What do you think?
Rate this book
The Collapse of Rome: Marius, Sulla and the First Civil War
Full of fascinating famous characters from Marius to Sulla and Pompey, this narrates and analyzes a crucial period in Rome's history.
By the early first century BC, the Roman Republic had already carved itself a massive empire and was easily the most powerful state in the Mediterranean. Roman armies had marched victoriously over enemies far and wide, but the Roman heartland was soon to feel the tramp of armies on campaign as the Republic was convulsed by civil war and rival warlords vied for supremacy, sounding the first death knell of the Republican system. At the center of the conflict was the rivalry between Marius, victor of the Jugurthine and Northern wars, and his former subordinate, Sulla. But, as Gareth Sampson points out in this new analysis, the situation was much more complex than the traditional view portrays it and the scope of the First Civil War both wider and longer.
This narrative and analysis of a critical and bloody period in Roman history is an ideal sequel to the author's Crisis of Rome (and a prequel to his first book, The Defeat of Rome ).
By the early first century BC, the Roman Republic had already carved itself a massive empire and was easily the most powerful state in the Mediterranean. Roman armies had marched victoriously over enemies far and wide, but the Roman heartland was soon to feel the tramp of armies on campaign as the Republic was convulsed by civil war and rival warlords vied for supremacy, sounding the first death knell of the Republican system. At the center of the conflict was the rivalry between Marius, victor of the Jugurthine and Northern wars, and his former subordinate, Sulla. But, as Gareth Sampson points out in this new analysis, the situation was much more complex than the traditional view portrays it and the scope of the First Civil War both wider and longer.
This narrative and analysis of a critical and bloody period in Roman history is an ideal sequel to the author's Crisis of Rome (and a prequel to his first book, The Defeat of Rome ).
304 pages, Hardcover
First published November 19, 2013
60 people are currently reading
127 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 10, 2025
Gaius Marius and Sulla were Roman generals and the central figures in the first large-scale Roman Civil War.
Their power struggle escalated from personal rivalry into a devastating conflict that was the major turning point in the Roman Republic's decline.
Sulla's full name was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.
Sulla was a Roman general and statesman known for his military victories and dictatorship in the late Roman Republic.
He was from an old, aristocratic patrician family (the gens Cornelia),
In Rome the pedigree was always of highest importance. More than victories in battles.
Sulla had a complex personality: he was an ambitious, brilliant, ruthless and cruel military genius who cared nothing for tradition.
He marched his legions into Rome, and the streets ran with blood.
He became a dictator and instituted bloody purges (proscriptions), he was also known for a debauched lifestyle with actors/musicians, deep religious superstition (seeing himself as favored by the gods), and a sharp intellect, making him a contradictory figure who strengthened the state but ultimately brought down the Republic.
Gaius Marius was from a lower class family. Not poor but unknown and with no ancestors of distinction.
When young he joined the Roman military. He thrived in the calvary unit.
Marius was described as having nerves of steel and naturally brave. He quickly made a name for himself.
He was a stunning soldier with no pedigree so considered "Novo Homus" a new man.
Marius went from a zero to a hero. The common people loved him.
There was a sequential path to honors with limited positions open.
The sequential path of Roman political offices consisted of:
1.Quaestor, 2.Praetor, and
3. Consul.
The competition to move up through these elected offices was fierce.
Marius is a glory hound determined to overcome his lack of ancestral background.
As a tough, no-nonsense military genius who transformed the Roman army he was also consumed by personal ambition and grudges.
His inability to be fully
accepted by the aristocracy led to an inferiority complex, manifesting as extreme jealousy and cruelty, especially against rivals like Sulla.
Their rivalry deepened during the Social War, where Sulla commanded Marius's forces against rebellious allies of Rome.
This conflict led to the moment in their relationship when Sulla was replaced by Marius as general against
Mithridates VI of Pontus.
This prompted Sulla to march on Rome to assert his leadership.
He broke all Roman norms by turning his legions against Rome to seize power, driven by ambition and a sense of entitlement after being denied his command.
After becoming dictator, he orchestrated mass killings (proscriptions) of thousands of political enemies, showing extreme vindictiveness.
He drew up the lists of his enemies to be executed, with rewards for their killers, showcasing his brutality. The streets ran with blood.
Sulla felt he had achieved his primary aims, including crushing his rivals (like Marius's faction) and strengthening the traditional aristocratic government (the Senate) through constitutional changes.
Marius's fall was a political collapse, fueled by military ambition, civil conflict with Sulla, and his own ruthless actions.
This culminated with the exile of Marius. There was a brief violent comeback, then his natural death at age 71 before Sullas final triumph.
There is a conflicting belief that Marius committed suicide to avoid being captured by his enemies, though this is less supported by historical facts.
This was a horrifically brutal civil war. Later, Sulla voluntarily gave up his supreme power.
This was a powerful, flamboyant act demonstrating his absolute confidence and mastery over the political situation, a feat never matched by Marius or Caesar.
Four Stars
Their power struggle escalated from personal rivalry into a devastating conflict that was the major turning point in the Roman Republic's decline.
Sulla's full name was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.
Sulla was a Roman general and statesman known for his military victories and dictatorship in the late Roman Republic.
He was from an old, aristocratic patrician family (the gens Cornelia),
In Rome the pedigree was always of highest importance. More than victories in battles.
Sulla had a complex personality: he was an ambitious, brilliant, ruthless and cruel military genius who cared nothing for tradition.
He marched his legions into Rome, and the streets ran with blood.
He became a dictator and instituted bloody purges (proscriptions), he was also known for a debauched lifestyle with actors/musicians, deep religious superstition (seeing himself as favored by the gods), and a sharp intellect, making him a contradictory figure who strengthened the state but ultimately brought down the Republic.
Gaius Marius was from a lower class family. Not poor but unknown and with no ancestors of distinction.
When young he joined the Roman military. He thrived in the calvary unit.
Marius was described as having nerves of steel and naturally brave. He quickly made a name for himself.
He was a stunning soldier with no pedigree so considered "Novo Homus" a new man.
Marius went from a zero to a hero. The common people loved him.
There was a sequential path to honors with limited positions open.
The sequential path of Roman political offices consisted of:
1.Quaestor, 2.Praetor, and
3. Consul.
The competition to move up through these elected offices was fierce.
Marius is a glory hound determined to overcome his lack of ancestral background.
As a tough, no-nonsense military genius who transformed the Roman army he was also consumed by personal ambition and grudges.
His inability to be fully
accepted by the aristocracy led to an inferiority complex, manifesting as extreme jealousy and cruelty, especially against rivals like Sulla.
Their rivalry deepened during the Social War, where Sulla commanded Marius's forces against rebellious allies of Rome.
This conflict led to the moment in their relationship when Sulla was replaced by Marius as general against
Mithridates VI of Pontus.
This prompted Sulla to march on Rome to assert his leadership.
He broke all Roman norms by turning his legions against Rome to seize power, driven by ambition and a sense of entitlement after being denied his command.
After becoming dictator, he orchestrated mass killings (proscriptions) of thousands of political enemies, showing extreme vindictiveness.
He drew up the lists of his enemies to be executed, with rewards for their killers, showcasing his brutality. The streets ran with blood.
Sulla felt he had achieved his primary aims, including crushing his rivals (like Marius's faction) and strengthening the traditional aristocratic government (the Senate) through constitutional changes.
Marius's fall was a political collapse, fueled by military ambition, civil conflict with Sulla, and his own ruthless actions.
This culminated with the exile of Marius. There was a brief violent comeback, then his natural death at age 71 before Sullas final triumph.
There is a conflicting belief that Marius committed suicide to avoid being captured by his enemies, though this is less supported by historical facts.
This was a horrifically brutal civil war. Later, Sulla voluntarily gave up his supreme power.
This was a powerful, flamboyant act demonstrating his absolute confidence and mastery over the political situation, a feat never matched by Marius or Caesar.
