There is no question that the fate of Rome, her empire, Europe and by extension the western world was changed by one man. In the space of a single human lifetime this man took the august but creaking Roman Republic and, driven by his own ambition as much as a love for his people, remade it in his own image.

This man, of course, is Julius Caesar. A brilliant politician and dealmaker, an unorthodox and wildly successful general, and a shrewd propagandist who made sure everyone knew all about it, by sheer force of will he carved out a role for himself at the very top.

But mighty Caesar did not set out to effect this change. His greatest successes as a general came while he was still a loyal servant of Rome, and his crossing of the Rubicon, bringing legions to the Italian peninsula and facing treason for so doing, was an act he saw as a necessary evil, a way to fix what was rotten in the Roman state.

Caesar’s civil war and his seizing of power was something that he saw as temporary: after all, that was how it is outlined in Roman law. He overstayed his welcome, to be sure, and he was murdered for it, but for many his intervention was a welcome one.

• The Wild Life and the Ridiculous Death of Pythagoras
• Tell Qaramel and the Neolithic Cult of Severed Heads

It is only after his death that the damage he wrought become apparent. In the actions of Octavian, his grand nephew, rising to the seta of Imperial power and declaring himself a “caesar” in his great relative’s likeness, we see the end of the Roman Republic,

Rome would never again embrace democracy and an attempt at elected governance again. Although her true greatness as a military power was still ahead of her, Julius Caesar had shown others the way, and she would henceforth be an empire, ruled by the caesars.

But history, as always, is a little messier than that. Caesar’s actions changed the course of history, and it is doubtful that another man would have succeeded to the same extent, but there was another, barely a generation earlier, who had his chance.

That man was Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, known to history as Sulla.

The Other Roman Dictator

Sulla, not mighty Caesar, was the first man to fight a Roman civil war. Sulla was the first man to win such a conflict, as Caesar did, and through his actions he was the first man to seize control of Rome through force of arms.

Sulla was a great general, like Caesar. He ruled Rome legitimately, holding the office of consul twice, as Caesar had. And he rose to take the reins of power only 40 years before Caesar declared himself dictator.

Sulla was born into a high ranking but impoverished Roman family. While his family had produced consuls before they were in a period of shame and censure, something to do with his ancestor being banished from the senate for hording too much silver.

Sulla didn’t have to money to move in the right circles as he grew up. Instead, he found himself in the company of actors and musicians, from whom he learned oratory among other, murkier pursuits.

It is not entirely certain where Sulla’s money came from, but around 30 he appears to have found himself a suddenly wealthy man, perhaps due to an inheritance. Abruptly in possession of a fortune, he stood for political office in 108 BC.

Rome at the time was fighting a war, as was its habit. This was one of its semi-internal disputes, sorting out the allocation of Numidian territory after one of the grandsons of the great king Massinissa had claimed everything for himself. The grandson, Jugurtha, gave his name to the Jugurthan war, and it had been ongoing since 112 BC.

The consul for 107 BC was Gaius Marius, one of the greatest leaders the Republic ever had. Sulla was assigned to his staff, and Marius was not one to sit by as consul and let other generals win his battles. He took his armies into Africa personally, and Sulla went with him.

Sulla excelled, even capturing Jugurtha. He went on to fight in the Cimbrian wars against Germanic tribes, where he further honed his reputation as a great general. Returning after 20 years of campaigning, he was rewarded with governorship of Cilicia in southern Anatolia.

He was a good governor, balanced in his diplomacy and a loyal servant of Rome. The problems would only arise when he was elected consul himself, in 88 BC. Sulla found himself locking horns with Publius Sulpicius Rufus, a populist tribune.

Sulpicius, lacking the support in the senate to push his reforms through, found a secret ally in Marius, who wanted more military glory. Specifically he wanted Sulla’s command.

After Sulpicius led a mob on the Roman senate and forced the consuls to flee, Sulla escaped Rome to Nola in southern Italy. There is his humiliation over this public defeat he reunited with his army.

It was Sulpicius and Marius who then created the impossible situation for Sulla. He was ordered to relinquish his command and pass it to Marius, something which would have finished his career. But Sulla was not a political insider, and he did not react as a politician but as a leader.

Sulla marched on Rome with his army, to the shock and disgust of its citizenry. His soldiers were pelted with stones and he had to post guards across the city, bringing in martial law to take control.

His introduction of troops and his taking power through might brought in a period of political violence the Republic had never seen. Politicians and their supporters were massacred and at least some of the violence came from Sulla’s army, from Sulla himself.

But Sulla did not try to hold onto power. He reversed the changes of Sulpicius and Marius and then set off to campaign in unruly Anatolia. This was just prologue however, to his return in 83 BC at the head of five battle-hardened legions.

His takeover was bloody, and the purges which followed saw the deaths of many of his political adversaries. Julius Caesar, then a teenager, had to flee the city when he found himself targeted by Sulla’s reforms. 

By the end of 82 BC Sulla was officially “dictator,” a title which had been unused for more than a century. He carried out the reforms he saw fit to Rome’s political structure, strengthening the ruling power of the patrician class and weakening the plebeian masses.

And then, his tasks done, he resigned. He did not seek power for its own sake, it would seem, but to enact the changes as he saw fit.

Sulla was in power for only two years, much as Julius Caesar was. He wanted very different things to great Caesar, but in many ways he gave the latter man a blueprint for how to seize power in an emergency, even one of his own making.

Caesar was of course killed for holding too much power. Would he, had he lived, have taken a leaf from Sulla’s book and had the grace to change the world and then resign, satisfied?

Header Image: Bust believed to be of Sulla, probably from after his death. Source: Glyptothek / Public Domain.