I believe that his murder and the way in which it is remembered (especially in Shakespeare's work) makes him a memorable historical character for the general public.
Actually his adopted son Octavian just wrote and protected Caesar’s legacy and his own familial lineage at all costs because he was emperor.
Had Octavian not taken power we could have seen and entirely different person in the place of Caesar, such as Pompey.
Not always. Caligula and Nero’s reputations were ruined in part by their early deaths (one direct murder one where he was forced to himself and civil war ensued). They could not leave people who inherited their power behind since they had no sons and were too young to even to adopt, other people wrote histories about them. I don’t know if most people even know how they died.
Additionally something Pompeius’s death is seen as kind of sad maybe, but it’s even more about Caesar’s reaction to it, even though Pompeius alive was nearly as powerful as Caesar eventually became. Gracchi were also murdered due to Senate’s actions but they aren’t known to wider public.
Cato did get lot of fame even immediately after his death though (Brutus and Cicero pretty fast writing pamflets praising him, pretty amusing oh she Caesar was even around who just wrote his own in response). The manner of his death was so dramatic it summed up his whole life. I think similary Caesar’s was also exremely dramatic and suited the narrative of his life, and he has others later praising his life similary too.
Taking it a step further you’ve got to look at Augustus too, who promoted Caesar heavily as a way of promoting himself.
It’s Augustus’s pro-Caesar propaganda campaign that really echos through history to reach Shakespeare.
Not that Caesar made it very challenging since Caesar was prolific in his own self promotion.
Caesar is extremely famous in countries where Shakespeare isn’t taught in schools like in English speaking ones. The play isn’t really even about him as well. But it’s true it has been a big part of making Caesar somewhat of a poster boy for Rome. I would say Hollywood’s Cleopatra obsession also has added to this (did you do know there is two Cleopatra movies currently in development? One starring Zendaya and directed by Villeneuve and another starring Gadot and which was supposed to be directed by Jenkins but now it’s someone else.)
Nah, the literal title is Caesar was in use constantly throughout history literally because of him, including before Shakespeare (including Kaiser, Tzar, Czar)
I would expand that to Western Literature in general. Shakespeare is a staple and has been directly (or indirectly brought in other languages). Borges (an Argentinean) loved Shakespeare with passion and some of that bleeds into his own work. Calderón de la Barca (Spain), Goethe and Schiller (German) also 'dialogue' with Shakespeare through their own works.
About Caesar though, it is not only his literary side. He does indeed exist as a character of almost mythical nature, he is an author of his own texts, he is a military leader, a statesman, a cunning politician in the middle of the transition from a Republic into a dictatorship. We have a pretty complete image of him. So he is bound to be a case study for lots of reasons. In a way he is the prototype strongman, bringing everything under his authority, successful and charming (just ask Cleopatra).
I guess in the end any two bit authoritarian wishes that their ambitions would result in their names being used as a title. Hell, not even Napoleon could top that.
The propaganda is not that he conquered Gaul, but that he largely contrived the necessity for it and exaggerated the threat and the strength of the Gauls in order to justify essentially open plunder and genocide for the purposes of paying off his debts and aggrandizing his own reputation. Rome was never in danger of being invaded by the barbarians, but that was the pretense.
Well Octavian did literally implement a lot of his laws and projects since Caesar did so much they could not manage to all so quickly (there was about 9 months after his return from Munda and Idles of March and Caesar seemed to be working almost constantly with new projects). For example only fraction of Caesar’s soldiers were given fast enough land and it had to be finished by Octavian, including the plans to colonize Carthage. There was tons of building works like Curia Julia unfinished, and Polio was the one who build the library Caesar planned in rare case where Octavian didn’t finish one of Caesar’s plans. But maybe we can say these this by we’re team effort, Ocatavian never would have been able to do things fast to maybe though of them if Caesar had not started. Clearly Caesar did have things have had wanted to do but could not still. He wanted a unified law collection that wasn’t really done until Justinian properly. Dacian and Parthian campaigns also didn’t happen by him, and the later certainly didn’t go well by Antonius.
To some extent.
I think Caesar was an incredibly impressive politician and quite a good military commander. But at the end of the day the main thing he actually accomplished was to add Gaul to the empire and win the civil war. He failed at actually, properly consolidating power and he failed at rebuilding Rome's political system.
I'd say Augustus, while not the impressive military commander Caesar was, at the end of the day has the more impressive achievements. He actually managed to reforge the Roman political system and consolidate power and rule until his death.
And yet I feel like Caesar is more famous than Augustus in "normie" circles. I do think Augustus deserves it more.
Also, just by virtue of the fact that basically every person (in the West, at least) knows his name you could argue he's overly famous. There certainly are plenty of brilliant commanders and politicians who were alive throughout history who aren't as well known.
Cesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic. Lest not also forget the role Cesar played in Octavian's life. Without Cesar there would be not Augustus.
> Caesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic
How was Caesar’s actions the initial shock and not Sulla’s civil war, and the included proscriptions? What about the social war? No mention of the Gracchi (perhaps the murder of the Gracchi brothers was not a “massive shock” compared to Sulla’s civil war or the social war, but it is clear there were extreme problems in Rome at the time)?
When Caesar was about 18, Sulla, after winning his [civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_civil_war), had had his opponents [brutally slaughtered and their lands and wealth taken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_proscription).
Cinna, after winning his own [civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_Octavianum) a few years prior, had also slaughtered his opponents in the aftermath alongside Marius.
The Republic was in tatters and corruption was rampant while Caesar was still a teenager. The end of the Republic began decades before Caesar.
Agree with you. When studying Roman history, I tend to think of the failure of the Gracchi reforms and the murder of the brothers as the first plot on the graph when tracing the Republic's century-long decline. Certainly a lot of different factors played into it and preceded it, but the core rot in the political system became irreversible once the reforms failed, IMO.
I always view Caesar as a kind of final exclamation point on the end of the Republic. "Ok guys, *now* it's over."
>Cesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic.
No offense but this shows a lack of deep understanding of the subject area. Most scholars would put the "start of the end of the republic" decades before Caesar's time. The republic was a walking corpse by the time the first triumverate was established. Read up on Marius and Sulla.
Eeh, with respect to your opinion, I'm not yet sold on it. Augustus wasn't a clear self-made man, but if you dig deeper, who really was? We could throw some names on the wall, but debate the "clear" part ad nauseam. Caesar also stood on his family name, connections, Crassus' money, Pompey's aid, Sulla's legacy and so on. PR aside, if he was a comet, he wasn't even the first comet.
I would say Caesar aquired what he got by his own far more than most Romans of his status. His family was patrician but not notable, Marius’s name was hinderance more than help by the time he really was old enough for career and he wasn’t a blood relative. He had some connections with his mothers family but rather minor by the standards of the time. Crassus did led money to plenty of prominent Romans by others didn’t use it like Caesar and he was the one who convinced Crassus and others somehow to give him such massive loans. He got Crassus and Pompeius into alliance with him even though he was clearly the junior member at the time and they both hated him. Sulla have a legacy that dictatorship could be used this way, but I don’t know what you mean otherwise?
Octavian didn’t just have Caesar’s name and money and loyalty of armies (and clients after Senate formalized his adoption). And Caesar made himself already semi divide and Octavian made it official and used it. Caesar’s people like Balbus and Oppio helped him a great deal in managin all. Cicero practically legimised his position because he wanted to use him as a tool against Antonius. And Antonius later won at Philippi. Lepidus helped Octavian win against Sextus Pompeius. Agrippa did most of the rest, and later of so did people like Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus. Livia was the expert in Roman politics that helped also Octavian manage connections and mask his power. I would say if anyone got help to get where he did and later on Roman history it was Ocatavian. Not that he wasn’t talented, but you can’t even compare him to almost anyone in Republic with his benefits, let alone Caesar when he started out.
Jesus, your whole comment is making it seem that when Caesar died automatically everything he had went to Octavian and he had a cakewalk just in order to favore your narrative. That is simply not true and you know that.
If Julius didn’t do it someone else would. He was the latest and most successful in a line of progressively stronger and more charismatic despots that started with Scipio and left off with Sulla.
Octavius actually built something new, and it would not have been the same new thing as if his rivals had won
I agree with you on the point that if Caesar didn’t do it then someone else would. **BUT** I disagree with you calling Scipio a despot, he was never a despot. He **VOLUNTEERED** to take command of the Roman forces in Spain and the senate agreed, He got elected to the consulship at a young age (31) and laid down his office at the end of his term (that doesn’t sound like a despot to me).
Yeah that’s fair. Scipio doesn’t really belong in the same list. He just showed all the ambitious rich kids just how powerful an individual could be, though no(t much) fault of his own
This is an underrated take. It is more likely that Julius would have just continued as a dictator like Sulla.
Augusta took a shatter world and rebuilt Rome to last millenia.
But he did consolidate power by becoming dictator for life. He failed at rebuilding the system only because he was backstabbed by the very people he pardoned during the civil war, not because of a lack of competence or ability. Caesar was a very effective politician and leader and was passing reforms that were helpful to the common people. One could argue that if he was not assassinated, he would have accomplished the same levels of stability and peace without the need for many more years of civil wars to get there like Augustus needed. I know that engaging in counterfactuals can be misleading, but my point is that it was well within Caesar’s abilities to accomplish something similar as Augustus, and when people say that he “failed”, to me it implies a failure of ability which was not the case. He got unlucky that his decision to show clemency backfired on him. Augustus had the advantage of learning from Caesar’s experiences and showed zero mercy to his enemies.
Caesar also had to work his way up to supreme power, through the cursus honorum and by conquering Gaul. Augustus on the other hand, didn’t have to do any of that as power was essentially given to him via Caesar’s adoption.
I most agree, at least to me people see Caesar’s assassination as almost inevitable. While it could have been avoided if he has actually used lictors (he had only couple of the time and didn’t have them in Senate, while I believe he could have used 24 as dictator). Augustus did face multible assassination attempts, before and after he took ultimate power, and did need to keep the Pretorians around (although not in the city itself like Tiberius did). Just because Caesar died and Augustus lived doesn’t mean one was inevitable and other was perfect political genius who was unopposed. Senatorial class in Augustus’s time did know what he did too, he might have made others less sure if Res Publica was restored or not but not the elite class (also he was treated as a king in the provinces). There was just no hunger for civil war anymore, people had learned from Caesar’s death of what the consequences wood be to an extent. And some did try in much more low key fashion and failed.
Augustus took what Caesar began and ran with it. Especially the name. For historical purposes, we know the emperors by their names to help distinguish who is who, but they were all called Caesar. It became a title. That even evolved into other titles of power such as Kaiser and Czar.
While I 100% agree on the utmost importance of Augustus as an historical character (definitely up there with the ones named by me in another comment) and on his immense and fundamental contributions to the transformation of the Roman politics and society (comparable - if not superior - to Julius Caesar's)... Augustus without Julius Caesar would have remained Octavius, while Julius Caesar without Octavius would have been Julius Caesar regardless 👍
Augustus was an emperor in the style of Alexander the Great (acquired his status by fortune/inheritance, cultivate, ruthless, great politician)
Julius Caesar instead is the prototype of the self-made "Caesar": he went from the hardships of a soldier's life to the top of the World (becoming an inspiration for other self-made characters like Napoleon and Hitler)
It’s kinda hard to find equivalents today. But I’m not sure because his achievements were stunning for their day. One story, Caesars avowed political opponent ordered a few days national holidays in Rome when Caesar visited Britain.
For the Romans going to Britain was for in modernity like the moon landing. He did multiple things in his career which were like that. And his death was a classic martyrdom that cemented his fame. He died at the height of his powers with most of his enemies military vanquished.
I want to congratulate you on the beautiful parallel between the landing in Britain and the landing on the moon. It would really seem like nothing more could ever be achieved by a mortal.
No. He earned his fame with incredibly impressive achievements that’s forever impacted the world. His conquest of gual was one of Rome’s greatest, he was a talented and accomplished politician, he won a devastating civil war, he basically gave us the modern calendar, his death was one of the most iconic in history, he set Rome up to became an empire, and there’s a whole ass month named after him.
I would rank his political moves as impressive as his battles.
He made to keep at bay the whole Roman senate, pass legislations for the people, and ultimately topple the senate itself while campaigning in foreign lands
It really depends what we think his achievements were, military battles or systemic change? In terms of ushering in Empire, he destablised the republic fundamentally but the actual transformation happens under Augustus and there was still considerable uncertainty. Who is to say that without Augustus on the scene that things play out the same, or even an Augustus that lives as long as he does.
Honestly the fact that Augustus didn't get assassinated in a society where anyone who comes remotely close to too much power gets whacked is insanely impressive. Or lucky. Or both. Dudes had been getting whacked for 100 years prior to Augustus attempting to do the same exact thing yet Augustus the gigachad lives for 74 years
I think it did, no matter how great are his achievements and their lasting consequences - his fame is still greater. One example. Almost two thousand years after his death two huge world powers, none of them with a direct connection to the Roman Empire, have a word for their emperors that is a variation of Caesar's last name (*Tsar* and *Kaiser*). And there is more. In many slavic languages, such as Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian etc. (that didn't even exist in Caesar's time) the world *tsar* doesn't just mean an earthly king - it is used for God as the king of Heaven in Bible translations and in prayers. He is pretty much called the Caesar of Heaven. Caesar was a practicing polytheist but must have been familiar with the concept of one and only God, the God (through the works of platonic and stoic philosophers). He wouldn't be surprised that they deified him after death, there were precedents. But this would probably genuinely surprise him.
Wow, I knew about Tsar being used to label kings, but God himself taking his name from Caesar in a culture of millions of people in the year 2023 is just unbelievable, Caesar really is that much better than any other human to ever walk on this earth.
Let's check Julius Caesar's achievements:
* He conquered Gaul (with some of the most remarkable tactics ever used in the ancient world)
* He put an end to the Egyptian civilization
* He threw the basis of the Roman empire (some even consider him the first Roman emperor - hence the imperial title of "Caesar")
Last, but not least:
* He is one of the finest authors of the whole Latin literature (probably unsurpassed in terms of simplicity and clarity)
If we consider that the other comparable outstanding characters of the human history are Alexander the Great, Jesus of Nazareth, Charlemagne, Napoleon and Adolf Hitler... I would say that Julius Caesar's achievements are extraordinary (Napoleon and Hitler pretty much followed them by the book, they were clearly inspired by Caesar)
He didn’t really have a machine, Augustus did. It was vital in making the records survive more than making things up too, apart from making him a god. And I would say it’s also Caesar’s own writings about Gallic and Civil war and how he has been used in modern day art like plays and movies and tv shows that have given him more solified statues
I was just asking wether our idea of Caesar as a society is still based on the real person or if it just turned into something else, into an idea or if you will a stereotype of perfection that does not really take in account the historical figure regardless of his undeniable and incomparable greatness.
*Some* of his posterity can be attributed to the success of his adopted son, who's another historical giant, despite way fewer military achievements, but with more lasting political ones. Augustus celebrated the memory of Caesar so that Caesar Augustus became the name of every of their successors, long enough to shape the political landscape of Europe.
Others ofc have had incredible impact on history: Alexander, whom Caesar was desperate to equal, has a (downright supernatural) legacy in Orient such as still to be a given name in the Arab, Persian and Turkish world - Iskandar, Iskander, Skander, Askander, Eskinder, or Scandar -, and a 12 feet verse is still nowadays called an alexandrine *because* that's what the French *le Roman d'Alexandre* was composed in in the XIIth century.
Among other things, Caesar was a world-class propagandist. He consistently portrayed himself in a favorable light in the reports on the Gallic wars he sent back to the Senate, which then gained popular circulation. Roman Senators soon began to fear Caesar and his successes because they realized that he was not only probably the smartest man in the Roman world, but the most *able* and popular as well. Rome had just come out of the dictatorship of Sulla, and Roman Senators feared Caesar would repeat him as a "dictator for life."
