Those Who Do Not Learn From... Wait, I Never Learned The End Of That Aphorism

Alexis Smolensk of Business Edge in Canada is a sometimes visitor here. He recently sent me an email about Sulla and Marius, two Consuls who happily encouraged the Roman Republic's decay into the Roman Empire.

Alexis believes America could learn something from this period of Roman history. Fortunately we know that's not true, because Americans are totally different from all humans who've lived before or elsewhere. I'm not sure why this is, but it's one thing we know absolutely for sure.

Nevertheless, this gives Americans an interesting window into the crazy things they're thinking about us in other countries, assuming other countries actually do exist, which has not yet been conclusively proven.

by Alexis Smolensk

Both Sulla and Marius should be looked at very closely by anyone living in America at the moment. Both of them were quality generals; Sulla was a pupil of Marius.

Let me apologize if any of this repeats things you already know, but I just want to make sure the background is there.

The Roman Republic was established in 509 BC after the rule of kings was overthrown by one Brutus, great great ancestor of the Brutus who later does the deed with Caesar. The Roman state was based upon a rather unequal arrangement of voting by wealth (after all, this was 25 centuries ago, so any kind of vote was forward thinking). The state was overseen by two consuls, who were elected yearly. In fact the American system of President/Vice-President was based upon this idea--that if one were killed the other could carry on.

In war, the two Consuls divided up the business; one stayed at home, the other led the army out. Sometimes the army leader would fail and the they'd switch roles. Sometimes the threat was so great that both consuls would lead an army. And sometimes the consuls just weren't up to the task.

In which event, Rome would elect a dictator: a single individual who would have total power of life and death over every individual. He would have the power to raise an army of any size, seize any property to feed and supply it, and lead it out to fight the enemy. When the danger was gone, the dictator voluntarily stepped down and the consul system was resumed.

For 4 centuries, this worked very well. Rome rose from a small town on the Tiber to the dominant power in the west. But...things were getting more complicated, and the system was breaking down in all sorts of little ways. Such as the distribution of wealth, the lack of willing volunteers to act as soldiers, the number of enemies Rome had, the need to have many outposts on frontiers, etc.

Basically, for most of Rome's history, soldiers were farmers who picked up their weapons in the fall and put them down again when winter came. Almost all wars were fought in a three month period between August and November.

But by the 2nd century BC this wasn't adequate. The law stated that a soldier had to be someone who owned land, and the lands were being grouped together under rich senators who themselves did not fight (they were usually quite aged). Thus the organization of the army was becoming a disaster.

In 107 a happy fellow named Marius was elected consul for the first time. He went to war in north africa against Jugurtha, who was threatening the big senatorial estates in Africa--some sources will say later that the entire province ultimately came under the control of six senators. In any case, Jugurtha was a threat primarily because of the defense of those lands, though the war against Jugurtha was not exactly 'defensive.'

He was elected dictator to deal with the situation in Africa.
In order to have a large enough army, Marius PAID his troops. He ignored the laws saying a soldier needed to have a certain level of wealth, and simply gathered an army out of the impoverished mob.

He won the war handily in North Africa, and then used his position as triumphant general to have himself re-elected to seven consulships in a row. While he was a fairly decent leader, he was the first Roman to be elected to so many consecutive consulships (two was rare).

Marius stepped down around 100 BC (he was aging and not well) and Rome struggled for some years under the old system as it continued to degrade. Socially, the struggle erupting involved the difference between "Romans" and "Italians," the latter being people who dwelt within Italy but were not citizens of the Republic. Marius continued to take part in Roman affairs.

Marius' second-in-command in Africa was Sulla, who was known to be ruthless and a brilliant general. Sulla, more than Marius, was personally responsible for the destruction of Jugurtha's Army.

Through the 90s, Sulla and Marius fell out, and the center of power began to swing between them. As Marius continued to age, Sulla's power grew. When the opportunity came, Sulla seized power with the help of six legions in his own pay (thus the problem with soldiers being paid--their loyalty remains to the paycheque, not the state). Marius fled Rome and Sulla established himself as consul along with Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

Thereafter followed the social war, as the non-citizens rose against the citizens. In a very famous quote from Appian (The Civil War I, c.60):

In this way the episodes of civil strife escalated from rivalry and contentiousness to murder, and from murder to full-scale war; and this was the first army composed of Roman citizens to attack their own country as thought it were a hostile power. From this point onwards their conflicts continued to be settled by military means and there were frequent attacks on Rome…because nothing remained, neither law, nor political institutions, nor patriotism, that could induce any sense of shame in the men of violence.

Sulla put down the rebellion and headed east to fight Mithradates in Asia Minor, to defend the republic's frontiers. While he was gone, in 87 Marius had returned to Rome, had Cinna killed, and had himself re-elected consul. Sulla abandoned the east and returned to Rome. By 82 Marius had been destroyed. In 81 Sulla named himself "dictator for life."

What happens next is that the Roman state is reworked by Sulla to reduce the potential for any other individual to rise in the same manner. Laws are passed to present political infighting, the check the political power of politicians, to prevent repeated consulships. In effect it was all reactionary legislation. Because he "brought peace" to Rome, his position was not threatened and Sulla died quietly in 78 BC, having 'ruled' for only three years.

The names of Sulla's lieutenants are better known than Sulla: Pompey and Crassus. The aforementioned Cinna's daughter would become Julius Caesar's wife. The connections with the events that destroyed the Republic and created the Empire are multiple.

It would be very easy to say, well, that was Rome, has nothing to do with us. But. When I hear about questioning whether the elections should be held over in case of a terrorist attack, I wonder. It would be very easy for the partisanship of America at present to break down into factionism. In fact, it happened very quickly in Rome. Between 130 BC (when the major political leader Gracchus was assassinated) and 78 BC is only 42 years. All of the events I've described above took place in a republic. None of the wars were fought on the Italian peninsula (there were laws about that sort of thing that were not broken until Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army). So to the people of Rome, it was undesirable, but increasingly acceptable.

In fact I believe the parallels exist now that are comparable with when Marius first rose to power. The machine is present. The factions are present. Any small thing could set the road to dictatorship in motion. And the American voice is making it clear that such action would be just as acceptable today as it was once. The rhetoric going around condemning "persons not like ourselves" proves it.

Ain't history fun?