Skip to main content
EnglandAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

How did Sulla's marches on Rome and his dictatorship break the conventions of the Republic and set precedents for its fall?

Sulla and the breakdown of Republican norms: the first march on Rome in 88 BC, the civil war with the Marians, the proscriptions, the dictatorship and the Sullan constitution, and the precedents Sulla set for the use of armies in politics.

An OCR A-Level Ancient History depth study guide to Sulla and the breakdown of the Late Republic. Covers the first march on Rome in 88 BC, the civil war with the Marians, the proscriptions, the dictatorship and the Sullan constitutional reforms, and the dangerous precedents Sulla set for the use of armies in politics, with evaluation of Plutarch, Appian and Sallust.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The answer
  3. Examples in context
  4. Try this

What this dot point is asking

The Late Republic depth study opens with Sulla, whose career first showed that the Republic could be seized by force. This page covers the first march on Rome in 88 BC, the civil war with the Marians, the proscriptions, the dictatorship and the Sullan constitution, and the dangerous precedents Sulla set for the use of armies in politics. The prescribed sources here are Plutarch's Life of Sulla, Appian's Civil Wars and Sallust, and the depth study rewards an argument built on and from them.

The answer

The first march on Rome in 88 BC

The march of 88 BC is the single most important precedent in the topic: it demonstrated that the Republic's conventions could be overturned by an army loyal to its general rather than to the state.

Civil war, the proscriptions and the dictatorship

The proscriptions are the second great precedent: they showed that a victor could destroy his enemies wholesale under the forms of law, a model the Second Triumvirate would later copy.

The Sullan constitution and the verdict

As dictator, Sulla passed a constitution meant to restore senatorial government:

  • He enlarged and strengthened the Senate and gave it control of the courts.
  • He sharply curbed the tribunate, restricting the tribunes' legislative power and barring them from higher office, because tribunician legislation had driven so much conflict.
  • He reorganised the courts and the cursus honorum to regularise office-holding.

Then, strikingly, he resigned the dictatorship and retired. The depth-study debate is whether Sulla restored or destroyed the Republic: his reforms aimed at restoration (and much was soon undone), but the precedents of the march, the civil war and the proscriptions did far more lasting harm, because they taught later generals how power could be seized.

Examples in context

A model answer treats Sulla's career as a question of precedent versus reform and argues from the named sources.

Try this

Q1. Assess the importance of Sulla's march on Rome in 88 BC for the breakdown of the Republic. [20 marks, depth essay style]

  • What the marker wants. An argument from the sources that the march set the crucial precedent of using an army against the city and against political rivals, opening the way to later civil wars, weighed against other causes of the breakdown, with a judgement and source evaluation.

Q2. What were the proscriptions? [2 marks]

  • Cue. Publicly posted lists of enemies who could be killed with impunity and whose property was confiscated, a systematic terror Sulla used to destroy his opponents and enrich his supporters.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

OCR H407/21 201920 marks'Sulla did more to destroy the Republic than to restore it.' How far do the sources support this view? [shown at the 20-mark cap; the depth essay is worth 36 in the full paper]
Show worked answer →

A Section B depth-study essay (AO1, AO2 and AO3), shown at the 20-mark cap (worth 36 in the full paper).

For destruction. Sulla's march on Rome in 88 BC first used a Roman army against the city; the proscriptions murdered thousands and confiscated property; his dictatorship set the precedent of seizing supreme power by force, which Caesar and others followed.

For restoration. His constitutional reforms aimed to restore senatorial government: he strengthened the Senate, curbed the tribunate and the courts, and then (strikingly) resigned the dictatorship.

Judgement. Argue from Appian and Plutarch that, whatever his restorative intent, the precedents of the march and the proscriptions did far more lasting damage than his reforms achieved; the top level argues from the sources and judges.

OCR H407/21 202112 marksHow useful is Appian's Civil Wars for understanding Sulla's proscriptions? [shown at the 12-mark source-utility style]
Show worked answer →

A source-utility evaluation (AO3) on a prescribed source.

Value. Appian gives a connected narrative of the civil wars and the proscriptions, valuable for the mechanism (the posted lists, the rewards for killers, the confiscations) and the scale of the terror.

Limitations. Appian writes in the second century AD, long after the events, drawing on earlier sources, with his own interest in the theme of civil discord; his figures and details cannot always be checked.

Judgement. Useful as a connected account of the proscriptions and their political effect, but late and dependent on earlier writers, to be set against Plutarch's biography. Top answers judge usefulness for the enquiry.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this