Talk:Sulla

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

Character

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cuckoo edits

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

Sulla's laws at start of first consulship

[edit]

I just removed these portions from the article:

Sulla started his consulship by passing two laws.[1][2] 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Holland 2003, p. 67.
  2. ^ Matyszak 2014, pp. 116–117.

Infobox battles

[edit]

Infra, in alternating colours, edit summaries:

Rv insertion of unnecessary infobox detail
— User:Ifly6

for clarity - the standard label sadly tempts us away from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
— User:NebY

If you do not understand the topic, don't try to showing off your intelligence. Sulla is known for his victories in battles and not just in wars. — User:Kolya Muratov

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
— User:Ifly6

This rule is inappropriate — User:Kolya Muratov

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, bring to talk if you want to discuss the consensus on this matter
— User:Ifly6

There is nothing to discuss. Battles are what make him a "great commander", as stated in the very first paragraph, so MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is irrelevant. — User:Kolya Muratov

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. ... The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
— User:NebY

[Ex User talk:Ifly6#Sulla] Could you please explain in layman's terms what you do not like about Sulla's battles being in the infobox? Kolya Muratov (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The question of how and what we should put in the infobox is well explained in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This has been referenced multiple times and now quoted in relevant section by NebY's recent edit. There's nothing at all that requires personalisation in terms of what [I] do not like or misattributions re NebY's understand[ing] of this topic and tr[ies] to show[] off [his] intelligence. Ifly6 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time and nonsense. Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]