Talk:Sulla

Plutarch's version of Sulla's death

Plutarch says that Sulla died as a result of worms, brought on him by his gay lover at the time. I've included this into the text, adding the comment that whether or not Plutarch was bias on the topic. I can place references to the text as well. It is in the book The Fall of the Roman Republic

We are currently studying Sulla at the moment at school, and are using various primary and secondary sources such as Cary and Scullard, Pamela Bradley, Plutarch, Cicero and many others. I am trying to include positions from other historians, and displaying possible outcomes and the possible bias of these sources.

Just Googeling the sources often comes up with inaccurate results. The best action is to buy the books and read it for yourself.

-While Plutarch does mention that Sulla died as a result of a rampant infestation of worms, he does not suggest this was a result of a gay lover, and even in the 21st century, it would be an implausable and tenuous link! Furthermore, his description of Sulla's death is generally regarded as highly suspect and written to suit the politics of the time he was writing, some 200 years after Sulla's death, the general consensus being that Sulla died of liver failure; quite probable due to his lifestyle. While no one disputes Sulla's bisexuality, you need to have a serious discussion with your history and biology teacher's, if you think that worms and gay relationships are synonymous.- Sulla16

While it is certainly possible that Plutarch's description of Sulla's death could have been politically motivated, it should never the less have a reference here since it is among the closest chronologically. I've added that reference, footnoted it, and left reference to contemporary view. If anyone can provide citation for the belief that he died of an intestinal ulcer or liver failure, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. --Rencheple (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Sulla's death (in chronological order):

Valerius Maximus (~AD 20), IX.3.8: Gives haemorrhage brought on by fit of anger.

Plutarch (~AD 100), Sulla 36-37: Quite detailed, lists a ruptured gastric ulcer (causing a haemorrhage) brought on by fit of anger. Plutarch also states that Sulla was suffering from some type of concomitant parasitic disease ("worms"), although this is NOT given by Plutarch as the CAUSE of Sulla's death. See below on Keaveney and Madden on Sulla's parasitic disease.

Appian (~AD 150), Bell. Civ. I.12.105: Just gives "fever", which taken with the above may indicate gastric/hepatic trauma/failure.

Pliny the Elder (~AD 70), Hist. Nat. XI.114, XXVI.138 and the anonymous author of the De Viris Illustribus also mentions the cause but I've not got a copy of either of these hand at the moment.

Arthur Keaveney, Sulla's best recent biographer, lists liver failure caused by chronic alcohol abuse: "The failure first brings on the bleeding from the mouth, which is then followed, as poisons build up in the diseased organ, by a delirium that usually ends with the death of the patient within 24 hours". Keaveney (2005) Sulla: the Last Republican (2nd ed). p.175.

For a modern discussion of Sulla's secondary (non-fatal) parasitism, see Keaveney & Madden (1982) Phthiriasis and its victims. Symbolae Osloenses 57: 87-99 and Rabinovich (2004) The lousy disease: Sulla's death in the biographical tradition. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4: 21-39. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Blood by Steven Saylor

Has anyone read Roman Blood by Steven Saylor? It's a murder mystery set at the time of Sulla, and goes into detail about Sulla's history that isn't here. I'm just wondering if anyone knows how much of Saylor's work is true. RickK 03:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I haven't read it - there is some more known about Sulla's life, but part of it is known to have been falsified by ancient authors, and modern scholarly accounts generally have to be pretty careful about which bits they take at face value. Stan 04:52, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stan, can you provide any references that demonstrate how the falsified accounts were identified and what evidence there is that they were intentionally misleading? Thanks --Rencheple (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I share Stan's preocupations but just out of curiosity, Rick, can you tell us what he says about Sulla? Muriel Gottrop 09:57, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He said that Sulla got his start in society by having an affair with a rich elderly widow, Nicopolis, and being named her heir in her will. It also says that his father's second wife inherited a great deal of money after Sulla's father's death, and he was HER heir as well, so that by the time his stepmother died, he was moederately wealthy. The King of Numidia, in commemoration of the defeat of Jugurtha, sent Rome a statue of himself, handing a chained Jugurtha to Sulla, and Marius was missing. When the statue was put up on the Capitoline, Marius became furious and demanded that it be taken down. When the Senate voted to send Sulla to Greece to fight Mithridates, the Marius faction, led by Sulpicius, pressured the Senate to name Marius the commander. Sulla left Rome and took the matter direct to the troops, who stoned their Marius-appointed officers to death. One of Sulpicius' slaves betrayed Sulpicius. In reward, Sulla had the slave freed, then thrown to his death from the Tapreian Rock. Sulla was the first Roman conqueror of Greece to sack the Greek temples instead of worshipping at them. He besieged Athens, starving the inhabitants, and then slaughtered them when the walls were breached. He then marched on Rome, and met the son of Marius in battle at Signia, where 20,000 Marian troops were killed and 8000 captured, whereas Sulla lost 23 men. Once he captured Rome again, he had the 6000 defending Samnites and Lucanians slaughtered in the Circus Maximus, their screams heard while he was addressing the Senate.

Saylor also mentions that Sulla married 5 times, divorcing his 4th wife on her death bed.

• the lover and stepmother are mentioned in Plutarch, so i will include them in a next version
• i only could find 4 wives: i think the 4th you mentioned must be Dalmatica
• i'm not sure about the statue story
• but the Sulpicius attempt to remove command is true, as well as the bloody greek campaign
• the circus maximus incident is unprobable: Sulla was ruthless, but in an elegant way...
• maybe Stan knows more
• Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 22:45, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• PS: Dear Rick, maybe you can add these books to Fiction set in Ancient Rome

It looks like all this is just from Plutarch's life of Sulla. Googling "plutarch sulla" gets you dozens of online versions to review. How much is true? Well, the OCD article sums him up as "tantalizing and treacherous to the historian", and although Sulla was much closer to living memory than, say, Theseus, the Romans always seem to be very credulous when it comes to vicious rumors. We'll probably never know how much is real, how much is exaggerated, and how much is simply made up by Sulla's enemies (gee, sounds like I could be talking about the current administration! :-) ) Stan 04:46, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

According to Saylor, the wife Sulla divorced on her deathbed was Metella. RickK 04:50, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Caecilia Metella Dalmatica ;) And Plutarch really has is favourites: he can write about Pompey, for instance, in an adoring way, comparing him to Alexander almost weeping his death. Like Stan said, it's not easy to distinguish truth and legend and so, i think we should avoid including bombastic theories, like the way Sulla earned his money to get into the Senate.

