The Roman Republic, 509 BC to 27 BC, was governed using a democratic framework where elected officials, known as Senators, administered the business of the state. Rome was in a state of flux, transitioning from the deposed Monarchy of King Superbus. The Senate was seeking stability; however, it was beset by internal and external unrest. The Senate would succumb to these stressors and Rome would eventually become an Empire ruled by a single man. Senators were aristocratic and powerful, they were able to hold their positions of authority through decades of privilege, resulting in an elected oligarchy where unchecked power bred self-interest and corruption. Admitting this oligarchy, Julius Caesar rose to prominence. Caesar was an accomplished…show more content… Julius Caesar was to become Emperor, seizing ultimate power at the expense of the Roman Republic. The trajectory of Caesar’s consulship and the consequences of his time in office are understood by considering his accomplishments and how his actions were received by his political peers. These analyses will show that the Republic was destabilised by Caesar’s actions in 59 BC, which ultimately contributed to the fall of the Republic and the establishment of Rome as an autocratic empire.
Caesar’s primary accomplishment as Consul was political dominance spanning from 59 BC to 44 BC, where he was able to wrest the Senate’s power from its grasp. To understand Caesar’s rise to power, his character needs to be appreciated, it was his character that underpinned his approach to the consulship and the achievements he made. Caesar, as a general, led from the front and was acclaimed to have never lost a battle (.). Caesars love of honour and distinctions, was cherished by his soldiers, “there was no danger to which he did not willingly…show more content… The other consul would provide a check and balance to avoid the potential of power concentration in one man’s hand. The other consul could veto the propositions of their colleague as required or desired. Bibulus aligned with the Optimates and swore to oppose any bill that would change the traditional structure of Roman government or society, for example he opposed the Lex Julia Agraria (a bill to provide allotments of land to veterans and the poor), even if every Roman desired it. The Agraria bill also fulfilled the indebted Caesars agreement with his Triumvirate colleague Pompey (Mackat, 2008). Here Bibulus demonstrates a disregard of the will of the Roman people, showing that the Senate could be self-serving regarding their representative responsibilities. The optimates, reactively opposing a benevolent bill because it came from Caesar, who, to be balanced, appeared to be looking after his own interests. A political stalemate between the optimistic aligns Bibulus and Caesar ensured, the frustrated Caesar was forced to act (Mackay, 2008). Mackay, a contemporary historian, goes on to present Caesar as a driven megalomaniac, having become unbalanced and intoxicated by success. Mackay’s perspective is echoed in the writing of Cicero, who at one stage was exalting Caesar, now changing his opinions after experiencing Caesar’s behaviours when in power. One must only look at the
