Julius Caesar

Gaius Julius Caesar (100–44 BCE) was a Roman general, statesman, and author who played a central role in the final decades of the Roman Republic. His conquest of Gaul expanded Roman dominion, while his victory in civil war established his political supremacy at Rome. Appointed dictator for life in 44 BCE, he was assassinated by a group of senators on March 15 of that year. He was not a Roman emperor in the later institutional sense, but his career helped create the circumstances from which the Roman Empire emerged. (en.wikipedia.org)

Caesar’s rise combined aristocratic connections, electoral politics, alliances, and military command. His government introduced administrative and social measures, including the Julian calendar, while concentrating authority in his hands. His assassination did not restore stable republican government: further civil wars eventually brought his adoptive heir Octavian, later Augustus, to sole power. Caesar also left influential accounts of his campaigns in Latin, making his writings both major literary works and essential, partisan sources for his career. His life, death, and subsequent reputation connect the history of Roman expansion with questions of political authority, historical evidence, and cultural memory. (encyclopedia.com)

Family Background and the Late Republican Setting

Gaius Julius Caesar was born in 100 BCE into the Julii, an ancient patrician clan of Rome. His father, also named Gaius Julius Caesar, held the praetorship and governed the Roman province of Asia; his mother, Aurelia, belonged to the Aurelii Cottae, a distinguished plebeian family. Patrician status denoted hereditary membership in a privileged ancestral order, not a guarantee of wealth or political predominance. Caesar’s family possessed established connections and experience in high office, but these documented advantages must be distinguished from its legendary genealogy. (oup.com.au)

The Julii claimed descent from Iulus, also called Ascanius, the son of the Trojan hero Aeneas, whose mother was the goddess Venus. This tradition supplied a divine pedigree rather than independently verifiable ancestry. Its political significance is illustrated by the funeral speech Caesar delivered for his paternal aunt Julia in 69 BCE. According to Suetonius, Caesar explicitly connected the Julii with Venus and Julia’s maternal ancestors with the Roman king Ancus Marcius. Such claims placed family prestige within Rome’s religious and historical traditions; they did not constitute evidence that the family’s ancestry could actually be traced to gods or legendary kings. (en.wikisource.org)

Julia’s marriage to Gaius Marius connected Caesar to one of the preceding generation’s most prominent commanders. Marius had defeated the Teutones in 102 BCE and the Cimbri in 101 BCE, and ultimately held seven consulships. Caesar acquired another consequential connection when, around 84 BCE, he married Cornelia, daughter of Lucius Cornelius Cinna, consul in four successive years from 87 to 84 BCE. These relationships linked him to the men who controlled Rome after Marius and Cinna seized the city in 87 BCE. They did not, however, make the Julii a uniformly aligned political family: relatives of Caesar’s father were among those killed during the victors’ reprisals. (livius.org)

Political advancement in the Roman Republic proceeded through elected magistracies. Quaestors performed chiefly financial duties; praetors administered justice and could exercise military command; two annually elected consuls occupied the highest ordinary office. The Senate, composed largely of former magistrates, provided continuity and exercised substantial influence over public affairs, while citizen assemblies elected officials and passed legislation. Competition for these offices depended on personal reputation, kinship, patronage, and electoral support. Military commands added opportunities for distinction and influence, making their allocation a particularly contentious issue. (en.wikisource.org)

In 88 BCE, a dispute over command against Mithridates VI of Pontus brought these tensions into armed conflict. After legislation transferred the command from Lucius Cornelius Sulla to Marius, Sulla marched his army on Rome and drove his opponents out. Marius returned with Cinna in 87 BCE, and renewed killings followed. Marius died in 86 BCE; Sulla returned to Italy in 83 BCE, defeated his opponents in 82 BCE, and became dictator. His proscriptions publicly designated enemies for killing and confiscation of their property. Caesar’s marriage to Cinna’s daughter consequently became a liability under the victorious regime; his refusal to dissolve it belongs to the beginning of his personal conflict with Sulla. (en.wikisource.org)

The labels populares and optimates describe competing political orientations and methods, not modern political parties. Populares appealed to the people’s authority and pursued measures through assemblies and tribunes; optimates emphasized senatorial authority and the leadership of those they considered the “best” citizens. Neither designation implied formal membership, a permanent organization, or an agreed electoral platform. Both could apply to aristocratic politicians, and alliances shifted with particular disputes. Caesar’s Marian and Cinnan connections therefore identify important relationships within aristocratic competition, rather than membership inherited in a coherent “popular party.” (academic.oup.com)

Early Career and Advancement to the Praetorship

After Sulla seized control of Rome in 82 BCE, Caesar refused his demand to divorce Cornelia, the daughter of Sulla’s opponent Lucius Cornelius Cinna. According to Suetonius, Caesar consequently lost his prospective priesthood of Jupiter, Cornelia’s dowry, and family inheritances. He went into hiding before intercession by relatives and the Vestal Virgins secured a pardon. Leaving Rome, he served in Asia Minor on the staff of Marcus Minucius Thermus. At the capture of Mytilene in 80 BCE he received the civic crown, an award for saving a fellow citizen’s life. He subsequently served briefly under Publius Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia, returning after Sulla’s death in 78 BCE. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Courtroom activity offered another route to public prominence. In 77 BCE Caesar prosecuted the former consul Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella for provincial extortion; although Dolabella was acquitted, the prosecution helped establish Caesar’s reputation as an orator. He later studied at Rhodes with Apollonius Molo, who had also taught Cicero. His capture by pirates near Pharmacusa, conventionally dated to 75 BCE, survives principally as a story transmitted by ancient biographers. Plutarch relates that Caesar increased their ransom demand from twenty to fifty talents, treated his captors with ostentatious disdain, and threatened to crucify them. After his release, he reportedly collected ships, captured the pirates, and carried out the threat. These details belong to the biographical tradition rather than a contemporary account of the episode. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar became quaestor in 69 BCE and was assigned to Further Spain under Gaius Antistius Vetus. This junior magistracy gave him experience in provincial administration. Around this stage of his career, funeral speeches for Cornelia and his aunt Julia also provided opportunities for public self-presentation. At Julia’s funeral he displayed images of her husband, Gaius Marius, whose memory had been suppressed under Sulla. As curule aedile in 65 BCE, serving alongside Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, Caesar sponsored theatrical performances, animal combats, and gladiatorial entertainments. Plutarch reports 320 pairs of gladiators. He also restored Marius’s victory monuments on the Capitol, combining conspicuous expenditure with an assertion of political and familial loyalties. (en.wikipedia.org)

