Talk:Sulla

message: Plutarch says that Sulla died as a result of worms, brought on him by his gay lover at the time. I've included this into the text, adding the comment that whether or not Plutarch was bias on the topic. I can place references to the text as well. It is in the book The Fall of the Roman Republic
We are currently studying Sulla at the moment at school, and are using various primary and secondary sources such as Cary and Scullard, Pamela Bradley, Plutarch, Cicero and many others. I am trying to include positions from other historians, and displaying possible outcomes and the possible bias of these sources.
Just Googeling the sources often comes up with inaccurate results. The best action is to buy the books and read it for yourself.
-While Plutarch does mention that Sulla died as a result of a rampant infestation of worms, he does not suggest this was a result of a gay lover, and even in the 21st century, it would be an implausable and tenuous link! Furthermore, his description of Sulla's death is generally regarded as highly suspect and written to suit the politics of the time he was writing, some 200 years after Sulla's death, the general consensus being that Sulla died of liver failure; quite probable due to his lifestyle. While no one disputes Sulla's bisexuality, you need to have a serious discussion with your history and biology teacher's, if you think that worms and gay relationships are synonymous.- Sulla16
:While it is certainly possible that Plutarch's description of Sulla's death could have been politically motivated, it should never the less have a reference here since it is among the closest chronologically.  I've added that reference, footnoted it, and left reference to contemporary view.  If anyone can provide citation for the belief that he died of an intestinal ulcer or liver failure, I'd be interested in seeing it.  Thanks. --Rencheple (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plutarch's version of Sulla's death 

message: Has anyone read Roman Blood by Steven Saylor?  It's a murder mystery set at the time of Sulla, and goes into detail about Sulla's history that isn't here.  I'm just wondering if anyone knows how much of Saylor's work is true.  RickK 03:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read it - there is some more known about Sulla's life, but part of it is known to have been falsified by ancient authors, and modern scholarly accounts generally have to be pretty careful about which bits they take at face value. Stan 04:52, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stan, can you provide any references that demonstrate how the falsified accounts were identified and what evidence there is that they were intentionally misleading? Thanks --Rencheple (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, there's no such evidence, unless some has come to light in the past couple of years that I'm unaware of.  I'll remove the statement.  Binabik80 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: According to the current layout of the chart of wives and children, Sulla had 19 children by Dalmatica in the decade or so they were married.  Binabik80 00:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Blood by Steven Saylor 

message: I changed this notation of Sulla's first with to simply "Julia".  the author seems to think Caesari is a plural, but it's actually not.  it's a dative or ablative singular (identical forms).  also i don't think it's appropriate to use the I instead of a J if you're not also going to use the V in place of the U.  just seems a complete butchering of the language and entirely haphazard as to forms.  
also it doesn't seem to be clear if that particular Julia was from the Caesarian branch.
but if the concensus is to use a form such as that, it should be Julia of the Caesares as that is the proper latin ending form for a 3rd declension noun.
- Plutarch lists his first wife as "Ilia". Plutarch was using Sulla's memoirs for his biography, so its unlikely that he mispelled Iulia, or would have neglected to mention the connection with Caesar if it was there. I changed it, and also added in his third wife Cloelia as listed in Plutarch. Valeria was his last wife, and their daughter was born after his death. I'm not sure where "Sergia" came from. LaurenCole 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iulia of the Caesari 

message: I was wondering what were the sources for 8 wives and 22 children.  It seems certain that Sulla married three woman (Julia (Ilia), Valeria Messala, Caecilia Metella Dalmatica).  Plutarach mentions an Aelia and Cloelia, but no other sources mention these two.  As for children we know that Sulla had at least three: Cornelia Sulla, whose daughter married Julius Caesar; and the twins Fastus and Fausta.  Also how do we know that Aelia was a member of the Tuberoni?  It would be highly unlikely for a Roman patrician to marry a Gaul given the xenophobic tendencies of Romans in the late republic.
--69.107.102.38 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He had five wives - Ilia, Aelia, Calpurnia, Claudia, Metella, and Valeria - according to Plutarch. Plutarch was using Sulla's memoirs as his primary source, so that may be why he mentions Claudia when others dont. Ilia and Aelia may be one person (this was used by Peter Green in his fictional memoirs) since their names are so similar. Lucius Sulla, his oldest son, was by Metella and died as a boy. I don't know why he's been assigned to Ilia here. Plutarch says that one of Sulla's premonitions of his own death was a dream in which this son asked him to come home to his mother Metella. LaurenCole 21:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Sulla's wives and children? 

