Sulla's proscription
Following his victory at the battle of the Colline Gate, Sulla wanted to take his revenge against the former supporters of Marius and Cinna, who had declared him a public enemy in 88 BC.
After having obtained a positive vote from a popular assembly, he published two lists with the names of his enemies among senators and equites, the two tiers of the Roman aristocracy.
Several henchmen, as well prominent politicians who supported Sulla, massively profited from the proscription, collecting bounties and receiving seized properties at concessionary prices.
Sulla concurrently ordered many show trials, summary executions, confiscations of property, and even the massacre of the Samnites, but they were not part of the proscription, which only targeted the Roman elite.
In 88,[a] Sulla was consul and marched on Rome, deposing and killing one of the tribunes of the plebs and outlawing about ten of his political enemies, including Gaius Marius.
His enemies Marius and Cinna seized power in his absence after fighting a short war against the Senate and then controlled politics of the Republic for several years.
Meanwhile, Sulla won several victories in Greece against Mithridates and rapidly concluded a peace treaty under favourable terms for Pontus.
In 83, he came back to Italy to fight the Cinno-Marian faction (Marius and Cinna had died in 86 and 84, respectively), whom he decisively defeated at battle of the Colline Gate on 1 November 82.
[12] Cicero, in his speech Pro Cluentio, tells that a certain Oppianicus was sent by Sulla to the city of Larinum, where he murdered four proscribed municipal councillors.
[14] Romans of lower rank and foreigners were also prosecuted in many show trials throughout Italy and the provinces, often over futile charges, but they were not part of Sulla's proscription.
[16][17] Ancient writers consider that this limitation was imposed on Sulla by some senators; Orosius gives the name of Catulus, Plutarch those of Gaius Caecilius Metellus and Fufidius.
Sulla had himself performed such executions in Asia against Ephesians that had revolted; likewise, Pompey personally killed several Marian leaders at Asculum and even the proscribed ex-consul Gnaeus Papirius Carbo.
Another one named Cornelius Phagita commanded forces in Sabine territory to catch Sulla's enemies; he may have arrested the young Julius Caesar (who was not proscribed and only summoned for interrogation).
[43] Among major politicians, Marcus Licinius Crassus was the most famous profiteer; his greed in Bruttium was so outrageous that even Sulla refused to confer him political positions in Rome.
[44] Although ancient sources are mostly silent on wealth transfers during the proscription, one of the wealthiest men of the Republic like Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus must have benefited from it.
[50][51] From this figure of a 85% discount on the proscribed's properties, François Hinard inferred that the overall change of wealth that followed the proscription amounted to 2.3 billion sesterces.
[54] Many victims of the proscription were caught because of their wealth rather than their political background, as Sulla expected rich men to produce swift and demonstrative proofs of allegiance.
[58] The difference is striking with Scipio's former consular colleague Gaius Norbanus, who had fled to Rhodes, but committed suicide when Sulla forced the Rhodians to surrender him.
[59] One quarter (18 of 75) of the known proscribed survived by escaping Italy and joining Quintus Sertorius, a prominent Marian general who had continued the resistance against Sulla in Spain.
[63] Possibly in 70, a lex Plautia was passed by a tribune of the plebs named Plautius with the support of Julius Caesar, who was the brother-in-law of the younger Cinna.
[65] The law also allowed descendants of proscribed to return to Rome, but it deprived them from most of their political rights: they could not run for offices or even launch a judicial accusation.
[67] The following year, the tribune of the plebs Servilius Rullus put forward several ambitious bills, including one to restore the political rights of proscribed's sons and another on an agrarian reform.
Cicero's main argument against an amnesty law, which he had already developed against the lex Plautia of 70, was that the former proscribed would take their revenge against their enemies and that would cause chaos in the Republic.
