What do you think?
Rate this book
Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered
Lucius Cornelius Sulla is one of the central figures of the late Roman Republic. Indeed, he is often considered a major catalyst in the death of the republican system. the ambitious general whose feud with a rival (Marius) led to his marching on Rome with an army at his back, leading to civil war and the terrible internecine bloodletting of the proscriptions. In these things, and in his appropriation of the title of dictator with absolute power, he set a dangerous precedent to be followed by Julius Caesar a generation later. Lynda Telford believes Sulla's portrayal as a monstrous, brutal tyrant is unjustified. While accepting that he was responsible for much bloodshed, she contends that he was no more brutal than many of his contemporaries who have received a kinder press. Moreover, even his harshest measures were motivated not by selfish ambition but by genuine desire to do what he believed best for Rome. The author believes the bias of the surviving sources, and modern biographers, has exaggerated the ill-feeling towards Sulla in his lifetime. After all, he voluntarily laid aside dictatorial power and enjoyed a peaceful retirement without fear of assassination. The contrast to Caesar is obvious. Lynda Telford gives a long overdue reappraisal of this significant personality, considering such factors as the effect of his disfiguring illness. The portrait that emerges is a subtle and nuanced one; her Sulla is very much a human, not a monster.
440 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 19, 2014
50 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 8, 2020
This biography both came as a pleasant surprise, but is also something I find myself sceptical of at the same time.
I knew little of Sulla previously, beyond the basics; he had been a dictator of Rome and engaged in a civil struggle with his main opponent, Gaius Marius; he famously published execution lists, purging his political opponents, in which people lived in terror; and a young Gaius Julius Caesar had a brush with him as a young man, when Sulla demanded he divorce his wife and the youth bravely refused. That was about the sum total of my prior knowledge.
So obviously, there was a lot here for me to learn. Pretty much everything, in fact, from Sulla’s four marriages, to his early career struggles with noble blood but very little hard cash, and his campaigns, in Numidia, during the Social Wars, against Mithridates’ forces in Greece, and his later return to Rome for another round of civil strife. And along the way I definitely had to admit that my previous view of a bloodthirsty dictator was simplistic and erroneous. From that point of view, the book succeeds in its aims, because the author, Lynda Telford, states openly from the beginning that she has set out to rehabilitate Sulla’s reputation and that she believes he deserves greater appreciation. This is both a potentially positive point, and the cause of my scepticism.
In some instances, it seems very clear that Telford is making excellent points about Sulla that should indeed be worthy of reconsideration by historians. The lingering stigma surrounding him regarding his friendship with the poor, and his possible bisexuality, is among the most prominent of these, and surprising considering that our modern perspective on these issues should cause us to rethink the condemnation of ancient authors sneering at his keeping company with common folk. And yet I’ve been reading a couple of books by Philip Matyszak before and after this one – one about a contemporary figure, Quintus Sertorius, and one about Rome’s Social Wars, both of which Sulla features in – and Matyszak appears to accept completely uncritically the sources’ reports of Sulla as ‘debauched’ and ‘degenerate’. One can’t help but feel Telford has a real case when she opines that this attitude ought to be re-examined. She also presents some interesting alternatives from mainstream thought, such as the possibility that in later life Sulla suffered from shingles, not scabies, and, perhaps most partisan of all, that Sulla only ever believed he was acting in the best interests of the Republic and that he tried to keep executions to a necessary minimum and punish those of his own supporters who went too far. Well… maybe. At the very least I can probably concede that perhaps this is how Sulla himself viewed the times in which he found himself and justified the actions he took. But more on this later.
Another positive point was that I honestly expected such a favourably biased biography of Sulla to absolutely slam his greatest rival, Gaius Marius… but it didn’t. Telford was upfront about Marius’ talents and achievements, and in fact challenges mainstream interpretations yet again by placing the break in the friendship between Sulla and Marius as much later. She also rather charitably suggests that Marius’ last gasp to hold on to power with heretofore unrevealed brutality was the product of mental disturbance caused by age – something which some other historians agree with her on. I found her arguments in this arena to be quite plausible and convincing.