Four Stars
June 23, 2025
Like the other Roman war and politics books of the author, quite informative as it focuses on less well known episodes of the corresponding period, noting how usually books tend to focus on the main events (Caesar vs Pompey, Anthony vs Augustus, Sulla vs Marius and his followers or Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey vs Mithridates, Anthony's invasion of Parthia etc) but ignore the other happenings which actually were quite important in various ways; also very readable and engaging with lots of quotations from the original sources
July 13, 2020
I finally caught up on this book, having belatedly realised that it was not about the fall of the Roman Empire, but about the civil strife in the generation before the collapse of the Republic. Maybe it’s because I’ve already read four other books on this exact same topic earlier this year, but I didn’t find myself drawn in to this one. At least, I’m going to be generous and assume that’s why I didn’t find myself particularly gripped. There was nothing here that, unfortunately, I hadn’t already read about in Matyszak’s Cataclysm 90 BC: The Forgotten War That Almost Destroyed Rome, Frantantuono’s Lucullus: The Life and Campaigns of a Roman Conqueror, Telford’s Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered, and Matyszak’s Sertorius and the Struggle for Spain. I hesitate to call this a bad book because it really isn’t, it just drew the short straw and is the last of five overlapping books on the topic. What I can say this book does quite well is how it is divided up and organised. Most of the other books also take a chronological approach with their chapters, but Sampson also clearly subdivides within chapters, plainly delineating specific battles rather than simply having a solid block of prose. This makes it much easier to get a distinct picture of the order of events and what was happening where and when.
April 23, 2022
An interesting and thorough work.
Sampson does a good job showing the connections between various events, and the political and economic effects of the civil war, a war that spanned two decades and the entire Mediterranean world, with the city of Rome attacked no less than five times and captured three times. He has a pretty good grasp of an era with sketchy source material, and his discussion of this is judicious and reasonable.
Sampson does assume a lot of prior knowledge on topics like the Punic Wars and Caesar’s later political career. Some readers might actually wish for more detail on Sulla and Marius.There could have been some more coverage of Marius’s army reforms. The writing sometimes feels rushed, repetitive or tedious. Some readers will be annoyed by Sampson’s lengthy quotes from the sources or occasional use of first person.
An informative and well-organized work.
Sampson does a good job showing the connections between various events, and the political and economic effects of the civil war, a war that spanned two decades and the entire Mediterranean world, with the city of Rome attacked no less than five times and captured three times. He has a pretty good grasp of an era with sketchy source material, and his discussion of this is judicious and reasonable.
Sampson does assume a lot of prior knowledge on topics like the Punic Wars and Caesar’s later political career. Some readers might actually wish for more detail on Sulla and Marius.There could have been some more coverage of Marius’s army reforms. The writing sometimes feels rushed, repetitive or tedious. Some readers will be annoyed by Sampson’s lengthy quotes from the sources or occasional use of first person.
An informative and well-organized work.
July 1, 2020
In the first century BC, the Roman Republic was in trouble. The surrounding areas were beginning to chafe under Roman rule without the benefits of citizenship, whilst those at the top were making power grabs. The First Civil War saw families and friends divided on opposite sides of the conflict, whilst legions either deserted or in some cases murdered their commanders. Fighting and assassinations were seen on the streets of Rome itself.
The Republic is the area where my knowledge of Rome is the weakest. I thought the book was well-researched and posited some interesting theories. It was quite a challenge to keep up with the plethora of people who paraded in and out of prominence during this time, and I found the writing was a little academically dry in places. I would recommend this to those who have a least a rudimentary starting knowledge of the Republic. Overall, I rate this 3.5 stars (rounded up to 4).
Thanks to NetGalley and publishers, Pen & Sword, for the opportunity to read an ARC.
The Republic is the area where my knowledge of Rome is the weakest. I thought the book was well-researched and posited some interesting theories. It was quite a challenge to keep up with the plethora of people who paraded in and out of prominence during this time, and I found the writing was a little academically dry in places. I would recommend this to those who have a least a rudimentary starting knowledge of the Republic. Overall, I rate this 3.5 stars (rounded up to 4).
Thanks to NetGalley and publishers, Pen & Sword, for the opportunity to read an ARC.
May 19, 2020
This was a very factual, detailed account of the Roman Empire around the first century B.C, under tge dictatorship of Sulla. This was a very difficult time in the early Roman Empire and glad this was the focus of the book instead of later times highlighting issues with the Mongols and Armenia and anyone else that had issues. Very well researched and a great way study Roman history.
Yes, the book may be a little long but it is quite informative and reads more like a story which I always appreciate. I would definitely read something else written by this author.
Thanks to Netgalley, the author and Pen & Sword Publishing for an ARV in exchange for an honest review. Thanks also for granting my wish to read this.
Available: 6/30/20
Yes, the book may be a little long but it is quite informative and reads more like a story which I always appreciate. I would definitely read something else written by this author.
Thanks to Netgalley, the author and Pen & Sword Publishing for an ARV in exchange for an honest review. Thanks also for granting my wish to read this.
Available: 6/30/20
June 6, 2020
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I've been reading a fair bit about the Romans lately, and "The Collapse of Rome" stands out among the best. What do we know for sure? How do we know it? What's missing? What can we guess about what's missing? These questions are answered in a very well laid out and accessible way, making that part of history a little bit more real.
My thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for an advance copy to review. This review is entirely my own, unbiased, opinion.
My thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for an advance copy to review. This review is entirely my own, unbiased, opinion.
Read
September 1, 2016An excellent coverage of this difficult period in Roman history. Crisply written.
November 14, 2018
Rome was a republic, but nothing like a democracy. It was as hierarchical as any feudal state, perhaps more so. Within Rome, there were patricians, equestrians, plebs, clients, peasants, freedmen and slaves. Outside the walls were the Latin cities, with lesser privileges, and beyond that were the Italian "allies": vassals in all but name. Interspersed were Roman and Latin colonies, and further out were the subject provinces in Gaul, Spain, Africa and Greece. It was continental empire of concentric rings, very much like the Soviet Union with its Party, Muscovites, Great Russians, other Russians, other Republics and satellites.
Time and again, the Republic outgrew its political institutions. Its whole history is one constitutional crisis after another, but in the early days reforms were usually accomplished without widespread slaughter. However, by the first century BC, the problem had grown particularly acute. The strength of the empire rested as much on the Italian allies as the old core of Rome and Latium. Naturally enough, the Italians wanted their share of the spoils. But there were so many of them that the new citizens would outnumber the old, and the balance between the social classes would be seriously disrupted. The new influx was too big to swallow. In the end, of course, there was no alternative, but the old guard held out as long as it could, and as a result the transition was much bloodier than it needed to be.
One of the structural weaknesses of the Roman Republic was that it insisted on entrusting both political and military power to the same people. Since each consul was directly elected by the people, he already had popularity and legitimacy, and once he had disposed of the other consul there was no substantial barrier to his personal rule. In particular, the senate never had any forces of its own, a curious omission in an aristocratic republic.
Sulla is guilty of many crimes, and is widely hated by Roman historians. But of all the warlords, he alone really believed in the Republic, and like George Washington, he retired into private life rather than perpetuate one-man rule. Unfortunately, his only idea was to roll back the past century of progress, which was never going to be a lasting solution. (In his place, I would have created a permanent Senatorial Guard to protect the city and constitution from ambitious consuls. But there was no precedent for that, and Sulla lacked the imagination.) The future belonged to the legions.
One curious feature of this period is the extraordinary lack of female characters. Wives are seldom mentioned and even more seldom named. There is no Dido, no Sabine Women, no Lucretia, no Sophonisba, no Mother of the Grachi, no Boudica. When Marius fled to Africa, did Mrs. Marius tell him that purple was a good colour to be buried in? She did not.
