Sulla’s Actions Against His Political Enemies and Their Relevance to Modern America: The Dangers of Overriding Republican Institutions

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Sulla’s Actions Against His Political Enemies and Their Relevance to Modern America: The Dangers of Overriding Republican Institutions

Introduction

The history of the Roman Republic, particularly in its final centuries, offers powerful lessons on the fragility of republican institutions when a politically ambitious leader gains excessive power. Among the most influential and controversial figures of the late Republic was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, whose rise to power and methods for dealing with political opponents profoundly altered the Roman political system. Sulla’s use of violence, purges, and legal reforms to consolidate his power provides an instructive case study in the dangers posed by a politically powerful individual overriding republican institutions. This essay explores the actions of Sulla against his political enemies, focusing on his proscriptions and the erosion of republican norms, and demonstrates how an understanding of his reign can inform contemporary concerns about the potential dangers of a politically powerful leader disregarding democratic principles and undermining institutional checks and balances in modern America.

The Political Landscape of the Roman Republic

The Roman Republic, which had functioned for centuries, was a complex system of governance that balanced power between elected officials, the Senate, and popular assemblies. However, by the late second century BC, the Roman political system faced significant challenges. The expansion of Roman territory, the vast accumulation of wealth, and the growing disparity between the elite and the common people strained the republican institutions. Political factions—primarily the Optimates, representing the interests of the aristocracy, and the Populares, who sought to increase the power of the lower classes—became increasingly polarized. The Roman Republic was also marked by significant military influence, as generals often commanded large, loyal armies that were typically more loyal to their leaders than to the Roman state.

The political unrest of this period culminated in a series of civil wars, and Sulla’s actions would directly contribute to the demise of the Republic. By the time Sulla was appointed as consul in 88 BC, the Republic was already unstable, with political violence, shifting alliances, and military intervention becoming regular features of Roman politics. Sulla’s career and his response to his political opponents would help catalyze the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of autocratic rule under Gaius Octavianus, also known as Augustus.

The Rise of Sulla: Conflict with Marius and the First March on Rome

Sulla’s path to power was intricately tied to his rivalry with Gaius Marius, a general and prominent figure of the Populares faction. Marius was a man of the people who had significant support among the lower classes and had been responsible for military reforms that allowed the poor to enlist in the Roman army. His political ambitions and his rivalry with the Optimates created tensions in Roman politics.

In 88 BC, Sulla was appointed to command the Roman army in the war against King Mithridates VI Eupator of The Kingdom of Pontus. However, Marius, with the backing of the Populares, maneuvered to have the command transferred to him. In response, Sulla marched his army on Rome—the first time in Roman history that a general used military force to seize control of the city. This unprecedented action was not just a military revolt; it was a direct challenge to the traditional republican system that depended on the separation of powers and the peaceful transfer of authority.

Sulla’s first march on Rome resulted in a brief period of victory for Sulla. He expelled Marius and his supporters from Rome, and Sulla’s forces gained control of the Senate. However, Sulla was forced to leave Rome shortly thereafter to continue the campaign against Mithridates, only to return several years later in 83 BC to complete his rise to power and enact his revenge on his enemies. This event marked a crucial turning point, demonstrating the vulnerability of republican institutions when military force could be used as a tool to settle political disputes.

The Second March on Rome and the Rise to Dictatorship

In 83 BC, after Sulla’s successful campaign in the East, he returned to Rome with a large and loyal army, initiating a civil war against the forces of the Populares, which were now led by Marius’ allies. The conflict, which culminated in the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 BC, resulted in Sulla’s decisive victory. Following his military triumph, Sulla took drastic steps to secure his power.

Sulla’s first action after defeating the opposition was to declare himself dictator for an indefinite period. This move effectively ended the tradition of temporary dictatorial power, which had been used only in times of crisis and for a fixed duration. Sulla’s assumption of dictatorial power was a direct affront to the republican principle of collective leadership and the separation of powers. Rather than restoring republican norms, Sulla sought to solidify his control by systematically removing any potential rivals, thereby undermining the very foundation of Roman political institutions.

The Proscriptions: Purges of Political Enemies

One of Sulla’s most infamous actions was the implementation of the proscriptions—state-sanctioned lists of political enemies marked for death. Sulla used the proscriptions not only as a tool of retribution but also as a means to consolidate his power by eliminating those who could challenge his authority. The proscriptions were far-reaching, and the list of those targeted was extensive, including many of Sulla’s former allies, individuals who had once been loyal to the Senate, and even prominent Roman citizens, such as the orator Marcus Tullius Cicero, whose life was spared but whose family was affected.

The proscriptions had several key elements:

1. Elimination of Rivals: Sulla sought to rid the Roman political landscape of those who could oppose him, including political figures from the Populares faction and others who had shown disloyalty. The targets included not only military and political leaders but also wealthy citizens, whose assets were seized by Sulla’s regime.

2. Legalization of Political Violence: The proscriptions marked a radical departure from Roman legal traditions. The accused did not have the opportunity for trial; rather, they were declared enemies of the state and executed on sight. This practice of legal murder undermined the authority of the Roman courts and allowed Sulla to eliminate those who posed any threat to his rule with impunity.

