The Fragile Legacy of Sulla’s Reforms

When Lucius Cornelius Sulla retired from dictatorship in 79 BC, he left behind a carefully constructed constitutional framework designed to restore senatorial supremacy. His reforms had systematically dismantled the power of tribunes, restricted popular assemblies, and reinforced the aristocracy’s control over Rome’s judicial and political systems. Yet barely eight years after Sulla’s death in 78 BC, his entire system would come crashing down under the combined pressure of two ambitious consuls – Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) and Marcus Licinius Crassus.

The year 70 BC marked a pivotal turning point in Roman history. The consulship of Pompey and Crassus witnessed legislative changes that would fundamentally reshape Roman politics, rolling back Sulla’s constitutional reforms and setting the stage for the eventual collapse of the Republic. Their actions reveal much about the competing forces in late Republican Rome – the struggle between populares and optimates, the rising influence of equestrians, and the growing power of military commanders over traditional political institutions.

Restoring the Tribunate: A Blow to Senatorial Power

The most significant reform of 70 BC involved the complete restoration of tribunician powers that Sulla had curtailed. The tribunes of the plebs had historically served as protectors of common citizens against patrician overreach, possessing the power to veto legislation and convene popular assemblies. Sulla, viewing this as a destabilizing force, had neutered the office by requiring all tribunician proposals to gain senatorial approval through his Lex Cornelia de tribunicia potestate.

Pompey and Crassus boldly overturned this arrangement, reviving the Hortensian Law of 287 BC which granted plebiscites (decisions of the plebeian council) the full force of law without requiring senatorial consent. This move had profound implications:

– It reopened a direct channel for popular legislation bypassing the Senate
– It restored the tribunes’ ability to protect citizens against magistrates
– It returned to the people an important check on aristocratic power

Contemporary sources suggest this reform was particularly popular among Rome’s growing population of freedmen, who now regained full political rights including eligibility for the tribunate. The measure significantly expanded the political base that ambitious politicians like Pompey and Crassus could cultivate.

Reforming the Courts: A Three-Class Compromise

Equally transformative was their overhaul of the jury system. Since the Gracchan reforms of the late 2nd century BC, control over the courts had been a persistent battleground between senators and equestrians. Sulla had restored exclusive senatorial control, creating what many saw as a justice system biased in favor of the aristocracy.

The lex Aurelia iudiciaria of 70 BC introduced a novel compromise: juries would now consist of one-third senators, one-third equites, and one-third tribuni aerarii (a wealthier class just below equestrian rank). This three-way division:

– Broke the senatorial monopoly on judicial power
– Gave equestrians substantial influence without complete control
– Created a more balanced (though still elite-dominated) justice system

The reform’s immediate impact became clear during the trial of Gaius Verres in 70 BC. The corrupt former governor of Sicily, defended by Rome’s leading advocate Quintus Hortensius, faced prosecution by the young Cicero. Under the old system, Verres might have escaped conviction through senatorial solidarity. The new mixed jury delivered a stunning guilty verdict, establishing Cicero’s reputation and demonstrating the reformed courts’ greater independence.

The Consuls and Their Constituencies

Pompey and Crassus, though united in dismantling Sulla’s system, represented different factions within Roman society. Pompey positioned himself as champion of the common soldiers and urban plebs, while Crassus cultivated the growing economic power of equestrian businessmen and publicani (tax contractors).

Their motivations remain debated. Ancient sources like Plutarch suggest both men acted primarily from political calculation rather than ideological conviction. Pompey in particular would later emerge as a defender of senatorial privilege, casting doubt on his populist credentials in 70 BC. As one historian noted, “In republican Rome, all politics ultimately came down to securing votes.”

Contrasting Visions: Sulla’s Idealism vs. Pragmatic Realpolitik

The events of 70 BC highlight a fundamental tension in Roman politics between constitutional principle and practical governance. Sulla had pursued a clear ideological vision – restoring senatorial leadership as the foundation of republican government. His reforms reflected a belief that only a strong aristocracy could prevent either mob rule or military dictatorship.

Pompey and Crassus operated differently. Their reforms, while arguably beneficial, appear motivated more by immediate political advantage than long-term constitutional design. As the Greek historian Polybius had observed, Rome’s strength lay in its balanced constitution mixing monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements. The events of 70 BC tilted that balance decisively toward popular influence.

The Verres Trial: A Case Study in Judicial Reform

The prosecution of Verres demonstrated the real-world impact of the new jury system. Cicero’s victory against Rome’s most powerful defense lawyer showed that corruption cases could now succeed against well-connected defendants. His published speeches (the Verrines) provide vivid documentation of provincial misgovernment and became a model for forensic oratory.

More importantly, the verdict sent a message across the empire: provincial subjects could expect somewhat fairer treatment under Roman law. This had significant implications for maintaining stability in Rome’s growing Mediterranean empire.

Long-Term Consequences: The Road to Crisis

While successful in the short term, the reforms of 70 BC contributed to the Republic’s eventual downfall in several ways:

1. They revived the tribunate as a platform for radical politicians (later exploited by figures like Clodius)
2. They established precedent for popular assemblies overriding senatorial authority
3. They demonstrated how military leaders could use popular support to bypass traditional institutions

Within a generation, these trends would enable Julius Caesar’s rise. The restored tribunician power that Pompey helped recreate in 70 BC would later be used against him during Caesar’s consulship in 59 BC.

The Paradox of Sulla’s Legacy

Sulla’s failure highlights the difficulty of imposing constitutional settlements through personal authority. His system collapsed not because of direct opposition, but because it failed to accommodate Rome’s changing social and political realities:

– The growing wealth and influence of equestrians
– The political aspirations of Italy’s new citizens
– The rising power of military commanders with independent bases of support

As the Greek historian Dionysius observed, “Laws must grow with a society; frozen constitutions become brittle and break.”

Conclusion: 70 BC as Pivot Point

The consulship of Pompey and Crassus represents one of those rare moments when political actors consciously reshape their constitutional order. Their reforms marked the definitive end of Sulla’s reactionary settlement and reopened channels for popular participation in Roman politics.

Yet in doing so, they also accelerated trends toward extra-institutional politics that would ultimately undermine the Republic. The events of 70 BC illustrate the central paradox of late Republican Rome: reforms intended to strengthen popular governance inadvertently created conditions for its collapse. As Tacitus would later reflect, “The Republic was most lost when it seemed most restored.”

The story of this pivotal year reminds us that constitutional systems require both stability and flexibility – a lesson with enduring relevance for political societies across the ages. In rolling back Sulla’s reforms, Pompey and Crassus didn’t just change Roman politics; they set in motion forces that would transform the Mediterranean world.