I have to agree with Cimon - Sulla does need to be reconsidered. I find it very hard to get a grasp on the man - on one hand he could be incredibly forgiving and on the other hand, he could condemn you as quickly and easily - a very odd mix of a man.

I think to dismiss him as a tyrant who ruled merely by killings and proscriptions is a bit short sighted. Once the horror of the proscriptions were over, he didn't resort to tyranny but went to work to 'repair' the Republic though many of his repairs were more reactionary than visionary.

He did cripple the tribunes by ordering that any legislation had to be ratified by the senate, the veto was seriously restricted and any man who served as tribune found their political careers ended. A good example of one of his more reactionary changes.

But they weren't all reactionary nor were they all undone shortly after his death. He was the first to establish permanent standing courts. He established a series of courts to deal with cases involving violence, murder, embezzlement, etc and increased the magistrates. These changes stood the test of time, becoming a permanent part of the Roman state.

Am I the only one who's noticed that for the most part, if you love and admire Caesar - you hate Sulla........or vice versa? One is the good guy to the other's villian. Unfortunately life (and people) are never that simple.

*ducking behind Cimon*