Chapter 11 Cassius Dio and Senatorial Memory of Civil War in the 190s Adam M. Kemezis In speaking of Cassius Dio’s account of the political events of 192–97 CE, modern scholars commonly say that he “lived through,” “experienced” or “wit- nessed” them. We do not often say that he “took part in” or “was involved in” them. This does indeed reflect the impression his text gives. Dio mentions that he tried to court Severus’ favor with adulatory writings (73[72].23.1–3 [Xiph.]) and feared Julianus’ reprisals for earlier quarrels between them (74[73].12.2 [Xiph.]), but gives no sign that he favored any side in the wars, let alone acted to advance that side’s cause. Here as elsewhere Dio’s common pose is that of a reactive observer of events driven by others. Such a self-portrait is not unexpected, given what we know of Dio’s early ca- reer as a hereditary aristocrat with much honor but limited access to positions of genuine military and administrative power.1 Dio’s circumstances lent them- selves to a passive attitude. What is less expected is how much this same atti- tude affects his entire narrative of these wars, in a way that sets it apart from the larger Roman historical tradition, including Dio’s own accounts of other civil wars. To briefly state the main contention of this chapter, Dio portrays the civil wars of the 190s as an event that the Roman people and its ruling class col- lectively lived through, experienced and witnessed, while placing remarkably little stress on more active behavior by anyone other than those at the very top, the faction chiefs and one or two key lieutenants. For nearly everyone, the war is a circumstance utterly beyond their control, and their reaction to it consists of trying to limit the damage it causes, far more than seeking any advantage from it. This position probably seems more intuitive to us than it should, not least because twentieth- and twenty-first century discourses of war tend toward a democratic stance that emphasizes the experience of ordinary people as vic- tims. The writers and intended readers of ancient historiography typically had 1 For Dio’s career see most recently Molin 2016a. Also fundamental are Letta 1979, Barnes 1984 and the relevant sections of Millar 1964. Davenport 2012, 799–801 adds some pertinent obser- vations on Dio in the civil war period. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004434431_013 258 Kemezis a different social perspective. They were for the most part members of an elite whose males were expected to identify with the roles of military leader and po- litical actor, even if in many eras their actual activities in these areas were quite limited.2 This is above all true for someone like Dio, the self-conscious heir of a senatorial historical tradition that included generals going back to Cato and Pollio. In this role he is claiming to speak not as a detached observer, but as a public man. If he conveys a sense of marginalization, it cannot be his alone but reflects on the body politic in general. To speak more concretely, Dio lived in a world where civil wars did in fact have winners as well as losers. However much of a non-player he personally may have been in the 190s, his social circle for the rest of his life would have in- cluded many characters whose careers or families had been made by Severus’ victory, either because they could support him at the right moment or had a pre-existing connection to him that suddenly became priceless political capital.3 For them the war, however destructive and tragic, was a time of op- portunity and positive action. Dio’s narrative, at least in its surviving form, largely omits this part of the story. Moreover and surprisingly, he does not dwell overmuch on individual victims. For someone of his age and experience, the benches of the Senate house must have been full of ghosts, of coevals from his youth who were absent in his maturity because bad luck or wrong choices in this period led them to exile or violent death. But for Dio, passivity and vic- timhood are mostly collective, a prevailing condition for all rather than a par- ticular circumstance for some. In constructing this narrative, it will be argued, Dio draws on the traditional Greek and Roman historiographical repertoire of topoi for civil war and stasis, but only very selectively. There is little in his account that deviates radically from the traditional picture, but there are many common aspects of that pic- ture that it fails to include. In many cases, one can find these missing features in the parallel traditions of Herodian and the Historia Augusta, or in extant nar- ratives of the similar events of 68–70 CE, above all Tacitus’ Histories. Some of the surprising features of Dio’s narrative of 193–197 reflect his overall practice 2 On self-portraiture as man of action in ancient historiography, see Marincola 1997, 133–148, 175–216. 3 For the prosopographical afterlives of civil war figures, see Okoń 2012 and the relevant entries in Okoń 2017. Leunissen 1989, 102–125, while emphasizing continuity between the Antonine and Severan periods, nonetheless cites many exceptional careers from the civil war era. Given our very limited information on the allegiances of junior figures in the 190s, this can safely be seen as the tip of an iceberg. More narrative context can be found in Birley 1988, along with pertinent recent discussions in Mennen 2011, 194–204; Schöpe 2014, 94–100..