Lucius Cornelius Sulla

[Finder]

The first Concul to pretty much take the posistion of dictator for longer then the time the Senate orginally appointed it. However unlike the emperors soon to come he did end up retiring (late) which was a Roman tradition (even though he did it way beyound the time he shouldhave). Some say this lead to uphevals in the Republic, and even a presidance in the Republic to ignore some traditions. Though you can't say these figurers destoryed the republic it truly didn't help.

He was also known for eliminating the power of the Tribune's which historically stood up for the rights of the plebs and was a check to the senate and concul. Truly almost everything he did was pretty much copied by the emperors to come, in one way or another.


So anyone want to have a debate on Dic. Cul. Sulla?

 

[Blackleaf]

I've never heard of him before. Most of the Roman Emperors and leaders that I've heard of where those who ruled Britannia and had their arses kicked and their cities pillaged by the Ancient Britons.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

I've never heard of him before. Most of the Roman Emperors and leaders that I've heard of where those who ruled Britannia and had their arses kicked and their cities pillaged by the Ancient Britons.

Supposedly Caeser was repulsed by the celts in Briton, but really after they had taken Briton they held it untill the Saxons invaded near the end of the empiror, and for the most part the celtic britons had absorbed into Roman Empire. One of the few rebellions which had any chance was the one lead by Budica (spalling). But it did fail.

Anyhow Sulla was before Rome had reached Briton. Any Roman historian worth anything knows more about Sulla then half the empirors or conculs.

There were some postive things which Sulla did but the worst thing I'd say he did was remove the power of the Tribunate and murder of his political rivals. Besides that he did cartail the power of the Senate.

 

[Blackleaf]

The Romans and the Britons did mix, but there were a few times when the Britons pillaged Roman cities. There were reports of rivers stained red with the blood of dead Roman soldiers and civilians. But some British tribes allied themselves with the Romans, their leaders believing that it would make them more powerful and to help them to fight enemy, neighbouring tribes.

I don't know enough about that Sulla guy to speak about him, but I like talking about the Romans, though.

 

[Finder]

Yeah as I said Sulla is pre-Briton conflic. Though I do believe he faught differnt, gaulic/celtic tribes often. But you know he actually became a dictator for life pretty much after his worst defeat. He brought his army back to Rome (which is a back no no in the Republican traditions of Rome), crossed the river and took Rome for itself and forced the Senate to appoint him dictator for life basically. However, he did retire in the end.

As for Briton.... Largely it was seen as mostly Romanized after the celt-Britons were defeated there. The Romans had problems in the north with the Picts-celtics (I believe it was the picts). But the Romans did not was Scotland really. Really when the Romans left the cletic Britons were massacured mostly by invasions from the Saxons, Vikings and others. Current inhabitants of Briton are not related to the celtic britons. you might say that these celtic britons if any lived retreated to Wales, which some say is possible. Also western parts of Briton may have the orginal celtic blood. Anyhow if the Romans had been able to stay they may have prevented the death of countless Britons. But really the Roman Empire was collasping so I doubt much would have changed.

I sure there were also times tribes inside the Roman territory advanced and killed Romans but I know none of which which actually had any staying power.

 

[jimmoyer]

I wonder why the Roman Senate and the Plebians
never evolved into something stronger, strong enough
to give into the power of the military General.

In some strange way Cincinatus, being the originator
of term limits and of that beautiful idea of coming
to government to get one or two things done and
then leave to go back to being a farmer, also gave another
precedent of a military general taking over.

The legend of him is more important than the
contrary details, although I am much interested in
those just out of curiosity.

 

[Finder]

Well those are the principals which the Roman Dictatorship grew from. The Consul's or the Senate would elect a dictator for 6 months during times of trouble. Now the unwriten tradition which Livy talked about was that these dictator's would usually give up the title the day the trouble or grave threat was over. and I mean GRAVE threat. The city was often at war and dictators would give up there power with in weeks of getting it as long as Rome was generally safe from being overran itself. I can't remember the name of one of the early dictators but he was known for keeping the title for a little while longer to push reforms. It was during/after the last war with Veii. He was once dictator before gave up the title after winning and was kicked out of Rome over a promise he made to do with religous funding. He was called back when the city pretty much feel to the Celtic gauls, and settled with a peace treaty. He kept the power of dictator afterwards to fore the people not to leave and go to Veii since Veii was now a Roman possen and was basically untouched by the gaulic war and Rome was scared and burned down. Low and behold few were allowed to go to Veii, the dictator was allowed to make the orginal donations promised to the temple which had, been the reason he was kicked out of Rome and only then did he give up the title.

I'll remember his name after I push "submit"


Edit: Camillus

 

[Colin]

RE: Lucius Cornelius Sull

Interesting, its been a few years since I studied Sullus, currently I'm working on roman social structure, the development of Marriage and sexuality, and the early formation of Rome. I'll crack a few old notes and texts later tommorow and bring something to talk about.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Lucius Cornelius Sull

Interesting, its been a few years since I studied Sullus, currently I'm working on roman social structure, the development of Marriage and sexuality, and the early formation of Rome. I'll crack a few old notes and texts later tommorow and bring something to talk about.

Early formation as in the study of Livy's legands, or actual Archaeological evidance? Sound's interesting anyhow. The reason I chose Sulla for a histoic figure is I think he is intrumental in what happend in Rome after him. Of course I'm not pointing fingers and Ceasar too was a product of his time. How the Roman Republic was structured was flawed in the late republic and the romans too conservative to reform the republic so it would work properly in a vast empire. Thus really thats how we get the empire and in the early empire the Façade of republic. Anyhow thats another debate, but Sulla is a figure of note in history and one which could be debated on many sides.

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

Yeah as I said Sulla is pre-Briton conflic. As for Briton.... Largely it was seen as mostly Romanized after the celt-Britons were defeated there. The Romans had problems in the north with the Picts-celtics (I believe it was the picts). But the Romans did not was Scotland really. Really when the Romans left the cletic Britons were massacured mostly by invasions from the Saxons, Vikings and others. Current inhabitants of Briton are not related to the celtic britons. you might say that these celtic britons if any lived retreated to Wales, which some say is possible. Also western parts of Briton may have the orginal celtic blood. Anyhow if the Romans had been able to stay they may have prevented the death of countless Britons. But really the Roman Empire was collasping so I doubt much would have changed.

I sure there were also times tribes inside the Roman territory advanced and killed Romans but I know none of which which actually had any staying power.

Roman Armies evacuated Britain in 404 AD and the local Governors were instructed to see to their own defence! The Brittanic (SP) rulers still paid homage to Rome until 476 AD when alliances shifted with the fall of Rome to Constantinople and the Eastern Emporer who enjoyed a power revival in the 500's and captured a large part of Iberia, Gaul, Italy and North Africa under Eastern Roman Control.

If the Eastern Romans had been able to return to the Isles, they might, but england was a bit out of their way. But commerce, trade and some government stuff did flow between Constantinople and England, but the invasion of the Angles, Saxon and Jutes in the late 500's changed the political scene of the Island.