I don't know much Latin, but judging from other cognomina, shouldn't the names of Sulla's daughters/granddaughters be "Sullis," not "Sulla?" Kuralyov 19:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there a verified source for Sulla's first wife Julia being the aunt of Gaius Julius Caesar the dictator? Colleen McCullough's The First Man In Rome and its sequels make use of this idea, but in her notes she admits that it's not a certainty - Sulla's first wife is named Julia in one source, but she just felt that if she were Caesar's aunt it explained Marius and Sulla's early close relationship, since it's known that Marius married another Julia who definitely was Caesar's aunt. 60.225.166.170 22:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there's no such evidence, unless some has come to light in the past couple of years that I'm unaware of. I'll remove the statement. Binabik80 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: According to the current layout of the chart of wives and children, Sulla had 19 children by Dalmatica in the decade or so they were married. Binabik80 00:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I know a little Latin and believe Kuralyov is partially correct - the genitive of Sulla is actually Sullae (1st Declension, 3rd declension genitives end -is), so (according to the article on Roman Naming Conventions) Sulla's daughters should have Sullae as their cognomen Garydunn 17:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Daughters of Romans took the feminine form of the nomen, not cognomen, thus the daughters of Lucius Cornelius Sulla should be Corneliae (Cornelia singular). Chris Weimer 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sulla's Dictatorship

In Mary T. Boatwright's et al The Romans: From Village to Empire: Oxford 2004, it says that Sulla resigned from dicatorship in 81, and yet I get other sources that say he resigned in 79? Which date would be correct? JonWayne 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

He became dictator in 81 (coins were issued to commemorate the occasion), resigned in 79, and was dead within a year (78). LaurenCole 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In all my research, it shows that Sulla retook Rome in 83 BC after the battle of the Colline Gate, he was not appointed Dictator immediately, but an interrex was appointed at the beginning of 82 BC, leading to Sulla's appointment as Dictator. He resigned the Dictatorship in 80 BC on being elected Consul with Metellus Pius and finally retired in 79 BC at the end of his second conlsulship.

The above unsigned statement is correct. Stern and unpopular though he may have been in his politics, Sulla was fastidious about ensuring that he adhered to the letter of the law - indeed, the very motive for his taking control of the city was that under control of Marius and those who followed, the Republican contitution had ceased to work and ancient laws were being flouted to the detriment of all. Arthur Keaveney (Sulla: the Last Republican p. 166. 2005) citing Appian (Bell. Civ. I.104), Cicero (Pro. Rosc. Amer. 20, 127-8, 130-1) and Robin Seager ('Sulla' in CAH IX: 165-207. 1994) argues convincingly that Sulla resigned the dictatorship a month or two before he was inaugurated into his second consulship on 1st Jan 80 (i.e. Oct/Nov 81), and that Sulla certainly did not continue in the dictatorship as consul. If there is no objection, I will alter the article to reflect this. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Catiline63

Iulia of the Caesari

I changed this notation of Sulla's first with to simply "Julia". the author seems to think Caesari is a plural, but it's actually not. it's a dative or ablative singular (identical forms). also i don't think it's appropriate to use the I instead of a J if you're not also going to use the V in place of the U. just seems a complete butchering of the language and entirely haphazard as to forms.

also it doesn't seem to be clear if that particular Julia was from the Caesarian branch.

but if the concensus is to use a form such as that, it should be Julia of the Caesares as that is the proper latin ending form for a 3rd declension noun.

- Plutarch lists his first wife as "Ilia". Plutarch was using Sulla's memoirs for his biography, so its unlikely that he mispelled Iulia, or would have neglected to mention the connection with Caesar if it was there. I changed it, and also added in his third wife Cloelia as listed in Plutarch. Valeria was his last wife, and their daughter was born after his death. I'm not sure where "Sergia" came from. LaurenCole 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Woah... someone has now added a definite relation for Sulla's first wife. Anyone have a source on this? ---Mr. Nexx 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that Sulla's first wife was the sister of Quintus Lutatius Catulus Caesar --69.107.102.38 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

- If Sulla's first wife was Ilia, what family would she be from to have taken that name? As far as I know that would make her literally from the "Ilius" family, so probably a Julius... Tbarker 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other than McCullough's Masters of Rome series is there anything to support the contention that Sulla's first wife was Caesar's uncle? Why would Plutarch (and every other historical source) omit this rather important connection. I thought it added a great deal to McCullough's novels, but I don't think it should be included here. Just my opinion. OBA (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Sulla's wives and children?

I was wondering what were the sources for 8 wives and 22 children. It seems certain that Sulla married three woman (Julia (Ilia), Valeria Messala, Caecilia Metella Dalmatica). Plutarach mentions an Aelia and Cloelia, but no other sources mention these two. As for children we know that Sulla had at least three: Cornelia Sulla, whose daughter married Julius Caesar; and the twins Fastus and Fausta. Also how do we know that Aelia was a member of the Tuberoni? It would be highly unlikely for a Roman patrician to marry a Gaul given the xenophobic tendencies of Romans in the late republic. --69.107.102.38 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have edited the portion dealing with Sulla's children and wives to reflect these concerns. --69.107.102.38 00:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

He had five wives - Ilia, Aelia, Calpurnia, Claudia, Metella, and Valeria - according to Plutarch. Plutarch was using Sulla's memoirs as his primary source, so that may be why he mentions Claudia when others dont. Ilia and Aelia may be one person (this was used by Peter Green in his fictional memoirs) since their names are so similar. Lucius Sulla, his oldest son, was by Metella and died as a boy. I don't know why he's been assigned to Ilia here. Plutarch says that one of Sulla's premonitions of his own death was a dream in which this son asked him to come home to his mother Metella. LaurenCole 21:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Rivalry with Marius

It really does not make since to say that Marius and Sulla had a rivalry over the credit for the African war. As counsul Marius selected Sulla for his staff for both the African and German Wars. As a quastor, Sulla would not receive sole credit for ending the African war by capturing Jugurtha since he was a subordinate officer. The sources make much of the rivarly between Marius and Sulla, but this rivarly did not likely begin until much later, when Marius was an old man and Sulla was in his prime. It would have been unthinkable for Marius as a counsular to be jealous of a mere quastor so far down on the curus honorum. Plutarch's main sources were likely Sulla's memoirs which would likely play up an early rivarly to the expense of Marius' character. --71.146.45.220 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Marius, a Rival to Metellus. and sulla, an optimates, just Wonder...

Prostitution and Murders

I have removed a paragraph from the "Early Life" section. There is no evidence that Sulla killed the people who left him money. The sentence in the previous paragraph - "some sources refer to family inheritances from his step-mother and others" - is the extent of our knowledge. Outside of novels (which are fiction obviously), there is no indication of malice or violence in these events. Additionally there is no evidence that Sulla was ever a prostitute. Whatever the nature of his relationship with Metrobius, it wasn't a "working" one so to speak. Metrobius was an actor, and Sulla a patron of the arts and invenerate partier, so an incidence of prostitution when young is not needed to explain their acquaintance. A mention of Metrobius in a Senate speech does not prove Sulla was a prostitute some 50 years before - yet this was presented in the article as if it were all the proof necessary. I'm not sure who put this part in there, or when, but it needs scholarly citation before it can be included again. LaurenCole 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier attitude

A great deal of the Sulla article has a rather cavalier attitude, and lacks professionalism, in particular the latter sections. While on the topic of the latter sections, how much of them are backed up with sources?

Then I suggest that you contribte to the article instead of carping from the sidelines. Sulla is a much more difficult life to chronicle than say Caesar's, due to the sources being scattered and much of his memory and achievements being erased by later generations. As such it is useful and interesting to acribe reasonable interpretation from existing sources (as opposed to speculative) of his actions. Please join discussion... 214

Sulla vs. Silla

Hi,

I casually came into this page and was surprised about the Sulla writing of his name.

In my school memories, I'm from Italy, it has always been Silla and in the italian wikipedia I found a reference to his original cognomen being SVILLA [1]

Is it the case to add a Silla redirection for this page ?

There is a tendency in late Latin to spell the name Sylla; in part supported by Plutarch's use of Συλλα. This is a Hellenism like the y in sylva, classically silva. Renaissance Italian adopted this spelling, and changed it, regularly, to Silla, but this is unsupported by Latin usage of any age, and is(more to the point) not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The "royal" infobox here is even more misleading than in Julius Caesar (see Talk:Julius_Caesar#Predecessor). It should be replaced by a version not talking about "Predecessor", "Reign", "Royal House" etc.--193.175.194.60 10:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Masters of Rome

In several of her Roman novels (particularly The First Man in Rome, The Grass Crown and Fortune's Favorites, Colleen McCullough paints a vivid, compelling portrait of the man who became Sulla the Dictator. However, some readers might mistake some of her masterful what-ifs (Sulla's marriage to Julius Caesar's aunt, for example) for documented facts. -- Cranston Lamont 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sulla's early life

I was attempting to fledge out Sulla's early life (with the usual references to Plutarch) and his African career, but it seems I've messed up the reference numbers. I'm sorry about this. Tried to correct it, but it doesn't seem to want my correcting. Usually you can add references, and the reference numbers are sorted out automatically. Am I doing something wrong? Should you be moved to answer, please be moved with a personal explanation: a reference to some god-hopeless pre-prepared page will often insult. MacMurrough 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sulla's Laws

I have been studying Sulla's changes to the roman constitution for a dissertation, and have also looked at a fair amount of the sources for him. If users like the idea, I would like add more primary sources from Appian and Sallust as well as Plutarch - some of the quotes aren't referenced, so I can possibly do that - and flesh out the section on the dictatorship by adding some more info about his laws. However, I'm fairly new to wikipedia and so I'll probably get things wrong - there's only so much you can practise in a sandbox. Would someone be willing to keep an eye on the page occasionally and revert it whenever I screw up beyond my own repair? Tbarker 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dictator of Rome - ABC's

I removed the following text from the article.

This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". In retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed.

The above is blatantly POV.

• "This lesson in supreme confidence..." From another point of view it could be a lesson in supreme arrogance.
• "In retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed." Again POV and the POV depends on subjective preferences. The opposite POV is equally valid. Does one want to die in action as did Caesar or diseased as did Sulla?

We could rewrite this thus.

This lesson in supreme arrogance, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". In retrospect, of the two, Caesar was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in action at the height of his power while Sulla suffered a dissolute diseased death."

I prefer the later POV slightly (I have mixed feelings about both these men) but I would never write the above in an article.Vincent 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you proposing to substitute "arrogance" or not?

Actually I don't think "confidence" does show POV. (However, "last laugh" certainly does: it requires the reader to believe in life after death!)

My feeling about the passage is not so much that it's POV, rather that it strays from the facts. Andrew Dalby 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant to express some sarcasm by reversing the content between Caesar and Sulla... Methinks said disputed paragraph is merely and purely opinion and thus the "in retrospect" part should be struck from the article. -- fdewaele, 15 Februari 2007, 14:30.

RE: "This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". In retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed."

I take it that no one disputes the veracity of the first sentence. What we have here is a dispute over the interpretation of that sentence in the light of historical fact...

Caesar was in effect saying that Sulla was a fool for giving up supreme power, yet it was Sulla who died a natural death, while Caesar was assassinated precisely because he would not give up supreme power. What the sentence does, is point out how wrong Caesar was to criticize Sulla on this particular point - whatever one feels about the qualities, characters and place in history of the two men, on this point dealing with the retention or surrender of complete power, Sulla was proved wiser by history. It is quite likely he may have suffered the same fate as Caesar, had he not resigned the dictatorship. In the end, this sentence can be re-written, but it should reflect that in this instance Caesar made a fatal error of judgement, that led directly to his own death. Finally, in many books on the lives of the two men, this sentiment is forcefully expressed. Sulla16 2/15/07

I am disputing the factuality of the first sentence, it is opinion. That many authors hold the same opinion is irrelevant because those authors aren't writing for Wikipedia, while you are.

The "supreme arrogance" paragraph I wrote here is just as "factual" as yours but of the opposite opinion. I was not sarcastic (sorry if you thought so) I was showing how an equally opposite POV could (could, not does) make more sense. That's why POV is not factually instructive.

Now Sulla16, are you a fan of Sulla the dictator? Did you happen to read one or two of the "many books" you mentioned abd thought to yourself "Wow, what a man!". Fine, that's a great experience. But that was your experience. Now do you want to convince us that Sulla was the wiser of the two? And do you really think the article should prefer one man over another? Vincent 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is historical fact, Caesar made the comment, it is well documented, and it it is reasonable to infer, in this particular instance Caesar made a blunder, it cost him his life, also an undisputed fact. I am not make any comment on the overall wisdom of either man, just as it relates to this particular issue. Sulla16 2-21-07

The first sentence is not factual. The first two words "Supreme confidence" are PoV. I made the point before you could easily say "Supreme arrogance". Both are POV, therefore neither belongs there. Vincent 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong there. Arrogant is POV: it's a criticism of someone's attitude. To say that someone is confident is neither praise nor criticism, because you aren't saying whether he is right or wrong to be confident; so it's NPOV. But who am I? Just a humble speaker of English. Andrew Dalby 00:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both are POV, and the qualifier "supreme" doubles the POV. Then that sentence leads to the lesson that Sulla was wiser than Caesar, again POV. It's editorial. We know very little about Sulla's and Caesar's deaths compared to the deaths of say Napoleon, Lincoln, or Kennedy and yet here we are asked to accept sweeping POV editorial judgements based on very few facts.

