Caesar (III)

We have now arrived at the most important time period for the purpose of this post, Caesar's dictatorship and assassination. Ironically, we have but a paucity of reliable information, as Caesar's Commentaries do not extend to his activities undertaken during his rule in Rome. Much of what was written about him during these last two years of his life were written by contemporaries critical of his rule and can not be considered objectively reliable. While hindsight allows one to judge Caesar's conspirators and their cause, it does little in evaluating the scope of his plans for Rome and the regime that he pursued. Nonetheless, enough has existed throughout history such that historians have considered him as: a political genius and revolutionary who sought monarchy as the means to restoring the failed state of Rome, a self-absorbed warmonger who eliminated the Republic's hope of saving itself and whose administration was scattered rather than far-sighted, or somewhere in between.

We are now tasked with the question of what Caesar really was. Was he a tyrant? An enlightened monarch? Merely a fortunate opportunist? I shall try to present my view as coherent as possible, though let us first grasp the overview of his agenda as dictator.

Victorious, Caesar arrived in Rome in 46 B.C and was appointed dictator for a period of ten years, this time to seriously reform the large-scale deficiencies plaguing the Republic (with the exception of putting down the uprising in Spain). Indeed, even before Caesar had initiated the Civil War, it was obvious that the functionality of the Senate had begun to collapse, in which self-interest replaced serious reform and violence became the common means by which disputes were settled. The wealth gap was staggering, leading to land loss amongst the peasantry and military veterans, such that huge numbers of the poor and homeless filled Rome's streets. The lack of a strong central government was severely straining the expanding territories. Above all, Rome's problems could not be adequately solved due to the concentration of power in the hands of a corrupt senatorial elite who did not wish to initiate any reform that threatened their wealth or position.

After celebrating an unprecedented four triumphs (on a scale never before seen), Caesar set out to address these problems using his supreme authority, finally without opposition. Temporarily, political stability in Rome had been achieved due to Caesar's considerable pardons towards his enemies. His powers as dictator allowed him to fill vacancies in the Senate, as well as creating 300 new senatorial positions, bringing the size to 900 (from 600 after Sulla). Not only were his appointments of Roman citizenry, he ordered a certain amount of positions filled by delegates from the provinces and other foreigners well-disposed towards Rome. While this undoubtedly angered the Senate nobility, such a measure was aimed at attempting to diversify the interests of the territories and further secure their loyalty, rather than solely within Italy.

To address the rampant homelessness and poor within the city, Caesar implemented an enormous colonization program, building upon his previous agrarian law as consul. He settled veterans and poor families on newly created colonies in Italy and the provinces, resettling 80,000 in total. He initiated a staggering series of public works projects that undoubtedly employed thousands, expanding the Forum and building several new temples and civic work buildings along the Tiber river and city outskirts. Indeed, he even pursued a construction project to alter the course of the Tiber itself, seeking to protect certain areas from flooding and opening up new farmland.

Rome, at the time of Caesar's ascension, was far from the glorious, marble capitol known in creative works displaying the period of the Roman Empire. It may have been growing, but it was filled with the destitute and showed no indication of it becoming a cultural and political center; Caesar's colonization and land programs were not enough to undo the dilapidation. He also initiated reforms aimed at strengthening the populace, not just removing the destitute from the streets. By taking a census of the city's population, he was able to halve the amount of grain allotted to the city, alleviating waste due to improper distribution. No doubt influenced by the cultural magnificence of Alexandria, Caesar offered immediate citizenship to scholars and doctors willing to work in Rome and ordered the construction of an enormous library aimed at collecting Greek and Latin literature.

Additionally, in what was one of Caesar's most lasting impressions upon the Western world, he ordered a reform of the calendar, beginning in 45 B.C. Before the Julian implementation, the Roman calendar operated on a lunar cycle. It was a horrendously inefficient system that ran months ahead of the actual seasons and was vulnerable to political manipulation. By reforming it to operate within the solar cycle, the Julian calendar extended to 365 days a year and is very accurate to the modern system that was only slightly reformed by Pope Gregory XIII. The month of July is named in his honor.

