The Sullans

[M. Porcius Cato]

Pompey, Crassus, Catiline, Lepidus, Catulus---the men who supported Sulla and profited from his reign at one time or another is a virtual Who's Who of the late republic, with many of them inveterate enemies of one another. What's going on? Were the supporters of Sulla bound by anything other than fear of proscription and greed? Why were the Sullan reforms so quickly overturned? Why didn't the opposition to Sulla--the shadow government of Sertorius--put down their arms and reconcile with the senate once the Sullan reforms were overturned?

[Primus Pilus]

Pompey, Crassus, Catiline, Lepidus, Catulus---the men who supported Sulla and profited from his reign at one time or another is a virtual Who's Who of the late republic, with many of them inveterate enemies of one another. What's going on? Were the supporters of Sulla bound by anything other than fear of proscription and greed? Why were the Sullan reforms so quickly overturned? Why didn't the opposition to Sulla--the shadow government of Sertorius--put down their arms and reconcile with the senate once the Sullan reforms were overturned?

 

I've always been positive that Pompey simply lusted after glory (considering his youth at the time). One couldn't ordinarily reconcile his youth and especially his status as the son of a new man to being especially bound to the ideals of Sulla, especially considering that his father Pompeius Strabo had played both sides of the political fence. Crassus as a Sullan is more understandable considering his heritage, but perhaps he always dreamed for the same sort of ultimate power as Sulla... and what better way to pursue this goal than to follow someone who also achieved it. In any case we certainly know of his personal profiteering as a lieutenant of Sulla.

 

Of all these though, I've always found Sertorius the most intriguing. Despite Plutarch's biography, there is definately a large gap in the mindset of the 'Republic in Hispania'. We know the history but we definately lack certain motivational characteristics. Did Sertorius grow so jaded with the affairs in Rome that he felt 'Roman ideals' could best be preserved in his independent state? As a Marian by political affiliation, but yet strangely anti Gaius Marius the person, maybe had he already created so much political emnity in both 'parties' that it was impossible for him to return? Did he simply grow drunk with power as happened to so many other figures of the late Republic? Maybe there were quiet negotiations to bring Hispania back into the fold, but the uncompromising nature of politics in this period just made the task impossible.

 

Still Plutarch does give us this one small tidbit regarding Sertorius' motivations. This after being told a tale of the 'Isles of the Blessed' by Cilician Pirates...

When Sertorius heard this tale, he was seized with an amazing desire to dwell in the islands and live in quiet, freed from tyranny and wars that would never end.

[tflex]

I don't think that it was fear, but more so the men you mentioned were very ambitious and had great aspirations. If you want power then the natural thing to do is to align yourself with the most powerful man in Rome, which was Sulla at the the time. Once Sulla died these men could rise out of his shadow and make their own name. It was self interest and greed.

 

Supporting Sulla at the time would have served their interests more than if they had opposed him, I think it was as simple as that. It was about the individual not Rome.

Edited February 23, 2006 by tflex

[M. Porcius Cato]

Generally agree with what's been said about Pompey, and it could apply equally well to the sudden populare moves of Catiline, Crassus, and Lepidus, but what was Catulus' motivation or Lucullus'?

[Germanicus]

There is a degree to which one gets the feeling that those aristocrats like Catulus and Lucullus would have sided with anyone who was against a New Man like Marius, particularly if the faction they sided with was in favour of restoring the Senate as the primary power house of the republic. It's also fairly obvious that Catulus (who Sulla refferred to as "the soundest man in the world") and Lucullus (who Sulla made gaurdian of his children in his will) were friends first and formost.

 

Regarding Catulus the younger. Keaveney mentions in his book, that his father was put to death thanks to the actions of Marius Gratidianus during the Cinnan coup at Rome, and when Sulla came to power :-

 

"The latters son now came to take his revenge and asked Sulla to hand him over so that he could deal personally with him. Unwilling to carry out the execution himself he gave the commission to Catiline who dragged his victim to the elder Catulus' tomb and there tore him limb from limb"

 

He appears to be getting this information from Cicero and Plutarch.

 

I think Sullas policies concerning the Senate, and the tribunician power were probably for the most part in line with those of Catulus and Lucullus, and I also think that Sulla was a magnetic person, who made friends easily and kept them, just as he kept his enemies.

[M. Porcius Cato]

There is a degree to which one gets the feeling that those aristocrats like Catulus and Lucullus would have sided with anyone who was against a New Man like Marius, particularly if the faction they sided with was in favour of restoring the Senate as the primary power house of the republic.

 

Do you mean against "someone like Marius", "any New Man", or "any New Man who was also like Marius"? Catulus was, by the way, a pleb himself, so someone among his ancestors was a New Man. And he also seemed to have no problem with Cicero. So, wasn't his opposition to the Marians chiefly due to a principled stand in favor of the Senatorial check on the Popular Assembly (which had the only power to pass laws)?

 

Regarding Catulus the younger. Keaveney mentions in his book, that his father was put to death thanks to the actions of Marius Gratidianus during the Cinnan coup at Rome, and when Sulla came to power :-

"The latters son now came to take his revenge and asked Sulla to hand him over so that he could deal personally with him. Unwilling to carry out the execution himself he gave the commission to Catiline who dragged his victim to the elder Catulus' tomb and there tore him limb from limb"

 

Egad--Catiline was quite the monster wasn't he?

 

I think Sullas policies concerning the Senate, and the tribunician power were probably for the most part in line with those of Catulus and Lucullus

Did Catulus oppose or support the move to restore tribunician power? Lucullus? I know Lepidus supported the restoration, and I'd assume Pompey and Catiline did as well, but do we know for sure?

[Germanicus]

So, wasn't his opposition to the Marians chiefly due to a principled stand in favor of the Senatorial check on the Popular Assembly (which had the only power to pass laws)

 

Primarily yes, but I think he was easier to hate also because he was a new man. I don't think he would have been such a problem for the senatorial elitists had his name been Metellus for example. But then, I guess a Meteluss or a Lucinii would not have agitated through the popular assembley nearly as much as Marius, I suppose it depends on what one thinks Marius motivations were.

 

Did Catulus oppose or support the move to restore tribunician power? Lucullus? I know Lepidus supported the restoration, and I'd assume Pompey and Catiline did as well, but do we know for sure?

 

Assuming you mean M. Aemilius Lepidus ? I think Catulus was definately opposed to the restoration, the below also from Keaveney of 79BC :-

 

"Catulus and Mam. Lepidus stood as consular candidates, only to be oppposed by M. Aemilius Lepidus who declared his intention of repealing Sulla's laws, if elected. Somehow or other, this Lepidus gained the support of Pompey, and the prestige which the young warrior enjoyed with the voters, as a reult of his recent campaigns, made it virtually certain that his favoured candidate would be successful. Sulla at once hurried to to Rome to meet the challenge by canvassing on behalf of his friends."

 

I don't think Sulla would've hurried anywhere to support a Catulus if he'd been interested in repealing his laws, which would no doubt have included the restoration. Lucullus ? I can't find a concrete reference to opposition to the restoration, but also note that I haven't read a single reference to him ever doing anything other than support Sulla in life, and in death, and do his bidding.

 

Egad--Catiline was quite the monster wasn't he?

 

It would seem so, quite the sicko too.

 

Another thing about Lucullus that I just realised, was that he was the only officer under Sulla not to desert him for his march on Rome in 88BC, earning the Dictators everlasting thanks.

[M. Porcius Cato]

So, it sounds like we have three categories of Sullans:

1) Friends and officers who served with Sulla in the East and supported his march on Rome, including Lucullus, C. Curio, Cn Dolabella, and Ap. Claudius Pulcher;

2) Those who joined with Sulla only when the civil war made it profitable for them, including Q Metellus Pius, M Crassus, and the Lentuli;

3) Those who deserted the anti-Sullan camp at the last minute to save their own hides, including L Philippus, the Valerii Flaccii, M Lepidus, and Pompey.

 

Catulus doesn't quite fit in any of these categories. He seems to me to be a principled anti-Marian, and it's not that he was "doing Sulla's bidding" but doing what came naturally for him--opposing unchecked demagogues like Marius, Cinna, Saturninus, etc from depriving the Senate of all power.

 

BTW, it would be interesting to generate a list of consuls and magistrates for the 70s, with each magistrate categorized by their connection to Sulla. It seems to me that the 70s was the Decade of the Sullans.

[Primus Pilus]

BTW, it would be interesting to generate a list of consuls and magistrates for the 70s, with each magistrate categorized by their connection to Sulla. It seems to me that the 70s was the Decade of the Sullans.

 

No suffects listed but the two ordinary consuls for each year... Consul list 1st century BC

[M. Porcius Cato]

No suffects listed but the two ordinary consuls for each year... Consul list 1st century BC

 

Nice--from 79 (when Sulla abdicated) to 69, every consul was a Sullan. I'd bet also that nearly every Sullan was a magistrate. No wonder Sulla felt it was safe to retire.

[Primus Pilus]

No suffects listed but the two ordinary consuls for each year... Consul list 1st century BC

 

Nice--from 79 (when Sulla abdicated) to 69, every consul was a Sullan. I'd bet also that nearly every Sullan was a magistrate. No wonder Sulla felt it was safe to retire.

 

Indeed, the supporters of Marius and Cinna had been completely eradicated. Unfortunately no such lists of praetors exists but I'm sure it could be at least partially rebuilt based on the multitude of accounts of this period. At any rate, perhaps younger lower level magistrates would not necessarily have been 'Sullans' because they may have had no real affiliation with the events of that period, but I'd be quite surprised to see those with any meaningful imperium to not have been somehow in Sulla's camp since everybody else had pretty much been purged after Sulla's return to Rome and with the eventual betrayal of Sertorius.

 

[edit.. I should have said that the 'of-age' supporters of Cinna and Marius had been eradicated, we know that obviously men such as Caesar survived, but it would be some time before they were of an age to gain magistracies of consequence, of course]

[M. Porcius Cato]

Indeed, the supporters of Marius and Cinna had been completely eradicated.

 

Yes, but not what we might call Marianism--i.e., use of the Popular Assembly and military force to raise arms against the state in support of a coup. Lepidus, Catiline, and Caesar proved that. Pompey and Crassus too were listing in that direction. And note that of these five, four were 'Sullans', Marianist Sullans we might call them!

Edited February 24, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato