Unconstitutional

[P.Clodius]

Post your thoughts. I would have to say the Senate themselves because of what they did to The Gracchi and Drusus. But Sulla comes a close 2nd

[Primus Pilus]

Hmm, if we aren't talking about severity of the 'crime' my initial reaction was to go with Marius. His several consecutive consulships along with running in abstentia certainly set a precedent. However, that's a rather simplistic view that doesn't take into account the reasoning, or the necessity of his actions (at least in part).

 

I do agree with Clodius that the Senate holds a great deal of guilt, but for me, that body must be broken down into its various factions and time periods in order to do this on a comparable basis. With that in mind, I have to choose Sulla, not only for marching on Rome but for assuming a lengthened stay as dictator and completely tearing down 500 years of Republican constitutional evolution. As much as the later figures did to circumvent the 'constitution' it was a terribly worn down instrument by that point, and Sulla's behaviour stands out to me as the most non constitutional.

 

Still, this is actually a very interesting question that requires further thought. Keep in mind the actual question about the constitution, not about right, wrong, or what political affiliation you may or may not agree with.

[pompeius magnus]

Even though the senate and sulla are both tempting choices, I have to go with Antonius. He abused his power in Rome and caused caesar to do extra work in undoing antonius' laziness. Also the almost mutininees' of Caesar's legion X can be partially blamed on Antonius. And most important I believe he was behind Caesar's assassination in some way as he hoped he would gain inheritance, not to mention the whole deal with Cleopatra.

[P.Clodius]

I don't agree with your choice. Anthony was certainly a poor administrator and would probably have squandered state funds. But you have to admire the role he played in the days immediately following the assassination.

 

I believe he was behind Caesar's assassination in some way

 

 

He was in no way involved with it. He was approached in 45BC by certain parties but did not endulge or didn't take it seriously. Rumours of plots, etc.. were common to Caesar's own ears. The fact that some of his adherants were approached isn't at all surprising, least of all to Caesar himself.

[pompeius magnus]

We are just at odds here, I think that Antonius was very corrupt and he just didn't care about a lot of people besides himself. In his earlier years he was the same way. I will yield to the comment about having a part in Caesars assassination, but he was still unconstitutional. If I had to make a choice between him and Octavian, Octavian would be an easy choice.

[Marcus Regulus]

Sulla tops my list. Nothing like ignoring the constitution to reestablish it.

[Ursus]

Sulla, for reasons already stated.

[Germanicus]

The senate, the boni/optimate faction in particular. Also for what they did to the Gracchi, and their other violations of Tribunes.

[Lacertus]

The Senate.Someone who is in power has no right to be weak.