He basically said, that even if Flavius had lived, he wouldn't have been able to reverse the already ongoing tendency, hence he might have prolonged it a bit, but in the end it was doomed to fall :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate
Printable View
He basically said, that even if Flavius had lived, he wouldn't have been able to reverse the already ongoing tendency, hence he might have prolonged it a bit, but in the end it was doomed to fall :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate
Still,it would have done the romans some good.
sulla never lost a batle in his lifetime and he had cesars life on his hand and spared him stating that in cesar there´s 1000 marius with all the populism and lack of scrupulous that comes with such bottom feeders
furthermore sulla was able to get the respect of such amazing generals as lucullos one of the best on his own pompey (altough we all know he wasn´t that great) and even marius
furthermore to attest to his caracther he had the balls to march on rome itself (1st one ever) and the decency to step out once he decided his work was done and was freely walking the streets of rome next to the brothers and sons of those he had proscrited or had killed in revenge for cinna´s actions and he explained all of his actions and nobady dared to killed him in the midle of the street even tough he was a nobiles and had just passed laws putting the plebeians in their place
had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome
one of the greatest losses of classicism is the loss of sulla´s memoirs altough i tend to believe they where all destroyed by gaius cesar and octavian since the mind of such a brilliant man could have inspired the romans to adapt to becoming an empire without the need for an emperor
Hmmm...I've seen this sort of sentiment before. I must admit that I am puzzled by it - especially in an age where so many of us value our democratic rights. Perhaps they are not as valued as I imagine them.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Sulla's background is a little....., murky, shall we say. One of Caesar's descendants was reported to have questioned Sulla's rise to prominence, and by implication the honesty of his position. We know only of some 'lover' and a step-mother who allegedly left him large sums of money - rather an odd proposition for a culture bound by the notion of pater familias, don't you think?
I don't understand why Sulla's reputation is any less factional than his enemies. Why is it that one might describe Sulla's march on Rome in terms of 'having balls', while he that follows (Caesar) is (by implication) seen as a usurper?
There is much vagueness, an opaqueness, regarding the goings on of this era. Sulla, Pompey, Marius, Caesar.... all are over-stepping the line in terms of the Republic's constitution. Given the nature of those institutions (oligarchical power-sharing and fulfilling familial ambition) it was inevitable that the power of those institutions would be challenged.
I have to say, though, that I find sentiments such as "putting the plebeians in their place" rather worrying when expounded as a good thing. Perhaps, though, this is due to Plebians (like the notional 'barbarians') being always projected as smelly, unthinking, drunken mobs.
Nah, that man was Constantius III. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Halsall
yeah i think the concept of 'best general' should extend to the ends of them campaigning in the first place. Sulla was basically a bad guy in my opinion, his tactical abilities were all to the end of perpetuating the rule of the patricians and the oppression of the plebeians.
There are great tacticians who supported great evils but i would consider them better generals just because their intentions weren't really evil, Rommel and 'Stonewall' Jackson are two great examples.
This isn't a contest of who was the nicest general, it's a contest of who was the best general. The job of a general is to send thousands of men to their deaths, oftentimes when those men have little or nothing to gain by winning, and to make them actually want to fight anyways. It's not a job for a nice guy. Sulla strikes me as a corrupt power-hungry oligarch, but to others he is seen as a defender of Roman virtue. We could debate whether he was a moral crusader or a misguided buffoon all day, but we can't dispute that he was a great leader of men. Likewise, we can spend all day discussing Caesar's evil evil ways, or his noble and virtuous life, but we can't call him a slouch when it comes to commanding armies. It almost seems like to be a successful general, you need to a bit of a prick. Patton, Rommel, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Tamerlane were all pretty bad dudes, but their job was to send their people to kill the other guy's people in the most efficient manner, so what the heck do you expect?
Which is a fine defence as long as one is defining the argument in terms of their Generalship, but when one adds such asQuote:
Originally Posted by CashMunny
..then one is taking the discussion beyond that remit. We don't actually know very much about what Cinna's actions were during this period. The outline of the history of this period are almost entirely based upon Sulla's own memoirs and so it follows that they will show him in a more favourable light than perhaps he merits.Quote:
had his laws not been revoked in the 10 years after he steped out and people such as cratus pompey cesar milan clodius and the such could have never taken control of rome since they all used the plebeian tribune veto to further their politics and amass enough power until one of them had the power and all of them used the mob wich is nothing if not pure populism wich was the thing sulla was trying to fight off in rome
If it is Generalship that is being discussed then discuss that, if one wishes to extol the virtues of the man, or his politics (and especially where one tries to diminish the aspect of personal ambition) then expect that to come into question.
As for whether or not his Generalship can be questioned, I believe that it can. As above, the outline of the history of this period is taken from Sulla's own memoirs. Many of the victories attested to his leadership can be questioned - starting, of course, with Jugurtha. I shall root out some more campaigns where his command has been put into question when I return from work.
We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch, and we really don't have too much reason to doubt Plutarch's word as far as Sulla's concerned. He didn't have much of a motive to trump up Sulla's greatness a century after Sulla's time. In fact if anything Plutarch might have had a motive to make Sulla sound as bad as possible. Plutarch lived during the Julian and Flavian dynastic eras for the most part, they certainly wouldn't be paying Plutarch extra to make Caesar's enemy seem like a good guy since the Julians were Augustus' adopted children and grandchildren and the Flavians had Caesar to thank for becoming prominent at all.
He died and did not reunite the empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constantius III
sulla was never defeated in batle and he fighted the numidians easterners and romans
only general at that time that could have put up a fight to sulla was sertorious but they never seem to have fighted directly so as far as i know we can never tell
as for sulla background cesar claims that sulla spent some time with the ubii of germania so nothing tells us that he didn´t bruttiied the place and scam people out of their gold furthermore we all know the numidians where very keen on paying romans so why wouldn´t the mauritanians be the same while he was a general in north africa there where still alot of gold to be made like buy provisions for 100kg´s of gold and ask the senate 250 kg´s i mean how would they know how much he payed aslong as he had the suport of the right men on his camp ? and for someone with sulla´s carismha shouldn´t be too hard
then there´s the east but by then he was already a rich man
as for putting the plebeian in their place the trufht of the matter is that all populists fighting for power used the plebeian veto power and plebeians where played instead of having their rights defended what sulla did was to try and restore the balance because no nobilis such as himself could reach dictatorial power without the strenght of the mob when he realised it, he tryed to break the bridge and after having done everything in his power to restore the res public power he steped out office and wandered the streets of rome unharmed
the laws that where abolished and other laws restoring the plebeian tribune power did nothing more then unbalance the power in rome beteween the senate and the plebes and romes republic crumbled not on the senate but on the assemblies and particulary the plebeian tribune with their 10 tribunes it´s in cesar memoirs how he used marc anthony and was always paying up large sums of money to have at least 1 if not 2 plebeians on his side to protect him from trial
As did Flaevius?Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate
Well, if we're into the debate of whether or not Sulla did good for Rome, and ignoring his command acumen, I'll throw in my opinion.
If we're judging him by today's ethical standards and our own (USA, anyways) values, then I'd say he was not very ethical, not very moral, and a pretty elitist sort of guy in general.
However, going by the standards of the time, and ROMAN values and ethics, he was an excellent Roman. He was skilled at battlefield command and politics, and he tried to keep the Republic's values upheld even though it was clear that eventually the mob would win out. We have to remember that Rome was not a democracy, and it wasn't even really a representative republic as we would consider one to be today. It was an oligarchy first and foremost, and the plebians had advocates merely to ensure there was no extreme exploitation going on by the landed gentry against the plebians.
Unlike today's ideas of universal suffrage and equality, Roman society was ruled by the wealthy landed class, and the plebians were definitely considered a second class. And this was OK. It wasn't like classism, racism or sexism today, where whenever an incident happens there's an uproar, but on the contrary the plebians were generally fine with their lot. And truly a Roman plebian had it better off than most any other commoners of the time, so they didn't have much to complain about unless something truly scandalous occurred.
What do you think Plutarch's main source was?Quote:
We actually get a lot more information about Sulla from Plutarch
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the political machinations of Rome, but there are some serious over-simplifications going on here. On what basis can one say that the plebs were "generally fine with their lot"? There was at this time a deal of unrest among the plebeians which is precisely why and how populist politicians could rally them to a given cause. The agrarian reforms attempted by Tiberius and then Gaius Gracchus were meant to address the unbalance that was becoming apparent to such reformers. One of the reasons for paid armies was because there were fewer and fewer men capable of financing their own military service as had been the case previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
With the expansion of Roman power men were away from their lands for longer, and their families were forced into poverty or debt in trying to work those lands. At the same time a section of society was gaining wealth from plunder, taxation, control of trading routes and as heads of trading companies. There was also an influx of slave labour from newly 'acquired' provinces - resulting in land-grabs from both the indebted and newly impoverished plebeians and public land to which they had no legal rights.
