Okay, let's unpack this. Today we are attempting
a deep dive into a figure so colossal, his impact
wasn't just on his own generation, but on, I
mean, the next 2 ,000 years of global politics.
It really is staggering when you think about
it. We are exploring Gaius Julius Caesar, born
around 100 BC, and his story, it's more than
just a biography, right? It's really the autopsy
report for the Roman Republic. That is the perfect
way to frame it. I mean, Caesar was a Roman general,
a statesman, an author, and of course, ultimately
a dictator. A man whose trajectory involved the
bloody conquest of Gaul. forming the highly transactional
first triumvirate, defeating his great rival
Pompey in a civil war, and then, well, assuming
a position of near unchallenged power. So he
didn't just participate in the fall of the republic.
Oh, no. You could argue he was the primary architect
of its destruction. And the assassination, which,
you know, was meant to restore the constitutional
government. It did exactly the opposite. Completely.
It triggered a new final series of civil wars
that just paved the way for his great nephew
and adopted heir, Octavian, to establish the
Roman Empire as Augustus. So to understand the
end of Rome's great experiment in, well, shared
governance, we have to understand the man who
broke it. And our mission today is to synthesize
this massive story using a really incredibly
rich stack of sources. We have... Caesar's own
accounts, his Commentarii di Bello Gallico and
Commentarii di Bello Civili. Which are brilliant
literature, no doubt. Absolutely. But they are
also fundamentally polished, self -serving political
instruments. They're propaganda, really. So we
have to balance that. And crucially, we can balance
it with the perspectives of those who actually
lived through his rise. Exactly. We'll draw on
the letters and speeches of Cicero, who gives
us that on -the -ground, often terrified perspective.
And the contemporary history from Sallust. And
of course, the indispensable, though often anecdotal,
later biographies. Suetonius and Plutarch. They
provide all the personal details and the drama
that, you know, really keep his story alive.
So the goal is to connect the big political maneuvering
to the personal ambitions that drove this one
man. And to grasp his lasting significance, you
don't even need to look at the battlefield. You
just need to look at language. I mean, consider
this remarkable piece of historical nomenclature.
You're talking about his name. His own family
name, his cognomen Caesar, it became synonymous
with political supremacy. I find this just astonishing.
His name was used as a title for succession throughout
the entire Roman Empire, and it is the direct
linguistic root of the German Kaiser. and a Russian
czar. or Tsar. It's an unbroken line. It's a
continuous political legacy that is nearly unparalleled
in Western history. The sources note that for
approximately 2 ,000 years, from the first Roman
emperors right up until the mid -20th century.
The last Tsar in Bulgaria, 1946. Exactly. There
was almost always at least one head of state
in Europe bearing his name in some form. That
tells you the scope of the political shadow he
cast. Okay, so let's jump into his beginnings.
We know the name The name is eternal, but the
Djinn's Julius Caesar's patrician family was
not exactly riding the crest of the political
wave during the Middle Republic. Not at all.
They had pedigree, sure, but they lacked immediate
power. And what was that pedigree? Well, they
famously claimed descent from Julius, the son
of the Trojan hero Aeneas. Which meant they traced
their lineage directly back to? The goddess Venus
herself. And that divine claim would become politically
very useful later, especially when his bear,
Octavian, started working on his whole cult of
personality. But at this point, politically,
the Julius Caesars were often on the sidelines.
Right. They didn't produce their first consul
until 157 BC. And while Caesar's father did serve
as governor of Asia, they just weren't the dominant
political force of the moment. And his early
life was immediately defined by this massive
political conflict that threatened to end his
career before it even began. You mean the dictatorship
of Lucius Cornelius Sulla? Exactly. This period
really revealed Caesar's defiance, didn't it?
It was a moment of true existential peril for
him. He was initially named Flemen Dialis, the
High Priest of Jupiter. Which sounds impressive.
It was a position of immense religious honor,
but it was politically crippling. The Flemen
Dialis was bound by all these strict religious
taboos. He couldn't ride a horse, touch iron.
Or even sleep away from Rome for a single night.
A military or political career would have been
virtually impossible. The fact he was named to
this post strongly suggests that at the time,
his political prospects were considered, well,
pretty low. And then Sulla wins the Civil War
and starts purging his political enemies. And
Caesar's connected to all of them. He's connected
by blood and by marriage. His Aunt Julia was
the widow of Gaius Marius, Sulla's greatest enemy.
And Caesar himself had married Cornelia, the
daughter of Sulla's other main rival, Lucius
Cornelius Cinna. So Sulla orders Caesar to do
two things. First, abdicate the priesthood. Second,
and more critically, to divorce Cornelia. The
stakes could not have been higher. No. Refusing
to obey Sulla, the man who had just prescribed
thousands of Romans, was essentially inviting
a death sentence. And what does Caesar do? He
refuses. Both demands. He implicitly questions
Sulla's authority and the legitimacy of his decrees.
And for that, he was likely put on the prescription
lists, or at least summoned for interrogation,
which forced him to go into hiding. But he gets
out of it. We have sources suggesting that Sulla
was eventually persuaded to grant clemency. Yes,
due to the intercession of Caesar's powerful
relatives and, importantly, the respected Vestal
Virgins. So what does that compromise tell us
about Caesar's character so early on? It demonstrates
extraordinary steel, an unwillingness to bend
on matters of personal and political principle,
especially when you compare him to others who
just folded under Sulla's reign. There was a
compromise, though. Right. He resigns the restrictive
priesthood, which actually frees him up for a
political career, but he gets to keep his wife.
It's a moment that foreshadows the ruthless political
operator he would become. He knew when to yield
a minor point to preserve a major one. His reputation
for loyalty, his marriage, and his political
freedom. Exactly. And it was during this turbulent
period that Sulla allegedly made that famous
chilling remark about him. Legendary warning.
Yes, that Sulla saw in Caesar many Mariuses.
Now, historical evidence suggests Sulla was more
careful about executing fellow patricians. But
the quote, it perfectly encapsulates the fear
that Caesar's ambition, even at a young age,
was untamed and threatened the established order.
And it became part of the political narrative
used by his enemies for decades. Absolutely.
So after escaping Sulla's regime, Caesar goes
overseas for military service and gets his first
taste of real military honor. This is when he
earns the civic crown. Yes, for saving a fellow
citizen at the siege of Mytilene in 81 BC. And
you have to understand that crown was a huge
deal. What kind of privileges came with it? It
was the highest military decoration a Roman citizen
could receive. The recipient had the right to
wear the crown at public occasions. And whenever
he entered the Senate, the senators were required
to stand in his honor. So it's more than just
a medal. It's a permanent public reminder of
his valor. And according to the sources, it whetted
his appetite for public honor. He realized the
incredible power of visible status. And we have
the dramatic, almost cinematic story of the pirate
ransom. He's traveling to Rhodes to study rhetoric.
And this incident, as recounted by Plutarch and
Suetonius, it just gives you this perfect window
into his confidence and his audacity. He gets
intercepted by Solitian pirates and held for
ransom. And the legend claims that when the pirates
demanded 20 talents. Caesar insisted they demand
50. He claimed he was worth more. He allegedly
commanded them to be quiet while he slept, criticized
their poetry, and swore that once he was freed,
he would return and execute every last one of
them. Which sounds like pure bluster. But he
followed through. He did. After the ransom was
paid and he secured his release, he immediately
raised a fleet, returned to the island where
he'd been held, and captured the pirates. And
executed them. Well, depending on the source,
either executed them or, more likely given Roman
practice, sold them into slavery. But regardless
of the exact details, the action was swift, decisive,
and vindictive. It cemented his reputation for
having the courage of his conviction. And it
demonstrated a pragmatic ruthlessness that would
become his hallmark. Absolutely. So when he returns
to Rome, he starts his climb up the political
ladder. And the ascent was very strategic. In
73 BC, he's co -opted into the pontifices, which
marks him as a recognized member of the aristocracy.
Then comes the high -stakes political theater
in 69 BC, following the deaths of his Aunt Julia
and his wife Cornelia. At their public funerals,
Caesar gave eulogies, which was pretty standard
aristocratic practice. But at Julia's funeral,
he went a step further. He displayed the imagines,
the wax masks of her deceased husband, Gaius
Marius. Which was deeply shocking to the sullen
establishment. Marius' images had been banned
and suppressed after the Civil War. So this wasn't
just a heartfelt family eulogy. This was a calculated
political statement. Oh, absolutely. It was establishing
him as the heir to the popular Marion faction.
He's positioning himself as a popular leader.
Precisely. While Plutarch saw it as just blatant
factionalism, it was strategically brilliant.
He was appealing directly to the urban plebs
who revered Marius and establishing his identity
as someone who would champion popular rights
against the entrenched optimates, the hardline
senatorial elite. He also started building bridges
with Rome's most powerful military figure at
the time, Pompey. Yes, he actively supported
the legislation, granting Pompey these extraordinary
commands, like the Lex Gabinia against piracy.
and the Lex Manilia for the Third Mithridatic
War. So this wasn't merely supporting good policy.
Not at all. This was laying the groundwork for
future cooperation. He saw Pompeii as a key strategic
ally for his own future. And that alliance solidified
as Caesar pursued the traditional sequence of
Roman magistracies, the cursus honorum. Right.
