Antecedents and outcome of the civil war of 49–45 bce
During his conquest of Gaul, Caesar had been equally busy in preserving and improving his position at home. He used part of his growing wealth from Gallic loot to hire political agents in Rome.
Meanwhile the cohesion of the triumvirate had been placed under strain. Pompey had soon become restive toward his alarmingly successful ally Caesar, as had Crassus toward his old enemy Pompey. The alliance was patched up in April 56 bce at a conference at Luca (Lucca), just inside Caesar’s province of Cisalpine Gaul. It was arranged that Pompey and Crassus were to be the consuls for 55 bce and were to get laws promulgated prolonging Caesar’s provincial commands for another five years and giving Crassus a five-year term in Syria and Pompey a five-year term in Spain. These laws were duly passed. Crassus was then eliminated by an annihilating defeat at the Parthians’ hands in 53 bce. The marriage link between Pompey and Caesar had been broken by Julia’s death in 54 bce. After this, Pompey irresolutely veered further and further away from Caesar, until, when the breach finally came, Pompey found himself committed to the nobility’s side, though he and the nobility never trusted each other.
The issue was whether there should or should not be an interval between the date at which Caesar was to resign his provincial governorships and, therewith, the command over his armies and the date at which he would enter his proposed second consulship. If there were to be an interval, Caesar would be a private person during that time, vulnerable to attack by his enemies; if prosecuted and convicted, he would be ruined politically and might possibly lose his life. Caesar had to make sure that, until his entry on his second consulship, he should continue to hold at least one province with the military force to guarantee his security.
This issue had already been the object of a series of political manoeuvres and countermanoeuvres at Rome. The dates on which the issue turned are all in doubt. As had been agreed at Luca in 56 bce, Caesar’s commands had been prolonged for five years, apparently until February 28, 49 bce, but this is not certain. In 52 bce, a year in which Pompey was elected sole consul and given a five-year provincial command in Spain, Caesar was allowed by a law sponsored by all 10 tribunes to stand for the consulship in absentia. If he were to stand in 49 bce for the consulship for 48 bce, he would be out of office, and therefore in danger, during the last 10 months of 49 bce. As a safeguard for Caesar against this, there seems to have been an understanding—possibly a private one at Luca in 56 bce between him and Pompey—that the question of a successor to Caesar in his commands should not be raised in the Senate before March 1, 50 bce. This manoeuvre would have ensured that Caesar would retain his commands until the end of 49 bce. However, the question of replacing Caesar was actually raised in the Senate a number of times from 51 bce onward; each time Caesar had the dangerous proposals vetoed by tribunes of the plebs who were his agents—particularly Gaius Scribonius Curio in 50 bce and Mark Antony in 49 bce.
The issue was brought to a head by one of the consuls for 50 bce, Gaius Claudius Marcellus. He obtained resolutions from the Senate that Caesar should lay down his command (presumably at its terminal date) but that Pompey should not lay down his command simultaneously. Curio then obtained on December 1, 50 bce, a resolution (by 370 votes to 22) that both men should lay down their commands simultaneously. Next day Marcellus (without authorization from the Senate) offered the command over all troops in Italy to Pompey, together with the power to raise more; and Pompey accepted. On January 1, 49 bce, the Senate received from Caesar a proposal that he and Pompey should lay down their commands simultaneously. Caesar’s message was peremptory, and the Senate resolved that Caesar should be treated as a public enemy if he did not lay down his command “by a date to be fixed.”
On January 10–11, 49 bce, Caesar led his troops across the little river Rubicon, the boundary between his province of Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper. He thus committed the first act of war. This was not, however, the heart of the matter. The actual question of substance was whether the misgovernment of the Greco-Roman world by the Roman nobility should be allowed to continue or whether it should be replaced by an autocratic regime. Either alternative would result in a disastrous civil war. The subsequent partial recuperation of the Greco-Roman world under the principate suggests, however, that Caesarism was the lesser evil.
The civil war was a tragedy, for war was not wanted either by Caesar or by Pompey or even by a considerable part of the nobility, while the bulk of the Roman citizen body ardently hoped for the preservation of peace. By this time, however, the three parties that counted politically were all entrapped. Caesar’s success in building up his political power had made the champions of the old regime so implacably hostile to him that he was now faced with a choice between putting himself at his enemies’ mercy or seizing the monopoly of power at which he was accused of aiming. He found that he could not extricate himself from this dilemma by reducing his demands, as he eventually did, to the absolute minimum required for his security. As for Pompey, his growing jealousy of Caesar had led him so far toward the nobility that he could not come to terms with Caesar again without loss of face.
