WI: No Sulla

So, let’s just say a little Sulla falls out of a tree as a kid, gets kicked in the head by a horse, or perhaps chokes on some food as a teenager. I’m sure we could think of a lot of ways in which someone might die if we all put our minds to it, but the point is that he dies before he reaches adulthood. What is the fall out?
 
Interesting idea, this will have far ranging impact. I'm gonna focus on some of the military aspects. 1)Jugurtha, can Marius finish the war without Sulla's help? Probably. 2) Cimbri, Catulus without Sulla will be far worse off and the Romans probably lose the Battle of Vercellae. 3) Social War, Marius was fighting a very cautious campaign, before Sulla, so my guess is longer time frame here.4) Mithridates, without Sulla in command he probably runs rampant for awhile. I'm not sure if anyone else could pull off victories like Chaeronea and Orchomenus.

It would be curious to see if Metellus, Marius, Catalus, Strabo, Lucullus among others would have been able to step up and fill the void.
 
Interesting idea, this will have far ranging impact. I'm gonna focus on some of the military aspects. 1)Jugurtha, can Marius finish the war without Sulla's help? Probably. 2) Cimbri, Catulus without Sulla will be far worse off and the Romans probably lose the Battle of Vercellae. 3) Social War, Marius was fighting a very cautious campaign, before Sulla, so my guess is longer time frame here.4) Mithridates, without Sulla in command he probably runs rampant for awhile. I'm not sure if anyone else could pull off victories like Chaeronea and Orchomenus.

It would be curious to see if Metellus, Marius, Catalus, Strabo, Lucullus among others would have been able to step up and fill the void.

I agree that Jugurtha would likely still be brought to heel - Romans were not new to fighting in North Africa and they'd dealt with surly Numidians before (not to mention that a good amount of Numidians were fighting for Rome against Jugurtha.)

Mithradates, though, is a much more dangerous opponent and one who is not so easily stopped. I think that there's honestly about even odds that Rome is never able to deal with the threat of Mithradates without the talent of Sulla. Even if the Roman Army did successfully beat him, the victory would be much more drawn-out and costly.
 
@alcibiades was wise to focus on military command questions. My first thought went in a different direction: could the Republic have been saved without the devastations of Sulla's proscriptions?
But that was short-sighted: Sulla was just the Person, somebody else could and would have done something with the military-based power to try and protect questionable privileges of Rome's most powerful (and, as with Sulla, this is very likely to fall on their own feet).
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla was my favorite Roman, bar none, all their virtues and all their flaws crystallized in one interesting guy.

No Sulla? Well then the constant bickering of the factions of the Roman Senate would have yielded a much less interesting line of Emperors, because Caesar would not have had Sulla's example for decisive and unexpected independent action, and might have been just a competent, sexually confused Roman general off somewhere in Germany or Persia, instead of making himself a name by ferreting out the pirates of Anatolia, a job no one wanted, if he had been born at all! No Caesar, none of us, so no Sulla, none of us.

A world without Sulla is is a world I wouldn't, and couldn't, live in.
 
I think Marius would be the logical candidate to fight Mithridates. He might win a comparable victory too. If there's nobody competent enough to compete with him, we might get Caesarism decades before Caesar.
 
Interesting idea, this will have far ranging impact. I'm gonna focus on some of the military aspects. 1)Jugurtha, can Marius finish the war without Sulla's help? Probably. 2) Cimbri, Catulus without Sulla will be far worse off and the Romans probably lose the Battle of Vercellae. 3) Social War, Marius was fighting a very cautious campaign, before Sulla, so my guess is longer time frame here.4) Mithridates, without Sulla in command he probably runs rampant for awhile. I'm not sure if anyone else could pull off victories like Chaeronea and Orchomenus.

It would be curious to see if Metellus, Marius, Catalus, Strabo, Lucullus among others would have been able to step up and fill the void.

The Romans will win the battle of Vercellae because the ancient sources that gave credit to Sulla for having the decisive role in the battle were optimate lies. Scholar Giovanni Brizzi made a more than convincing demonstration to bust this 2000 years old optimate hoax (a miraculous dust storm that blinded but Marius’s central position !).

However, there will be big changes on the social war.

Not on Mithridates who will anyway be defeated by any decent Roman general.
 
I think Marius would be the logical candidate to fight Mithridates. He might win a comparable victory too. If there's nobody competent enough to compete with him, we might get Caesarism decades before Caesar.
Marius is really, really old at the start of the first Mithridatic Wars. Hell, he was really, really old at the start of the Social War, which started what, 3 to 5 years earlier? ... but was at least in Italy. The mind might have been willing, but I don't see the body handling an overseas campaign.

Catalus wasn't exactly a spring chicken either by the time of Mithridates.

Cross-eyed Pompeius, Pompey's father, might have been a good choice. He did good work in the Social War.

Lucullus might be too young and without Sulla's backing not politically connected enough.


My vote goes for Quintus Sertorius to lead the war against Mithridates. Without Sulla to help aide the Optimates, Sertorius career in Rome likely goes better and he can fully become his own man earlier.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
I think Marius would be the logical candidate to fight Mithridates. He might win a comparable victory too. If there's nobody competent enough to compete with him, we might get Caesarism decades before Caesar.

Marius is an old man soon about to go a bit insane so you might have Crassus loss of his legions a few decades earlier if he goes off fighting Mithradates.
 
Marius is really, really old at the start of the first Mithridatic Wars. Hell, he was really, really old at the start of the Social War, which started what, 3 to 5 years earlier? ... but was at least in Italy. The mind might have been willing, but I don't see the body handling an overseas campaign.

Catalus wasn't exactly a spring chicken either by the time of Mithridates.

Cross-eyed Pompeius, Pompey's father, might have been a good choice. He did good work in the Social War.

Lucullus might be too young and without Sulla's backing not politically connected enough.


My vote goes for Quintus Sertorius to lead the war against Mithridates. Without Sulla to help aide the Optimates, Sertorius career in Rome likely goes better and he can fully become his own man earlier.

The proconsular command to fight the eastern war was the most coveted command in a generation. It was the cause of the first Roman civil war because the most popular and glorious politician and general of the time (Marius) decided to snatch it away from one of the best Roman generals who enjoyed wide support among the optimates (Sulla).

So it is almost impossible a second rank politician like Sertorius, without noble ancestors and extremely strong support, will get the command of the war against Mithradates.
 
The proconsular command to fight the eastern war was the most coveted command in a generation. It was the cause of the first Roman civil war because the most popular and glorious politician and general of the time (Marius) decided to snatch it away from one of the best Roman generals who enjoyed wide support among the optimates (Sulla).

So it is almost impossible a second rank politician like Sertorius, without noble ancestors and extremely strong support, will get the command of the war against Mithradates.


Right. Now, Marius is an old man at this point... what happens should he fumble the First Mithridatic War entirely?
 
Right. Now, Marius is an old man at this point... what happens should he fumble the First Mithridatic War entirely?

Well, Marius’ jealousy and acrimony were not especially targeted against Sulla but against anybody who was not his ally or subordinate and who challenged his position as the first man in Rome.

So Sulla or no Sulla, Marius will probably try to get the eastern command which he had been sniffing around since the early 90´s.

The decisive point is how and when the social war ends because it was the conflict that aroused from the dissatisfying settlement of the social war that gave Marius leverage to try to snatch the eastern command away from Sulla (who got it legally under the provision of the Lex Sempronia).
 
@alcibiades was wise to focus on military command questions. My first thought went in a different direction: could the Republic have been saved without the devastations of Sulla's proscriptions?
But that was short-sighted: Sulla was just the Person, somebody else could and would have done something with the military-based power to try and protect questionable privileges of Rome's most powerful (and, as with Sulla, this is very likely to fall on their own feet).
You have forgotten an important thing: Sulla's march on Rome and after that his proscriptions were reactions not actions...
The best way for butterfly the Sullan's proscriptions is to kill of Marius before he violated again roman costumes and tradition using his popular support for trying to deprive Sulla of his legitimate comand. Sulla at that time was either still the consul or had just ended his consular term and was an able and proven general so he was the natural leader for the war against Mithridates. Marius was the first culprit of the Civil War, not Sulla and Marius, before dying ordered the killing of many Optimates and supporters of Sulla and their whole families (and many of them escaped death only abandoning Rome and their homes so put the blame on Sulla is really wrong.
Kill Marius before he decided he wanted that command at any cost (and violated again almost every tradition of Rome for obtain what he wanted) and you kill off the march on Rome and the first Civil War with its persecutions ... Marius and not Sulla started them
 
The proconsular command to fight the eastern war was the most coveted command in a generation. It was the cause of the first Roman civil war because the most popular and glorious politician and general of the time (Marius) decided to snatch it away from one of the best Roman generals who enjoyed wide support among the optimates (Sulla).

So it is almost impossible a second rank politician like Sertorius, without noble ancestors and extremely strong support, will get the command of the war against Mithradates.
I poorly worded "my vote" would go to Sertorius. I actually meant he would be the most effective general IMHO sans Sulla that I would personally choose to send.

You are completely correct to point out that it would be nearly impossible for him to get chosen. He was considered way more of a hayseed to the Roman Patrician/Senatorial Class than the looked down upon Marius. For that same reason I don't think its possible that Pompey Strabo, a very competent if not particularly beloved by his own troops, would have gotten chosen (though I could be wrong, he was elected Consul once). His son, building on the father's legacy, was looked down upon by the Optimates until they had no choice but to need him.

Now if whoever gets sent to Greece first gets crushed. And the next guy gets crushed too; then, much like with the Cimbri/Teuton invasions and the patricians holding their nose to elect Marius Consul again and again and again, it might be possible for an effective general from a second rate bloodline to get lifted to command. But even with multiple crushings, Mithridates, as he is not directly invading Italy, isn't the same sort of perceived existential threat to Rome as the Germans were a generation before. So they might just keep running through bloodline acceptable commanders until they get a decent one or a lucky one.

As for who's the best combo of generalship and requisite political juice to be a feasible pick for gaining command initially in Greece ....

For the Optimates ... I'd be forced to go with ... Metullus Pius????

And from the Populares side ... damn, its really, really hard to pick anyone but Marius, who hovers over this side like a giant until his death ... who the hell would he choose to go in his stead, that is probably who it would boil down to ... a tag team of Cinna (as co-Consul) as political lead of the expedition and Sertorius as who ever damn legionaire understands is actually in charge of the fighting?????

If the war dragged on and the Populares had the Consulship, I guess at some point, assuming he isn't killed, you'd have to think Marius the Younger (who was voted Consul in like 84 or 83) would be a Populares candidate. An outside the box idea might be a surviving Marcus Livius Drusus (can his survival be butterflied somehow by the non-existence of Sulla???) against Mithridates ... but that would likely butterfly the Social War entirely. Which would likely mean that Livius Drusus has nearly all of Roman Allied Italy more or less as clients of his; immediate First Man in Rome status for near as long as he lives I would guess.
 
@isabella,
Traditions always change. True, marius' military Reform caused deep transformations, but at some point it was probably inevitable. That was indeed what made undoing the fabric of the Republic possible. But when Marius returned, the problem of mutual threats wasn't something that would not have escalated if only he had been less exposed. Blaming him and excusing Sulla at that point seems inappropriate when Sulla's proscriptions took things to abominable new lows by order of magnitude.
 
@isabella,
Traditions always change. True, marius' military Reform caused deep transformations, but at some point it was probably inevitable. That was indeed what made undoing the fabric of the Republic possible. But when Marius returned, the problem of mutual threats wasn't something that would not have escalated if only he had been less exposed. Blaming him and excusing Sulla at that point seems inappropriate when Sulla's proscriptions took things to abominable new lows by order of magnitude.

This point of view has now been challenged for a while. Marius was not the first one to levy capite censi citizens as soldiers (many were during the second Punic war, even freedmen and slaves).

@High Plains Drifter, Lucius Drusus was in a political dead-end and could not in anyway become the first man in Italy nor in Rome.

