Many Mariuses

[caesardictator]

Correlation between GJ Caesar and LC Sulla Felix - both followed the same model of 'government', same route to the top, both were unsuccessful.

 

Was Caesar actually following Sulla's example but believed he could do better when he rose to power i.e. not give it up?

[phil25]

Were Caesar and Sulla both failures, or was either?

 

Caesar was killed by rivals, but much of his direction was followed by his successor and adopted son - a monarchy by another name; domination of the state by a single man.

 

Learning from the dead dictator's end, Octavian certainly adjusted the model but I would not say that he departed from it overall.

 

Some of Sulla's constitutional reforms were reversed, but many were not, and he certainly restored order for a while. He recognised, as did Caesar and Augustus that domination by a single mind was necessary to the stability and future prosperity of Rome.

 

It could be argued that Augustus was not successful either - he had to adjust his initial post-Actium settlement, which was evidently unworkable, and the second version may well have been forced on him by an intra-regime coup. He never managed to find a wholly suitable successor, and faced (it is alleged) mutiny from his daughter.

 

Longevity and the war-weariness of Rome - an exhaustion and lack of suitable rivals for many years - could be said to have given Augustus the edge over his predecessors. But if caesar had been struck by lightning on the Ides of March 44 would we say he had been unsuccessful? His assassins were vastly less successful that he, if so.

 

I think value judgements such as this are unhelpful in understanding politics. The political "game" is always in motion, never ceases or comes to an end. All politicians can do is seek to control the "beast" for a while, but they all eventually retire from the scene and others take over with changed problems and goal-posts.

 

Thus, Augustus could build on what Caesar had established, Caesar (to an extent and after a gap) on Sull'a foundations. But Augustus did not have to play on the same board or the same rivals as Caesar did in the 60s or 50s; and Sulla had different problems and a different board and rivals again in the 80s. The potential and quality of the opposition also differed in each case - Caesar I think faced the most forbidding coalition when he crossed the Rubicon - seasoned performers on Italian soil.

 

However far-sighted Antonius may have been in going east, he allowed Octavian to focus on a foreign for (Cleopatra) and abandoned the main game for long periods. Sulla largely faced vicious and radical, but second-rate politiocians and a Marius long-past his best, had he ever been a good politician.

 

No, I would rather guage each individually, than compare them. the playing field is too uneven to allow us that liberty.

 

Phil