hypothesis: Sulla’s discourse at Dardanus refers to Manius Aquillius (cos. 101 BC) only by his praenomen, as is the case elsewhere in
the Mithridateios.[37] Alluding to a Roman figure in this manner was not
uncommon amongst the Greeks; indeed, the same consular is referred to by his praenomen in Memnon’s history of
Heraclea (which shares many similarities with Appian’s work).[38] In the speech delivered in Ephesus, Sulla speaks
about his office as propraetor of
Cilicia using the word ἄρχων, whereas Appian normally
employs the term στρατηγός when
referring to governors of Roman provinces.[39] In the exchange between Sulla and Mithridates, Appian’s source would have
given the king the final word, interrupting the general’s plea and declaring
agreement with the conditions being imposed.[40] Although there was no hard and fast rule that the
king should speak last, it may be an indication that the source was written
from an Eastern perspective. It is reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the
source was Greek or that a Latin author translated it from Greek.[41] According to Steel, Appian selected certain of
Sulla’s speeches to stress the brutality of Roman imperialism.[42] I my view this cannot be the case; Appian is simply
more interested in Sulla and hence gives him greater prominence.
I believe that all the
formal speeches in the Mithridateios share the same provenance -Pompeius Trogus. It is known that Appian made
extensive use of Latin sources, so the Philippic
Histories would have been particularly useful to him. It would also explain
the critical, though not entirely anti-Roman tone of his work.[43] The echoes of Trogus’ work point to a tradition
that disapproves of certain aspects of Roman imperialism and is detected not
only in the speeches but also in other passages.[44] For instance, Appian
describes the different circumstances in which Roman leaders break an oath,
justifying accusations of perfidy against various leaders, such as those
levelled by Mithridates himself (who protests against having to return Greater
Phrygia because it had been granted by the Romans to his father and,
apparently, to him also).[45] Similarly, the Senate’s delay in ratifying the
Dardanus peace agreements, which only Appian directly alludes to, would be
another example of the Romans’ limited fidelity to their given word.[46]
Mithridates’ harangue is the longest rhetorical passage assigned to the
Pontic king in Appian’s work, yet it does not equal the length of Sulla’s main
speeches.[47] Furthermore, it is the sole harangue before an assembly of troops
recorded in Appian’s books concerning foreign wars.[48] Most likely, the original exhortation was located in
Book XXXVIII of Trogus’ Philippic
Histories, which included events following the peace with Sulla, along with
many others: the reign of Ptolemy VIII Evergetes, the first part of the reign
of Demetrius II of Syria, his capture by the Parthians, and the reign of Antiochus
VII Sidetes.[49] Appian’s mention of Mithridates’ campaign against
the Colchians and Bosporans after the agreements with Sulla corresponds to the
digression on the history of these peoples that appeared at the end of Book
XXXVII of the Philippic Histories, as
the Prologues inform us.[50] According to Appian, Mithridates begins his
exhortation by referring to his ancestors, following the example of Pericles’
famous funeral oration recorded by Thucydides.[51] However, Appian has no interest in this theme and
dismisses the initial part of the speech, considering it a reflection of the
king’s vanity.[52] Thus, Mithridates appears to focus on the
possibility of defeating the Romans, who are beset by internal strife. A
reference to the Pontic lineage also appears in a section of the king’s long
speech in Book XXXVIII of Justin’s Epitome.[53] This part of the discourse would have come from the
same source as Appian’s harangue, but Justin appends other rhetorical passages
from Trogus to construct an extensive address from Mithridates that accords
with the importance he wishes to ascribe to him.[54] He concludes the king’s allocution by making a
mistake with the date (to avoid appearing anachronistic) but adds a connecting
Latin phrase that evokes the one Appian uses to conclude the king’s
exhortation.[55] Here and elsewhere in the Mithridateios, Appian does not bother to reproduce extensive
fragments, opting to summarize in an indirect style the most part of the
harangue, highlighting a few phrases that he deems particularly relevant.[56]
6. The Mithridatieos: an unfinished book?
As Brian McGing has suggested, Appian may have died before completing the
editing of the Mithridateios.[57] This would explain, for instance, the duplication
of possibly necrological passages at the end of the text and details such the
Mithridatic Wars having started in 99 or 89 BC and lasting forty or forty-two
years, thus presenting four different chronologies;[58] the interchangeable description of Machares as basileus and archon;[59] the reference to Mithridates as the sixth king of
the dynasty at the beginning of the book and the eighth in the first of the
obituaries;[60] and the two different versions of the reception of
Tigranes II by Pompey.[61] It is also clear that Appian consulted various
accounts of Alexander’s stay in Anatolia.[62] Likewise, it is possible that he originally
intended to incorporate other speeches but ultimately decided against it.
7. Conclusion
In sum, Appian’s Mithridateios, like
the other books in his Roman History, is a meditation on how the Roman
empire achieved it greatness.[63] It is therefore
understandable that Sulla is prominent, certainly more so than the other Roman
generals who fought against Pontus and even the king himself. Therefore, the
selection of speeches delivered by the dictator is driven by an interest in his
role in the crisis of the Republic, although it cannot be assumed that his
memoirs were Appian’s principal source for the First Mithridatic War.[64] István Hahn claimed that
Appian copied speeches which he found in his source material only; in other
words, he did not compose any original ones.[65] Although this hypothesis
is strongly contested, if we admit that Pompeius Trogus was one of the most
important sources for the Mithridateios, the Philippic Histories
provided all of its rhetorical passages because it should have contained all
the speeches in this book. The recurrence of phrases and themes that do not
appear in any other text would substantiate the importance of this Universal
History as a source.[66] Appian found in Trogus
an account of the vicissitudes of the Pontic king, and it was convenient for
him to adapt it to Greek —just as he had done with other Latin sources— while
applying his own perspectives.[67]
Luis Ballesteros
Pastor
Universidad de Sevilla
Bibliography
Adler, E. (2011), Valorizing the Barbarians.
Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ballesteros
Pastor, L. (1996), Mitrídates Eupátor,
rey del Ponto, Granada: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de
Granada.
Ballesteros
Pastor, L. (1999), “Dos Apuntes Sobre Manio Aquilio (cos. 101 a. C.)”, Habis
30: 135-141.
Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2013a), “Nullis umquam nisi domesticis regibus.
Cappadocia, Pontus and the Resistance to the Diadochi in Asia Minor”, in Alonso
Troncoso, V. & Anson, E.M. (eds.), After Alexander: The Time of the
Successors (323-281 BC), Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 183-198.
Ballesteros
Pastor, L. (2013b), Pompeyo Trogo,
Justino y Mitrídates. Comentario al Epítome de las Historias Filípicas (37,1,6-38,8,1), Hildesheim, Zürich
& New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
Ballesteros
Pastor, L. (2016), “Mitrídates Eupátor, un enemigo de Roma en el Epítome de Justino”, in Galimberti, A.
& Zecchini, G. (a cura di), Studi
sull’Epitome di Giustino. Vol. 3. Il Tardo Ellenismo. I Parti e i Romani,
Milano: Vita e Pensiero, pp. 63-97.
Ballesteros
Pastor, L. (2017), “Justin’s corpusculum
florum. The Selection and
Manipulation of Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae”, in Iglesias Zoido, J.C. &
Pineda, V. (eds.), Anthologies of Historiographical
Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times. Rearranging the Tesserae,
Leiden & Boston: E.J. Brill, pp. 79-94.
Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2023), “Pontus and Sophene in the Late
Hellenistic Period: the King Arsaces and the Prince Arcathias”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
226: 104-112.
Bean, G.E. (1948), “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 68: 40-58.
Brock, R. (1995), “Versions, ‘Inversions’ and Evasions: Classical
Historiography and the ‘Published’ Speech”, Papers
of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8: 209–24.
Bucher, G.S. (2000), “The Origin, Program, and Composition of Appian's
Roman History”, Transactions of the American Philological Association
118: 411-458.