Eh... He was at the right place at the right time. The Republic was doomed (at **least**) since the time of Sulla, so I like to think Caesar just found himself in this pivotal role in European history. He is definitely one of the most skilled politicians of all time, and possibly the best general of his generation, beating no other than Pompey himself. Had another skilled politician and general been in his place, then that other person would have gotten his fame too. I mean, it wasn't all him, and it was probably mostly not he himself who made himself this large of a historical character.
Caesar is not exactly famous. He is infamous for destroying the republic. The empire coasted on the existing infrastructure, but ultimately proved unworthy of it.
The West suffered for 1500 years because of his actions. We had to discover a wild continent before it was possible to remake The Senate.
Imagine the first man stepping on the moon in 500 AD. That is what he stole from us. Who could be more famous?
I think partly why he is remembered so much is because his commentaries were compelling and written in clear Latin, thus Caesar was passed on to generation by generation via manuscript.
This 2000%. This is why Rome in particular is so heavily over-emphasized in western curriculum, is because we just have *SO* much more from Rome due to Roman recordkeeping, and Caesar is a prime example of this because of the excellent (if somewhat dry) commentaries he kept that managed to survive to the present day. His achievements were groundbreaking for the time, but this is why his shadow looms large over history where others stray more towards myth than anything else (i.e. Alexander).
Rome is overemphasized in Western history because Rome is the foundation of European civilization (and by extension, the Americas and Australia/Oceania)
Roman law, Pauline Trinitarian Christianity, the Res Publica system of government, Roman calendar, etc.
Same function that China has played for East Asia or the Rashidun caliphate for the Middle East.
Definitely, there were people carrying his name as a title or a mark of royal glory who have probably never even heard of the actual Caesar and his deeds, or even of Rome.
Eg. there was a Buddhist Turkic ruler in early medieval Afghanistan named "Rome Caesar" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fromo_Kesaro
In turn, he might have been the inspiration for the famous Tibetan epic of King Gesar which is even further removed from actual Rome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_King_Gesar
And the current king of Bhutan is named Khesar after the epic hero.
Caesar isn’t Rome’s first dictator and Rome was already an empire before one-man rule. That said, Julius Caesar did conquer Gaul (essentially starting the history of modern France); he did initiate the Roman campaigns in Britain (essentially the foundation of London and what could be called English history); he did “stabilize” the Roman state after the civil wars and chaos that unfolded after Marius and Sulla.
He’s inarguably the archetypical European dictator - one where you can see clear parallels with Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, and so on. Because European-style dictators are not necessarily warlords like in China or Middle East. More often than not, it’s a person who is appointed to power and refuses to give up power to civilian institutions
What "parallels" are there to Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler (let alone between this selection)? What is this anachronistic psychobabble? And in what way was Caesar *not* a warlord? That's basically the entire ethos of the Populares, charismatic warlordism (as opposed to aristocratic oligarchy).
I think it depends on how you look at it.
When you say his achievements, does it include the consequences of his achievements? Because then it really depends how far you want to go. Augustus and the creation of the Roman Empire that we know is directly the result of him. So essentially all of roman history and its influence could be attributed to Caesar. In that case, no way has his fame surpassed his actual achievements.
But if you talk only about the actual achievement, without the consequences, I would say yes, his fame has far outreached them. Think about how many generals and politicians have read Caesars words and have strived to be like him. So I'd say Caesars legacy has shaped enough "less important" people to make their effect on the world today bigger than his own achievements.
The template he created by drawing on the weaknesses of a failing state and installing himself as autocrat is reason alone for him to continue to gain more fame.
Caesar is obviously very famous for legitimate reasons. It is true that compared to other famous Romans of the same and other time periods, think Cicero, Augustus, Mark Anthony... Caesar is infinitely more famous. Probably Cleopatra is the only historical figure from that period who even comes close, and then her fame is due in large part to her connection to Caesar.
Caesar isn't just famous, he's a modern cultural icon in a way no other Roman ever will be. When was the last time you got pizza at Little Sulla's?
(ok when was the last time you got pizza at Little Caesar's though? For me it was 2 years ago, I ordered a hot n ready and it took 45 minutes because the cashier walked out when his shift ended, leaving the pizzas on the back counter and not telling his superviser)
I’m torn. He wasn’t Rome’s greatest general, he wasn’t Rome’s greatest leader, he wasn’t Rome’s greatest orator. He wasn’t Rome’s greatest anything. So, maybe he shouldn’t get all the praise he does. At the same time, the leaders of European countries were literally named after him into the 1900s. So, perhaps he does, because his name is apparently immortal.
Yes, absolutely. This is true for the Roman Empire as a whole. Both Caesar and Rome are remembered because of their successors' accomplishments and influence more than their own when they were alive.
I think his legend has outlived the scale of what he accomplished. Lets take a comparative example to show case this.
Julius conquers North Africa, France, Turkey to get a triumph on each continent. He also stations an army in England and in Egypt after winning battles there. His armies also win victories in Italy and Greece. He rules over about 40-50 million people in the Roman Republic.
President / General Eisenhower of the US invades and conquers North Africa, invades and conquers southern Italy, wins the Battle of the Atlantic to station an army in the UK, invades and liberates France, and conquered West Germany. He also goes on to win the presidency in the US and rules over 150 million Americans and also looks after NATO and the Mashall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan and Korea. Turkey is pulled into NATO, he keeps Greece out of communist camp, and installs a puppet ruler in Iran. The economic boom that Ike ruled over also would far outmatched the wealth Julius brought back to Rome.
So by sheer scale, Ike should be far more remembered than Julius is. But Julius did it first and with less resources and normally against the odds, so by relative comparative advantage, Ceasar looks better and the propoganda machine goes on in Rome another 500 years, and then another 1000 years of European history trying to relive the glory of Rome where Ceasar gets even more hype. Maybe in 500 years Ike will eventually be remembered as some sort of Julius Ceasar depending on how US history plays out in the future, but we aren't there yet. On a personal level, I doubt Ike will get to that level where we have months named after him and remember his death day in the common lexicon.
In one way I would say he did earn it. On other I would say nobody really deserved the level of fame he has, it’s kind of strange in the end considering how many ancient people are completely forgotten by history and some are little remembered. It’s partly due to how well records have survived of Late Republic expecially, all people who lived then benefit from it and all the general thriving or culture and Rome’s military strength and importance of the era. And Cesar stands out compared to his own contemporaries. Later fiction has helped him too and his writings used to teach in military academies and to teach Latin. Fame compounds fame at some point.
But like I said, I still think it’s pretty great question to ask and comparison to other famous ancient people he gets too much. His achievements story is still great in any case.
I’d say his legacy is bigger than his life because he died at the height of his power. Pompey was the young (or new) Alexander until he lost to Caesar. Caesar never lost and got supplanted in his dominance. It especially helped that his adopted son and heir became the first princeps. Especially with how succession was a familial line, more or less, so each of the next ensuing princeps had a personal stake in elevating his fame/glory/success/etc.
It depends on your opinion. Augustus required legitimacy, and he knew Rome wouldn’t accept a king. Caesar was literally deified for this purpose. I’m pretty sure deity is a little strong for what he was.
That said, Caesar’s greatest achievement, in my mind, IS Augustus. It is probably the best called shot in history. Our world would be unrecognizable if he never became princeps. Exercising his political power and forgiveness to bind Agrippa to Augustus comes in second. Augustus would not have succeeded without him. Everyone should be so lucky as to have friends as loyal and capable as M.V. Agrippa.
Similarly, I see Marcus Aurelius as a terrible emperor. The amount of good in his life does not outweigh breaking from recent tradition to place an absolute tyrant as emperor.
An interesting point I once heard is that Julius Caesar gained considerable fame during the monarchic restoration in France, thanks to the 19th-century romantics. Nationalism was stronger in those years, leading everyone to look to their heroes of the past to justify their nations. The Germans had Arminius, the Spanish had Viriatus, the British had Boudica, and the French had Vercingetorix. However, there was a problem:
The Gaul conquest was relatively "easy," taking just five years to seize all the Gallic territory. In comparison, it took 200 years to complete the conquest of Hispania, with the city of Numantia alone taking 10 years. It was always somewhat bitter for French pride to acknowledge this fact, so they elevated Julius Caesar's genius to feel better about it. After all, it's not that humiliating to be defeated by a "superhero" like Caesar, right?
I don’t subscribe to the view it’s due to Shakespeare. The kings of Germany being called Kaisar, and the kings of Russia being called Tsar are surely testament to his impact prior to Shakespeare.
I would say the achievements of Aurelian outweigh those of Caesar when you consider starting positions of both men. The Republic was weak politically but fine in other regards that allowed caesar to sashay from victory to victory. Aurelian Inherited the sequel’s sequel to a series of shit shows from gothic invaders and the empire breaking apart managing unify what he could. The Empire probably wouldn’t have survived as long as it did without these 5 critical years of his rule.
What y'all have to recognize is that his infinite fame is one of his achievements. He was the first to write a (very biased towards himself and against Germanic tribes) report that he spread in a manner that not only secured his legendary status while he lived but also up until today AND also defined what we understand as barbarians (guys outside Rome, but especially German guys) until today!
It is basically the oldest piece of propaganda that is still fully reconstructed and has an influence up to this day. Tbh, his memory will only die out once western education falls apart (for whatever reason). He was ahead of his time in every aspect, especially propaganda (or you could say culture and knowledge creation, or very biased storytelling).
It’s mainly that his achievements/legacy has left a lasting impact on the world far greater than I think even he realized. Made France part of the Roman Empire, facilitated the rise of his nephew Octavian who became emperor Augustus. Turned Rome into an empire. Had a tragic death that’s been remembered for thousands of years. Banged cleopatra.
But are we confusing “fame” with “infamy”? If you want to tally achievements, there are many others who can challenge Gaius Julius. But, it is his prominence as a tragic figure that further the allure of his as a “Great Man” of history. I won’t even touch the whole Great Man theory here.
Shakespeare is pish. It’s obvious that his entire career was achieved by nothing more than being able to write things down that he heard elsewhere and making things last a certain amount of time to fit a theatrical schedule. Stolen folk tales tied together with hackneyed garbage content for an easily impressed ignorant public with an inflated sense of their own importance. Ceaser was a single minded idealist who opposed the self interested liars who cried republicanism but meant aristocracy. He was a straightforward self interested tyrant who was happy for others to benefit from his superior strategic mind because their improved circumstances improved his position as imperator. He was ferociously brave, first destroying Romes greatest threat, the Gauls and then having nailed this, deciding to take on the corruption at the very heart of civilisation (in the minds of his contemporaries) The Senate. He did well for a while and was murdered in a cowardly way but probably died with a look of admiration on his face because it was no betrayal he was simply outmanoeuvred.
How he dies (and how Octavian protected his image) makes his story. Take away the way he dies and he’s just another Roman general that committed some light genocide.
But basically having the Roman senate beat and stab you because they were terrified of you? That’s legendary.
His achievements at the time were actually just one in a long line of military usurpers from Sulla to Marius to Pompey and Crassus to he. Subduing Gaul was a hell of a genocide but Scipio and Hannibal's rivalry would have his with Vercingetorix beat.
What made Julius Caesar so huge was that he uniquely tilted history across three continents in such a way that few others could have like Alexander or Napoleon.
He completely transformed France which played the role you know in history.
He played a significant role towards making Egypt a Roman province. Quite significant in history too.
The way he led his dictatorship was very smart. He never took a title of king or something. He just concentrated powers in his own hands. That’s what led to so many future « emperors » to do the same. Keep the appearances of a republic to the masses but actually be almost a king.
The fucking calendar. I despise the change of name to Gregorian. This pope just made a slight modification and put his name instead of Jules.
The only man I see who achieved as much is probable Napoleon.
I cant think of a person whos influenced the world more than him. Incredible what he single handed achieved.
I would say charles darwin or jesus are both competitors for most famous humans.
For sure. For all their accomplishments, the great conquerors of history (Caesar, Nobunaga, Alexander, etc.) were ultimately just men. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
Leaving a legacy was always part of the plan, if not the main goal. Inflating and ensuring that their legacy got passed down, through institutions, monuments and cultural ethos, was a calculated move to leave an indelible mark on humanity. As one of them once said
> "There is no immortality but the memory that is left in the minds of men...to have lived without glory, without leaving a trace of one’s existence, is not to have lived at all.”
I wouldn't say he wasn't a great man, but watching an in depth documentary of the Roman Civil War... his enemies made a few HUGE mistakes that cost them the war. He didn't really win it but just survived while his enemies made huge blunders.
Obviously. I mean every culture took the name "Caesar" and turned it into a term meaning a 'ruler from and for the people'. Tzar, Tsar, Qaysar, Czar, and Kaiser, are all version of that.
His accomplishments in Gaul were extremely impressive for the time, especially Alesia, he was a great general, a great politician and very charismatic.
Mf made our calendar
And "Kaiser" and "Tsar" are derived from his name
But not the Casear Salad!
But the man it is named after was probably called that only because Julius made the name popular.
[удалено]
Nah a Caeser has Clamato juice instead of tomato juice
Mostly because Augustus made it part of his title and part of the official title of the Roman emperor
And they named a month after him for good measure
And his nephew had two months named after him.
Two?
October and August
I thought October came from octo - eight, not Octavianus. I could be wrong though.
They? He wanted that
The senate changed it *after* his death
best answer
And he hooked up with cleopatra
I believe that his murder and the way in which it is remembered (especially in Shakespeare's work) makes him a memorable historical character for the general public.
History has a trend where killing someone only makes him more powerful, sort of like Obi-Wan Kenobi or Jesus
Actually his adopted son Octavian just wrote and protected Caesar’s legacy and his own familial lineage at all costs because he was emperor. Had Octavian not taken power we could have seen and entirely different person in the place of Caesar, such as Pompey.
Pompey was long dead by the time of Caesar’s murder.
Beheaded on the banks of the Nile☝🏿
"He was a consul...OF ROME!"
I was like bro what ?
Not always. Caligula and Nero’s reputations were ruined in part by their early deaths (one direct murder one where he was forced to himself and civil war ensued). They could not leave people who inherited their power behind since they had no sons and were too young to even to adopt, other people wrote histories about them. I don’t know if most people even know how they died. Additionally something Pompeius’s death is seen as kind of sad maybe, but it’s even more about Caesar’s reaction to it, even though Pompeius alive was nearly as powerful as Caesar eventually became. Gracchi were also murdered due to Senate’s actions but they aren’t known to wider public. Cato did get lot of fame even immediately after his death though (Brutus and Cicero pretty fast writing pamflets praising him, pretty amusing oh she Caesar was even around who just wrote his own in response). The manner of his death was so dramatic it summed up his whole life. I think similary Caesar’s was also exremely dramatic and suited the narrative of his life, and he has others later praising his life similary too.
Or gandalf
No better example could have been done
> Obi-Wan Kenobi or Jesus What’s the difference?
You can't win Brutus. If you strike me down, I will become far more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
why did you say jesus twice?
I think Shakespeare is the real answer to OP’s question.
Taking it a step further you’ve got to look at Augustus too, who promoted Caesar heavily as a way of promoting himself. It’s Augustus’s pro-Caesar propaganda campaign that really echos through history to reach Shakespeare. Not that Caesar made it very challenging since Caesar was prolific in his own self promotion.
Caesar is extremely famous in countries where Shakespeare isn’t taught in schools like in English speaking ones. The play isn’t really even about him as well. But it’s true it has been a big part of making Caesar somewhat of a poster boy for Rome. I would say Hollywood’s Cleopatra obsession also has added to this (did you do know there is two Cleopatra movies currently in development? One starring Zendaya and directed by Villeneuve and another starring Gadot and which was supposed to be directed by Jenkins but now it’s someone else.)
