Sulla Unfairly Vilified?

[tflex]

Sulla is well known as a ruthless tyrant that assassinated and exiled countless influential Roman politicians and citizens that opposed him and his philosophy. He is also vilified for starting the downfall of the republic. I think that characterization alone of him does not do him justice. Everyone knows Sulla marched on Rome and forced the senate to install him as dictator which was unprecedented, but not many people know that he used his position of power to restore the senate

[Favonius Cornelius]

The only cudos I will give Sulla is that he was a great general. I am not enthused with his 'reforms,' and his massacre of Roman aristocrats I find unforgivable.

 

I think there is a reason Caesar went to great lengths NOT to do such a thing.

[Germanicus]

I agree that he his unfairly treated, his whole career labled "tyrant".

 

Some of his reforms as you suggest were much needed, and he basically tried to stop the Optimate - Populare divide that he saw was destroying the republic. I think wiping out the powers available to the lower classes through the tribunician office was perhaps not the best way to go about it, and as everyone knows, his reforms barely lasted his lifetime.

 

With regard to the proscriptions, I agree that this method was a very nasty precedent to make, but feel that a lot of the abuses of this took place without Sullas direct knowledge. When he was made aware of abuses (Like adding a name to the proscription list so the accuser could get his property) he sharply reprimanded the offenders - ala Crassus.

 

Sulla was obviously a very charming individual, and I think no one said it better than himself on his tomb, something like:-

 

"None have been a better friend to friends or a worse enemy to enemies than I", how true !

 

But Tflex, you know it was Sulla that passed the Laws the senate later tried to use to prosecute Caesar don't you ? And you also know that their politics for the most part were diametricly opposed ?

[Ursus]

A man of contradictions. Supposedly a conservative in sympathy, he used rather radical means to achieve power. Certainly his private life was not conservative by Roman standards! His conservative goals were unraveled by the radical methods he used.

 

To be sure, the Republic needed something. Sulla streamlined the cursus honorum, and his senatorial reforms were interesting. But being "conservative," his refoms simply did not address the major issue of the time - the fact that Rome was no longer a city-state, but a growing empire.

 

 

But do I like Sulla on a personal level? Sure. A most interesting character. I derived a few chuckles out of Tom Holland's portrait of him. His handling of the pretentious Athenian philosophers during the wars in the East was priceless.

[Favonius Cornelius]

His handling of the pretentious Athenian philosophers during the wars in the East was priceless.

 

Could you expound on that one please.

[Ursus]

Sure...

 

In Athens there had come to be a divide between the business classes and the lower classes. The business classes supported Rome, the lower classes did not. A philosopher named Aristion led the lower classes in revolution in attempt to "restore democracy." The pro-Roman business classes fled, and Aristion started forging alliances with Mithridates who was waging his own war on Rome.

 

Sulla arrived in Greece with five legions and immediately besieged Athens. The response of the oh-so-intellectual Athenians was to compose rude songs about Sulla. They compared his face to a mulberry bush topped with oatmeal. In response, Sulla found the groves where the classical philosophers used to lecture to their students, and he chopped them down.

 

At this point, Athenian ambassadors met with Sulla and droned on for some time about the lost glory of their city. Sulla reminded them he had not come to Athens to listen to a history lecture, and dismissed them rudely.

 

Sulla of course stormed the city, killed the democrats, and burned and plundered. He made a temporary peace with Mithridates, and then restored the pro-business, pro-Roman puppet government in Athens.

 

Sulla rounded up the columns of the Temple of Zeus and shipped them back to Rome. He also shipped off Olympic Athletes.

 

And for the final touch, he totally plundered all the books of the Athenian libraries and shipped them back to Rome. The Athenians lost all those philosophical tomes they so enjoyed to read.

[tflex]

But Tflex, you know it was Sulla that passed the Laws the senate later tried to use to prosecute Caesar don't you ? And you also know that their politics for the most part were diametricly opposed ?

 

Yes, I am well aware they were both on different sides of the aisle and that Sulla regreted not murdering Caesar. But I think they are also very much alike in their methods of dealing with the opposition and in their leadership styles. Also, they were both superb military commanders that devised brilliant strategies to defeat Rome's enemies. But I think most important is that they both had a hand in weakening the republic which ultimately led to it's downfall. Anybody who is responsible for the fall of the republic (which at the time seemed more like anarchy) is a good friend of mine.

Edited January 26, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

Truly remarkable that some of the most consistent defenders of Caesar are also apologists for Sulla.

Edited January 26, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[tflex]

Truly remarkable that some of the most consistent defenders of Caesar are also apologists for Sulla.

 

The Roman republic was too corrupt and too large to support or defend itself. Sulla exposed it's weakness when he marched on Rome. He was the first to realize the danger of political infighting would distract Rome from it's real enemies. It's better for a Roman general to march on Rome then a foriegn enemy. Sulla's legislative programs might not have lasted too long but in the long term his overall actions helped Rome free itself from an outdated governmental system.

 

Radicals proved invaluable to Rome, the same way the radical Spartans were invaluable to Greece. Without the radical Spartans Greece's timid republic would have probably been overrun by the dreaded Persians, and without radicals like Sulla and Caesar, Rome would have been overrun by it's enemies. Thats why I think history should be kinder to Sulla for being courageous enough to do the unthinkable at the time for the good of Rome.

Edited January 26, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Roman republic was too corrupt and too large to support or defend itself.

 

What is your evidence that the Roman republic at the time of Sulla was too corrupt or too large to defend itself?

[Germanicus]

Truly remarkable that some of the most consistent defenders of Caesar are also apologists for Sulla.

 

I do not make apologies for the man. Certainly he set precedents that would not have been used as such if his reforms had stayed in place. My only point is that his despotism is extreemly over emphasised.

 

Keaveney made an valid point at the end of his book, which was that the only real mistake Sulla made was dying young. He kept working to keep his reforms in place after his dictatorship was over, and if he had have lived another 30 years, may well have succeeded and would have been remembered in an entirely different way.

[Primus Pilus]

Keaveney made an valid point at the end of his book, which was that the only real mistake Sulla made was dying young. He kept working to keep his reforms in place after his dictatorship was over, and if he had have lived another 30 years, may well have succeeded and would have been remembered in an entirely different way.

 

Well Sulla was 60. It's not old by today's standards but he wasn't really 'young' either.

 

As for Sulla's vilification though, he was certainly guilty of some atrocities against Roman citizens and political rivals, but he was embroiled in a violent political struggle that involved the same tactics from his opponents (notably Marius and especially Cinna). While it is far more in depth than this simple paragraph, Sulla was both a shaper of events that led to the fall of the Republic, but he was also a product of a very turbulent political time. Though it was a time of great fear for the opposition and reversal of fortune for some plebiean agendas, Sulla's quick rise and brief 'reign' provided some seriously lacking stability.

 

I have Keveaney's book on my desk and will hopefully get to it soon. Sulla is a too oft ignored character.

[P.Clodius]

Agreed, Sulla was a product of his environment. His intentions were "honourable", though they side with the opposition from my perspective, his goal, as was Caesar's, was stability. The system of proscriptions was, as I have stated in another post, abused by his confederates. While 1,600 knights, and x number of Senators may sound like a "bloodbath", the city of Rome at this time would be around point five million plus! When we consider the massacres the legions were more than capable of undertaking, these numbers are a drop in the ocean.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's not the numbers; it's the targets. The targets were the enemies of Sulla and his henchmen, not enemies of Rome.

 

Sulla violated the pomerium and acted without a senatus consultum ultimum. Perhaps this was justified in light of Sulpicius' illegal maneuvers (an arguable point to be sure) but what happened thereafter was score-settling.

 

It's too bad that the Marian Junius Brutus hadn't the rectitude of the Catonian Junius Brutus.

[P.Clodius]

Good point Cato in reference to the tragets..

It's too bad that the Marian Junius Brutus hadn't the rectitude of the Catonian Junius Brutus.

For recitude I read "rectum-itude"!