For centuries, Lucius Cornelius Sulla has been reviled as a maniacal tyrant who defiled the Roman constitution and instituted bloody purges, but some modern historians assert that he has been judged too harshly. They present him as a republican champion who predominantly acted out of necessity and often with the best of intentions. 2020-3-19 Lucius Cornelius Sulla (natus 138–134 a.C.n.; mortuus 78 a.C.n. In Campania), e gente Cornelia ortus, habuitt nomen “Felix” quod putavit se esse felicem, fuit dictator Reipublicae Romanae. Cognomine ᾿Επαφρόδιτος 'Epaphroditus' in Graecia usus est; Romae anno 81 a.C.n., triumpho nuper acto, cognomen 'Felix' reclamavit.
Sulla, in full Lucius Cornelius Sulla or later Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, (born 138 bce—died 79 bce, Pozzuoli, near Naples, Italy), victor in the first full-scale civil in Roman (88–82 bce) and subsequently (82–79), who carried out notable reforms in an attempt to strengthen the during the last century of its existence. In late 82 he assumed the name Felix in belief in his own luck. LifeSulla was the son of a politically unimportant family. He early showed a taste for luxury and aspired to a political career, which he began in 107 bce, under the command of, as a (financial magistrate) in Africa in the war against King of the Numidians. His spectacular capture of Jugurtha by trickery marked the start of his feud with Marius.
Although Marius continued to use Sulla in the war against the invading, in 103 bce his jealousy became obvious, and Sulla transferred to the service of Marius’ co-commander,.After service as a Roman (one of the chief magistrates) in 97 bce, Sulla fought in the (90–89 bce), the struggle of Italian allies to obtain Roman citizenship. He became one of the two consuls—the highest office in the republic—in 88 and was placed in command of the war against King of Pontus in. By his marriage—his fourth—to Caecilia Metella, the widow of Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, in 88 bce, he formed important alliances. The Senate gave Sulla the command of an army against Mithradates, who was threatening Roman control of the east, but Marius, through his alliance with the of the popular party, succeeded in being appointed commander instead. Sulla marched on Rome and Sulpicius was killed, but Marius escaped. During his absence Sulla had been declared a public enemy by the ruling popular party. His laws were repealed, his house was destroyed, and his family and friends fled to join him in Greece.
In 86 the former Lucius Valerius Flaccus was sent to replace Sulla in the Asian command. But Sulla’s luck did not desert him; Flaccus was murdered by his lieutenant.From Brundisium, Sulla began his march on Rome, joined by opponents of the popular regime, including and Pompey. Through most of the ensuing civil war Sulla was opposed by the consuls and the younger Marius (whose father had died in 86). Sulla’s victory of Colline Gate in the northern environs of Rome and the fall of Praeneste at the end of 82 ended the war, which was followed by massacres and proscriptions.Sulla was appointed dictator under the Lex Valeria (Valerian law), which vested, legislative, military, and judicial power in him, without, however, for the first time in Rome’s history, limiting the duration of his dictatorship.The state was reorganized and the new legislation enacted in 81, at the start of which year (January 27–28) Sulla celebrated his victory over Mithradates. In the speech delivered at the close of the ceremony, he chose for himself the name of Felix (Epaphroditos in Greek documents).By his extensive program of constitutional reform he intended mainly to reestablish the supremacy of the Senate in the Roman state, and his administrative reforms did indeed survive to the end of the republic. Of value were the increase of the number of courts for criminal trials; a new treason, Lex Cornelia Majestatis, designed to prevent insurrection by provincial governors and army commanders; the requirement that the tribunes had to submit their legislative proposals to the Senate for approval; and various laws protecting citizens against excesses of judicial and executive organs.At the beginning of 79, Sulla resigned and withdrew to the neighbourhood of Puteoli in Campania.
This action caused a sensation in Rome; many different explanations have been given, starting with the classical writers. Most commonly accepted is the view that Sulla’s resignation was an act of honesty by a man who had pledged to step down as soon as his reforms had been carried out.
Henceforth a private citizen, he continued to write his memoirs. Active to his very last days, Sulla was struck down by a fever in the spring of 78. He left behind two children by Metella and a posthumous daughter by his fifth wife, Valeria. LegacySulla, a soldier and a politician, a dictator and a reformer, and a man of contradictions in an age of contradictions, is the subject of contradictory opinions expressed by both classical and modern writers. The classical writers of Sulla’s time or shortly thereafter found it difficult to form an opinion of him; they noted the discrepancy of the Sulla “who follows up good beginnings with evil deeds.” Generally their attitude was a negative one, with references to despotism, slavery, cruelty, and inhumanity, and the absence of any principle of good government.
