Caesar: The Reformer of Rome or an ambitious tyrant?
It is a common misconception that Julius Caesar was a Roman Emperor; however, he never officially held the title. Today, he is one of the most famous figures in Roman history, with his legacy continuing into modern times, as evidenced by the Julian Calendar, once used by most parts of the world and forming the basis of the present-day Gregorian calendar, with the month of July, which is named after him (Coolman, 2014). So why did Caesar have this influence? Caesar’s legacy today is often debated by historians like Gregory Bucher regarding his impact on Rome itself, with the simple question: Did he reform Rome or destroy it by becoming dictator for life? (Bucher, 2011: 82). This raises the hotly debated question: Was Caesar a great reformer of Rome, bridging the ancient republic to the late antiquity era? Or was he a tyrant, determined to achieve power at any cost? Personally, I believe it is a nuanced position to place such a complex figure as an ultimate tyrant or reformer, but realistically, he showed traits in his leadership of both. This article will examine Caesar’s reign and assess why some historians regard him as more of a reformer, while others view him more as a tyrant.
Caesar as a Reformer
Caesar’s time as leader changed the social and political structure of Rome. One major example of this was the introduction of municipal reforms in 45 BC through the ‘Lex Julia Municipalis’ (Hardy, 1914: 107), which aimed at improving the administration, governance and control of different cities under Roman control (Kayser, 1956: 21). City governments and magistrates gained more autonomy by appointing new commissioners local to the given areas to govern towns particularly in Italia (Hardy, 1914: 107). This enabled these cities to be governed more effectively according to the local area's needs, rather than being subject to direct micro-management from Rome (Wasson, 2023). Caesar’s municipal reforms have also been studied by historians, such as Donald Wasson, as a means of increasing his own authority as magistracy and local governance leaders were often positions handed out to key friends of Caesar, especially when appointing them to higher positions, such as when a key ally, Gnaeus Calvinus, was appointed to the governorship of Asia in 48 BC (Carlson, 2008: 74), overseeing many cities and towns in the Roman provinces in modern-day Turkey. This helped to enhance Caesar’s authority over the Roman domain (Wasson, 2023).
Another one of Caesar’s highly debated reforms was the senate expansion from 600 to 900 members between 47-45 BC (Abbott, 1901: 381). This increase in the membership expanded the senate from being exclusively for the old elite of Roman society to a more diverse body in the highest governing authority that Rome had. These new senators, usually appointed to the position, were often governors of either towns or cities under Roman control or men who were loyal to Caesar and had served Rome with distinction in Caesar’s legions (Wasson, 2023). However, while it can be argued that these reforms would transition Rome into a meritocracy, it has been argued by historians that this increase in the numbers to the senate was to fill it with members loyal to Caesar as Ronald Syme stated “In virtue of dictatorial powers he revised the roll of the Senate three times, in 47,46 and 45, adding new members” (Syme, 1938: 8).
Caesar also expanded citizenship status to more people within the Roman authorities' borders. In 49 BC, the Lex Roscia was passed by Lucius Fabatus on behalf of Caesar, which granted Roman citizenship to the people who lived north of the River Po in the territory of Cisalpine Gaul (Gardner, 2009: 65). Izabela Henning states that Lex Roscia “met with resistance from the Senate, and it benefited Gaul more than Caesar” (Henning, 2021) as by the peoples in this region became citizens it gave greater access for improved infrastructure, and access to Roman civic and governmental structure (Henning, 2021). It can be argued that Caesar displayed his willingness to govern to improve the lives of the people living under Roman influence, despite the wishes of the Senate.
Caesar as a Dictator
Syme argues that the increase in the membership of the senate was not a reformist policy of Caesar, but a way to exercise his dictatorial powers (Syme, 1938: 8). A key example of Caesar’s dictatorship was his crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC where he showed his willingness to break the Roman tradition of the power of the senate in favour of his personal power (Wasson, 2023). Caesar crossed the Rubicon after the Senate’s “final decree” ordering him to disband his armies. However, it has been argued that Caesar was left with no choice but to march on Rome as he was likely to be put on trial by the senators after disbanding his armies due to his actions during the Gallic Wars between 58-50 BC, as some believed the war in Gaul to be illegal (Ehrhardt, 1995: 30).
Another argument is made that Caesar’s title “dictator perpetuo” or Dictator for life, evidences Caesar’s dictatorial ambitions rather than being Rome’s reformer. Morgan argues that the granting of this title was the first time without an argument that Caesar was “incompatible with the Republican (uncodified) constitution” (Morgan, 1997: 38). However, it has also been counter-argued that “dictator perpetuo” was not part of Caesar’s dictatorial ambitions, but rather part of the Senate's plan to apotheosise Caesar as a divine and eternal figure in Roman culture (Weinstock, 1971). This would mean that the title does not present Caesar as a dictator but rather the title would be used by the senate to make Caesar god-like in Roman history, as the senate did for Marcus Regulus, making him a martyr of honour and duty during the First Punic War.
Caesar through the eyes of Cicero
Considering Caesar’s political career, it is obvious to see how historians will place Caesar on a scale between ‘Reformer of Rome’ and ‘Ambitious Tyrant’. However, Cicero (a key political figure during Caesar’s rule and after his assassination) stated, “Our tyrant deserved his death for having made an exception of the one thing that was the blackest crime of all. Why do we gather instances of petty crime—legacies criminally obtained and fraudulent buying and selling? Behold, here you have a man who was ambitious to be king of the Roman people and master of the whole world; and he achieved it!” (Cicero, 1991: 357). I believe Cicero's point here is interesting, being a first-hand witness to Caesar and his decisions while leader of Rome, presenting Caesar as a tyrant who wanted to be “King of the Roman people” while also recognising his reformist legacy too. Cicero ultimately believed Caesar was a danger to Rome and a tyrant who would change its tradition and structure of governance from a Republican Senate to a one-man dictatorship; however, noting that Caesar did ultimately achieve this because of his “legacies criminally obtained” by reforms like the increase in senate membership or municipal structure that may not have happened under the old traditional government of Rome.
Conclusion
To summarise, it seems disingenuous to place Caesar’s time as leader of Rome as either a great reformer or a tyrant wanting nothing but total authority. Looking at historians' points like Gregory Bucher’s and the primary evidence of Cicero, it is obvious to see how Caesar moved to increase his authority and power, but also to reform Rome, updating the political and social system. To Weinstock, the authority Caesar gained, like the title ‘Dictator for life’ (Weinstock, 1971), was by chance; however, Cicero argues that Caesar intended to be ‘King of the Roman people’ (Cicero, 1991: 357) and therefore his dictatorial ambitions cannot be denied. While I think both these are true, it is clear to me personally that Caesar did want to have ultimate authority; however, that is not to say that he did not reform the Roman institution and progress the Roman state by governing more effectively and having greater benefits for Roman citizens and, to an extent, non-Roman citizens.
By Billy Merrin
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Frank, A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Elibron Classics, 1901.
Bucher, Gregory, Caesar: The View from Rome, The Classical Outlook, 2011.
Coolman, Robert, Keeping Time: Months and the Modern Calendar”, Livescience.com, 2014.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Griffin M.T., Atkins E.M., Cicero: On Duties, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Carlson, Jesper, Cn. Domitius Calvinus: a Noble Caesarian, 2008.
Ehrhardt, C.T.H.R., Crossing the Rubicon, Why did Caesar Cross the Rubicon?, 1995
Gardner, Jane, The Dictator, A Companion to Julius Caesar, 2019.
Hardy, E.G, The Table of Heraclea and the Lex Iulia Municipalis, The Journal of Roman Studies, 1914.
Henning, Izabela, Caesar’s Reforms and Map of Contemporary Europe, Imperium Romanum, 2021.
Kayser, Elmer, Julius Caesar: Politician or Statesman?, The Classical Weekly, 1956.
Morgan, Llewlyn, ‘Levi Quidem de re…’ Julius Caesar as Tyrant and Pedant, The Journal of Roman Studies, 1997.
Syme, Ronald, Caesar, the Senate and Italy, Papers of the British School at Rome, 1938.
Wasson, Donald, Caesar As Dictator: His Impact on the City of Rome, World History Encyclopedia, 2023.
Weinstock, Stefan, Divus Julius, Clarendon Press, 1971.