message: It really does not make since to say that Marius and Sulla had a rivalry over the credit for the African war.  As counsul Marius selected Sulla for his staff for both the African and German Wars.  As a quastor, Sulla would not receive sole credit for ending the African war by capturing Jugurtha since he was a subordinate officer. The sources make much of the rivarly between Marius and Sulla, but this rivarly did not likely begin until much later, when Marius was an old man and Sulla was in his prime.  It would have been unthinkable for Marius as a counsular to be jealous of a mere quastor so far down on the curus honorum. Plutarch's main sources were likely Sulla's memoirs which would likely play up an early rivarly to the expense of Marius' character. --71.146.45.220 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalry with Marius 

message: I have removed a paragraph from the "Early Life" section. There is no evidence that Sulla killed the people who left him money. The sentence in the previous paragraph - "some sources refer to family inheritances from his step-mother and others" - is the extent of our knowledge. Outside of novels (which are fiction obviously), there is no indication of malice or violence in these events. Additionally there is no evidence that Sulla was ever a prostitute. Whatever the nature of his relationship with Metrobius, it wasn't a "working" one so to speak. Metrobius was an actor, and Sulla a patron of the arts and invenerate partier, so an incidence of prostitution when young is not needed to explain their acquaintance. A mention of Metrobius in a Senate speech does not prove Sulla was a prostitute some 50 years before - yet this was presented in the article as if it were all the proof necessary. I'm not sure who put this part in there, or when, but it needs scholarly citation before it can be included again. LaurenCole 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prostitution and Murders

message: A great deal of the Sulla article has a rather cavalier attitude, and lacks professionalism, in particular the latter sections. While on the topic of the latter sections, how much of them are backed up with sources?
Then I suggest that you contribte to the article instead of carping from the sidelines. Sulla is a much more difficult life to chronicle than say Caesar's, due to the sources being scattered and much of his memory and achievements being erased by later generations. As such it is useful and interesting to acribe reasonable interpretation from existing sources (as opposed to speculative) of his actions. Please join discussion... 214
I'm not the OP, though I do intend to remove many of the seemingly biased statements. Wikipedia is not a novel or a chance to display opinions. Sulla was who he was like him or hate him, he was not a position to frame modern conservatism or to say he was "brilliant" and leave out much of the blood that was spilt by Sulla or by framing it in the same sentence as the repercussions of   Cinna and Marius. Opinions should be verified with sources, no one cares what we think here, though they do care what Plutarch or Suetonius may have to say. I also intend to remove much of the pre-collegiate writing the article displays such as how Sulla "seriously won" the battle. The article seems lopsided, as if was written by a community college student who just read a book about Sulla and makes no effort to be non-partisan in the civil wars between the Optimates and the Populares, or to point out that many Optimates fought against Sulla and many Populares fought with him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelsole (talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalier attitude 

message: Hi,
I casually came into this page and was surprised about the Sulla writing of his name.
In my school memories, I'm from Italy, it has always been Silla and in the italian wikipedia I found a reference to his original cognomen being SVILLA 
Is it the case to add a Silla redirection for this page ?
:There is a tendency in late Latin to spell the name Sylla; in part supported by Plutarch's use of Συλλα. This is a Hellenism like the y in sylva, classically silva. Renaissance Italian adopted this spelling, and changed it, regularly, to Silla, but this is unsupported by Latin usage of any age, and is(more to the point) not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulla vs. Silla 

message: The "royal" infobox here is even more misleading than in Julius Caesar (see Talk:Julius_Caesar#Predecessor). It should be replaced by a version not talking about "Predecessor", "Reign", "Royal House" etc.--193.175.194.60 10:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: In several of her Roman novels (particularly The First Man in Rome, The Grass Crown and Fortune's Favorites, Colleen McCullough paints a vivid, compelling portrait of the man who became Sulla the Dictator.  However, some readers might mistake some of her masterful what-ifs (Sulla's marriage to Julius Caesar's aunt, for example) for documented facts.
-- Cranston Lamont 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masters of Rome 