Who's to say who was wiser? Isn't it conceivable that a Julius Caesar might have actively sought a spectacular murder rather than decrepitude? We don't know and we should not speculate, and we certainly should be neutral.

Finally, here's a new point. Why compare Sulla's death with Caesar's? How is Caesar's death relevant in an article on Sulla given that Caesar died 35 years later? It's a pure comparative study to compare the two; it's creative writing. Comparing lives might have been OK for Plutarch, but it's not OK for Wiki. Vincent 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vfp15, you are now in the realm of fantasy, please just leave alone, if you had any hand in contributing to this article, instead of sniping from the sidelines, your points might have more weight, please read and understand what Andrew darby has written above...Sulla16 2-22-07

I did read what Andrew wrote and also what he wrote earlier: the text "strays from the facts." Also what fdewaele wrote: "Methinks said disputed paragraph is merely and purely opinion" That's two people who think the text is PoV, me (very strongly) fdewaele (strongly) plus Andrew who thinks the text strays from the facts. Vincent 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the ABC quote as such. It's a good quote and belongs in the article. It's the part starting with "in retrospect" that smells like POV and is purely opinion. The fact remains that regardless of their ultimate fate, it was Caesar's waork that stands and Sulla's that was fleeting. Caesar meant by the ABC quote that by giving up power, Sulla had allowed that within ten years following his resignation everything he had worked for (the harnessing of the tribunes, restoring the pwoer of the optimates,...) was undone and forty years later the Republic itself even fell. By not clinging to power he failed to preserve hsi political legacy. -- fdewaele, 23 February 2007, 9:00.

Part of Sulla's work was indeed fleeting, other parts were very long lasting - his reform of the judicial system lasted long into the Principate. From a constitutional point of view, Caesar's legacy to Rome was just as fleeting. His legacy in history was in large part due to self promotion (not that Sulla hadn't tried to do the same with his Commentaries). The point of the last sentence is to point out that as a direct result of Caesar's actions and words, he was assassinated (not a good outcome, most would agree), Sulla on the other hand, died a natural death precisely because he did give up absolute power (dying naturally in bed, as opposed to being assassinated, would be regarded as a good result by most people). Ergo. in this particular instance, Sulla had the better time of it, and can reasonably be regarded in an historical light to have been wiser that Caesar in resigning the Dictatorship. Sulla16 2-23-07

Not necessary. The situation was completely different in that Sulla was the ringleader of the old order and he fought for the restoration of his and his fellow nobles "rights" whereas Caesar as the leader of the new order could not simply resign without seeing everything he had worked for collapse and undone (the lesson of Sulla's legacy). Sulla also had the "good fortune" of dying very soon after resigning the dictatorship at a time when his confederates were still in full power and he thus was protected by them. As he only lived for a sort while as a retiree, it's impossible to deduct what his fate would have been had he lived longer. On the other hand, Caesar's politics had been one of clemency whereas Sulla's was vengeance: he proscribed his opponents, making that there were little of his enemies still alive and available for murdering him. One could make the argument that in the end it wasn't Caesar's dictatorship for life that killed him it was his own clemency! Just look at all those who conspired to kill them! Not all of them were his former men like Trebonius! the majority were men he had pardoned. As to Sulla's judicial reforms: even those were abandonded: Caesar's uncle Cotta was given the task as a praetor to reform the judicial system in the 60s BC. -- fdewaele 23 february 2007, 15:40

Taking your point on judicial reforms first, please see Wilhelm Ihne page 416 http://books.google.com/books?id=IHYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA3-PA416&lpg=RA3-PA416&dq=%22sulla's+judicial+reforms%22&source=web&ots=rvLY85VjJP&sig=M3XEC2cNDPW3qpk_lu29gKC_Ru8#PRA3-PA416,M1</ref>. pointing out that his judicial reforms lasted and were the basis of the legal system throughout the imperial period. Now to your first point, 1) Sulla was surrounded by his former soldiers (highly loyal to him as evidenced by his funeral) and the "Cornelii' freed slaves, and it is highly unlikely that anyone would have dared touch him, added to the fact that his lieutenants were very much to the fore in the following ten years from 78 BC. 2) As the reference in my previous post indicates, it was Caesars arrogance in dealing with the Senate and also in large part, his policy of clementia that contributed to his downfallWilhelm Ihne (see second last paragraph, in Ihne exactly validates my point) page 452 http://books.google.com/books?id=IHYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA3-PA416&lpg=RA3-PA416&dq=%22sulla's+judicial+reforms%22&source=web&ots=rvLY85VjJP&sig=M3XEC2cNDPW3qpk_lu29gKC_Ru8#PRA3-PA452,M1</ref>., had he murdered all his opponents like Sulla had, possibly the plot may never have materialized (pure speculation, I know). Following Caesar's assassination, the whole republican system did in fact collapse into civil war and the dictatorship was abolished. 3) One of the reasons Caesar's name shines so brightly through history, is as a result of who won the civil war. Octavian, a plebian, needed his relationship with the Julian house magnified to legitimize his own position. Had Marcus Antonius won the civil war, things might have been different. Both Sulla and Caesar ultimately failed, in terms of what they tried to achieve for Rome. Finally I am not trying to say or defend the proposition that Sulla was wiser man than than Caesar, that is up to more knowledgable commentators than me! What I am defending, is that on Caesar's ABC comment, history records that Sulla survived his dictatorship, Caesar died in his, and therefore on this very narrow issue: (Caesar criticizing Sulla for resigning the dictatorship), Sulla was wiser to resign it and retire and survive than to retain it. ps. (Sulla may quite possibly have suffered the same fate as Caesar had he clung on to power; although, that would be pure speculation, of course!) Sulla16 2-23-07

If you're dead set on comparing JC & S, why not just rewrite in more (much more!) neutral language? Instead of rewriting for compromise, you just reinsert, and then you make it worse by expanding. As it stands the whole passage is PoV. Begin by toning it down, then we can talk about a compromise. Vincent 07:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are now removing sourced references (which directly corroborate the sentence) that is vandalism, if you continue, I will refer this to Wikipedia complaints. Sulla16 2-24-07

Please do so. I'd like to point out that I have been patient where you have resorted to insult ("the realm of fantasy" bit). I even offered a compromise after you made your PoV text even longer. So please, by all means do complain. Vincent 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

WOULD YOU BOTH PLEASE STOP. This "ABC dispute" has clearly become an edit war in which neither side behaves sensibly. Apparently as neither of you can solve this dispute in an amicably and open way, clearly others should decide. I'm strongly suggest you cease changing it while referring this to mediation. -- fdewaele, 26 February 2007, 16:07.

