What do you think?
Rate this book
Sulla: The Last Republican
In this second edition of Arthur Keaveney's classic biography, a fresh generation of students, scholars and readers are introduced to one of the most pivotal figures in the outgoing Roman Empire. A definitive book in its field, this second edition is a must read. Completely rewritten and updated to include the further discoveries of the last two decades, it challenges traditional views of Sulla as a tyrant and harsh military dictator and instead delivers a compellingly complex portrait of a man obsessed with the belief that he was blessed with divine favour.
Written by a leading authority on the classical world, this lively and entertaining book transports us through Sulla's rise from poverty and obscurity to his dictatorship of Rome, highlighting his dedication and achievements in better ordering the Republic before his decline a generation later.
Written by a leading authority on the classical world, this lively and entertaining book transports us through Sulla's rise from poverty and obscurity to his dictatorship of Rome, highlighting his dedication and achievements in better ordering the Republic before his decline a generation later.
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
14 people are currently reading
260 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
March 28, 2012
Very clear biography of Sulla - nice to see him as the subject, rather than a prelude to books about Pompey or Caesar. The only thing is that Sulla is clearly a hero of the author's, so that some things seem whitewashed a bit. Not too much - there's no getting around the proscriptions, for example - but it's still there in parts. On the other hand, it did a great job of describing Sulla the man and the personality. The depth of both his pietas and his belief in his own good fortune really come through to show how he did what he did. The author has also written a book on Lucullus - this book was certainly good enough to make me want to track that one down as well.
January 21, 2018
A detailed and sympathetic biography of the ever-fascinating Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Keaveney offers a particularly solid assessment of the Sullan ideological drive and his legacy in the scope of Roman history. Some of the analysis on religion, however, is slightly dated by now.
Although I appreciated the more sympathetic view on Sulla, it was hardly balanced. I was not impressed - even as a "fan", perhaps, of Sulla - by some of Keaveney's attempts to soften the impact of some of his more atrocious actions - not the proscriptions so much, but certainly the ethnic cleansing. Ultimately, the book needed to recognise more the innate duality of Sulla - there were times it came near, but little is said quite explicitly. It is, after all, this duality which makes him such a powerful figure in the modern imagination.
Keaveney's reconstruction of Sulla's early years is also, at times, tenuous - there were certainly a couple of chronological errors. I definitely wanted more specific analysis and discussion of the sources; Keaveney would routinely select or reject source material, but his decisions at times seemed arbitrary. For a biography, I did also want more information on his personal life and relationships with others. It was also, truth be told, not incredibly well-written... For such a riveting life, it seems a shame to have a largely-dry narrative voice detract from much of its impact.
Ultimately, a useful academic resource for anyone interested in Sulla - but it also does inspire a feeling that he deserves a much better biography.
Although I appreciated the more sympathetic view on Sulla, it was hardly balanced. I was not impressed - even as a "fan", perhaps, of Sulla - by some of Keaveney's attempts to soften the impact of some of his more atrocious actions - not the proscriptions so much, but certainly the ethnic cleansing. Ultimately, the book needed to recognise more the innate duality of Sulla - there were times it came near, but little is said quite explicitly. It is, after all, this duality which makes him such a powerful figure in the modern imagination.
Keaveney's reconstruction of Sulla's early years is also, at times, tenuous - there were certainly a couple of chronological errors. I definitely wanted more specific analysis and discussion of the sources; Keaveney would routinely select or reject source material, but his decisions at times seemed arbitrary. For a biography, I did also want more information on his personal life and relationships with others. It was also, truth be told, not incredibly well-written... For such a riveting life, it seems a shame to have a largely-dry narrative voice detract from much of its impact.
Ultimately, a useful academic resource for anyone interested in Sulla - but it also does inspire a feeling that he deserves a much better biography.
April 13, 2021
Considering what I paid to rent this book, and then re-rent it when I didn't finish, should give you an idea of how much I enjoyed reading this book. I was first put onto Sulla when reading "The Storm before the Storm" by Mike Duncan about the end of the Roman republic. I was so intrigued by what I read about Sulla I had to follow up with this biography.
What I appreciate about Keaveney is the times in the book he explains his thinking and doesn't hesitate to share his opinion and why he thinks other historians are wrong. In doing so he creates a compelling case of the man. I don't want to give it away, but his conclusion at the end of the book was the most shocking thing. While it fit with everything I just read, it was not what I anticipated, but was an accurate, and unexpected conclusion.
