During the Second Punic War with Carthage, Rome's earliest known annalists Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus recorded history in Greek, and relied on Greek historians such as Timaeus. Roman histories were not written in Classical Latin until the 2nd century BCE with the Origines by Cato the Elder. Contemporary Greek historians such as Polybius wrote about the rise of Rome during its conquest of Greece and ascension as the primary power of the Mediterranean in the 2nd century BCE. Moving away from the annalist tradition, Roman historians of the 1st century BCE such as Sallust, Livy, and even Julius Caesar wrote their works in a much fuller narrative form. While Caesar's De Bello Gallico focused specifically on his wars in Gaul, Roman works that served as a broad universal history often placed heavy emphasis on the origin myth of the founding of Rome as a starting point. These works formed the basis of the Roman historiographic models utilized by later Imperial authors of the Principate era, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.
History
Foundation
The first non annalystic historian of Rome was in fact Greek, Polybius who wrote at the end of the second century BC who was prominent in the Achaean League. Upon being captured by the Romans and transported to Rome, Polybius took it upon himself in his Histories to record the history of Rome in order to explain Roman tradition to his fellow Greeks. He wanted to convince them to accept the domination of Rome as a universal truth.
Before the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE) Rome didn't have native historians, but the clash of civilisations it involved proved a potent stimulus to historiography, which was taken up by the two senators (and participants in the war), Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, who may be considered the "founders" of Roman historiography. Both authors—whose works have survived only in fragments—wrote in Greek, not Latin. One of the motives for this choice of language was a desire to win the support of the Greeks, among whom there were pro-Carthaginian authors.E Breisach, Historiography (2007) pp. 44-5 Additionally, Greek was seen as a sufficiently developed language for a topic as serious as history, "Rome took her past seriously; it became part of that seriousness to insist that its history was told with suitable literary and rhetorical art […]. For Fabius Pictor and his early successors—L. Cincius Alimentus, A. Postumius Albinus, C. Acilius—this meant writing in Greek, thus fitting Roman history into the mainstream of Hellenistic historical literature, which greatly influenced its Roman equivalent; the use of Greek also promoted the presentation of Rome to a cultured Greek audience as Rome advanced eastwards." while, according to some authors, Latin prose remained at a less developed stage.
Pictor's style of writing history defending the Roman state and its actions, and using propaganda heavily, eventually became a defining characteristic of Roman historiography, while he is also known for the establishment of the ab urbe condita tradition of historiography which is writing history "from the founding of the city". After Pictor wrote, many other authors followed his lead, inspired by the new literary form: Gaius Acilius, Aulus Postumius Albinus, and Cato the Elder. Cato the Elder was the first historian to write in Latin. His work, the Origines, was written to teach Romans what it means to be Roman. Like Pictor, Cato the Elder wrote ab urbe condita, and the early history is filled with legends illustrating Roman virtues. The Origines also spoke of how not only Rome, but the other Italian towns were venerable, and that the Romans were indeed superior to the Greeks.
The Romans enjoyed serious endeavors and so the writing of historiography became very popular for upper class citizens who wanted to spend their time on worthwhile, virtuous, "Roman" activities. As idleness was looked down upon by the Romans, writing history became an acceptable way to spend their otium or retirement.
Almost as soon as historiography started being used by the Romans, it split into two traditions: the annalistic tradition and the monographic tradition.
The annalistic tradition
The authors who used the Annalistic tradition wrote histories year-by-year, from the beginning, which was most frequently from the founding of the city, usually up until the time that they were living in, copying the style of the annales maximi were kept by the pontifex maximus until the time of the Gracchi.
Some annalistic authors: Gnaeus Gellius (c. 140 BC) wrote his history from Aeneas until 146 BC. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (c. 133 BC) wrote to demonstrate the reasons for the decline of Roman society. His history chronicled Rome from its foundation until 154 BC, which he regarded as the lowest point of Roman society. Cicero described Piso's work as "annals, very jejunely written".H J Rose, A Handbook of Latin Literature (London 1967) p. 115 Publius Mucius Scaevola (c. 133 BC) wrote a history from the foundation of the city in 80 books. Sempronius Asellio (c. 100 BC) wrote a history from the Punic Wars until c. 100 BC, as a patriotic encouragement.H J Rose, A Handbook of Latin Literature (London 1967) p. 118 Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius wrote mainly about warfare,S Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome (London 1969) p. 136 mainly taking the patriotic line that all Roman wars are just, and that the Senate and all Roman dealings were honorable.
The monographic tradition
Monographs are more similar to present-day history books. They are usually on a single topic, but most importantly, they do not tell history from the beginning, and they are not even necessarily annalistic. An important sub category that emerged from the monographic tradition was the biography.
