Sulla Takes Over Rome

The year was 89 BC. General Sulla had put down a rebellion in the Roman province of Campania. The war hero came back to Rome and become counsel. He intended to use his consulship to “serve as the ticket to an even juicier prize”, writes Tom Holland in Rubicon. And what might that prize be? Command of the war over Mithridates, a rebel king on the eastern end of the Roman empire. Another war with the prospect of great riches and popularity...

 

But the Senate, as always, was a snake pit. Sulla, who got the Mithridatic command, joined his troops at the end of his consulship. Even before the war started, he found himself relieved of his post by the Senate! But the Senate had miscalculated: they’d driven Sulla “into a corner where there were six battle-hardened legions ready at hand”. They’d taken it for granted that Sulla wouldn’t do the unthinkable, namely use the Roman army as his private militia.

 

From Sulla’s perspective, he was justified. How could the Senate arbitrarily relieve him of command? And so Sulla felt justified in becoming the first Roman citizen who “led legions against their own city”. And like anyone who dares try such a move, he had other skills: charm, the ability to command loyalty among his rank and file, and allies in Rome who’d handle the PR (public relations). When he reached the outskirts of Rome, the Senate agreed to have talks, but demanded that he stop 5 miles outside Rome:

“Everyone knew that to traverse this would be a gesture of awesome and terrible significance.”

 

Though he stopped at the designated point, once talks ended, Sulla simply decided to follow the Senators on their way back to Rome. Along with his army, of course. In no time, he’d taken over Rome:

“The unthinkable had happened. A general had made himself the master of Rome.”

He summoned the Senate and demanded that his enemies be branded “enemies of the state”. At the point of the sword, the Senate agreed.

 

Human nature hasn’t changed in the last 2,000 years:

“To Sulla, legitimacy remained more important than naked use of power… Far from playing the military despot, he preferred to pose as the defender of the constitution.”

It was a calculated move: Push too far, and the old order might push back leading to civil war. In any case, Sulla wanted to lead the Mithridates war, without having to constantly watch his back in what might be happening in Rome. And so when Sulla went to the Mithridates front, the Republic seemed to be restored. It looked like Sulla didn’t want a revolution, an overthrow of the Republic: perhaps he just felt wronged when his command had been taken away?

 

The war with Mithridates dragged on. At one point, Mithridates outflanked Sulla and reached Greece. A truce was hastily agreed upon as both men were nervous: Mithridates that he might still lose, Sulla about what might await him back in Rome. In fact, Sulla had been tried in absentia in Rome, and sentenced to death. Unfortunately, like last time, he still headed an army:

“Once again, Rome would have to wait his arrival, and shudder.”

 

But this time, unlike the last time, many in Rome, looked forwarded to Sulla. The consuls and Senators in the years while Sulla was away had misgoverned very badly. This enabled Sulla to give his spin to what would follow:

“The ancient foundations of the state were unstable, on the verge of collapse. Sulla, god-sent, would perform the repairs, no matter how much bloodshed the task might require.”

 

And bloodshed there was. Anyone who had opposed Sulla was wiped out, their properties confiscated. He arm-twisted the Senate into declaring a state of emergency, and making him the dictator. The act would thus “legalize his supremacy”, even “give it the patina of tradition”:

“How could the Romans consider themselves threatened by a magistracy as authentically Republican as the dictatorship?”

And the duration of his dictatorship? For as long as Sulla deemed fit. He then started changing the constitution left and right, to close what he deemed “loopholes”, and to prevent the rise of anyone who might challenge him.

 

And then, in 81 BC, Sulla abruptly resigned his dictatorship and retired:

“Historians of future generations, inured by perpetual autocracy, found fantastical the idea that anyone should voluntarily have laid down supreme power. Yet Sulla had done it.”

His resignation also meant that the Republic was restored. No wonder Sulla was (and is) such a “baffling and contradictory figure”.