Defending Caesar's Legacy

Taking a look at some mischaracterizations of Rome's most famous leader

I want to preface this article by admitting wholeheartedly that the titles included in this series¹ are clickbait. By any modern metric, Julius Caesar ought to be regarded as a warmonger and a tyrant. Turning early civilizations into slave colonies is an indefensible act, and we will look deep into exactly how things got so out of control in just a moment. The purpose of this essay is not to praise Caesar, but to bury him under the real evidence of his real crimes so the facts can condemn him.²

The word “genocide” is a recent invention; because of the horrors that instigated its creation, it is difficult to give other events the same label if they do not match the level of atrocity that happened during the Holocaust. That being said, the definition of genocide does not fit the actions of Caesar in the Gallic Wars. The issue stems from the idea that Caesar hated, or felt superior to, the tribes he encountered in Europe. On the contrary: in his book we see a tendency towards the desire to enslave the Gauls rather than kill them. Certain tribes are given the opportunity to negotiate.³ A level of respect and esteem is held between both the Gauls and the Roman army, to the point where our understanding of the region’s politics comes from Caesar’s writings more than anywhere else.⁴ There is a clear distinction between the tribes he considers barbaric and those he considers “civilized” and it has more to do with their own willingness to commit heinous acts than levels of access to technology.⁵ This again may seem to be praise, but a colonial war is arguably just as bad as a genocidal war, in regards to the honor of the leader. Moreover, knowing how much respect he held for these peoples shows his inhumanity: the desire to see his favorability in Rome increase at the expense of a million lives is, by modern standards, psychopathic. Even certain ancients noticed his “overambitious” nature, even going so far as to state that his arrogance led directly to his downfall.⁶

At the end of the day, Caesar was right about Rome needing more reforms at home than the Senate could pass in a reasonable time frame. Though he was not alone in this observation, he was the first to truly do something about it. As the Republic grew in both population and land mass, more matters between the people needed judgement. Our modern system divests power into states, districts, and towns in order to allow small but necessary rulings to be enacted.⁷ Caesar, on the other hand, believed the only path forward was through a single, unquestionable ruler. Was this strategy effective? Caesar would not live to know. Historiographers can debate how well the future rulers would handle this awesome power, but I feel that Diocletian needing to split control of the empire four ways shows that divestment of power, not consolidation, is the solution. This is what makes the label of “tyrant” accurate to Caesar’s character: his lust for power ultimately got in the way of his stated mission. Whether he truly wanted to save the Roman Republic or take all the power for himself is irrelevant because when he had the means to set things on course, he only sought more power.