Sulla: The Last Republican 2nd Edition, Kindle Edition

Worth reading to offer a fresh look at a man and an era often maligned with a 'too facile' degree of thoughtfulness. But 'correcting' history often seems to come with taking the opposite position too far in the other direction. In that vein, this book seems to have a split personality. Portions of it are well balanced and written in a style that considers multiple explanations for the events surrounding the life of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. During these portions, Sulla's supporters and enemies are treated with an even handed consideration, allowing the reader to interpret the information available without excessive 'leading'. This approach applies to the Conclusion "Qualis fuit Sulla' (mostly) and to the period prior to the First Civil War.
The portions covering the Civil Wars and his dictatorship are unfortunately more propaganda than honest history. In these most important portions of the book, Keaveney strikes a common theme -- that Sulla's actions can only be interpreted as being in the best interests of the Republic. In almost every instance in which the history reaches a decision point at which Sulla took a path that lead to his political dominance of the Republic, the author concludes that 'obviously' or that 'we can only conclude that' Sulla's intentions were pure (occasionally conceding that the man took significant pride in being the worst of enemies). Further, that these actions can only be interpreted as having been taken because he felt that this was in the best interests of his traditional understanding of the Republic's foundations. Well, the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, etc. L'etat c'est moi! Furthermore, while Sulla seemingly exercised considerable restraint in restructuring the laws and traditions of the Republic as Dictator, and his personal behavior seems to have been generally honorable during that phase, he allowed too many others to engage in the dirty work of proscription and thuggery to stand blameless. For a man who seemed to have eyes everywhere, it is odd that he generally 'missed' the wholesale skullduggery of his subordinates in this crucial period.
Keaveney's argument would have been far more persuasive had he presented some alternative theories to Sulla's motives -- and allowed the reader to work between these alternatives rather than being offered only the most pro-Sulla path. Because in the end, Sulla's reputation (and Keaneney's thesis) own the final trump card -- when Sulla stood at the pinnacle of power -- Dictator of Rome for an indeterminate period of time, Sulla does step down and return the reins of power back to the Senate of Rome (sort of -- conspicuously having a undesired candidate for consul slain in the Forum in broad daylight might have had a somewhat chilling effect on the whole 'I'm retired' theme).
Buy it -- enjoy it -- gain a fresh appreciation of a critical player in the Rome that became the foundation of the United States as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- but also accept that revisionist history sometimes requires overstatement.

Sulla is an enigmatic figure in Roman history, and I find him fascinating. Caesar was certainly brilliant, and deserves his place in history. After one becomes acquainted with Sulla, however, Caesar's actions from the end of the Gallic Wars to his assassination no longer seem quite so original or unprecedented. He essentially was following the example of Sulla in much that he did. It's somewhat perplexing that more readily available popular history doesn't exist on Sulla.

Keaveney's book goes a long way to fill that void. Well-written, informative, with an engaging writing style. Most important...it's a book that's needed. I feel, however, that the author is arguing a position rather than neutrally, objectively, interpreting the facts. In the past Sulla has conventionally been depicted as a cold, indifferent, bloodthirsty tyrant (see AH Beesly's 19th-century treatment). Keaveney actively combats against this image, doing his best to portray Sulla as a conscientous, well-intentioned statesman. The old "tyrant" interpretation may well need some correction...but I think Keaveney errs a little too far in the opposite direction; the very earnestness of his argument ultimately hinders his objective.

I'd like to give the book 5 stars for its literary/scholarly merits and placement in a less-well-covered period of Roman history. The subjectivity, however, restrains me to 4 stars. Still, most definitely worth a read. Recommended.

Arthur Keavney gives us one of the best accounts of the life of this great man. Although I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, this is perhaps one of the best researched papers on the subject. After all, he can only go by what has already written by our forefathers, along with the recent archaeological discoveries. Many of our sources are unfortunately biased, based on the moral codes they subscribed to during those times. For example, in referencing Plutarch's views, a valuable source due to its length, one has to consider that he wrote his views some 100+ years after the fact, and in the point of view of a Greek, versus from a Roman. Our Roman sources on the other hand happened during the Empire, so not sure how much of that we can agree to either. If only we had a time machine...

This is a very descriptive yet passionate biography of an incredibly controversial man, and it is well researched and well presented. It is comprehensible and easy to read yet does not scrimp on detail or research.

Excellent read. I had formed my own similar conclusion about Sulla so I didn't require a lot of convincing. Nonetheless the author is very persuasive, well versed in the original source material and at times creates some very dramatic portraits of Sulla's actions. Nicely and engagingly written. I think Keaveney's take on Sulla makes perfect sense and explains why the man "with the courage of the lion and cunning of the fox" was forced to take actions which have created his nasty but undeserved reputation.

More hagiography than anything else. Extremely well documented through. Sulla was a complex character, sometimes a brilliant legislator, sometimes cruel and erratic politician, but I don't consider it a great reflexion on his complex life, as a stateman or as an human being. Non worth if you are not a Roman History scholar. Lacks of what makes story exciting.

Sulla had a peculiar sense of morality which might be summed up with one story about one slave who, in order to win his freedom, betrayed his master. The slave may have won his freedom but it was short-lived because for betraying his master, he lost his life. That's Sulla. He was a man who rewarded his allies and destroyed all those who were not aware of their positions. I would henceforth read anything Keaveney published; he is a master of research and capturing the essence of his subject.