cIt was around April of 45BC, and the Great
Roman Civil War was over. At last, Caesar could turn away from war and
focus on the politics of the Republic. A true politician, Caesar, believed that the
power of the Republic was its common people, rather than the aristocracy as the Optimates
believed. The extent to which he really believed in
these ideals has been debated for centuries and he has been variously viewed as a military
tyrant, a despotic demagogue, a benevolent dictator, a would-be saviour of the Republic,
and a populist champion of the people. In this episode, we shall look at the reforms
enacted by Caesar throughout his career and allow you to decide which view you agree with. Want to enact reforms akin to Caesar? The sponsor of this video Humankind will give
you an opportunity to do that and become the tyrant or a saviour of your unique civilization! Humankind is a turn-based historical strategy
game from Amplitude Studios & SEGA that you can purchase on Steam, Epic Store, Stadia,
or Xbox Game pass. In Humankind you will be creating your own
history, by making a unique civilization from the combination of more than 60 historical
cultures. Start as a tribe in the Neolithic era, transition
to the Ancient period as the mighty Babylonians, become the Classical era Mayans, add Umayyad
civilizational traits in medieval and round up it all with the British attributes in the
early modern period. There are near-endless combinations of civilizations! In Humankind you will face historical events,
take impactful moral decisions, make scientific breakthroughs, discover the natural wonders
of the world or build the most remarkable creations of humanity. Each game element is historically authentic
and you decide how to combine them to build your own vision of the world. Every great deed you accomplish, every moral
choice you make, every battle you win will build your Fame. The player with the most Fame will win the
game. Unlike many other 4x games, Humankind does
not only have a great strategic layer, but also offers very interesting tactical battles
that take place right on the map. So, what are you waiting for? Create your Avatar to lead your empire, customize
it as you progress, and challenge strangers and friends alike in multiplayer games up
to 8 players. Support us and buy this genuinely unique game
via the link in the description! By the time of Caesar’s first consulship
in 59BC, Pompey has long struggled to push legislation that would give land to his veterans. Caesar proposed a bill that would achieve
this, while also including measures that would also distribute land to the urban poor of
Rome. The Gracchi brothers, almost 70 years earlier,
had tried to carry out a similar proposal, distributing “public land” to the poor,
eventually resulting in their deaths at the hand of the Senate. Caesar, however, had learned from their example. His proposal to the Senate would provide land
for 20,000 of Rome’s poor, without any financial cost to the Senate or the wealthy landowners. The riches Pompey had taken from the East
would be used to fund the reform, and land would be bought from the owners at the price
it had been assessed at in the tax lists, ensuring fairness. A board of 20 would oversee the redistribution,
with Caesar exempting himself from the board to ensure it would not be biased. When the bill was put to the Senate, it was
apparently so watertight that none could criticise it. Nevertheless, they did not pass it with stiff
opposition coming from influential men such as Cato, Cicero, and Caesar’s consular colleague,
Bibulus. Caesar read the bill to the people, where
it received huge public approval. Still, the Senate refused to pass the bill,
obfuscating and delaying constantly. Eventually, Caesar requested the help of Pompey
and Crassus, both of who publicly supported the bill. With their support assured, Caesar decided
to bypass the Senate officially proposing the bill to the comitia, an assembly of citizens. Bibulus tried to use all the political tricks
in the book to stop the assembly but was assaulted by the people and forced to retreat to his
house. The bill, finally, was passed and all Senators
were bound by oaths to uphold it. Shortly after the passing of this bill, according
to both Appian and Cassius Dio, a man called Lucius Vettius attempted to assassinate both
Caesar and Pompey. He was caught and when interrogated said he
had been put up to it by either Bibulus, Cicero, and Cato, or Cicero and Lucullus (depending
on the source) all of whom were adamant Optimates. Vettius was then killed in the night while
in prison before any more could be learned from him. Roman historians were extremely critical of
Caesar for this bill. Dio claims that Caesar only proposed it as
a favour to Pompey and Crassus, to help win the public support and so lay the groundwork
for the First Triumvirate, while Plutarch says the law was “becoming, not for a consul,
but for a most radical tribune of the plebs”. They both see the bill as being designed purely
to win popular approval. Caesar certainly did want to assure his supporters
that he was a man of action and in control, and so the ancient historians are right in
part. The bill did indeed win Caesar and his co-Triumvirates
a lot of popular support, thus helping Caesar settle political debts with Pompey and Crassus. It is also important to note that Caesar did
abuse the Republican system in order to get the bill passed, overruling both the Senate
and a fellow consul. However, it is also true that this kind of
land reform was badly needed in Rome and did benefit thousands of its poorer citizens. Furthermore, Caesar already had a history
of supporting land reform, having supported a similar but failed bill, in 63BC. Caesar was also playing a seriously risky
game by proposing the legislation. Similar laws had resulted in the deaths of
the Gracchi and would result in an attempt on his own life, and one is forced to wonder
if there was not a less risky way of winning public support if that was the only motivation. It is also worth noting that the Roman voting
system heavily favoured the rich, the poor having a comparatively small amount of influence
in voting. As a result, it is debatable just how much
power Caesar would really have achieved by passing a bill that would benefit the poorest. it is also worth remembering that Dio and
Plutarch were both parts of the aristocracy of the Empire, a highly conservative body,
and so criticism of radical populist reforms would be expected from them. Unfortunately, we do not have any written
histories from people in the class that would benefit from Caesar’s reforms, but it is
hard to imagine that they would agree with the two historians. After the Battle of Thapsus, Caesar was named
Dictator for 10 years, as well as being given tribunal and censorial powers, effectively
giving him ultimate power over the Republic and he immediately began the tasks of reassuring
the people that the crisis was over and stabilising the government. Huge games were held, including elephants
and mock naval battles, at colossus expense. He received considerable criticism for this
from some of the public, who thought they were in poor taste, but they were largely
successful in calming and winning over the populace. Through his censorial powers, which allowed
him to pass laws regarding morality, he regulated the expenditure of the richest of Rome’s
citizens, and gave incentives for people to have more children and larger families to
try and boost Rome’s diminished population. Augustus would later pass similar legislation,
and Caesar’s passing of these laws can be viewed as a precursor to the autocratic regime
of Emperors. On the other hand, Republican virtues had
always valued the rejection of luxury goods and having large families, and so Caesar can
equally be seen as doing nothing more than trying to reinstate core Republic traditions. Shortly after this, Caesar would fight the
remnants of the Pompeian faction in Spain, before returning to Rome around April 45BC,
finally having won the Civil War. Upon his arrival back in Italy, he immediately
retired his favourite 10th Legion, and the 13th. Most of Caesar’s other veteran Legions had
already been retired, but the significance of demobilizing these two was vast. The 10th was renowned as Caesar’s favourite
and had fought in almost every major battle of the Civil War. The 13th was no less prestigious and had been
the Legion that had first crossed the Rubicon with Caesar. His message was clear; the war was over, and
Caesar wanted peace. This was reinforced by his rejection of the
offer of having a bodyguard saying “it is better to die once, than to be always expecting
death”. When he returned to Rome, he assured the Senate
that he would hold no grudges, and that he would not carry out the proscriptions that
had defined the Dictatorship of Sulla saying: “The man who recklessly abuses his power
on absolutely all occasions finds for himself neither genuine goodwill nor certain safety,
but, though accorded false flattery in public, is secretly plotted against. I shall be…not your master…but your champion,
not your tyrant but your leader”. Some Senators and politicians who had been
exiled during the Civil War were recalled by Caesar, even some who had been exiled from
crimes such as bribery. All those who had taken up arms against him
were publicly forgiven and granted immunity, with scrolls that were found in the Pompeian
camps after Pharsalus and Thapsus being burnt, along with any copies, to ensure that no later
charges could be brought against him. Men who had been in positions of power in
the Pompeian faction were welcomed back into the Senate, and some, such as Cassius and
Brutus, were given highly important magisterial positions. For those that had died in the war with family,
money was given to their wives to ensure that they and their children would be able to sustain
themselves. He even went so far as to have statues of
Pompey that had been torn down during the Civil War restored. Regarding these actions, historians have largely
been in agreement; one of Caesar’s most admirable traits was his mercy and clemency. Dio, often one of his harsher critics, says
that in doing so he put the reputation of Sulla to shame and built for himself a reputation
for bravery and goodness. Both he and Plutarch also agree that, whether
Caesar was right or wrong in his actions, he did bring much-needed peace and stability
to the Republic, even for just a short while. Nevertheless, some have been more questioning
of these actions, Cicero in his Second Philippic highlighting how Caesar’s clemency effectively
kept his enemies indebted to him. Caesar should also perhaps be criticised for
recalling those convicted of bribery. An argument could be made that Caesar was
looking to start from a clean slate, but his recalling of these men showed a disregard
for the legal jurisdiction of the state, as well as fuelling rumours of him being bribed
in turn in order to recall them. Though Caesar is occasionally categorised
as a military dictator, the disbanding of his Legions and refusal of a bodyguard make
the issue arguable. One of the hallmarks of a military dictatorship
is having an armed bodyguard that can then be used as intimidation. Caesar did not have this and he also did not
use his army as a threat to his rule, another hallmark of a military dictatorship. To say that Caesar achieved power through
military force is certainly accurate, to say that he maintained power through military
force, however, is debatable. While Dictator, he also made significant other
reforms that largely benefited the masses. The dole had previously been distributed to
320,000, many of whom did not actually need it, putting a strain on the supply. Caesar reduced this number to 150,000 of Rome’s
poorest citizens. He also began the repopulating of Carthage
and Corinth, sending 80,000 citizens there with plots of land assigned to them. Medics and teachers of arts were given automatic
citizenship to entice more of them to come to Rome. Debt had been a huge issue in Rome for a while
now, particularly throughout the Civil War. To address this, Caesar ordered that all debts
must be repaid, but only at a rate proportional to the indebted persons’ wealth to try and
curb any usury. Were these the actions of a demagogue or a
man who honestly believed in giving more rights and freedoms to the people? No one can truly say for sure, and the interpretation
of later historians often reveals more about their own politics than Caesar’s; certainly,
arguments for both sides can be made. Having served as quaestor, praetor, and propraetor
in Hispania, Caesar was well aware of the level of corruption in the governance of the
provinces and knew from personal experience how powerful Governors could be. As such, while Consul, he also introduced
a bill addressing these issues. The bill prohibited governors from accepting
bribes in regards to administering justice, fixed the amount of staff they could have
so as to better control their expenses, and protected their subjects from having extortionate
tributes demanded of them. Furthermore, it required that each governor
produce 3 copies of their financial accounting making it harder for the power of a pro-magistrate
to be abused, and easier for it to be found out and evidenced if it was. As Dictator, he would add a law explicitly
limiting pro-praetors to one year in office, and pro-consuls to two. Caesar also took steps to integrate the provinces
more into the Republic, extending citizen rights to those living in Cisalpine Gaul,
and began the process of fully integrating the province. Caesar’s motivation for passing these reforms
may have been purely a desire to limit corruption of the office. At the same time, it can equally be said that
Caesar was trying to stop anyone from following in his footsteps and rivaling his own position
of power. This is certainly true to some extent, as
is noted by Dio. Caesar was right to be cautious though. For the past few decades, arguably the biggest
threat that the Republic had faced had come from its own governors being vested with too
much power, eventually growing so powerful that they could not be controlled. Such had been the case with Sulla, Pompey,
and himself; reforms that checked this power were long overdue. The extension of citizen rights to Cisalpine
Gaul and beginning to integrate the province may only have been intended by Caesar to further
increase his base of support or may have been more altruistic. It is certainly true, however, that these
reforms were, once again, also long overdue. Despite its huge gains since the Punic Wars,
the Roman Republic had still not yet adapted to its new size, still largely functioning
as the local agrarian-based power it had been 300 years ago, rather than the Mediterranean-wide
super-power it now was. This dissolving of the line between “Romans”
and “provincials” would be continued by Augustus and was crucial in providing stability
to the Empire. The Senate had been massively depleted, many
of its members dying throughout the Civil War. Caesar addressed this by enrolling many new
members, increasing the number from around 400 to 900, including ex-soldiers, sons of
freedmen, and some men from provinces. In a similar vein, Caesar also increased the
number of magistrate offices, specifically those in the provinces. The number of Praetors was increased, eventually
increasing from 8 originally to 16, and increasing the number of quaestors from 20 to 40. These two magistrates were some of the most
important for provincial governance, praetors often being given full control of a province,
while quaestors acted as their assistants. The last major reform to magistrates had occurred
under Sulla, almost 40 years earlier. Since then, huge expansions had been made,
particularly by Caesar and Pompey, but no constitutional changes had been made to accommodate
this growing Empire. Caesar’s reforms addressed this, increasing
the pool of candidates for provincial governors, as well as further distributing power across
a wider base. The number of aediles was also increased,
adding two to specifically oversee the Roman grain dole. Though nominally these magistrates were voted
for by the public, it was Caesar who nominated them. This was arguably the clearest example of
tyranny that Caesar manifested while Dictator, though it could also be argued that he may
only have planned to nominate magistrates in the short term, in order to stabilise politics
after the Civil War, and would have eventually abandoned the practice. More contemporary historians of Caesar are
critical of a number of these reforms. Dio says that many of the men included in
the Senate were “unworthy” of their position. He also argues that Caesar’s increasing
the size of the Senate and number of magistrates was primarily because it allowed him a longer
list of political positions which he could hand out to his allies, cronies, and others
to whom he owed political favours, filling positions of power with his partisans. He also suggests that the increased number
of governors was to stop any man from gaining too much power and challenging his position. It is perhaps worth noting here that Dio was
not against the idea of a Dictator per se. In his words “Monarchy…has an unpleasant
sound…but is a most practical form of government”. However, he did believe that the democratic
elements of the Republic were a weakness and that the power of the masses was a dangerous
thing that should be avoided. Therefore, while some of Dio’s observations
may be accurate in part, they are also clouded by Dio’s inherent cynicism of democratic
government. Nonetheless, in some aspects, it could be
argued that on this point Caesar was ahead of his time. During the Empire, men from all over the Empire
would be inducted into the Senate, no matter what province they had come from. It was restricted by money, but not by geography. Caesar seems to have laid the groundwork for
this being the case, being the first to introduce any provincials into the Senate. While it is certainly true that Caesar did
put many of his allies into the Senate and magistrate positions, it also has to be recognised
that Caesar also inducted many Optimates into the same positions, even those who had been
his enemy. Cicero’s earlier criticism, that Caesar
did this to keep his enemies on side, does hold some weight, but the argument can also
be made that his reasoning is circular, in that Caesar would have been equally criticised
for only having allies inducted into positions of power. Caesar had a number of other huge projects
planned. The sources differ slightly on exactly in
what order Caesar planned these campaigns, but all agree that he planned invasions of
Parthia and Dacia and had begun the process of assembling the supplies and men for this. Plutarch claims that he also planned to effectively
circle Europe after campaigning in Parthia, fighting through the Caucasus, Scythia, Germany,
and then back to Italy through Gaul. He also had huge construction projects planned,
including digging a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth, draining the marshes of Pomentium
and Setia, which would provide farmland for thousands, as well as expand the harbour at
Ostia and constructing moles to make the approach into the port safer. All these plans were put into motion, but
Caesar would not live to see any of them come to fruition. While Caesar had been busy reforming the constitution,
others had been busy planning his assassination, but that is the story for another video, which
will be released soon, so make sure you are subscribed and have pressed the bell button
to see it. Please, consider liking, commenting, and sharing
- it helps immensely. Our videos would be impossible without our
kind patrons and youtube channel members, whose ranks you can join via the links in
the description to know our schedule, get early access to our videos, access our discord,
and much more. This is the Kings and Generals channel, and
we will catch you on the next one.
Both?
[removed]
Loved this, Caesar was one of the greatest men to ever live, if only he could have finished his 10 year dictatorship, we may have seen a world government rather than hundreds of years of chaos and dark ages.
Yes.
The man that looks like hes doing ill intent might have reasons of nobility but the truth is always shrouded If not perspective wise
Savior. He was also a dictator, but not a tyrant