A legal voting was not followed in any way. His ability and power to establish himself as a dictator were so strong that not only he ingrained himself as a dictator, but did so indefinitely until he wanted to. However, at the time he felt he had made the changes that needed to be made, he did resign as dictator, which is what causes so many controversies among the people. Because his actions show two different perspectives, one, his honesty and intentions of truly changing the way Rome was being led at any cost, and the other the man who wanted to be a “reformer” but ended up being a “dictator.” In addition, I believe that by taking Rome by force he also set an example for future generations, one that he will not be able to “abolish.” (Badian, 1) He awoke in others this feeling that if Sulla did it why can’t I?. As a result, I believe it is just a matter of time before someone else tries to establish himself as a tyrant as well. However, I don’t believe that future dictators will have the same idea of resigning to such power as Sulla did, which could represent a real chaos for the …show more content…
Among these reforms, we have one where he restored the time limits for holding office positions like the consulship. He restored it to be like it was originally where a person could be consul for one year after being praetor. In addition, you could be consul more than once but at least 10 years had to pass from one consulship to the next. He set a new age requirement for being praetors and impose strictly the corsus honorum. I think his intentions with these changes were not only to restore the office positions as they were before but also to prevent any of these people from gaining as much power as he did and that could either overthrown him or equalize him. Furthermore, he enlarged the Senate with people that supported him with the end goal of keeping control over Rome and in some way over the Senate as