Political Revolution in Rome (133-78 BC) Quiz

Answer: Tiberius Gracchus

Tiberius was also the first to step forward as a champion for the people - the state of the economy and army in Rome was in turmoil, you see. Public land was being rented out to the poor by the rich, and eventually the rich jacked up the rents which forced the poor to move out. According to Plutarch (check out his 'Makers of Rome' and turn to the Life of Tiberius), "A law was passed which barred any individual from holding more than 500 iugera of land", but this was overcome when the rich started taking over land under false names! Secondly, slavery was ousting free labour due to the flooding of slave markets from foreign wars and using slaves meant that the nobles' free labourers couldn't be dragged off to serve in the military, because the method of recruitment in the Roman army centred on the hiring of propertied citizens only.

The more serious implication of this was that since the poor no longer had land, "power and greed ran riot" (Sallust: refer to his 'History', although I'm sure he had other accounts!) because Rome couldn't recover her military strength! Well then, who are you gonna call? Tiberius!

Answer: He bypassed the Senate to get his bill passed in the tribal assembly

It doesn't sound like much now, but bypassing the Senate, the most prestigious political body in Rome, and thus "disregarding their customary prior right of discussing legislation" (Scullard - check out his book 'From the Gracchi to Nero'), was an action which brought violence, political chaos and civil war to Rome! Why was this so revolutionary? Well, it was considered revolutionary because the Senate's sense of 'Dignitas' (or 'pride')in politics had been completely ignored by Tiberius - Remember, we're dealing with a political body that had enjoyed unprecedented authority in Rome for 400 years. Secondly, it was also revolutionary in that Tiberius exposed the crucial and exclusive power granted to the Tribunes to gather the Concilium Plebis (or in other words, the assembly of all the tribes in Rome) for getting laws passed WITHOUT the sanction of the Senate. Why and how? Blame the Lex Hortensia, a law which decreed that any law passed by the Concilium Plebis would be binding on every person in Rome. What was the Senate to do if they were now no longer even NEEDED for the law making process? Panic, that's what!

Answer: No renting of public land, 250 iugera for each of a family's first 2 sons, excess land to be redistributed to the poor

Not only was Tiberius reinforcing the old law restricting an individual's land to 500 iugera, but he added a few bits and pieces -

250 iugera was to be granted to each of the first two sons of a family, no renting of the land, no buying of land from others and any excess land held by individuals was to be surrendered and redistributed to the poor. Sounds good, and the commoners thought so too, but according to Cicero, "the best people threw their weight against it." (For Cicero, I'm not able to point you in a specific direction for source material, but you'd be able to find fragments of relevant Cicero quotes in books containing source collections. You might want to try Cicero's account of 'Brutus', since this account is mentioned quite a lot for this period). Even though Plutarch reckoned that the rich were getting a "reward" of 500 iugera for each of their first two sons if they had any, the losses overwhelmed the benefits, in their eyes. Thus according to Appian (check out his 'Civil wars'), the rich "collected together and complained loudly and reproached the poor," and "all in all there was much weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth." What melodrama! It was because of this though that Tiberius probably bypassed the Senate to get the bill passed, because the Senatorial class stood to lose a lot of land and money. According to Scullard though, Tiberius had friends in the Senate, so he could've gotten a fair hearing. Who knows?

Answer: Octavius

It was time to fight back! Octavius was commanded by the Senate to veto Tiberius' bill in the Concilium Plebis, despite Tiberius' pleas to Octavius to not stop a project "so righteous and obviously advantageous to all of Italy." (Appian). When this failed, Tiberius played dirty by letting the people vote on a proposal to strip Octavius of his Tribunate.

The people wanted the bill passed, so it's not surprising that 17 out of the 35 tribes voted in favour, with only one more needed for a majority. Octavius was intimidated and removed himself from office willingly.

This was yet another 'radical' incident on behalf of Tiberius' actions - the Tribunes had always been sacrosanct in politics, and Tiberius was admonised by a Senator, Annius, for "doing a dishonour against a colleague whose office was sacred, and by law inviolate." More significantly, Tiberius had empowered the people by letting them make a decision on a political matter, and they also benefitted from the passing of the bill while the nobles did not. Gasp! Was Rome turning democratic? The Senate certainly felt that Tiberius was setting himself up as some sort of dictator with the help of the people, which didn't exactly put him in their good books ...