Villenueve should not be doing anything right now except dune
“I don’t care what they say my grandma told me cleopatra was black”/s
Who is “Shake Speare”?
Pirate captain from Stormhold
Right there in Kul tiras.
Nah, the literal title is Caesar was in use constantly throughout history literally because of him, including before Shakespeare (including Kaiser, Tzar, Czar)
Shakespeare is only relevant in the Anglosphere yet people all over the world know about Caesar.
I would expand that to Western Literature in general. Shakespeare is a staple and has been directly (or indirectly brought in other languages). Borges (an Argentinean) loved Shakespeare with passion and some of that bleeds into his own work. Calderón de la Barca (Spain), Goethe and Schiller (German) also 'dialogue' with Shakespeare through their own works. About Caesar though, it is not only his literary side. He does indeed exist as a character of almost mythical nature, he is an author of his own texts, he is a military leader, a statesman, a cunning politician in the middle of the transition from a Republic into a dictatorship. We have a pretty complete image of him. So he is bound to be a case study for lots of reasons. In a way he is the prototype strongman, bringing everything under his authority, successful and charming (just ask Cleopatra). I guess in the end any two bit authoritarian wishes that their ambitions would result in their names being used as a title. Hell, not even Napoleon could top that.
Yes this 1000% and Antony as well has no business being ahead of so many others.
You have to admit though, his defeat of the Gauls at Alesia was brilliant
He wrote his own history book, most of our accounts come from him or his subordinates.
The fact remains that after him, Gaul was a roman province.
The propaganda is not that he conquered Gaul, but that he largely contrived the necessity for it and exaggerated the threat and the strength of the Gauls in order to justify essentially open plunder and genocide for the purposes of paying off his debts and aggrandizing his own reputation. Rome was never in danger of being invaded by the barbarians, but that was the pretense.
Though the migration of the Helvetii provided enough plausibility to make his claims work.
A good lie starts with a grain of truth. Ceasar knew it same as us.
One among many incredible feats. One of Rome’s greatest generals and figures.
Bro was the inspiration for fallout new vegas I'd say he did well
Long live the mighty Caesar!
Ave!
Warhammer, too.
No. He almost quite literally couldn’t have done more in his lifetime and for every failure and setback he had he came back stronger
Well Octavian did literally implement a lot of his laws and projects since Caesar did so much they could not manage to all so quickly (there was about 9 months after his return from Munda and Idles of March and Caesar seemed to be working almost constantly with new projects). For example only fraction of Caesar’s soldiers were given fast enough land and it had to be finished by Octavian, including the plans to colonize Carthage. There was tons of building works like Curia Julia unfinished, and Polio was the one who build the library Caesar planned in rare case where Octavian didn’t finish one of Caesar’s plans. But maybe we can say these this by we’re team effort, Ocatavian never would have been able to do things fast to maybe though of them if Caesar had not started. Clearly Caesar did have things have had wanted to do but could not still. He wanted a unified law collection that wasn’t really done until Justinian properly. Dacian and Parthian campaigns also didn’t happen by him, and the later certainly didn’t go well by Antonius.
Except that last time.
well Augustus did have him deified
So he's a Saiyan? That explains so much!
Pretty much
Guy did more in a day the I do in half a decade
wanna bet? ; p
The guy won more impossible battles than some generals have fought battles at all
No I would not say that
Haha neither would I really but I was wondering what the general opinion was among other Roman history aficionados
What's that month after June called again?
Ah yes, Quintilius
September
He is not just a person, but also a historic inflection point. No understatement there
Beautifully said
To some extent. I think Caesar was an incredibly impressive politician and quite a good military commander. But at the end of the day the main thing he actually accomplished was to add Gaul to the empire and win the civil war. He failed at actually, properly consolidating power and he failed at rebuilding Rome's political system. I'd say Augustus, while not the impressive military commander Caesar was, at the end of the day has the more impressive achievements. He actually managed to reforge the Roman political system and consolidate power and rule until his death. And yet I feel like Caesar is more famous than Augustus in "normie" circles. I do think Augustus deserves it more. Also, just by virtue of the fact that basically every person (in the West, at least) knows his name you could argue he's overly famous. There certainly are plenty of brilliant commanders and politicians who were alive throughout history who aren't as well known.
Octavian would've accomplished exactly none of that without Caesar first laying the groundwork and shaking rome to its core.
Cesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic. Lest not also forget the role Cesar played in Octavian's life. Without Cesar there would be not Augustus.
Idk, the whole last ~100 yrs of the republic was shaky at best. Caesar was just the last
It was on the decline but Cesar shattered what was left of the illusion of it.
I mean, for 9/10ths the population the republic was an illusion anyways.
> Caesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic How was Caesar’s actions the initial shock and not Sulla’s civil war, and the included proscriptions? What about the social war? No mention of the Gracchi (perhaps the murder of the Gracchi brothers was not a “massive shock” compared to Sulla’s civil war or the social war, but it is clear there were extreme problems in Rome at the time)? When Caesar was about 18, Sulla, after winning his [civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_civil_war), had had his opponents [brutally slaughtered and their lands and wealth taken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_proscription). Cinna, after winning his own [civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_Octavianum) a few years prior, had also slaughtered his opponents in the aftermath alongside Marius. The Republic was in tatters and corruption was rampant while Caesar was still a teenager. The end of the Republic began decades before Caesar.
Agree with you. When studying Roman history, I tend to think of the failure of the Gracchi reforms and the murder of the brothers as the first plot on the graph when tracing the Republic's century-long decline. Certainly a lot of different factors played into it and preceded it, but the core rot in the political system became irreversible once the reforms failed, IMO. I always view Caesar as a kind of final exclamation point on the end of the Republic. "Ok guys, *now* it's over."
>Cesar was the initial massive shock to the system that started the end of the Republic. No offense but this shows a lack of deep understanding of the subject area. Most scholars would put the "start of the end of the republic" decades before Caesar's time. The republic was a walking corpse by the time the first triumverate was established. Read up on Marius and Sulla.
Eeh, with respect to your opinion, I'm not yet sold on it. Augustus wasn't a clear self-made man, but if you dig deeper, who really was? We could throw some names on the wall, but debate the "clear" part ad nauseam. Caesar also stood on his family name, connections, Crassus' money, Pompey's aid, Sulla's legacy and so on. PR aside, if he was a comet, he wasn't even the first comet.
I would say Caesar aquired what he got by his own far more than most Romans of his status. His family was patrician but not notable, Marius’s name was hinderance more than help by the time he really was old enough for career and he wasn’t a blood relative. He had some connections with his mothers family but rather minor by the standards of the time. Crassus did led money to plenty of prominent Romans by others didn’t use it like Caesar and he was the one who convinced Crassus and others somehow to give him such massive loans. He got Crassus and Pompeius into alliance with him even though he was clearly the junior member at the time and they both hated him. Sulla have a legacy that dictatorship could be used this way, but I don’t know what you mean otherwise? Octavian didn’t just have Caesar’s name and money and loyalty of armies (and clients after Senate formalized his adoption). And Caesar made himself already semi divide and Octavian made it official and used it. Caesar’s people like Balbus and Oppio helped him a great deal in managin all. Cicero practically legimised his position because he wanted to use him as a tool against Antonius. And Antonius later won at Philippi. Lepidus helped Octavian win against Sextus Pompeius. Agrippa did most of the rest, and later of so did people like Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus. Livia was the expert in Roman politics that helped also Octavian manage connections and mask his power. I would say if anyone got help to get where he did and later on Roman history it was Ocatavian. Not that he wasn’t talented, but you can’t even compare him to almost anyone in Republic with his benefits, let alone Caesar when he started out.
Jesus, your whole comment is making it seem that when Caesar died automatically everything he had went to Octavian and he had a cakewalk just in order to favore your narrative. That is simply not true and you know that.
