THE ROAD TO CAESAR: ESTABLISHING THE
BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
COREY MORRELL

This essay will focus on the primary reasons for Rome’s transition from a Republic
to an Empire. Much has been said about this period, most of which emphasizes
Caesar as the primary focal point. However, only by analyzing the events and
people that led to Caesar’s rule can we gain a more comprehensive understanding
of the collapse of the Roman Republic. The later stages of the Republic culminated
centuries of turmoil between the people of Rome and their government. Rome’s
citizens now demanded more control of their lives through independence.
Meanwhile, in the political sphere, the same idea of individualism sparked rivalries
between men like Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar—with Caesar
ultimately gaining control over the Republic. Consequently, these men all
attributed to the destruction of western democracy, and the creation one of the most
powerful empires the world has known.

No clear date in history can be pointed to as the fracturing of the Roman Republic
and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, looking back to specific
events and people does help to clarify why there was a change in political structure
to begin with. In the first century BCE, a struggle for power lasting hundreds of
years between people of all classes and political ideologies came to an inevitable
point of no return when Caesar announced his own word as law. 1 Leading up to
this, the Republic—plagued by war and agricultural instability 2—fought to survive
during a time of imbalanced power within the government. Adding to this internal
conflict, a demand for civic rights among the population was growing steadily. A
struggle for dominance between the patricians and plebeians were early inklings of
the changes to come, the populares’ and optimates’ constant fight for political
control was like nothing seen before, Marius and Sulla’s rivalry shattered political
Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Volume I: Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula, trans. J.
C. Rolfe. Intro. K. R. Bradley. Loeb Classical Library 31. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1914), 77.
2
David Shotter, The Fall of the Roman Republic, (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010), 13.
1

HiPo Vol. 4

63

March 2021

norms, and Pompey would come out of it all on top… for a short time. All of this
eventually led to the end of the prosperous Republic and the start of something new.
By examining these political and social changes of the late Republic era, the reasons
for its collapse become much more apparent when considering the various men who
contributed to it. Indeed, the Republic’s collapse can be attributed to the natural
reactions caused by not one but several Roman leaders contending for their own
complete and authoritative control over Rome.
Although Rome’s common people were living in relatively prosperous times during
the Republic, there was a collective feeling of imbalance between them and their
leaders that served as early warning signs of a significant shift in society. While the
Republic lacked a central source of power, it prided itself on the three political
pillars of which the power was dispersed: the consuls, the senate, and the people. 3
Although technically an essential part of the trifecta, the latter realized they
realistically held little to no power when it came to politics, the economy, military,
or religion. 4 As the backbone of Rome, the working class served as a vital
component for the economy, yet almost every aspect of their lives was out of their
control and in their leaders’ hands. As for the bottom of the civil hierarchy—the
poor—the rich were taking away their homes. Cheap land available for the poor
soon became out of reach when wealthy landlords started to raise their rent,
eventually forcing many of the tenants out. 5 A law was later enacted disallowing
any one person to hold more than five hundred acres of land at a time. This law
meant the rich were obligated to keep people in their homes. 6 However, the wealthy
neighbouring landlords soon took control of these lands, leaving the less fortunate
to fend for themselves. Once again, the commoners were at the mercy of the higherups. It is no surprise then that people “no longer showed themselves eager” 7 when
the military inevitably came calling. Refusing to go to war sparked the start of a
new age of independence for the common people of Rome—an age that gave them
a voice that would shake up the political landscape and draw attention to the ones
who had ignored them for hundreds of years: the consuls. Once alienated, the
people of Rome were open to a new political structure, and their support would be
instrumental in building the Empire to be.
Along with the general population demanding more individual freedom, Rome was
also struggling regarding agriculture and territorial expansion. This struggle
resulted in opposition within the consul and set the stage for a division in leadership
that Rome had not experienced since the abolishment of the monarchy. With Rome
Shotter, 1.
Ibid, 2.
5
Plutarch, Lives, Volume X: Agis and Cleomenes. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Philopoemen and
Flamininus, trans. Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 102. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1921), 8.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
3
4

HiPo Vol. 4

64

March 2021

constantly expanding to outlying provinces and a military growing exponentially,
the number of overall magistrates grew out of necessity. 8 The nobility saw this as
a problem, but the solution led to a failure in leadership that played out in the
Carthaginian wars. 9 Ultimately, Rome required a new system of leadership, a
system that neither the “consuls [or] the praetors could provide.” 10 Governing
authorities of provinces refused to fall back into anonymity after their roles were
meant to end. This was a change from the times when they would silently fall back
into the shadows after they had completed their duty. 11 Thus, the concept of
individualism in government was beginning to overshadow the previous practices
of leadership. While internal conflict preoccupied the government, Rome was
expanding, and it needed a decentralized government to grow beyond its current
state. Meanwhile, the wars with Hannibal led people to question their loyalty
toward the Republic, as some felt they were on the wrong side. 12 The relationship
between the Romans and the Italians became hostile, creating a new problem
concerning Roman citizenship for Italians. What is more, as people abandoned their
land, agriculture continued to suffer immensely. 13 Rome was now seeking new
leadership, new citizens, and new reforms.
The future of Rome would depend entirely on the ability to stabilize the Republic
after this time of internal turmoil and division. 14 At the forefront of this conflict
were two men whose feud would catalyze Rome’s earliest civil wars: Gaius Marius
and Cornelius Sulla. Marius (a popularis) and Sulla (an optimatis) clashed in a
rivalry that had their respective sides of government at war with one another. When
Sulla, a man with a reputation for his “elimination of political rivals,” 15 marched
into Rome for the second time, there was no question who the victor would be.
Sulla became dictator—the first person to do so in over one hundred years—and
there was now no limit on the extent to which he could hold office. 16 For the first
time during the Republic, one man controlled Rome. Now came the realization for
other ambitious leaders that a dictatorship was something within the realm of
possibility. Much to the surprise of the Romans, Sulla’s reign was short-lived, as
his rule came to an abrupt end when he unexpectedly retired. His absence left an
opportunity for others to contest for the position by solidifying their spot as dictator.
In the absence of Sulla, a new rivalry developed between Pompey and Crassus.
However, it was soon put on temporary hold as they set their egos aside to form a
Shotter, 11.
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid, 12.
12
Ibid, 7.
13
Ibid, 13.
14
Ibid, 38.
15
Ibid, 41.
16
Ibid, 41.
8
9

HiPo Vol. 4

65

March 2021

political alliance in order to acquire more power with their combined wealth and
military influence. 17 In addition to this, the new duo dismantled Sulla’s reforms
along the way. Contrasted with Tiberius’s later reforms, when people were “by their
wrath and contentiousness to hate the law-giver,” 18 a sudden adjustment of political
undoing was generally well-received by the public. The joint consulship’s ability
to destabilize and undermine the Senate left room for Pompey take full advantage.
As he rose to greater heights, he promised stability for Rome, gaining a significant
amount support along the way. 19 One of his supporters, a man with much influence,
would provide the missing link for the alliance. An ambitious yet unassuming Julius
Caesar now aligned himself with Crassus and Pompey, and the First Triumvirate
was born.
The consolidation of power for Pompey assured him and future rulers’ dictatorship
over Rome. This achievement would be the beginning of the greatest empire to
have ever dominated the known world, all leading to the rise and fall of Caesar—a
man bigger than Rome itself. By constituting his own laws and reforms—some of
which were welcomed, others not so much 20—Caesar alienated himself from the
people he relied on most: the Senate. Suetonius, in his famous compendium Lives
of the Caesars, conveyed the significance of Caesar’s downfall when he stated that
his failure was not only due to the extravagant and unjust honours such as dictator
for life and “uninterrupted consulship… but [that] he also allowed honours to be
bestowed on him too great for mortal man.” 21 There was no longer any room for
such self-gratification in the Republic. By 31 BC—13 years after Caesar’s
assassination—Octavian’s success in defeating Mark Antony would diminish any
remaining thoughts of the old Republic. By securing victories over his enemies and
captivating the Roman world with his charismatic personality, he put an end to the
divisiveness between traditional government and individual determination within
the political sphere. 22 The Republic was shattered, and in its place, the looming
Empire picked up the pieces.
The idea that a single man could be thought of, either by himself or by the people,
as larger than the Roman world itself, is ultimately the mindset that led to the
formation of the Roman Empire after Caesar’s death. Sulla, Marius, Pompey,
Crassus, and Caesar were only a handful of rulers with this mindset who changed
the political direction of Rome. Nonetheless, they each played a significant role in
building a legacy that would span centuries, and would inform and influence the
ways in which future leaders would make their mark on the world. These were the
Shotter, 48.
Plutarch, 9.
19
Shotter, 52.
20
Suetonius, 41.
21
Ibid, 76.
22
Shotter, 94.
17
18

HiPo Vol. 4

66

March 2021

men who ensured the end of the Roman Republic and led to the start of something
that no one could ever have predicted: the greatest, most expansive empire ever to
rule the world. It was, in all of its glory, success, and failure, the beginning of the
end for the Roman Republic.

HiPo Vol. 4

67

March 2021

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PLUTARCH. Lives, Volume X: Agis and Cleomenes. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.
Philopoemen and Flamininus. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb
Classical Library 102. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.
SHOTTER, DAVID. The Fall of the Roman Republic. New York, NY: Routledge,
2010.
SUETONIUS. Lives of the Caesars, Volume I: Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius.
Caligula. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Introduction by K. R. Bradley. Loeb
Classical Library 31. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.

HiPo Vol. 4

68

March 2021