The opinions held by modern writers cover a spectrum ranging from Sulla the (because of his resignation), to Sulla the monarch, to Sulla the honest reformer.Sulla was the exponent of a patriciate that tried everything in its power to save itself by instituting reforms that, while not without democratic aspects, lacked inner vitality. From the long-term perspective Sulla’s actions seem meaningless; but viewed in their historical they are justified by the transitional character—both in its military and political aspect—of his age.
Inspired by a glorious past, interpreting an extremely volatile present, and heralding a future faithful to tradition, Sulla played a historical role, conclusively shaping and epitomizing the republican ideal shortly before it became submerged. But he was mistaken about the significance of his reforms: he was a temporary dictator because he wanted no one else who might follow him to become a dictator for life; yet by his example he unwittingly paved the way for Julius Caesar.
There's been hundred's of movies about Caesar but the equally dramatic period of Sulla and Marius seems painfully neglected. So what do people think of Sulla?What do we think of the man?
Was he the man who saved the Republic from an earlier Caesar in the form of Marius? The general who handed Rome its greatest victory at Chaeroneia? The man who doomed the republic by showing Caesar he could cross the Rubicon? Or the man who widened the gap between Patricians and Plebs as he put laws in place to ensure plebien tribune no-longer had power to avert any more Gracchis, so paved the way for Caesar? Essentially I would view him as simultaneously Caesar's forerunner and his ultimate political opposite.
Both patricians wound up their careers as Dictators seeking to impose a new constitution on Rome that respectively matched their political visions (Sulla being an arch-conservative, Caesar being a far-sighted liberal). The essential difference in their methods as Dictators was that Caesar learned from Sulla's political errors that led to the death of his constitution almost as soon as it had been put in place, however Caesar was assassinated before he could he could finish his work.Sulla is generally viewed (IMO correctly) as being the first of the three great men whose careers were watershed moments in the transformation of the Republic into the Empire, the other two being of course Caesar and Augustus. Of the three one historian (it may have been Syme) said of their political legacy that Sulla was the most successful, Caesar was the greatest, and Augustus was the most effective. Sulla achieved the greatest short-term success of all three and so was able to die in his bed after an enjoyable retirement of wine, women, and writing his memoirs, but his legacy barely lasted beyond his lifetime. Caesar's career made by far the biggest impact on the history of Rome, but after his assassination his work was left unfinished and many of his primary aims went uncompleted.
Augustus must be rated the mmost effective of the three because at the end of the day he was the only one whose lasting legacy on how Rome was governed was in fact the one that he had intended - Sulla's intention of a conservative Republic and Caesar's of a reformed one remained obviously unfulfilled - it was the Principate and its mutated offspring the Dominate that would rule Rome for the next five hundred years.Sulla was beyond all doubt an excellent general, but in my view never quite surpassed his one-time ally Marius. Excellent thread idea,I'd agree with Divius in that he was Caesar's forerunner.
I would go so far as to say that he surpassed Caesar in one sense, he died naturally - even when he'd given up politics no-one dared touch him which is obviously in stark contrast to Caesar!I think that he provided Caesar with an examplary research tool - allowing Caesar to see what could and couldnt work within the political culture at the time.As for a lack of movies. That one's simple - Hollywood has to have black and white in its historical movies. Thus the 'goodie' has be all white teeth or at least able to appear that way. Often historical movies omit the darker hues of its leading men, (e.g.
The 'moving wall' represents the time period between the last issueavailable in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal.Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, apublisher has elected to have a 'zero' moving wall, so their currentissues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 yearmoving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.
Of the four issues the journal publishes each year, at leastone is a special issue that addresses a topic of contemporary concern.
Braveheart).How would you cast Sulla in this? It would be nigh on impossible to set his story in this context - there isn't a barbarian army or an evil dictator/king to battle. There would be far too much to explain.good idea though! Excellent thread idea,I'd agree with Divius in that he was Caesar's forerunner. I would go so far as to say that he surpassed Caesar in one sense, he died naturally - even when he'd given up politics no-one dared touch him which is obviously in stark contrast to Caesar!I think that he provided Caesar with an examplary research tool - allowing Caesar to see what could and couldnt work within the political culture at the time.As for a lack of movies. That one's simple - Hollywood has to have black and white in its historical movies.
Thus the 'goodie' has be all white teeth or at least able to appear that way. Often historical movies omit the darker hues of its leading men, (e.g. Braveheart).How would you cast Sulla in this? It would be nigh on impossible to set his story in this context - there isn't a barbarian army or an evil dictator/king to battle.
There would be far too much to explain.good idea though!