So Veeky Forums which side are you on? Marius or Sulla?

Octavian was a much better politician than Julius, who generally respected ancient tradition while simultaneously trampling it

True, but Caesar was an exemplary leader, and forged a path for Octavian that he otherwise couldn't have taken.

>struggle that took place in ancient times is history
Sounds awfully lot like history

Sulla
Autism pls leave

>Wanna-be-Rex

Sulla.
Marius was a great general, but just a general. He didn't do anything of note outside of military endeavours.
Sulla actually reworked the republican government for the better.

>Octavian was a much better politician than Julius
Arguable, very arguable. Early Caesar was every bit as good a politician as he was a general. Don't let his last years (contemporaries thought his bad experiences in Spain unhinged him somewhat) bias you toward his whole career.

>top posts
Way to out yourself, reddit

History is the study of the past, not the rooting on a team from the past.

Sulla

t. triarii

>top posts
cringe

You have to be able to analyze and discuss the past to "support" a historical figure

Or you can just be wrong about them and support them anyway.

Marius saved Rome from the Germanic invasions after a series of disasters campaigns and battles literally threatened the existence of the Roman people and its Republic. Sulla beat up Mithridates and didn't even finish him off, Pompey did.

Adding in the Marian reforms, institutionalization of professional soldiers in the Roman military, I'd rather side with Marius then Sulla.

>side with Marius
>pave the way for Sulla
Did you really think this through?

Get the fuck out

*than ;)

>paved the way for Sulla
Think about what you said.

Anyone who says Sulla is just being a contrarian retard

It were the Marian Reforms which allowed Sulla to gain the loyal troops he needed in order to do what he did.

Marius did save the republic from the cimbri and gauls. Appart from his first 50 years of non-popularity when he became rich from fighting for Rome before even aspiring for the consulate, He stopped the germanic tribes. His reforms weren't even strictly socialists. When he started his jerk period he was already a couple years from death. After that, his party did the rest.
Sulla on the other hand, believed in order and security, and hence his massacre, strict reforms and reorganization of the party. I think Marius lost control of the situation, but i'd go for Marius

Marius also wrapped up the Jugurthine war which was the biggest pain in the dick for Rome when the Cimbri weren't shredding legions.

both were kind of cunts in the end though, they failed to do anything to sort Rome's chronic poverty out.

Wrong.

no. sulla won. besides marius served under sulla. their beef was basically based on agrarian reforms.sulla showed character by stepping out his dictatorship. he stayed true to his values. Marius played demagogic

>Sulla stayed true to his character
Of being a fag and ordering proscriptions unnecessary even after Marius died to take revenge on every strata of Roman society to settle his grudges? Yeah sure.

>he stayed true to his values.
And made sure Rome would stay that way by basically turned the Republic into a one-party government, which eventually became the poster child for dysfunction, gridlock, and corruption. The conservatives fucked themselves out of the public trust by being total dicks about governing, which is why they were run out of town in a nationalist uprising after Caesar was assassinated.

Both Sulla and Marius share blame in the fall of the Roman Republic.

Sulla was basically a Sithlord who betrayed his master

He is not Rex, he is Caesar.

Yeah but if you compare the pros of what each did, Marius had a greater and far more reaching effect in positive terms for his military reforms and creation of a professional army that enabled Rome to survive and become a superpower with his instructions as the building blocks leading to that road.

Were Marius and Sulla really brothers -in-law?

Marius was also Caesar's uncle and his in-law. And Caesar was one of the names on Sulla's proscription list, simply because Sulla wanted him dead due to his family connection to Marius.

People really don't appreciate the utter malevolent autism of the proscriptions. I don't know how people can actually read about it in detail and shrug.

So Sulla wasn't married to a Juilia? Why did Marius take him as an apprentice?

>The majority of the proscribed had not been enemies of Sulla, but instead were killed for their property, which was confiscated and auctioned off. The proceeds from auctioned property more than made up for the cost of rewarding those who killed the proscribed, making Sulla even wealthier. Possibly to protect himself from future political retribution.
>Sulla had the sons and grandsons of the proscribed banned from running for political office, a restriction not removed for over 30 years.
>The young Caesar, as Cinna's son-in-law, became one of Sulla's targets and fled the city. He was saved through the efforts of his relatives, many of whom were Sulla's supporters, but Sulla noted in his memoirs that he regretted sparing Caesar's life, because of the young man's notorious ambition.
>The historian Suetonius records that when agreeing to spare Caesar, Sulla warned those who were pleading his case that he would become a danger to them in the future, saying: "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses."

Both are absolute cunts but I'd have to go with Marius. Aside from the things mentioned in this thread, Sulla marching on Rome is what started the whole mess with the civil wars.

marius reform's indirectly destroyed the republic by creating armies more loyal to their generals than the state.

Sulla was the first Stalin in that sense