These powerful men were to be found within the Senate, and more and more within the equestrian classes.
There were grain rations given to plebeians at this time - hardly a sign of prosperity among the citizenship of Rome. More and more Senators were looking to their own interests, and the interests of Rome on a more general level became subservient to those.
You argue that the Roman republic was based upon the Senate alone, but this is simply what Sulla tried to introduce. The Republic was based upon a balance between the assemblies and the Senate, and Sulla's actions were reactionary, not pro-constitutional.
As for him being a good Roman...he marched an army upon Rome - an act which many of his officers would not take part in. He cajoled his troops into stoning Roman magistrates to death. This situation is generally taken to have been undertaken with decisive legal command of these armies, but there are discrepancies within the various sources, so whether he actually had Imperium is highly debatable.
And for him being for the Senate...many of those killed within his proscriptions were Senators. He basically cleared the Senate of his enemies and admitted his own allies into it to restore the numbers. And some of those allegedly killed by Marius' faction make little sense, and make more sense as opponents of Sulla. There are massive distortions of the events of this time, but I don't think that one can reasonably argue that Sulla was acting any more in the interests of Rome than any of those other ambitious leaders also named (Caesar, marius, Pompey).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate
Indeed. Came a lot closer than Aetius did, too, with arguably fewer resources. And his death was probably one of those few instances of disease actually having a macrohistorical impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
I do not dispute that there were scandalous events going on that made the plebians very unhappy. However, when they weren't being mistreated and the tribunes could do their jobs without being killed, they were much happier than most other peasantry (for lack of a better term) in this time period. Yes, this WAS a time of unrest, I merely meant that if the Roman system was actually being upheld, they were usually happy(ier) as a result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Yes, the Senators were being very naughty Romans indeed, grabbing all that land and hoarding all that power. I also do not dispute this.
Grain rations were pretty much always given to the plebians unless there was some dire shortage of grain in the granaries, what happened around this time was that the price was reduced for the poorest citizens.
I argued that the Assemblies, the tribunes, etc. weren't exactly meant to rule the republic, or even to have equal power with the Senate. The assemblies were there to keep the Senate from going wildly out of control and enslaving the plebians, not to be an equal lawmaking body. Sulla WAS reacting, but he was reacting to the growing threat of mob rule. Oligarchy might not be the best system of government, but it's surely better than doing whatever the uneducated mob decides on a whim. That would result in utter chaos.
Yes, he marched on Rome. But he didn't do it to enrich himself, or to forge an Empire. I fail to see how this stains his character, and in fact it actually was one of his finer moments when he gave up the reins of power just as he had promised to do. Yes, he stoned corrupt magistrates. Also not exactly a bad idea, I can think of a few politicians I wouldn't mind seeing stoned either. I won't go into whether or not he had Imperium, because that is rather murky, but I personally believe he probably did have authority over his(?) armies.
I didn't say he was good buddies with every senator, but he was certainly against mob rule, and wanted to preserve the integrity and power of the senate. He didn't attempt to abolish the senate, at any rate.
wierdly enough sulla never went against several of grachus laws that tryed to redistribute the land (particulary the stolen land or the public lands being missused) what he didn´t allowed was that the rich got acused of everything (like we see comonly in the populist like caesar crying out that the fat senators where stealing from the families of the poor plebeians when he was one of them except he stole from the gauls .... ) and there´s no proof that sulla didn´t persecuted those same wrong doers that where corrupt i mean 3.000 of the richest men of rome according to some sources and those "rich" probably got their money stealling and bribing and sorts so his procristions was probably more about "purging" rome of the morally weak (altough wierdly he got pompey into the roman political scene ... )
he had the suport of lucullos who was always against the pillaging that the roman governors did so i can only assume that sulla was against such practices (altough his new taxs in the asia province after the 1st mithriac war can be a murky subject) and ofc we must remember lucullos only cared about the hellenes if the one´s being stolen where "barbarians" then he didn´t bothered so it´s always a dodgy subject
almost forgot history was rewritten not 30 years after sulla had died and during those 2 years (?) of trouble where marius and cinna had the power in rome the amount of dead was never declared so it´s possible that many of the dead where only counted once sulla had restored order
marius took gladiators into rome and made a purge and it took quintus sertorius to stop them
also the octavians and julianii where no friends of the cornelii cesar and augustus and philipe (augustus father i think) where associated with marius and cinna and cesar was spared because many of sulla´s "friends" begged for his life and later on sulla´s memoirs disapear and history might have been rewritten so we basically get nobady defending sulla
but what we know is that he had the supreme power in rome aslong as he kept pompey lucullos and 2 other roman generals by his side (cratus was one i believes or crassus ) but he made his reforms "purged" the city and then stepped out thats hardly something a person lacking a caracther would do
i mean even today several countries could use such a leader a man that does what must be done for the sake of the nation and then steps out once the work is done (reminds me of one of rome´s greatest hero´s the dude who saved the city and got offered the position of chief military leader and refused to return and work on his fields) so the portraits we get from sulla for all the other authors seem a bit fuzzy at best since they all say he did this and that but his actions show otherwise
it seems to me there´s alot of anti sullism here just because he was a patrician nobilis instead of a bloody populist money pincher commie there´s nothing wrong in being a conservative you know (even tough alot of his laws where very progressive in terms of defending the state from a few greedy individuals)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CashMunny
From a roman point of view, marching an roman army upon rome itself, was probably one of the worst offences imaginable.