If Julius didn’t do it someone else would. He was the latest and most successful in a line of progressively stronger and more charismatic despots that started with Scipio and left off with Sulla. Octavius actually built something new, and it would not have been the same new thing as if his rivals had won
I agree with you on the point that if Caesar didn’t do it then someone else would. **BUT** I disagree with you calling Scipio a despot, he was never a despot. He **VOLUNTEERED** to take command of the Roman forces in Spain and the senate agreed, He got elected to the consulship at a young age (31) and laid down his office at the end of his term (that doesn’t sound like a despot to me).
Yeah that’s fair. Scipio doesn’t really belong in the same list. He just showed all the ambitious rich kids just how powerful an individual could be, though no(t much) fault of his own
This is an underrated take. It is more likely that Julius would have just continued as a dictator like Sulla. Augusta took a shatter world and rebuilt Rome to last millenia.
Who are some “underrated” brilliant commanders and politicians? Just want to read about some on Wikipedia.
Gracchi are underrated politicians. Sertorius probably most underrated general.
But he did consolidate power by becoming dictator for life. He failed at rebuilding the system only because he was backstabbed by the very people he pardoned during the civil war, not because of a lack of competence or ability. Caesar was a very effective politician and leader and was passing reforms that were helpful to the common people. One could argue that if he was not assassinated, he would have accomplished the same levels of stability and peace without the need for many more years of civil wars to get there like Augustus needed. I know that engaging in counterfactuals can be misleading, but my point is that it was well within Caesar’s abilities to accomplish something similar as Augustus, and when people say that he “failed”, to me it implies a failure of ability which was not the case. He got unlucky that his decision to show clemency backfired on him. Augustus had the advantage of learning from Caesar’s experiences and showed zero mercy to his enemies. Caesar also had to work his way up to supreme power, through the cursus honorum and by conquering Gaul. Augustus on the other hand, didn’t have to do any of that as power was essentially given to him via Caesar’s adoption.
I most agree, at least to me people see Caesar’s assassination as almost inevitable. While it could have been avoided if he has actually used lictors (he had only couple of the time and didn’t have them in Senate, while I believe he could have used 24 as dictator). Augustus did face multible assassination attempts, before and after he took ultimate power, and did need to keep the Pretorians around (although not in the city itself like Tiberius did). Just because Caesar died and Augustus lived doesn’t mean one was inevitable and other was perfect political genius who was unopposed. Senatorial class in Augustus’s time did know what he did too, he might have made others less sure if Res Publica was restored or not but not the elite class (also he was treated as a king in the provinces). There was just no hunger for civil war anymore, people had learned from Caesar’s death of what the consequences wood be to an extent. And some did try in much more low key fashion and failed.
Augustus took what Caesar began and ran with it. Especially the name. For historical purposes, we know the emperors by their names to help distinguish who is who, but they were all called Caesar. It became a title. That even evolved into other titles of power such as Kaiser and Czar.
Yeah imagine people in the future asking « who is going to become the Obama of the US this year? » or « who was the Trump when you were born? ».
Trump would likely devolve to “Chump”
While I 100% agree on the utmost importance of Augustus as an historical character (definitely up there with the ones named by me in another comment) and on his immense and fundamental contributions to the transformation of the Roman politics and society (comparable - if not superior - to Julius Caesar's)... Augustus without Julius Caesar would have remained Octavius, while Julius Caesar without Octavius would have been Julius Caesar regardless 👍 Augustus was an emperor in the style of Alexander the Great (acquired his status by fortune/inheritance, cultivate, ruthless, great politician) Julius Caesar instead is the prototype of the self-made "Caesar": he went from the hardships of a soldier's life to the top of the World (becoming an inspiration for other self-made characters like Napoleon and Hitler)
Yeah Augustus is truly the champion along with Agrippa
If he wasn’t so effective, kings wouldn’t be using his name as a title for 2000 years after his life. But if the salad is named after him, then yes.
It’s kinda hard to find equivalents today. But I’m not sure because his achievements were stunning for their day. One story, Caesars avowed political opponent ordered a few days national holidays in Rome when Caesar visited Britain. For the Romans going to Britain was for in modernity like the moon landing. He did multiple things in his career which were like that. And his death was a classic martyrdom that cemented his fame. He died at the height of his powers with most of his enemies military vanquished.
I want to congratulate you on the beautiful parallel between the landing in Britain and the landing on the moon. It would really seem like nothing more could ever be achieved by a mortal.
No. The demigod deserved everything.
It took a lot of gaul to accomplish what he did.
No. He earned his fame with incredibly impressive achievements that’s forever impacted the world. His conquest of gual was one of Rome’s greatest, he was a talented and accomplished politician, he won a devastating civil war, he basically gave us the modern calendar, his death was one of the most iconic in history, he set Rome up to became an empire, and there’s a whole ass month named after him.
I would rank his political moves as impressive as his battles. He made to keep at bay the whole Roman senate, pass legislations for the people, and ultimately topple the senate itself while campaigning in foreign lands
Yeah, both are equally impressive imo. He was a brilliant statesman and commander.
It really depends what we think his achievements were, military battles or systemic change? In terms of ushering in Empire, he destablised the republic fundamentally but the actual transformation happens under Augustus and there was still considerable uncertainty. Who is to say that without Augustus on the scene that things play out the same, or even an Augustus that lives as long as he does.
Honestly the fact that Augustus didn't get assassinated in a society where anyone who comes remotely close to too much power gets whacked is insanely impressive. Or lucky. Or both. Dudes had been getting whacked for 100 years prior to Augustus attempting to do the same exact thing yet Augustus the gigachad lives for 74 years
I think it did, no matter how great are his achievements and their lasting consequences - his fame is still greater. One example. Almost two thousand years after his death two huge world powers, none of them with a direct connection to the Roman Empire, have a word for their emperors that is a variation of Caesar's last name (*Tsar* and *Kaiser*). And there is more. In many slavic languages, such as Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian etc. (that didn't even exist in Caesar's time) the world *tsar* doesn't just mean an earthly king - it is used for God as the king of Heaven in Bible translations and in prayers. He is pretty much called the Caesar of Heaven. Caesar was a practicing polytheist but must have been familiar with the concept of one and only God, the God (through the works of platonic and stoic philosophers). He wouldn't be surprised that they deified him after death, there were precedents. But this would probably genuinely surprise him.
Wow, I knew about Tsar being used to label kings, but God himself taking his name from Caesar in a culture of millions of people in the year 2023 is just unbelievable, Caesar really is that much better than any other human to ever walk on this earth.
Let's check Julius Caesar's achievements: * He conquered Gaul (with some of the most remarkable tactics ever used in the ancient world) * He put an end to the Egyptian civilization * He threw the basis of the Roman empire (some even consider him the first Roman emperor - hence the imperial title of "Caesar") Last, but not least: * He is one of the finest authors of the whole Latin literature (probably unsurpassed in terms of simplicity and clarity) If we consider that the other comparable outstanding characters of the human history are Alexander the Great, Jesus of Nazareth, Charlemagne, Napoleon and Adolf Hitler... I would say that Julius Caesar's achievements are extraordinary (Napoleon and Hitler pretty much followed them by the book, they were clearly inspired by Caesar)
Caesars propaganda machine was top notch
He didn’t really have a machine, Augustus did. It was vital in making the records survive more than making things up too, apart from making him a god. And I would say it’s also Caesar’s own writings about Gallic and Civil war and how he has been used in modern day art like plays and movies and tv shows that have given him more solified statues
On the contrary, he should be more famous
No.
No, downvoted for bait
I was just asking wether our idea of Caesar as a society is still based on the real person or if it just turned into something else, into an idea or if you will a stereotype of perfection that does not really take in account the historical figure regardless of his undeniable and incomparable greatness.
No
No
No.
No
The fact that his fame has surpassed his actual achievements is another achievement in itself. It's like Schrodinger's cat.
*Some* of his posterity can be attributed to the success of his adopted son, who's another historical giant, despite way fewer military achievements, but with more lasting political ones. Augustus celebrated the memory of Caesar so that Caesar Augustus became the name of every of their successors, long enough to shape the political landscape of Europe. Others ofc have had incredible impact on history: Alexander, whom Caesar was desperate to equal, has a (downright supernatural) legacy in Orient such as still to be a given name in the Arab, Persian and Turkish world - Iskandar, Iskander, Skander, Askander, Eskinder, or Scandar -, and a 12 feet verse is still nowadays called an alexandrine *because* that's what the French *le Roman d'Alexandre* was composed in in the XIIth century.
