Caesar And Sulla's Reforms In The Roman Republic

Words: 516
Pages: 3

Consuls in the Roman republic represented patricians and not plebeians, which caused faltering in ruling. When the majority of the people in an empire are poor, this creates many issues because the rulers usually came from higher classes back in the time when they took over the Roman kingdom around 500 BCE until 27 BCE when the Roman empire had begun. Caesar and Sulla both enacted political reforms but Caesar was a dictator while Sulla cared more about the assembly. Sulla would not just let a loss go, so when he felt his power was weakened by tribunes, he put a stop to it. In Sulla’s constitution, he made a law that weakened the power of tribunes from 82 BCE to 80 BCE. As he was an aristocrat, it only made sense to take action this harshly when there was any amount of resistance in the majority. The consuls most of the time had to worry about keeping the plebeians under control so that no uprisings could begin. Sulla was …show more content…
He was very militaristic and believed he could only accomplish what he needed to when all of the power was in his hands. This dictatorship that Caesar enforced upon the Romans caused uprisings which brought about a power struggle. Caesar did not give much sympathy for the plebeian’s plea for a say in government which made them angry. Eventually this ignoring the plebeians would come to an end when Caesar was assassinated by people representing plebeians. On the other hand, Sulla had less of this kind of struggle because he was respected by the plebeians. He cared about the Romans as a whole. Even though he was a patrician and represented only patrician values, he still allowed plebeians a voice in government, even if it was not huge. He never took away their voice completely, he just demolished ideas that hurt him. In the end it can be seen that Sulla was less selfish and thought more about Rome as a whole still thriving, while Caesar only cared about his own dictatorship not