I asked for a moderator yesterday - Sulla16 2-26-07

Hey, I'm open to compromise. I am removing PoV, Sulla16 is reinserting PoV. I'm not interested in rewriting opinion, but if Sulla16 simply rewrote the passage in more neutral language, I'd leave it alone. Since he's the supposed Sulla expert, that should be easy for him.

But first, have a look at this. This was the original modification I made. Notice I carefully explained in the comment why I was making the change. Then look at the comment to Sulla16's first revert: rv pov pov!!!. No attempt at all to find a compromise, no attempt at all to soften the language.

In fact he makes it worse by adding a POV quote. The only thing his source shows was that Suetonius thought Caesar arrogant. That's Suetonius's POV, perhaps totally valid, but wiki should be NPOV.

As for how the discussion went, here's how things proceeded.

• First I made my point.

• Then Sulla16 disagreed, so far so good (apart from that rv pov pov!!! comment earlier) and I continued.

• But then when I wanted to move the discussion, he orders (!) me not to touch it. The point of wiki is that it's freely editable and that no one owns articles. (Except Sulla16 it seems.)

I don't want to talk too much about content, but even Sulla16 admits here the passage evokes sentiment, hence POV.

And still he reverts and expands. That's pretty much all I have to say. It's very easy to say STOP IT BOTH OF YOU but who's the one open to compromise here? Vincent 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument seems a waste of time to me. It's good if we now know that the idea of "arrogance" comes from Suetonius. Wikipedia has an answer to that. Make it explicit that it's a quote from Suetonius. Wikipedia thus remains NPOV while displaying the POV of the sources.

Because, let's face it, if you abstain from mentioning details that are or may be POV in cited sources, there will be no worthwhile Wikipedia articles about ancient history at all. Andrew Dalby 10:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The most important policy of Wikipedia is that articles must be NPOV. If one must cite POV sources, then these quotes and citations belong in a section devoted to various viewpoints (e.g. Historical Consensus or whatever), not in the main body of the article. And even then, there would have to be more than one POV example. Vincent 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this quote somewhere else (although can't remember where). If you (Sulla16) want it in then source it otherwise leave it out. As it stands now it's pretty poorly written anyway. LC Svlla 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one of my points: it's pretty poorly written, esp. in a POV way.Vincent 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment is sourced, if Vpf15 would just leave it aloneSulla16 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's still POV. "Neutral point of view" means neutral it doesn't mean sourced point of view. Sulla16, why are you insisting on your point of view? Why are you expanding it? Why are you not looking for compromise? I don't object to the Suetonius quote except that it's used to support a POV statement, so if I take out the statement, of course the quote goes too.

I will not stand by and let opinionated editors put in expressions like "supreme confidence" and statements like "history showed Sulla to be wiser". That's pure value judgement, even if held by others. If you say "Suetonius thought it so, therefore it's factual" you are making an appeal to authority called an ad hominem argument. That is false logic.

If a quote like that belongs anywhere, it belongs in "Legacy". If you want your text in, why don't you rewrite it (avoiding weasel words of course)? The passage can also be toned down (under the legacy header) by avoiding pejorative words like "supreme" and controversial judgments like "Sulla was the wiser".

Next point. if you're going to use a template, make sure it's a working template, otherwise you should remove it. You should not practive on live articles. I left the article as it is with the dead template link to give you the opportunity to correct it yourself.

Next point. You keep telling me to leave it alone. I am leaving it alone. I hold the opposite viewpoint (I think Caeser was the wiser and greater man) but I don't go inserting my POV into the article! Of course Caesar was the wiser man. His reforms survived him, Sulla's did not. Don't we still use a slightly modified version of the Julian calendar 2000 years after Caesar instituted it.

As for dying in bed vs. dying murdered in the forum, well I'm in hospital at this very moment recovering from abdominal surgery. Even under the best of care (Jikei is a great hospital BTW) this was painful for a few days. It's not much, but it's enough to convince me that suffering in bed for a year with my organs failing is NOT the way I'd like to go. But that's my POV, so I won't put it in the article.

Finally, I checked your contribitions and I see no attempt to ask for mediation since February 28th. That was eight days ago. Why are you writing in your comments that you are looking for mediation when you haven't done so in 8 days? Vincent 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I have taken a few days to think things over. I edited the POV text and took the quote out of the Dictatorship section but I have pasted it back in the Legacy section, as I had urged Sulla16 to do himself. Note thatI left out the items "lesson in supreme confidence" and "Sulla was to have the last laugh". These two items are completely POV and judgemental. It is factual to say that Caesar ridiculed Sulla, it is opinion to say Caesar was wrong. That depends on one's point of view.

I strongly suggest to Sulla16 that he accept the compromise. If he does not accept the compromise and if he reinserts the text as it was and where it was, I will have to take the case to arbitration (one level higher than mediation) and ask that his account be suspended for a short period and that he be banned from the Sulla page for a much longer period. Vincent 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible compromise. I urge you both to accept it and adhere to it. -- fdewaele, 12 March 2007, 9:08.

Seems Sulla16 disagrees, so I reverted, but to show good faith, I reverted to the proposed compromise. I did not eliminate the whole text, I left most of it in legacy. Sulla16 is showing bad faith. Vincent 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No I do not agree, and I want to see the outcome of mediationNick 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ps. it would be ironic to ban me from the Sulla page as I wrote 80% of itNick 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So you think you own the page? Sorry, you don't. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, the Main Page says very clearly that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia:About page says it's written collaboratively. It would not be ironic at all if you were banned from editing the Sulla article because you are behaving in an uncompromising manner. Vincent 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased the section in dispute to make it less POV, but keeping the quote from Caesar, which is not POV. If anyone has a probkem with it please discuss. -R. fiend 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Nick (who used to sign Sulla16) keeps reverting to his POV version commenting that he wants to wait for the result of mediation. However apart from signing the Request for mediation page he has been doing just that: waiting for mediation. He hasn't participated, he has only gone on with his reverts. After NPOV, core Wikipedia values include collective participation and consensus. Nick is not following this by telling me earlier I can't edit, by implying (see above) that his voice carries more weight because he's written "80% of the article" and by ignoring the mediation process. Any thoughts? Vincent 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Request for Comment: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

This is a dispute about one small section of the Sulla article. 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute

Statement by Sulla16

1) The quote is a sourced reference.

