Talk:Sulla

Political Party

There is no consensus that optimates and populares could accurately be described as political parties; it shouldn't be implied that there is by listing optimates as a political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.146.187 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

ok 2602:306:36A6:CF60:4DF3:8016:7902:A48C (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sulla's appearance toward the end of his life: thin or fat?

Here in this cartoon he's fat http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sulla#mediaviewer/File:Comic_History_of_Rome_p_274_Funeral_Pile_of_Sulla.JPG

In the TV show Caesar he was shown as a thin guy by Richard Harris playing him. Which is the more accurate?2602:306:C59C:1049:BD4A:3BF9:9F07:D2EE (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This bust of Sulla in the Vatican likely shows him in his later years: Sulla. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

i see thanks for the quick response. it appears somewhat in between but more toward fat.2602:306:C59C:1049:BD4A:3BF9:9F07:D2EE (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is he not as famous as Caesar?

Am i missing something, but he did literally everything that Caesar did but he did it first. He fought non-Romans successfully (Germans) just like Caesar did (Gauls), then he was the first to march on Rome, fought his civil war successfully like Caesar did his Triumvirate, but he did not get assassinated like Caesar. Why does History remember Caesar more? Is it because of the Shakespeare play?108.89.193.4 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's probably because, thanks to Caesar's heir, Augustus, Caesar was seen as founder of the line of emperors, for example as the first of Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars". Caesar was more directly involved in the final fall of the Republic, and he founded the Julian Calendar, which, with only minor adjustments, we still use, and the month of July is still named after him. It's true, though, that much of the instability of Caesar's time, and many of the things Caesar and his opponents did, are really only understandable in light of Sulla and Marius' civil war and Sulla's dictatorship. The Republic had been on the brink of revolution since then. The Senate were so wary of politicians like Caesar and Pompey because Sulla and Marius had set a precedent of individuals gaining so much power they could overpower the Republic itself (and Caesar was Marius' nephew, and Pompey came to prominence fighting for Sulla), and others, like Catiline, had since tried to follow that precedent by attempting to raise an army and seize control of the state. Caesar's famous clemency to his defeated enemies, which led to his assassination, was the result of him refusing to follow the example of Sulla's proscriptions - and later Augustus, in triumvirate with Antony and Lepidus, did follow that example. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely response. It seems surreal how Caesar-Pompey were descended off of Marius-Sulla by blood that way and how even Marius and Sulla were connected by wives, what a family quarrel?108.89.193.4 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sulla's "cloudy" Proscriptions: let's be clear who were its targets

There's a notion generalized that his proscriptions targeted virtually "anyone!" which again sounds like typical historical smearing, just like that ridiculous one propagated by historiographers like Plutarch or whoever about his death being from "worms" which is a self-satisfaction to somehow rationalize punishment for his evil deeds when in fact he most likely died of as people say alcoholic abuse. Well it smells the same with his Proscriptions, there's a historiographic bias of he targeted anyone with "general" abandon. Really? He was too intellectual, too smart, for a guy who afterward would walk around to recant his experiences to anyone who would approach him? It is very much more likely his Proscriptions as dictator, had lists drawn out which specifically targeted the people who intentionally went against him in politics, in the military, or the aristocrats who knowingly funded his political opponents. There is no way he targeted non-political people like some common person or a youth. The people on his lists weren't some sort of innocent random people, but very much made moves against his power with intelligence. 108.89.193.4 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If I may respond, it's true that many historians in the classical age wrote for moralizing purposes or had clear biases, and many took issue with Sulla. I think you may be falling into the same trap when you immediately take the side of Sulla. Saying that he was "too intellectual, too smart" to use proscriptions with abandon is a weak argument; plenty of smart people or even those we consider good people have done all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons that initially may seem inconsistent with how we understand their character. A more convincing argument structure would use facts to establish the person's character instead of extrapolating what we think his character is to find facts.

From what I know of Sulla from courses on classical history, his proscriptions targeted primarily political opponents (often innocent of any misdeed), but they would also randomly target wealthy people with whom Sulla had no relation with. The property and goods seized in these proscriptions went to Sulla or his supporters. While these victims were not the little people, they were nonetheless unwarranted and unjust. I acknowledge that I have only a cursory knowledge of Sulla, so anyone out there better read than I, please add to the discussion (and correct my what must be many errors). Again, this information does not necessarily prove whether Sulla was a good or bad person, and historians should avoid a moralistic interpretation to begin with. I agree that the story about Sulla dying from worms is outrageous, but that's no reason to push the bias to the other side. History is people interacting with people, and there's no room for right or wrong.

Best, Artaxus 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I'm uneasy about the unbalanced tone of this article, particularly in the introduction, that I've tried to remedy. Besides one-sided rhetoric praising Sulla, important historical information such as Sulla's proscriptions have been omitted or downplayed. History is objective, not moralizing or teleological. Based on the past discussions on this page, I see this is not the first time other editors have found issue with Sulla16's treatment of the article. I would love to have a respectful discourse with Sulla16 concerning what this article should be, rather than a mutually frustrating edit war. EDIT: This was first accidentally posted on Sulla16's page so I've put it here, my apologies.

Best, Artaxus 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Passage in Cimbric wars

In 104 the Cimbri and the Teutones seemed to be heading for Italy. As Marius was the best general Rome had, the Senate allowed him to lead the campaign against them. Sulla served on Marius' staff as tribunus militum. Sulla helped Marius in recruiting and training legionaries. He also led troops to subdue the Volcae Tectosages successfully and succeeded in capturing their leader Copillus.[19] In 103 Sulla succeeded in persuading the Germanic Marsi tribe to become friends and allies of Rome; they detached themselves from the Germanic confederation and went back to Germania.[20] In 102, when Marius became consul for the fourth time, there came an unusual separation between Marius and Sulla. For reasons unknown Sulla requested a transfer to the army of Quintus Lutatius Catulus Caesar, Marius' consular partner.[19] While Marius marched against the Teutones and Ambrones in Gaul, Catulus was tasked with keeping the Cimbri out of Italy. Catulus tasked Sulla with subduing the tribes in the north of Cisalpine Gaul to keep them from joining the Cimbri.[21] Overconfident Catulus tried to stop the Cimbri in a valley near Lake Benacus but he was severely outnumbered so Sulla convinced him to retreat.[22] Catulus' army suffered some losses when the Cimbri attacked near Tridentum but a disaster was avoided through the swift action of Gnaeus Petreius the Primus Pilus Centurion of the Samnite legion.[23] Sulla is credited with keeping Catulus from losing his army.[22] Meanwhile Marius had completely defeated the Ambrones and the Teutones in a battle near Aquae Sextiae. In 101 the armies of Marius and Catulus joined forces and faced the enemy tribes at the Battle of Vercellae. During the battle Sulla commanded the cavalry on the right and was instrumental in achieving victory.[24] Sulla and his cavalry routed the barbarian cavalry and drove them into the main body of the Cimbri causing chaos.[24] Catulus, seeing an opportunity, threw his men forward and followed up on Sulla's successful action. By noon the warriors of the Cimbri were defeated. Victorious at Vercellae, Marius and Catulus were both granted triumphs as the co-commanding generals. Sulla's role in the Vercellae victory was also hard to ignore and formed the launchpad for his political career.[25] All of the inline citations in this passage are referring to Lynda Telford's account, and there is really no point in researching if one is just copying something down in their own words. Please follow the rewriting of this section up. 17u9e (17u9e) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said to LuciusHistoricus, Telford is not a reliable source. You can remove the references to her book. T8612 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of this section appears to have been pasted in from another article about the Cimbrian Wars and doesn't bear directly on Sulla. I would suggest deleting the first four paragraphs of the section altogether and beginning with "In 104...". I'm not making the edit because I don't want to rip out someone's hard work unless others agree it's appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.93.144 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Proscriptions occurred before his dictatorship

Chronologically, the indication are that Sulla, as proconsul did the proscriptions and murdering. Once he was complete, he induced Flaccus, as interrex, to move a bill in the comitia centuriata to have him created dictator. Included in that bill was ratification of his prior acts, which included the proscriptions. The ancient sources largely concur with this chronology:

All that having been said, the extant evidence, most of it hostile to Sulla, places the proscriptions, exiles, and confiscations all before Sulla became dictator, while Sulla was still a proconsul and acting in effect as warlord conqueror of Rome. The sequence of events in Appian runs as follows: Sulla marched on Rome and made battle with the Marian defenders before the Colline Gate ... Q. Lucretius Ofella accepted Praeneste’s surrender ... Sulla garrisoned Italy, sent Pompey against Carbo, and after intimidating the assembled Romans in a speech began proscribing his enemies ... Only after he had eliminated the Marian threat in Italy ... did he begin reforming the Roman political state. Still acting by fiat, he had his actions as consul and proconsul indemnified by legislation ... He then called upon the senate to name an interrex, and it was at this point that he had this official inform the people of the necessity of a dictator ... Only now, after the proscriptions and the slate-clearing indemnification, was Sulla made dictator ...

This is not a matter of the historian telling things in something other than chronological order; Appian’s narrative is clear that the proscriptions were conducted by Sulla the proconsul, who had marched on Rome (and Praeneste and Norba) and had fought the revolutionaries at the Colline Gate. Only after the Marians were extinguished and he could safely stand down from his role as warlord did he turn to the work of rescuing the Roman constitution, for which purpose he brought about his appointment as dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae caussa (“on account of there being a need for making laws and regulating the state”). Plutarch ... who reportedly had access to Sulla’s memoirs, related the sequence of events in almost exactly the same way. Only after Sulla had proscribed his enemies (Sulla 31) and taken Praeneste (32) did he “proclaim himself dictator,” indemnify his past actions, and begin governing Rome (33). Livy concurred: the proscriptions and executions throughout Italy and Marius the Younger’s suicide were related in book 88, the appointment to the dictatorship and the constitutional reforms in book 89.

This is also clear in the narrative in CAH² 9: on pages 197 et seq it discusses how "the first list [of the proscriptions] was published before the fall of Praeneste... it was swiftly followed by two more... In November 82, the senate decreed that all of his acts, both as consul and proconsul, should be ratified". Then it discusses how he induced the creation of the dictatorship: "First he instructed the senate to appoint an interrex, for both consuls had been proscribed and both were now dead... Next Sulla wrote putting his own views to Flaccus[, the interrex]: he thought that in the present situation the appointment of a dictator would be beneficial... So Flaccus promulgated a law". The proscriptions have to precede the dictatorship if it was created by an interrex who was elected in the absence of consuls who had been proscribed.

Similarly, the first piece of legislation he passed "was probably that which, retrospectively and till 1 June, authorised the proscriptions".

The chronology in the main article should be revised. Ifly6 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't disagree with your assessment of the chronology, and I'm not aware of anyone who has disputed the fact that Sulla ordered the murder of his political opponents prior to his assumption of the Dictatorship. The question hangs on the legal aspects of the Proscriptions, and the fact that it was only after he became Dictator that he was in a position to enact the proscriptions legally. All of his ordered killings while Proconsul were illegal; the retrospective nature of the legislation was a legal construct to indemnify his actions.

It is clear that the legislation that permitted the proscriptions to occur was passed at a fixed point in time, after a number of political murders had occurred and (I agree with the CAH) occurring after the legislation that appointed Sulla as Dictator. I would suggest that if the murders that predated the legislation were included under the overall banner of the proscriptions, it basically agrees with Sulla's position that the murders were legal. The dividing line of the proscription legislation allows historians to accurately demarcate Sulla's actions prior to the legislation and those following it, allowing people to draw their own conclusions about the legality of the pre-proscription murders.

That being said, I do agree that the article would benefit if the pre-proscription murders were explicitly mentioned, and the retrospective nature of the legislation to prevent future charges from being laid against Sulla for those murders was also included. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My objection is the phrasing in the current article like so: At the end of 82 BC or the beginning of 81 BC, the Senate appointed Sulla dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa ("dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution") ... In total control of the city and its affairs, Sulla instituted a series of proscriptions. This phraseology in the current article gets it backward.

I disagree that the proscriptions are "legal" or should be seen in legal terms. In the conditions of civil war that Sulla was engaged in, "legal" is first a largely meaningless term; second, the proscriptions were an action of putting up a list of people to murder and confiscate property from. That Caesar and Cato were still prosecuting the beneficiaries of the proscriptions years after they occurred (in 64 BC; eg MRR 2.162, Caesar as president of the quaestio de sicariis) indicates that "legal" might be a bit mutable. Ifly6 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Source reliability

There seem to be four major sources in the current article: Holland's Rubicon, Matyszak's Cataclysm, Telford's Sulla, and Keaveney's Sulla.

Holland's Rubicon doesn't seem to be that positively reviewed as a piece of classical scholarship (praise for it as a piece of literature is ample). He also isn't formally trained as a classicist.

As to Matyszak's Catclysm, I don't know to what extent we accept Pen & Sword. It seems to be a private company specialising in history publications, but that isn't the same as being an academic publisher. I am, however, largely willing to accept Matyszak's books as reliable at least on Roman topics inasmuch as it seems that he holds a DPhil in Roman History from Oxford.

Telford's book is also published by Pen & Sword. The statement on Google Books under "About the author" says she is "passionate about history" and "a member of the Richard III Society" and that her interests include the "late Roman Republic, particularly the social wars [sic] and the career of [Sulla]" and "monasticism, with emphasis of the Cistercian order". There don't seem to be any indications of her being an expert on Roman history; Sulla apparently received no academic reviews.

Keaveney's Sulla is an academic book. It seems to be largely reliable. It was reviewed (I would characterise it as lukewarmly positive) in the BMCR shortly after publication of its second edition. But the changes from the first edition are "hardly sweeping". The first edition's reviews are decidedly "mixed": Those in the "rather negative" camp were Badian, Briscoe, Stockton; Boren was "mildly negative"; two reviews by Paterson and Richard were positive. I can't find Badian's review in Ancient Society but I can find Briscoe's in JRS. It does not avoid punches. Among other things, Briscoe says:

• "K has no interest in the political, social, and economic structure of Roman society",
• "K displays a contemptuous attitude towards modern scholarship on his subject",
• "Badian's view that Sulla made a compromise peace with Mithridates [n. I believe this is the modern orthodoxy] in order to deal with his domestic enemies is dismissed in a note as 'baseless'",
• "discussion of the reliability of the ancient sources is a notable omission from the book... K accepts almost all the anecdotal material without hesitation", and
• "Doubts about K's own scholarship readily arise" (as to factual, geographic, and citation errors).

That said, Keaveney as an author in general is well cited by the "gold standard" books like CAH². Some 11 of his works are cited in CAH² 9, Sulla (1st ed, 1982) included.

Regardless, in general, my comments aside: to what extent should these sources be considered "reliable"? Ifly6 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not consider Pen & Sword reliable. Of the four sources, Telford is definitely not a RS and could be removed immediately. I have the same view of Holland and Matyszak, but other editors have sometimes used them; I think that they are dispensable if replaced by better sources. Matyszak's thesis could be used though. I rate Keaveney a bit better; Routledge is an academic publisher and he is cited by others (something that never happens with Holland and Matyszak, which is telling), but as you mentioned he got destroyed in reviews by monuments like Badian and Briscoe, to whom you can also add Elizabeth Rawson and François Hinard. By the way, the latter published three books largely on Sulla (if you can read French). I remember that I wanted to use Keaveney as a base to rewrite the article on Sulla, but was put-off by his apology of him.

You can also safely remove Abbott (1901). T8612 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed Abbott in this edit. [Edit. Telford also excised.] I don't read French well, though I'll certainly take a look. If you want to cooperate on a rewrite draft, I'd be interested. Certainly the portions relating to the civil wars and the dictatorship can be rewritten with CAH² as a base; earlier life could be filled in perhaps by Keaveney? Ifly6 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. I have started to make a list of the men he proscribed here after Hinard. Check also this and that. T8612 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As to Matyszak's thesis, which could possibly be a useful source, it is not seemingly available online. It appears that the most forthcoming prospect for acquiring it would be to gain admittance to or employment at Oxford University and then to request it from their library services. Needless to say, this is not something I will soon be doing. Ifly6 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Character

The Character section offers his upbringing ("difficult circumstances of his youth", lol!) as a reason for his mood swings (crucification over trivia and ignoring serious crimes). Beyond the psychobabble, that would, it seems to me, be very difficult (2000 years later) to source. But my observation is that that type of mood swing is VERY TYPICAL for an alcoholic. (Mental illness and youthful trauma aside.) I won't add that to the psychobabble, but it is fact w.r.t. alcoholism (and easy to find in the research on that subject). I assume some of the historians who believe he was an alcoholic are aware of this, so I'd assume it's in print somewhere (and not just my opinion). So, why isn't that mentioned (along with the psychobabble)?174.130.71.156 (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to be careful when watching films/made-for-tv dramas that show him as such and confusing artistic license with what the ancient sources state. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Cuckoo edits

@History Supremo 95: Hello. I partially reverted some of your edits, for which you deserve an explanation. I viewed them both as wrong and as cuckoo editing:

Cuckoo editing refers ... to the practice of inserting unverifiable or false new content into an existing, referenced statement, thereby hijacking the existing statement's reference to provide legitimacy for the new content.

That Sulla fled into his camp is clear from Seager's narrative in CAH² 9, which I have now quoted explicitly in a reference. In a previous edit summary you stated History doesn't record whether sulla was forced to flee to his camp or not. This is untrue starting from the primary sources: Plut. Sull. 29.7 ("his left wing was completely shattered, and with the fugitives he sought refuge in his camp"). Scholars have speculated that the description of the battle starting terribly is in fact Sullan propaganda meant to emphasise his luck (felix). Steel, infra, p. 106 n. 105. Yet, your new edit summary is even more brazen: sulla wasn't defeated and wasn't forced to retreat into his camp. This is contradicted directly by the source – giving rise to the cuckoo – that you leave allegedly supporting your material.

You also changed a section to refer to optimates, a group that cannot be identified and did not exist. See M A Robb, Beyond optimates and populares (2010); H Mouritsen, Politics in the Roman republic (2017); Gruen, Last generation of the Roman republic (2nd ed, 1995) pp 500 et seq; and Optimates and populares (which I largely wrote). Sulla, by the time he was victorious, led a coalition that was largely defined by personal loyalty to him and a desire not to be on the losing (Marian, Cinnan, or Carbonian) side. Nor is Sulla a "conservative" as painted in 19th century scholarship; much work has gone toward showing how Sulla's reforms were groundbreaking and novel. See H I Flower, Roman republics (2010); Steel, End of the Roman republic (2013) pp. 107 et seq; Constitutional reforms of Sulla (which I also largely wrote). Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ifly6, thank you for reverting my edits, I was wrong to make them without checking my sources. History Supremo 95 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You were also wrong to insert text without a reference. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sulla's laws at start of first consulship

I just removed these portions from the article:

Sulla started his consulship by passing two laws. They were designed to regulate Rome's finances, which were in a very sorry state after all the years of continual warfare. The first of the leges Corneliae concerned the interest rates, and stipulated that all debtors were to pay simple interest only, rather than the common compound interest that so easily bankrupted the debtors. The interest rates were also to be agreed between both parties at the time that the loan was made, and should stand for the whole term of the debt, without further increase.

The second law concerned the sponsio, which was the sum in dispute in cases of debt, and usually had to be lodged with the praetor before the case was heard. This, of course, meant that many cases were never heard at all, as poorer clients did not have the money for the sponsio. Sulla's law waived the sponsio, allowing such cases to be heard without it. This, of course, made him very popular with the poorer citizens.

I can find nothing in MRR 2.39–40 which supports the existence of this legislation. Reading through narratives – Seager in CAH² 9 (1994), Steel's End of the Roman republic (2013), and Keaveney's Sulla (2nd ed, 2005) – indicates nothing supporting these laws. Plut. Sull. 6–7 discusses it not all. Nor does Liv. Per. 77 mention it. A Google Scholar search for anything related to simple or compound interest seems to bring up nothing relevant. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

References