Caesar (I)

Today is the Ides of March. On this day, over two-thousand years ago (2,059 in the Gregorian calendar, to be precise), the greatest civilization of the ancient world would see its once-invincible Republic rapidly spiral towards a major shift in its political structure with the assassination of Rome's greatest historical figure: Gaius Julius Caesar. His death was not solely responsible for the demise of the Roman Republic, but it did serve as a spark to a powder keg of social and political dysfunction. In this light, the study of Caesar is not merely an appreciation for a highly talented individual, but an examination of a man who perhaps solely represented the changing social dynamics in the shadows of Roman society.

My fascination with Caesar has been fairly recent, though I recall taking mild interest in high school as well. At that time, I was inclined to believe what students are largely taught about him, not through the eyes of serious, historical examination, but through artists like Shakespeare who conjure up the image of a mad tyrant who can only be tamed by the actions of just and noble senators, saviors of the glorious Republic. However, if one looks beyond mainstream exposure, the study of Caesar reveals a great deal more and both historical and modern scholars have been deeply divided as to his intentions and the purpose he served in Rome's evolution towards empire.

I admit having been solidified as a great admirer of Caesar. Psychologically speaking, this makes a lot of sense, considering my fondness for exposing (or at least seeking to expose) weaknesses in traditional lines of thought. Caesar was certainly a revolutionary in this respect, challenging the aristocracy of the decaying Roman Republic who had long been using the mask of democracy to sustain their acquired privilege and dominance over the majority of citizens. His actions represented a classic battle of democracy vs. autocracy and how one flourished when the other failed. In the modern world, where the appeal of democratic governments is unquestionable, examining these notions in a purely analytical light takes effort and perhaps it is for this reason that I have found the study of Caesar and the beginning of the Roman empire to be an immensely rewarding experience.

I do not intend for this post to be an authoritative biography (one is recommended to read Goldsworthy's "Caesar: Life of a Colossus")--that would be quite inappropriate. Rather, I wish to cast Caesar in a more favorable light and challenge misconceptions that have long obfuscated an accurate study of his rise to power and short-lived rule (though there are certain aspects that make this difficult, regardless). Caesar served Rome well; it may have cost him his life and the life of the Roman Republic, but the new government that would emerge under his great-nephew Octavian (Augustus) would survive well into the sixteenth century and continues to influence Western civilization to this day.

Unquestionably, this will be my longest post yet. I have divided this post into a series of three "volumes". Those primarily interested in my case regarding Caesar's rule should proceed to part III, though the background that I provide is, in many ways, central to my argument.

Caesar was born into favorable circumstances, the son of a patrician family (the high class of Roman society) and whose father achieved moderate success in public office, governing Asia minor before dying in 85 B.C. in Pisa. Caesar had a strong mother, Aurelia, who carefully supervised his education and when his father died, he became the head of household at sixteen. Indeed, Caesar enjoyed a privileged childhood, but by no means would this be indicative of success. What is more significant is the political environment of Rome during Caesar's childhood, a period fraught with internal conflict and contentious reform. Perhaps a chronology of events is required, for greater understanding.

In the earlier days of the Roman Republic, an office existed outside of the ordinary magistrate that afforded an individual the absolute authority (imperium) to deal with a time of emergency. This was the Roman dictator. Indeed, it must be shocking for modern readers to think of dictator as some sort of accepted office, but this was the original purpose. From about 500-200 B.C. there appears to have been an appointed dictator every two or three years, mostly for purposes involving war (of which Rome saw much) or administration during holidays. However, in 202 B.C, the office of dictator was apparently abolished and future emergency powers were granted to the two consuls (ordinarily the highest office in Rome) via senatorial decree.

Roughly seventy years later, the Roman Republic began to witness a strain on its functionality out of growing social discontent. Due to the lengthy period required of soldiers to serve in the military, many Roman farmers found their property confiscated and absorbed by the nobility because of lingering debts incurred during their service. As a result, many discharged veterans found themselves impoverished, flooding the streets of major cities as beggars. By contrast, the newly acquired property by the rich enhanced their fortunes and as a result, Roman society began to see a major gap in wealth distribution. A major incident occurred in 133 B.C, when a politician known as Tiberius Gracchus sought to initiate a major reform in order to deal with this situation. His proposed law, known as the Lex Sempronia Agraria, would limit the amount of conquered land (125 hectares) that could be acquired by a single citizen and any above this limit would be redistributed to poor veteran families and the homeless, allowing them to become eligible for taxation and military service (only property owners could join the army). In a sense, Gracchus was among the first "ancient socialists", who saw redistribution as a means of not only combating poverty, but mitigating the shrinking pool of citizens available for the military, exacerbated by the growing wealth of the aristocracy.

Not surprisingly, the nobility of the senate opposed his reform, fearing the confiscation of portions of their land. After several attempts, Gracchus attempted to circumvent traditional legislation through more unorthodox measures, such as having opponents voted out of office and expanding the use of tribunal powers (e.g. the veto). Matters eventually came to a head when a group of conservative senators accused Gracchus of seeking kingship and beat him to death with clubs, tossing his body into the Tiber river. The remainder of his supporters were hunted down and either exiled or killed. Interestingly, Gracchus' reforms succeeded in passing, partly in thanks to the efforts of his brother, Gaius Gracchus. Gaius was also a revolutionary, who expanded upon Tiberius' land reform and continued to pursue agendas that threatened the conservative nature of the senate. Most shocking was his attempt to extend Roman citizenship to the whole of Italy, angering not just the senate, but many Roman citizens as well. Gaius, too, suffered a terrible end, having his head severed and delivered to his political opponents.

