Biography on Julius Caesar Free Essays

Julius Caesar was the means to the evolution of the Roman Republic into an empire. This transition extended its significance to more than 60 million citizens through the outcome of the empire, some of which is virtual peace and prosperity. Arriving at this conclusion, we must now ask, was this transition all because of Caesar? It seems to appear that Caesar had intentionally planned to initiate a dominion as the key to all the troubles in the world. We will write a custom essay sample on Biography on Julius Caesar or any similar topic only for you Order Now The events that took place, namely the invasion of Gaul, the combat opposing Pompey, and the dictatorship of Caesar, moved so fast and certain. This viewpoint was equally shared by a few historians; the most expressive of them was the German scholar Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903). He articulated this viewpoint in his Romische Geschichte. For Mommsen, Caesar had cleared all crooked aristocracy and formed an empire that functioned for all of its citizens. Dominion and equality were evenhanded in its foundation. This was a thing that Mommsen would have greatly loved in his own homeland. Mommsen wrote that Caesar’s â€Å"aim was the highest which a man is allowed to propose himself – the political, military, intellectual, and moral regeneration of his own deeply decayed nation [†¦ ] The hard school of thirty years’ experience changed his views as to the means by which this aim was to be reached; his aim itself remained the same in the times of his hopeless humiliation and of his unlimited plenitude of power, in the times when as demagogue and conspirator he stole towards it by paths of darkness, and in those when, as joint possessor of the supreme power and then as monarch, he worked at his task in the full light of day before the eyes of the world. [†¦ ] According to his original plan he had purposed to reach his object [†¦ ] without force of arms, and throughout eighteen years he had as leader of the people’s party moved exclusively amid political plans and intrigues – until, reluctantly convinced of the necessity for a military support, he, when already forty years of age, put himself at the head of an army. †( Romische Geschichte) Many of his actions had sheltered the common citizens against the self-centered rules of the rich. His rules on levies and nationality most likely demonstrate this. On the other hand, were these actions to protect the people his goal or just his instrument to create a solid foundation for a personal cause? The following arguments are the judgments of enormous historians, namely Eduard Meyer and Jerome Carcopino. They believed, as written in their Caesars Monarchie und das Pinzipat des Pompejus and Histoire Romaine, that even as a child, Caesar’s goal was the organization of a dominion in Rome. Caring for the citizens’ welfare was not his aim, instead, he utilized them. According to the German historian Matthias Gelzer, maybe, it was not right to center on Caesar’s guiding principle. He added that Caesar maybe was just an exemplar to a much bigger course. Caesar made history but not in the condition of his own option. He explained further that there had to be profound causes for these actions and it was not right to consider influential men like Julius Caesar as stimulators of social change. Ronald Syme, an Oxford professor, shared the same perspective with Gelzer’s thought that Caesar was just an exemplar to a much bigger course. According to him, Caesar outshined his associate nobles because he established groundwork outside Italy. His abundant allocation of nationality was a significant tool for him to receive this support. He wanted to be the original among his fellows. After World War II, most people agreed with Syme’s abhor of one-man ruling. This resulted in the vanishing of the subject about Caesar. There were articles but there were no improvements. Today, Syme’s ideas were most likely agreed by most historians than Mommsen’s. However, the perspective of Syme deteriorated very fast. His divisions were similar to the elites that managed universities in the 20th century. His principle in family fidelity was not very possible in the real world. (Lendering) At the Capitoline hill in present Rome lies the statue of Caesar. It stares down above the remains of his round-table. What types of accomplishments were left for a man who cared much about his personal heritage to history? Since Caesar’s death, his effect on the history of his country has been continually deliberated. The path he chose in life was obviously notorious. Historians either agreed for his actions or opposed it. Centuries later, uneducated native people who barely knew Rome knew his name. His name is one among some which are often renowned. Those who admire Cicero always oppose the fearless, dignified orator against the striving, monomaniacal demolisher of Rome. Likewise, the ones who look up to Caesar seem to view Cicero as a selfish tool for the oligarchs who, in the first place, had destabilized the Republic even before the arrival of Caesar. In the 19th century, intellectuals raised Caesar’s statesmanship and knowledge into a level that nearly advances into a sect of personality. In Mommsen’s opinion, the Roman Empire was out of power and leads towards devastation. According to him, it was Caesar’s declaration that seized organization of its history and headed towards unwavering years of the Republic. In the 20th century, many historians likened Caesar to Hitler and Stalin due to the unavoidable responses after the end of World War II. Nevertheless, his status has lived two millennia of disordered government and will live the limits of the previous years. For me, Caesar’s path is a breakpoint in the history of Rome and very essential. An obvious misinterpretation of the Roman psyche of his own era is the mistreatment of Caesar as a man preoccupied by his own dignities. To challenge deeply in quest of individual credit was the outcome of as aristocratic whose only immortality rest in eternally touching the history of Rome. Cicero, for all his fully conscious acceptance of the history of Rome, blazed with an unslaked yearning to influence his era and be recalled for his actions. Caesar carried amazing traits to his concluding power of the nation which were not present in his motivated equals. The case was unpersuasive for me because the legislation of his Consulate and the soon after kinds passed while Dictator did not gravely tried to restore mistakes long disregarded by the wrangling rich men who declared that he shattered freedom on his own. Caesar was far more than dreams not like the Gracchis. He was a progressive. Sorting out the applicable comments of his measures from the doubt that a lot of his colleagues were provoked by their personal gluttony and jealousy of his rank among them is hard. Furthermore, the power of Rome was absolutely incompetent of calmly accommodating the transformations of Caesar. It believes with confidence that the Republic was the finest of all potential worlds and that whichever amend was not merely hazardous but completely unpatriotic. Reading the past of Rome from the Gracchi to Augustus is an extensive and disheartening investigation of what prejudice, factionalism, individual goal, aggression, and gluttony had made to Romans. Basically, Rome had turned relatively ensnared in the collapse when men need not describe the universal superior likewise, and where the aspirations of persons or families were dominant. Cicero enclosed his row completely to the advantage of the status quo and the past rulers of Rome for centuries. He probably have profoundly hoped to trust in a concordance of the guidelines and this is the capability of every Roman to work as one. Determining that no one ought to continually accumulate excessive authority or control had get nearer to signify that any reformer was ruined in spite of whether his reorganization was excellent or terrible is the most. It is because to execute them may gain him so much thankful patrons. Probably the most grave in estimating whether the Republic could have viably sustained devoid of Caesar’s measures is to acknowledge this thinking. All of those under pressure to tackle the troubles of the late empire, from the era of Gracchi to Caesar, were all destroyed. Transformation was badly required and no modification appeared probable inside the structure. This perspective is the result of all transformations. Caesar was the only one who lived long enough to start changing the perspective. The main reason why he died is because he did this without enough cruelty. After another war and 20 years of turmoil, the people of Rome acknowledged that dictatorship may be preferable to sovereignty if it conveyed harmony in its way. Unlike Caesar, Augustus was able to make in the course of a technical civil service. This is a vent for the wealthy and determined adolescent noble to perform for his nation devoid of resorting to aggression. (Cross) Reference: Cross, Suzanne. â€Å"Julius Caesar: The Last Dictator; A Biography of Caesar and Rome 100-44 B. C. † 2002-2006. October 27, 2006. http://web. ma/heraklia/Caesar/index. html. Lendering, Jona. â€Å"Gaius Julius Caesar†. 2006. Livius: Articles on ancient history. October 27 2006. http://www. livius. org/caa-can/caesar/caesar01. html. How to cite Biography on Julius Caesar, Papers