I do appreciate Keaveney's approach to Sulla's spirituality. As someone who does believe in supernatural forces, and that the gods of ancient times were not completely based on myth, I could relate to Keaveney's explanation of Sulla's belief in his felicitas and that he was favored by the gods (or at least certain gods). {What the ancient Romans saw as gods I see as spiritual forces at work, but i digress...}
This book only deepens my fascination with this time period and other Roman political figures of the time.
What I appreciate about Keaveney is the times in the book he explains his thinking and doesn't hesitate to share his opinion and why he thinks other historians are wrong. In doing so he creates a compelling case of the man. I don't want to give it away, but his conclusion at the end of the book was the most shocking thing. While it fit with everything I just read, it was not what I anticipated, but was an accurate, and unexpected conclusion.
I do appreciate Keaveney's approach to Sulla's spirituality. As someone who does believe in supernatural forces, and that the gods of ancient times were not completely based on myth, I could relate to Keaveney's explanation of Sulla's belief in his felicitas and that he was favored by the gods (or at least certain gods). {What the ancient Romans saw as gods I see as spiritual forces at work, but i digress...}
This book only deepens my fascination with this time period and other Roman political figures of the time.
March 9, 2020
A really short and readable biography of Sulla (though strangely enough there are a few typos throughout). While not as much of a house hold name as Caesar, Sulla's actions have lead to some to label him a proto-Caesar. Sulla was the first Roman general to lead a march on Rome, and (during his second march) he was declared dictator for life. The Sullian reforms to the Roman constitution laid the backdrop for the Cicerioan age.
Sulla was a fascinating character, who came from an out of luck aristocratic family. After his step-mother and an older lover died, Sulla inherited enough money to being a political career, but he seems to have never forgotten the humiliation of his youth. Starting out as Marius's lieutenant, Sulla cleverly positioned himself as the nobilitas's champion to rival Marius. Sulla became to claim credit for the end of the Jugurthine War (he convinced Jugurtha's relative to turn on him) and was eventually elected consul. When Mithridates started to cause trouble in the East (leading to wholesale massacre of Romans in the eastern cities), Sulla and Marius jostled over who would be given the privilege (and accompanying war booty) to suppress Mithridates. After Sulla was granted the command and marched east, Marius managed to get one of the tribunes to transfer command to himself instead. This lead to Sulla's first march on Rome. The author suggests interestingly that this was an act of desperation. Sulla could not return to the oblivion from once he came and he felt backed into a corner. Sulla did not command his soldiers to help him march on Rome, but cleverly laid out his grievances to them, and they took the initiative to march with him. When Sulla arrived in Rome, he always portrayed himself as a restorer rather than a revolutionary. When Sulla left to the East again, Marius and his supporters returned to Rome and killed many of Sulla's friends and supporters. When Sulla returned to Rome once again, he started began the process of proscription after being asked to give certainty. The author argues that while there were abuses, and Sulla took a perverse joy in prosecuting the proscriptions, Sulla was generally trying to proportionately respond to his enemies. Sulla than suggested that he become dictator, for as long as it was necessary to restore the Roman Republic. Despite this open ended term, Sulla gave up his position once he enacted his reforms, hoping that he had fixed the Republic. While Sulla had considered himself lucky (Felix) and marked out by the gods for great things, he then rather suddenly died, depriving his reforms the backer that was needed to ensure they would take root. Pompey, one of Sulla's lieutenants took consulship in direct contradiction with Sulla's cursus honorum and the tribunes were again given the power to introduce legislation.
The author paints a rather rosy picture of Sulla. The author explains away Sulla's punishment of the Greek cities for supporting Mithridates and proscription with Sulla's concern that everyone gets their due from him (Sulla's grave stone famously said that he gave his friends and enemies just desserts). The author notes that the punishment against the Greek cities seemed to have some scaling proportionate to their prior actions. The author thinks that Sulla was relatively charming, and was loyal to his friends even when he no longer needed their support. Sulla, growing up poor, had spend time with actors but never forgot their friendship, lavishing them with gifts even after he retired from being dictator. The author argues that Sulla never saw himself in the mold of a king, but always portrayed and believed he was restoring the republic. Each time he took extraordinary measures, Sulla argued that it was to carry out the legal decrees of the senate or to fix the issues with the republic. After his retirement, Sulla tried not to intervene in politics, hoping that his system would survive on its own and there would be no other Sulla.
I found the Sullian reforms the most interesting part of the book. Sulla wished to restore power to the senate, which he saw as the stable center of roman governance (this was somewhat demonstrated by the senate's attempts to mediate between the various factions during the internal conflict). To this end, he dramatically curbed the power of the tribunes, who had caused him so much grief by acting as demagogues. The tribunes lost their power to introduce legislation (and legislative introduction was gate kept by the senate), could only veto laws affecting individual rights, and holders of the position could not advance to other positions in the cursus honorum. The corruption courts, that were controlled by the equites, and occasionally used to interfere with the senate's control of foreign affairs was given over to the senate. The cursus honorum was fixed so that each position except for aedile was required before proceeding to consul, with fixed year terms inbetween. Sulla, who acquired quaestorship by turning thirty instead of taking military duties, ratified this development. Sulla also increased the size of the depleted senate by promoting equites, and increased the number of praetors in order to keep the senate filled in the future. Sulla also changed the treason laws, making it treason for governors abroad to remain in command if their replacement arrived at the scene and if those governors waged war without the senate's premission. Sulla also passed anti-luxury laws but it seems the enforcement was half-hearted. While he did not view himself as a king, Sulla also expanded the sacred boundaries of rome, a feat not achieved since the kings. Finally Sulla settled his veterans over the public lands in italy hoping that they would defend his system, but it appears that these veterans were either tricked out of their lands by the wealthy or abandoned their farming life to return to soldiering later. Unfortunately for Sulla, unlike Augustus he was not blessed with a long life to see his reforms take root. Instead, what later generations took from his example was not the importance of the senate or tradition but his march on Rome.
Sulla was a fascinating character, who came from an out of luck aristocratic family. After his step-mother and an older lover died, Sulla inherited enough money to being a political career, but he seems to have never forgotten the humiliation of his youth. Starting out as Marius's lieutenant, Sulla cleverly positioned himself as the nobilitas's champion to rival Marius. Sulla became to claim credit for the end of the Jugurthine War (he convinced Jugurtha's relative to turn on him) and was eventually elected consul. When Mithridates started to cause trouble in the East (leading to wholesale massacre of Romans in the eastern cities), Sulla and Marius jostled over who would be given the privilege (and accompanying war booty) to suppress Mithridates. After Sulla was granted the command and marched east, Marius managed to get one of the tribunes to transfer command to himself instead. This lead to Sulla's first march on Rome. The author suggests interestingly that this was an act of desperation. Sulla could not return to the oblivion from once he came and he felt backed into a corner. Sulla did not command his soldiers to help him march on Rome, but cleverly laid out his grievances to them, and they took the initiative to march with him. When Sulla arrived in Rome, he always portrayed himself as a restorer rather than a revolutionary. When Sulla left to the East again, Marius and his supporters returned to Rome and killed many of Sulla's friends and supporters. When Sulla returned to Rome once again, he started began the process of proscription after being asked to give certainty. The author argues that while there were abuses, and Sulla took a perverse joy in prosecuting the proscriptions, Sulla was generally trying to proportionately respond to his enemies. Sulla than suggested that he become dictator, for as long as it was necessary to restore the Roman Republic. Despite this open ended term, Sulla gave up his position once he enacted his reforms, hoping that he had fixed the Republic. While Sulla had considered himself lucky (Felix) and marked out by the gods for great things, he then rather suddenly died, depriving his reforms the backer that was needed to ensure they would take root. Pompey, one of Sulla's lieutenants took consulship in direct contradiction with Sulla's cursus honorum and the tribunes were again given the power to introduce legislation.
The author paints a rather rosy picture of Sulla. The author explains away Sulla's punishment of the Greek cities for supporting Mithridates and proscription with Sulla's concern that everyone gets their due from him (Sulla's grave stone famously said that he gave his friends and enemies just desserts). The author notes that the punishment against the Greek cities seemed to have some scaling proportionate to their prior actions. The author thinks that Sulla was relatively charming, and was loyal to his friends even when he no longer needed their support. Sulla, growing up poor, had spend time with actors but never forgot their friendship, lavishing them with gifts even after he retired from being dictator. The author argues that Sulla never saw himself in the mold of a king, but always portrayed and believed he was restoring the republic. Each time he took extraordinary measures, Sulla argued that it was to carry out the legal decrees of the senate or to fix the issues with the republic. After his retirement, Sulla tried not to intervene in politics, hoping that his system would survive on its own and there would be no other Sulla.
