Download Was Julius Caesar a Tyrant or a Hero? From 49 BCE

Was Julius Caesar a Tyrant or a Hero?
From 49 BCE-44 BCE Julius Caesar was the dictator of Rome. Within the epoch of his reign he
did many political and personal acts that historians and people alike debate about the not so simple
question of weather Caesar was a power hungry, controlling, and insane tyrant or if he was a
kindhearted, strong, and passionate hero. The two words tyrant and hero are basically separated into the
two categories of bad and good. Was Julius Caesar a bad tyrant or a good hero? For something that
happened so long ago I believe it is important for the reason that we might be able to categorize
tyrannous dictators and dictators that are good for their countries into groups that may need to be acted
upon. In my paper I will explain why I think Julius Caesar was what he was, and why I have concluded
this.
Although many people today consider Julius Caesar as a fine example of a dictator, after
looking at the facts I believe this is not true. Caesar did some bad things in his reign such as breaking
ancient laws and destroying armies that stood against him. I think one of the most important things he
did was sweeping away the corrupt Republic of Rome. The Roman Republic was considered a
democracy but it was a terrible system. As sighted in document 3 “ The Republic needed tax money
which started the need for tax farmer... Since there were no rules on how much a tax farmer could
charge it was up to the individual...A tax farmer could charge you an outrageous amount and if it
wasn’t paid you could be sold into slavery.” This is clearly not a democratic system but an aristocratic
dictatorship calling themselves a republic. The tax farmers could simply have you sold into slavery if
they had a grudge against you. Another reason the Roman Republic was such a terrible system is that
leaders simply used power to get rich. “ Many laws were not good laws, but laws designed to get rich.
People paid a lot of money for bias laws to be placed or abolished.” Says document 3. Clearly the
Republic was not there for the people but for themselves and the act of making money by being in
power. Caesar rid Rome of this system and brought in his dictatorship that did not favor the rich
minority, but the poor minority.
Caesar may have helped the poor and done good deeds for Rome, but he is responsible for
many deaths and other crimes such as wanting to be king of the world. “ Our tyrant deserved to die.
Here was a man who wanted to be king of the Roman people and master of the whole world...It is not
fair to want want to be king in a state that used to be free and ought to be today.” Cicero said after the
assassination of Caesar. The senate wanted Caesar out of power because his goal was not to help Rome,
but to be the divine ruler of Rome. “ His solution was to reconstitute himself as a Roman form of
Hellenistic divine ruler of Rome.” Says document 4. Since his early days in politics Julius Caesar had
always dreamed of being the ruler of Rome if not the world. He had the hunger for power that a
Republic could not bring him. So in the end he invaded Rome with his army, breaking an ancient law
saying no general could bring their army into Rome, and took over. He then declared himself dictator.
And held a powerful empire in his hands.
Caesar clearly committed tyrannical acts, but as much as he may look like a tyrant in our time,
was he a tyrant in his time? After Caesar came one of the most evil tyrants in history, Nero. “Nero
murdered his mother and wife. He confiscated senators' property and severely taxed
the people to build his own golden home. Whether he played his lyre while Rome
burned or was involved behind the scenes in some other way, he put the blame on the
Christians and had many killed.” Says History.Com. If a man such as Nero, who
commited crimes that are tabooed to the edge, ruled Rome for years, and this was
accepted for a decent amount of time. I highly doubt that many Romans truly
concidered Julius Caesar to be a real tryant. A real tyrant, which Rome had plenty
of, was someone who was truly did bad for the empire. Nero did not help the empire
but overtaxed to build a palace, and commit genocide. Julius Caesar expanded the
empire and did more good than many leaders of the ancient world.
This deep into this essay you now now that Caesar did do some bad things, but I think that his
good deeds outweigh the bad. Caesar was not only loved by his people but he gave them power.
“Caesar's colonial policy, combined with his generosity in granting citezinship, was to rejuvinate the
Roman legions and governing class...” “Despite not drowning Rome in blood like Sulla and Marius had
done.” All these in document 1. Caesar was good to his people and did not kill inocents for his power.
He granted citzenships and expanded the population while empowering the lower classes, something
the Republic had never done in the past. Julius Caesar was not a tyrant because a tyrant will kill
whoever to be in power, something Caesar did not do. Caesar was not a tyrant because he was fair and
favored the majority rather than the rich and powerful minority. He did so much good for Rome that for
one to consider him a tyrant is highly arguable.
I think to call Caesar a tyrant of a hero is similar to calling a shade of black red or blue. In
history we can look at the facts and put him on a general side but I do not think Caesar was a hero. I
think that he was an emperor that did good things, and at the same time did bad. If I had to choose a
side I would easily say that Caesar helped Rome become a better place and is a good example of
someone who did some bad things but on the way also did some great things that will affect history
forever.