message: I was attempting to fledge out Sulla's early life (with the usual references to Plutarch) and his African career, but it seems I've messed up the reference numbers. I'm sorry about this. Tried to correct it, but it doesn't seem to want my correcting. Usually you can add references, and the reference numbers are sorted out automatically. Am I doing something wrong? Should you be moved to answer, please be moved with a personal explanation: a reference to some god-hopeless pre-prepared page will often insult. MacMurrough 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulla's early life 

message: I have been studying Sulla's changes to the roman constitution for a dissertation, and have also looked at a fair amount of the sources for him. If users like the idea, I would like add more primary sources from Appian and Sallust as well as Plutarch - some of the quotes aren't referenced, so I can possibly do that - and flesh out the section on the dictatorship by adding some more info about his laws. However, I'm fairly new to wikipedia and so I'll probably get things wrong - there's only so much you can practise in a sandbox. Would someone be willing to keep an eye on the page occasionally and revert it whenever I screw up beyond my own repair? Tbarker 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sulla's Laws

message: Nick (who used to sign Sulla16) keeps reverting to his POV version commenting that he wants to wait for the result of mediation. However apart from signing the Request for mediation page he has been doing just that: waiting for mediation. He hasn't participated, he has only gone on with his reverts. After NPOV, core Wikipedia values include collective participation and consensus. Nick is not following this by telling me earlier I can't edit, by implying (see above) that his voice carries more weight because he's written "80% of the article" and by ignoring the mediation process. Any thoughts? Vincent 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Request for Comment: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
This is a dispute about one small section of the Sulla article. 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: 1) The quote is a sourced reference.
2) I agreed with the compromise suggested by [Yxrael] in our mediation, that the disputed section should re-phrased as follows:
...This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed - "Sulla did not know his political ABCs". As Ihne indicated in his history of the period: "...in retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed." [9]
3) I also agreed to remove the Suetonius text from the article, just leaving the reference link (10).
4) Vincent is the one that abandoned mediation, despite [Yxrael] suggesting we should continue to try for a resolution, something I totally agree with and am more than happy to try.
Finally, I also have no intention in getting into a pointless and childish "who said such and such...or suggesting this or that person should be banned", It is not my place. All I want is for this to be arbitrated fairly, based on Wikipedia rules, and the fact that historical articles are by their very nature subject to a certain amount of "interpretation of events" (determined by whoever wrote the history in the first place - in many cases the winner of a conflict). It would be impossible to to have any historical perspective of events in Wikipedia, if this is not accepted. Suetonius (writing well after events had taken place) would be right out as an historical source, if this were not the case, and our knowledge of Ancient times would be severely compromised. History fortunately or otherwise is not like scientific fact and historical articles need to take that into account. 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Sulla16

message: 1) The quote Sulla16 means is which quote? There are four quotes at issue:
:i) Unsourced, "This lesson in supreme confidence";
:ii) Unsourced, "Of the two Sulla was said to have the last laugh";
:iii) Sourced, Caesar's quote that Sulla did not know his political abc;
:iv) Sourced, Suetonius's comments on Caesar.
The wording of i) and ii) is not sourced, those two phrases are just comments on sourced material. This is the crux of the dispute. Sulla16 insists on putting in those words, which I believe they are his own.
As for quotes iii) and iv) I think they belong in a reference or legacy section, not in the main body of the article. 
2) Xyrael, the mediator in the RfM, did not support, suggest, or endorse any specific compromise. He just urged that we reach a compromise but I believe he stayed neutral and favored neither of us in the dispute. 
3) Sulla16 says he accepted a compromise, but he insisted on retaining "supreme lesson" and "last laugh". In other words, Sulla16's idea of a compromise was to leave the article exactly as I found it, with a quote he added later moved to a reference.
4) I did abandon mediation when Sulla16 began misrepresenting what the mediator said, and when he stated the above was a compromise. I feel private mediation is fruitless at this point and prefer going back to a public discussion so I opened a Request for Arbitration. This was justified
Finally, behaviour is important in Wikipedia. Sulla16 has made personal attacks on me, he's given me orders to leave the article alone, and despite what he says, Sulla16 was not looking for compromise. It's OK to provide a variety of historical quotes having POV, as long as on the whole they are NPOV. It's not OK to write one's own POV or to select quotes with the sole purpose of pushing one's POV.  
 Vincent 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Vfp15

message: The mediation is closed, the Arb committee won't hear the case, so I will start editing again. I inserted what I suggested above, with the full text of the Suetonius quote in reference below along with the other footnotes.Vincent 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resumption of edits

message: Nick, you have now made at least three personal attacks on me. I've put them in bold. Read the five pillars page and then follow the link on personal attacks. If you persist in making personal attacks, you will be blocked. That's not a threat, it's policy. Coming from me it cannot be a threat since I am not an administrator and cannot block. I am pointing out what happens to wikipedians who do make personal attacks.
Also, please understand that Xyrael never endorsed a specific compromise as you say he did. His opinion was that we could achieve a compromise he never endorsed one in particular. You imagined he endorsed a change back to the original wording with the Suetonius quote in a footnote. He did not. He was neutral. 
You'll note that during the RfM which I started, I left the page at your version. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
As for compromise, let's compare what you want with what I want.
:*What I want: the four quotes completely out of the whole article.
:*What you want: the four quotes completely in the main text of the article.
:*What R. Fiend proposed: the first two quotes out, the last two quotes in the main body.
:*What I counterproposed: the first two quotes out, the third quote (Caesar's) in the main body qualified with a reference to the fourth quote moved to the footnotes.
I think that's fair and it's what cooperation is all about. It's not about banning every idea I might have because you seemingly think I'm an annoying little prat. I'm willing to listen to other proposals but you never make them. For example I'd consider your putting a much shorter version of the Suetonius quote in the main body, with the full version in footnotes. 
How far can that be from what you'd accept given that you even wrote in your official statement that you "also agreed to remove the Suetonius text from the article, just leaving the reference link". Vincent 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks & compromise

message: The following sentences seem to be the bone of contention:
:However, comparing the two dictatorships, it should be noted that Caesar's reforms survived him, while Sulla's did not. Yet Caesar was assassinated because of his dictatorship while Sulla died of natural causes after resigning his.
They are unsourced; and I believe unsourceable. Some of Sulla's reforms, chiefly the cursus honorum, did survive him; several of Caesar's actions survived only in the sense that something of the same name was adopted by Augustus. Sulla  died of natural causes four years after his coup. If Caesar had done the same, he would never have been assasssinated; and Caesar did (formally) resign his first dictatorship, in 49 BC. 
I find this whole section original research, and oppose the inclusion of any of it; I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Your version is much better than the one I put up, so I reverted to it. Thanks. Vincent 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vincent, you know you could have just countered Suetonius w/ Plutarch. anyways, it smells like original research. if you must make a comparison between dictators, best to find a source first, no? i'm rabidly anti-Sulla, so i'll stick to arguments of form. Do enjoy the debate from the sidelines, and one last note, i wouldn't hold Caesar's assassination as evidence of a mistake or fault on his part, Shakespeare aside. And reading Appian can leave one wondering which was more dangerous, Sulla's army or his bank account. The Jackal God 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jackal. Sulla16 just keeps reverting, the Suetonius quote is about Caesar anyway so rather than counter it with still more stuff, I think it's best to just remove the quote. I won't oppose reinserting it (as a reference, not in main body) if someone besides Sulla16 really really wants it in. Like I said before: he wants all four of his "quotes" in, I was willing to accept the two sourced one, one in the text & one in ref, but Sulla16 is being uncooperative and I think I've tried hard enough to accommodate him. Vincent 06:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Septentrionalis

message: Quite apart from the above edit war, which has gone on long enough, the whole article contains too much original research, POV, outright speculation, etc. I've begun the cleanup task. It's really too bad: Sulla16 could have participated productively in this process, but it seems he'll just go on reverting and reverting. Vincent 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up