To my scepticism then. Telford makes no secret of the fact that she is partisan in Sulla’s favour, and as a trained historian this obviously puts my senses on high alert. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about this era and these figures to spot errors very well. However, Telford certainly gives Sulla the benefit of every doubt and always interprets the best possible reasons behind his actions. I think she may be right in some of her propositions, but I also think she may be wrong in some of them. Telford admits in the introduction that she is no expert, and that she has a history of being drawn to rehabilitate maligned figures, being a part of the Richard III Society. She sometimes makes comparisons in the text to Medieval situations and events which rang alarm bells about drawing false comparisons with such a great distance of time. For me the most troubling question left unanswered was Sulla’s opposition to extending citizenship to the Italians, which for a supposedly well-intentioned figure who Telford would have us believe strongly cared about the impoverished common folk, leaves rather a big question mark. Some of his executions too seem perhaps too neatly justified as being absolutely necessary and the minimum to which Sulla set himself this unpalatable task. Somehow I don’t think I should just accept this and view Sulla as an undoubted good guy, just because his opponents killed more people in bloodier, more indiscriminate rampages, while Sulla’s proscriptions were more restricted and oh some innocent people were killed too but under his corrupt officers who he later punished. That sits uncomfortably, and while I’m prepared to admit that Sulla was probably a more admirable figure than I previously gave him credit for, I also highly doubt the most favourable interpretation of his motives in every case, and suspect that the real Sulla may have existed somewhere between these extremes.
So, would I recommend this book? Yes – with a caveat: read books about Sulla from other authors too to gain varying perspectives into this fascinating historical figure.
7 out of 10
August 12, 2020
After hearing that a new biography of Sulla has recently come out this year, I decided to re-read the old ones. After reading amazing ones like that of Badian, Keaveney and Christ, I was extremely surprised at the poor quality of this one. The only primary sources are Appian and Plutarch. In the first two chapters, it looks like Lynda Telford submitted a school assignment on Sulla by copying Arthur Keaveney's biography and changing a few words around. Once she decides to do her own research, it becomes absolutely terrible. What is with those arguments in chapter 6? Plutarch lists Sulla's wives as Ilia, Julia, Aelia, Cloelia, Metella and Valeria. Now Ilia is identified by scholars with Julia because there was no family with the name Ilia or Ilius at the time of Sulla, and the Latin of Julia is Iulia. A removal of the "u" would turn Julia into Ilia. It could be a careless misreading of Sulla's Commentarii by Plutarch or a spelling mistake in Plutarch's copy of Sulla's Commentarii. The other, less plausible theory, is that Ilia and Aelia were the same person. Telford completely ignored Ilia. She then tries to identify Aelia with Cloelia "because the names sound vaguely similar and we know little about them both". That is stupid! Does that mean that I could identify Sulla's son Faustus with his daughter Fausta because we know little about them and they sound similar? No! Telford also makes up all this stuff about homosexuality in ancient Rome. She has occasional typos for "quaestor" is which she often spells "questor". She uses capital letters sometimes for random things like "Patrician" but other times "patrician", or "Qu(a)estor" but other times "qu(a)estor".
The bibliography is flat-out disturbing. There are NO REFERENCES TO BADIAN who has written extensively on the topic of Sulla. There are REFERENCES TO HISTORICAL FICTION like that of McCullough and her glossary. THERE ARE REFERENCES TO POPULAR HISTORY like that of Holland. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT TELFORD USES "WHO'S WHO IN ANCIENT ROME" (a children's book) AS A SOURCE!
The bibliography is flat-out disturbing. There are NO REFERENCES TO BADIAN who has written extensively on the topic of Sulla. There are REFERENCES TO HISTORICAL FICTION like that of McCullough and her glossary. THERE ARE REFERENCES TO POPULAR HISTORY like that of Holland. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT TELFORD USES "WHO'S WHO IN ANCIENT ROME" (a children's book) AS A SOURCE!
April 25, 2023
A well-written and informative biography, though it sometimes seems like a collection of Telford’s personal judgments.