3. Rewarding Loyalists: The proscriptions were also a means of rewarding Sulla’s supporters. Soldiers who participated in the executions were allowed to keep the property of those killed, incentivizing loyalty through financial gain. This practice deepened the personal loyalty of Sulla’s military and reinforced his control over the army.

The proscriptions were devastating to the political and social fabric of Rome. They created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, where even the slightest hint of opposition could lead to execution. The use of the proscriptions, with their arbitrary killings and confiscations, signaled the breakdown of republican norms and the increasing reliance on violence to settle political disputes.

Sulla’s Reforms and the Institutionalization of His Power

After consolidating his power through violence and the proscriptions, Sulla turned to reforms designed to strengthen the role of the Senate and weaken the influence of the populist factions. These reforms were intended to ensure that the power structure remained in the hands of the aristocracy and to limit the power of the popular assemblies and the tribunes, who had previously represented the interests of the lower classes.

Sulla’s reforms included:

1. Reducing the Power of the Tribunes: The tribunes had been the chief representatives of the people, with the ability to veto decisions made by the Senate and consuls. Sulla’s reforms curtailed the tribunes’ powers, making it more difficult for them to propose legislation and limiting their ability to challenge the Senate. This was a direct assault on the popular sovereignty that had once been central to the functioning of the Roman Republic.

2. Increasing the Senate’s Authority: Sulla sought to restore the Senate’s traditional dominance in Roman politics. He increased the Senate’s membership and gave it greater control over financial and judicial matters, thus shifting the balance of power toward the elite and away from the popular assemblies.

3. Institutionalizing Military Loyalty: By strengthening the Senate and limiting the power of the people’s tribunes, Sulla ensured that military commanders remained loyal to the Senate, rather than to popular movements or military reformers like Marius. This reinforced the Senate’s control over military and political decisions, but it also reduced the accountability of military leaders to the people of Rome.

While Sulla’s reforms were ostensibly aimed at restoring traditional Roman values, they had the long-term effect of further destabilizing the Republic. The concentration of power in the hands of the Senate and the aristocracy ensured that Roman politics became even more oligarchic and disconnected from the needs of the common people. The precedent set by Sulla—using violence, intimidation, and legal reforms to secure personal power—would have lasting consequences for the Republic. His actions laid the groundwork for future political figures, most notably Gaius Julius Caesar, to further erode republican institutions and establish autocratic rule.

Parallels with Modern America: The Dangers of Overriding Republican Institutions

Sulla’s actions against his political enemies, his use of military power to bypass republican norms, and his subsequent reforms to solidify his dictatorship offer stark lessons for modern political systems, particularly in the United States. While the specific political and historical contexts differ, the fundamental dangers of a politically powerful individual overriding republican institutions are as relevant today as they were in ancient Rome.

The Erosion of Democratic Norms

In modern America, the erosion of democratic norms and the subversion of republican institutions have been a significant concern, especially when political leaders seek to bypass or weaken the checks and balances designed to limit executive power. Similar to Sulla’s disregard for the Senate’s authority, contemporary leaders may attempt to consolidate power by undermining independent institutions, such as the judiciary, the press, and legislative bodies. These efforts are often framed as necessary for the sake of political expediency or national security, but they pose a serious threat to the foundations of democratic governance.

The Use of Political Violence

Sulla’s proscriptions—political purges legitimized by state power—find modern parallels in the use of political violence and intimidation to silence dissent. While modern legal systems generally prohibit such measures, the weaponization of state power against political opponents remains a risk in any society. The spread of political polarization, the use of the state to target opposition groups, and the increasing distrust in legal institutions can pave the way for authoritarian tactics similar to those used by Sulla.

The Centralization of Power

Sulla’s reforms, which aimed to concentrate power in the hands of the Senate and undermine popular institutions, parallel contemporary concerns about the centralization of power in the hands of a single leader or party. The weakening of democratic institutions, particularly those that check the power of the executive, can lead to an erosion of political pluralism and the rise of autocratic tendencies. In the United States, this is seen in debates over executive authority, the criminal prosecution of political opponents on specious charges, the weaponization of the judicial process to confiscate the wealth of political opponents of the executive, the politicization of judicial appointments, and the delegitimization of electoral processes.

Conclusion

The actions of Lucius Cornelius Sulla against his political enemies, his use of violence, purges, and reforms, and his ultimate subversion of Roman republicanism provide valuable lessons for modern political systems, especially in the United States. By examining Sulla’s rise to power and the long-lasting effects of his actions on Roman institutions, modern citizens can better understand the dangers of a politically powerful leader overriding republican norms and concentrating power in an unchecked executive. The fragility of republican systems, when under the control of an individual willing to undermine institutions for personal gain, is a reality that continues to pose a threat to the stability of modern democracies and modern democratic republics.

The lessons of ancient Rome should not be dismissed as a relic of history; rather, they should serve as a cautionary tale about the potential dangers of political authoritarianism and the erosion of republican institutions. By safeguarding democratic norms and ensuring that no individual or group can usurp the powers of republican governance, modern societies can prevent the descent into autocracy that ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Bibliography

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. The Speeches of Cicero. Translated by W. Glynn Williams, Harvard University Press, 2001.

Griffin, Miriam. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. Routledge, 2012.

Syme, Ronald. The Roman Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1939.