Julius Caesar: A Hero Or Hero?

Gaius Julius Caesar was born in the year 100 BC, into a family desperate for honor and a political era determined to discourage success in young men. His ambition and alliances thrust him into politics at an early age and at the height of a civil war. Using this first exposure to the political field Caesar gained prestige and a reputation which ultimately led to him passing reforms for the people, attaining consulship, and later gaining the position of dictator over the Republic. On March 15th 44 BC Julius Caesar was betrayed by many of his close friends, and previous enemies turned allies and killed. His assassination had been an act committed in order for its perpetrators to retain their unjust status quo and secure their political and social …show more content…
The poor, lower classes who made up most of the population in Rome praised Caesar for his deeds because he had passed laws “to better the condition of the poor”, - Appian (Parenti 149). Caesar, although his wealth and political standing would dictate that he would be an optimate, associated himself with the populares, a group who was popular (as the name suggests) with the lower classes, and the overall majority of the people, because of the reforms and changes that he had made. Whether the changes he made were genuine or not comes into play when answering the question of if he was a tyrant, “...Caesar did, seduce his fellow citizens, make them feel loved. Differences between politicians were a matter less of policy and more of image.” (Holland 225). The context of this quote is comparing how Sulla and Caesar helped the poor, they both did it, but Caesar wanted the people to love him for it, to boost his image by helping, but that was not the sole reason he did so. I think that his actions were genuine, that he was wanted to contribute to assisting the lower classes, but Caesar was completely aware of what would come out of it, that his reputation would be very much positively impacted in the eyes of the people. The things Caesar did were honest in their intention, but he used them in both ways, to benefit himself as much as the people, this being said I don’t think that whether his actions of helping the people or not were genuine is significant. My reasoning behind this is that whether he did it for his own personal gain or not, the people still received support, and if this is the case why should it matter if Caesar gained from it? If the people were being treated well why should it be bad if the person causing it was being rewarded? In the eyes of the lower classes, the majority of Rome, Caesar was a hero who supported them, not