The first bout of the civil war moved swiftly. In 49 bce Caesar drove his opponents out of Italy to the eastern side of the Straits of Otranto. He then crushed Pompey’s army in Spain. Toward the end of 49 bce, he followed Pompey across the Adriatic Sea and retrieved a reverse at Dyrrachium by winning a decisive victory at Pharsalus on August 9, 48 bce. Caesar pursued Pompey from Thessaly to Egypt, where Pompey was murdered by an officer of King Ptolemy. Caesar wintered in Alexandria, fighting with the populace and dallying with Queen Cleopatra. In 47 bce he fought a brief local war in northeastern Anatolia with Pharnaces, king of the Cimmerian Bosporus, who was trying to regain Pontus, the kingdom of his father, Mithradates. Caesar’s famous words, Veni, vidi, vici (“I came, I saw, I conquered”), are his own account of this campaign.
Caesar then returned to Rome, but a few months later, now with the title of dictator, he left for Africa, where his opponents had rallied. In 46 he crushed their army at Thapsus and returned to Rome, only to leave in November for Farther Spain to deal with a fresh outbreak of resistance, which he crushed on March 17, 45 bce, at Munda. He then returned to Rome to start putting the Greco-Roman world in order. He had less than a year’s grace for this huge task of reconstruction before his assassination in 44 bce in the Senate House at Rome on March 15 (the Ides of March).
Caesar’s death was partly due to his clemency and impatience, which, in combination, were dangerous for his personal security. Caesar had not hesitated to commit atrocities against “barbarians” when it had suited him, but he was almost consistently magnanimous in his treatment of his defeated Roman opponents. Thus clemency was probably not just a matter of policy. Caesar’s earliest experience in his political career had been Sulla’s implacable persecution of his defeated domestic opponents. Caesar amnestied his opponents wholesale and gave a number of them responsible positions in his new regime. Gaius Cassius Longinus, who was the moving spirit in the plot to murder him, and Marcus Junius Brutus, the symbolic embodiment of Roman republicanism, were both former enemies. “Et tu, Brute” (“You too, Brutus”) was Caesar’s expression of his particular anguish at being stabbed by a man whom he had forgiven, trusted, and loved.
There were, however, also a number of ex-Caesareans among the 60 conspirators. They had been goaded into this volte-face by the increasingly monarchical trend of Caesar’s regime and, perhaps at least as much, by the aristocratic disdain that inhibited Caesar from taking any trouble to sugar the bitter pill. Some stood to lose, rather than to gain, personally by the removal of the autocrat who had made their political fortunes. But even if they were acting on principle, they were blind to the truth that the reign of the Roman nobility was broken beyond recall and that even Caesar might not have been able to overthrow the old regime if its destruction had not been long overdue. They also failed to recognize that by making Caesar a martyr they were creating his posthumous political fortune.
If Caesar had not been murdered in 44 bce, he might have lived on for 15 or 20 years. His physical constitution was unusually tough, though in his last years he had several epileptic seizures. What would he have done with this time? The answer can only be guessed from what he did do in the few months available. He found time in the year 46 bce to reform the Roman calendar. In 45 bce he enacted a law laying down a standard pattern for the constitutions of the municipia, which were by this time the units of local self-government in most of the territory inhabited by Roman citizens. In 59 bce Caesar had already resurrected the city of Capua, which the republican Roman regime more than 150 years earlier had deprived of its juridical corporate personality; he now resurrected the other two great cities, Carthage and Corinth, that his predecessors had destroyed. This was only a part of what he did to resettle his discharged soldiers and the urban proletariat of Rome. He was also generous in granting Roman citizenship to aliens. (He had given it to all of Cisalpine Gaul, north of the Po, in 49 bce.) He increased the size of the Senate and made its personnel more representative of the whole Roman citizenry.
At his death, Caesar was on the point of starting out on a new military campaign to avenge and retrieve Crassus’s disastrous defeat in 53 bce by the Parthians. Would Caesar have succeeded in recapturing for the Greco-Roman world the extinct Seleucid monarchy’s lost dominions east of the Euphrates, particularly Babylonia? The fate of Crassus’s army had shown that the terrain in northern Mesopotamia favoured Parthian cavalry against Roman infantry. Would Caesar’s military genius have outweighed this handicap? And would Rome’s hitherto inexhaustible reservoir of military manpower have sufficed for this additional call upon it? Only guesses are possible, for Caesar’s assassination condemned the Romans to another 13 years of civil war, and Rome would never again possess sufficient manpower to conquer and hold Babylonia.
Personality and reputation of Julius Caesar
Caesar was not and is not lovable. His generosity to defeated opponents, magnanimous though it was, did not win their affection. He won his soldiers’ devotion by the victories that his intellectual ability, applied to warfare, brought them. Yet, though not lovable, Caesar was and is attractive, indeed fascinating. His political achievement required ability, in effect amounting to genius, in several different fields, including administration and generalship besides the minor arts of wire pulling and propaganda.
In all these, Caesar was a supreme virtuoso. But if he had not also been something more than this he would not have been the supremely great man that he undoubtedly was.
Caesar was great beyond—and even in conflict with—the requirements of his political ambition. He showed a human spiritual greatness in his generosity to defeated opponents, which was partly responsible for his assassination. (The merciless Sulla abdicated and died in his bed.)
Another field in which Caesar’s genius went far beyond the requirements of his political ambition was his writings. Of these, his speeches, letters, and pamphlets are lost. Only his accounts (both incomplete and supplemented by other hands) of the Gallic War and the civil war survive. Caesar ranked as a masterly public speaker in an age in which he was in competition first with Hortensius and then with Cicero.
All Caesar’s speeches and writings, lost and extant, apparently served political purposes. He turned his funeral orations for his wife and for his aunt to account, for political propaganda. His accounts of his wars are subtly contrived to make the unsuspecting reader see Caesar’s acts in the light that Caesar chooses. The accounts are written in the form of terse, dry, factual reports that look impersonal and objective, yet every recorded fact has been carefully selected and presented. As for the lost Anticato, a reply to Cicero’s eulogy of Caesar’s dead opponent Marcus Porcius Cato, it is a testimony to Caesar’s political insight that he made the time to write it, in spite of the overwhelming military, administrative, and legislative demands on him. He realized that Cato, in giving his life for his cause (46 bce), had made himself posthumously into a much more potent political force than he had ever been in his lifetime. Caesar was right, from his point of view, to try to put salt on Cato’s tail. He did not succeed, however. For the next 150 years, Cato the martyr continued to be a nuisance, sometimes a menace, to Caesar’s successors.
The mark of Caesar’s genius in his writings is that though they were written for propaganda they are nevertheless of outstanding literary merit. A reader who has seen through their prosaic purpose can ignore it and appreciate them as splendid works of art.
Caesar’s most amazing characteristic is his energy, intellectual and physical. He prepared his seven books on the Gallic War for publication in 51 bce when he still had serious revolts in Gaul on his hands, and he wrote his books on the civil war and his Anticato in the hectic years between 49 and 44 bce. His physical energy was of the same order. For instance, in the winter of 57–56 bce he found time to visit his third province, Illyria, as well as Cisalpine Gaul; and in the interval between his campaigns of 55 and 54 bce he transacted public business in Cisalpine Gaul and went to Illyria to settle accounts with the Pirustae, a turbulent tribe in what is now Albania. In 49 bce he marched, within a single campaigning season, from the Rubicon to Brundisium and from Brundisium to Spain. At Alexandria, probably aged 53, he saved himself from sudden death by his prowess as a swimmer.
Caesar’s physical vitality perhaps partly accounts for his sexual promiscuity, which was out of the ordinary, even by contemporary Greek and Roman standards. It was rumoured that during his first visit to the East he had had homosexual relations with King Nicomedes of Bithynia. The rumour is credible, though not proved, and was repeated throughout Caesar’s life. There is no doubt of Caesar’s heterosexual affairs, many of them with married women. Probably Caesar looked upon these as trivial recreations. Yet he involved himself at least twice in escapades that might have wrecked his career. If he did in fact have an affair with Pompey’s wife, Mucia, he was risking his entente with Pompey. A more notorious, though not quite so hazardous, affair was his liaison with Cleopatra. By dallying with her at Alexandria, he risked losing what he had just won at Pharsalus. By allowing her to visit him in Rome in 46 bce, he flouted public feeling and added to the list of tactless acts that, cumulatively, goaded old comrades and amnestied enemies into assassinating him.
This cool-headed man of genius with an erratic vein of sexual exuberance undoubtedly changed the course of history at the western end of the Old World. By liquidating the scandalous and bankrupt rule of the Roman nobility, he gave the Roman state—and with it the Greco-Roman civilization—a reprieve that lasted for more than 600 years in the East and for more than 400 years in the relatively backward West. Caesar substituted for the Roman oligarchy an autocracy that could never afterward be abolished. If he had not done this when he did it, Rome and the Greco-Roman world might have succumbed, before the beginning of the Christian era, to barbarian invaders in the West and to the Parthian Empire in the East. The prolongation of the life of the Greco-Roman civilization had important historical effects. Under the Roman Empire the Near East was impregnated with Hellenism for six or seven more centuries. But for this the Hellenic element might not have been present in sufficient strength to make its decisive impact on Christianity and Islam. Gaul, too, would have sunk deeper into barbarism when the Franks overran it, if it had not been associated with the civilized Mediterranean world for more than 500 years as a result of Caesar’s conquest.
Caesar’s political achievement was limited. Its effects were confined to the western end of the Old World and were comparatively short-lived by Chinese or ancient Egyptian standards. The Chinese state founded by Qin Shi Huang in the 3rd century bce still stands, and its future may be still greater than its past. Yet, even if Caesar should prove to be of lesser stature than this Chinese colossus, he would still remain a giant by comparison with the common run of human beings (see also ancient Rome).
Arnold Joseph Toynbee The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica