The traditional image of Julius Caesar, whether in the popular imagination, or in the many dramas based on his life starting from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar up to HBO’s series Rome, and even in many scholarly histories of Rome, presents a rather unflattering image of the man. However, this image is far from the truth. Julius Caesar is traditionally presented as a tyrant and a dictator who sought to become king, and who destroyed the republic of Rome because of his ambition to be King. Yet, Caesar, it seems was none of these things. While he may have harbored political ambitions, they were not out of line with what had been occurring in Roman politics for at least a hundred years before his rise to sole power. Likewise, Caesar did not destroy a virtuous republic of Citizen-Senators, who served Rome out of a sense of duty to the city and personal honor. Rather, Caesar assumed executive power over a Senate composed of plutocrats who, for the most part, served only to further enrich themselves, or to ensure their ancient family names remained relevant in Roman political life. In addition, Caesar did not destroy the Senate; indeed, he sought to expand its membership by opening it to a broader class of Roman citizens, in a move that could be seem as increasing popular involvement in the government. As the legitimate leader of the populari political movement in Rome, Caesar was completely justified in taking control of Rome in the manner that he did.
The roots of Julius Caesar’s justification for claiming the mantle of power in Rome can be traced back to the period of the Sulla and Marius conflicts. In his discussion of the struggle between Marius and Sulla to gain command of the war in the east against Mithridates, Appian touches on the controversial political issue of the day: extending Roman citizenship, first to Italians, and then to other peoples, and the resulting expansion of the voting population (Appian 55). The traditional, or ‘old’ politicians, composed mainly of the rich aristocrats who served in the Senate, led by Sulla, opposed the extension of citizenship and the vote. The politicians from newer or poorer families, and those who depended on the people of Rome for support, led by Marius, tended to support this position. As Appain says, the opposing sides “fought each other with sticks and stones, and the evil increased till the consulsproposed a vacation” (Appain 56).
As can be seen, the two political factions that were engaged in a struggle with each other in Caesar’s day, came to be in the days of Sulla and Marius, as violence, in the City of Rome, often broke out between them. One reason Caesar took power was because Caesar wanted to prevent this type of violence. Sulla raises an army and marches on Rome, breaking with tradition. Once in the city, he rules by force of his army (although Appian makes it seem like a peace keeping mission), and the “old” faction as Appian calls it, passed many laws cementing their hold on power and excluding the “new” men from power, and others from citizenship. Thus, Caesar was not the first Roman leader to bring legions into the city. Sulla, the leader of the ‘old’, aristocratic party, broke with tradition first, and took control of the city by force. Thus, Caesar was not out of line by leading his legion across the Rubicon years later.
98After a series of bloody wars against his political enemies (mostly ‘new’ men) “Sulla became king, or tyrant, de fact, not elected, but holding power by force, or violence” (Appian ). Again, it is Sulla, the aristocrat, who is guilty of everything Caesar was accused of. Thus, Caesar was following precedent when he seized power in Rome; Caesar was never made king, and he was elected. Therefore, Caesar was more than justified based on the political history and political practice during the period he lived. Sulla had established these new traditions, and Sulla appears to have been a far more bloodthirsty and unfair ruler than Caesar. Indeed, Sulla announces that his reason for claiming power with his legions is to “take vengeance” upon his political enemies in Rome (Appian 77).
It was also Sulla who had revived the office of dictator. Sulla commands the Senate to pass a law recreating the office of dictator, with one important change. Unlike the traditional dictator, Sulla ordered the Senate to make the new position dictator for life. Therefore, when Caesar was elected dictator by the people and the Senate of Rome, he was again following a precedent established by Sulla. The new office of dictator was a legal position, created by order of the Senate. Caesar did not make himself dictator, as he is often depicted as doing. Thus, since the office of dictator was a legal, ‘constitutional’ office, Caesar was fully justified to accept the title and office and to take control of Rome.
As dictator for life, Sulla made many changes to Roman law, and he did not always use the senate to do so. According to Appian, he broke with many traditions, and almost completely
altered the structure of the executive offices of the government. In other words, Appian records how Sulla reduced the “tribunician power to such an extent that it seemed to be destroyed” (Appian 103). He also prevented anyone from being elected consul, and altered several other executive offices.
Indeed, Sulla made so many changes, as recorded by Sulla, that the case can be made that it was actually Sulla’s government, and not Caesar’s that was illegitimate, and that Caesar actually helped to restore some of the traditional elements of Roman life that Sulla destroyed. The argument could be made that Caesar was fully justified to seize power in Rome, because the Roman state was in a condition of illegitimacy since Sulla’s administration. Caesar, acting with the mandate of the people, had the ethical authority to remove the influence of Sulla from the government, and to restore the traditions of Rome.
Suetonius likewise demonstrates that everything Caesar did, as daring as it may seem, was, at least, legal. He won his elections, although he did bribe voters. However, this was standard practice in Roman elections, as “even Cato did not deny that bribery under such circumstances was good for the common wealth.” (Suetonius 19). Suetonius shows how Caesar was a diplomatic politician, and created an alliance between Crassus, Pompey, and himself. This shows that Caesar was willing to work, and share power with other politicians, which is proof that his character was fit for a position of leadership.
Suetonius includes a report of Caesar’s military conquests and victories, and how he brought several new provinces, which brought with them a great deal of wealth, in currency, in slaves, and in agricultural production. Caesar made sure this new wealth was distributed throughout Rome and not just among the aristocrats (Suetonius 26-28). These accomplishments were further proof that Caesar was fit for office. One of the traditional ways Roman politicians demonstrated their aptitude for executive office was by winning military victories. In addition, being a successful general (and Caesar was very successful) allowed a Roman politician to gain the favor and support of the legions, and of the Roman common people, both of which were traditional means for a Roman to demonstrate political power. The point is that Caesar did everything that a aspiring Roman politician was supposed to do; thus, according to Roman culture, he was justified to claim power in Rome. To the Roman commoners, Caesar had been demonstrating his fitness for office for many years before he finally became dictator.
Suetonius also records how Caesar alleviated many of the worst sufferings for the people of Rome. Ever since the time of Sulla, the common people of Rome had been suffering terribly, from a lack of work, from poverty, and other problems, some caused by Sulla’s changes to the law. Caesar alleviated many of these problems, and improves the quality of living for Roman soldiers, farmers, and the plebeians. Because he was able to solve some of Rome’s social problems, he was a fit ruler, and therefore fully justified to take, and exercise, executive power over the city of Rome. Caesar was not a tyrant, and he did not destroy the republic. Indeed, one could argue, that Caesar was restoring the traditions of Roman government and life.
Bibliography
Appian. The Histories. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library, 1913. Accessed April 7,
2016. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/1*.html.
Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Loeb Classical Library, 1913. Accessed April 7 2016 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html