Such expenditure converted borrowed wealth into visibility, goodwill, and electoral support, while increasing Caesar’s dependence on wealthy backers. In 63 BCE he defeated the senior statesmen Quintus Lutatius Catulus and Publius Servilius Isauricus in the election for pontifex maximus, Rome’s chief priest. Unlike an annual magistracy, this was a lifetime religious office. Suetonius describes lavish electoral bribery and substantial borrowing during the contest; these are his explicit characterizations of Caesar’s campaign. The financial consequences became evident again before Caesar left for Spain in 61 BCE: creditors sought to prevent his departure, and Marcus Licinius Crassus supplied guarantees that enabled him to proceed. Patronage thus supported advancement but also created obligations to influential creditors. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Already praetor-elect, Caesar intervened in the Senate’s debate on December 5, 63 BCE, over the arrested participants in the Catilinarian conspiracy. He opposed execution and proposed confiscation of their property and imprisonment in Italian towns. In Sallust’s reconstruction of his speech, Caesar emphasized the danger of allowing anger to establish precedents for extraordinary punishment. Marcus Porcius Cato argued for execution, and the Senate adopted that course; Cicero then arranged the prisoners’ deaths. Caesar’s opposition to their execution is distinct from allegations that he participated in the conspiracy. Suetonius records accusations against him, but also reports his appeal to Cicero’s testimony that he had voluntarily supplied information about the plot. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar held the praetorship in 62 BCE and governed Further Spain in 61–60 BCE. There he campaigned against communities in western Iberia and undertook administrative work, including arrangements between debtors and creditors. Plutarch reports that creditors were to receive two-thirds of debtors’ annual income until repayment, leaving debtors the remainder. Military success brought an acclamation as imperator and grounds for requesting a triumph. On returning in 60 BCE, however, Caesar faced incompatible requirements: a triumph required remaining outside Rome, whereas candidacy for the consulship required his personal presence. He relinquished the triumph to enter the consular election. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The First Triumvirate and the Consulship of 59 BCE

Around 60 BCE, Caesar negotiated an alliance with Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) and Marcus Licinius Crassus, reconciling two influential men whose rivalry had previously limited cooperation. Each sought different benefits: Pompey wanted land for his discharged soldiers and ratification of the settlements he had made after his eastern campaigns; Crassus supported the demands of tax contractors for relief from their financial commitments; Caesar sought support for his consulship and a substantial provincial command afterward. Conventionally called the First Triumvirate, the arrangement was a private political compact, not a magistracy created by law. Its members combined personal connections, wealth, electoral influence, and military prestige while operating through the offices and assemblies of the Roman Republic. Ancient accounts differ over its precise timing: Plutarch places the reconciliation before Caesar’s election, whereas Suetonius narrates the compact after it. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

As consul in 59 BCE, Caesar introduced agrarian legislation benefiting Pompey’s veterans and other citizens. The initial measure provided for distributing available public land, while excluding Campania, and purchasing additional land from willing sellers at assessed valuations. Pompey’s war booty and the revenues associated with his eastern conquests supplied the financial justification; a commission of twenty members would administer the scheme. After encountering obstruction in the Senate, Caesar submitted the measure to the popular assembly, where Pompey and Crassus publicly supported it. A subsequent measure opened the valuable Campanian public lands to settlement. Suetonius reports provision for 20,000 citizens with three or more children, showing that the legislation extended beyond the settlement of veterans alone. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The confrontation with Caesar’s fellow consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, concerned both legislation and the procedures governing its passage. Bibulus attempted to block proceedings through religious objections, including announcements of adverse omens. When he appeared in the Forum to oppose the agrarian measure, he and his supporters were assaulted, and his lictors’ fasces were broken. His subsequent appeal to the Senate secured no effective remedy. He withdrew from public business for the remainder of the year but continued issuing notices contesting Caesar’s proceedings on religious grounds. Caesar nevertheless carried his programme forward. Suetonius preserves the contemporary joke that the year belonged to the consulship of “Julius and Caesar,” rather than Caesar and Bibulus—a comment on Bibulus’s political exclusion, not his formal removal from office. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar also secured confirmation of Pompey’s eastern arrangements and reduced by one-third the payments owed by tax contractors under their contracts, satisfying an important constituency associated with Crassus. Marriage reinforced these political connections. In 59 BCE, Caesar’s daughter Julia married Pompey, making the two allies father-in-law and son-in-law. Caesar himself married Calpurnia, daughter of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, who became consul in 58 BCE. These relationships supplemented the alliance’s legislative bargains with kinship ties and connected Caesar to another prominent consular household. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The tribune Publius Vatinius sponsored legislation granting Caesar a five-year command in Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum; the Senate subsequently added Transalpine Gaul. This provided the provincial base for the campaigns beginning in 58 BCE. In 56 BCE, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus renewed their cooperation at Luca, in Cisalpine Gaul. Their agreement envisaged the consulship of Pompey and Crassus for 55 BCE and a further five years for Caesar’s command. The conference itself could confer no legal authority: its arrangements required subsequent elections and legislation. Pompey and Crassus obtained the consulship, and the extension of Caesar’s command followed through their influence, allowing him to continue the Gallic war without an immediate transfer of authority to a successor. (en.wikisource.org)

The Gallic Wars and Roman Expansion

Beyond the existing Roman province along the Mediterranean, Gaul comprised numerous independent communities rather than a unified state. Its territories extended from the Pyrenees to the Rhine and from the Atlantic into the Alpine region. Caesar distinguished the Aquitani, Belgae, and peoples he called Celts or Gauls, while recording differences in language, institutions, and laws. Political divisions cut across these categories: the Aedui cultivated Roman support, the Sequani competed with them for regional predominance, and aristocratic factions within individual communities pursued conflicting alliances. These rivalries supplied Caesar with allies, intelligence, and grounds for intervention. His geographical divisions, particularly his treatment of the Rhine as a boundary between Gauls and Germans, should not be understood as precise ethnic frontiers. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

In 58 BCE, Caesar blocked the migrating Helvetii from crossing the Roman province near Geneva. After they obtained passage through Sequanian territory, he pursued them beyond the provincial boundary, invoking threats to Roman interests and appeals from allied communities. Victory near Bibracte compelled the surviving Helvetii to return home. Later that year he defeated Ariovistus, whose Germanic forces had established themselves west of the Rhine through involvement in Gallic conflicts; Ariovistus had nevertheless received recognition as a king and friend of Rome in 59 BCE. In 57 BCE Caesar campaigned against the Belgae, accepting assistance from the Remi and overcoming a dangerous attack by the Nervii at the Sabis. In 56 BCE the maritime Veneti resisted in the Atlantic coastal region. A fleet commanded by Decimus Brutus defeated their sailing vessels by cutting the ropes supporting their yards, disabling their means of propulsion. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar crossed the Rhine in 55 BCE using a timber bridge that, according to his account, took ten days to construct. After a brief expedition he withdrew and demolished it; a second crossing followed in 53 BCE. These operations demonstrated Roman military reach without establishing permanent occupation east of the river. His expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BCE likewise stopped short of territorial conquest. The first encountered difficult landings and storm damage to the fleet. During the larger second expedition he crossed the Thames and obtained submission, hostages, and an undertaking to pay tribute from Cassivellaunus, but withdrew his army to Gaul rather than leaving an occupying garrison. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Roman control remained vulnerable. In late 54 BCE, Ambiorix of the Eburones induced the commanders Quintus Titurius Sabinus and Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta to abandon their winter camp, then destroyed their force of one legion and five cohorts. Further attacks on dispersed garrisons forced Caesar to conduct relief operations and punitive campaigns. In 52 BCE, Vercingetorix, an Arvernian leader, organized a wider coalition and sought to deprive the Romans of provisions through cavalry attacks and the destruction of settlements. Caesar captured Avaricum but suffered a reverse at Gergovia. At the siege of Alesia, Roman forces constructed an inward-facing blockade and an outward-facing defensive circuit against a relief army, reinforced with ditches, ramparts, towers, and concealed obstacles. The failure of coordinated attacks from inside and outside brought Vercingetorix’s surrender. Resistance continued in 51 BCE, notably among the Bellovaci and at Uxellodunum; by 50 BCE no comparable large-scale campaign remained. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Operational success depended on marching speed, engineering, and logistics as well as battlefield tactics. Forced marches enabled Caesar to concentrate troops against dispersed opponents, while bridges, fortified camps, siege ramps, and artillery overcame natural and constructed defenses. Grain shortages could determine movements: immediately before Bibracte, Caesar diverted toward the town to replenish provisions. Allied communities supplied grain, cavalry, transport, and intelligence, but their cooperation was neither uniform nor permanent; even the Aedui joined the coalition in 52 BCE. Dispersing legions into winter quarters eased provisioning while exposing isolated formations to attack, as Ambiorix’s victory demonstrated. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The conquest also involved civilian massacre, destruction of settlements, and enslavement. Caesar reports that almost all of Avaricum’s approximately 40,000 inhabitants were killed, with about 800 escaping; these are his figures, not independently established totals. After defeating the Veneti he executed their council and sold the remaining population into slavery. At Uxellodunum, the continuation written by Aulus Hirtius records that Caesar ordered the hands of those who had borne arms cut off while sparing their lives, explicitly to deter further resistance. Such accounts establish particular practices of coercion, but ancient estimates of casualties and captives cannot securely determine the conquest’s overall demographic toll. Caesar’s military narrative was also a political presentation of his achievements, requiring scrutiny rather than literal acceptance of its numerical claims. (perseus.tufts.edu)

The Breakdown with Pompey and the Road to Civil War

Julia’s death in 54 BCE removed the marriage bond between Caesar and Pompey, while Crassus’s death fighting the Parthians at Carrhae in 53 eliminated the alliance’s third principal. Neither event immediately made war inevitable, but both weakened the arrangements that had contained rivalry between the two surviving commanders. During the disorder at Rome in 52, senatorial leaders supported Pompey’s appointment as sole consul to restore order. His marriage that year to Cornelia, daughter of Metellus Scipio, and his subsequent selection of Scipio as consular colleague strengthened his connections with influential aristocrats opposed to Caesar. (en.wikisource.org)

The central dispute concerned how Caesar would pass from his provincial command to a second consulship, intended for 48 BCE. His command had been extended through legislation in 55, but the timing of its termination and the appointment of a successor became contested. In 52, legislation sponsored by the ten tribunes of the plebs allowed him to seek election in absentia, without returning to Rome. Pompey nevertheless also enacted a general requirement that candidates appear personally; Suetonius reports that Caesar’s exemption was initially omitted and subsequently added. Another Pompeian law required a five-year interval between a magistracy and a provincial governorship, making former magistrates available to replace Caesar. These overlapping provisions threatened the uninterrupted tenure of public authority he sought. Becoming a private citizen would expose him to prosecution, particularly over his conduct as consul in 59; that danger did not establish that conviction was certain. (en.wikisource.org)

Disarmament proposals turned on whether Caesar alone, or both commanders, should surrender their armies. Pompey retained his Spanish command while administering the provinces through deputies. In 50, the tribune Gaius Scribonius Curio argued for simultaneous resignation, presenting it as an alternative to civil war. Appian reports that 370 senators supported this proposal and only 22 opposed it. This substantial majority did not produce an enforceable settlement: the consul Gaius Claudius Marcellus instead appealed to Pompey to defend the state. Two legions surrendered by Caesar ostensibly for a Parthian expedition remained in Italy, increasing his suspicion that preparations were directed against him. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

On January 1, 49 BCE, Caesar’s proposals were read in the Senate, but the debate concentrated on demands that he relinquish his army by a specified deadline. The tribunes Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius Longinus vetoed the motion. Efforts to delay proceedings or send negotiators failed, and on January 7 the Senate adopted its emergency resolution, conventionally called the senatus consultum ultimum, directing magistrates and nearby proconsuls to prevent harm to the state. Antony and Cassius fled to Caesar. In his own account, Caesar portrayed these proceedings as coercion by his enemies and an attack on tribunician rights; this was also his justification for armed intervention, not a neutral description of the crisis. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar then advanced from Ravenna with the Thirteenth Legion across the Rubicon, the boundary between his province of Cisalpine Gaul and Italy, and occupied Ariminum, modern Rimini. The constitutional issue was not simply crossing a river: he brought a provincial army beyond the territorial limits of his authorized command, using military force to contest decisions made at Rome. His narrative records the advance to Ariminum without describing the river crossing. Negotiations continued afterward, including proposals that Pompey leave for Spain and that both sides dismiss their forces, but Caesar’s occupation of Italian towns had already transformed the confrontation into civil war. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The dramatic scene at the river belongs to later biographical tradition. Suetonius describes Caesar hesitating at the boundary, an apparition sounding a trumpet, and the declaration “The die is cast.” These details must be distinguished from the established military advance: the supernatural episode and attributed words are not independently verified records of Caesar’s actions or speech. The secure sequence is the breakdown of negotiations, the emergency measures at Rome, and Caesar’s entry into Italy under arms. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Civil War across the Mediterranean

In early 49 BCE Caesar advanced rapidly through Italy, capturing towns and absorbing surrendered troops before Pompey could concentrate his forces. At Corfinium, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus surrendered; Caesar released him and other captured senators rather than executing them. Pompey withdrew to Brundisium and evacuated his army across the Adriatic in March, despite Caesar’s attempts to obstruct the harbour. Unable to pursue immediately without sufficient shipping, Caesar turned against the Pompeian armies in Spain. On the way, Massilia, modern Marseille, refused him entry and admitted Domitius. Caesar left Gaius Trebonius to conduct the land siege and Decimus Brutus to command the fleet while he continued westward. Massilia eventually surrendered after naval defeats and sustained siege operations. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Near Ilerda, modern Lleida, Caesar confronted Lucius Afranius and Marcus Petreius in the summer of 49 BCE. Flooding initially damaged his bridges and disrupted supplies, but engineering works and manoeuvre enabled him to restrict his opponents’ movement and access to provisions. Rather than secure victory through a single decisive pitched battle, he intercepted their retreat and cut them off from water. Their surrender brought the disbandment of their army; Marcus Terentius Varro subsequently surrendered the remaining Pompeian forces in southern Spain. Success in the western theatre was not universal: Caesar’s lieutenant Gaius Scribonius Curio was defeated and killed in North Africa by forces supporting Pompey and King Juba I of Numidia. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

In January 48 BCE Caesar crossed the Adriatic with only part of his army; Pompeian naval superiority delayed the reinforcements eventually brought by Mark Antony. At Dyrrachium, modern Durrës, Caesar attempted to contain Pompey behind extensive siege lines, although Pompey retained access to seaborne supplies. A successful Pompeian attack in July broke the encirclement and inflicted a serious reverse, forcing Caesar to withdraw inland into Thessaly. At Pharsalus, conventionally dated 9 August 48 BCE, he instead won a decisive victory. His own account gives approximately 22,000 infantry against Pompey’s 45,000, figures that remain dependent on his reporting. Caesar positioned six reserve cohorts behind his right wing to counter Pompey’s larger cavalry force. After repelling the horsemen, these troops attacked the Pompeian infantry’s exposed flank; the commitment of Caesar’s fresh third line completed the rout. (livius.org)

Pompey fled to Egypt, where agents of Ptolemy XIII murdered him before Caesar arrived. Caesar then intervened in the succession dispute between Ptolemy and his sister Cleopatra VII, invoking their father’s arrangements for joint rule. His involvement developed into the Alexandrian War of 48–47 BCE, during which his comparatively small force fought for control of the royal quarter, harbour, and approaches to the city. Reinforcements led by Mithridates of Pergamum enabled Caesar to defeat Ptolemy’s army; Ptolemy drowned during the retreat. Cleopatra remained queen, formally ruling with her younger brother Ptolemy XIV. Caesar also became her lover. Her son Ptolemy XV, known as Caesarion, was presented as Caesar’s child, but biological paternity is not independently established: Suetonius records both supportive testimony and a denial published by Caesar’s associate Gaius Oppius. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Leaving Egypt, Caesar defeated Pharnaces II, who had exploited Roman divisions to recover territory in Asia Minor, at Zela in 47 BCE. Pompey’s death had not dissolved the opposing coalition: surviving commanders retained armies, provincial resources, and support from allied rulers. In North Africa, Metellus Scipio and Juba I assembled forces while Cato held Utica. Caesar defeated them at Thapsus on 6 April 46 BCE; Cato subsequently killed himself at Utica. Resistance then concentrated in southern Spain around Pompey’s sons Gnaeus and Sextus and Caesar’s former lieutenant Titus Labienus. At Munda on 17 March 45 BCE, Caesar won a hard-fought victory: Labienus died in battle, and Gnaeus was killed afterward while fleeing. Sextus escaped and continued armed opposition beyond Caesar’s lifetime. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Dictatorship and the Concentration of Authority

Caesar’s successive dictatorships changed an exceptional republican magistracy into a continuing basis of personal government. The traditional Roman dictator was appointed for a specified task, normally with a maximum tenure of six months; Sulla’s earlier dictatorship had already departed from that temporary emergency model. Caesar’s first appointment, in late 49 BCE, lasted only eleven days, during which he conducted elections for the following year before resigning. His second dictatorship, conferred in late 48, lasted a year. In 46 he received authorization to hold the dictatorship annually for ten years, rather than simply a single ten-year term. By February 44, this arrangement had been superseded by dictator perpetuo, “dictator in perpetuity”: the office no longer required annual renewal or had a predetermined expiry. These grants used republican forms, but progressively removed the temporal limitation that had distinguished the traditional office. (en.wikipedia.org)

The dictatorship operated alongside other offices and powers rather than replacing the entire Roman Republic with a new constitutional structure. Following his first consulship in 59 BCE, Caesar held the consulship again in 48, 46, 45, and 44; in 45 he initially served without a colleague, relinquishing the position to replacement consuls in October. His authority over appointments also curtailed electoral competition. Suetonius reports that, apart from consular elections, half the magistracies were left to popular choice and half reserved for Caesar’s nominees, whom he recommended to the voting tribes in written notices. In preparation for his projected eastern campaign, appointments were arranged several years ahead. Assemblies continued to vote and magistrates continued to hold recognizable republican titles, but access to office increasingly depended on the dictator’s nomination or approval. (ebrary.net)

Caesar likewise reshaped the Senate through recruitment and the expansion of officeholding. Its membership increased from approximately 600 to 900, incorporating numerous new entrants alongside surviving members of the prewar aristocracy. He enlarged the ranks of praetors, aediles, and quaestors; sixteen praetors served in 44 BCE. This created additional opportunities to reward supporters and supplied officials for an expanding state. The Senate still met, debated, and issued decrees, including the grants of extraordinary honors to Caesar. Its institutional survival nevertheless did not preserve an independent balance of authority: the dictator influenced its composition and magistracies, while military command and control of public resources reinforced his political predominance. (en.wikipedia.org)

Clemency toward defeated Roman opponents was both a documented practice and an explicitly articulated political strategy. In a letter to Gaius Oppius and Lucius Cornelius Balbus preserved in Cicero’s correspondence from March 49 BCE, Caesar presented moderation and generosity as means of securing a durable victory, contrasting his intended conduct with Sulla’s. He cited the release of captured Pompeian officers as evidence of that policy. Later, former opponents could return to public life and receive office; Cicero’s Pro Marcello, delivered in 46, responded to Caesar’s permission for Marcus Claudius Marcellus to return from exile. Such pardons restored individuals without restoring an equal political relationship: their return depended on the victor’s discretion. Clemency therefore expressed restraint while also publicly demonstrating Caesar’s power to determine the treatment of defeated citizens. (attalus.org)

Public honors made this exceptional position visible. Suetonius records the title “Father of his Country,” a golden seat in the Senate, and a statue among those of Rome’s kings. Coinage supplied contemporary evidence alongside the later literary accounts: a silver denarius of 44 BCE in the British Museum bears Caesar’s portrait and the inscription CAESAR DICT PERPETVO. The combination advertised a living ruler’s identity together with his indefinite tenure. These honors document the elevation of one individual above normal republican officeholders, but do not by themselves establish a completed plan for hereditary monarchy. The absence of a fixed endpoint to Caesar’s dictatorship is demonstrable; reconstructions of the permanent constitutional settlement he intended remain less secure. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Administrative, Social, and Calendar Reforms

Caesar’s debt measures addressed the disruption of credit and property markets caused by civil war without abolishing creditors’ claims. In 49 BCE he introduced arbitration over the valuation of property offered in settlement, when debtors struggled to obtain cash or sell assets. His arrangements allowed repayment through property assessed at its pre-war value, with interest already paid deducted from the amount owed. Suetonius estimated that the resulting reduction amounted to approximately one-quarter of outstanding debts; this was not a uniform statutory cancellation of one-quarter of every loan. Limited rent relief likewise differed from general debt abolition: Caesar remitted one year’s rent for tenants paying no more than 2,000 sesterces annually in Rome and 500 elsewhere in Italy. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Settlement programmes combined rewards for discharged soldiers with opportunities for civilian emigrants. Veterans received land, while overseas colonies extended Roman settlement beyond Italy; Caesar’s programme included the re-establishment of Carthage in North Africa and Corinth in Greece, both destroyed by Roman armies in 146 BCE. These were new Roman colonial communities, not restorations of the former independent states. Suetonius reports that Caesar settled 80,000 citizens overseas, a figure that should not be treated as a count of veterans alone. Citizenship grants also changed the legal relationship between Rome and provincial communities. In 49 BCE citizenship was extended to the communities north of the Po in Cisalpine Gaul, and to Gades, modern Cádiz, in Spain. Such grants were selective: they did not establish universal citizenship throughout Roman-controlled territory. (livius.org)

Administration of the grain distributions was reorganized through a registration conducted district by district, using information supplied by landlords rather than relying solely on attendance at a central census. According to Suetonius, the recipient roll fell from 320,000 to 150,000. The reduction concerned the number entitled to receive public grain, not the total population of Rome. To keep the roll from expanding again, Caesar prescribed that the praetor annually fill places vacated by deceased recipients by drawing lots among applicants not already enrolled. This introduced a continuing procedure for maintaining a restricted beneficiary list rather than simply making a one-time reduction. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The Julian calendar took effect on January 1, 45 BCE. The previous calendar normally contained 355 days and depended on priestly intercalation to remain aligned with the seasons; irregular application had produced substantial displacement. Caesar replaced this arrangement with a solar calendar of twelve months and 365 days, adding one day every fourth year, for a mean year of $365.25$ days. Ten days were distributed among the shorter months, while February retained its ordinary 28 days. The reform drew on astronomical expertise associated with Sosigenes. Before the new system began, the transitional year 46 BCE was extended to 445 days: the ordinary intercalation contributed 23 days, and two additional months inserted between November and December contributed another 67. This exceptional correction must be distinguished from the regular leap-day rule. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar’s building programme enlarged Rome’s civic spaces while associating them with his family name. The Forum of Caesar, containing the Temple of Venus Genetrix, was dedicated on September 26, 46 BCE, although work remained unfinished at his death. The Basilica Julia, intended for judicial and commercial activity beside the older Forum, was also dedicated in 46 BCE before completion; Augustus subsequently completed both projects. Other schemes remained proposals. Suetonius lists drainage of the Pontine marshes, an outlet for Lake Fucinus, a road across the Apennines, and a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth. He also records projected campaigns against the Dacians and Parthians. These infrastructure schemes and military preparations were not completed achievements of Caesar’s administration. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

The Assassination on the Ides of March

The conspiracy brought together former opponents of Caesar and men who had enjoyed his confidence. Its principal figures included Marcus Junius Brutus, Gaius Cassius Longinus, and Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, a different man from Marcus Brutus. Marcus had fought on Pompey’s side before receiving Caesar’s pardon; both he and Cassius held praetorships in 44 BCE. Decimus was sufficiently trusted to appear among Caesar’s substitute heirs. Suetonius reports more than sixty participants, although this figure describes the conspiracy rather than a securely established number of attackers. Plutarch presents Marcus Brutus’s reputation as important to recruitment: his participation could lend the enterprise the appearance of defending the Roman Republic, rather than merely settling private grievances. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Caesar’s perpetual dictatorship and royal symbolism supplied the immediate political context. At the Lupercalia on February 15, 44 BCE, the consul Mark Antony offered him a diadem while he sat on the rostra; Caesar rejected it. In the Second Philippic, written later that year, Cicero describes public applause for the rejection and portrays Antony’s offer as a deliberate test of Roman tolerance for kingship. This interpretation belongs to Cicero’s attack on Antony, not to an independently demonstrated account of their intentions. Plutarch likewise describes repeated offers and refusals. Suetonius connects the accelerating plot with a circulating report that Caesar would receive the royal title to enable victory over Parthia. Such reports establish the importance of fears about monarchy in the ancient narratives, but not that Caesar had decided to become king. (attalus.org)