Answer: False

The final crunch came when Tiberius sought a second term as Tribune without waiting for the required 10 years between terms as decreed by the Cursus Honorum (or 'ladder of offices'). Radical, yes. Revolutionary, yes. Illegal? Nope. But what about the land bill? Bypassing the Senate was illegal, right? Nope. You see, for all of the Senate's griping, everything that Tiberius did had the sanction of legality! The Cursus Honorum wasn't enforceable at the time, so Tiberius didn't need to wait! If anyone or anything was to blame, it was Rome's constitution which actually allowed for the Tribunes to exercise such great power in politics, even moreso than the Senate. Anyone see something wrong with this picture? I do - the Senate were supposed to be the most prestigious and powerful political force in Rome, and yet here they were being superceeded by the Tribunes! What did this mean? It meant that the Senate had only TRADITIONAL authority, and no provisions were made by the Constitution to give them ANY legal powers to deal with 'revolutionaries' like Tiberius.

Their lack of legal ground to challenge him with was shown through the Senate resorting to violence to eliminate Tiberius once and for all, clubbing him and 300 of his followers to death in what Plutarch considers, "the first outbreak of civil strife in Rome, which ended in the bloodshed and death of citizens since the expulsion of the kings." HOWEVER, don't entirely blame the Senate - Tiberius himself was partially responsible for his downfall! According to F.B Marsh (check out his book, 'A history of the Roman world, 146-30 BC'), Tiberius' shortcoming was his inability to see both sides of an issue; "supremely confident" and "utterly convinced" that his bill was right, he couldn't conceive opposition and so "the nobles could only prepare for a fight to the last ditch." Perhaps if Tiberius had also considered the feelings of the Senate and the consequences of his actions, things could've turned out a bit better.

Answer: Plotting revenge against the Senate

Sounds like a soap drama, doesn't it? Gaius didn't take too kindly to how the Senate treated his brother, made worse by the fact that Tiberius' body was thrown into the river along with his murdered followers! As Tribune, Gaius was in the perfect position to exact some vengeance - remember the powers the Tribunate had over the Senate? One of Gaius' first proposals aimed at ensuring that any magistrate deposed by the people could not stand for further public office, and this was directed at Octavius, the deposed Tribune who had opposed Tiberius. According to Scullard, such a bill would've been "potentially revolutionary" if it had been passed, because the people would've been embued with great political power, and think what that would've spelt for the oligarchy! As it was though, Gaius was persuaded to drop the proposal by his mother Cornelia, but it was clear that Gaius meant business...!

Answer: Control of the law courts to be transferred from the Senate to the Equites

This was one of the most notable of Gaius' laws, due to its implications. Scullard suggests that Gaius proposed the transfer of control of the law courts in order to form a "more serious counter-weight to the Senate", but Appian believes that the transfer meant that "the whole balance of political power in Rome was quickly turned upside down." The Equites (or Knights) were now granted the power to sit in judgement over Romans, Italians AND Senators alike, which meant that the Senate were virtually turned into SUBJECTS, and were made more frightened of the Equites! Talk about a reversal of power! In fact, according to Appian, after the law was passed, "Gaius declared that he had completely destroyed the Senate." The Senate not only lost one of their political rights, but could no longer favour their own class in extortion cases (which was the only crime that a Senator could be trialled for!) so corruption in these type of judicial cases was eliminated. Don't disregard what happened to the Equites though - the Equites were ultimately made corrupt due to their indulgence in bribes and their drinking of the profits of power.

This was able to continue because Gaius had added 600 Equites to the usually 300 strong Senate thus the Equites had twice as much influence! Finally though, what resulted was a "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" type of relationship, or a 'client-patron' relationship, you might say. Gaius had elevated the Equites, so they owed him a favour. And that leads on to the next big drama ...

Answer: Granting citizenship to the Allies and Latins

It's possible that Gaius proposed a similar law in 123 BC, but lacked the political backing to make it work. Now however, with the political backing of the Equites, Gaius could try to get it passed! The proposal basically revolved around granting the Latins and Allies around Rome full Roman citizenship, and Gaius also proposed allowing them to vote in assemblies. According to Appian though, "The Senate were particularly upset by this", and so were the people! Why? Two things, basically: 1. If the Allies and Latins were given citizenship, they were liable for holding public office, which meant that in time they would be able to infiltrate the Senate, and of course the Senate didn't like this idea one bit! 2. Likewise, citizenship meant that the Latins and Allies were entitled to owning some of Rome's public land, and the Romans were adverse to making such a sacrifice at their expense. Smoke alarms were going off, shown through the Senate ordering the Latins and Allies to not come within five miles of Rome while the bill was being voted upon! This, according to Scullard, was all due to "the selfish interests of the voters" and "their jealousy of the Allies." As a result, the political backlash could do no good for Gaius, the instigator ...