Badian demonstrated how that Lucius Drusus’ plan angered most Italian socii because his so-called bold plan was to give them second rank citizenship in exchange for lands for the old Roman citizens. Which they refused to pay and explained why they turned towards Marius who would get them a better deal until radicals decided to severe relations with Rome because they had too much been made fools of by the Roman aristocratic factions.
 
@High Plains Drifter, Lucius Drusus was in a political dead-end and could not in anyway become the first man in Italy nor in Rome.

Badian demonstrated how that Lucius Drusus’ plan angered most Italian socii because his so-called bold plan was to give them second rank citizenship in exchange for lands for the old Roman citizens. Which they refused to pay and explained why they turned towards Marius who would get them a better deal until radicals decided to severe relations with Rome because they had too much been made fools of by the Roman aristocratic factions.
That very well may be, but then why the assassination? They were certainly rough times and as a very active, revolutionary-esque Tribune of the Plebes, he undoubtedly had many enemies. And I've no idea how frequently Tribunes got offed in the generations leading up to 91 (can't remember what positions the Grachi held).

Causation? Correlation? Happenstance?

With the revolt occurring so very, very soon after his assassination makes my 100 course level Roman knowledge level (conspiracy addled?) mind awfully suspicious that he was not dead ended; and with a few semi lucky butterflies/better plays might have succeeded to a significant degree.
 
That very well may be, but then why the assassination? They were certainly rough times and as a very active, revolutionary-esque Tribune of the Plebes, he undoubtedly had many enemies. And I've no idea how frequently Tribunes got offed in the generations leading up to 91 (can't remember what positions the Grachi held).

Causation? Correlation? Happenstance?

With the revolt occurring so very, very soon after his assassination makes my 100 course level Roman knowledge level (conspiracy addled?) mind awfully suspicious that he was not dead ended; and with a few semi lucky butterflies/better plays might have succeeded to a significant degree.

Lucius Drusus was already politically defeated when he was murdered. He had lost his main support, Lucius Licinius Crassus (the orator) who had just died.

He was under attack of Lucius Marcus Philippus (then a prominent marian) and many other nobles from both all sides. His legislation was going to be repelled or given-up.

So if his murder had political motives, which we can’t be sure of, then my guess would be a murder ordered by radical Italian nobles that were angry having been played with by Drusus and decided to kill two birds with one stone by making this murder a cause for secession from Rome.

PS : one should not forget that ancient sources are quite favorable to Lucius Drusus to a large extent because he was the adoptive grandfather of the first Roman empress, Livia Drusilla, wife of Augustus.
 
@isabella,
Traditions always change. True, marius' military Reform caused deep transformations, but at some point it was probably inevitable. That was indeed what made undoing the fabric of the Republic possible. But when Marius returned, the problem of mutual threats wasn't something that would not have escalated if only he had been less exposed. Blaming him and excusing Sulla at that point seems inappropriate when Sulla's proscriptions took things to abominable new lows by order of magnitude.
Salvador I was talking exclusively about the circumstances in which Sulla decided to march in Rome and the reason behind his proscriptions. Yes, surely they were really bad but they were also without doubt reactions to other actions for which you need to blame Marius... If Marius die before trying to strip Sulla of his fully legitimate command against Mithridate what reason can have Sulla for doing something so unthinkable as marching on Rome?
If he was not condemned in absentia, if his supporters (included wife, daughter and son-in-law) were not forced to escape from Rome for saving their lives (and many of them were killed brutally) from the fury of Marius and his supporters and if Rome was not under the dictature of Cinna at the time in which Sulla stopped (and too early) his campaign against Mithridate, what reason had Sulla for coming back with his army, conquering Italy and ordering the killing of his enemies?
Sulla was bad but he had not started anything and his worst actions were reactions and revenges for things others had already done...


Take away Sulla from that contest and likely you will not change much...
Kill off Marius before he started that mess and likely the Civil wars will not happen or at least will not be fought with armies until will happen something different who will be the spark who will make explode them.
OTL that spark was Marius's tentative to take for himself the eastern command without having any right to it.
 
Last edited:
Top