4. Should we conceive of Rome's political leaders in the Late Republican period as men
concerned only for their own power and influence or as men concerned with pressing social
issues and influenced by political ideas and ideals?
The Late Republican era of ancient Rome was a period rife with warfare. Although external
warfare was an essential part of the Roman ethos, the rise of great generals with conflicting
ideologies brought this distant warfare to the city of Rome itself. Sulla set the precedent of
marching on Rome in late 82 BC, and Julius Caesar ended it in 49 BC. Indeed, both these
men held unimaginable power in their respective times, but both also utilised their influence
to push the ideologies they represented; with Sulla representing the Optimates and Caesar
representing the Populares factions. Both Sulla and Caesar acquired power for the purpose of
pursuing their own political agendas. The Optimates policies tended to only benefit those in
power and the Populares focused more on the rights of the average citizen.
To make a claim whether the political leaders of Rome were motivated by personal power or
by political ideals and pressing social issues, an analysis of a leader of both political factions
is prudent. The Optimate representee Sulla was one such man and by assessing his actions
and motivations the former question can be answered. Firstly, Sulla had been granted
command of the future campaign against King Mithridates IV, a campaign which his rival
Marius had also sought due to the promise of wealth fighting a Hellenistic king. By
suspending public business Sulla had previously blocked legislation brought forward by
Tribune Sulpicius Rufus that would have granted the Italians Roman citizenship. He blocked
this legislation because he likely would not have been given command of the campaign
against King Mithridates IV given that more people would have voted in favour of someone
who had not fought against them in the Social War.1 From this action, a claim can be made as
to the nature of Sulla’s’ motivation. Sulla purposefully blocked legislation by suspending
public business. The legislation would have benefitted thousands of people and given them
voting rights. His motivation for doing so was primarily motivated by his personal want of
command for the war with Pontus and giving voting rights to people compromised that. Sulla
valued his own personal want for power over the civil rights of many others, and thus, in this
instance, was not concerned with pressing societal issues.
1
Tom Holland, Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic (Doubleday, 2003), 67-68.
More than one example is needed to evaluate the motivations of Sulla, and continuing with
the sequence of events, he made further actions that expose his motivations. Following Sulla
blocking the legislation, Sulpicius formed an alliance with Marius and the two incited riots in
Rome.2 Sulla, on hearing of this, returned to Rome and took refuge in Marius’ house after
being pursued by the rioters. This resulted in Sulla being forced to rescind the halt on public
affairs, which resulted in Sulpicius’ legislation passing, and in turn Sulpicius granting Marius
command of the campaign against Pontus.3 The way Sulla responded to his loss of command
was indicative of his motive for power. Sulla fled Rome to the 6 legions he led during the
Social War and decided to settle the matter through war. He convinced the legions to follow
him by speaking of the personal indignity placed upon him by Marius and Sulpicius.4
Contrast this with the reason he gave to a Marian envoy for him marching on Rome, “to
deliver her from tyrants.”5 So, Sulla portrayed himself to his enemies, the senate and the
people of Rome as a liberator. But to those who were and remained loyal, the people who he
was most likely to be truthful to, he stated the reason is his ego being damaged by the
Marians. It could be said that it is a matter of perspective whether Sulla was motivated by
power or by greater political ideals/societal issues but on further analysis this does not hold.
Indeed, the very people who Sulla was accusing of being tyrants, were the same people who
wanted equal voting rights for Rome’s Italian allies, whereas Sulla delayed the process for
selfish reasons until he was forced to acquiesce. Again, in this case, Sulla seems to have been
motivated my personal power and ego rather than any greater political ideal.
Sulla did eventually capture Rome and defeat the Marians. His reward, being appointed
dictator for life, and with his influence he implemented many reforms. These reforms reveal
something close to his true concerns. During this period Sulla purged his political opponents,
expanded the senate, and filled it with his partisans. He limited the power of the Tribunes by
forbidding men who held the Tribunate from holding any higher office. Furthermore, the
Tribunes could no longer take legislation straight to the assembly, it had to go through the
2
Jonathan Powell, “The Tribune Sulpicius,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 39, no.4
(1990): 446-460.
3
Plutarch. Sulla. 8.351.
4
Appian. Civil War. 57.107.
5
App. Civ. 57.107
senate to be ratified first (which Sulla dominated).6 Rather than trying to fix pressing social
issues, Sulla seems more concerned with retaining and strengthening the power of himself.
By executing his enemies (also allegedly innocents, so he could seize their estates) and filling
the senate with his supporters, he had no real political rivals and was free to do as he wished
(within reason). Furthermore, with this newly confiscated land, he settled his veterans at the
cost of innocent livelihoods.7 Sulla benefitted from the status quo and so restricted the
Tribunician powers. All these reforms seem to only result in the strengthening of his power.
Perhaps it could be argued that Sulla was motivated by a political ideal, that giving power to
the Optimates was the best course of action. Indeed, they were literally translated to be the
‘best men’ and so perhaps they believed they knew best how to run the state. This was a
different era and democracy as we know it today was still in its infancy, so it seems plausible
Sulla thought he was doing what was best for the state. Conversely, his actions restricted the
power of the people of Rome and its allies. Furthermore, the proscriptions, and the death of
innocents were direct effects of his actions. It seems reasonable to conclude that Sulla (and
arguably the Optimates) pursued power and influence in order to follow their political ideals
of the ‘best men’ leading. However, they were not concerned with pressing social issues, and
the morality of their ideal is poor in a modern context.
Julius Caesar, a Populares statesman also achieved the rank of dictator, but the reforms he
made were quite different to those of Sulla. Firstly, when Caesar won the civil war, he
pardoned his opponents, allowing them to retain their estates.8 Contrast this with the
proscriptions of Sulla, and rather than being motivated by power, it could be said Caesar was
more open to sharing it than his predecessor. Again, Caesar showed his pursuit of political
ideals by conferring citizenship on all those who practiced medicine and taught liberal arts in
Rome, thus making the city a hub of culture.9 Again, this contrasts with Sulla, who suspended
public business, preventing the passing of voting rights for the Italians. Furthermore, Caesar
applied the law so that even the rich were held more accountable. Indeed, if a senator was
convicted of extortion, they were stripped of their rank.10 Again, this contrasts with Sulla,
6
Adrian Goldsworthy, Caesar, Life of a Colossus (Yale University Press, 2006), 90.
7
Goldsworthy, Caesar, 90.
8
Cornelia Coulter, “Caesars Clemency,” The Classical journal 26, no.7 (1931): 513.
9
Suetonius. The Life of Julius Caesar. 42.59.
10
Suet. Jul. 43.61.
who conferred more power on the rich. Overall, Caesar, was concerned more with pressing
societal issues. It is plausible to say that just as the Optimate Sulla was concerned with
reserving power for the rich, the Populares Caesar was concerned with giving more power to
the people.
To conclude, the leaders of the Late Republican period were concerned with both power and
political ideals. Power was used as a tool to achieve their ideals. Sulla, representing the
Optimates, reserved power for them exclusively. Conversely, Caesar, a Populares statesman,
used power to distribute power to the people of Rome. It was this redistribution of power
from the senate to the people that helped to alleviate Rome’s societal issue of an imbalance of
wealth and power. In the modern context, Caesars reforms are more appealing and align with
modern values than those of Sulla.
Bibliography:
Appian, Civil War.
Coulter , Cornelia. “Caesars Clemency.” The Classical journal 26, no.7 (1931): 513.
Goldsworthy Adrian. Caesar, Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press, 2006.
Holland, Tom. Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic. Doubleday, 2003.
Plutarch, Sulla.
Powell, Jonathan. “The Tribune Sulpicius.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 39, no.4
(1990): 446-460.
Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar.