Julius Caesar (49-44 B.C.)

Introduction

https://books.google.com/books?id=aSmr_bVR2-kC&lpg=PP1&dq=life%20of%20a%20colossus&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

1. The long story short is that Caesar was as amoral as anyone else has ever been. He wasn’t good or evil; he was simultaneously neither and both. He did great things for Rome, for the poor, and when it benefited him. He also was in charge of the hugely destructive Gallic War, which was incredibly popular with the Roman people, who considered it a good thing. The modern eye would consider it less so, with a (probably exaggerated) total of one million people killed and another million enslaved. Again, whether or not the Gallic Wars made Caesar a “good person” or “bad person” is entirely subjective. For the Romans, he offered civil peace and a pretty good deal for the common people, even if the aristocrats couldn’t stand him. To our modern view, he made himself an autocrat in all but name. While he wasn’t emperor, he consolidated power and kept people he didn’t like from getting anywhere; but his reforms were good ones, and some of them lasted for centuries, despite Caesar’s extremely short rule.
2. Caesar as Dictator:
   • Pardoned everyone who took up arms against him. This was an insanely unheard-of move, as you might be able to imagine, and yet, it helped to heal the wounds of that civil war.Celebrated four straight triumphs – which was rather ostentatious, but it was more than anyone else had ever done. Therefore, Caesar had to do it, because, as I mentioned before, pride and dignitas.Got grouchy at his legionaries for singing bawdy slurs about him – and this grouchiness manifested itself in his taking an oath that he had never “bottomed” for another dude. Needless to say, this made him look more ridiculous than anything, but there was no harm done to anyone.An excerpt from a letter to Metellus Scipio (Probably propaganda, but it does get the point across) claimed that Caesar wanted only ‘tranquility for Italy, peace for the provinces, and security for Roman power’Gave his veterans land to work – massive colonisation projects. To do this, he used the public lands that had formerly belonged to the now dead Pompeians, or he bought it at a fair price. Again, not terribly tyrannical. The colonisation program was designed to cause as little strife as possible between the civilians and the new settlers, especially the former soldiers.Resettled Corinth and Carthage.Was well known for being open to pleas from interested parties – Cicero, for example, “successfully secured an exemption for the community of Buthorotum in Epirus on behalf of his friend Atticus” (Goldsworthy: Life of a Colossus)
   • Enacted his agrarian law, which distributed land to many of the jobless poor in the city of Rome, which had the wonderful side effect of clearing the extremely overcrowded city a bit. This had been a concurrent problem over the last century, and Caesar was the only one who had managed to alleviate it. Even his political enemies only said that “The only thing wrong with his laws is the fact that he was the one presenting them.”
   • • Attempted to drain the Pomptine Marshes, providing a fresh supply of farmland – he was killed before this could be enacted. This suggests that he probably wanted to continue settling the poor.Planned to alter the course of the Tiber, preventing the “slummier” parts of the city from flooding constantly. Again, he was killed before this was enacted.Being fair, the only ones who were elected consul during this time were those that Caesar supported – and even then, they were sometimes short lived. As Cicero joked: “in the consulship of Caninius, nobody ate lunch. However, nothing bad occurred while he was consul – for his vigilance was so incredible that throughout his entire consulship he never went to sleep.” (Caninius was only consul for a few hours) Caesar tried to reward everyone who was loyal to him with a consulship – and while their being appointed and promptly resigning wasn’t illegal, it certainly didn’t look all that great.Increased the size of the Senate from 600 (Sulla had increased it from 300) to 900. Yay, stacking the Senate!Even Caesar’s enemies agreed that his administrative decisions were good and sensible – even if they were done in a completely unprecedented manner.Restructured the system for giving out free grain to citizens, cutting out the corruption.Created massive building projects on the Campus Martius and the Forum, giving the unemployed a solid job.Granted citizenship to any doctor or teacher willing to come and work in Rome.Ordered the creation of a massive centre of learning in Rome, inspired by the Library of AlexandriaPlanned to thoroughly codify Roman law (killed before this was achieved)Reorganised the calendar to what we use today (Needless to say, this caused grumbles, but it was far more efficient and less subject to political abuse)Regulated lavish displays of wealth (Forbade the use of litters, wearing of purple clothes or pearls unless it was by a specific people on specific days, certain exotic foods were banned). This really didn’t actually accomplish anything, but it was in line with centuries of former laws like this – As I said before, the Romans were rather traditional The collegia (guilds) that were so often turned into political gangs were banned. Legitimate gatherings were still fine (such as the Jewish synagogue), but this was primarily to stem the political violence.Required that at least 1/3 of the workers on the farms of Rome must be free.
   • Regulated the magistrates – setting the term of a proconsul at two years and a propraetor at one (Caesar himself had been a proconsul for 10 years and wanted to prevent anyone else from taking control of a section of Roman territory and rebelling).

What was Julius Caesar’s personality like?

1. Life of Julius Caesar by Plutarch (or Suetonius’ work of the same name) Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy Julius Caesar: The People’s Dictator by Luciano Canfora On this:
2. First off, we know that Caesar was a man of ambition, and in many ways, this was his defining characteristic. From a young age, he sought social and political influence and stopped at nothing to achieve it. His political savvy allowed him to jump from Flamen Dialis to quaestor to Pontifex Maximus to praetor by only 37. Caesar was a prideful man with nothing short of absolute power as his goal, but he was also a man of good humor (at least that’s how he chose to portray himself). When he wasn’t engaged in military conflict, he enjoyed wine, women, and food, a man of bread and circuses, though in relative moderation (unlike his friend Marc Antony). His enjoyment of pleasures never impeded his political ends. Even in his famous romance with Cleopatra, he kept his gaze firmly trained on the end game. He generally allowed himself to be criticized (at the very least, there were no Tiberian purges), and was far from the megalomaniacal supervillain many modern people see him as. That said, Caesar was by no means fully benevolent and he often used violence against those who could not be swayed by talk alone. His vigor and lust for power often pushed him to great lengths, including violence. During his consulship, a popular joke amongst the Romans was that it was the consulship of “Julius and Caesar” due to his frequent strongarming of his uncooperative co-consul. While violence was not his preferred method, it was far from off the table and the man had no qualms about wreaking destruction on any particularly stubborn obstacles in his path to power. In his ambition, he was ruthless, both personally and politically. We all know the stories of Caesar’s march across the Rubicon with only a single legion at his back, a man against the might of Rome. Before that, he was a renowned conqueror in the North with a reputation for victory in the Gallic Wars no matter the odds. Personally, he was just as committed to his cause, even divorcing his wife Pompeia over Clodius Pulcher’s supposed attempts to seduce her, claiming that “my wife ought not even to be under suspicion”. While it may seem counterintuitive, this tireless ambition is what informed his famous clemency policies. Caesar aimed to paint himself as a man of generosity, and in some ways he was. In order to avoid the murderous reputations of his predecessors Marius and Sulla, Caesar aimed to establish a regime built on making supporters out of enemies. Essentially, Caesar wanted good press. There’s a story about Caesar on his march to Rome where he encounters and defeats a general who refused to surrender to his forces. Caesar captured the man but spared his life, telling him that he could even regroup and continue to fight Caesar in the future if he wished, but that he would be left alive. Even his most notorious enemy, Pompey Magnus, had been in line to receive a pardon from Caesar after his defeat (unfortunately Pompey was killed by the Egyptians before this could happen). There’s debate as to whether this tolerant regime was due to Caesar’s genuine generosity or whether it was purely politically motivated. I’m of the opinion that it was somewhere in the middle. I don’t doubt the fact that Caesar was ultimately always looking out for Caesar, but we also see examples of actions that can only be described as kindness with nothing for him to gain. From granting the request of his nephew Octavian to spare a friend’s brother’s life to protecting his first wife’s life and interests at his own expense.
3. While he was hated by the upper classes, in the eyes of the public, Caesar was a hero and a liberator come to save them from the chaos and tyranny they’d grown accustomed to, and he played his role well. Despite being born into a technically Patrician family, he came from modest means. Before his ascent to power, the Julii family was low on funds and politically irrelevant, It seems that Caesar never truly forgot his roots, and he was a true populist, choosing to appeal to the common people before all else. He threw games, forgave debts, and made himself accessible to the public. Despite his historical reputation, Rome could have done a lot worse than Julius Caesar. He sought to base his power on the love and approval of the common masses, and in many ways, he truly did change their lives for the better. From weeding out corruption in the upper class to increasing social services, Caesar went out of his way to care for the people he ruled. His soldiers adored him as well. Caesar was one of them, a soldier to the core. He was a man of courage and honor, never running from a fight or deserting his men even when the odds looked dire. From the Gallic forests to the Rubicon, Caesar had a steel backbone. He was no useless noble playing at being general, he was a leader and a winner. Caesar had a reputation in the army as much for his luck as for his skill. His military successes are shining mark on his record, and I would venture to say that these successes would have been impossible without the loyalty he inspired in his troops. Unlike many of his peers, Caesar marched alongside his men, calling them “friend”, “brother”, and “comrade”. He looked after them, and they looked after him. A famous story comes down to us of a day when the exhausted and outnumbered legions’ support was waning and they approached Caesar, demanding to return home. To their surprise, Caesar granted their request, and this time, as he turned to address them, he called them his fellow citizens, not his soldiers. It is said that the simple change in address filled his troops with such shame that they changed their minds and begged to return to being his soldiers and to support him in his time of need.
4. Above all, Caesar was cunning. Even in alliances with close friends, he was constantly plotting and scheming, looking for the next best opportunity. This served him well in both politics and war. When an ally became a possible weakness, Caesar didn’t hesitate to cut them off. He famously did this with Marc Antony after seeing how his friend had handled the rule of Rome in Caesar’s absence. Antony’s debauched behavior was a liability for Caesar, and he was unceremoniously removed from the inner circle. Caesar was many things, but loyal was not one of them, to wives, to friends, to allies, or to anyone else. At the end of the day, Caesar was loyal to Caesar. While it seems he often had genuine affection for people in his life, none came before his political goals and self-interest. Even with his rather inflated ego, Caesar also knew how to bide his time, to take the better road instead of the shorter one. When the Senate informed him that he would have to forgo a consular election if he wished to celebrate a triumph as a military officer, he made an unprecedented move and gave up his chance at a triumph in order to enter the city as a private citizen and run for consul. For Caesar, long-term success was more important than immediate glory, even if it meant giving up a once-in-a-lifetime honor and allowing Cato to have his way. We also know that as well as ambition, Caesar had a sense of humor and was even a bit of a bully. He was a prideful man who often enjoyed the humiliation of those he deemed beneath him, as well as those he considered friends. This humiliation often took a sexual route, as he had a habit of making a game of seducing the wives of prominent politicians (including those of Pompey and Crassus, his allies in the First Triumvirate). Another story goes that when called out by Cato for reading personal letters in a Senate meeting, Caesar offered to have the letter read aloud. Unbeknownst to Cato, the letter was a rather scandalous note from Cato’s own sister declaring her affections for Caesar. I can imagine he must have been incredibly smug and quite insufferable for his contemporaries. A favorite look of mine into the personality of Caesar is in his last words. The famously forlorn “et tu, Brute?” is likely a dramatic fabrication, and most scholars suppose his actual last words to be the Greek phrase “καὶ σύ, τέκνον”, in English “You too, child.” This interesting, as the wording here is similar to that found on Greek curse tablets. It would seem that Caesar did not intend his statement as a declaration of heartbreak and betrayal, but rather as, well, a curse. Less “how could you, my son?” and more “see you in hell, kid”/”And the same to you” (ie, a violent death). I think that sums up Caesar’s personality rather well. Irreverant, witty, composed, and brutal.

Would Caesar’s adoption of Octavian been unexpected?

Very unexpected, but not because he was adopted. Caesar had no natural heir of his own, in which cases adoption by will was ordinary. Caesar was expected to adopt somebody; whom he would adopt was at question. Most people expected Antony, and not without reason. Though Antony had not played as much part in Caesar’s successes prior to the civil war his seniors, such as Labienus or Q. Cicero, had mostly either died or gone over to Pompey. Of the surviving Caesarians Antony was undoubtedly the chief. It was in his tribunate that the civil war had begun, and he had been beaten and expelled from the senate along with his colleague Cassius Longinus. Though Antony had failed spectacularly as governor of Italy in Caesar’s absence in 47 (likely the reason for his minor part in Caesar’s will) and his brother’s command in Illyricum defected to Pompey, surrendering control of the Adriatic, he had fought well at Pharsalus, commanding the left with distinction. By early 44 Antony’s relationship with Caesar appeared to be recovering after several years out of the dictator’s good graces, assuming the consulship with Caesar as his colleague in 44. Of the remaining Caesarians few seemed especially remarkable in comparison. Lepidus had been Caesar’s co-consul in 46, during Antony’s cooling-off period, but despite being appointed magister equitum twice he never held quite as much presence among the Caesarians as Antony (who, I might add, was rapidly becoming a political figure in his own right. His marriage to Fulvia challenged Dolabella’s claim to succession of P. Clodius’ urban program). Octavian, on the other hand, was not even twenty at the time of Caesar’s murder, too young to be elected to any public office and totally untried. Roman adoption for the heirless generally cared little about who a man’s next closest relation was, and there were few who would have expected Octavian to succeed by Caesar’s will–indeed, Brutus, Caesar’s secondary heir, made more sense, although due to the unfortunate circumstances his presence at such a noteworthy position in the will was met with rather a lot of hostility. It’s likely that Antony was originally Caesar’s heir, as Calpurnia produced documents from Caesar’s home that appeared to confirm Antony’s succession, and Antony certainly acted, with the tacit approval of just about all the loyal Caesarians, as if he expected to succeed by Caesar’s will, up until the moment it was read.

assassination of Julius Caesar