Caesar also sought to improve the debt crisis by ordering an immediate cancellation of 25% of public debt, to the delight of the citizenry, and outlawed currency hoarding. The tax system that allowed Roman intermediaries was abolished, allowing provinces more freedom in their collection processes and reducing corruption. He forbade citizens between the ages of 20-40 to leave Italy, unless on military assignment, and ordered that farms employ a third of its workforce with free people (as opposed to slaves), seeking to further reduce official unemployment. He also rewarded families for having children, in an effort to populate Italy.

How effective were these reforms and how did they play into Caesar's long term aims? His assassination forever robbed us of accurately determining the former, for despite the swift implementation of his laws as dictator, such policies only had a year's time of stability to take hold. The latter question plays into theories regarding Caesar's effectiveness as a ruler. There are those who contend that Caesar was merely an opportunist, whose military skill afforded him unprecedented power and whose enormous legislative agenda was scattered and done only to provide legitimacy to his dictatorship. While I believe this to be an unsatisfactory characterization, there may never be a decisive means to do so, considering Caesar's lack of personal writing as dictator. Nonetheless, I contend that Caesar was a largely benevolent ruler who saw autocracy as the only remedy to Rome's crumbling political machinery. In the process of defending such a characterization, an idea of his long term aims shall become clearer.

Was Caesar a tyrant? The word "tyrant" and "tyranny" are used in such a frustratingly ignorant manner that they appear to be synonymous with all forms of autocratic rule. A tyrant should be exclusive to autocratic rulers who use their power to solely advance their ambitions and satisfy personal desire. A tyrannical ruler is out of touch with his society and his people, militarily silencing their opinion and crushing opposition (see my post entitled "Kyklos: Part III"). Adding further frustration, the term "Caesarism" is more often associated with an authoritarian regime legitimized by violence than it is with the policies of Caesar himself.

This extreme opinion is far from accurate. It is true that militarism formed the basis of Caesar's seizure of power, as well as the fact that Roman legislation hardly operated outside of his dictatorial supervision. Militarism did not, however, provide the primary legitimacy to his regime. Caesar was unwillingly pressed into civil war by a jealous senatorial elite. He did not violently seize Rome, proscribe his enemies, or pillage Roman territory. Sulla, by contrast, was more of a tyrant than Caesar ever was and enforced the conservative will of the nobility, rather than the populist aims of the populares. The true definition of "Caesarism", in my opinion, only half coincides with the pejorative use, in that while it describes a charismatic ruler who militarily crushes opposition, it should also include the populist nature of Caesar's politics and whose leadership was more willing to solve political dispute through compromise and clemency, rather than force.

To also use the word "tyrant" would imply that Caesar had destroyed a government worth saving. For almost a century, the politics of the Republic had been undertaken through violent repression by an aristocracy against its own people. No serious scholar can contend that the Senate, by Caesar's time, represented a well-functioning government; democratic process was rare, at least for the larger and more popular bills and reforms. Overall, Caesar's dictatorship had virtually no opposition from the masses. He was generous to his people, sharing with each Roman citizen the spoils of his wars, and many of his larger reforms, in some way, benefited the common citizen. Only the optimates were vocal critics of his leadership and denounced his rule as the death of "liberty", though apparently their definition of liberty was exclusive to their circle. Even if the senators had a more educated understanding of freedom, their actions hardly suggested such.

This is not to say that Caesar was not guilty of safeguarding his authority. Instances such as his passing of laws that respectively limited the terms of proconsuls and propraetors (governors) to two-year and one-year terms come to mind, as well as his ability to reward supporters through political appointment. Almost certainly, his constitutional reforms suggest a consolidation of power and his acceptance of the many honors bestowed upon him cannot be separated from vanity. However, I believe that dual purposes to Caesar's actions were commonplace, and while he no doubt saw himself as worthy of being Rome's protector, it is important to also remember that there were few alternatives.