message: At the end of the references part of this article, someone has written PENIS several times in all caps. n00b that I am, I can't figure out how to fix it, as it doesnt show up on the edit page for some reason. Why is this? I was excited to be this crusading anti-vandalism editor and was sadly thwarted in this ambition. Anyway, someone older and wiser ought to take care of it posthaste. Robberex 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "First wife, Ilia (possibly Julia (Julilla) Minor, Aunt of Gaius Julius Caesar)"
Shouldn't this be corrected? See
"Sulla occasionally becomes the central figure of the narrative; there are several lengthy sections dealing with his plot to murder the two wealthy women with whom he lives, his use of the newfound wealth in establishing himself politically, his homosexual relationship with the Greek actor-child Metrobius, and his marriage to the (fictional) younger daughter of 'Julius Caesar Grandfather', Julilla."
Julilla as a wife of Sulla is an invention by the novelist Colleen McCullough. She herself notes that in her book.
Sulla first wife Ilia/Julia (McCullough's Julilla) was not Caesar's aunt. That distinction goes to Julia, the wife of Caius Marius, who herself died in 69 BC. Arthur Keaveney (2005) "Sulla: the Last Republican" 2nd ed p. 8 (i.e. in the most recent biography of Sulla) briefly discusses the identity of Ilia: "There is some confusion over her name which may have been either Ilia or Julia. If we assume the latter to be correct then she could have been a sister of the famous orator Caesar Strabo [i.e. C. Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus] and L. Julius Caesar who was to be consul in 90." Hence IF Julia was sister to Strabo and L. Caesar (itself no means certain but possible) her relationship to Julius Caesar the dictator would have been first-cousin once-removed.
I have edited the article appropriately.82.44.82.167 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: then you should source this in the article itself (footnote) instead of simply chaning the text. -- fdewaele, 22 february 2008, 10:55. CET
As should have your assertion that she was his aunt... 82.44.82.167 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulla's First Wife 

message: I just read a book by Colleen McGuhlough in which is stated this Sulla was bisexual. I could not find this in the article. Should it perhaps be included in the article, or at least searched for? It wasn't the first time I read about it, so I wander... Angela from the Blue (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: Out of curiosity, what are the other Primary Sources on Sulla available outside of Plutarch, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Livy?
It's for a school final, so I thought this might at least lead me in the right direction, much appreciated --Agreatguy6 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: Addition to the introduction made by Fabartus on 27 May 2008:
"Sulla... was the first roman general to use his troops against Roman political opponents. In his career, due to such ruthless machinations, he ended up holding the office of consul twice as well as the dictatorship. This set the stage for other generals, in particular Julius Caesar, leading to the end of the Roman Republic, and setting the precedent that would in the future frequently be used to settle succession questions of the Empire.
A gifted and effective general, Sulla marched his armies on Rome twice, ruthlessly murdering opposition and furthering the cause of supporters in the Roman Senate— and by such alteration of the political make-up, came to enjoy the absolute power of a dictator when named "dictator rei publicae constituendae" ("Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic") —among the last to do so under the Republic. Though he resigned his office following the customary six month time limit, his complete command of the Republic and use of proscription par excellence in 82 BC as dictator let him install supporters and eliminate so many enemies that he'd become the foremost power in Rome while he lived.
Since he set precedent going against the Senate, by employing assassination of opponents and by marching on the capital itself, he is often condemned by historians as having hastened the end of the Republic by his example, and as having set bad precedents for the empire to follow."
This essay shows little understanding of the subtleties of the situation in the 80s BC. First, POV language: "the first Roman general to use his troops against Roman political opponents", "ruthless machinations", "ruthlessly murdering", "furthering the cause of supporters in the Roman Senate", "use of proscription par excellance", "eliminate... enemies", and "assassinating... opponents" is all POV. Much of is also wrong. The errors and misunderstandings are interlinked.  
Sulla was not the first Roman commander to use his position to kill his opponents. Indeed one of the very reasons for Sulla's opposition to the regimes of Cinna and Marius was that many of his friends had been eliminated during their "rule". In 86/5 (under Marius and Cinna), many were killed in Italy, including over half a dozen consulars (mostly old men, thus non-military), the father of Marcus Crassus, and several of the Julii Caesares. A tribune was also flung from the Tarpeian Rock. In itself this last matter was a capital offence. 
When, in 82, Sulla's forces were approaching Rome - in order, so he (truthfully, as it turns out) stated to free the city from such unlawfullness - Marius the Younger and Carbo killed a consular and the pontifex maximus, among others.
Thus the reason for Sulla's taking up of dictatorial potestas was not to initiate some new reign of terror but to restore the constitution and the laws of the Republic to the way they had been in the preceding centuries. The Senate was to rule again, its wishes respected, and it was not to be made subordinate to the caprice of unlawful and authoritarian individuals such as Cinna, Marius, and Carbo. Only a dictator could carry out such a recovery in a short time. Sulla's full title - dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae - illustrates his intentions and his traditionalist sentiments, as the fact that he resigned (not to have done so would have been unlawful and would have made him a hypocrite). The proscriptions that followed were a continuation of that programme of restoration. True, some innocents seem to have been killed, but those who were implicated in and/or had profited from the recent lawlessness were its primary targets. Those who were killed were killed as criminals and traitors, enemies of the Republic not as enemies of Sulla personally.   
Finally, while it is true that Sulla's second march on Rome provided a precedent for Caesar, that aspect was already addressed in the article as it existed.82.44.82.167 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowery and POV edit to introduction 