And as curule edile in 65 BC, he staged these
famously lavish public games, absolutely necessary
to win popular support. But it also caused him
to accumulate just massive debts. And it was
during his edileship that he publicly restored
the military trophies of Marius that Sulla had
removed. Yes. And ancient sources often frame
this as some secret overnight operation where
he... snuck the trophies back up. Which sounds
a bit dramatic. That narrative, while great theater,
is almost certainly political embellishment.
Restoring massive public monuments and their
bronze sculptures isn't exactly a secret task.
You need architects, financing, workmen. It was
a well -planned public event designed to reinforce
his image. The man of the people, the champion
of the Marian legacy. Despite immediate and fierce
objections from conservative senators like Cashless,
everything Caesar did was a public relations
move. His ascent then climaxed in 63 B .C. when
he sought and won the highest state religious
office, Pontifex Maximus. And this was shocking
to Rome. He surprisingly defeated two entrenched,
highly influential senators, Catulus and Assyracus.
How did a relatively junior figure pull that
off? Well, it suggests he had either immense
popular support or immense financial backing,
or probably both. Ancient sources definitely
allege massive bribery, possibly underwritten
by Crassus or Pompey. But whether it was bribery
or popular appeal, the victory marked him as
an unstoppable political force. It showed he
was capable of beating the established senatorial
elite at their own game. And that same year,
63 BC, saw the famous Catilinarian Conspiracy.
The Senate is debating the fate of arrested conspirators
caught plotting rebellion. And as Praetor elect,
Caesar speaks out against the immediate execution
of citizens without trial. This was a crucial
constitutional moment that really defined his
political stance. What was the core issue here?
It was all about the Lex Sempronia De Capitae
Civis, which guaranteed Roman citizens the right
to appeal capital punishment to the people. The
hardliners, led by Cato, wanted immediate execution
under the Senate's Senatus Consultum Ultimum,
the final decree. They claimed the conspirators
had forfeited their citizenship rights. Right.
But Caesar's position was brilliantly clever.
He advocated for a compromise. Perpetual life
imprisonment, possibly pending trial, coupled
with the confiscation of all their property.
It was harsh, but it avoided violating the constitutional
right of appeal for citizens. So he wasn't just
being merciful. Not at all. He was positioning
himself as the true principal defender of Roman
libertas and constitutional tradition against
what he framed as the desperate, illegal overreach
of the conservative Senate. And that stance secured
him deep, long -term popular loyalty. It did.
Though ultimately, Cato's impassioned speech
swayed the Senate toward immediate execution.
Caesar failed on the immediate vote. But he absolutely
won the long -term popular loyalty battle. His
subsequent year as praetor in 62 BC saw further
aggressive maneuvering. Yes, including an attempt
to strip Cachelus of the honor of completing
the rebuilt Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus
and assign the task to Pompey instead. That proposal
quickly dissolved, though, showing he had his
limits. But then he gets involved in the famous
Bonadea affair. Ah, yes, where Publius Clodius
Pulpter snuck into Caesar's house during a sacred
female religious observance. The religious...
sacrilege was massive. And Caesar, despite testifying
that he knew nothing of Clodius' actions, immediately
divorced his wife, Pompeia. Right, claiming that
Caesar's wife needed to be above suspicion. That
famous line demonstrated his commitment to his
public image over any private feelings. He turned
a personal scandal into a demonstration of Roman
gravitas. So after his praetorship, Caesar is
deeply in debt from his lavish campaigns. which
sets the stage for his governorship of Hispania
Ulterior. He needed a military victory and, more
importantly, plunder to pay off those debts.
And he got it. He campaigned successfully against
the Calaci and Lusitani, seized enough plunder
to pay his creditors, and was hailed imperator
by his troops. So when he returns to Rome in
the summer of 60 BC, He faces this critical choice
forced on him by his senatorial enemies, particularly
Cato. The choice between a triumph and the consulship.
Exactly. He had to remain outside Rome's sacred
boundary, the Pomerium, to await a triumph or
cross it, forfeit the triumph in his command
to declare his candidacy for the consulship in
person. And Cato successfully filibustered any
attempt to waive that requirement. Caesar's decision
here is key to understanding his ambition. He
chose the consulship. He valued ultimate political
power and executive command over immediate symbolic
military glory. That signaled to everyone that
his sights were set on long -term domination,
not just temporary accolades. And the path to
that consulship was defined by the political
masterstroke of the First Triumvirate, this informal
extra -legal alliance between Caesar, Pompey,
and Crassus. It was purely transactional, wasn't
it? Yeah. Driven by mutual unmet goals. That's
the core of it. The constitutional system had
become so gridlocked that the three most powerful
men in Rome, a military hero, a financial titan,
and a rising political star, had to form a private
compact just to get anything done. Pompey urgently
needed the Senate to ratify his eastern settlements
and grant land to his veterans. Which the Senate
had blocked for years out of, well, petty jealousy.
And Crassus needed financial relief, specifically
a massive write -down for the tax farmers in
the province of Asia. And Caesar, the junior
partner in all this. He needed their combined
financial and military weight to ensure he won
the consulship, and crucially to secure a long
-term extended military command after his consulship
ended. That would guarantee him immunity from
prosecution and give him a chance for more glory.
So the triumvirate was the ultimate manifestation
of the Republic's breakdown. It really was. With
their support, Caesar wins the consulship for
59 BC. But the Senate ensures his co -consul
will be his long -standing bitter enemy, Marcus
Calpurnius Bibulus. Bibulus was elected purely
to obstruct everything Caesar tried to do. But
Caesar starts his consulship with the Revolutionary
Act. He immediately begins publishing the Minutes
of the Senate and the Assemblies, a novel move
signaling accountability to the public. But more
importantly, forcing the Senate to conduct its
obstructionist business under the public gaze.
His legislative agenda was centered on land reform,
designed to distribute land to Pompeii's veterans
and the urban poor. He first brought it to the
Senate. Hoping they would accept the inevitable,
but the obstruction was absolute. Cato filibustered
the bill, speaking relentlessly until the sunset
and the Senate had to adjourn. So Caesar, seeing
the impossibility of working within the traditional
structure, moved the bill directly before the
popular assembly. And here is where the constitutional
crisis truly boiled over. Bibulus attempted a
permanent veto for the entire year. based on
announcing unfavorable auspices. Which was seen
as a profound violation of the people's legislative
sovereignty. A massive riot erupted in the forum.
Bibulus' fasces, the symbols of his authority,
were broken. Witnesses claimed he was pelted
with excrement. He was forced to flee. And the
land bill was passed. Caesar capitalized immediately,
passing Crassus' tax write -down and the ratification
of Pompey's eastern settlements. Following these
humiliating defeats, Bibulus just withdrew entirely.
He secluded himself in his home for the rest
of the year, issuing these edicts in absentia,
trying to cancel all voting days for religious
reasons. Which failed to stop Caesar's legislative
agenda, but it created this image of total autocratic
control. Which, of course, led to the famous
political barb that it wasn't the consulship
of Bibulus and Caesar, but the consulship of
Julius and Caesar. And what that joke tells us
is that the core principle of Roman constitutionalism
collegiality, the idea that power must be shared,
was already dead. Bibulus' voluntary withdrawal
created a de facto sole magistracy, a temporary
monarchy. But the political elite saw a terrifying
preview of the future. A republic where one man
could dominate all legislative and executive
functions simply by force and popular support.
Caesar then secured his long -term goal. The
Lex Vitini assigned the provinces of Alericum
and Cisalpine Gaul to him for five years. And
the Senate, probably just wanting to get him
out of Rome, reluctantly added Transalpine Gaul.
With that extended military command secured,
the alliance was sealed when Pompey married Caesar's
only legitimate child, his daughter Julia. And
Caesar left for Gaul, embarking on the campaigns
that would transform his reputation, his fortune,
and Rome itself. So the Gallic Wars between 58
and 51 BC, this was a massive undertaking. It
was. It greatly extended Roman territory up to
the Rhine and transformed Caesar into Rome's
foremost military commander. How did he manage
this conquest? It was a huge area with many different
peoples. He employed classic Roman military superiority,
of course, but his greatest political asset was
exploiting the deep -seated internal divisions
among the numerous Gallic tribes. They were not
a unified bloc. They were constantly warring,
and Caesar skillfully manipulated those rivals.
Playing them off against each other. Exactly.
Signing treaties, supporting favored leaders,
and then crushing those who opposed him. Let's
highlight some of the key military feats, the
aha moments of his campaign that really showcase
Roman power. Well, the two most famous are probably
the bridge across the river Rhine and the expeditions
into Britain. The Rhine Bridge was a huge feat
of engineering, wasn't it? It was, and it wasn't
meant to be permanent. It was built in just 10
days, and its purpose was pure power projection.
It showed that Rome could go wherever it pleased.
It was military theater of the highest order.
Then he dismantled it and returned. And his two
expeditions into southern Britain in 55 and 54
BC. To the Romans, Britain was almost a mythical
land. It was. It was seen as the island of mystery,
a land of wonder. So invading it, even if briefly
and without lasting conquest, provided spectacular
material for his dispatches back home. It buttressed
his military reputation and distracted from political
troubles in Rome. Pure political messaging wrapped
in military activity. The core conflict, though,
came with a massive uprising of central Gaul,
led by Vercingetorix of the Averni. And Caesar
actually suffered a rare defeat at Gergovia.
Gergovia was a significant setback. It forced
Caesar to confront the true power of a unified
Gallic resistance, but he rebounded quickly at
the critical siege of Alesia. Which was an engineering
masterpiece. He built two massive lines of fortification.
One inward to keep the city besieged and one
outward to defend against the arriving Gallic
relief army. It was a siege within a siege. An
incredible gamble. And it paid off. The decisive
victory over Vercingetorix at Alesia concluded
the major phase of the war and cemented Roman
control over a vast new territory. And the entire
time, Caesar was controlling the political narrative
back home through his annual dispatches, his
Commentarii de Bello Gallico. We called it polished
propaganda, and that's exactly what it was. The
commentary are acknowledged as a Latin literary
masterwork for their clear, direct third person
style, which makes everything feel so objective.
But the manipulation is subtle and constant.
Yes. First, they were published annually. So
Caesar dominated the news cycle and maintained
support for his distant wars. Second, they consistently
magnified his victories and minimized his atrocities.
Can you give a specific example of the spin?
Look at Gergovia. He presents the defeat not
as a failure of his strategy, but as a failure
of his impatient, overzealous troops who disobeyed
orders. He frames himself as the rational, cautious
general whose plans were undermined by the impulsiveness
of his men. It's never his fault. Never. The
commentary also served to dehumanize the Gauls,
portraying them as barbaric and inherently prone
to treachery, which then justifies the brutality
of the conquests to his Roman audience. Meanwhile.
The political situation in Rome was deteriorating.
The triumvirate was struggling. It was fragile.
Clodius' actions against Pompey forced Caesar
to renew the alliance in 56 BC, granting himself
another five -year extension of command. But
the personal bonds were breaking. In 54 BC...
Julia, Pompey's wife and Caesar's daughter, died
in childbirth. Which removed the primary personal
link between the two men. Then came the crushing
death of Crassus at the Battle of Cari in 53
BC. Where he lost the Roman standards and his
entire army. And that removed the final mediator
and financial counterbalance. It left Pompey,
now politically allied with the conservative
Senate, and Caesar as the two sole giants destined
for confrontation. Following his final victory
at Alesia in 52 BC, Caesar was showered with
honors. An unprecedented 20 days of thanksgiving,
and the Senate grudgingly passed the Law of the
Ten Tribunes, allowing him to stand for the consulship
in absentia. But the hardline Senate led by Cato
and Bibulus was desperate. They feared his return
with an army and sought to enlist Pompey to force
Caesar to return to Rome without honors or command,
stripping him of his pro -consular immunity and
leaving him vulnerable to prosecution. That fear
of prosecution, conviction, and exile is often
cited as the primary reason why Caesar eventually
marched on Rome. That's certainly part of it,
but we have to look deeper. The core of his motivation,
drawn from his own writings, was the defense
of his dignitas, his personal honor and reputation,
and securing his second consulship. He feared
his opponents would use legal maneuvers or outright
force to prevent the Roman people from electing
him. Exactly. And the expulsion of his supportive
tribunes from Rome on January 7, 49 BC, was the
confirmation of that fear. It was the final straw.
When his final offer to disarm alongside Pompey
was rejected, rejected by the hardliners, the
Senate issued the Senatus Consultum Ultima. The
final decree declaring him an enemy of the state.
This was the point of no return. Around January
10 or 11, 49 BC, Caesar openly defied the Republic
by crossing the Rubicon. The small river defining
the northern border of Italy. With a single legion,
the Legio XIII Gemina. And that's where we get
the iconic lion, Aelia Iacta Est. Let the die
be cast. The Civil War had begun. Pompey and
many senators, shocked by the speed of his advance,
fled south, abandoning Italy. They eventually
escaped to Greece. Caesar quickly secured Rome,
but his actions immediately undercut his stated
justification for the war. How so? Well, he had
claimed to be marching to protect the liberty
and rights of the tribunes. Yet, shortly after
reaching Rome, he needed funds. And when a tribune
vetoed his attempt to access the state treasury,
Caesar simply brushed the veto aside and seized
the money by force. So the very position he claimed
to be defending, he immediately ignored when
it was inconvenient. It exposed the fundamental
hypocrisy that this war was ultimately about
personal power, not constitutional principle.
Caesar resigned his brief, constitutionally questionable
dictatorship and then left for Greece. After
a tactical defeat at Dyrrhachium, the decisive
moment came at the Battle of Pharsalus in August
48 BC. Where Caesar overwhelmingly defeated Pompey,
Pompey fled to Egypt while Cato fled to Africa
to organize the ongoing resistance. And many
prominent Republican figures like Cicero and
Marcus Junius Brutus sought and received Caesar's
policy of clemency. Clemency or mercy. He cultivated
this to contrast his rule with Sulla's vengeful
dictatorship. Pompey expected refuge in Alexandria,
but was immediately assassinated upon arrival
by agents of the child pharaoh, Ptolemy III.
Right. Caesar landed three days later, expecting
to pursue his rival, but instead found himself
caught up in the local politics. He was presented
with Pompey's head. And he reportedly wept. Not
out of respect for his former son -in -law, but
out of disgust at the barbarity of the act against
a fellow Roman consul. Due to the winds, he was
stuck in the city and decided to arbitrate the
civil war between Ptolemy III and his sister
-wife, Cleopatra VII. This quickly evolved to
the Alexandrine War. He installed Cleopatra as
ruler and began a famous affair with her. And
this is where we get the major political complication.
Cleopatra gave birth to Caesar's son, Caesarion.
Though unacknowledged by Caesar in Rome, his
existence cemented the crucial political alliance
between Rome and Egypt. And Caesar stayed in
Egypt far longer than was militarily necessary.
He did, until mid -July 47 BC, which suggests
this was not merely a military occupation, but
a political and personal entrenchment. After
finally leaving Egypt, Caesar swiftly dealt with
a threat in Asia Minor, defeating King Pharnaces.
And this is where we get the most famous and
concise of his military reports. I came, I saw,
I conquered. It's a brilliant piece of propaganda.
It highlights the speed and inevitability of
his victory, cementing his image as an almost
divine commander. Meanwhile, back in Rome, Mark
Antony, whom Caesar had left in charge as Magister
Equitum, was making a terrible mess. His rule
was marked by suppressing debt relief riots with
lethal force, severely damaging the popularity
of Caesar's cause in Rome. So Caesar was forced
to demote him upon his return. Yes. Caesar then
turned his attention to crushing the remaining
Republican resistance. Cato and Metellus Scipio
had gathered forces in Africa, allied with King
Juba of Numidia. The campaign was difficult,
but Caesar regrouped and decisively defeated
them at the Battle of Thapsus in April 46 BC.
And following that defeat, we have the indelible
image of Cato. He commanded at Utica and chose
to commit suicide rather than accept Caesar's
clemency. He turned himself into a powerful,
permanent martyr for the lost republic. Absolutely.
The final grueling showdown was at Munda in Spain
in March 45 BC against Pompey's sons. It was
a close run thing. Sources suggest Caesar was
nearly defeated. But he won. And he treated his
enemies as rebels, massacring them on the battlefield.
The fact he was fighting Romans to the death
for years showed how far the Republic had fallen.
Upon his return, he celebrated four elaborate,
magnificent triumphs, although nominally over
foreign enemies. Gaul, Egypt, Asia, and Juba.
The celebrations were deeply divisive. Appian
noted that Caesar paraded images and models that
clearly referenced his victories over fellow
Romans. It was seen as an unseemly triumph. It
demonstrated his willingness to flout tradition,
to reinforce his personal victory over the Roman
elite. By this point, he was already planning
a massive three -year campaign against the Parthians,
but his political structure at home was already
alienating the class he needed to govern with.
Which brings us to the nature of his dictatorship.
Caesar had held the title of dictator multiple
times since 49 BC. But the fundamental change
came in early February 44 BC when he assumed
the title of dictator perpetuo. Dictator for
life. This was the nail in the coffin for the
Republic. It immediately ended all hope that
the traditional constitution could ever be restored
as long as Caesar lived. And you have to differentiate
this from the traditional Roman dictatorship.
Which was a temporary six -month emergency office.
Exactly. By accepting the dictatorship for life,
Caesar wasn't just maximizing his power. He was
fundamentally abolishing the foundational constitutional
checks that define the Republic. He made himself
a king in all but name. And the Senate. filled
with his supporters, then proceeded to shower
him with honors that moved well beyond Republican
practice and into the realm of divine monarchy.
The symbols were overt. He was granted the unique
right to have his portrait placed on coins in
Rome while he was still living a first for a
Roman. He was granted overtly royal dress, the
right to wear the laurel wreath at all times.
And the ability to sit atop a golden chair in
the Senate. They even renamed the month Quintilis
to Julius or July in his honor. all highly visible
symbols designed to project monarchical power.
And it was these symbols, perhaps more than his
actual legislation, that fueled the growing resentment.
Absolutely. The political class valued dignitas
and libertas. Dignity and freedom and the idea
that one man could so totally dominate the public
sphere was intolerable. He was constantly ignoring
or overriding the traditional institutions of
the republic. Yet despite the autocratic power
grab, he ran a surprisingly vigorous and effective
reform program. He did. The most enduring structural
achievement is, of course, the Julian calendar.
Which abolished the messy, chaotic, old lunisolar
calendar. And replaced it with a solar calendar
accurate to the civil year. This wasn't just
a technical fix. It was an essential administrative
achievement for a growing empire. He also tackled
administrative expansion, increasing the number
of magistrates and the size of the Senate from
600 to 900 members. And that sounds like a reform,
but it served two purposes. First, it rewarded
his numerous supporters. Second, and more subtly,
it made the Senate incapable of operating properly.
A Senate of 900 is a sprawling, diluted body,
easily ignored. He also addressed Rome's massive
population problem and veteran issues. Yes, he
reduced Rome's population by founding new overseas
colonies, settling veterans and the urban poor,
famously on the formerly destroyed sites of Carthage
and Corinth. And he tackled the Grand Ole. He
reduced its size from 320 ,000 recipients to
about 150 ,000 by tightening qualifications.
More sustainable, but unpopular with those who
were cut off. And his policy of clemency was
paired with political heavy -handedness, particularly
how he handle the consulship. Yes, his continuous
focus was on rewarding loyalty. He would resign
his consulship so his allies could immediately
take it up for the rest of the year. In one famous
instance, he had an ally elected consul for a
single day. Which reinforces the sense among
the elite that all honors, all offices and statuses
were merely personal favors bestowed by the dictator.
It rendered their aristocratic careers meaningless.
And this brings us to the seeds of tyranny. leading
directly to the Ides of March. The dictator perpetuo
title was one thing, but the attempts to call
him Rex King were the final intolerable line.
The term Rex was an absolute poison pill in Roman
political culture, associated with... arbitrary
inherited oppression when tribunes tried to shut
down the attempts by the crowd to call caesar
king caesar infuriated had the tribunes deposed
and ejected from the senate a colossal political
blunder it undermined the very justification
he had used to start the civil war protecting
the rights of tribunes and it angered the populace
then came the famous lupercalia festival just
days after he became dictator for life mark anthony
publicly offered him a diadem the symbol of a
hellenistic monarch Caesar publicly rejected
it to the applause of the crowd, but the damage
was done. Whether he rejected it out of principle
or just because the crowd wasn't supportive enough
is still debated. But the rumor that he sought
a formal crown persisted. And the political reality
was that he was already functioning as an effective
monarch who had abolished open elections. That
was the core constitutional motivation for the
conspiracy. The composition of this conspiracy
is fascinating. It wasn't just his defeated enemies.
No, this is the critical insight. It included
approximately 60 people, and many of them were
his own loyal Caesarian supporters. Men like
Decimus Brutus, who was his trusted general and
even named an heir in his will. Their motivation
was primarily constitutional. They feared he
intended to make his rule hereditary and formalize
the kingship. And they were angry over the effective
abolition of meaningful elections, which stripped
their careers of the dignity of free competition.
They killed him not because they hated him personally,
but because they believed the republic could
not survive his living rule. Marcus Junius Brutus,
who claimed dissent from the Brutus, who drove
out the king's centuries earlier, was the ideological
figurehead. And the sources report public graffiti
challenging him, saying, you are no true Brutus
if you tolerate a king. That kind of public pressure
shows a genuine turn in opinion against Caesar's
domination. The conspirators were forced to move
fast because Caesar was scheduled to leave for
his massive Parthian campaign on March 18th.
So they had to act at the last Senate meeting
before his departure, the Ides of March, March
15th. The location was chosen for maximum symbolic
impact. The Curia Pompeii at the foot of the
statue of the man Caesar had defeated. The irony
is brutal. Caesar refused a bodyguard, trusting
in his clemency policy, and walked into the Senate.
The conspirators approached him on his golden
chair. And he was stabbed at least 23 times.
The final dramatic question, of course, are his
last words. Did he simply fall in silence, as
Suetonius suggests? Or did he utter the alleged,
you too, child? While the silence is historically
more probable, the dramatic line highlights the
personal betrayal, especially about Brutus. The
result, regardless, was immediate chaos. The
assassins fled to the Capitoline Hill, expecting
to be hailed as liberators, but they were met
with cold public silence. And this created a
massive political vacuum that Mark Antony, the
Remain consul, masterfully exploited. He secured
a compromise. Caesar was not declared a tyrant,
meaning all his laws and appointments stood,
which preserved the status of Antony and many
senators. In return, the conspirators were not
immediately punished. But that was temporary.
Antony's oration at Caesar's massive public funeral
was brilliant political theater. By reading Caesar's
will, which granted a generous donative to every
Roman pleb, And by displaying Caesar's bloodstained
toga and wounds, he inflamed the public against
the assassins. Mob violence erupted, forcing
the conspirators to flee Rome permanently. And
the reading of the will sealed the political
future, adopting his great nephew, the then 19
-year -old Gaius Octavius, as his principal heir.
