Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


View Poll Results: Who was the greater overall leader, Philip of Macedon or Sulla?
Philip II of Macedon 33 70.21%
Sulla 14 29.79%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,066

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
So was Sulla noble or not? Was he a Patrician or not? Did being a Patrician in the Late Republic of Rome come with benefits?

Yes, Yes, Yes



Noble bit? Look, if he's the direct male descendant of one of the original paters of Romulus' Senatus, and a dire male descendant was a consul, then he's Nobilis and he's Patrician. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter how he made himself rich to qualify by the Census to become a Senator, neither does it matter how Caesar pulled it off either, or any other impoverished Patrician Roman. What matters in the context of this discussion is that by blood Sulla was benefited in his climb up the cursus honorum.

And the money didn't?

By all accounts, if he DIDN'T have the money, would his blood help him? No?

That settles the matter no?

edit/ like if it's according to what you say, then the senate's requirement should be about bloodline, which we know after the Semite War is no longer the case. So I don't get why you kept bringing up about the bloodline when the Romans themselves thought, oh gee, I guess we need to integrate the plebs. At the point during Sulla's life, it is money and power rather than bloodline and power. I don't see how you can argue against this. I really don't.

Last edited by mariusj; November 13th, 2017 at 02:26 PM.
mariusj is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2017, 02:28 PM   #22

Publius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Why do you want to know?
Posts: 459
Blog Entries: 1

Simply being from a distinguished patrician family didn't guarantee you success in Ancient Rome, particularly by the time of the Late Republic. I mean, look at how unsuccessful Caesar's family was in the years prior to him. They had only managed to produce one consul in the entire second century BC despite being one of Rome's oldest patrician families and supposedly being descended from Venus.

Last edited by Publius; November 13th, 2017 at 02:37 PM.
Publius is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:07 PM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
And the money didn't?

By all accounts, if he DIDN'T have the money, would his blood help him? No?

That settles the matter no?

edit/ like if it's according to what you say, then the senate's requirement should be about bloodline, which we know after the Semite War is no longer the case. So I don't get why you kept bringing up about the bloodline when the Romans themselves thought, oh gee, I guess we need to integrate the plebs. At the point during Sulla's life, it is money and power rather than bloodline and power. I don't see how you can argue against this. I really don't.
You seem to think that I'm actually interested in debating you or anyone else who had it worse, Philip or Sulla. They are two different people from two different countries that culturally were nothing alike who were separated by hundreds of years.

Meanwhile, Philip II wasn't born to be king. Meanwhile, Sulla was born to a noble Patrician family, meaning he had a consul in his ancestry, so sayeth Sallust.

Until you can prove either of those things wrong, then Caesarmagnus is wrong.
aggienation is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:20 PM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
Simply being from a distinguished patrician family didn't guarantee you success in Ancient Rome, particularly by the time of the Late Republic. I mean, look at how unsuccessful Caesar's family was in the years prior to him. They had only managed to produce one consul in the entire second century BC despite being one of Rome's oldest patrician families and supposedly being descended from Venus.
First, let's just clarify right off the bat that they were noble Patricians which pretty much guaranteed them a seat in the Senate as long as they had the money, and a high chance of winning election.

Second, the Caesar branch of the Julii didn't even exist until shortly before the start of the 2nd Cent BC so they couldn't well have produced any consuls bearing the name Caesar before that. They were an offshoot branch of another Patrician Julii family, the Julii Libones.

Third, a Sextus Julius Caesar held the consulship in the mid 2nd Cent BC. His One of Caesar's uncles, also named Sextus, was consul in early 1st Cent BC. Caesar's cousin Lucius was a consul in early 1st Cent BC, that cousin's son was also a consul before Caesar Dictator's first consulship. Oh, his father was a praetor. So Caesar Dictator didn't exactly have a rough time getting the people to know who he was.

But the fact that his name was Julius and he was of the Patrician line meant all that Romans really needed to know. As the saying goes, "He's bonafide."
aggienation is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:20 PM   #25

Salaminia's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 462

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
Macedonia was a tiny and highly fractured kingdom at the time Philip was born. As the third son, with one older brother having a son and successor, in a dynastic family that favored sons over brothers, it meant Philip's chances to rule was about as high as Sulla's. Both rose through ability and ruthlessness.
On the basis of my progress on that other thread, I don't like your chances of getting any of this understood! You are, though, correct: Philip was not born to be king. If he was "born to be" anything it was a prostates or regent.
Salaminia is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:23 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusj View Post
Nice strawman aggienation.

Been born to a position of power is not the same as born to a patrician. However, been born as a LEGITIMATE prince, and thus heir to the throne, is the same as born to a position of power.

Arguing whether or not someone was born a patrician during the late republic period is literately pointless. Are you saying every patrician would be expected to have some office in their life just because they are patrician? Or was that time period long gone, and the new oligarchy of rich and powerful plebian and patrician families that hold the key to the city?