Some monographic authors: Gaius Gracchus wrote a biography of his brother, Tiberius Gracchus. Gaius Fannius also wrote a biography of Tiberius Gracchus, but showed him in a negative light. Lucius Coelius Antipater wrote a monograph on the Second Punic War, notable for its improved style and efforts at fact-checking.H J Rose, A Handbook of Latin Literature (London 1967) p. 117 Sallust wrote two monographs: Bellum Catilinae (also known as De Catilinae Coniuratione), which is about the Catilinarian conspiracy from 66 to 63 BC, and the Bellum Jugurthinum, which is about the war with Jugurtha which took place from 111 to 105 BC.
Factionalized history
Often, especially in times of political unrest or social turmoil, historians re-wrote history to suit their particular views of the age. So, there were many different historians each rewriting history a little bit to bolster their case. Starting with the Gracchi brothers, This was especially evident in the 70s BC with the conflict between the populists led by Marius, and the senatorials led by Sulla. Several authors wrote histories during this time, each taking a side. Gaius Licinius Macer was anti-Sullan and wrote his history, based on Gnaeus Gellius in 16 books, from the founding of the city until the 3rd century BC, whereas Valerius Antias who was pro-Sulla, wrote a history in 75 books, from the founding of the city until 91 BC: both were used subsequently by Livy to create a more evenly balanced account.S Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome (London 1969) p. 180
During the long crisis that ended the Roman Republic, historians such as Sallust and Livy attributed the Republic’s collapse primarily to the elite's moral decay following Rome’s expansion. Cicero, influential on Roman historians despite never writing a history, emphasized the erosion of constitutional norms. The imperial period Greek historian Appian of Alexandria in his Roman History put less emphasis on moral or constitutional decline and instead traced the Republic’s instability to social and material pressures.
This habit of using the past to justify the positions in the present was reinforced by the greater preponderance of public men in writing Roman history.
Sallust a prominent ally of Julius Caesar during the crisis of the Roman Republic in his two surviving works focused on moral decline,S Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome (London 1969) p. 143 with Bellum Catilinae using Catiline as a symbol of the corrupt Roman nobilityS Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome (London 1969) p. 145-50 and Bellum Jugurthinum using the Jugurthine War as a backdrop for his examination of the development of party struggles in Rome in the 1st century BC having a number of character studies such as Marius. Sallust he is largely responsible for our current image of Rome in the late republic, and our understanding of the moral and ethical realities of Rome in the 1st century BC would be much weaker if Sallust's works did not survive.
Dio Cassius was a distinguished Greek senator. After establishing his political career, Dio Cassius began to write various literary works. His most famous and recognized work is called the Roman History, which consists of 80 books. This work is dominated by the change from a Roman republic to a monarchy of emperors, which Dio Cassius believed was the only way Rome could have a stable government. Today, the only surviving portion of the Roman History is the part from 69 BC to 46 AD.
Julius Caesar’s histories illustrate how history was used for political self-justification in the late Republic. In the Commentarii de Bello Gallico, to defend his conduct against Optimate opponents, Caesar presents the Gallic Wars as defensive with the narrative selectively emphasizes his leadership and moral legitimacy, shaping reader sympathy through detail and diction.Caesar The Conquest of Gaul (Penguin 1958) p. 24–25 Written in the form of commentarii rather than traditional historiography, the work exemplifies how accounts of contemporary events could be rhetorically shaped to serve factional and personal ends. A similar strategy is evident in the Commentarii de Bello Civili, where Caesar presents his conduct during the civil war as a defense of his lawful authority and Roman liberty, despite the greater difficulty of justifying conflict against fellow Romans.J. Boardman, The Oxford History of the Classical World (OUP 1991) p. 642 Other accounts of Caesar’s wars survive in the same commentarii style, including De Bello Alexandrino, De Bello Africo and De Bello Hispaniensi which are generally regarded as continuations composed by contemporaries or near-contemporaries rather than by Caesar himself.
Augustinian historians
Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of the 1st century BC. His main body of work was the Bibliotheca, which consisted of forty books and was intended to be a universal history from mythological times to the 1st century BC. He employed a very simple and straightforward style of writing, and relied heavily on written accounts for his information, most of which are now lost. Often criticized for a lack of originality and deemed a "scissors and paste" historian, Diodorus endeavored to present a comprehensive human history in a convenient and readable form. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. c. 8 BC.) was a Greek historian and critic living in Rome. His major work was Roman Antiquities, a history of Rome from its mythical beginnings until the first Punic war, consisting of 20 books. Generally he is considered to be a less reliable source than most of the other historians, but he does fill in the gaps in Livy's accounts. Other works include: On Imitation, On Dinarchus, On Thucidides, and On the Arrangement of Words. His framework of Rome being strong because of its constitution influenced later writers such as Cicero.
Early Imperial historiography
Livy