2) I agreed with the compromise suggested by [Yxrael] in our mediation, that the disputed section should re-phrased as follows:

...This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". As Ihne indicated in his history of the period: "...in retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed." [9]

3) I also agreed to remove the Suetonius text from the article, just leaving the reference link (10).

4) Vincent is the one that abandoned mediation, despite [Yxrael] suggesting we should continue to try for a resolution, something I totally agree with and am more than happy to try.

Finally, I also have no intention in getting into a pointless and childish "who said such and such...or suggesting this or that person should be banned", It is not my place. All I want is for this to be arbitrated fairly, based on Wikipedia rules, and the fact that historical articles are by their very nature subject to a certain amount of "interpretation of events" (determined by whoever wrote the history in the first place - in many cases the winner of a conflict). It would be impossible to to have any historical perspective of events in Wikipedia, if this is not accepted. Suetonius (writing well after events had taken place) would be right out as an historical source, if this were not the case, and our knowledge of Ancient times would be severely compromised. History fortunately or otherwise is not like scientific fact and historical articles need to take that into account. 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Statement by Vfp15

1) The quote Sulla16 means is which quote? There are four quotes at issue:

i) Unsourced, "This lesson in supreme confidence";

ii) Unsourced, "Of the two Sulla was said to have the last laugh";

iii) Sourced, Caesar's quote that Sulla did not know his political abc;

iv) Sourced, Suetonius's comments on Caesar.

The wording of i) and ii) is not sourced, those two phrases are just comments on sourced material. This is the crux of the dispute. Sulla16 insists on putting in those words, which I believe they are his own.

As for quotes iii) and iv) I think they belong in a reference or legacy section, not in the main body of the article.

2) Xyrael, the mediator in the RfM, did not support, suggest, or endorse any specific compromise. He just urged that we reach a compromise but I believe he stayed neutral and favored neither of us in the dispute.

3) Sulla16 says he accepted a compromise, but he insisted on retaining "supreme lesson" and "last laugh". In other words, Sulla16's idea of a compromise was to leave the article exactly as I found it, with a quote he added later moved to a reference.

4) I did abandon mediation when Sulla16 began misrepresenting what the mediator said, and when he stated the above was a compromise. I feel private mediation is fruitless at this point and prefer going back to a public discussion so I opened a Request for Arbitration. This was justified

Finally, behaviour is important in Wikipedia. Sulla16 has made personal attacks on me, he's given me orders to leave the article alone, and despite what he says, Sulla16 was not looking for compromise. It's OK to provide a variety of historical quotes having POV, as long as on the whole they are NPOV. It's not OK to write one's own POV or to select quotes with the sole purpose of pushing one's POV.

Vincent 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggested by R. fiend

All of that aside, do you have any objections to the current phrasing of the article, now that "supreme sacrifice" and "last laugh" have been removed? I suppose you want it moved to a different section, but I think it's fine where it is. The body of the article is where most information belongs; I would hate to see the Caesar quote moved to some "trivia" section for instance, which is all the rage these days. Sulla16 has agreed to the current compromise; if you can as well we can call the matter settled. -R. fiend 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Suetonius quote is too long to stay in the main body as it is; it's longer on its own than the rest of the disputed text! And anyway it's about Caesar rather than about Sulla.

Also, the text as a whole is unbalanced because it clearly implies Sulla's dictatorship was more successful. If we are to have POV, we should have POV1+POV2=NPOV, not POV2 (Suetonius's) used to invalidate POV1 (Caesar's). For example we could put the whole Suetonius quote in reference and write something like the following in the main body:

In a manner which the historian Suetonius thought arrogant , Caesar later ridiculed Sulla for these actions, stating "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". However, comparing the two dictatorships, it should be noted that Caesar was assassinated because of his dictatorship, but with his reforms surviving him, while Sulla died of natural causes after resigning his, but with his reforms undone.

Or

In a manner which the historian Suetonius thought arrogant , Caesar later ridiculed Sulla for these actions, stating "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". However, comparing the two dictatorships, it should be noted that Caesar was assassinated because of his dictatorship while Sulla died of natural causes after resigning his. Yet Caesar's reforms survived him, while Sulla's did not.

Or

In a manner which the historian Suetonius thought arrogant , Caesar later ridiculed Sulla for these actions, stating "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". However, comparing the two dictatorships, it should be noted that Caesar's reforms survived him, while Sulla's did not. Yet Caesar was assassinated because of his dictatorship while Sulla died of natural causes after resigning his.

Any of the three versions above are OK with me as they are. The second favours Caesar a tiny bit, the third favours Sulla a tiny bit, the first is the most neutral but also the hardest to read. Vincent 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pope Gregory must be spinning in his grave! Leaving aside Vincent's lack of historical knowledge generally; specifically in the case of Sulla and Caesar and his assertions of relative success (I have tried to paint Sulla in this article with "warts and all") - a large part of Sulla's constitutional reforms lasted well into the Principate (his reorganization of the courts and legal system, is just one example). Also, his Senate reorganization (increased membership to 600 and qualifications for admittance), while adjusted by Caesar to 900, was returned to the basic Sullan 600 model by Augustus. In light of this, I am having a tough time taking Vincent seriously, as even a junior-high school scholar of the period! For me, I think that R. fiend has come up with an equitable and balanced solution, and this section of the article should now rest for a period. Nick 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally this is an interesting quote from Vincent, he can't be bothered to research and contribute to the Sulla article, but is more than happy to impose his viewpoint from a state of ignorance:

• "Understood about the limitation of the mediation committee's remit. Thanks for the interest. I'm not interested enough in Sulla to research and source corrections myself, I am however interested in NPOV and compromise." Cheers Vincent 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nick 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On an accuracy point, there is no evidence that Sulla reformed the courts - it's a modern myth, I'm afraid. Most of his reforms did fail or were ignored - the article isn't completely accurate for much of the effects of his reforms and their specifics. Caesar was technically more successful as many of his changes to the constitution did survive - the two I can think of off the top of my head are his agrarian legislation and reforms of the legal system (mainly grain laws), and Augustus took a lot of credit as many were put into practice under him, although proposed by Caesar. Also with mild trepidation at wading into a debate, the Suetonius quote can also be taken several ways - Caesar could be saying that Sulla did not go far enough, as he resigned power when he hadn't done enough. But *shrugs*...Sulla's enough of an argument by himself as it is. Tbarker 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see: Outlines of Roman History by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: American Book Company (1901). IV. THE DICTATORSHIP OF SULLA (B.C. 82-79) http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey20.html 1901 could be considered modern I suppose...

Sulla passes a series of laws, setting up courts to try cases of murder, extortion, treason, bribery and insults.

• Read Cicero's account

@ Cic:Clu_151, 154, :Pis_50, :RabPost_8-9,* :Fam_3.11'2; Sen:Apocol_14'1; Justin:Dig_1.2.2'32<q"L Pomponius>, 29.5.25'1<q" Gaius>, 48.5.23'2<q" Papinian>; Justin:Dig_9.2.5'1,L 47.10.5'1-7, 7'1<q" Ulpian>; Justin:Dig_47.10.37'1, 48.8'1-17<q" Marcian>; Justin:Dig_47.13'2, 48.5.33'1<q" Macer>; Justin:Dig_48.2.12'4<q" Venuleius>; {CAH_9'503, '512; OCD_s.}

Perhaps this one is a little more contemporary...

There are many other examples, ancient and modern, I rest my case Nick 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick, the orthodox churches still use the Julian calendar today, that's why orthodox Christmas and Easter don't match with the rest of the western world. Russia used it officially until early in the 20th century and England used it well into the 18th century. In any case, the Gregorian calendar is a minor adjustment done 15 centuries later to Caesar's calendar.

As for the quote you made of my postings: I agree with it. Many wikipedians go around taking "janitorial" duties. I am more interested in a good NPOV article than in Sulla. NPOV is the second pillar of Wikipedia and no personal attacks is part of the fourth), which you have again broken (I bolded the text in the first line of your last post).

As for compromise, I'd like to point out you never offered any compromise. You started by reverting, then you expanded your POV. You rejected my earlier compromise, and now you are rejecting my second compromise, without providing an alternative of your own. The arbitrators have rejected the RfA because it was premature, but if you keep on this way it won't be premature anymore. Vincent 01:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Resumption of edits

The mediation is closed, the Arb committee won't hear the case, so I will start editing again. I inserted what I suggested above, with the full text of the Suetonius quote in reference below along with the other footnotes.Vincent 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sooo frightened by you threats. I am curious as to how many times you have been banned from editing for being disruptive, more than a couple I'll wager. Sulla16 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks & compromise

Nick, you have now made at least three personal attacks on me. I've put them in bold. Read the five pillars page and then follow the link on personal attacks. If you persist in making personal attacks, you will be blocked. That's not a threat, it's policy. Coming from me it cannot be a threat since I am not an administrator and cannot block. I am pointing out what happens to wikipedians who do make personal attacks.

Also, please understand that Xyrael never endorsed a specific compromise as you say he did. His opinion was that we could achieve a compromise he never endorsed one in particular. You imagined he endorsed a change back to the original wording with the Suetonius quote in a footnote. He did not. He was neutral.

You'll note that during the RfM which I started, I left the page at your version. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

As for compromise, let's compare what you want with what I want.

• What I want: the four quotes completely out of the whole article.
• What you want: the four quotes completely in the main text of the article.
• What R. Fiend proposed: the first two quotes out, the last two quotes in the main body.
• What I counterproposed: the first two quotes out, the third quote (Caesar's) in the main body qualified with a reference to the fourth quote moved to the footnotes.

I think that's fair and it's what cooperation is all about. It's not about banning every idea I might have because you seemingly think I'm an annoying little prat. I'm willing to listen to other proposals but you never make them. For example I'd consider your putting a much shorter version of the Suetonius quote in the main body, with the full version in footnotes.

How far can that be from what you'd accept given that you even wrote in your official statement that you "also agreed to remove the Suetonius text from the article, just leaving the reference link". Vincent 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Septentrionalis

The following sentences seem to be the bone of contention:

However, comparing the two dictatorships, it should be noted that Caesar's reforms survived him, while Sulla's did not. Yet Caesar was assassinated because of his dictatorship while Sulla died of natural causes after resigning his.

They are unsourced; and I believe unsourceable. Some of Sulla's reforms, chiefly the cursus honorum, did survive him; several of Caesar's actions survived only in the sense that something of the same name was adopted by Augustus. Sulla died of natural causes four years after his coup. If Caesar had done the same, he would never have been assasssinated; and Caesar did (formally) resign his first dictatorship, in 49 BC.

I find this whole section original research, and oppose the inclusion of any of it; I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Your version is much better than the one I put up, so I reverted to it. Thanks. Vincent 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vincent, you know you could have just countered Suetonius w/ Plutarch. anyways, it smells like original research. if you must make a comparison between dictators, best to find a source first, no? i'm rabidly anti-Sulla, so i'll stick to arguments of form. Do enjoy the debate from the sidelines, and one last note, i wouldn't hold Caesar's assassination as evidence of a mistake or fault on his part, Shakespeare aside. And reading Appian can leave one wondering which was more dangerous, Sulla's army or his bank account. The Jackal God 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jackal. Sulla16 just keeps reverting, the Suetonius quote is about Caesar anyway so rather than counter it with still more stuff, I think it's best to just remove the quote. I won't oppose reinserting it (as a reference, not in main body) if someone besides Sulla16 really really wants it in. Like I said before: he wants all four of his "quotes" in, I was willing to accept the two sourced one, one in the text & one in ref, but Sulla16 is being uncooperative and I think I've tried hard enough to accommodate him. Vincent 06:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Quite apart from the above edit war, which has gone on long enough, the whole article contains too much original research, POV, outright speculation, etc. I've begun the cleanup task. It's really too bad: Sulla16 could have participated productively in this process, but it seems he'll just go on reverting and reverting. Vincent 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

At the end of the references part of this article, someone has written PENIS several times in all caps. n00b that I am, I can't figure out how to fix it, as it doesnt show up on the edit page for some reason. Why is this? I was excited to be this crusading anti-vandalism editor and was sadly thwarted in this ambition. Anyway, someone older and wiser ought to take care of it posthaste. Robberex 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Robberex

Sulla's First Wife

"First wife, Ilia (possibly Julia (Julilla) Minor, Aunt of Gaius Julius Caesar)" [2]

Shouldn't this be corrected? See

"Sulla occasionally becomes the central figure of the narrative; there are several lengthy sections dealing with his plot to murder the two wealthy women with whom he lives, his use of the newfound wealth in establishing himself politically, his homosexual relationship with the Greek actor-child Metrobius, and his marriage to the (fictional) younger daughter of 'Julius Caesar Grandfather', Julilla." [3]

Julilla as a wife of Sulla is an invention by the novelist Colleen McCullough. She herself notes that in her book.

