The way history is told, Julius Caesar was an egomaniac who ignored the Senate out of pure ambition and destroyed the Republic. In 50 BC the Senate told him to step down and when the negotiations between them broke down, Caesar was declared an enemy of Rome, a decision often framed as the Senate defending the Republic from a power hungry general.

But I think that version is way too simple. What Caesar actually wanted at the time was to remain proconsul of a province and keep command of a legion. That way he could avoid legal prosecution once his command ended and make sure his person, wealth, and basically his entire life’s work didn’t get destroyed the moment he returned to Rome as a private citizen.

And it’s not like everyone thought this was unreasonable. People like Cicero and Pompey were at least somewhat sympathetic to the idea of compromise. The real opposition came from men like Cato the Younger and the consuls of that year, who refused the offer outright. Some say that was done out of principle or honor. Personally, I consider it a lot more like spite and political hatred.

The Senate had a long history of clashing with men like Caesar, people who were willing to push reforms that benefited the plebs even though they themselves had plenty to lose by doing it. Earlier figures like Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, and Marcus Livius Drusus had already run into the same problem decades before. They recognized that the Republic had serious structural problems, especially with inequality and land distribution, and when they tried to change things they were met with violent resistance from the political elite.

By Caesar’s time the Senate had changed a lot from what it originally was. Instead of a body of statesmen acting in Rome’s interest, it increasingly looked like a group of wealthy elites protecting their own power and privileges. When the Gracchi tried to challenge that system, the Senate didn’t hesitate to murder them. It is the end of the Gracchi that makes me think that Caesar’s decision to disobey the Senate was the only way to protect his life.

A lot of historians say that if Caesar had simply stepped down and obeyed the Senate’s orders, he probably wouldn’t have died, most likely he would have been banished from the city of Rome. I’m not convinced. Apart from the Gracchi and Drusus, take as an example the Senates behavior regarding the Catiline Conspiracy. When it was uncovered, it was Cato who insisted that the conspirators must be executed, while Caesar actually argued for mercy. So if Caesar had ended up at Cato’s mercy, is it really that far fetched to think he would not have survived? Cato clearly saw Caesar as a major threat to his vision for the Republic. Executing him would have been the safest way to ensure that Caesar and men like him never crossed the Senate again.

And comebacks absolutely did happen in Roman politics. Cicero himself was exiled from Rome and later restored with help from Pompey. There’s no reason to think Caesar couldn’t have eventually returned to political life as well, which would have made him an even bigger problem for his enemies. From Caesar’s perspective, stepping down might not have looked like a peaceful compromise. It might have looked like walking straight into political destruction and possibly death.

So when he made the decision to fight the Senate, it may not have been purely out of ambition. It may have been about survival. In that sense, if Caesar hadn’t crossed the Rubicon both literally and metaphorically what eventually happened to him on the Ides of March of 44 BC might have happened much earlier. Perhaps even on the ides of January of 49 BC.

  
  


Why I think Julius Caesar Had to Cross the Rubicon