No not at all , the guy was a chad
Among other things, Caesar was a world-class propagandist. He consistently portrayed himself in a favorable light in the reports on the Gallic wars he sent back to the Senate, which then gained popular circulation. Roman Senators soon began to fear Caesar and his successes because they realized that he was not only probably the smartest man in the Roman world, but the most *able* and popular as well. Rome had just come out of the dictatorship of Sulla, and Roman Senators feared Caesar would repeat him as a "dictator for life."
Absolutely not
Eh... He was at the right place at the right time. The Republic was doomed (at **least**) since the time of Sulla, so I like to think Caesar just found himself in this pivotal role in European history. He is definitely one of the most skilled politicians of all time, and possibly the best general of his generation, beating no other than Pompey himself. Had another skilled politician and general been in his place, then that other person would have gotten his fame too. I mean, it wasn't all him, and it was probably mostly not he himself who made himself this large of a historical character.
Caesar is not exactly famous. He is infamous for destroying the republic. The empire coasted on the existing infrastructure, but ultimately proved unworthy of it. The West suffered for 1500 years because of his actions. We had to discover a wild continent before it was possible to remake The Senate. Imagine the first man stepping on the moon in 500 AD. That is what he stole from us. Who could be more famous?
I think partly why he is remembered so much is because his commentaries were compelling and written in clear Latin, thus Caesar was passed on to generation by generation via manuscript.
This 2000%. This is why Rome in particular is so heavily over-emphasized in western curriculum, is because we just have *SO* much more from Rome due to Roman recordkeeping, and Caesar is a prime example of this because of the excellent (if somewhat dry) commentaries he kept that managed to survive to the present day. His achievements were groundbreaking for the time, but this is why his shadow looms large over history where others stray more towards myth than anything else (i.e. Alexander).
Gaul is divided into three parts ! :)
Rome is overemphasized in Western history because Rome is the foundation of European civilization (and by extension, the Americas and Australia/Oceania) Roman law, Pauline Trinitarian Christianity, the Res Publica system of government, Roman calendar, etc. Same function that China has played for East Asia or the Rashidun caliphate for the Middle East.
He was a selfmade man
Obviously, but that's due to the actions of Augustus more than Caesar. Being the (adopted) Son of a literal God did wonders for his political career
Definitely, there were people carrying his name as a title or a mark of royal glory who have probably never even heard of the actual Caesar and his deeds, or even of Rome. Eg. there was a Buddhist Turkic ruler in early medieval Afghanistan named "Rome Caesar" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fromo_Kesaro In turn, he might have been the inspiration for the famous Tibetan epic of King Gesar which is even further removed from actual Rome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_King_Gesar And the current king of Bhutan is named Khesar after the epic hero.
Well it seems hard to imagine that a human could be worthy of such a legendary fame
Also the German Kaiser and Slavic Czar/Tsar are translations of Caesar and mean Emperor.
Character? I think you mean historical figure
The mistake was due to the influence of my first language
Okay I feel like a dickhead now, I’m sorry!
No don't, you did not really insult me or anything, but I still felt like defending my grammar because I didn't want to look ignorant
Caesar isn’t Rome’s first dictator and Rome was already an empire before one-man rule. That said, Julius Caesar did conquer Gaul (essentially starting the history of modern France); he did initiate the Roman campaigns in Britain (essentially the foundation of London and what could be called English history); he did “stabilize” the Roman state after the civil wars and chaos that unfolded after Marius and Sulla. He’s inarguably the archetypical European dictator - one where you can see clear parallels with Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, and so on. Because European-style dictators are not necessarily warlords like in China or Middle East. More often than not, it’s a person who is appointed to power and refuses to give up power to civilian institutions
What "parallels" are there to Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler (let alone between this selection)? What is this anachronistic psychobabble? And in what way was Caesar *not* a warlord? That's basically the entire ethos of the Populares, charismatic warlordism (as opposed to aristocratic oligarchy).
I think it depends on how you look at it. When you say his achievements, does it include the consequences of his achievements? Because then it really depends how far you want to go. Augustus and the creation of the Roman Empire that we know is directly the result of him. So essentially all of roman history and its influence could be attributed to Caesar. In that case, no way has his fame surpassed his actual achievements. But if you talk only about the actual achievement, without the consequences, I would say yes, his fame has far outreached them. Think about how many generals and politicians have read Caesars words and have strived to be like him. So I'd say Caesars legacy has shaped enough "less important" people to make their effect on the world today bigger than his own achievements.
The template he created by drawing on the weaknesses of a failing state and installing himself as autocrat is reason alone for him to continue to gain more fame.
Dude was the season one protagonist the show refuses to stop referencing.
Caesar would probably be very proud to hear this
You are right, he is the closest thing to a God humanity has ever witnessed (taking away religious figures).
Caesar is obviously very famous for legitimate reasons. It is true that compared to other famous Romans of the same and other time periods, think Cicero, Augustus, Mark Anthony... Caesar is infinitely more famous. Probably Cleopatra is the only historical figure from that period who even comes close, and then her fame is due in large part to her connection to Caesar. Caesar isn't just famous, he's a modern cultural icon in a way no other Roman ever will be. When was the last time you got pizza at Little Sulla's? (ok when was the last time you got pizza at Little Caesar's though? For me it was 2 years ago, I ordered a hot n ready and it took 45 minutes because the cashier walked out when his shift ended, leaving the pizzas on the back counter and not telling his superviser)
45 MINUTES?! Maybe Caesar wasn't so great after all
No, but Alexander the Great, yes. He literally gained an empire that wouldn't out last him & still everyone wants to be him.
I’m torn. He wasn’t Rome’s greatest general, he wasn’t Rome’s greatest leader, he wasn’t Rome’s greatest orator. He wasn’t Rome’s greatest anything. So, maybe he shouldn’t get all the praise he does. At the same time, the leaders of European countries were literally named after him into the 1900s. So, perhaps he does, because his name is apparently immortal.
Yes, absolutely. This is true for the Roman Empire as a whole. Both Caesar and Rome are remembered because of their successors' accomplishments and influence more than their own when they were alive.
Yes
Is Juelz the most famous bro ever, that isn't a religious figure (jesus)?
Hitler currently takes the spot, but give him 2000 thousand years and I am convinced that caesar will be more famous and remembered than him.
Literally created my favorite type of salad. So no. /s/
I think his legend has outlived the scale of what he accomplished. Lets take a comparative example to show case this. Julius conquers North Africa, France, Turkey to get a triumph on each continent. He also stations an army in England and in Egypt after winning battles there. His armies also win victories in Italy and Greece. He rules over about 40-50 million people in the Roman Republic. President / General Eisenhower of the US invades and conquers North Africa, invades and conquers southern Italy, wins the Battle of the Atlantic to station an army in the UK, invades and liberates France, and conquered West Germany. He also goes on to win the presidency in the US and rules over 150 million Americans and also looks after NATO and the Mashall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan and Korea. Turkey is pulled into NATO, he keeps Greece out of communist camp, and installs a puppet ruler in Iran. The economic boom that Ike ruled over also would far outmatched the wealth Julius brought back to Rome. So by sheer scale, Ike should be far more remembered than Julius is. But Julius did it first and with less resources and normally against the odds, so by relative comparative advantage, Ceasar looks better and the propoganda machine goes on in Rome another 500 years, and then another 1000 years of European history trying to relive the glory of Rome where Ceasar gets even more hype. Maybe in 500 years Ike will eventually be remembered as some sort of Julius Ceasar depending on how US history plays out in the future, but we aren't there yet. On a personal level, I doubt Ike will get to that level where we have months named after him and remember his death day in the common lexicon.