Sulla first wife Ilia/Julia (McCullough's Julilla) was not Caesar's aunt. That distinction goes to Julia, the wife of Caius Marius, who herself died in 69 BC. Arthur Keaveney (2005) "Sulla: the Last Republican" 2nd ed p. 8 (i.e. in the most recent biography of Sulla) briefly discusses the identity of Ilia: "There is some confusion over her name which may have been either Ilia or Julia. If we assume the latter to be correct then she could have been a sister of the famous orator Caesar Strabo [i.e. C. Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus] and L. Julius Caesar who was to be consul in 90." Hence IF Julia was sister to Strabo and L. Caesar (itself no means certain but possible) her relationship to Julius Caesar the dictator would have been first-cousin once-removed. I have edited the article appropriately.82.44.82.167 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Catiline63

then you should source this in the article itself (footnote) instead of simply chaning the text. -- fdewaele, 22 february 2008, 10:55. CET

As should have your assertion that she was his aunt... 82.44.82.167 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Catiline63

Sexuality

I just read a book by Colleen McGuhlough in which is stated this Sulla was bisexual. I could not find this in the article. Should it perhaps be included in the article, or at least searched for? It wasn't the first time I read about it, so I wander... Angela from the Blue (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is to be assumed, what with Sulla being with Metrobius, yet having been married 4 times. --Agreatguy6 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...Colleen McGillicuddy being a novelist...great resource The Jackal God (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that the entire concept of "sexual orientation" is only a modern construct and inappropriate in this context; sex was defined more along the lines of active and passive partners, and gender was largely immaterial. For example, the person of a higher social class was expected to be the dominant partner during a sexual encounter, and it didn't really matter which gender the passive partner belonged to.

Primary Sources

Out of curiosity, what are the other Primary Sources on Sulla available outside of Plutarch, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Livy? It's for a school final, so I thought this might at least lead me in the right direction, much appreciated --Agreatguy6 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, and some parts of Cicero are also valuable primary sources on Sulla and the wider 90s and 80s BC. You might get even more marks if you mention Eutropius, Orosius, and Granius Licinianus. English text for Velleius Paterculus is available at Bill Theyer's brilliant 'Lacus Curtius' site. English text for Granius Licinianus is at 'Attalus.org'. An Enlish version of Eutropius is at 'Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum'. Good luck! 82.44.82.167 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks! --Agreatguy6 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Flowery and POV edit to introduction

Addition to the introduction made by Fabartus on 27 May 2008:

"Sulla... was the first roman general to use his troops against Roman political opponents. In his career, due to such ruthless machinations, he ended up holding the office of consul twice as well as the dictatorship. This set the stage for other generals, in particular Julius Caesar, leading to the end of the Roman Republic, and setting the precedent that would in the future frequently be used to settle succession questions of the Empire. A gifted and effective general, Sulla marched his armies on Rome twice, ruthlessly murdering opposition and furthering the cause of supporters in the Roman Senate— and by such alteration of the political make-up, came to enjoy the absolute power of a dictator when named "dictator rei publicae constituendae" ("Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic") —among the last to do so under the Republic. Though he resigned his office following the customary six month time limit, his complete command of the Republic and use of proscription par excellence in 82 BC as dictator let him install supporters and eliminate so many enemies that he'd become the foremost power in Rome while he lived. Since he set precedent going against the Senate, by employing assassination of opponents and by marching on the capital itself, he is often condemned by historians as having hastened the end of the Republic by his example, and as having set bad precedents for the empire to follow."

This essay shows little understanding of the subtleties of the situation in the 80s BC. First, POV language: "the first Roman general to use his troops against Roman political opponents", "ruthless machinations", "ruthlessly murdering", "furthering the cause of supporters in the Roman Senate", "use of proscription par excellance", "eliminate... enemies", and "assassinating... opponents" is all POV. Much of is also wrong. The errors and misunderstandings are interlinked.

Sulla was not the first Roman commander to use his position to kill his opponents. Indeed one of the very reasons for Sulla's opposition to the regimes of Cinna and Marius was that many of his friends had been eliminated during their "rule". In 86/5 (under Marius and Cinna), many were killed in Italy, including over half a dozen consulars (mostly old men, thus non-military), the father of Marcus Crassus, and several of the Julii Caesares. A tribune was also flung from the Tarpeian Rock. In itself this last matter was a capital offence.

When, in 82, Sulla's forces were approaching Rome - in order, so he (truthfully, as it turns out) stated to free the city from such unlawfullness - Marius the Younger and Carbo killed a consular and the pontifex maximus, among others.

Thus the reason for Sulla's taking up of dictatorial potestas was not to initiate some new reign of terror but to restore the constitution and the laws of the Republic to the way they had been in the preceding centuries. The Senate was to rule again, its wishes respected, and it was not to be made subordinate to the caprice of unlawful and authoritarian individuals such as Cinna, Marius, and Carbo. Only a dictator could carry out such a recovery in a short time. Sulla's full title - dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae - illustrates his intentions and his traditionalist sentiments, as the fact that he resigned (not to have done so would have been unlawful and would have made him a hypocrite). The proscriptions that followed were a continuation of that programme of restoration. True, some innocents seem to have been killed, but those who were implicated in and/or had profited from the recent lawlessness were its primary targets. Those who were killed were killed as criminals and traitors, enemies of the Republic not as enemies of Sulla personally.

Finally, while it is true that Sulla's second march on Rome provided a precedent for Caesar, that aspect was already addressed in the article as it existed.82.44.82.167 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A contribution from user Sulla16

I'm untrusting of the quality (necessity and validity) of the changes introduced by Sulla16 in edit 152467867. This change contributes a lot but, where I'm competent to judge, I find the changes bad. Where I don't find them bad, I'm not competent to judge. Unfortunately, I'm not competent at all when it comes to history.

Some objections:

1. As a bulk edit ("copy edit"), it doesn't mentions any justification even for the controversial changes.
2. Typography: Replacing of middle dots (·) with bullets (•), for interpunct, in the Roman-style script, and even in Chinese script. I admit that section Similar symbols in the article Interpunct #Similar symbols mentions both symbols as similar, rather than distinguishing a correct one by leaving it out. Still, I don't feel that the Romans intended interpuncts as bullets.
3. Punctuation: "Obsidional or Blockade Crown" was given in quotation marks.
4. Changes for the sake of change (which, like randomness, can produce the effect of "aging"—entropic decrease of the original reliability and quality in thus evolving content):
   1. "Sulla's descendents continued to be prominent in Roman politics, even into the empire imperial period."

      Why was the word "even" incorrect?

   2. "Lacking ready money, Sulla spent his youth amongst Rome’s low-lifes – comics, actors, lute-players, dancers, female prostitutes"

      Why is Sulla16 stays unskeptical about lute-players whereas he removes prostitutes from the equation with such a confidence? He also adds an incorrect apostrophe into "low-life's".

   3. "his" into "this"

      ...in "Machiavelli would later allude to this description of Sulla".

6birc (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

his memoirs?

shame his memoirs Res Gestae were lost. just wow.--69.231.4.192 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)