Telford’s most novel argument is that Sulla was something of a victim. “He was certainly not a wicked man,” she argues. She suggests that Sulla seized power and sanctioned violence not for personal gain, but because he wanted to shield Rome’s institutions from Cinna and Marius, who, she suggests, had more personal reasons for their violent methods. She claims that “Sulla is one of the few people of his time whose motives were as clear as glass.” She also contends that everything Sulla did as dictator was entirely legal. Perhaps inevitably, the book sometimes comes off as revisionist or apologist, and it doesn’t always convince. As the title suggests, much of the book is taken up by her defense of Sulla and her rebuttal of his critics, which some readers may find tiresome.
Inevitably, any biographer of Sulla has to cover the Proscriptions. I didn’t know anything about this book before reading it, and while reading it and becoming more aware of her sympathy for Sulla, I was wondering how exactly Telford would cover these. Coming to this section of the book was a bit of a jolt, for sure. Telford writes that the victims on the official lists were, after all, Sulla’s enemies and that “it would seem that it was no more than they deserved and their fates were no more than should have been expected under the circumstances.” She calls the abuses committed “regrettable” and suggests that Sulla might have been too busy to investigate them. “It was the only sensible way, at that time, to deal with such people,” she adds, and writes elsewhere that the purges had “certainly been necessary.” Telford also argues that less people died in the proscriptions than previous historians estimate, and blames Crassus, Pompey and others for the many state-sanctioned deaths. At one point Telford wonders why, if Sulla was so hated by Romans, no one ever tried to assassinate him.
The writing, annoyingly, includes a lot of exclamation points, and the narrative can be redundant. Sometimes Telford writes in first person. Her points can be repetitive. Sometimes it reads like an essay. Elsewhere she uses some odd slang (“Now Drusus had a bee in his bonnet about the Italian Allies.”) Also, the book has more material than I expected on Marius, and even on Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. Her coverage of the Roman historical context is sketchy. She also makes a lot of comparisons to Richard III and the Wars of the Roses, which may annoy some readers. Her engagement with the sources isn’t always critical. Sometimes she cites passages from novels. At one point she compares Sulla’s giving up power favorably to Julius Caesar’s refusal to do so, even though Sulla did so while he was ill.
The book certainly has an interesting take on Sulla, and it’s readable, but it’s not the most balanced, for sure.
Telford’s most novel argument is that Sulla was something of a victim. “He was certainly not a wicked man,” she argues. She suggests that Sulla seized power and sanctioned violence not for personal gain, but because he wanted to shield Rome’s institutions from Cinna and Marius, who, she suggests, had more personal reasons for their violent methods. She claims that “Sulla is one of the few people of his time whose motives were as clear as glass.” She also contends that everything Sulla did as dictator was entirely legal. Perhaps inevitably, the book sometimes comes off as revisionist or apologist, and it doesn’t always convince. As the title suggests, much of the book is taken up by her defense of Sulla and her rebuttal of his critics, which some readers may find tiresome.
Inevitably, any biographer of Sulla has to cover the Proscriptions. I didn’t know anything about this book before reading it, and while reading it and becoming more aware of her sympathy for Sulla, I was wondering how exactly Telford would cover these. Coming to this section of the book was a bit of a jolt, for sure. Telford writes that the victims on the official lists were, after all, Sulla’s enemies and that “it would seem that it was no more than they deserved and their fates were no more than should have been expected under the circumstances.” She calls the abuses committed “regrettable” and suggests that Sulla might have been too busy to investigate them. “It was the only sensible way, at that time, to deal with such people,” she adds, and writes elsewhere that the purges had “certainly been necessary.” Telford also argues that less people died in the proscriptions than previous historians estimate, and blames Crassus, Pompey and others for the many state-sanctioned deaths. At one point Telford wonders why, if Sulla was so hated by Romans, no one ever tried to assassinate him.
The writing, annoyingly, includes a lot of exclamation points, and the narrative can be redundant. Sometimes Telford writes in first person. Her points can be repetitive. Sometimes it reads like an essay. Elsewhere she uses some odd slang (“Now Drusus had a bee in his bonnet about the Italian Allies.”) Also, the book has more material than I expected on Marius, and even on Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. Her coverage of the Roman historical context is sketchy. She also makes a lot of comparisons to Richard III and the Wars of the Roses, which may annoy some readers. Her engagement with the sources isn’t always critical. Sometimes she cites passages from novels. At one point she compares Sulla’s giving up power favorably to Julius Caesar’s refusal to do so, even though Sulla did so while he was ill.
