In the end, was Julius Caesar considered a friend or foe of Rome ?

by well--imfucked

I understand on the surface eliminating the republic to begin an empire appears as if Julius was a foe but is this too simple of a conclusion?

From what I gather, the Roman empire had significant economic inequalities that threatened to tear apart the entire system. For all the empire had achieved in the 200 years prior to Julius's reign, most of the working class had little to show for the supposed period of prosperity.

Julius aimed to re balance the system and destroy the oligopolistic system that was in place through economic reforms including land redistribution.

The answer seems complicated so I was wondering what the consensus may be.

LegalAction

I don't think there is a consensus on Caesar. He's the kind of guy you have to take a position on one way or another, and very little historical judgment goes into taking those kinds of political positions. For the record, I'm a Caesarean, if the word carries any meaning anymore.

What Caesar had on his side:

  • the people of Rome had voted him the right to stand for election in absentia. When the Senate refused this to him it was not just a violation of his rights, it was a violation of the will of the people.
  • the consuls had tribunes of the plebs whipped and expelled from the senate, which was a violation of the almost 500 year old settlement of the conflict between the Patricians and the Plebs. This is what Caesar said about that:

He complains that a new precedent had been introduced into the state whereby the right of tribunicial intervention, which in earlier years had been restored by arms, was now being branded with ignominy and crushed by arms. Sulla, he said, though stripping the tribunicial power of everything, had nevertheless left its right of intervention free, while Pompeius, who had the credit of having restored the privileges that were lost, had taken away even those that they had before.

What Caesar had against him was 22 senators including the consul Claudius Marcellus who blocked a bill that asked both Caesar and Pompey to disarm. Here is what Appian records about that bill:

In the Senate the opinion of each member was asked and Claudius craftily divided the question and took the votes separately, thus: "Shall successors be sent to Caesar?" and again, "Shall Pompey be deprived of his command?" The majority voted against the latter proposition, and it was decreed that successors to Caesar should be sent. Then Curio put the question whether both should lay down their commands, and 22 senators voted in the negative while 370 went back to the opinion of Curio in order to avoid civil discord. Then Claudius dismissed the Senate, exclaiming, "Enjoy your victory and have Caesar for a master."

Whether Caesar was the good guy is something you have to decide for yourself. I think Caesar had a valid constitutional point about especially the expulsion of the tribunes. Fans of Cato have different opinions.