The rise of Octavian is directly tied to the
cult of his deified father. A seven -day commentary
outburst shortly after Caesar's death. Caesar's
comet was interpreted by the Romans as the immediate
deification of Caesar. The Republic was dead,
and the new political era had a divine patron.
New civil wars erupted, with Octavian, Antony,
and Lepidus forming the second triumvirate, securing
the formal deification of Caesar in 42 BC and
defeating the tyrannicides. Ultimately, Octavian
seized sole control, establishing a mass autocracy
that was acceptable to the war -weary Romans,
transforming the Republic into the Roman Empire
as Augustus. The assassination, meant to save
liberty, merely accelerated the consolidation
of absolute power. Beyond the seismic political
events, the ancient sources give us a truly vivid
picture of Caesar the Man. Starting with his
physical health and appearance, Suetonius described
him as tall, fair complexioned, with keen black
eyes. And famously, he was extremely sensitive
about his balding, using a combover. This is
why he was so pleased to be granted the unique
honor of wearing a laurel wreath at all times.
It conveniently concealed his vanity. It speaks
to a man who was acutely aware of his public
presentation. There is also the intensive debate
about his health. Later sources like Suetonius
suggest he suffered from the falling sickness
or epilepsy based on accounts of forced seizures.
But modern medical scholarship has provided counterarguments.
Why is the epilepsy diagnosis not universally
accepted today? Because the description of the
seizures doesn't perfectly match modern criteria.
Medical historians suggest he may have suffered
from cerebral malaria or perhaps cerebrovascular
episodes, like a series of small strokes. Which
could explain the sudden deaths of his father
and forefather. Exactly. Whatever the cause,
he was clearly a man driven by ambition despite
chronic physical ailments. And we can't ignore
the personal slander that followed him, particularly
the rumors concerning his sexuality. This was
a brutal but common form of political attack.
Roman society rigidly viewed the passive role
in sexual activity as a sign of submission and
effeminacy, which was shameful for a Roman male
leader. So his enemies, including Cicero, repeatedly
referred to him as the Queen of Bithynia. Referencing
persistent rumors of an affair with King Nicomedes
IV early in his career. The rumor itself was
more important than the truth. It was a potent
political weapon to imply he was subservient
and thus unfit to rule Romans. And what about
the rumor that Marcus Junius Brutus was his illegitimate
son? Highly skeptical, both among ancient and
modern historians, primarily based on chronology.
Caesar was only about 15 when Brutus was born.
It seems to be purely political gossip added
for dramatic effect. Beyond the battlefield in
the bedroom, Caesar was an intellectual powerhouse.
Highly regarded as one of the best Latin prose
authors and orators of his day, even by his great
rival, Cicero. His surviving works are masterpieces
of clear, concise Latin prose, a style that projects
confidence and control. And his political and
personal dominance is codified in his enduring
political legacy. which we define as Caesarism.
Caesarism is a precise political model, a form
of rule led by a charismatic strongman relying
on a deeply personal cult of personality, often
cemented by the prominence and direct support
of the military. And we see figures throughout
history explicitly adopting this model. Absolutely.
Figures like Napoleon Bonaparte and Benito Mussolini
explicitly define themselves as inheritors of
the Caesarist tradition. They saw him as the
definitive example of a leader who successfully
transcended petty partisan squabbling through
military authority. So if we look back at the
entirety of this deep dive, Caesar stands as
the supreme military commander. an aggressive
administrative reformer, and ultimately the irreversible
catalyst for the fall of the constitutional Roman
Republic. He achieved monarchy by rejecting the
crown, and his influence remains tangible today.
The remains of Caesar's altar in the Roman Forum,
the exact spot where he was cremated, is still
a pilgrimage site. People leave flowers there
daily, especially on the Ides of March. He is
still actively venerated almost 2 ,000 years
later. It's incredible. We've explored the assassination
as the desperate attempt by the conspirators
to restore the free republic, to kill the dictator
and allow constitutional government to live again.
But we know what happened next. His heir, Octavian,
secured Caesar's deification and went on to establish
a masked autocracy acceptable to the war -weary
Romans. So this is the provocative thought we
want to leave with you. The conspirators killed
the dictator to save the republic, believing
they were acting as liberators. But by eliminating
Caesar, they removed the one man who had the
personal charisma and military authority to possibly
keep the centralized structure he created under
any sort of single stable control. Did the Ides
of March inadvertently accelerate the transition
to absolute monarchy? Did they prove that the
constitutional government of the republic was
already too fractured? too corrupt, and simply
impossible to restore in a world defined by military
power? What stands out to you as the greatest
consequence of the Ides of March?