Let us, then, dispense with the notion of Caesar "the tyrant" and proceed. Was Caesar a monarch? I am far more willing to assent to this notion, the evidence being more compelling. Not long before his assassination, Caesar had been bestowed considerable honors by the Senate. Some of these may have been genuine, although they may have also been part of a strategy from his opponents, seeking to make his desire for kingship appear apparent to the people. A considerable amount of constitutional power came from the Senate, eventually removing all checks and balances on his authority. A special chair was made for him in the chambers, placed between the two consuls. Statues of him were erected in temples and carried to ceremonial games. At festivals, Caesar began to dress in traditionally royal garb (purple toga and tunic) and wore a laurel wreath that was eventually replaced with a gold one. Additionally, minted coins bore his face and laurel wreath. While it was not historically unusual for deceased Romans to be honored in coinage, Caesar was the first Roman who appeared during his lifetime.

In fact, it may be inescapable to say that Caesar was a monarch in all but the name. Some contend that such was his plan for most of his political career, but the burden of proof for such a claim is overwhelming. There is nothing to suggest that Caesar had imperial aims for most of his political career. In fact, had the optimates approved his attempts for compromise, the civil war would have never taken place and the power vacuum left after his victory would not have existed. It is far more probable that Caesar would have been satisfied with an additional consulship and partaking in a triumph or two near the end of his career, provided he enjoyed continued military success (a likely scenario).

However, Caesar may have experienced a turning point in his political outlook during his time in Egypt. His time with Cleopatra was surely favorable and under considerable royal hospitality. His  (alleged) son, Caesarion, that he fathered with the queen must have left some impression on him, as he had yet to do so with his legal wife Calpurnia. Considering the honors that Caesar accepted during his time as dictator, it seems likely that his view of a monarchy was favorable, despite "king" being a hated term since the last Etruscan king, Tarquin, nearly five hundred years before. This is, however, a speculative notion. Caesar, at least publicly, refused to be acknowledged as rex when called such by the people. An example of such was the infamous incident during the feast of Lupercalia, in which Marc Antony attempted to place a diadem upon Caesar's head, which he refused three times. Though his refusal was wildly cheered by the crowd, it did little to sway the minds of the opposing senators.

Whether or not Caesar actively sought monarchy of a royal nature upon his dictatorship remains debated, but it is indisputable that his rule became outwardly autocratic. A month before his assassination, he was named "dictator for life"and was mobilizing for a massive invasion of Parthia. By this time, resentment within the senatorial ranks had grown considerably, even among Caesar's closer associates. While Caesar was talented in many respects, his outward acceptance of the honors given to him by the senate and disregard for senators' involvement in traditional legislation proved to be a serious mistake, at least from the standpoint of political strategy. Even the clemency he had granted to his enemies had not sufficiently rendered them his allies or at least politically indifferent. The honors and prestige granted to Caesar had begun to border on divinity, adding to the jealousy felt among the senators. To them, Caesar had robbed them of prestige and fame, despite his dictatorship being essential to quickly putting into practice his ambitious reforms. Blinded by resentment, a serious conspiracy began to form in 44 B.C, which the senators felt had to be done quickly before Caesar left for his Parthian campaign in April. Otherwise, he would have been away while still retaining his authority and had he succeeded against Parthia (considering his history, odds were favorable), this would have only added legitimacy to his rule.

On March 15th, 44 B.C, Caesar met with the Senate for the final time before his Parthian campaign. Despite warnings from his associates concerning the plot, particularly from Marc Antony, Caesar had underestimated the situation and proceeded. The conspirators were led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus, the son of one of Caesar's lovers, Servillia. Brutus had originally surrendered to Caesar during the civil war and was instantly pardoned. Nonetheless, he decided to throw in his lot with the optimates and gave symbolic legitimacy to the plot, as his ancestor was involved in the expulsion of the last Roman king. They decided to stab Caesar in the Senate chamber in an act of "liberty" hoping to restore the Republic to its conservative, aristocratic fashion.

As Caesar entered the chamber, several of the senators stalled Marc Antony outside. A senator by the name of Lucius Tillius Cimber asked Caesar to recall his Pompeian brother from exile, to which he calmly refused. Slowly, the conspirators surrounded Caesar and after some initial hesitation, began to stab him repeatedly. After a brief resistance, he succumbed to his wounds and fell to the floor; he was ultimately stabbed twenty three times. Despite the well-known description by Shakespeare in which Caesar utters "et tu, Brute?", there is more reason to believe that Caesar simply said nothing and pulled his toga over his head in a final act of vanity. The most powerful Roman in history had fallen.

The aftermath of Caesar's assassination places tremendous burden of proof upon those supportive of the conspirators. While the optimates believed that they had acted out in liberty and were confident in restoring the Republic, reality showed that they were, in fact, nothing more than petty, political illiterates. Upon Caesar's death, most senators fled the chamber and the conspirators found themselves alone in Rome's empty streets. The masses who benefited from Caesar's populist rule were at first ambivalent, perhaps out of shock. However, the conspirators who hoped to seize power had no political agenda in mind upon Caesar's assassination. Indeed, the enormous change brought about by his legislation as dictator proved beyond the optimates' abilities to deal with and ultimately, a deal was bartered with Marc Antony, who they failed to kill, in which most of Caesar's legislation remained. Keeping Antony alive proved to be a serious mistake, for he succeeded in turning the mob against the conspirators during Caesar's funeral, eventually forcing them into exile out of fear for their safety.

Due to Caesar having never had a legal son, his great-nephew Octavian was named heir to his name and vast fortune, catapulting him to prestige. The immense power vacuum created by the assassination once again cast Rome into another civil war, in which Octavian and Antony joined forces against the optimates. Unlike Caesar, they returned to Sulla's method of proscription and executed dozens of opponents in Rome before ultimately crushing the opposing forces at the battle of Philippi. Not even that brought stability, for Octavian and Antony became embroiled in a power struggle upon which Octavian would be victorious. The Roman Republic would never be resurrected. Octavian succeeded in continuing the autocratic policies of Caesar in what could only be described as political genius. He became Augustus, Rome's first emperor, and transformed the Republic into the Roman Empire, the next great phase of Western civilization.

Before his assassination, Caesar prophetically stated that the loss of his rule would result in another civil war for Rome. The aims of his legislation had been largely aimed at establishing Rome as an effective, centralized capitol, while establishing cohesion amongst the provinces. In some ways, the Roman Republic was always bound for the transition towards empire; imperialism was, historically, an important element of Roman society since its humble beginnings and the breakdown of the Republic demanded more centralized control to deal with its expansion. This continued to be frustrated by the corruption and ineffectiveness due to aristocratic domination, making the rise of a man like Caesar almost inevitable. Autocracy promised to bring what democracy had failed to provide its people: prosperity, or in the least, stability. Whether or not the optimates could accept such change was irrelevant. History had vindicated Caesar.

Caesar may have been a monarch at heart, but he was no tyrant. Though ambitious and vain, there is little reason to doubt his devotion to his people and to Rome. His military genius in Gaul had already made him historically immortal and had his associates held back their pride, he may have very well just ended with a solid political career. Emerging from the civil war, Caesar understood the failures of the Senate and sought to show the world that autocracy was the only way to achieve stability. While lacking the political genius of his great-nephew Augustus, who was undoubtedly influenced by the assassination, Caesar nonetheless represented all that was transforming within Roman society and, indeed, the world. Few have left such an impact upon Western history.

It has been a privilege to provide my insight on his life and historical influence. I thank readers for their attention and hope that Caesar remains in the minds and hearts of our generation, particularly during a time where we are personally seeing democracy challenged by modern society.

Hail Caesar.