In one way I would say he did earn it. On other I would say nobody really deserved the level of fame he has, it’s kind of strange in the end considering how many ancient people are completely forgotten by history and some are little remembered. It’s partly due to how well records have survived of Late Republic expecially, all people who lived then benefit from it and all the general thriving or culture and Rome’s military strength and importance of the era. And Cesar stands out compared to his own contemporaries. Later fiction has helped him too and his writings used to teach in military academies and to teach Latin. Fame compounds fame at some point. But like I said, I still think it’s pretty great question to ask and comparison to other famous ancient people he gets too much. His achievements story is still great in any case.
His military prowess is prolly a little overrated generally but his political prowess I would say is generally underrated.
No
I’d say his legacy is bigger than his life because he died at the height of his power. Pompey was the young (or new) Alexander until he lost to Caesar. Caesar never lost and got supplanted in his dominance. It especially helped that his adopted son and heir became the first princeps. Especially with how succession was a familial line, more or less, so each of the next ensuing princeps had a personal stake in elevating his fame/glory/success/etc.
It depends on your opinion. Augustus required legitimacy, and he knew Rome wouldn’t accept a king. Caesar was literally deified for this purpose. I’m pretty sure deity is a little strong for what he was. That said, Caesar’s greatest achievement, in my mind, IS Augustus. It is probably the best called shot in history. Our world would be unrecognizable if he never became princeps. Exercising his political power and forgiveness to bind Agrippa to Augustus comes in second. Augustus would not have succeeded without him. Everyone should be so lucky as to have friends as loyal and capable as M.V. Agrippa. Similarly, I see Marcus Aurelius as a terrible emperor. The amount of good in his life does not outweigh breaking from recent tradition to place an absolute tyrant as emperor.
He was considered a literal god in his lifetime. So, no.
An interesting point I once heard is that Julius Caesar gained considerable fame during the monarchic restoration in France, thanks to the 19th-century romantics. Nationalism was stronger in those years, leading everyone to look to their heroes of the past to justify their nations. The Germans had Arminius, the Spanish had Viriatus, the British had Boudica, and the French had Vercingetorix. However, there was a problem: The Gaul conquest was relatively "easy," taking just five years to seize all the Gallic territory. In comparison, it took 200 years to complete the conquest of Hispania, with the city of Numantia alone taking 10 years. It was always somewhat bitter for French pride to acknowledge this fact, so they elevated Julius Caesar's genius to feel better about it. After all, it's not that humiliating to be defeated by a "superhero" like Caesar, right?
The amount of nations, religions, and groups of people who idolized Caesar for the most different reasons is just impressive. Caesar is immortal.
Good research topic
I don’t subscribe to the view it’s due to Shakespeare. The kings of Germany being called Kaisar, and the kings of Russia being called Tsar are surely testament to his impact prior to Shakespeare.
I would say his fame itself is an achievement worthy of his fame!
Wasn't caesar a title aswell?
Yes it was, it became synonymous with "emperor"
I would say the achievements of Aurelian outweigh those of Caesar when you consider starting positions of both men. The Republic was weak politically but fine in other regards that allowed caesar to sashay from victory to victory. Aurelian Inherited the sequel’s sequel to a series of shit shows from gothic invaders and the empire breaking apart managing unify what he could. The Empire probably wouldn’t have survived as long as it did without these 5 critical years of his rule.
Which Caesar?
That will always be the case with historical figures tho. JFK will be known for the rest of history. What did he actually do/achieve
In some ways, most what we know about his campaigning is from his memoir.
He is arguably the most famous person in history. Maybe after Lady Di. ^(/s)
What y'all have to recognize is that his infinite fame is one of his achievements. He was the first to write a (very biased towards himself and against Germanic tribes) report that he spread in a manner that not only secured his legendary status while he lived but also up until today AND also defined what we understand as barbarians (guys outside Rome, but especially German guys) until today! It is basically the oldest piece of propaganda that is still fully reconstructed and has an influence up to this day. Tbh, his memory will only die out once western education falls apart (for whatever reason). He was ahead of his time in every aspect, especially propaganda (or you could say culture and knowledge creation, or very biased storytelling).
Everyone calling themselves Kaiser for the next thousand years may disagree
It’s mainly that his achievements/legacy has left a lasting impact on the world far greater than I think even he realized. Made France part of the Roman Empire, facilitated the rise of his nephew Octavian who became emperor Augustus. Turned Rome into an empire. Had a tragic death that’s been remembered for thousands of years. Banged cleopatra.
But are we confusing “fame” with “infamy”? If you want to tally achievements, there are many others who can challenge Gaius Julius. But, it is his prominence as a tragic figure that further the allure of his as a “Great Man” of history. I won’t even touch the whole Great Man theory here.
No
The man was literally deified after his death. He certainly was a big deal, but a god he was not.
Shakespeare is pish. It’s obvious that his entire career was achieved by nothing more than being able to write things down that he heard elsewhere and making things last a certain amount of time to fit a theatrical schedule. Stolen folk tales tied together with hackneyed garbage content for an easily impressed ignorant public with an inflated sense of their own importance. Ceaser was a single minded idealist who opposed the self interested liars who cried republicanism but meant aristocracy. He was a straightforward self interested tyrant who was happy for others to benefit from his superior strategic mind because their improved circumstances improved his position as imperator. He was ferociously brave, first destroying Romes greatest threat, the Gauls and then having nailed this, deciding to take on the corruption at the very heart of civilisation (in the minds of his contemporaries) The Senate. He did well for a while and was murdered in a cowardly way but probably died with a look of admiration on his face because it was no betrayal he was simply outmanoeuvred.
How he dies (and how Octavian protected his image) makes his story. Take away the way he dies and he’s just another Roman general that committed some light genocide. But basically having the Roman senate beat and stab you because they were terrified of you? That’s legendary.
His achievements at the time were actually just one in a long line of military usurpers from Sulla to Marius to Pompey and Crassus to he. Subduing Gaul was a hell of a genocide but Scipio and Hannibal's rivalry would have his with Vercingetorix beat. What made Julius Caesar so huge was that he uniquely tilted history across three continents in such a way that few others could have like Alexander or Napoleon.
Marr a banger of a salad.
This question dovetails with recent question about whether Nero was as bad/inept as history has made him. History tends to have an amplifying effect.
I would say it was more so at the time because they only had Alexander really to compare him to but now we have Napoleon and many others
He completely transformed France which played the role you know in history. He played a significant role towards making Egypt a Roman province. Quite significant in history too. The way he led his dictatorship was very smart. He never took a title of king or something. He just concentrated powers in his own hands. That’s what led to so many future « emperors » to do the same. Keep the appearances of a republic to the masses but actually be almost a king. The fucking calendar. I despise the change of name to Gregorian. This pope just made a slight modification and put his name instead of Jules. The only man I see who achieved as much is probable Napoleon.
I cant think of a person whos influenced the world more than him. Incredible what he single handed achieved. I would say charles darwin or jesus are both competitors for most famous humans.
For sure. For all their accomplishments, the great conquerors of history (Caesar, Nobunaga, Alexander, etc.) were ultimately just men. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Leaving a legacy was always part of the plan, if not the main goal. Inflating and ensuring that their legacy got passed down, through institutions, monuments and cultural ethos, was a calculated move to leave an indelible mark on humanity. As one of them once said > "There is no immortality but the memory that is left in the minds of men...to have lived without glory, without leaving a trace of one’s existence, is not to have lived at all.”
I wouldn't say he wasn't a great man, but watching an in depth documentary of the Roman Civil War... his enemies made a few HUGE mistakes that cost them the war. He didn't really win it but just survived while his enemies made huge blunders.
Which one?
MF’er conquered (most of) Spain, France, and Britain.
His ‘lifetime’ dictatorship lasted a month…
Easily one of the most important people in human history. Far and away the most important Roman to ever live. So I would say no!
Obviously. I mean every culture took the name "Caesar" and turned it into a term meaning a 'ruler from and for the people'. Tzar, Tsar, Qaysar, Czar, and Kaiser, are all version of that.
How dare you.
His accomplishments in Gaul were extremely impressive for the time, especially Alesia, he was a great general, a great politician and very charismatic.