Most modern scholarship on the Roman civil wars of the 1st c. BCE focuses on the perspectives of contemporary Romans, or the more synthetic and deliberate narratives of later authors. In this dissertation, I analyze the works of four Greek authors contemporary to the Roman civil wars: Nicolaus of Damascus, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Strabo. I argue that despite their different aims and life circumstances, these authors share a set of attitudes toward Roman civil war that are deserving of attention. These authors were not writing about civil war as a historical event; rather, I argue that they wrote civil war as a way of understanding their own present, and their works can be read through the lens of civil war. In his Bios Kaisaros, Nicolaus explores Roman rulership in civil war through the life of Octavian. Diodorus’ Bibliotheke presents a variety of episodes and anecdotes about the late Republic that speak to Diodorus’ ideas about ideal governance and its collapse. Dionysius uses early Roman history in the Roman Antiquities to demonstrate the importance of Roman history generally, including in the realm of civil war. Finally, Strabo’s Geography covers the Mediterranean-wide impacts of Roman civil war and the uneven distribution of damage. In addition to these divergent topics and aims, I argue that the early Greek authors share certain baseline dispositions towards the subject of the civil war, despite having little or no connection to each other, and their works therefore represent an emergent discourse about Roman civil war.