Time and again, the Republic outgrew its political institutions. Its whole history is one constitutional crisis after another, but in the early days reforms were usually accomplished without widespread slaughter. However, by the first century BC, the problem had grown particularly acute. The strength of the empire rested as much on the Italian allies as the old core of Rome and Latium. Naturally enough, the Italians wanted their share of the spoils. But there were so many of them that the new citizens would outnumber the old, and the balance between the social classes would be seriously disrupted. The new influx was too big to swallow. In the end, of course, there was no alternative, but the old guard held out as long as it could, and as a result the transition was much bloodier than it needed to be.
One of the structural weaknesses of the Roman Republic was that it insisted on entrusting both political and military power to the same people. Since each consul was directly elected by the people, he already had popularity and legitimacy, and once he had disposed of the other consul there was no substantial barrier to his personal rule. In particular, the senate never had any forces of its own, a curious omission in an aristocratic republic.
Sulla is guilty of many crimes, and is widely hated by Roman historians. But of all the warlords, he alone really believed in the Republic, and like George Washington, he retired into private life rather than perpetuate one-man rule. Unfortunately, his only idea was to roll back the past century of progress, which was never going to be a lasting solution. (In his place, I would have created a permanent Senatorial Guard to protect the city and constitution from ambitious consuls. But there was no precedent for that, and Sulla lacked the imagination.) The future belonged to the legions.
One curious feature of this period is the extraordinary lack of female characters. Wives are seldom mentioned and even more seldom named. There is no Dido, no Sabine Women, no Lucretia, no Sophonisba, no Mother of the Grachi, no Boudica. When Marius fled to Africa, did Mrs. Marius tell him that purple was a good colour to be buried in? She did not.
June 13, 2017
This is book about very interesting topic. The book is ok, it is good but author of the book actually make his life easier by quoting ancient authors especially when he descrivbe the battles which is not good for me cause I am not native English speaker and it makes book less readable for me.
Also the broad descriptions of what lead to collapse would be nice. http://cinemaboxhd-apk.com
Also the broad descriptions of what lead to collapse would be nice. http://cinemaboxhd-apk.com
September 9, 2017
Detailed narrative
A period that I had glanced at before. This is told with great detail and explanations. This is a bit of a challenge due to its length and detail but was,worth the effort.
A period that I had glanced at before. This is told with great detail and explanations. This is a bit of a challenge due to its length and detail but was,worth the effort.
July 6, 2017
Another view of the times of Sulla a very dangerous dictator.
April 26, 2018
Fascinating
Why is Sulla always cast in such a bad light.Marius went crazy.It is right and proper to oppose insane people.
Why is Sulla always cast in such a bad light.Marius went crazy.It is right and proper to oppose insane people.
September 6, 2020
Roman Empire was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the ancient world. At its peak in 117 CE, it covered around 5.9 million square kilometers over three continents, Africa, Asia, and Europe. It is estimated that perhaps 60 million people lived within its borders.
‘Why the Romans Fell Despite Their Superiority.’”
The Collapse of Rome is still an enigma for historians and it remains a distressing topic for many in the West. Actually, the West is totally afraid of the repetition of the collapse nowadays.
"The collapse of Rome" is well documented and the author made a good job presenting protagonists and the context that led to the collapse. When we compare to the practice of politics today we realize that probably nothing has changed. Everyone wants more power and each country wants more territory.
Read: July, 2020
Source: NetGalley and Pen & Sword, the Publisher.
‘Why the Romans Fell Despite Their Superiority.’”
The Collapse of Rome is still an enigma for historians and it remains a distressing topic for many in the West. Actually, the West is totally afraid of the repetition of the collapse nowadays.
"The collapse of Rome" is well documented and the author made a good job presenting protagonists and the context that led to the collapse. When we compare to the practice of politics today we realize that probably nothing has changed. Everyone wants more power and each country wants more territory.
Read: July, 2020
Source: NetGalley and Pen & Sword, the Publisher.
August 2, 2015
The author does a good job consolidating this period of history in an accessible way and does a good job citing conflicting sources throughout the book. I was not a huge fan of the writing style (too many seems, seemingly, apparently) that started to distract me. Overall a good filler book that covered a period of time that I knew very little about.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews