Who was legally in charge of the legions during 1st Mithridatic War?

[G-Manicus]

I've recently been reading a bit on the controversy surrounding control of the legions during the first Mithridatic War. Sulla, Consul at the time, was appointed by the Senate to lead the Roman forces. Gaius Marius however convinced a Tribune of the Plebs to pass a law transferring authority to Marius.

 

Was Gaius Marius' appointment legal under Roman law?

Edited October 10, 2007 by G-Manicus

[P.Clodius]

I've recently been reading a bit on the controversy surrounding control of the legions during the first Mithridatic War. Sulla, Consul at the time, was appointed by the Senate to lead the Roman forces. Gaius Marius however convinced a Tribune of the Plebs to pass a law transferring authority to Marius.

 

Was Gaius Marius' appointment legal under Roman law?

Yes his appointment was legal via a plebiscite.

[G-Manicus]

Yes his appointment was legal via a plebiscite.

Thanks. That's what I thought. Various accounts I've read speak of it almost as it was an act of treason.

 

I understand Marius did something similar with Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus' command in Jugurtha. Were there any other precedents for such a political maneuver? Was it considered to be a "bush league" move, for lack of a better expression?

 

Also, any idea why if the Senate wanted Sulla to lead their forces, how come they wouldn't also gather the support of the Tribune? Was that not something that was politically feasible?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I've recently been reading a bit on the controversy surrounding control of the legions during the first Mithridatic War. Sulla, Consul at the time, was appointed by the Senate to lead the Roman forces. Gaius Marius however convinced a Tribune of the Plebs to pass a law transferring authority to Marius.

 

Was Gaius Marius' appointment legal under Roman law?

Yes his appointment was legal via a plebiscite.

 

 

I'm not so sure that it was truly legal, the law was passed after the legal justituim (cessation of business) of the senate, so by rights it should have been null and void, but it was later passed by use of force.

 

The Leges Sulpiciae was the law that allowed Gaius Marius, a private citizen at the time, to take control of the Mithridatic War. This 'new' law was dreamed up by Publius Sulpicius Rufus who because of massive debts was in the very wealthy Marius' pocket, the majority of the senate were dead set against it but through intimidation and fear for their lives they passed the law enabling Marius to assume control.

 

From Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 8

 

Marius now made alliance with Sulpicius who was a tribune of the people, a man second to none in prime villainies, so that the question was not whom else he surpassed in wickedness, but in what he surpassed his own wickedness. For the combination of cruelty, effrontery, and rapacity in him was regardless of shame and of all evil, since he sold the Roman citizenship to freedmen and aliens at public sale, and counted out the price on a money-table which stood in the forum. 2 Moreover, he maintained three thousand swordsmen, and had about him a body of young men of the equestrian order who were ready for everything, and whom he called his anti-senate. Further, though he got a law passed that no senator should incur a debt of more than two thousand drachmas, he himself left behind him after death a debt of three millions. This man was now let loose upon the people by Marius, and after confounding all things by force and the sword, he proposed certain vicious laws, and particularly one offering to Marius the command in the Mithridatic war. 3 To prevent voting on these, the consuls decreed suspension of public business, as they were holding an assembly near the temple of Castor and Pollux, and, amongst many others, slew also the young son of Pompeius the consul in the forum; but Pompeius made his escape unnoticed. Sulla, however, after having been pursued into the house of Marius, was forced to come forth and rescind the decree for suspension of public business; 4 and it was because he did this that Sulpicius, although he deposed Pompeius, did not take the consulship away from Sulla, but merely transferred the expedition against Mithridates to the command of Marius. He also sent military tribunes at once to Nola, who were to take over the army there and conduct it to Marius.

 

When Sulla regained control of Rome he wasted no time in annulling the recently passed laws of Sulpicius.

 

See 98-80 Marius & The Order of Sulla

http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...-chronology.php

Edited October 10, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Here's what Appian records:

 

When Mithridates, king of Pontus and of other nations, invaded Bithynia and Phrygia and that part of Asia adjacent to those countries, as I have related in the preceding book, the consul Sulla was chosen by lot to the command of Asia and the Mithridatic war, but was still in Rome. Marius, for his part, thought that this would be an easy and lucrative war and desiring the command of it prevailed upon the tribune, Publius Sulpicius, by many promises, to help him to obtain it. He also encouraged the new Italian citizens, who had very little power in the elections, to hope that they should be distributed among all the tribes

[G-Manicus]

Interesting. Is there consensus among the ancient sources as to Gaius Marius' motivation for this move? Were the spoils of war the real reason as Appian alludes to? Or was it also a combination of Marius' ego and jealousy toward Sulla as well? Or something else entirely? Would be interested in any and all conjecture on this topic as well.

 

Found the following part of particular interest ...

the consul Sulla was chosen by lot to the command of Asia and the Mithridatic war,

Would it have truly been by 'lot?' Or 'back in the day' were these types of proceedings (wink, wink) ... 'fixed?' I mean, was it in all reality just simple fate that chose Sulla to command these forces and thus begin the Republican dominoes to start toppling at such an alarming rate? I find that part of it fascinating.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Interesting. Is there consensus among the ancient sources as to Gaius Marius' motivation for this move?

Salve, GM

 

The "lust for power" explanation seems reasonable to me.

 

MPC has just quoted Appian opinion: "Marius, for his part, thought that this would be an easy and lucrative war ".

 

And Plutarchus told us, with a bit of irony (Marius, Cp. XXXIV, Sec. V): "And the justification for this which Marius offered was thought to be altogether silly; he said, namely, that he wished to take part personally in the campaign in order to give his son a military training." "

[P.Clodius]

GM, if you can, get a copy of Tom Holland's Rubicon, it provides an excellent narrative of these events.

[ASCLEPIADES]

GM, if you can, get a copy of Tom Holland's Rubicon, it provides an excellent narrative of these events.

Salve, amici.

 

An excellent narrative of all the late Roman Republican period, indeed.

 

(And a nice bibliography section, BTW).

[G-Manicus]

That book looks great. Thanks, guys! I think maybe I'll ask Santa for it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Would it have truly been by 'lot?' Or 'back in the day' were these types of proceedings (wink, wink) ... 'fixed?'

 

Leaving aside the particular selection of Sulla, the assignment of many offices were by lot, including the assignment of praetors to their various jurisdictions. The rationale should be pretty obvious--once 11* praetors were chosen, deciding who does what would have consumed enormous and precious time in argument, with little gain for anyone. Thus, it was in everyone's individual interest to have the offices assigned by lot, and it would have also been in their individual self-interest to ensure that the lot was not fixed. If this principled argument isn't enough to convince you, there's also the historical observation that the lot as often fell to unpopular, incompetent magistrates as to popular, competent ones. Thus, given how some of the lots fell out (the Fates could be cruel to Rome too), it appears that the Romans really did take the lot seriously and avoided fixing it.

 

*needs fact check

[G-Manicus]

Leaving aside the particular selection of Sulla, ...

Thanks, as always, MPC.

 

The fates were indeed cruel, in this instance as well it would seem.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Would it have truly been by 'lot?' Or 'back in the day' were these types of proceedings (wink, wink) ... 'fixed?'

 

Leaving aside the particular selection of Sulla, the assignment of many offices were by lot, including the assignment of praetors to their various jurisdictions. The rationale should be pretty obvious--once 11* praetors were chosen, deciding who does what would have consumed enormous and precious time in argument, with little gain for anyone. Thus, it was in everyone's individual interest to have the offices assigned by lot, and it would have also been in their individual self-interest to ensure that the lot was not fixed. If this principled argument isn't enough to convince you, there's also the historical observation that the lot as often fell to unpopular, incompetent magistrates as to popular, competent ones. Thus, given how some of the lots fell out (the Fates could be cruel to Rome too), it appears that the Romans really did take the lot seriously and avoided fixing it.

 

*needs fact check

 

The command of the Mithridatic War would have been the top prize so to speak in the lot for who got which assignment and the fact that Sulla actually got it goes a long way to backing up the reason he gave himself the extra cognomen "Felix" (latin for "lucky" or "successful".)

[P.Clodius]

...once 11* praetors were chosen...

*needs fact check

Thought it was 4!

 

edit...wiki says

The expansion of Roman authority over other lands required the addition of praetors. Two were created in 227 BC, for the administration of Sicily and Sardinia, and two more when the two Spanish provinces were formed in 197 BC. Lucius Cornelius Sulla increased the number of Praetors to eight, which Julius Caesar raised successively to ten, then fourteen, and finally to sixteen.[

Edited October 11, 2007 by P.Clodius