In many ways, the Gracchi may be considered the fathers of populism and socialism in the Roman Republic. Their reforms challenged the long-held traditions of the Senate and threatened to marginalize the privileges of the aristocracy, a faction more interested in the promotion of their families and nobility, rather than the interests of the general citizenry. Reforms aside, the Grachii were perhaps most important for exposing the fact that the political climate of Rome was changing; conservatism was losing hegemony in the face of new demands from the populace and ambitious leaders within the senate had begun to use populist/socialist proposals to amass support against the nobility. The Republic was now in an era of strife between the populares (for the people) and the optimates (for the aristocracy).

This era was perhaps ushered in by a major conflict known as the Social War in 91 B.C. It began when the tribune Marcus Livius Drusus, following in the footsteps of the Grachii, attempted to grant citizenship to Rome's Italian allies. Unsurprisingly, he was publicly murdered at his home before his reform could be passed. This time, however, the people behind his proposal would not endure such an act of violence and several Italian states revolted in response. After a couple years of fighting, Rome eventually emerged victorious, but partially relented by granting citizenship to Italian communities who did not take part in the rebellion.

Caesar was only nine when the Social War broke out, but it did involve some of his older associates, such as Cicero, who would later be involved in his political affairs. More importantly, the Social War led to another internal conflict between two of Rome's esteemed military commanders, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, whose relationship quickly deteriorated after the rebellion was put down.  Marius was a highly ambitious general who had been elected consul an astonishing seven times during his career, though by the time the Social War broke out, he was sixty-six and took only an early role in the conflict. On the other hand, Sulla had achieved remarkable success and prestige during the Social War, earning the highest military honor, the Grass Crown. After the conflict, he was chosen by the senate to command legions in the East and wage war against Mithridates of Pontus.

Marius, however, resorted to questionable means by using a political ally to reverse the senate's decision, undoubtedly acting out of jealously towards Sulla's recent success. Command of the East was instead given to Marius, but Sulla refused to comply and responded in a historically unprecedented manner: he marched his legions upon Rome, an event never before recorded in Roman history. Marius was unable to respond fast enough and fled the city, with Sulla resuming the Eastern command after declaring Marius and his allies enemies of the state.

Sulla's victory would not last long. A loyal supporter of Marius, known as Cinna, assisted the refugee in gathering forces in northern Africa and expelled Sulla's supporters in Rome, successfully reclaiming the city. The two would take violent action by executing their enemies and displaying their heads in the Roman forum; Sulla's property was subsequently burned. Marius and Cinna would reclaim their positions as consul, but Marius died seventeen days later. In what followed is perhaps the most important series of events to influence Caesar's politics and will end our chronology.

Sulla concluded his victory against Mithridates and, upon hearing that Cinna had been killed in a mutiny, decided the time was right to retake Rome. Despite encountering several battles along the way, Sulla finally engaged his enemies on the outskirts of the city and was ultimately victorious. What followed was an unprecedented series of violence, perhaps among the most infamous chapters in all of Roman history. Sulla proscribed hundreds of opponents, executing at will and offering bounties to those who brought him the severed heads of the victims.

More importantly, Sulla revived the office of the dictatorship after nearly 140 years of dormancy. Unlike the usual six-month limit, Sulla insisted that he hold this position for as long as it took to "amend" the Senate, which allowed him to expand the members of the nobility (about 300) and initiate several constitutional reforms that strongly favored the aristocracy. Indeed, Sulla was an optimate who saw the rise of Marius as a dangerous byproduct of the populares and it is reasonable to consider Sulla's seizure of power as a powerful conservative backlash, in contrast to the visionary efforts of the Grachii. The dictatorship had been resurrected under Sulla's rule, though he himself would only hold it for just over a year's time before resigning it 80 B.C upon finalizing his reforms. Interestingly, Caesar would later criticize Sulla for his swift resignation of the post; while this could be attributed to scorn, he may have genuinely considered it an action of political weakness, considering that some of Sulla's reforms were simply undone in the following years.

In many ways, the rise of Caesar had been paved long before he embarked on his career. The intensifying conflict between the optimates and populares led to the reactionary rise of Sulla, who seized control of Rome in an unprecedented fashion. Violence had become a shocking new tool to resolve political dispute, showing the truly decaying nature of the government, and the dictatorship had been restored as perhaps the only means of initiating genuine reform (though Sulla's dictatorship was by no means benevolent). In one of history's remarkable bouts of irony, Sulla once commanded the young Caesar to divorce his first wife Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna. Caesar was astonishingly defiant, leading to him flee from exile and was saved only by the efforts of his mother and her friends, who pleaded with Sulla on his behalf. Sulla reluctantly relented, commenting that Caesar would one day be the end of Rome's "best" men (optimates), for in Caesar he saw much of Marius' ambition, an astute observation in hindsight.