Was it worse than allowed corruption and greed to go unchecked? Was it worse than allowing the plebians to be stripped of all their land and rights? Was it worse than allowing the Senators who were trying to be good Romans to be killed by the misguided rage of a fed up mob? Was it worse than allowing complete chaos on the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Dane
Indeed it was, you just didn't march on Rome with a roman army, especially not if your imperium was already challenged :)
I'm not saying I think he did wrong, just that from his fellow (atleast upper class) citizens, it was an extremely un-roman thing to do. Gaius Marius never expected it, because a "proper roman" would never do it ;)
the same gaius marius who unleashed thousands of gladiators and allow them to murder and pillage all of his roman opponents and several other people who wheren´t into politics ?
It might have been 'un-roman', but so were all of those other things. Romans were supposed to be austere, incorruptible, and to uphold the integrity of their institutions. Sulla wasn't marching a Roman army against Rome, he was marching a Roman army to save Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Dane
Never said Marius was a "proper" roman, now did i? ;)
And if i remember correctly, he did this after Sulla marched on Rome :)
I'm merely saying, that from the romans of the tiems point of view, marching on Rome with an army, was not very roman :)
Yes, this is a very interesting point to make - especially that last part. The whole story of Marius' mad purge seems.... a bit of a stretch, especially the more one questions its voracity and looks in a little more detail at what few details we have. I actually doubt that there was any such purge. One would think that the memory of such would live long in the memory, yet we have very little reminder of this supposed reign of terror by anybody of note during the era following this. Not only that but if marching a Roman army upon Rome was to be condemned, how much worse would marching a foreign army of slaves have been? Again, we see no great outcry in the immediately following time period (especially when images of Marius are re-introduced into Rome by Caesar). Why the silence on such an emotive and recent subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
We have very little information as to who the victims of this purge were. Let us consider a couple of names that are suggested. Lucius Julius Caesar. What great clashes were there between Marius and this Caesar? Ermmm.... silence. On the other hand, this is almost certainly the same Caesar who (at least) twice publicly insulted and humiliated Sulla. This would be the brother of Julia - the wife of Marius. This Caesar would be an uncle of Gaius Julius Caesar, later to re-instate images of Marius into Rome. Does all of this add up very well? I don't think so. Pretty much the same arguments can be made regarding Marcus Antonius (Orator, I think) - an uncle of Caesar's ally of the same name.
What followed this alleged terror is....well, seemingly a remarkable peace.
When Sulla was likely to be returning Cinna marched his army toward Greece, in order to avoid any more wars within Italy. While Cinna was alive Sulla was apparently in negotiation with the Senate. The Senate were - as a body - said to be in fear of Sulla's return, hardly an endorsement of any alleged pro-Senatorial stance on the part of Sulla. Cinna was killed by a mutiny of his army, but therein lies another aspect of Sulla's career which is somewhat .....murky. Many of his 'military' victories are built upon the back of intrigue, it seems. Cities betrayed to his troops etc. Now there is an interesting anecdote regarding the mutiny of Cinna's army. It concerns the visit of a certain Gnaeus Pompeiius - the son of Strabo - the 'teenage butcher'. There is no hint of any problems within Cinna's camp, and then there is a visit by the young Pompey. What is interesting is that the army are said to mutiny because of their anger at Cinna letting Pompey escape the camp. What can this mean? Did Pompey gain information regarding the names of those serving. Is there an implied threat to the families of these men. Once Cinna is out of the way Sulla stops his negotiations with the Senate.
What I suggest might be the case is that Sulla covered his tracks with tales of wrong-doing on the part of Marius and his allies way beyond any actual events, to lessen or excuse the impact of his own actions. So, that the numbers killed is only recorded once Sulla has "restored order" (although the Republic seems to have operated in remarkable order while he was away in the East) is indeed a very relevant point.
The primary source for the later histories are Sulla's own memoirs, and the aspect of conservative righteousness was, at the time of the Emperors, a very helpful propoganda.Quote:
also the octavians and julianii where no friends of the cornelii cesar and augustus and philipe (augustus father i think) where associated with marius and cinna and cesar was spared because many of sulla´s "friends" begged for his life and later on sulla´s memoirs disapear and history might have been rewritten so we basically get nobady defending sulla
Hmmm... one should consider the results of such 'strong men' within our current environment. Pinochet, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussain, Mubarek etc.Quote:
i mean even today several countries could use such a leader a man that does what must be done for the sake of the nation and then steps out once the work is done
I'm no more anti-Sullan than I am anti-Caesar or anti-Pompeiian. I just think one should not try to see into any of their actions what is not really there - especially when that is based around some relative notion of current political beliefs.Quote:
it seems to me there´s alot of anti sullism here just because he was a patrician nobilis instead of a bloody populist money pincher commie there´s nothing wrong in being a conservative you know (even tough alot of his laws where very progressive in terms of defending the state from a few greedy individuals)
Sulla is no more or less pro-Roman or heroically Roman than Caesar, Pompey or Marius.
well sulla was skilled in the use of assassins but considering that 1 single kill saves thousands one can say he was the best general for using it
as for putting sulla in pinochet or khadaffi place none of them left the office after they seized power so no i´m not reading anything into that i just believe sulla made the best he could with what he had and not for personal wealth
maybe for personal glory ? it could be i mean cesar is recorded to have said that sulla was a fool for relinquishing the power but then again thats why cesar got assassinated while sulla left office and walked freely and unharmed on the streets of rome giving explinations to anyone who aproached him and many had reasons to want him dead (ofc we can always assume that altough sulla had left the power seat lucullos pompeii crassus and several others where still very friendly towards him so going after sulla was not a good idea but still someone who had killed many of the ordos equester and of the senatorial stand should have many enemies with nothing to loose)
furthermore not 20 years (?) after sulla left office we again see the corruption in rome putting aside people like catalinus wich forçed his hand into open rebellion so no the purges if they trully happened only kept peace for a litle while and not even long since pompeii stole the eastern lands and catus had to go around the extra mile as not to be acused of wrong doing when anexing cyprus and people like cicero´s where making fortunes defending good man of wrong doings or bad men of ilicit enrichment so sulla´s actions where short lived but then again as i said most of his laws regarding the power of the diferent assemblies where revoked not 2 years after his demise
Just noticed you called us (or me, not sure), anti sullist... tbh quite honest, I can identify more with Sulla (not the nobilis part :P), I just don't think his militart acheivements were as great as Marius'.
But...somewhere along the line he had made himself incredibly wealthy, and he used that wealth for his own political ends (this encompasses the two recorded insults made directly to him by Lucius Julius Caesar).Quote:
i just believe sulla made the best he could with what he had and not for personal wealth
That was the overriding Roman 'way'. To do better than one's forefathers, or to at least match them. That was part of the Roman ethos that undermined the Republic. The more powerful individuals became within the system, the less the system was able to contain that power. Sulla's actions should be seen in the same light as Caesar's, or Pompey's or Marius'. There was no difference. None of them can be said to have acted in the best interests of Rome, all of them can be seen to have acted in the best interests of their own power base. This isn't anti-Sullan, this is in response to a pro-Sullan sentiment, one that portrays Sulla's actions as being motivated by other than what it was. Sulla defended Sulla's 'rights', Caesar defended Caesar's 'rights', and so on. All of them can be seen to have damaged the Res Publica, to the point where Augustus' Empire was the only viable way to hold together relative peace.Quote:
maybe for personal glory ?
Resurrecting thread. We need input for this thread. Come and join in the discussion!
Yoo-hoo! Can't tell if this forum is deserted or not.
Oh dear god why necro this thread, most of the discussion on this page alone makes me cringe.
it was a good debate
From an academic point of view, although some people made interesting points, the essentialising of 'Roman-ness' is painful. Also I read enough late-Republican political history to have variants of the basic discussion between Cashmunny and Gracchus coming out of my ears. No offence to either though, the method of argumentation here was very good.
Scipio ....even Hannibal admmited it :P