Saying been part of patrician gives benefit entirely circumvent the question of whether or not been born a royal prince doesn't give benefit, good argument. Are you going to claim again that the guy who hang with prostitute was born to more powerful position than the son of a king who was in line for the throne?
No strawman here. Are these statements correct, a simple yes or no will do.

Sulla was of a noble patrician family.

Philip II was not born to be king.

Both of these are factually correct in every possible way. Both of them are contrary to what Caesarmagnus wrote. Stop trying to prove he was correct or whatever your'e trying to do. I don't care a fig to compare either of those two individuals together, I'd sooner compare a ripe apple to the Moon. What I do care about is how somebody who styles himself as a subject matter expert who repeatedly insults other posters left and right, didn't know that not only was Philip not born to be king but also Sulla did in fact come from a noble family, so sayeth Sallust.
aggienation is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:24 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salaminia View Post
On the basis of my progress on that other thread, I don't like your chances of getting any of this understood! You are, though, correct: Philip was not born to be king. If he was "born to be" anything it was a prostates or regent.
And even then, he need two older brothers to die before he could claim to be a regent.

He was born to be the third son, whatever that role was in the Macedonian court, which probably amounted more to staying alive and not having his brothers murder him.
aggienation is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:25 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 2,543

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
First, let's just clarify right off the bat that they were noble Patricians which pretty much guaranteed them a seat in the Senate as long as they had the money, and a high chance of winning election.

Second, the Caesar branch of the Julii didn't even exist until shortly before the start of the 2nd Cent BC so they couldn't well have produced any consuls bearing the name Caesar before that. They were an offshoot branch of another Patrician Julii family, the Julii Libones.

Third, a Sextus Julius Caesar held the consulship in the mid 2nd Cent BC. His One of Caesar's uncles, also named Sextus, was consul in early 1st Cent BC. Caesar's cousin Lucius was a consul in early 1st Cent BC, that cousin's son was also a consul before Caesar Dictator's first consulship. Oh, his father was a praetor. So Caesar Dictator didn't exactly have a rough time getting the people to know who he was.

But the fact that his name was Julius and he was of the Patrician line meant all that Romans really needed to know. As the saying goes, "He's bonafide."
This is simply a false statement. Many patricians and nobles were not in the Senate, which was an exclusive body of 300 people at the time (most of whom were not patricians). By blood there were way more patricians than could possibly fit in the Senate. Sulla also didn't have any money whatever until like age 30. He had to begin his career from there, with no allies and while he had enough money to qualify for the census he was far from rich. Sulla lived in utter poverty and destitution until age 30. His situation is in no way comparable to Phillip.
Caesarmagnus is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:26 PM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
The fact remains that your comparison between the two situations was utterly dishonest. Phillip was a potential heir to the throne, born to royalty, with the associated benefits that came from that in terms of means, legitimacy and supporters. With minimal conflict he promptly secured his claim to the throne. Sulla was in a totally different (and infinitely worse) position. He had a bloodline, which meant something, but not that much. He had no current political allies or networks or supporters, he had no wealth, and was living among the lowest tier of society. His fortune, such as it was, only came to him after the timely death of several women (his stepmother among them), and afterwards it was rumoured he had a hand in their demise. Sulla had to work from the ground up, there were countless Romans of noble bloodlines who never amounted to anything and died in obscurity, because your great, great, great, great, great grandfather having held office was little guarantee of anything without wealth and current political power. It took Sulla many years of gritting it out before he could rise.
Philip born to royalty or born to be king?

Why don't you run off to Wikipedia to check real quick. That way you don't claim he was born to be king again.
aggienation is offline  
Old November 13th, 2017, 04:27 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4,186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarmagnus View Post
This is simply a false statement. Many patricians and nobles were not in the Senate, which was an exclusive body of 300 people at the time (most of whom were not patricians). By blood there were way more patricians than could possibly fit in the Senate. Sulla also didn't have any money whatever until like age 30. He had to begin his career from there, with no allies and while he had enough money to qualify for the census he was far from rich. Sulla lived in utter poverty and destitution until age 30. His situation is in no way comparable to Phillip.
No, a false statement would be this:

"Phillip had the happy fortune of being born a King. "

Nobody who writes something that absurd has any authority to ever question another person's knowledge of ancient history.

Click the image to open in full size.
aggienation is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
greater, leader, philip, sulla



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marius vs Sulla DIVUS IVLIVS Ancient History 50 January 12th, 2018 07:56 PM
Best political leader/military leader partnership in history Don Cartagena War and Military History 27 April 17th, 2016 08:16 PM
Sulla or Marius SVLLA Ancient History 23 December 30th, 2012 01:05 PM
Marius vs. Sulla Salah Speculative History 29 December 22nd, 2012 12:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.