Why Did Sulla Seal The Fate Of The Roman Republic

with other individuals, such as Caesar, marking on Rome with an army less than 50 years later. Sulla’s military power and subsequent dictatorship broke many Republic traditions and the constitutional model, and in this way it can be interpreted that Sulla’s march on Rome did seal the fate of the Roman Republic.

Additionally, Sulla’s use of violence during the 2nd Civil is also seen to deteriorate the traditions of the Roman Republic government and set another new precedent of conduct in Rome, with Paterculus citing Sulla had ‘carte blanche for unrestrained conduct in Rome’. (Velleius Paterculus 2.28) Sulla issued a series of proscriptions, a list of individuals that he deemed enemies of the state. The programme was not purely for those whom

(Appian, Civil Wars 100) Despite the tribunes losing much power to initiate legislation, Cicero implies the government was more stable, and therefore strengthening the Roman Republic.

Despite the huge changes he made to the Roman political sphere, Sulla abdicated as dictator and retirement from Roman politics in 81 BC along with restoring the people’s right to elect consuls. Rev. Hubert A. Holden writes that Sulla was ‘proud of his uniquely faithful fortune’ and that he gave up his power willingly. This showcases Sulla’s attempt to revert Rome back to more conservative Republican values, exemplifying the interpretation that Sulla’s march on Rome did not seal the fate of the Roman Republic. Badian supports this viewpoint, writing that the government was ‘reconstituted’ in 80 BC, after Sulla abdicated, and that politics could begin again according to old rules. Therefore it can be seen that despite the severity of Sulla’s time in office as dictator, his abdication suggests a sense of regret, with scholars indicating that political life saw more Republican traditions after 81

One interpretation is that Caesar’s life long dictatorship imposed in 44 BC, marked the true end of the Roman Republic. Sulla’s intentions arguably were to bring back peace and stability to Rome, Cicero explains Caesar’s to be extremely different. He writes that Caesar was a 'man who conceived a great desire to be king of the Romans and master of the entire world’.(Cicero, On Duties 3.83) This showcases how Caesar’s march on Rome and subsequent dictatorship was different from Sulla’s as his intentions were to create a long-lasting tyrannical rule. Guy Williams cites how Caesar’s rule imposed more of a threat to the Roman Republic, and that Cicero who had favoured Caesar began to resent the growing power of Caesar. Therefore, it can be interpreted that it was not Sulla’s march on Rome that sealed that fate of Roman Republic, but it was Caesar’s march and his subsequent