message: I'm untrusting of the quality (necessity and validity) of the changes introduced by Sulla16 in edit 152467867. This change contributes a lot but, where I'm competent to judge, I find the changes bad. Where I don't find them bad, I'm not competent to judge. Unfortunately, I'm not competent at all when it comes to history.
Some objections:
# As a bulk edit ("copy edit"), it doesn't mentions any justification even for the controversial changes.
# Typography: Replacing of middle dots (·) with bullets (•), for interpunct, in the Roman-style script, and even in Chinese script. I admit that section Similar symbols in the article Interpunct #Similar symbols mentions both symbols as similar to the original interpunct, rather than distinguishing a correct one by leaving it another one (presumably bullet) out. Still, I don't feel that the Romans intended interpuncts as bullets.
# Punctuation: "Obsidional or Blockade Crown" was given in quotation marks.
# Changes for the sake of change (which, like randomness, can produce the effect of "aging", or generation loss—entropic decrease of the original reliability and quality in thus evolving content):
## The word "even" is deleted in: "Sulla's descendents continued to be prominent in Roman politics, even into the empire imperial period."
##: My question: Why was the word "even" incorrect?
## "Female prostitutes" is deleted in: "Lacking ready money, Sulla spent his youth amongst Rome’s low-lifes – comics, actors, lute-players, dancers, female prostitutes"
##: My question: Why is Sulla16 stays unskeptical about lute-players whereas he removes prostitutes from the equation with such a confidence? He also adds an incorrect apostrophe into "low-life's".
## "his" into "this"
##: ...in: "Machiavelli would later allude to this description of Sulla".
—6birc (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contribution from user Sulla16 

message: shame his memoirs Res Gestae were lost. just wow.--69.231.4.192 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  his memoirs? 

message: The opening blurb describes Sulla as a "conservative politician". What, in this article, supports such a claim? -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservative politician" 

message: Cilician governorship
Returning to Rome, Sulla was elected 'Praetor urbanus' in 97 BC. According to rumour,[citation needed] this was done through massive bribery of epic proportions. The next year he was appointed pro consule to the province of Cilicia (in Anatolia). 
Sula only was elected consul in 88 bC, so he can't be a pro consule in 96 bC, as a pro consule was "In the Roman Republic, a proconsul was a promagistrate (like a propraetor) who, after serving as consul, spent a year as a governor of a province."
Thanks by your excellent job.--Qamaq (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: This "His son, Faustus Cornelius Sulla, issued denarii bearing the name of the dictator, as a grandson, Quintus Pompeius Rufus." doesn't seem to make any sense as it stands ("as a grandson" ??) -- if anyone knows what the author was attempting to say, perhaps they could edit it to become legible... Sisyphus88 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical content 

message: For a discussion about the usefulness/accuracy of writing a Roman name in small capitals, see Talk:Augustus#Latin name. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in small capitals 

message: The description of this battle doesn't match the description in the main article for 
|Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC|  Can anyone shed some light here?  KeithJonsn (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That section has no footnotes. I wonder whether Keaveney was used. If so, that might explain it, as I've found other instances in his Sulla where he, ahem, diverges from the readings of other scholars, particularly in military campaign history. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC) 

message: I perhaps rashly deleted a tag at the top of this article suggesting that it be expanded through translating its German counterpart. I'm not sure that's a good idea. First, the English article is already not insubstantial. Second, the German article will use mainly German sources, and high-quality English sources are readily available. So while German scholarship should certainly be used by those who can read it, I question the wisdom of simply translating someone else's reading of those sources in order to produce an English article. This would seem also to contradict WP:RSUE, though I think non-English sources should be used more often. The suggestion to expand an article usually makes sense when the subject isn't well covered in English sources; for instance, an article on a German town or political institution is likely to be superior on German WP, with limited English sources. Here it just seems to add an extra layer of transmission, when one could just as easily read the primary and secondary sources in English, supplemented with the German sources if one's German was good enough to translate an article in the first place. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  using German article to expand 

message: Misguidedly, I just linked to this page under the heading of the this section on this page, without reading the second civil war page through first (as soon as I found out it existed, and having seen the similar link for his first civil war, I thought it made sense and did the edit before actually reading it)
I then found out that i had just linked to a terse summary of the war from a more detailed explanation of it. Should not the dedicated article bear more info than the section in the biography?
In yet another of my many floutings of WP:BOLD, I have put this issue to the community both here and on the Second Civil war talk page. 
Since this is the bigger page with more traffic (perhaps the root of the problem), I suggest we discuss it here.
☭ мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 09:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong way round ? 

message: Where does Sulla lose in the Game Empire Earth. I know it's a trivial point but i though i should clear it up. If nobody minds and nobody objects i hope i can change it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire Earth in legacy 

message: I am going now to rewrite the lead, removing all the gushing about Sulla. Feel free to criticize. Bazuz (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits seem to be less POV to me. IP 50.79.162.236 undid them, but I've restored them for now. I'd be willing to discuss these with the IP or others. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd also like to hear why the IP thought my edits were undesirable. I was mulling over mentioning the proscriptions in the lead (Sulla was the first one who introduced this nefarious concept to Rome) but then decided against it. The old lead presented the facts well, it just did so in a slightly hagiographic way, which I believe is misplaced here. Bazuz (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bold rewrite of lead 

message: There is no consensus that optimates and populares could accurately be described as political parties; it shouldn't be implied that there is by listing optimates as a political party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.146.187 (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party 

message: Here in this cartoon he's fat
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sulla#mediaviewer/File:Comic_History_of_Rome_p_274_Funeral_Pile_of_Sulla.JPG
In the TV show Caesar he was shown as a thin guy by Richard Harris playing him. Which is the more accurate?2602:306:C59C:1049:BD4A:3BF9:9F07:D2EE (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This bust of Sulla in the Vatican likely shows him in his later years: Sulla. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i see thanks for the quick response. it appears somewhat in between but more toward fat.2602:306:C59C:1049:BD4A:3BF9:9F07:D2EE (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulla's appearance toward the end of his life: thin or fat? 

message: Am i missing something, but he did literally everything that Caesar did but he did it first. He fought non-Romans successfully (Germans) just like Caesar did (Gauls), then he was the first to march on Rome, fought his civil war successfully like Caesar did his Triumvirate, but he did not get assassinated like Caesar. Why does History remember Caesar more? Is it because of the Shakespeare play?108.89.193.4 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's probably because, thanks to Caesar's heir, Augustus, Caesar was seen as founder of the line of emperors, for example as the first of Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars". Caesar was more directly involved in the final fall of the Republic, and he founded the Julian Calendar, which, with only minor adjustments, we still use, and the month of July is still named after him. It's true, though, that much of the instability of Caesar's time, and many of the things Caesar and his opponents did, are really only understandable in light of Sulla and Marius' civil war and Sulla's dictatorship. The Republic had been on the brink of revolution since then. The Senate were so wary of politicians like Caesar and Pompey because Sulla and Marius had set a precedent of individuals gaining so much power they could overpower the Republic itself (and Caesar was Marius' nephew, and Pompey came to prominence fighting for Sulla), and others, like Catiline, had since tried to follow that precedent by attempting to raise an army and seize control of the state. Caesar's famous clemency to his defeated enemies, which led to his assassination, was the result of him refusing to follow the example of Sulla's proscriptions - and later Augustus, in triumvirate with Antony and Lepidus, did follow that example. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your timely response. It seems surreal how Caesar-Pompey were descended off of Marius-Sulla by blood that way and how even Marius and Sulla were connected by wives, what a family quarrel?108.89.193.4 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is he not as famous as Caesar? 

