No Roman Civil War (the 1st One!)

Dirk

Banned
What if, when Gaius Marius's request to be the commander against Mithridates in 88BC is denied, he flies into a fit of rage and has a stroke that kills him, instead of getting Tribune Rufus to basically dismantle the government through his vetoes and lawmaking? This action of Marius's part led to Sulla marching on Rome (the first time this ever happened), and the first civil war in Rome's history.

With this POD there are no murder's of Sulla's supporters, nor the infamous proscriptions of thousands of Marius's followers afterward. The Senate remains divided but united, and Sulla has all the monetary and material support he needs against Mithridates. He utterly thrashes Mithridates more easily, Rome sees an influx of loot from the East, and Sulla becomes an honored and feared elder statesman instead of a madman reviled as traitor and mass murderer.

Sulla can better and more solidly institute his reforms of Rome's taxation of her provinces, though the lack of massive cash from proscriptions means that his great public works are probably left undone. Crassus, Lucullus, Metellus Pius, and others' fortunes soar under his zenith while the careers of deviants such as Catilina and Ofella are butterflied, because there's nothing easy and treacherous to do without proscriptions.

Pompey...is a strange case. Sulla doesn't need his legions anymore and could easily crush the young man if he went rogue. Though Pompey's father might still be alive, because he didn't catch dysentery at the Siege of Rome in 87BC. Though being of a senatorial background and from (probably) the richest family in Italy, Pompey could become a great general...but legally, and at an older age.

Thoughts?
 
I've always grappled with whether Sulla marching on Rome was good or bad for the republic-on the one hand, it put an end ultimately to 20 years of strife after he secured victory and within a decade of his passing, what is lost on us is that the senate essentially had managed to reset itself to pre-strife state.

Yet by marching on Rome he opened Pandora's box. Without marching on Rome, there's also no precedent for the next generation to follow. I think it's lost on people how extraordinary and revolutionary Sulla's decision to march on Rome was-every officer but Lucullus deserted him and he caught Marius completely by surprise because they never considered in a million years he would use an army to march on the city, or that the soldiers would agree to it. It took someone of Sulla's state of mind and character to even consider it-not even someone like Marius ever let it cross their mind.

So I can certainly see this having a positive impact on the future of the republic. It needs reform desperately-tax reform especially as the tax farming introduced by Gaius Gracchus was proving ruinous on the provinces and fueling corruption.
 
Having Marius die at this point may not change things decisively. There still were strong causes for civil war.

Basically, the social war was a civil war. And the first civil war was mostly a continuation of the civil war.

Of course, I know Marius and Sulla's personnal conflict about the asian command was an important part of the problem, but only a part.

Cinna did not re-ignite the civil war on Marius' behalf. He did it on the question of the new roman citizens, that is on the project of the dead tribune Sulpicius Rufus.

Cinna did not even need Marius to win the civil war. He had many more troops than Marius. And more than Marius he had just become the natural leader of the populares when, as consul in 87, he resumed Sulpicius' project.

It would be much more interesting if you instead had Marius not be taken by surprise by Sulla in 88. You could have him ally with Pompeius Strabo as early as 89.

But to avoid the civil war you need the majority in the Senate to integrate loyally the italians among roman citizens as Sulpicius Rufus and Cinna wanted.
 

Dirk

Banned
Having Marius die at this point may not change things decisively. There still were strong causes for civil war.

Basically, the social war was a civil war. And the first civil war was mostly a continuation of the civil war.

Of course, I know Marius and Sulla's personnal conflict about the asian command was an important part of the problem, but only a part.

Cinna did not re-ignite the civil war on Marius' behalf. He did it on the question of the new roman citizens, that is on the project of the dead tribune Sulpicius Rufus.

Cinna did not even need Marius to win the civil war. He had many more troops than Marius. And more than Marius he had just become the natural leader of the populares when, as consul in 87, he resumed Sulpicius' project.

It would be much more interesting if you instead had Marius not be taken by surprise by Sulla in 88. You could have him ally with Pompeius Strabo as early as 89.

But to avoid the civil war you need the majority in the Senate to integrate loyally the italians among roman citizens as Sulpicius Rufus and Cinna wanted.

Strange, I thought that Sulpicius couldn't have achieved anything without Marius's support. With the Crowd momentarily loving Sulla for his smashing victories in the Social War, and without any support for Sulpicius from Marius (who's now dead), I would think that Sulla would be totally supported by most Romans.

I'm quite sure that Pompeius Strabo hated the rebelling Italians and knew that it would behoove him to cleave to the Senate like a bee to pollen. It's absolutely certain that the Italians hated him for the atrocities committed by him.

I think that, far from starting or continuing any kind of civil conflict, Cinna was saving his own skin. He'd decided to follow Gaius Marius and, upon Marius's death in 87BC OTL, had no choice but to fortify Italy and try to defeat Sulla, who would surely visit smiting retribution upon him. From all accounts Sulla was a very vengeful man.

As to the issue of Italian citizenship, I thought that was all ironed out by the end of the Social War. The loyal Italians would all receive citizenship, but in two new tribes instead of being distributed among the thirty-five preexisting tribes. The Senate didn't have a problem with this, the Italians did...but then again, they'd just seen half of Italy be devastated by exclusively Roman commanders and Roman legions; why should they risk another war of that sort? They were becoming citizens anyway, and would have citizens' privileges, despite not having so much of a say in the vote (in only two tribes); Mithridates and his massacre of eighty thousand Romans and Italians alike in the East was a much more pressing matter.

@slydessertfox: Definitely true. I'm still grappling with what happens when Sulla goes East. I know that the Senate conservatives will watch his back and hold the fort in Rome, but who knows what Marius's son (with all those clients and the family name) will try to do? By all accounts he was levelheaded and honorable, but it would be obvious to him that he would find no favoritism or even familiarity in a government full of Sulla's friends and laws.
 
I think once the Italians realized they had essentially been duped with the citizenship deal, problems could still arise. Matteo is right in one respect: The civil war was in many ways an extension of the Social War. The Samnites in particular rose in revolt again in support of Marius during the civil war-so the Italians very well may not be finished yet-Remember, a lot of the cities had surrendered voluntarily and avoided retribution, so they still have strength to give it one more go.
 
Your analyses is based on a few mistakes or countersenses.

The crowd did never love Sulla, though he was one of Rome's best generals ever.

Sulla was one of the top generals in the civil war, but only one of them. Pompeius Stabo, Pompey's father, was in fact more important and more decisive because his victories prepared reconciliation and integration of Italy (his law extending citizenship in Cisalpina and latin status in Transpadana), while Sulla's victories antagonized defeated enemies (in the social war as well as in the first civil war and in the second civil war).

Neiger Marius not Pompeius hated the italian rebels. Many of them had fought under Marius and quite many of them were former clients of Pompeius Strabo.

In 87, Cinna did not follow Marius. Marius was exiled in Africa and gathered a small army. Cinna was following his own agenda because there objectively was a very strong support of most italians/new citizens for any roman leader that would grant them what had been promised : real equality with "old" roman citizens.

Cinna had his own army. He was much more than Marius the one who ruled Rome from the end of 87 on. Marius' son was no match when his old man died. He played no part untill Cinna's lieutenant and successor, Carbo, used him as à puppet in order to mobilize support among those who revered his father's memory.

Another point which you did not understand is that the italian rebels were not granted citizenship after being defeated but before being defeated. The lex Julia de civitatis, was voted in 90 as a condition for victory and reconciliation. Military victory came only after this law was adopted : this vote detered the still lawful italian allies to rebel and convinced a significant part of rebels to come to terms with Rome.

But a decisive part of the old romans did not want to keep their word, once the war was over. And that was the decisive reason for the civil war in 88/87.
 
But a decisive part of the old romans did not want to keep their word, once the war was over. And that was the decisive reason for the civil war in 88/87.

It wasn't that they didn't keep their word-they did. It was that the citizenship they offered them was essentially a second class citizenship that would marginalize them from having any real say in the political process-they duped them in other words.
 
Top