Why did Lucius Cornelius Sulla oppose Gaius Marius, and what consequences did this have
for the Roman Republic?
The rivalry between Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius was one the most intense in the
history of the Roman Republic. The reason for their rivalry encompassed not only their
vastly different political views, but was also based around both men’s thirst for power and
position. Both men were famous generals and their opposition to each other was based
partly on each mans desire for military command and the rivalry that ensured as they vied
for these positions. Sulla and Marius’s opposition to one another would cause immense
damage to Rome and have far reaching consequences that extended after each man’s
death.
At the time of the feud between Marius and Sulla the Roman Republic was immensely
powerful and ‘had achieved total mastery of the Mediterranean.’ 1 As Rome was a Republic
it was nominally based upon democratic principles. Rome was led by Consuls of whom there
were two at any one time, who were each elected by the Senate every year.2 The consuls
wielded enormous power themselves within the Republic. The Senate during most of the
Republican period was ‘the dominant organ of government’3, indirectly controlling Rome’s
military and social affairs.
Sulla and Marius were both influential members of the two most prominent political
factions in the Roman Senate. Rome at this time did not have conventional political parties
but factions dominated along ideological lines.4 Sulla was closely identified with the
Optimates, the faction which was favoured by the nobility while Marius was a member of
the Populares the faction of the people.5 The political positions of both men greatly
reflected their backgrounds. Sulla had come from a noble yet unimportant family, and was
so inclined to support the Optimates.6 Sulla was also used by the Optimates to counter
popularity and power of Marius whom they disliked as Sulla had ‘made his quarrel with
Marius the first principle of his political life.’7 Politically Marius directly contradicted Sulla.
He was of ignoble birth, and his parents ‘were entirely undistinguished.’8 Marius’s position
was therefore built on his political and military skill, and he was more likely to join the
Populares. This class difference was an early point of contention between Sulla and Marius,
which mirrors the class orientation that was an important part of Roman political life.
1
Keaveney, Arthur, 1982, Sulla the Last Republican, Croom Helm, Great Britain, p.1
Boardman, John, Griffin, Jasper, Murray, Oswyn,(Eds), 1986, The Oxford History of the Classical World,
Oxford University Press, Great Britain
3
Keaveney, p.1
4
Boardman, Griffin, Murray, (Eds), p.464
5
Keaveney, pp.29-30
6
Taylor, Brian, 2008, The Later Roman Republic: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, a Chronology,
Spellmount Limited, Great Britain, p.51
7
Plutarch, 1983, Fall of the Roman Republic, Penguin Books, Great Britain, p.46
8
Plutarch, p.15
2
The Optimates and Populares were fierce opponents and often clashed over their differing
political ideologies. The factions helped to expand the conflict between Marius and Sulla;
using the power they had in the Senate to attack each of the two men. As the rift between
Marius and Sulla grew, so did the fighting and bickering between the two factions. Between
96 BC and the start of the Social War in 90 BC the factional conflict escalated with Marius’s
followers attempting to have Sulla tried for extortion. The bickering continued to escalate
nearly culminating with outright fighting had the Social War not broken out.9 The two
Senatorial factions while not causing the rivalry between Marius and Sulla were decisive in
stirring up their conflict. This feud between the Optimates and Populares was to intensify
further into open war in the Civil War fought between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great
in 49-48 BC.10
Both Sulla and Marius were highly ambitious men, known for their ruthlessness and
dominance of the Roman state. Each man dominated Roman politics to the point ‘That two
men with such overwhelming ambition and drive for personal glory should march the
streets of Rome at the same time could have none other than a bloody end.’11 The rivalry
between them was built partly on their ambitions and desire for power. Marius held the
consulship an unprecedented seven times, using the position to control the Senate and
dispose of his rivals.12 Sulla similarly flouted the system holding the office of Dictator
indefinitely and although he instituted reforms to the Roman legal and governmental
systems, he was known for ruthlessly ‘destroying his enemies and rewarding his friends’.13
The stranglehold on power held by Marius and Sulla during their different periods in power
show that any ability for the two to co-exist in sharing political power in the long term
would have been untenable.
The rivalry between the two men was also built on and intensified by their experiences in
military command. The first time that Sulla and Marius shared command was in the
Jugurthine War, against Numidia between 112-105 BC. Marius at the time was Consul and
so gained command of the Roman army fighting the Numidians, while Sulla had acquired
the role of Quaestor and so served as his subordinate.14 However this did not stop Sulla
from playing a key role in the conflict, as he ended the war by capturing the Numidian
Prince Jugurtha. Marius was officially given the credit for ending the war and was presented
with a Triumph, however many Senators in Rome ‘claimed that it was Sulla who deserved
the credit, and Marius though he said nothing, was still annoyed.’15 Sulla boasted about his
9
No author listed, Marius and Sulla, http://janusquirinus.org/essays/Apollo/Background/MS2.html, sighted
7/11/2009
10
Scullard, H.H, 1970, From the Gracchi to Nero, Methuen & Co, Great Britain, pp.138-139
11
Taylor, p.53
12
Plutarch, p.62
13
Boardman, Griffin, Murray, p.460
14
Plutarch, p.67
15
Plutarch, p.68
achievements helping to stir up acclaim for himself among the nobility of Rome, and ‘marks
the beginning of the great quarrel between Marius and Sulla.’16
Clashes such as this over military command and acclaim were a feature of Sulla and Marius
antagonism. The last such clash over command of the army to fight Mithridates of Pontus
would lead to direct conflict between the two men. The command had originally been given
to Sulla, after his successes in the Social War. However Marius used his power within Rome
to ‘secure the transference of the Mithridatic command from Sulla.’17 This insult caused
Sulla to take control of his legions and march on Rome, starting a Civil War with Marius, the
first time that this had happened in Roman history itself.18 Sulla’s example was to be
repeated by Julius Caesar in 49 BC, when he too marched on Rome in opposition to the
Senate.19
The series of events leading to Civil War had significant political implications for the
Republic. Marius’s taking of the Mithridatic command from Sulla was unheard of in Rome
and achieved through corruption.20 Sulla however was to similarly flout convention by
marching on Rome. His march on the city directly defied the decision albeit corrupt to
remove him from command thus directly challenging the Senate. He also caused outrage by
ignoring the convention about bringing soldiers into the city. This challenge to Marius and
the Senate set in motion a period of instability in Rome where power switched between
Marius and Sulla and their supporters.21 Sulla’s march on Rome would have a lasting legacy
providing an example for Caesar to challenge the Senate in 49 BC.
Sulla’s opposition to Marius was based on complex series of disagreements that would have
dire consequences for the future of Rome as a Republic. Each man was highly ambitious and
unwilling to share power as well as failing to abide by the democratic processes of Rome.
Their bickering over who would take the glory for shared military campaigns was enhanced
by their differing political alignments. Marius and Sulla’s fighting over command for the
Mithridatic War would lead to open conflict between the two, starting the first outright civil
war in Rome’s history.22 Their feuding and war led to a temporary breakdown of the system
that governed the Republic and set the example for the future wars between Caesar and
Pompey that led to the final collapse of the Republic.
16
Keaveney, p.31
Scullard, p.71
18
Shackleton Bailey, D.R, 1971, Cicero, Charles Scribner Sons, U.S.A, p.10
19
Scullard, p.138
20
Plutarch, p.76
21
No author listed, Sulla Marches on Rome, http://www.unrv.com/empire/march-on-rome.php, sighted
12/11/2009
22
Scullard, pp.79-81
17
Bibliography:
Books:
Boardman, John, Griffin, Jasper, Murray, Oswyn,(Eds), 1986, The Oxford History of the
Classical World, Oxford University Press, Great Britain
Keaveney, Arthur, 1982, Sulla the Last Republican, Croom Helm, Great Britain
Plutarch, 1983, Fall of the Roman Republic, Penguin Books, Great Britain
Scullard, H.H, 1970, From the Gracchi to Nero, Methuen & Co, Great Britain
Shackleton Bailey, D.R, 1971, Cicero, Charles Scribner Sons, U.S.A
Taylor, Brian, 2008, The Later Roman Republic: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, a
Chronology, Spellmount Limited, Great Britain
Websites:
No author listed, Marius and Sulla,
http://janusquirinus.org/essays/Apollo/Background/MS2.html, sighted 7/11/2009
No author listed, Sulla Marches on Rome, http://www.unrv.com/empire/march-onrome.php, sighted 12/11/2009