The book certainly has an interesting take on Sulla, and it’s readable, but it’s not the most balanced, for sure.
August 17, 2020
“Sulla? To the infamy of his name! To the utter damnation of his line!” (From Spartacus), 1960).
The paper cover of this book says, “Lynda Telford’s sympathetic biography challenges the traditional depiction of Sulla as merely a power-hungry tyrant.” That it does, although not always totally convincingly. It’s hard to get past the slaughter of the Samnites immediately after the battle at the Colline Gate and then the proscriptions, although the author displays a knack for presenting the case from the point of view of Sulla. He seems to have had a stern, if patrician, sense of justice and it is clear (to me) from reading this and other accounts both fictional and non-, that he was a guy who knew exactly what he wanted, got it, and held it, much like someone he spared, Caius Julius Caesar. What’s missing is an explanation of how his reputation was so blackened and by whom. I thought one suspect may have been Livy; but one reviewer, more learned in Roman history than I, clears Livy (lack of evidence). Still, if you’re interested in history’s villains, as is Ms. Telford, this is a fair start. I doubt his name, like Richard III's, will ever be cleared (Theodore Dodge praises his generalship).
July 3, 2020
The arguments are not particularly solid. That is not, though, the reason for this lone star: it is the immeasurable historical inaccuracy and talkativeness of the book. At the beginning it rambles on about poverty in Ancient Rome. Then I realized how inaccurate it was. I was utterly horrified. This is the first one I found 24 PAGES IN!
"Was his first wife another daughter of the Senator, or was she a niece? Both relationships have been suggested..." by whom? Sulla's wife's family was a completely different branch (no connection has ever been established) from that of the Dictator's. She states that "it may" (it was) "have been Julia the brother of Caesar Strabo". Why not mention Lucius Julius Caesar? What is holding you from mentioning her more famous brother? And for the record, Gaius Marius and Sulla were NOT brothers-in-law.
"Was his first wife another daughter of the Senator, or was she a niece? Both relationships have been suggested..." by whom? Sulla's wife's family was a completely different branch (no connection has ever been established) from that of the Dictator's. She states that "it may" (it was) "have been Julia the brother of Caesar Strabo". Why not mention Lucius Julius Caesar? What is holding you from mentioning her more famous brother? And for the record, Gaius Marius and Sulla were NOT brothers-in-law.
January 8, 2016
Interesting analysis
It is more like an essay than history. Though the author's arguments may be valid, I would have expected them backed by facts. Only the author's views are presented and in most cases the facts are wanting. I made a mistake in buying the book.
It is more like an essay than history. Though the author's arguments may be valid, I would have expected them backed by facts. Only the author's views are presented and in most cases the facts are wanting. I made a mistake in buying the book.
Read
April 3, 2025Book Review: Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered by Lynda Telford
Overview
Lynda Telford’s Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered offers a nuanced revisionist perspective on the life and legacy of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a key figure in Roman history often characterized as a tyrant. Telford challenges the conventional view that paints Sulla as a brutal dictator, presenting a detailed analysis of his political maneuvers and motivations. This book engages with the complexities of Sulla’s actions and their impact on the late Roman Republic, making it a significant contribution to the study of ancient history and political leadership.
Key Themes
Revisionist History: Telford presents a compelling argument that the traditional portrayal of Sulla as a monstrous tyrant is overly simplistic and unjust. She acknowledges the bloodshed associated with his rule but contextualizes his actions within the political chaos of his time. This approach encourages readers to reassess the moral dimensions of his decisions.
Political Context and Motivation: The book delves into the political landscape of late Republican Rome, exploring the factors that influenced Sulla’s rise to power. Telford provides an in-depth examination of the social, economic, and political pressures that shaped Sulla’s policies, illustrating how he navigated these challenges to maintain stability in a fractious environment.
