Sulla

[S SEVERUS]

I am reading Rubicon - Tom Holland. It's an easy book to read with some very interesting details.
But the author gives a rather grim or negative opinion on Sulla.
I wonder if there are some of you who agree or disagree with this.

Was Sulla the protector of the republic or was he just the one who started it's destruction by sending his legion into Rome?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

A very fascinating yet complex issue. I want to love Sulla, but some of the things he did were inexcusable. Whenever I judge Sulla's actions, I like to break them down (I find it hard to put a single label on him). Here is my quickly surmised position:

Life and Career up to his First Consulship :roll:

Okay, so maybe he killed some friends and relatives, cavorted about with pretty male greek actors, and bribed his way into the Praetorship. Were these ethical political maneuvers? No. Were they atypical? No!


First March on Rome :x

Command against Mithidrates was rightfully his and was unlawfully wrested from him bt Marius and Suplicious. But, his march on Rome set a precedent so dangerous and so damaging that it mortally wounded the republic. It may have only started as a flesh wound, but it became infected and festered for many decades to come.

This is probably naive, but, maybe instead of taking his legions across the pomerium and into Rome he should have bypassed Rome and went east instead?


Second March on Rome

Well, since he's already done it once, I guess he had no alternative. I can't condone it, but I can understand why he did it.


Proscriptions :evil:

Sulla went too far and wide with this. It can be argued that he needed to do this to once and for all rid himself of his enemies in order to avoid repeat performances of the events before the Mithidratic campaign, but, there were too many killings that were for unrelated to the cause.


Dictatorship :?

I could have lived with a dictatorship if he had crafted it to the normal six-month term. But to be dictator for as long as he saw fit was horrible!


Reforms :roll:

Okay, if his reforms were truly meant to maintain the republic, he was thinkig was severely dilluted. A bloated senate and a weakend tribunate of the plebs isn't going to solve the republic's problems. I can understand why he wanted to weaken the trubunes. Every since the brother Gracchi the tribunate was used and or abused to usurp the power of the Senate. Do I believe in an authoritative senate alone? No But, the tribunes could be equally bad. Unfortunately, once the people have the power, how can you rightifully take it away (and expect them to be happy about it)?

Retirement hock:

On first glimpse his retirement would seem to support the idea that all of his intentions were good and after accomlishing everything he set out to do, he laid down his power and left himself accountable.

But, I think he retired not because it was the right thing to do in his mind, I think he was just tired of being at the center of it all. His retirement was for personal reasons not for public.


Conclusion

It does all really come down to his first march on Rome. If he could have found an alternative for dealing with Marius and Suplicious other than crossing the pomerium, I think Sulla would be viewed in a much differnt light. Again, I really like Sulla but most of his actions are just too horrific to paint him in a favorable light.

[Et tu brute]

In some ways he was both. Yes he did march a legion into Rome but he also gave power back to the senators after he had ousted Marius, he was also extremely vicious in his reprisals against "traitors".

[Kate Gilliver]

"Sulla did little but add to the sum of human misery." P.A.Brunt.

I, and I'm sure many other lecturers, have set that one with the single word "Discuss" after the quote.

[Dan Diffendale]

"Sulla did little but add to the sum of human misery." P.A.Brunt.

Speaking of, anyone be able to attend this?
http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/events/peterBrunt.asp

Sulla, though... I''d indict him for genocide.

"Sulla captured a large number of prisoners. All the Samnites among them he killed, because they were always ill-affected toward the Romans."
Appian, The Civil Wars, Introduction, section 88.

"Prisoners, to the number of more than 8000, were shot down with darts by Sulla because they were mostly Samnites." (section 94)

"The remainder he ordered to be divided into three parts, consisting of Romans, Samnites, and Praenestians respectively. When this had been done he announced to the Romans by herald that they had merited death, but nevertheless he would pardon them. The others he massacred to the last man." (section 95)

[S SEVERUS]

Thank you for your anwers.
Publius Nonius Severus a.k.a Peter, I liked reading your analysis. One laudes given. :wink:

[sulla felix]

For a much more balanced view of Sulla I would suggest reading the book by Arthur Keaveney entitled "Sulla - The Last Republican" (2nd Edition recently updated and published).

As Keaveny says a man almost obsessed with his belief that he was the recipient of divine favour (hence the title FELIX), and totally committed to the preservation of the Roman Republic.

[Theodosius the Great]

I largely agree with Severus (Peter).

Sulla's personal life disgusts me, but I don't know whether to believe the stories about him since he was villified by his enemies and their descendents (who he had "disbarred" from holding political office).

The first march may have been the only option left to him. I can't see another way of rectifying the situation from his viewpoint.

The second march and subsequent proscriptions were just tit-for-tit. Marius slaughtered the high ranking intelligentsia of the Optimates in Sulla's absence from Italy. So I blame Marius there.

The long duration of his Dictatorship may have been necessary to devise and implement his reforms, I don't know. But like you said, Severus, Sulla doesn't seem power-hungry like Caesar.

As for deballing the tribunate, Marius managed to get a tribune to expel Senators and give him Sulla's command. So, Sulla took preemptive measures, it seems, to prevent a repeat of abusive excercise of tribunition power. The state had bloated since the Punic and Macedonian Wars in a short time. At least Sulla tried to implement reforms to the city-state government that Rome still had.

The only reason, I believe, his reforms didn't succeed was because Marius had decapitated the best of the Optimates. Sulla's bloated, but inexperienced and incompetent, Senate couldn't see them through. Then there's Pompey who started to unravel Sulla's reforms after his death.

Yes, his retirement seems something of a novelty. Something like that isn't heard of again until Diocletian, I believe.

Theo

[sulla felix]

You are right to treat the "evidence" of Sulla's private life with great caution. Do not forget the tactics employed by Cicero in his assault on Mark Antony, or Ocatvian on his orchestrated assault on the same man. Such tactics appear to have been commonplace in Roman politics and life in general.

Sulla was a brilliant general and tactician, as well as an accomplished politician. I often wonder whether we would have a different view of Sulla if Julius Caesar had been the first to march on Rome, and not Sulla!

Read Keaveney and re-appraise! :lol: