0
1

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I consider Sulla a usurper of the Roman Republic. He overthrew the Republic essentially. He was a Caesaristic. He defeated my people, the Cimbris and Teutones.

He fought against King Jugurtha who I have great respect for. He also fought against the Mithradic Kings which I do not like in the least either. Sulla violated everything Rome had stood for previously.

0
1

[–] Cato_the_Elder [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The usurpers of the Republic were the Marians and his populist confederates. Sulla was elected consul and was tasked by the Senate to fight Mithridates the Great and was overthrown as a result by these rascals because Marius wanted the glory of defeating this the great king who had become such a menace to the Rome's territories. If anything Sulla waged a successful counter-revolution against the Marians.

0
0

[–] 1Iron_Curtain ago 

Yeah, I used to like Marius, and maybe I still do, but he went too far in militarizing the Roman Empire.

I am not a fan of the Romans for some reason, but rather my people the Northern Europeans, who were constantly under barrage from the Romans.

I would have probably favored the populists over Sulla who laid the foundations for the establishment of the Roman Empire which served to menace my people in Germania. In essence, I have no respect for either Marius or Sulla.

0
0

[–] NorthernMan ago 

Thanks for sharing.

More Roman history around these parts would be much appreciated

0
0

[–] Cato_the_Elder [S] ago  (edited ago)

"Sulla Belongs In Our Pantheon Of Heroes

In 88 B.C., Lucius Cornelius Sulla took his army in hand and marched upon Rome. If you’ve ever heard this story before, you probably think it goes like so: Sulla was a successful general whose ambition was suspected by the Senate. Concerned about his rising popularity, the Senate ordered Sulla to give up his command and return to Rome. Instead, Sulla marched on Rome, installed himself as dictator, and massacred his political opponents.

If this is the story you’ve heard, then I hate to break it to you, but you’ve been had. This narrative about Sulla’s first march on Rome gets one thing right: Sulla did march on Rome in 88 B.C. Otherwise, it’s a strange mish-mash of obfuscation, conflation, and outright deception. In antiquity, Sulla was fiercely hated for a variety of acts but also tremendously respected for stabilizing the Roman state and defending the empire from foreign aggression. This modern story is the result of dumbed-down and over-simplified history..."

An excellent article; Sulla was every bit the anti-Caesar and he is the only Roman political leader that I know of, other than Diocletian, to voluntarily retire from his office.