message: There's a notion generalized that his proscriptions targeted virtually "anyone!" which again sounds like typical historical smearing, just like that ridiculous one propagated by historiographers like Plutarch or whoever about his death being from "worms" which is a self-satisfaction to somehow rationalize punishment for his evil deeds when in fact he most likely died of as people say alcoholic abuse. Well it smells the same with his Proscriptions, there's a historiographic bias of he targeted anyone with "general" abandon. Really? He was too intellectual, too smart, for a guy who afterward would walk around to recant his experiences to anyone who would approach him? It is very much more likely his Proscriptions as dictator, had lists drawn out which specifically targeted the people who intentionally went against him in politics, in the military, or the aristocrats who knowingly funded his political opponents. There is no way he targeted non-political people like some common person or a youth. The people on his lists weren't some sort of innocent random people, but very much made moves against his power with intelligence. 108.89.193.4 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sulla's "cloudy" Proscriptions: let's be clear who were its targets 

message: I'm uneasy about the unbalanced tone of this article, particularly in the introduction, that I've tried to remedy. Besides one-sided rhetoric praising Sulla, important historical information such as Sulla's proscriptions have been omitted or downplayed. History is objective, not moralizing or teleological. Based on the past discussions on this page, I see this is not the first time other editors have found issue with Sulla16's treatment of the article. I would love to have a respectful discourse with Sulla16 concerning what this article should be, rather than a mutually frustrating edit war. 
EDIT: This was first accidentally posted on Sulla16's page so I've put it here, my apologies. 
Best, Artaxus 06:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article neutrality

message: In 104 the Cimbri and the Teutones seemed to be heading for Italy. As Marius was the best general Rome had, the Senate allowed him to lead the campaign against them. Sulla served on Marius' staff as tribunus militum. Sulla helped Marius in recruiting and training legionaries. He also led troops to subdue the Volcae Tectosages successfully and succeeded in capturing their leader Copillus.[19] In 103 Sulla succeeded in persuading the Germanic Marsi tribe to become friends and allies of Rome; they detached themselves from the Germanic confederation and went back to Germania.[20] In 102, when Marius became consul for the fourth time, there came an unusual separation between Marius and Sulla. For reasons unknown Sulla requested a transfer to the army of Quintus Lutatius Catulus Caesar, Marius' consular partner.[19] While Marius marched against the Teutones and Ambrones in Gaul, Catulus was tasked with keeping the Cimbri out of Italy. Catulus tasked Sulla with subduing the tribes in the north of Cisalpine Gaul to keep them from joining the Cimbri.[21] Overconfident Catulus tried to stop the Cimbri in a valley near Lake Benacus but he was severely outnumbered so Sulla convinced him to retreat.[22] Catulus' army suffered some losses when the Cimbri attacked near Tridentum but a disaster was avoided through the swift action of Gnaeus Petreius the Primus Pilus Centurion of the Samnite legion.[23] Sulla is credited with keeping Catulus from losing his army.[22] Meanwhile Marius had completely defeated the Ambrones and the Teutones in a battle near Aquae Sextiae. In 101 the armies of Marius and Catulus joined forces and faced the enemy tribes at the Battle of Vercellae. During the battle Sulla commanded the cavalry on the right and was instrumental in achieving victory.[24] Sulla and his cavalry routed the barbarian cavalry and drove them into the main body of the Cimbri causing chaos.[24] Catulus, seeing an opportunity, threw his men forward and followed up on Sulla's successful action. By noon the warriors of the Cimbri were defeated. Victorious at Vercellae, Marius and Catulus were both granted triumphs as the co-commanding generals. Sulla's role in the Vercellae victory was also hard to ignore and formed the launchpad for his political career.[25]
All of the inline citations in this passage are referring to Lynda Telford's account, and there is really no point in researching if one is just copying something down in their own words. Please follow the rewriting of this section up. 17u9e (17u9e)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said to LuciusHistoricus, Telford is not a reliable source. You can remove the references to her book. T8612 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage in Cimbric wars 

message: Hello! I am a student editor and I plan on adding some information and citations about Sulla's association with Venus.JNRM Student (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius

message: This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, . 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character 

message: Hello. I partially reverted some of your edits, for which you deserve an explanation. I viewed them both as wrong and as cuckoo editing:
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 . 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You were also wrong to insert text without a reference. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuckoo edits 

message: I just removed these portions from the article:
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)
thread_title:  Sulla's laws at start of first consulship