Talk:Sulla

Source reliability

There seem to be four major sources in the current article: Holland's Rubicon, Matyszak's Cataclysm, Telford's Sulla, and Keaveney's Sulla.

Holland's Rubicon doesn't seem to be that positively reviewed as a piece of classical scholarship (praise for it as a piece of literature is ample). He also isn't formally trained as a classicist.

As to Matyszak's Catclysm, I don't know to what extent we accept Pen & Sword. It seems to be a private company specialising in history publications, but that isn't the same as being an academic publisher. I am, however, largely willing to accept Matyszak's books as reliable at least on Roman topics inasmuch as it seems that he holds a DPhil in Roman History from Oxford.

Telford's book is also published by Pen & Sword. The statement on Google Books under "About the author" says she is "passionate about history" and "a member of the Richard III Society" and that her interests include the "late Roman Republic, particularly the social wars [sic] and the career of [Sulla]" and "monasticism, with emphasis of the Cistercian order". There don't seem to be any indications of her being an expert on Roman history; Sulla apparently received no academic reviews.

Keaveney's Sulla is an academic book. It seems to be largely reliable. It was reviewed (I would characterise it as lukewarmly positive) in the BMCR shortly after publication of its second edition. But the changes from the first edition are "hardly sweeping". The first edition's reviews are decidedly "mixed": Those in the "rather negative" camp were Badian, Briscoe, Stockton; Boren was "mildly negative"; two reviews by Paterson and Richard were positive. I can't find Badian's review in Ancient Society but I can find Briscoe's in JRS. It does not avoid punches. Among other things, Briscoe says:

• "K has no interest in the political, social, and economic structure of Roman society",
• "K displays a contemptuous attitude towards modern scholarship on his subject",
• "Badian's view that Sulla made a compromise peace with Mithridates [n. I believe this is the modern orthodoxy] in order to deal with his domestic enemies is dismissed in a note as 'baseless'",
• "discussion of the reliability of the ancient sources is a notable omission from the book... K accepts almost all the anecdotal material without hesitation", and
• "Doubts about K's own scholarship readily arise" (as to factual, geographic, and citation errors).

That said, Keaveney as an author in general is well cited by the "gold standard" books like CAH². Some 11 of his works are cited in CAH² 9, Sulla (1st ed, 1982) included.

Regardless, in general, my comments aside: to what extent should these sources be considered "reliable"? Ifly6 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not consider Pen & Sword reliable. Of the four sources, Telford is definitely not a RS and could be removed immediately. I have the same view of Holland and Matyszak, but other editors have sometimes used them; I think that they are dispensable if replaced by better sources. Matyszak's thesis could be used though. I rate Keaveney a bit better; Routledge is an academic publisher and he is cited by others (something that never happens with Holland and Matyszak, which is telling), but as you mentioned he got destroyed in reviews by monuments like Badian and Briscoe, to whom you can also add Elizabeth Rawson and François Hinard. By the way, the latter published three books largely on Sulla (if you can read French). I remember that I wanted to use Keaveney as a base to rewrite the article on Sulla, but was put-off by his apology of him.

You can also safely remove Abbott (1901). T8612 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed Abbott in this edit. [Edit. Telford also excised.] I don't read French well, though I'll certainly take a look. If you want to cooperate on a rewrite draft, I'd be interested. Certainly the portions relating to the civil wars and the dictatorship can be rewritten with CAH² as a base; earlier life could be filled in perhaps by Keaveney? Ifly6 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. I have started to make a list of the men he proscribed here after Hinard. Check also this and that. T8612 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As to Matyszak's thesis, which could possibly be a useful source, it is not seemingly available online. It appears that the most forthcoming prospect for acquiring it would be to gain admittance to or employment at Oxford University and then to request it from their library services. Needless to say, this is not something I will soon be doing. Ifly6 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Character

The Character section offers his upbringing ("difficult circumstances of his youth", lol!) as a reason for his mood swings (crucification over trivia and ignoring serious crimes). Beyond the psychobabble, that would, it seems to me, be very difficult (2000 years later) to source. But my observation is that that type of mood swing is VERY TYPICAL for an alcoholic. (Mental illness and youthful trauma aside.) I won't add that to the psychobabble, but it is fact w.r.t. alcoholism (and easy to find in the research on that subject). I assume some of the historians who believe he was an alcoholic are aware of this, so I'd assume it's in print somewhere (and not just my opinion). So, why isn't that mentioned (along with the psychobabble)?174.130.71.156 (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to be careful when watching films/made-for-tv dramas that show him as such and confusing artistic license with what the ancient sources state. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Cuckoo edits

@History Supremo 95: Hello. I partially reverted some of your edits, for which you deserve an explanation. I viewed them both as wrong and as cuckoo editing:

Cuckoo editing refers ... to the practice of inserting unverifiable or false new content into an existing, referenced statement, thereby hijacking the existing statement's reference to provide legitimacy for the new content.

That Sulla fled into his camp is clear from Seager's narrative in CAH² 9, which I have now quoted explicitly in a reference. In a previous edit summary you stated History doesn't record whether sulla was forced to flee to his camp or not. This is untrue starting from the primary sources: Plut. Sull. 29.7 ("his left wing was completely shattered, and with the fugitives he sought refuge in his camp"). Scholars have speculated that the description of the battle starting terribly is in fact Sullan propaganda meant to emphasise his luck (felix). Steel, infra, p. 106 n. 105. Yet, your new edit summary is even more brazen: sulla wasn't defeated and wasn't forced to retreat into his camp. This is contradicted directly by the source – giving rise to the cuckoo – that you leave allegedly supporting your material.

You also changed a section to refer to optimates, a group that cannot be identified and did not exist. See M A Robb, Beyond optimates and populares (2010); H Mouritsen, Politics in the Roman republic (2017); Gruen, Last generation of the Roman republic (2nd ed, 1995) pp 500 et seq; and Optimates and populares (which I largely wrote). Sulla, by the time he was victorious, led a coalition that was largely defined by personal loyalty to him and a desire not to be on the losing (Marian, Cinnan, or Carbonian) side. Nor is Sulla a "conservative" as painted in 19th century scholarship; much work has gone toward showing how Sulla's reforms were groundbreaking and novel. See H I Flower, Roman republics (2010); Steel, End of the Roman republic (2013) pp. 107 et seq; Constitutional reforms of Sulla (which I also largely wrote). Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ifly6, thank you for reverting my edits, I was wrong to make them without checking my sources. History Supremo 95 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You were also wrong to insert text without a reference. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sulla's laws at start of first consulship

I just removed these portions from the article:

Sulla started his consulship by passing two laws. They were designed to regulate Rome's finances, which were in a very sorry state after all the years of continual warfare. The first of the leges Corneliae concerned the interest rates, and stipulated that all debtors were to pay simple interest only, rather than the common compound interest that so easily bankrupted the debtors. The interest rates were also to be agreed between both parties at the time that the loan was made, and should stand for the whole term of the debt, without further increase.

The second law concerned the sponsio, which was the sum in dispute in cases of debt, and usually had to be lodged with the praetor before the case was heard. This, of course, meant that many cases were never heard at all, as poorer clients did not have the money for the sponsio. Sulla's law waived the sponsio, allowing such cases to be heard without it. This, of course, made him very popular with the poorer citizens.

I can find nothing in MRR 2.39–40 which supports the existence of this legislation. Reading through narratives – Seager in CAH² 9 (1994), Steel's End of the Roman republic (2013), and Keaveney's Sulla (2nd ed, 2005) – indicates nothing supporting these laws. Plut. Sull. 6–7 discusses it not all. Nor does Liv. Per. 77 mention it. A Google Scholar search for anything related to simple or compound interest seems to bring up nothing relevant. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

References