Calabi, I.
(1950), “I commentarii di Silla come fonte storica”, Memorie dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, s. 8ª 3, 5: 427-302.
Carmona Centeno,
D. (2005), “Variatio en el discurso
exhortativo: la batalla de Zama”, Anuario
de Estudios Filológicos 28: 5-19.
Carmona Centeno,
D. (2009), “Historiografía, retórica y ejemplaridad: la escena típica del
estandarte y su función en las historias de Roma”, in Iglesias Zoido, J.C.
(ed.), Retórica e Historiografía. El
discurso militar en la Historiografía desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento,
Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, pp. 273-295.
Carmona, D.
(2014), La escena típica de la epipólesis, de la épica a la historiografía, Roma:
Edizioni Quasar.
Carsana, C. (2013), “Discours vrais ou inventés? Le cas d’Appien”, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 39 :
103-123.
Cowan, E. (2015), “Deceit in Appian”, in Welch, K. (ed.) (2015: 185-203).
Cuff, P. J. (1983), “Appian’s Romaica:
a Note”, Athenaeum 61: 148-164.
Desideri, P.
(1973), “Posidonio e la Guerra Mitridatica”, Athenaeum 61: 3-29, 237-269.
Dueck, D. (2006), “Memnon of Herakleia on Rome and the Romans”, in
Bekker-Nielsen, T. (ed.), Rome and the
Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistence, Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press, pp. 43-61.
Famerie, É. (1998), Le latin et le
grec d’Appien. Contribution à l’étude du lexique d’un historien grec de Rome, Genève: Droz.
Gabba, E.
(1957), “Sul Libro Siriaco di Appiano”, Memorie
dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. ser. 8, 12: 339-351.
Gabba, E.
(1958), Appiano e la storia delle guerre
civili, Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Gabba, E.
(1971), “Appiano traduttore in B.C. V 191”, in Studi di storiografia antica. In memoria di Leonardo Ferrero, Torino:
Bottega d’Erasmo, pp. 185-189.
Goldmann, B. (1988), Einheitlichkeit und Eigenständigkeit der Historia Romana des Appian, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York: Olms.
Goukowsky, P. (2001), Appien. Histoire Romaine. Livre XII. La Guerre de
Mithridate, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Goukowsky, P. (2008), “Introduction générale”, in Id. & Hinard, F., Appien.
Histoire Romaine. Livre XIII. Guerres Civiles. Livre I, Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, pp. vii-lxxxviii.
Hahn, I. (1982), “Appian und seine Quellen”, in Wirth, G. (ed.), Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und
Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit: Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, pp. 251-281.
Hopwood, B. (2015), “Hortensia speaks. An authentic Voice of
Resistance?”, in Welch, K. (ed.), (2015: 305-322).
Iglesias Zoido, J.C. (2007), “The Battle Exhortation in Ancient
Rhetoric”, Rhetorica 25: 141-158.
Iglesias Zoido,
J.C. (2011), El legado de Tucídides en la cultura occidental, Coimbra: Coimbra
University Press.
Leydold, M. (2020) “Wann eroberte Mithridates die Provinz Asia?”, Klio 102: 579-600.
Loraux, N. (1981), L’invention d’Athènes. Histoire de l’oraison
funèbre dans la “cité classique”, Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS.
Luce, T.J. (1961), “Appian’s Magisterial Terminology”, Classical Philology 56: 21-28.
Mastrocinque, A. (1999), Studi
sulle Guerre Mitridatiche, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Marco, E.
(2023), “Appiano, lettore di Plutarco? La synkrisis tra Alessandro e
Cesare (Bella Civilia 2.149-154)”, in
Id. & Fontana, A. (a cura di), Ceci
n’est pas un compilateur. Qualche riflessione su autori greci di età imperiale, Genoa: Genova University Press, pp. 53-68.
McGing, B.C. (1980), “Appian, Manius Aquillius, and Phrygia”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21:
35-42.
McGing, B.C. (1986), The Foreign
Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, Leiden: Brill.
McGing, B.C. (1993), “Appian’s Mithridateios”, Aufstieg
und Niedergang der römischen Welt II, 34.1, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp.
496-522.
McGing, B.C. (2003), “Review of P. Goukowsky, Appien. Histoire Romaine. Livre XII. La Guerre de Mithridate”, Classical Review 53:
319-321.
McGing, B.C. (2019), Appian. Roman
History. Volume I, (Loeb Classical Library Second Edition), Cambridge Mass.
& London: Harvard University Press.
McGing, B.C. (2021), “The Beginning and End of Appian’s Mithridateios”, Classical Quarterly 71: 791-798.
Osgood, J. (2015), “Breviarium
totius imperii: the background of Appian’s Roman History”, in Welch, K. (ed.) (2015: 23-43).
Pitcher, L.V. (2023), “Tucydides in Greek and Roman Historiography”, in
Low, P.A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Thucydides, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233-248.
Reinach, T. (1890), Mithridate
Eupator, roi de Pont, Paris: Firmin-Didot.
Rich, J. (2015), “Appian, Polybius
and the Romans’ war with Antiochus the Great: A study in Appian’s sources and
methods”, in Welch, K. (ed.) (2015: 65-123).
Rich, J. (2020), “Appian, Cassius Dio, and Seneca the Elder. New Perspectives on Early-Imperial Roman Historiography”, in Scappaticcio, M.T. (ed.), Seneca the Elder and his Rediscovered Historiae ab initio bellorum civilium, Berlin
& Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 329-353.
Rizzo, F.P.
(1963), Le fonti per la storia della
conquista pompeiana della Siria, Palermo: Banco di Sicilia.
Salomone
Gaggero, E. (1979), “La lotta antiromana di Mitridate. Divergenze cronologiche nelle fonti”, Sandalion 2 : 129-141.
Sancho Royo, A.
(1980), Apiano. Historia Romana, Tomo I, Madrid: Gredos.
Santamato, E.
(2013), “Il discorso di Bruto (BC 2.19.138-140) e l’introduzione ai Bella
Civilia (BC 1.1.7-8) in Appiano: studio sulla communicazione appianea”, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft
16: 237-277.
Santangelo, F. (2007), Sulla, the
Elites and Empire. A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East,
Leiden: Brill.
Santangelo, F. (2009), “With or without you: some Late-Hellenistic
Narratives of Contemporary History”, Scripta Classica Israelica 28:
57-78.
Schropp, J.W.G.; Manning, S. (2019), ‘‘‘Too Many for an Embassy, too Few
for an Army’. On the Origin and Scope of a Tigranic dictum”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 212:
83-88.
Smith, D.L. (2012), The Rhetoric of
Interruption: Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and
Ancient Greek Narrative, Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.
Steel, C. (2019), “Sulla the Orator”, in Eckert, A. & Thein, A.
(eds.), Sulla, Politics and Reception,
Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, pp. 19-32.
Thein, A. (2014), “Reflecting on Sulla’s Clemency”, Historia 63: 166-186.
Torres Guerra,
J.B. (2006), “Apiano de Alejandría, traductor (BC IV 45 y V 191)”, Emerita
74: 17-28.
Van Wickevoort Crommelin, B.R. (1990), Die Universalgeschichte des Pompeius Trogus. Herculea audacia Orbem
Terrarum adgressus, Hagen: Magrit Rottmann.
Veh, O. & Brodersen, K. (1987), Appian
von Alexandria. Römische Geschichte, erster Teil: die römische Reichsbildung,
Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.
Welch, K. (ed), Appian’s Roman History: Empire and Civil War. Roman
culture in an age of civil war, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.
Wesch-Klein, G. (2001), “Bithynia, Pontus et Bithynia, Bithynia et Pontus
- ein Provinzname im Wandel der Zeit”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 136: 251-256.
Westall, R. (2015), “The sources for the Civil Wars of Appian of Alexandria”, in Welch, K. (ed) (2015:
125-167).