Answer: Livius Drusus

It was time to fight again, and fight dirty! Livius Drusus was called upon by the Senate to oppose Gaius' proposals, not by violence but by passing proposals with one objective - "To outbid Gaius for popular favour and gratitude in an almost comic rivalry." (Plutarch - check out 'Makers of Rome' and the Life of Gaius Gracchus.) Drusus was able to capitalise on Gaius' unpopularity over his Latin franchise proposal, and Drusus won the goodwill of the people by competing with Gaius, such as by proposing founding a whopping 12 colonies to Gaius' proposed 2, under Gaius' Lex Rubria proposal.

Hey, the people liked what Drusus had to say, even if it wasn't realistic! There was a more insidious purpose however - according to Plutarch, Drusus was to stress repeatedly in his speeches that "he had the approval of the Senate and that the Senate cared for the masses." Basically, according to Cicero, "the wounds which Gaius was inflicting on Rome, Drusus set himself to heal" by restoring the people's faith in the Senate while downplaying Gaius! BUT there is something even more significant being revealed here - why was it that the Senate had to rely on another Tribune to help restore their damaged prestige? It happened before between the Senate and Octavius, and here it is happening again with Drusus! What did this imply? It meant that the Senate were actually ACKNOWLEDGING that the Tribunes' powers were greater than their own, shown through their resorting to 'friendly tribunes' to do their dirty work! This reaffirmed the lack of legal power that the Senate possessed, the amount of power yielded by the Tribunes and set the precedent for other ambitious individuals down the track to use alliances with 'friendly tribunes' for personal interest. Ouch!

Answer: Senatus Consultum Ultimum

This was the big one! It came about when the tribune M. Rufus threatened to repeal Gaius' Lex Rubria law - the one in which he proposed the founding of the colony of Iuonia - and so Gaius rallied his supporters to oppose Rufus. According to Plutarch, the Consul Opimius had his attendant, Antyllus, murdered by Gaius' followers but Appian believes that Antyllus was a commoner who was accidentally murdered on a false signal from Gaius. Whatever the case was, the Senate obviously felt that the situation was critical enough to pass a decree, the Senatus Consultum Ultimum, which gave the consuls (thus Opimius!) the means with which to "save Rome" and to "put down the tyrant." No restrictions were put in place as to HOW the threats were to be dealt with, which gave Opimius the green light to use violence to eliminate Gaius and 3000 of his followers without trial in a repeat of the death of Tiberius! The Senatus Consultum Ultimum was significant in that it actually LEGALISED violence, and also sent out the message that the Senate actually CONDONED violence, thus it was an acceptable method to use in politics! Well, according to Scullard, "the Gracchi were in a true sense martyrs." Both had aimed at seeking economic and social reform for the good of the people, and both had been targeted rather unfairly by the Senate.

The Gracchi's lasting influence was that they had exposed the excessive powers of the Tribunate over the Senate, and this error of the constitution would later be exploited by ambitious individuals. They also revealed the landmark fact that the Senate wasn't even needed for the lawmaking process! Essentially though, according to Scullard, "Whether or not the Gracchi should be regarded as revolutionaries, without doubt they precipitated the revolution that overthrew the republic ..." (Credit goes to Liszthelios for pointing out that the original name of the decree ran along the lines of "Senatus consultum de res publica defendanda" - most modern scholars today scrap this name in favour of its shorter version)

Answer: Caesar

Yes, none other than the Patrician Julii family, otherwise known as the family from which Julius Caesar originated. In fact, Julius Caesar was born during this period; Marius happened to marry Julius' aunt, Julia, and it's been said that Julius modelled his own career after Marius! Anyway, for a little background info, Marius was born in 157 BC into a landowner's family.

He gained the patronship of the prestigious Metelli clan which helped Marius to get elected tribune in 119 BC, and praetor in 115 BC, but after serving as a Praetor in Spain, Marius returned to Rome to find that he had declined in political power in Rome, and according to Plutarch (check out "The fall of the Roman Republic" and the "Life of Marius"), had neither "wealth or eloquence" which were two vital means used by great men of the time to influence people. Did Marius sit and sulk? No - he exuded great confidence and won the goodwill of the people by living humbly in the manner of an ordinary civilian, and this won him the goodwill of the people because Marius was unlike other politicians of the time who used their rank to exploit the people. Due to Marius' shrewdness, he secured the influence that he needed to marry Julia. Why was this important? Well, according to T. Carney (check out his book 'A biography of C. Marius'), "the marriage was judiciously timed, on Marius' part at least, rescuing him from the political doldrums." There's no doubt that Marius' political career was propelled by this marriage, and it would also have provided him with much needed funding! I should also point out that the only way for a "new man" to marry someone like Julia was to buy her. Quiz player Bobbler alerted me to this.

Answer: Jugarthine war

So, you're probably wondering what you could possibly use a war for in terms of personal interests. When you're Marius, plenty! Marius intended to use the Jugarthine war as a chance to discredit Metellus' capabilities of winning the war for Rome, and to win the support of the soldiers, all for the sake of increasing his chances of winning the consular elections on Rome. Marius first won the goodwill of the soldiers by foregoing the easy life as a general and living in the manner of a common soldier. (Same tactic that he'd used on the Roman civilians!) Marius thus made himself out to be a humble man who sacrificed his own comfort to be with others less fortunate. Plutarch understood this, stating "the commanders who they [the soldiers] admire most... are those that take a share in their hardships and dangers." Thus the soldiers wrote letters to their loved ones at home, "praising Marius and declaring that there would be no end or cessation of the war against the barbarian unless they chose Gaius Marius Consul." BUT! Hang on! The men enlisted in the army came from poor backgrounds, so how on earth did they become so literate so quickly? Marius probably wrote those letters himself as part of a propaganda campaign to increase his chances of getting elected Consul! This shows just how cunning Marius could be to climb the political ladder - Clever, very clever!

Answer: He slandered Metellus and the Senatorial class

Well, it's a method that still gets a lot of support today! Marius basically took to targeting Metellus, because targeting him was an attack against the nobility. The people loved to hear Marius speak of the Senatorial class so slanderously, but we shouldn't ignore some other factors working in Marius' favous - according to Sallust (check out his account, 'The Jugarthine war'), "the Plebs were looking for 'new men' whom they could raise to high office", the reason being that the oligarchy had been bombarded with accusations of corruption and bribery in their handling of the Jugarthine war.

It was apparent to the Romans that the war was dragging on because the Senate consistently sent out incompetent generals to fight for Rome, therefore the Senate were failing in their duty to protect Rome!

Answer: He opened up the army to the lower, and thus the poorer, classes

It doesn't sound like much, but it was because of this one act that Rome was subjected to a violent bloodbath over the next few years and set the precedent for men like Caesar and Pompey to become military dictators! How was this possible? Well, Marius opened up the army to the lower classes as early as his taking command of the Jugarthine war, disregarding the army's traditional method of recruitment from the propertied class. Sallust suggests that Marius did this in order to "curry favour with men of low condition" for "if a man is ambitious for power, he can have no better supporters than the poor." Scullard dips his oar in, stating that Marius' action was to have "far-reaching political effects" and how right he was. You see, having soldiers with little possessions and most importantly, no land, meant that a new dependency was created between the army and commander, because the men now relied on the commander to provide for them after demobilisation, so the personal interests of the army were tied to the commander. Recipe for disaster, and Scullard thought so too, stating bluntly: "This spelt danger"! A client-patron relationship between army and commander had been formed, and so the loyalty of the army was shifted from the state to a single person, and this would later be exploited by military dictators and in a civil war involving Marius himself! Don't let the bad overcome the good though - Marius made other military reforms which were beneficial: He abolished the fighting formation based on three straight lines, made sure all troops had the same equipment provided by the state, made the men carry their own equipment so there was no more need for baggage trains (thus these trains couldn't be ambushed by the enemy because they moved so slow!) and Marius introduced a breakable Pilum , or 'javelin', so that when thrown, the head would break off and the enemy couldn't throw it back! (Clever!) Scullard believes that Marius made the army "more mobile and independent" and thus the Roman army became "one of the finest fighting machines of antiquity" because Rome now had a full time volunteer army instead of a conscript army! Not bad for the son of a labourer!

Answer: Saturninus

Uh oh! Bad move Marius - this secured your fall in politics! You see, Marius was in need of land for his veterans after the Germanic war (remember his military reforms?) and according to Scullard, "of statesmanship to match his generalship, he showed not a spark." Saturninus was a man who used violence in politics, for according to Livy (refer to Livy's 'Histories'), "Saturninus had a rival, Nunnius, murdered by soldiers" and "proceeded to be as violent in his tribunate as he had in his election to it." This meant bad news, because since Saturninus was willing to do whatever it took to achieve his aims, Marius would be found guilty of association! As it was, Saturninus did end up using violence in politics, by using Marius' veterans to threaten opposition to his proposed land bill.

It didn't stop there though! Saturninus even went on to have a rival to his colleague, Glaucia, killed in 99 BC, which, according to Scullard, "Was too much for Marius who has a strong sense of law and order", thus Marius actually allied himself with the Senate in disgust! It could be that Marius was willing to live off the support of any political side available, or was merely regretting allying himself with such a 'black sheep' of politics, so to say! Since Marius was a consul, the Senate initiated the Senatus Consultum Ultimum (remember that?) on him, thus Marius had Saturninus and Glaucia arrested and locked up, but an angry mob broke into the house where they were held captive and pelted them to death with roof tiles! Unfortunately for Marius, by giving in to the wishes of the Senate, he had unwittingly become their tool and so according to Scullard, "No longer feared by the Senate or respected by the people, he went off to Asia and obscurity." For the moment, Marius sunk into political oblivion, which paved the way for the final contributor to Roman politics in this period ....

Answer: Quaestor

Yep, Sulla first served as a Quaestor to Marius in the Jugarthine War! It was this partnership that, according to Plutarch (check out "The fall of the Roman republic" and the Life of Sulla), "very nearly brought Rome to ruin." So, what was the gripe between these two men? Well, Jugartha, instigator of the Jugarthine war, had taken refuge with his son-in-law Bocchus who intended to betray him.

It was Sulla who negotiated with Bocchus, putting his own life in danger by placing himself in the hands of Bocchus who could easily have decided to keep this Quaestor to Marius hostage or even killed, rather than surrender Jugartha! As it was though, Bocchus decided to hand Jugartha over and Sulla hogged the whole credit.

This was made worse by the fact that Sulla was, according to Plutarch, a "naturally boastful man" who even got a Signet ring engraved with the scene of Jugartha being surrendered to him! Marius was EXTREMELY annoyed with this, considering he felt he deserved some credit for actually winning enough battles in the war which compelled Jugartha to seek refuge, and which ultimately led to Bocchus surrendering him - not to mention the fact that if not for Marius being Consul, Sulla would not be serving him or even be in the war itself! Additionally, friction was created between the two men because Marius represented the Populares (a section of the oligarchy referred to as demagogues by their opponents, who largely sought personal predominance in politics) while Sulla stood for the Optimates (the other section of the oligarchy which strove to uphold the conservative rule of the Senatorial class).

It was clear then that Sulla and Marius were destined to be rivals...

Answer: Sulpicius

That precedent set by the Senate so long ago was sure being put to use! You see, in 89 BC, Rome's client kingdoms in Asia were being threatened by King Mithridates of Pontus and in 88 BC, Sulla was not only elected Consul but given command of the war against him. Also around this time, the Tribune Sulpicius aimed to secure the distribution of the newly enfranchised Italians (they'd finally gotten Roman citizenship, but only after the Italian/Social war forced the Romans into doing it!) equally across Rome's 35 tribes.

Naturally, this was opposed by the Optimates so Sulpicius had to gain an ally, and this turned out to be Marius. Marius by now had retired from military service and was feeling very bitter about it; according to Appian, Marius viewed the Mithridatic war as "an easy and lucrative war" which he desired the command of! Sulpicius agreed to transfer command of the war from Sulla to Marius in return for Marius' support of the Italians' distribution, something which was, according to Scullard, "Constitutionally improper." Why? Because it had always been the Senate's "traditional right to make such appointments"! Yet again, we have a Tribune flaunting his powers over the powerless Senate by once again denying them their traditional authority in Rome! In fact, the role of the Senate in Roman politics was going completely down the tubes, even moreso in this particular section of the era for reasons we'll get to shortly!

Answer: He had marched his army upon Rome in an act of violence

It seems ironic that Sulla had Marius to thank for allowing him to achieve this! Due to Marius' military reforms and the client-patron relationship between army and commander, Sulla was able to use the troops that he'd received for the Mithridatic war to march upon Rome in order to restore his damaged sense of 'dignitas' by being robbed of his command of the war. According to Appian, "Sulla spoke of the indignity put upon him by Marius and Sulpicius" - in what could be termed as the ultimate use of violence in politics.

This one action by Sulla set the precedent for men like Caesar and Pompey to use their armies, on the pretext of the client-patron relationship established by Marius, as tools for personal interest rather than for the good of the state! As it was, by marching his army upon Rome, Sulla had no trouble in defeating the factions of Marius and Sulpicius, and getting the Senate to declare them outlaws under the penalty of death. Later though, Marius would return with the exiled Consul Cinna and would use an army of his old veterans (who were indebted to him!) to recapture Rome while Sulla was absent. Hang on - what have we got happening here? Two generals making use of their armies vying for control of Rome in a civil war while the Senate have no choice but to sit back and watch! Remember, the Senate were supposed to be the true leaders of Rome, and look at them now: Reduced to such a lowly position thanks to the powers of the Tribunate and the errors of the Constitution, and the fact that they were not cut out to be leaders was shown through their inability to stop the war OR Marius OR Sulla, so it's clear how the role of the Senate changed VERY drastically within 50 years or so!

Answer: He put up proscription lists ordering the death of all his enemies, 2000 in all

It might not sound like much, but Sulla turned Rome into a city of festering death and violence with these lists! He put up proscription lists of his enemies, and his friends' enemies, in the forum with rewards to anybody who did away with them. He did this because according to Scullard, "He was grimly determined to elminate all potential political opposition." Death penalties were also placed on anybody who helped the proscribed, the property of the proscribed was auctioned off and their children and grandchildren forbidden from holding public office! Sallust believes that because of this, "Sulla is the only man in history who has devised punishments for the unborn." Pretty drastic, hey? Plutarch also considers this policy of Sulla's to have been "the most unjust of all", while the killings in Rome were so frequent that it wasn't unusual for someone to say, "so and so was killed by his hot water system." (Actual quote from Plutarch! Gotta love that guy!) Also, apparently whoever killed the most proscribed ultimately grew richer, so Sulla was actually condoning this type of violence! Approximately 2000 people were proscribed and killed without trial.

When Sulla got mad, he got MAD, no?

Answer: False

Can't say that Sulla didn't try - after getting himself elected as a - wow - 'Dictator Legibus Scribundis Et Reipublicae Constituendae' (aren't you glad I didn't ask you that one?) Sulla set about restoring the traditional powers of the Senate. Sulla had always been conservative in politics, and believed in upholding their power; Scullard suggests that he also did this because he felt that only if the Senate were restored to power could Rome "hope for peace and order." Sulla firstly increased the Senate's numbers - the new members would include some of Sulla's supporters and 300 Equites, thus according to Scullard, Sulla created a Senate "where the majority owed their position and allegiance to the dictator." Secondly, Sulla had a major crack-down on the Tribunate! According to Appian, "Sulla virtually destroyed the Tribunician magistracy, leaving it very weak." The Tribunes could no longer carry legislation and anybody who became a Tribune would no longer be able to hold any other public office.

This successfully ended the possibilities of anymore alliances with 'friendly Tribunes', because who would want to ally themselves with an office that would only lead to a political dead end? Thirdly, Sulla adjusted and strictly enforced the Cursus Honorum with minimum age limits and a compulsory 10 year waiting period between terms. This would prevent men like Marius from advancing in offices too quickly (he was elected Consul a record 7 times!) and from holding office too frequently. It all sounded pretty good, but these reforms faded out within ten years! Why? Well, too much had changed since 133 BC for things to have returned to how they were. Sulla wanted to restore the power of the Senate, and not only was this not wise since they'd already proven themselves to be incompetent leaders, but according to Scullard, Sulla "largely failed to infuse a new sense of responsibility in the Senate." Not only that, but the client-patron relationship between army and commander still existed in Rome which was assured of being the death of any tpye of reform while it was still around, and the Senate eventually restored the powers of the Tribunate anyway! It was evident then that Sulla was too conservative to deliver a new Constitution for Rome. And that my friends is where the period ended, and where everything else started. I hope this quiz gave you a greater insight to the background of the well known Roman periods! :)