The assassination occurred on March 15, 44 BCE—the Ides of March—during a Senate meeting in the Curia of Pompey, a meeting hall attached to the portico complex adjoining Pompey’s theatre. It did not take place in the principal Senate house in the Roman Forum. Plutarch explains that the meeting allowed the conspirators to assemble without arousing suspicion and placed leading senators together. His account also emphasizes the statue of Pompey inside the hall, interpreting the setting as vengeance against Pompey’s conqueror. Accounts of Caesar’s journey mingle practical warnings with portents: Suetonius names the diviner Spurinna, while Plutarch recounts Calpurnia’s disturbing dreams and an attempted warning by Artemidorus. Both describe Decimus persuading Caesar to attend despite his hesitation; Plutarch explicitly preserves conflicting versions of whether Artemidorus delivered his message. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Once Caesar was seated, the conspirators surrounded him under cover of supporting Tillius Cimber’s petition for his exiled brother. Cimber seized Caesar’s toga, and Casca struck the first blow. In Plutarch’s Life of Brutus, Trebonius detained Antony outside in conversation, preventing immediate assistance. The narratives agree that Caesar initially resisted but differ over the details: Plutarch has him grasp Casca’s dagger, whereas Suetonius describes a counterattack with a writing stylus. Plutarch reports that Caesar covered his head on seeing Marcus Brutus join the attack and fell beside Pompey’s statue. Both biographers give twenty-three wounds; Suetonius attributes to the physician Antistius the judgment that only the chest wound was fatal. These details are transmitted literary testimony, not surviving contemporary medical records. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

No last words can be established securely. Suetonius’s main account describes a groan rather than a final speech, but adds that some writers reported the Greek kai su, teknon, conventionally translated as “You too, my child?” Plutarch instead describes Caesar’s response to Brutus through his gesture of covering his head. The Latin “Et tu, Brute?” appears in Act 3, Scene 1 of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, followed by “Then fall, Caesar.” It is a dramatic utterance, not a securely recorded historical statement by Caesar. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Immediate Aftermath and the Emergence of Imperial Rule

On March 17, 44 BCE, two days after Caesar’s assassination, the Senate adopted a compromise: the conspirators would receive an amnesty, while Caesar’s official acts, including grants and appointments, would remain valid. Cicero supported reconciliation, and the consul Mark Antony accepted an arrangement that protected measures on which many senators’ positions depended. Preserving the acta Caesaris avoided declaring the dead dictator’s entire administration illegitimate, but also allowed Antony, who controlled Caesar’s papers, to claim authority for implementing his intentions. The settlement neither transferred Caesar’s military following to the assassins nor resolved competition over provincial commands. The institutions of the Roman Republic survived, but their participants lacked an agreed basis for exercising power without renewed armed conflict. (attalus.org)

Caesar’s will supplied a rival source of Caesarian legitimacy. According to Suetonius, his great-nephew Gaius Octavius, subsequently known as Octavian, received three-quarters of the estate; Lucius Pinarius and Quintus Pedius shared the remainder. The will also adopted Octavius into Caesar’s family and conferred his name upon him. These provisions conveyed inheritance and family identity, not an automatic right to Caesar’s public offices. Public bequests included Caesar’s gardens beside the Tiber and 300 sesterces for each eligible male citizen. At the funeral, Antony emphasized the Senate’s honors for Caesar and its oath to protect him; the bloodstained garment was displayed. The crowd cremated the body in the Forum rather than at the prepared pyre in the Campus Martius, and groups subsequently attacked the conspirators’ houses. Although ancient accounts differ over Antony’s precise performance, the funeral helped turn public commemoration into hostility toward the assassins. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Octavian returned to Italy in 44 BCE, accepted the inheritance, and recruited troops from Caesar’s veterans. His rivalry with Antony initially brought him into cooperation with Cicero and the Senate. In April 43 BCE, his forces supported the consuls against Antony near Mutina, where Antony was besieging Decimus Brutus. Both consuls died during the campaign, leaving Octavian with increased military leverage; he subsequently secured election to the consulship in August. Reconciliation with Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus followed. On November 27, 43 BCE, the lex Titia established the Second Triumvirate for five years. Unlike Caesar’s earlier private alliance with Pompey and Crassus, this was a legally constituted magistracy for reorganizing the state, with powers to allocate provinces and determine appointments. (en.wikisource.org)

The triumvirs consolidated their position through proscriptions: named opponents could be killed, their property confiscated, and those sheltering them punished. Cicero was among the victims. These measures eliminated political enemies and supplied resources for further warfare, while reversing Caesar’s publicly emphasized policy of clemency toward defeated Roman opponents. In October 42 BCE, Antony and Octavian confronted Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius at Philippi in Macedonia. The campaign involved two major engagements: Cassius killed himself after the first, and Brutus after defeat in the second. Their deaths destroyed the principal military coalition led by Caesar’s assassins, but did not end civil war; Sextus Pompeius remained a force at sea, and the triumvirs’ own cooperation was unstable. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

In 42 BCE, the Senate formally recognized Caesar as Divus Iulius, the deified Julius. Octavian consequently advertised himself as divi filius, “son of the deified one,” a designation displayed on his coinage: adoption now supported both familial succession and a claim to divine ancestry. Caesar’s name and cult thus became instruments of dynastic legitimacy rather than merely memorial honors. The eventual establishment of imperial rule nevertheless occurred beyond Caesar’s lifetime and after further conflict. Lepidus lost his triumviral power in 36 BCE; Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31, and their deaths followed in 30. In 27 BCE, Octavian received the title Augustus and established the settlement conventionally marking the beginning of the principate, retaining decisive provincial and military authority within republican institutional forms. This was a later reconstruction of government, not an imperial constitution inherited intact from Caesar. (en.wikipedia.org)

Caesar’s Writings and the Evidence for His Life

Caesar’s seven books of the Commentaries on the Gallic War (Commentarii de bello Gallico) describe the campaigns of 58–52 BCE, with one book devoted to each year. Aulus Hirtius, a member of Caesar’s circle, supplied an eighth book covering 51–50 BCE and connecting the Gallic narrative with the approaching civil war. The three books of Caesar’s Commentaries on the Civil War (Commentarii de bello civili) cover 49–48 BCE, ending with the beginnings of the conflict at Alexandria rather than Caesar’s final victory in 45 BCE. The associated Alexandrian War, African War, and Spanish War continue the military record but are not securely attributable to Caesar. Suetonius already reported uncertainty about their authorship, naming Hirtius and Gaius Oppius as proposed authors. Their inclusion in the Caesarian corpus therefore does not establish common authorship. (livius.org)

The commentaries’ restrained Latin prose combines chronological narration with explanations of terrain, supplies, deployments, and decisions. Caesar normally refers to himself in the third person, separating the named commander from the narrating voice. This narrative perspective gives the account the appearance of an external report without removing its author’s interests. Cicero praised the commentaries’ unadorned elegance, while Hirtius emphasized their literary accomplishment. Conversely, Suetonius preserves Asinius Pollio’s criticism that Caesar sometimes accepted inaccurate reports and represented his own actions incorrectly, whether deliberately or through failures of memory. These ancient assessments distinguish stylistic clarity from historical reliability: an intelligible account can still select, arrange, or misrepresent evidence. (penelope.uchicago.edu)

Selection is particularly important where Caesar explains responsibility for war. In Gallic War 1, the Helvetian migration and appeals from Gallic communities provide the framework for presenting intervention as necessary protection rather than simply territorial expansion. The opening of the Civil War stresses senatorial hostility, restrictions on debate, and the treatment of the tribunes, positioning Caesar’s opponents as obstructing accommodation within the Roman Republic. Such passages supply evidence for Caesar’s public justification, not an impartial adjudication of legality. Defeats also require close reading: at Gergovia in 52 BCE, Caesar acknowledges Roman losses but emphasizes soldiers’ failure to obey orders. The presence of an admitted reverse does not by itself make the explanation of responsibility independent or complete. (livius.org)

Cicero’s correspondence supplies contemporary evidence outside Caesar’s campaign narratives. His letters to Atticus from March 49 BCE record uncertainty about negotiations, military developments, and his own position between Caesar and Pompey; they also preserve communications from Caesar. Their proximity to events is valuable, but reports received by letter, rumours, and Cicero’s changing expectations must be distinguished from witnessed actions. Plutarch and Suetonius offer different kinds of evidence. Plutarch paired Caesar with Alexander and explicitly privileged incidents revealing character over exhaustive military history. Suetonius grouped material around conduct, offices, abilities, and personal habits. Later narratives by Appian and Cassius Dio broaden the political account, but their distance from events and reliance on earlier writings mean that agreement between authors does not necessarily constitute independent corroboration. (attalus.org)

Inscriptions, coins, and archaeology permit checks that literary comparison alone cannot provide. An Ephesian dedication dated to 48 BCE identifies Caesar as consul for the second time and employs divine and salvific language: it documents the honors expressed by its dedicators, not universal acceptance of those claims. A Roman denarius of 44 BCE bearing Caesar’s portrait and the title DICT PERPETVO directly attests his official titulature. At Alise-Sainte-Reine, the Franco-German investigations of 1991–1997, directed by Michel Reddé and Siegmar von Schnurbein, examined the Roman fortification lines associated with Alesia. Such remains can test descriptions of siegeworks and topography without independently confirming every speech, motive, or troop total in Caesar’s narrative. (attalus.org)

Textual transmission adds another evidential layer. The surviving works depend on medieval copies rather than authorial manuscripts; editors compare witnesses, identify shared copying errors, and assess variant readings. Stephen Oakley’s account of the Civil War tradition, for example, traces manuscripts descending from the tenth-century Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 33, showing why several copies need not represent several independent witnesses. Likewise, the year described in a commentary is not automatically its date of composition or circulation. Reconstruction consequently requires separate judgments about the wording transmitted, the chronology narrated, and the author’s purpose. A vivid anecdote preserved by a later biographer carries a different evidential weight from a contemporary letter or a datable inscription. (blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk)

Historical Reputation and Cultural Afterlives

Roman imperial literature preserved competing images of Caesar rather than a single official judgment. In Book 15 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, completed around 8 CE, Venus carries Caesar’s soul into heaven, where it becomes a star; the narrative makes his relationship to Augustus central to his divine elevation. Caesar’s commemoration thereby serves the legitimacy of his adopted son. Lucan’s Civil War, written under Nero in the first century CE, instead represents the struggle between Caesar and Pompey as a catastrophe for Roman liberty: Book 7 treats Pharsalus as the destruction of centuries of republican achievement. These are poetic constructions with different political purposes, not interchangeable historical verdicts. Suetonius’s early-second-century biography combines admiration for Caesar’s military endurance and clemency with criticism of his accumulation of honors; chapter 76 explicitly presents his excessive powers as grounds for judging his assassination justified. (theoi.com)

Later historians likewise differed over whether Caesar’s choices or broader political conditions best explained the collapse of the Roman Republic. Theodor Mommsen’s nineteenth-century History of Rome expressed strong admiration for Caesar’s energy and statesmanship while treating the senatorial oligarchy with hostility. This interpretation made the exceptional reforming leader central to the transition away from republican government. Ronald Syme’s The Roman Revolution (1939) shifted attention from great individuals to the governing aristocracy, political alliances, and the redistribution of power and property. Its opening statement deliberately restricted the space given to Caesar’s biography in favor of examining the families and adherents through whom authority operated. The contrast concerns explanatory method as well as moral judgment: a leader-centered account asks what Caesar intended and accomplished, whereas Syme’s approach investigates the social composition and continuity of rule beneath changing constitutional forms. (nobelprize.org)

William Shakespeare’s *Julius Caesar*, generally dated to 1599 and first printed in the First Folio of 1623, gave these conflicts an influential theatrical form. Its principal source was Thomas North’s 1579 English translation of Plutarch’s Lives. Despite its title, the play devotes much of its action to Brutus’s decision to join the conspiracy and to the consequences of the assassination. Caesar dies in Act 3, but his name, ghost, and political inheritance continue to shape events. Shakespeare preserves the Renaissance disagreement over Brutus as liberator or murderer rather than resolving it simply. The juxtaposition of Brutus’s defense of the killing with Antony’s funeral speech makes public persuasion a central mechanism of political change: Antony’s repeated designation of the conspirators as honorable men becomes increasingly ironic as he directs attention to Caesar’s wounds and will. These speeches are dramatic compositions, not transcripts of historical addresses; “Et tu, Brute?” belongs to this theatrical representation rather than to a securely recorded account of Caesar’s last words. (folgerpedia.folger.edu)

Caesar’s name also acquired an institutional afterlife independent of literary judgments. Originally a Roman family cognomen, “Caesar” passed through adoption and dynastic usage into the titulature of rulers of the Roman Empire. Its meaning subsequently changed: under Diocletian’s tetrarchic arrangement of 293 CE, Constantius and Galerius held the designation Caesar as junior imperial colleagues subordinate to the two Augusti. Thus the name could identify a rank within shared imperial government rather than the supreme ruler alone. German Kaiser and Slavic tsar derive from “Caesar,” extending its linguistic association with sovereign authority far beyond the Julian family. (en.wikipedia.org)

The Julian calendar supplied a different form of continuity. Its four-year leap cycle produced an average year of 365.25 days, approximately 0.0078 days longer than the tropical year; the resulting seasonal drift helped motivate the Gregorian reform of 1582. That reform retained the Julian calendar’s month structure but omitted leap days in century years not divisible by 400, making 1900 a common year and 2000 a leap year. Adoption was gradual, and Julian calendrical rules have continued in some Christian liturgical traditions, including calculations of Easter. This survival reflects the transmission and modification of a practical system, rather than an unchanged evaluation of Caesar himself. (aa.usno.navy.mil)

References

1. Gaius Julius Caesar: Youthlivius.org
2. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caesar, Gaius Juliusen.wikisource.org
3. Suetonius • Life of Julius Caesarpenelope.uchicago.edu
4. Sullaen.wikipedia.org
5. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Consul (Roman)en.wikisource.org
6. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Quaestoren.wikisource.org
7. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Praetoren.wikisource.org
8. Politics under the Republicsites.ualberta.ca
9. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sulla, Lucius Corneliusen.wikisource.org
10. Suetonius • Life of Julius Caesarpenelope.uchicago.edu
11. Plutarch • Life of Caesarpenelope.uchicago.edu
12. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Caesar, Gaius Juliusen.wikisource.org
13. Julius Caesaren.wikipedia.org
14. LacusCurtius • Sallust — The War With Catilinepenelope.uchicago.edu
15. Plutarch — Life of Caesarpenelope.uchicago.edu
16. Cassius Dio — Roman History, Book 38penelope.uchicago.edu
17. Caesar's Gallic War — Liviuslivius.org
18. Caesar • Gallic War — Book I, chs. 1–29penelope.uchicago.edu
19. Caesar • Gallic War — Book I, chs. 30–54penelope.uchicago.edu
20. Caesar • Gallic War — Book IIIpenelope.uchicago.edu
21. Caesar • Gallic War — Book IVpenelope.uchicago.edu
22. Caesar • Gallic War — Introductionpenelope.uchicago.edu
23. LacusCurtius • Caesar's Gallic Warpenelope.uchicago.edu
24. Caesar • Gallic War — Book V, chs. 26–58penelope.uchicago.edu
25. Caesar • Gallic War — Book VII, chs. 63–74penelope.uchicago.edu
26. C. Julius Caesar, Gallic War, Book 7perseus.tufts.edu
27. Caesar • Gallic War — Book VIII, chs. 1–48penelope.uchicago.edu
28. Caesar • Gallic War — Book VIII, chs. 49–55penelope.uchicago.edu
29. Plutarch • Life of Pompeypenelope.uchicago.edu
30. Appian • The Civil Wars — Book IIpenelope.uchicago.edu
31. Caesar • Civil Wars 1.1–29penelope.uchicago.edu
32. Caesar • Civil Wars 1.30–58penelope.uchicago.edu
33. Caesar • Civil Wars 1.59–87penelope.uchicago.edu
34. LacusCurtius • Caesar's Civil Warspenelope.uchicago.edu
35. Gaius Julius Caesar: Civil Warlivius.org
36. Caesar • Civil Wars 3.82–112penelope.uchicago.edu
37. Pharsalus (48 BCE)livius.org
38. Caesar • Alexandrian War — Introductionpenelope.uchicago.edu
39. Caesar • Alexandrian War 1–33penelope.uchicago.edu
40. Caesar • Alexandrian War 65–78penelope.uchicago.edu
41. Plutarch on Caesar's War in Africalivius.org
42. Roman dictatoren.wikipedia.org
43. Exceptional honours for Caesarebrary.net
44. Cassius Dio — Book 43penelope.uchicago.edu
45. Cicero: Ad Atticum 9attalus.org
46. James Bradstreet Greenough, Commentary on The Pardon of Marcellus, Ibeta.perseus.tufts.edu
47. Gaius Julius Caesar: Domestic policy - Liviuslivius.org
48. Cassius Dio — Book 41penelope.uchicago.edu
49. The Julian Calendarpenelope.uchicago.edu
50. Roman Calendarpenelope.uchicago.edu
51. LacusCurtius • Forum Iulium (Platner & Ashby, 1929)penelope.uchicago.edu
52. Ancient Rome Live | Monuments of Rome | Basilica Iuliaancientromelive.org
53. Plutarch • Life of Brutuspenelope.uchicago.edu
54. Cicero: Philippic 2 (2)attalus.org
55. Julius Caesar - Act 3, scene 1 | Folger Shakespeare Libraryfolger.edu
56. 44 B.C. - events and referencesattalus.org
57. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Augustusen.wikisource.org
58. Appian • The Civil Wars — Book IVpenelope.uchicago.edu
59. Second Triumvirateen.wikipedia.org
60. Large print guide – Room 68 Moneybritishmuseum.org
61. Caesar • Civil Wars — Introductionpenelope.uchicago.edu
62. Caesarcatalogustranslationum.org
63. Julius Caesar, Civil War, ed. William Duncan, 1.1beta.perseus.tufts.edu
64. The Internet Classics Archive: Alexander by Plutarchclassics.mit.edu
65. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum: 760attalus.org
66. Archéologie — Alésia MuséoParcalesia.com
67. First Lyell lecture 2024: The transmission of Caesar’s Civil Warblogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk
68. OVID, METAMORPHOSES 15 - Theoi Classical Texts Librarytheoi.com
69. Lucan (39–65) - The Civil War, Pharsalia: Book VIIpoetryintranslation.com
70. Theodor Mommsen – Biographical - NobelPrize.orgnobelprize.org
71. RONALD SYME. (1960) THE ROMAN REVOLUTION [Obvieobtic.huma-num.fr
72. Julius Caesar - Folgerpediafolgerpedia.folger.edu
73. Julius Caesar | Folger Shakespeare Libraryfolger.edu
74. Caesar (title)en.wikipedia.org
75. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Rome/Historyen.wikisource.org
76. Julian Date Converteraa.usno.navy.mil
77. Introduction to Calendarsaa.usno.navy.mil
78. Leap Yearsaa.usno.navy.mil