I found the Sullian reforms the most interesting part of the book. Sulla wished to restore power to the senate, which he saw as the stable center of roman governance (this was somewhat demonstrated by the senate's attempts to mediate between the various factions during the internal conflict). To this end, he dramatically curbed the power of the tribunes, who had caused him so much grief by acting as demagogues. The tribunes lost their power to introduce legislation (and legislative introduction was gate kept by the senate), could only veto laws affecting individual rights, and holders of the position could not advance to other positions in the cursus honorum. The corruption courts, that were controlled by the equites, and occasionally used to interfere with the senate's control of foreign affairs was given over to the senate. The cursus honorum was fixed so that each position except for aedile was required before proceeding to consul, with fixed year terms inbetween. Sulla, who acquired quaestorship by turning thirty instead of taking military duties, ratified this development. Sulla also increased the size of the depleted senate by promoting equites, and increased the number of praetors in order to keep the senate filled in the future. Sulla also changed the treason laws, making it treason for governors abroad to remain in command if their replacement arrived at the scene and if those governors waged war without the senate's premission. Sulla also passed anti-luxury laws but it seems the enforcement was half-hearted. While he did not view himself as a king, Sulla also expanded the sacred boundaries of rome, a feat not achieved since the kings. Finally Sulla settled his veterans over the public lands in italy hoping that they would defend his system, but it appears that these veterans were either tricked out of their lands by the wealthy or abandoned their farming life to return to soldiering later. Unfortunately for Sulla, unlike Augustus he was not blessed with a long life to see his reforms take root. Instead, what later generations took from his example was not the importance of the senate or tradition but his march on Rome.
August 10, 2019
extremely passionate and comprehensive. I would recommend it to any readers who are interested in Sulla but don't share the taste of dull academic works. I'm quite moved by Keaveney's description of Sulla about how he maintained the lifelong friendship with the theatre gangs even when he was at the summit of power. I would definitely go have a look at how Keaveney writes about the only aristocratic friend that Sulla found among the haughty nobles: Lucullus.
November 14, 2017
I completely loved this book. Knowing little about Sulla prior to reading this book and only having brief knowledge of him from Roman history classes which left me with a feeling that he had a negative legacy. I decided to give him a go and form my own opinion of him. Sulla "the fortunate" is often known for being the first roman general to display the issue that Rome faced with their armies. He is also remembered in certain circles for his saying (paraphrasing) "he saw to it that both his friends and enemies received their just deserves". He is famous in history for marching on rome with his men not once but twice. He was an extremely charismatic man and his soldiers turned their back on the republic in order to support Sulla and help him take back the city. In both cases where Sulla had to retake Rome I felt that he was completely in the right. I did find however that his retribution for those who had betrayed him were very severe but given the circumstances I suppose it could be argued that he had no choice and unless he wanted to fear for his life or have Rome fall into civil war he needed to nip the issue in the bud. Aside from his retribution he doled out on the Cinnans who betrayed him during his second march on rome I felt that he was definitely a good general and an extremely charismatic man and perhaps his biggest issue that could be pointed at was that instead of trying to look to the greater good of Romes progression he was more concerned about finding his glory and what was (as he believed) "was rightfully his" and leaving behind his legacy.
All in all, the book was an extremely easy read and very easy to follow. I do think that Sulla was a little overly cruel but given his circumstances I can see his perspective and his situation in which he found himself in does seem to be a rather unique one in history so on what basis do you judge it? Sulla also did believe that everyone had what was coming to him and that he demanded undivided loyalty from his men and he would do everything in his power for them.
All in all, the book was an extremely easy read and very easy to follow. I do think that Sulla was a little overly cruel but given his circumstances I can see his perspective and his situation in which he found himself in does seem to be a rather unique one in history so on what basis do you judge it? Sulla also did believe that everyone had what was coming to him and that he demanded undivided loyalty from his men and he would do everything in his power for them.
March 18, 2023
Magnificent biography illustrating the life of Roman general and later dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Born into a poor noble family, spending his early life in the company of actors and playwrights, Sulla had a slow start in the Roman public sphere. Joining the army in his thirties, showing intuitive military prowess and leadership skills (charismatic and beloved by his officers and soldiers), Sulla was victorious in many military campaigns and diplomatic missions.
Also, Sulla's devotion to the Roman pantheon is an interesting insight into the practice of pantheistic rituals. Throughout his life, Sulla was convinced that he was favored by the gods (felicitias) and destined to achieve great deeds if he showed piety to his patron gods. In addition, his reverence for Bellona (the Roman goddess of bloodshed and war) as he executed three thousand Samnite prisoners at the Temple of Bellona in the presence of the Senate illustrates the great lengths he was prepared to go to stop insurgencies.
His dictatorship was not motivated by an egoistical search for wealth, power and fame. Quite contrary, Sulla wanted to bring stability to the political "institutions" in Rome and ensure territorial integrity for future expansions. After invoking numerous laws for regulating the jurisdiction of public officials and for the first time defining the penalties for treason, Sulla abdicated his dictatorship, to spend his final days in the company of his true friends, theater actors and playwrights from his youth.
Also, Sulla's devotion to the Roman pantheon is an interesting insight into the practice of pantheistic rituals. Throughout his life, Sulla was convinced that he was favored by the gods (felicitias) and destined to achieve great deeds if he showed piety to his patron gods. In addition, his reverence for Bellona (the Roman goddess of bloodshed and war) as he executed three thousand Samnite prisoners at the Temple of Bellona in the presence of the Senate illustrates the great lengths he was prepared to go to stop insurgencies.
His dictatorship was not motivated by an egoistical search for wealth, power and fame. Quite contrary, Sulla wanted to bring stability to the political "institutions" in Rome and ensure territorial integrity for future expansions. After invoking numerous laws for regulating the jurisdiction of public officials and for the first time defining the penalties for treason, Sulla abdicated his dictatorship, to spend his final days in the company of his true friends, theater actors and playwrights from his youth.
May 7, 2023
Undertakes the tall task of saving Sulla's reputation and rebranding him as the "last Republican" - and almost succeeding. The title is slightly misleading - of course there have been committed Republicans after Sulla (think Cicero or Cato, to name just two), but Sulla was the last of those powerful enough to destroy the Republic who actually cared about preserving it (unlike Pompey, Caesar, Antony, or Octavian).
Sulla's religion, his loyalty and reliability (exceptions apply, see Cloelia), and his willingness to relinquish power are duly stressed. Of course, Sulla's attempt to re-establish constitutional norms makes the center of the claim that he was the last Republican (yet that his reforms were not only conservative, but also changed century-old norms like the role of the tribunate should have been stressed more). Finally, while Sulla clearly cared about the Republic and his constitutional reforms were intended to stabilize, it could be argued that his practical policy - being the first to march on Rome, thus splitting his soldiers' loyalties to their general and the state (with the former trumping the latter) - did more damage to the Republic than the constitutional reforms repaired. This argument is absent from the book.
Sulla's religion, his loyalty and reliability (exceptions apply, see Cloelia), and his willingness to relinquish power are duly stressed. Of course, Sulla's attempt to re-establish constitutional norms makes the center of the claim that he was the last Republican (yet that his reforms were not only conservative, but also changed century-old norms like the role of the tribunate should have been stressed more). Finally, while Sulla clearly cared about the Republic and his constitutional reforms were intended to stabilize, it could be argued that his practical policy - being the first to march on Rome, thus splitting his soldiers' loyalties to their general and the state (with the former trumping the latter) - did more damage to the Republic than the constitutional reforms repaired. This argument is absent from the book.
January 22, 2023
If you've never heard of Sulla before this book may sound at first like an apologia. And there's a simple reason for it: the name Sulla has carried for centuries negative connotations and Keaveney's depiction may be a challenge to that. But only maybe, as you'll find paragraphs praising him but others were the author is firmly critical of the ex-Consul.
The book is fairly accessible for beginners and explains in plain terms the trajectory of the Sulla. As it's common in book on ancient Rome you'll find Latin expressions you'll need to look up. Some of them are explained in the book but but not all. There are also a couple descriptions of military battles - where personally I think the author went in too much detail.
Overall the book is a brief introduction to the Sulla which will give you an overview of Sulla's biography, including why is he still remembered today & why did he have such a bad reputation for a long time as well as an inkling of his personality. But don't expect a fully colored description with lots of anecdotes. The information sources are limited and in spite of Keaveney's brilliant efforts, there is still room for speculation.
The book is fairly accessible for beginners and explains in plain terms the trajectory of the Sulla. As it's common in book on ancient Rome you'll find Latin expressions you'll need to look up. Some of them are explained in the book but but not all. There are also a couple descriptions of military battles - where personally I think the author went in too much detail.
Overall the book is a brief introduction to the Sulla which will give you an overview of Sulla's biography, including why is he still remembered today & why did he have such a bad reputation for a long time as well as an inkling of his personality. But don't expect a fully colored description with lots of anecdotes. The information sources are limited and in spite of Keaveney's brilliant efforts, there is still room for speculation.
June 5, 2022
The Roman republic die a slow brutal death in the form of violent conflicts that escalated into full civil wars. Towards the end of this process it produced some of it's most amazing leaders, Lucius Cornelius Sulla commonly known as Sulla was second to none. He set the blue print that Cesar would follow just a few years later with a far poorer result.
Imbued with a love of letters and a strong capacity for forming friendships, a superb military commander and even better diplomat, loyal as he was vindictive, Sulla was a strong a personality as it gets.
During his life he was known for his love of jest and romances with both men and women. Despite been born to a noble family of fading wealth he spend almost all of his youth among actors and returned to the same group after his retirement.
He conducted many successful military campaigns in Africa, Italy, Greece and Asia.
He had his tomb engraved with the epitaph: "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
Imbued with a love of letters and a strong capacity for forming friendships, a superb military commander and even better diplomat, loyal as he was vindictive, Sulla was a strong a personality as it gets.
During his life he was known for his love of jest and romances with both men and women. Despite been born to a noble family of fading wealth he spend almost all of his youth among actors and returned to the same group after his retirement.
He conducted many successful military campaigns in Africa, Italy, Greece and Asia.
He had his tomb engraved with the epitaph: "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
October 14, 2023
Sulla is someone who then, as now, divides opinion. His actions likely set in motion what would, not long after his death, herald the fall of the Roman Republic, even though in his mind all he wanted was to save it. This is a generally sympathetic portrait of an ambitious man who lusted for power throughout his life, although Keaveney argues many of his worst actions in pursuit of it were not unusual for the time. Keaveney doesn't ignore the massacres or proscriptions which many have rightly argued are stains on Sulla's name, but does note that others (Caesar and Octavian being just two) were similarly murderous and have not received the opprobrium reserved for Sulla. I'd say this book while perhaps not written in wholly "popular history" style (Goldsworthy, Beard, Holland etc) is still very readable for interested layperson.
March 2, 2019
Greatly detailed biography of Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
If you’ve read The Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCullough you’ll find this book very informative but alas the writing is academic. You enjoyment of this book will be indirectly proportional to your dislike for long passages without a comma, or a semicolon, or a full stop!
I gave it Four Stars anyway👍🏻
If you’ve read The Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCullough you’ll find this book very informative but alas the writing is academic. You enjoyment of this book will be indirectly proportional to your dislike for long passages without a comma, or a semicolon, or a full stop!
I gave it Four Stars anyway👍🏻
October 9, 2023
This is a good biography on one of the key responsibles of the fall of the Roman Republic. The style can be a bit heavy at some parts but it remains engaging throughout the book. And the author is very good in pointing out that by using his legions to “save the Republic� from Marius first, and later Cinna, Sulla actually paved the way to what Julius Caesar would do a couple of decades later.
March 3, 2018
This is a great resource on Sulla. It's thoroughly researched and really interesting. My only complaint is that the author seems to be a bit of a Sulla apologist, and some of Sulla's misdeeds were simply inexcusable. This is still a good book and worth a read.
November 26, 2024
This was a great source of information on my favorite historical person well worth the price. This book gives a fresh and sympathetic, but also factual, take on the great Sulla. A must read for any history buff.
June 7, 2020
A scrupulously researched and vivid account of Sulla.
May 15, 2024
Only for the historical diehards, of which i am one.
June 17, 2022
I read one-third of the book and am exhausted by the author's long sentences. Come on! Can you write down a simple sentence? Every! Every sentence is complex, clauses in clauses! Most of my energy when reading was spent parsing the context! You are telling the history, not the philosophy. History books with bad writing are never worth reading.
December 31, 2020
A good quarter of the book is dedicated to war descriptions: battles, sieges, marches, and the like, a topic that I don't care at all about. It's a cautionary tale on the dangers of precedent, how once set, it can later be abused: Sulla was justified by marching on Rome, but by doing so, he opened the door for other leaders later on who were not justified, but used him as their justification "I wasn't the first to do it."
May 21, 2007
This made over dissertation looks in depth at Sulla. While it makes a few interesting conjectures about Sulla's psychology, and the reasoning behind some of his actions, and has one or two pearls, this book was mostly a let down.
The only real interesting point I found was that Sulla wasn't the first to fully exploit Marius's army reforms, he was really the first to bring the army into the political sphere at Rome. Finding similarities in the story line between Sulla's march on Rome, his rise to the dictatorship, and the justifications provided by C. Julius Caesar made this book at least worth a look, as most books I have read about Caesar do not make explicit the fact that he used many of the same justifications for marching on Rome as Sulla had done some 30 years before.
The only real interesting point I found was that Sulla wasn't the first to fully exploit Marius's army reforms, he was really the first to bring the army into the political sphere at Rome. Finding similarities in the story line between Sulla's march on Rome, his rise to the dictatorship, and the justifications provided by C. Julius Caesar made this book at least worth a look, as most books I have read about Caesar do not make explicit the fact that he used many of the same justifications for marching on Rome as Sulla had done some 30 years before.
September 19, 2014
The author spent a sizable portion of the book defending or appearing to defend some of Sulla's actions. In a way, I agree with him. Sulla was not simply a mad, power-hungry murderer that many regard him as. However, I did not get the impression that Sulla was a man of integrity and treated friends with upmost loyalty and respect. My take is that Sulla was cruel and cunning, but he was also very republican in nature as any in his generation had ought to be.
January 23, 2017
Great man-great biography
This is a very descriptive yet passionate biography of an incredibly controversial man, and it is well researched and well presented. It is comprehensible and easy to read yet does not scrimp on detail or research.
This is a very descriptive yet passionate biography of an incredibly controversial man, and it is well researched and well presented. It is comprehensible and easy to read yet does not scrimp on detail or research.
August 11, 2016
high 3 author seemed like he was trying to defend sulla rather then writing a bio but not bad bood
March 26, 2017
My last review discussed GP Baker’s 1927 biography of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (/book/show/1...). I now turn to the more clearly written and better-documented biography published in 1982 by Arthur Keaveney, Sulla: The Last Republican. The latter is far-and-away the better of the two if one wants a straight-up narrative of Sulla’s life and times. The cadence is modern and his writing style is opaque, therefore not getting in the way of the story (as opposed to Baker’s style and language usage). But this is not just a narrative-driven tale being instead a well-researched history complete with footnotes and analysis (both essentially eschewed by Baker).
Other reviews have accused Keaveney of being too defensive of his main character by softening the “notorious� parts of Sulla’s history. That is not the way I read it. I saw less in the way of justification and more of a historian’s explanation. This is what I would expect. And, by way of my various Sullan readings, I would have to generally concur with the author in his understanding of the dictator. Sulla was complex: he was both loyal to his friends (and supporters) and harsh to his enemies. There is nothing particular cruel about this. He was a man of the times and to judge him by our times (as rough and bloody and ambiguous as they are) is both shallow and pointless. Instead, a history (or, as in this case, a historical biography) should not only detail the whats and whens but also help you understand the hows and whys.
For the foreseeable future Arthur Keaveney’s Sulla: The Last Republican should prove to be the definitive work on this pivotal player in Late Republican Rome. Perhaps someday Sulla’s own autobiography will be discovered. That would yield a fascinating glimpse into his life revealing his own justifications, if not explanations. Until then, we have Keaveney (and yes, Baker too).
Other reviews have accused Keaveney of being too defensive of his main character by softening the “notorious� parts of Sulla’s history. That is not the way I read it. I saw less in the way of justification and more of a historian’s explanation. This is what I would expect. And, by way of my various Sullan readings, I would have to generally concur with the author in his understanding of the dictator. Sulla was complex: he was both loyal to his friends (and supporters) and harsh to his enemies. There is nothing particular cruel about this. He was a man of the times and to judge him by our times (as rough and bloody and ambiguous as they are) is both shallow and pointless. Instead, a history (or, as in this case, a historical biography) should not only detail the whats and whens but also help you understand the hows and whys.
For the foreseeable future Arthur Keaveney’s Sulla: The Last Republican should prove to be the definitive work on this pivotal player in Late Republican Rome. Perhaps someday Sulla’s own autobiography will be discovered. That would yield a fascinating glimpse into his life revealing his own justifications, if not explanations. Until then, we have Keaveney (and yes, Baker too).
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.