Leadership and Authority: Telford analyzes Sulla’s style of leadership, emphasizing his strategic use of power and authority. She discusses how Sulla’s dictatorship, while often characterized by violence, also aimed at restoring order and reforming the Roman government. This duality invites a deeper exploration of what constitutes effective leadership in times of crisis.
Legacy and Interpretation: The author investigates how Sulla’s legacy has been interpreted over the centuries, revealing the biases in historical narratives that have contributed to his negative image. By reassessing these narratives, Telford highlights the importance of context in evaluating historical figures and their actions.
Scholarly Contribution: Telford’s work is well-researched and draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, making it a valuable resource for scholars of Roman history. Her revisionist approach not only enriches the discourse surrounding Sulla but also encourages readers to critically engage with historical interpretations.
Conclusion
Lynda Telford’s Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered is a thought-provoking exploration of one of Rome’s most controversial figures. By challenging prevailing assumptions and providing a comprehensive analysis of Sulla’s life and actions, Telford offers a fresh perspective that contributes significantly to our understanding of Roman history and political dynamics. This book is essential reading for historians, political scientists, and anyone interested in the complexities of leadership and governance in ancient times. Telford’s balanced portrayal encourages a more nuanced discussion about the intricacies of power, legacy, and the interpretation of history itself.
Overview
Lynda Telford’s Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered offers a nuanced revisionist perspective on the life and legacy of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a key figure in Roman history often characterized as a tyrant. Telford challenges the conventional view that paints Sulla as a brutal dictator, presenting a detailed analysis of his political maneuvers and motivations. This book engages with the complexities of Sulla’s actions and their impact on the late Roman Republic, making it a significant contribution to the study of ancient history and political leadership.
Key Themes
Revisionist History: Telford presents a compelling argument that the traditional portrayal of Sulla as a monstrous tyrant is overly simplistic and unjust. She acknowledges the bloodshed associated with his rule but contextualizes his actions within the political chaos of his time. This approach encourages readers to reassess the moral dimensions of his decisions.
Political Context and Motivation: The book delves into the political landscape of late Republican Rome, exploring the factors that influenced Sulla’s rise to power. Telford provides an in-depth examination of the social, economic, and political pressures that shaped Sulla’s policies, illustrating how he navigated these challenges to maintain stability in a fractious environment.
Leadership and Authority: Telford analyzes Sulla’s style of leadership, emphasizing his strategic use of power and authority. She discusses how Sulla’s dictatorship, while often characterized by violence, also aimed at restoring order and reforming the Roman government. This duality invites a deeper exploration of what constitutes effective leadership in times of crisis.
Legacy and Interpretation: The author investigates how Sulla’s legacy has been interpreted over the centuries, revealing the biases in historical narratives that have contributed to his negative image. By reassessing these narratives, Telford highlights the importance of context in evaluating historical figures and their actions.
Scholarly Contribution: Telford’s work is well-researched and draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, making it a valuable resource for scholars of Roman history. Her revisionist approach not only enriches the discourse surrounding Sulla but also encourages readers to critically engage with historical interpretations.
Conclusion
Lynda Telford’s Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered is a thought-provoking exploration of one of Rome’s most controversial figures. By challenging prevailing assumptions and providing a comprehensive analysis of Sulla’s life and actions, Telford offers a fresh perspective that contributes significantly to our understanding of Roman history and political dynamics. This book is essential reading for historians, political scientists, and anyone interested in the complexities of leadership and governance in ancient times. Telford’s balanced portrayal encourages a more nuanced discussion about the intricacies of power, legacy, and the interpretation of history itself.
June 3, 2020
This is a praiseworthy attempt to reconstruct the career of Sulla whose previous biographer had called “the last Republican” of Rome. The author’s thesis is Sulla was maligned by later historians who preferred Julius Caesar and his career. As the author notes Caesar and Sulla had almost parallel careers. Both were self made men who became very successful generals. Both had to march on Rome. Both won their civil wars against their opponents. Sulla in 87 BC against the Marians and Caesar in 45 BC against the Pompeians. Both became dictators and tried to reform Rome. The author argues Sulla believed in the Republic by trying to build up the Senate as the political body that could rule Rome. The author also argues somewhat less successfully that Sulla’s proscription of many of his opponents was a necessary evil to accomplish his reforms. Many of Sulla’s reforms did not last. The restoration of the powers of the tribunes so soon after Sulla’s death certainly would have surprised the Dictator. As this book argues and as I knew from other readings there is no question Sulla did try to institute reforms he hoped would cause the Republic too last. But the institutions including the Senate had become corrupt and the Republic could no longer handle the Empire. Thus, the Sulla’s reforms did not last.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 21, 2023
Lynda Telford Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered - sets out to vindicate a man greatly maligned over the centuries for various reasons. Overshadowed by the likes of Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, in the scholarship Sulla’s actions are justified and exalted.
Sulla was determined to strengthen the Senate in order to save a republic doomed to fail. His attempts to rid the government of corruption while dictator are explained in a clear concise way. It is ironic that he had to take total control of the government in order to save it through reforms. But his goal was to create a government that would serve the best interests of the nation. He steps down from the role of dictator before dying. His reforms are eventually, and in some cases rather quickly dispensed with
Yet the book outlines and describes his changes and his accomplishments. It is clear that he had the best interests of Rome at the core of his actions.
This book outlines and describes the life of a leader who served his nation and believed in the Republic’s significance and supported the ideals of good government.
Sulla was determined to strengthen the Senate in order to save a republic doomed to fail. His attempts to rid the government of corruption while dictator are explained in a clear concise way. It is ironic that he had to take total control of the government in order to save it through reforms. But his goal was to create a government that would serve the best interests of the nation. He steps down from the role of dictator before dying. His reforms are eventually, and in some cases rather quickly dispensed with
Yet the book outlines and describes his changes and his accomplishments. It is clear that he had the best interests of Rome at the core of his actions.
This book outlines and describes the life of a leader who served his nation and believed in the Republic’s significance and supported the ideals of good government.
August 17, 2025
Very interesting book about the life and deeds of the famous soldier and politician who depending on interpretation was either the (temporary as it turned out) saviour of the Republic from the hands of unscrupulous demagogues and a sadly aging and mentally decaying G Marius, punishing harshly but justly the unscrupulous rich men who profited from the turbulence to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, or was a monster, betraying his mentor and benefactor G Marius, marching on Rome, proscribing his enemies and having their heads displayed in the forum etc
This one clearly written in a direct, partisan and not hiding its biases under pretend scientific prose as so many current historical books (who are as partisan and biased but want to give the impression of impartiality with clever but empty prose) do, is clearly on the former side and brings good arguments for it.
Definitely worth reading.
This one clearly written in a direct, partisan and not hiding its biases under pretend scientific prose as so many current historical books (who are as partisan and biased but want to give the impression of impartiality with clever but empty prose) do, is clearly on the former side and brings good arguments for it.
Definitely worth reading.
December 24, 2022
Revisionist but Fair
Ms Telford offers a revisionist history of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Sulla, dictator from 81-78 BCE, has long been reviled as a butcher; whose proscriptions sank Rome into rivers of blood and repression. The author makes a persuasive case that Sulla acted in ways that were divorced from personal feelings and were designed to protect the Republic after the depredations of the last years of Gaius Marius and Cinna- who unleashed bloody violence on Rome for more personal reasons. She claims that Sulla’s proscriptions affted 1000-2000 people ten times less than the figure generally accepted by scholars. Here she is on shakier ground. However, her general critique of « presentism » is on point. Sulla acted on the norms of his day and must so be judged not on our modern standards.
Ms Telford offers a revisionist history of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Sulla, dictator from 81-78 BCE, has long been reviled as a butcher; whose proscriptions sank Rome into rivers of blood and repression. The author makes a persuasive case that Sulla acted in ways that were divorced from personal feelings and were designed to protect the Republic after the depredations of the last years of Gaius Marius and Cinna- who unleashed bloody violence on Rome for more personal reasons. She claims that Sulla’s proscriptions affted 1000-2000 people ten times less than the figure generally accepted by scholars. Here she is on shakier ground. However, her general critique of « presentism » is on point. Sulla acted on the norms of his day and must so be judged not on our modern standards.
June 13, 2025
Lucius Cornelius, hüüdnimega Õnnelik – toosama Rooma kurikael, keda Kreeka jumalad karistasid oma pühamute rüüstamise pärast mingi jubeda tõvega (autori arvates vöötohatisega). Läbikukkunud luuletajast ja näitekirjanikust sirgus osav poliitik ning veel osavam väejuht, kes põletas küünalt mitmest otsast ja mõnuga. Ilma Sullata oleks Rooma riik tõenäoliselt enneaegselt kaardilt kadunud. Eks niisugused mehed ole igal ajastul hinnas.
Kõigi autori väidetega on raske nõustuda, aga üsna mitmes kohas tuli tunnistada, et tema lähenemine on meinstriimiga võrreldes värskem ja originaalsem. See pidev Sulla väljavabandamine muutus pikapeale tüütuks ja näiteks tolleaegsete pulmakommete kirjeldamise oleks võinud minu poolest ära jätta, aga samas ei kulutatud nende peale ka liiga palju täheruumi. Seekord suutis Pen & Sword küll positiivselt üllatada.
Kõigi autori väidetega on raske nõustuda, aga üsna mitmes kohas tuli tunnistada, et tema lähenemine on meinstriimiga võrreldes värskem ja originaalsem. See pidev Sulla väljavabandamine muutus pikapeale tüütuks ja näiteks tolleaegsete pulmakommete kirjeldamise oleks võinud minu poolest ära jätta, aga samas ei kulutatud nende peale ka liiga palju täheruumi. Seekord suutis Pen & Sword küll positiivselt üllatada.
January 12, 2022
A plausable look at Sulla
The author offers a rationale viewpoint on Sulla and tries to explain his thought process from from a perspective of the times. Unfortunately, she sometimes comes across as apologetic.
Overall, A very informative and worthy read.
Definitely recommend this work to all who are interested in the end of the Republic as its viewpoint offers a fresh look at a man who is vastly misunderstood.
The author offers a rationale viewpoint on Sulla and tries to explain his thought process from from a perspective of the times. Unfortunately, she sometimes comes across as apologetic.
Overall, A very informative and worthy read.
Definitely recommend this work to all who are interested in the end of the Republic as its viewpoint offers a fresh look at a man who is vastly misunderstood.
October 8, 2024
overly long
Whilst I found this book to be well written I did find it overly long. Telford does state at the beginning that she looks on Sulla favourably I think she has gone a little too far. The book gives a detailed analysis of Sulla life and actions. She covers the chaotic times in which he lived and his actions and motivations. Clearly she knows her subject and covers it fully.
Whilst I found this book to be well written I did find it overly long. Telford does state at the beginning that she looks on Sulla favourably I think she has gone a little too far. The book gives a detailed analysis of Sulla life and actions. She covers the chaotic times in which he lived and his actions and motivations. Clearly she knows her subject and covers it fully.
August 5, 2017
excellent and easy to read biography of Sulla with a different perspective from the author.
October 24, 2017
He was a hero of rome and one of my Hero s
August 28, 2016
Lynda Telford gör till sin sak att upprätta diktatorn Sullas rykte inför historien. Jag gjorde en jämförelse med beskrivningen i Tom Hollands bok "Rubicon" och fick intrycket att de två skildringarna av samma händelser och person liknar propagandabilder från två motställda läger där det känns som om båda tillskriver Sulla avsikter och karaktärsdrag som inte känns helt underbyggda. Vem av författarna, om någon, som ger den sanna bilden kan jag inte bedöma, men även om jag skulle utgå från att Telford har rätt i sak, så lämnar skildringen en del övrigt att önska. Boken följer på ett ganska fantasilöst sätt Sullas liv kronologiskt och belastas med upprepningar av författarens favoritteser, där egentligen inte nya aspekter framläggs utan samma sak sägs igen. Texten är dock välskriven och jag kände aldrig något motstånd mot att öppna boken. Är man intresserad av Sulla så är boken läsvärd eftersom den ger en annan bild än den gängse.
June 27, 2015
I am a fan of revisiting previously maligned historical figures but I feel this book almost goes too far the other way. Somewhere in the middle is the real Sulla.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews