Julius Caesar vs. Augustus: Rise and Fall of Roman Power
This paper compares the political careers of Julius Caesar and his great-nephew Octavian, later known as Augustus Caesar, examining why one succeeded in establishing himself as sole ruler of Rome while the other was assassinated in the attempt. Drawing on ancient sources including Suetonius, Plutarch, and Sallust, the paper traces Julius Caesar's rise through popular support and his fatal failure to manage senatorial opposition, then contrasts this with Octavian's calculated use of propaganda, military loyalty, and institutional manipulation to secure lifelong imperial authority. The paper argues that Octavian's success rested largely on his ability to learn from Caesar's mistakes and exploit his predecessor's martyrdom.
- Introduction: Two Caesars, Two Fates: Framing the comparative question of success and failure
- Julius Caesar's Political Rise and Popular Appeal: Caesar's early career, elections, and popular support
- Caesar's Reforms and the Seeds of His Downfall: Reform proposals, senatorial opposition, and assassination
- Octavian's Path to Power After Civil War: Civil war, military loyalty, and Octavian's emergence
- Propaganda, Monument, and the Politics of Divinity: Octavian uses Caesar's legacy and building projects
- Augustus Consolidates Imperial Rule: Senate manipulation and accumulation of titles
- Conclusion: Learning from Failure: Octavian's success built on Caesar's martyrdom
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper frames its central argument around a clear comparative question — why did one Caesar succeed where the other failed? — and consistently returns to that question throughout.
- Primary sources (Suetonius, Plutarch, Sallust) are used directly to support analytical claims, grounding historical interpretation in ancient testimony.
- The contrast between Julius Caesar's political naivety and Octavian's strategic cunning is developed concretely, with specific examples such as Senate reduction and monument-building campaigns.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative historical analysis: rather than narrating each figure separately, it structures its argument around parallel questions — how each man related to the Senate, the people, and political legitimacy — allowing direct evaluative contrast. The use of a contemporary letter from Sallust as a warning Caesar ignored is a particularly effective technique for showing cause and consequence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis framing historical success as dependent on popular and political will. It then traces Julius Caesar's career chronologically before pivoting to Octavian's rise, with two sections dedicated to Octavian's propaganda strategy and institutional consolidation. The conclusion synthesizes the comparison, arguing that Octavian's triumph was built directly on Caesar's martyrdom. The structure is roughly symmetrical, with slightly more depth devoted to Augustus's methods.
Introduction: Two Caesars, Two Fates
The history of ancient Rome is divided into eras defined by its leaders. Two of the most consequential were Julius Caesar and Octavian, later known as Augustus Caesar. The two men were alike in genealogy, close in time and temperament, and yet one was a pronounced success — heralded centuries and even millennia later — while the other is considered a failure when it came to creating a role for himself as sole ruler.
What determines whether a man is successful or unsuccessful? Historically, little attention is paid to individual successes or failures, or to who gained or lost the most territory for their empire. It is ultimately the will of the people that decides which is the better man. A tyrant may be regarded as an angel if he wins over the people; so too a benefactor may become a monster in the eyes of history. History is written by the survivors. In the case of ancient figures, what is known about them is more mythology than verifiable merit — but from what is known about the two Caesars, Octavian succeeded in establishing himself as emperor while Julius Caesar was assassinated for the same endeavor.
Julius Caesar's Political Rise and Popular Appeal
Julius Caesar ruled Rome when the empire was still a Republic, with senators and other politicians holding power equal to that of any single leader. Caesar was beloved by the people, and his role as ruler was one given to him by popular will rather than the choice of the Senate. Many of his fellow politicians felt this gave Caesar far too much power over them, and rather than allow their Republic to become an empire ruled by a "dictator in perpetuity," they moved against him. Julius Caesar was not political enough when he accepted that position. Had he been more so, there is a strong likelihood he would not have been assassinated by those same politicians on the Ides of March.
When Julius Caesar began his political career, Rome's government was determined by elections and campaigns, much like democratic elections today. Just as in modern politics, chicanery was common — candidates engaged in muckraking and scandal-mongering to damage their opponents, and bribery was no less prevalent in ancient times than it is now. This may have contributed significantly to Caesar's later difficulties. Despite his early political successes against strong opposition, seeds of doubt were sown about whether the man himself was above such dirty tactics. There is, in fact, evidence that Caesar bribed a high-ranking official to file charges against his political adversary Gaius Rabirius (Suetonius and Edwards). Caesar then used his popularity with the people to ensure that no one dared side with Gaius.
Caesar's Reforms and the Seeds of His Downfall
In his various government roles, Caesar early on proved himself a champion of the lower classes and thereby secured their support. One such effort was a proposal to redistribute wealth and lands to assist the poorer citizens of Rome. This did not sit well with other politicians, and subsequent attempts at legal reform met strong opposition. Those who disagreed with Caesar sometimes found themselves on the wrong side of the executioner's reach (Plutarch 75). However, this only served to build political opinion in Caesar's favor, and after defeating the then-ruler Pompey, Julius Caesar was made ruler of Rome. Upon returning to the city, he was hailed as a new demigod.
Attempting to build a stronger government, Caesar immediately pushed forward a broad array of new laws and reforms, even against the will of the Senate. The danger of defying the other politicians was that Caesar very quickly turned opponents into staunch enemies. A close associate, Sallust, warned him in a letter that "The Fathers, by whose wisdom the wavering state was formerly steadied, are overpowered and tossed to and fro according to the caprice of others; they decree now one measure and now another, determining what is helpful or harmful to the public from the enmity or favour of their masters" (Sallust and Rolfe). Caesar failed to heed such warnings, and the senatorial conspiracy that followed cost him his life.
Octavian's Path to Power After Civil War
Octavian Caesar, great-nephew to Julius Caesar, was far more successful in becoming the singular ruler of the Roman Empire. By the time he came to power, the realm had grown so large that the Republic was no longer a functioning system of government. The people were ready for a single ruler (Brown 2009). Indeed, Octavian is recognized as the Roman Empire's first emperor. After his great-uncle's assassination, a great civil war broke out to determine who would lead Rome next (De Damas). At first, the conspirators attempted to bring Octavian to their side with promises of wealth but no real share of power. Rather than accept those terms, Octavian fought a long and drawn-out war for control of the empire. Once the last of his opponents had fallen, he emerged victorious.
Unlike his predecessor, whose appointment as dictator had led to such bloodshed, Octavian was accepted by the populace in this new role. He was renamed Augustus — meaning "the revered one." His ascension was shaped partly by circumstance and partly by character, but history has painted Octavian as a ruthless man, perhaps even more so than Julius was reputed to be.
Conclusion: Learning from Failure
Of the two men, Julius Caesar and his great-nephew Octavian Caesar, both attempted to transform the Republic of Rome into an empire ruled by a single man. One was successful; the other lost his life in the attempt. Part of what enabled the latter to succeed was his use of Julius Caesar's reputation as a form of political currency. He took the death of Caesar and transformed it into a martyrdom upon which he could build his own enduring legacy.
Works Cited
Brown, Frazer. "The Achievements of Augustus Caesar." 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
De Damas, Nicolas. Life of Augustus. Bristol: Classical, 1984. Print.
Kreis, Steven. "Lecture 12: Augustus Caesar and the Pax Romana." The History Guide. 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010.
Plutarch. The Life of Caesar. 75. Print.
Sallust, and John Carew Rolfe. Sallust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1995. Print.
Suetonius, and Catharine Edwards. Lives of the Caesars. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.