Gaius Julius Caesar: An Assessment

I am currently studying a pivotal time in Roman History: the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. The man who perhaps did more than ever to effect this remarkable change to Roman affairs is Gaius Julius Caesar, made world-famous by Shakespeare's play and the aura of majesty that he has passed down upon kingdoms after kingdoms - with rulers using his name adapted to their language: "Kaiser," and "Tsar/Czar," for example. The Biblical world was also affected as well - because of Caesar's notable actions, the stage was set for the Roman Empire, ruled by one man (Caesar's adopted son, Augustus), to bring about the great peace that would rule the Mediterranean world and pave the way for the spread of the true Faith through the preaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

So, I ask, how may we look at this man? What should we make of him? For a while, I have now been puzzling over an extremely pivotal question that has been endlessly debated by historians: Was Caesar out to preserve the Republic, or was he determined to bring about the Empire? History shows us what has happened, but the question of Caesar's actual intentions is more difficult to determine. I will lay out here my own personal conclusions, and I will try to make everything simple and easily understandable to many of you, who may not be acquainted with Caesar's life.

First of all, we must consider the world Caesar grew up in. He was born about 100 BC, and came to manhood in the turbulent time of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who both warred for control of the Roman state (my prior entry on the decline of the Republic details how events came to this sorry mess). The entire Republic was in turmoil. The renegade Sulla, having defeated King Mithridates of Pontus, who had seriously threatened Roman dominion in Asia, attacked Marius' forces in Italy. Although Marius himself had passed from the scene, his son continued on the war in his name. Sulla eventually won out, had himself declared dictator with absolute powers, and established a brutal reign of terror by way of proscription lists. Every day, Rome's inhabitants had to go to the Forum and see who was marked out for death. Some individuals managed to escape and buy some time, but bounty hunters almost always were able to discover and slaughter them. It was not a good time to be a Roman!

Julius Caesar was around 18 years old at this time. Unfortunately for him, he was connected to Marius through his aunt, for she had married him - so that meant Caesar was Marius' nephew. Furthermore, he had married Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, another prominent member of the Marian party. When he was brought before Sulla, Sulla felt some pity for him due to his youth, but ordered Caesar to divorce his wife and thus sever the connection with the opposing party. The young man boldly refused. Sulla, taken somewhat aback by Caesar's bravery, let him go but admitted to his friends, "There are many Mariuses in this young man." Interestingly, Sulla (perhaps regretting his savagery) eventually resigned his office and lived as a private citizen until his natural death a couple years later. Caesar in later days ridiculed him, saying: "Sulla never knew his political ABC's."

By examining Caesar's youth, several key characteristics of his personality and approach to power become clearer. Caesar was always a key favorer of the people, always striving to keep himself popular. In the civil wars which he fought for control of Rome, he treated his conquered enemies with amazing humanity, pardoning many of them (including those who would eventually become his murderers), and even as dictator never pushed forth any personal vendettas upon anyone. In this, he most likely reacted against Sulla's abuses and remembered the turbulent times of his own youth.

Caesar, however, was no saint when it came to politics. He behaved in a very utilitarian manner, often using bribery and manipulation to achieve his ends. When he was elected consul in 59BC, Caesar prevented his partner from working with him and forced through his own agendas so effectively that Romans referred to this year as "The consulship of Julius and Caesar." Caesar throughout his early political career also threw many forms of lavish entertainment for the populace of Rome, which included enormous parties and awestriking gladiator exhibitions. He thus gained the public favor but at the same time was plunged into the depths of debt. It was probably partly because of the excesses which characterized his consulship and his enormous obligation to his creditors that Caesar desired to keep a grip on power, because any Roman in a key political office was immune from prosecution until his term ended. There was no doubt that Caesar's enemies would bring him to trial once he left public office.

Julius Caesar did long for greatness: when he was on a military campaign in Spain, he saw a statue of Alexander the Great and wept over the fact that he was about the same age as Alexander was when he died, having conquered the whole world - and yet Caesar himself had not really accomplished anything at all! This confirms a key point of Scripture, which speaks clearly on the principle of the natural, unsaved man living solely for his own glory in the very end:

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh....For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Romans 8:5,7).

Also,

"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16).

Natural man desires for honor and glory - some through power, some through charity to others, that they might be thought good and virtuous. The question remains: Was Julius Caesar seeking to advance his name through either personal despotism or as the Savior of Rome?

There is no doubt that Caesar in some way wished to preserve his person. After his consulship ended, he was given command of Rome's provinces in Gaul for 5 years, thanks to an informal power-playing partnership between him, Pompey the Great, and Marcus Crassus, Rome's richest man. Now, in command of armies, Caesar could do great exploits and make his name even more untouchable. This is precisely what he did. Over the next seven years, he would defeat innumerable armies of Gauls and Germans; make the first Roman incursions into Britain; masterfully besiege the Gaulish leader Vercingetorix while being himself besieged by the Gauls' relief army, and win a remarkable victory over both forces; and write what has been considered to be a supreme example of Latin literature in action: his war commentaries. The Senate, who distrusted Caesar, was becoming increasingly worried at his growing power and his popularity with the people - a new civil war was not afar off. Caesar claims that he did everything he could to avert the conflict, but it broke out nevertheless.

This war, between Caesar and Pompey the Great, who championed the cause of the Senate, raged for four years and continued even after Pompey was murdered by the Egyptians; the other key leaders of the Senate took up the fight again. As I remarked before, Caesar was characterized by an almost extravagant propensity towards clemency to his opponents. Often, the enemies whom he pardoned would actually go back to the opposing armies and fight him again later! He took great pains to minimize the losses of enemy Romans in battle and preferred to attack allies who were not of Italian ancestry. This, in a sense, is admirable, but I feel that Caesar learned his lesson from Sulla too sharply; he swung to the opposite extreme. Whereas Sulla slaughtered all of his major enemies, Caesar pardoned them all, even those who had wronged him greatly - and some of them would later bring about his death. A balance between pardon and execution is important if one wishes to weigh mercy and justice accurately - and only the most discerning men have been able to achieve such a status. Julius Caesar did gain popularity by his mercy - but at the ultimate cost of his life.

Once Caesar had prevailed over his enemies, the Senate voted unprecedented honors upon him: he was the perpetual dictator; he had the powers of a tribune; he could wear his triumphal robes at all public places; his statue was set up with those of the gods; the Roman month Quintilis was renamed to July after him (and this is our July today!); and so on. Caesar generally accepted these honors, and it was thought by many that he desired to bring back the monarchy of Rome, which had been removed hundreds of years ago due to the last king's terrible abuses of power. For example, at a festival, Mark Antony, Caesar's partner in the consulship, offered him a crown in the name of the people of Rome. Caesar refused this offer several times, saying that the chief god Jupiter was the real king of Rome. Nevertheless, it was suspected that Caesar and Antony had planned this ceremony for show.




Caesar on a coin at the time of his perpetual dictatorship.






Was the Roman Republic savable at this point? Caesar, by all purposes, was effectively the king of Rome in all but name. My previous post on Rome made the case that the Republic expanded beyond a point where it could reasonably govern. It may have worked well when the Romans were in control of only a small area of land, but now in an empire with dozens of languages and nationalities and customs and values, its foundation became shaky. Over the last hundred and fifty years (back to around 200 BC), single men grew more and more involved in state affairs and ended up fighting on and off for control of the state for over fifty years (c. 85 BC to 30 BC). Many senators during this time longed sentimentally for the more "peaceful" times of the early Republic, when the government at least was stable. That is one reason Rome resisted the change of its system of rule for so long - it believed its way of ruling (at least in the eyes of the Senate itself) was perfect and did not need to be altered. Caesar undoubtedly believed that things needed to change, and he might have tackled this enormous issue in more detail if it was not for his untimely death.

Julius Caesar desired fame, prestige, and renown, but he also desired the state of affairs to change. I am not sure what he exactly envisioned, but it was not the Republic of the past. The Republic in its present form had failed and was incompatible with the times and circumstances. If it was to continue, it would need to be radically reformed. Caesar may have believed that a monarchy was the best way to address this problem, but it fell to his adopted son Augustus to smoothen the process (by keeping the form of the Republic while practically adopting absolute power in his own person as the princeps, or first citizen). Ironically, it was by senators who were hoping for the restoration of the ancient Republic that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The assassins, instead of bringing about a glorious and peaceful return to the bliss of Republicanism, instead plunged Rome into more dreadful civil wars for the next decade and a half. The issue would be decided not by a select body of men chosen by the people, but by one man assuming the power unto himself - Augustus.

Julius Caesar, whatever his intentions may have been, did show Rome one thing - that sometimes it takes the decisive action of one man to bring about stability in the government. Rome could probably have survived under a modified Republic, but the imperial power won out in the end. Nevertheless, it is true that abuses of power happen on both the republican end and the imperial end. I am not saying a republic is bad, but I am saying that a republic has notorious weaknesses, as does a monarchy/dictatorship. I frown upon Caesar's unscrupulousness in gaining power by political maneuvering, but I do recognize that through his power peace briefly came to Rome. In a republic, peace and harmony exists when the people are well-informed and thoughful in electing their leaders; in a monarchy, peace and harmony exists when an intelligent and principled man/woman is administrating governmental affairs for the good of the people. Is it not interesting what the eternal form of government shall be? Christ as King and Absolute Despot of the Universe - One Man in Power! Yet we Christians, as saints, shall also rule with Him and have a hand in the government. And we will not need to worry about our Lord abusing His power - for He is all-wise, all-truthful, all-just, all-merciful, and all-sovereign!

I do not think Julius Caesar acted totally for his own interests at the expense of the people. He was too careful for that, and he remembered what had happened with Sulla. Rather, he tried to blend the two sides together in order to get the best of both worlds - his fame and the good of Rome. This fusion is best shown by Caesar's last will and testament: he gave every Roman citizen a sum of money and some of his own property as a city park for the enjoyment of the people. His own name and the prosperity of Rome would thus be enhanced. Tragically, since Julius Caesar's life was cut short at the age of 55 at the height of his glory and in the middle of his great schemes, we will only know at the Judgment what he truly desired to create.


I encourage all of you to read the primary sources about Caesar and come to your own judgment about him. We are blessed with a great amount of information about him, and much of that is from his own hand, in the War Commentaries (although he presents himself in a strictly factual way and does not philosophize). The works can be read online or purchased, most commonly from Penguin Classics. Here are the major titles:

Plutarch, Caesar's Life - Very readable and takes the position of Caesar aspiring to absolute power.

Appian, Civil Wars - Basic overview of Caesar's war with Pompey.

Dio Cassius, Roman History - Sometimes harsh and biting, but recognizes Caesar's talents.

Suetonius, Life of Julius, from The Twelve Caesars - his style is in a form of snippets detailing Caesar's life, personality, quirks, and talents.

Caesar's own Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars - particularly excellent from a military perspective, somewhat dry but with some fascinating details.

Also, there are many biographies out there, often of varying quality. Use your judgment!

As always, post comments if you have questions or need me to clarify something more specifically. In my next entry, I promise to deal with something theological!