Caesar started a civil war that ended with him being emperor.
His crossing of the river precipitated Caesar’s civil war,[4] which ultimately led to Caesar’s becoming dictator for life (dictator perpetuo). Caesar had been appointed to a governorship over a region that ranged from southern Gaul to Illyricum. As his term of governorship ended, the Senate ordered him to disband his army and return to Rome. As it was illegal to bring armies into Italy (the northern border of which was marked by the river Rubicon) his crossing the river under arms amounted to insurrection, treason, and a declaration of war on the state. According to some authors, he uttered the phrase alea iacta est (“the die is cast”) before crossing.
Worth nothing that Augustus used the title “princeps”, which was also an existing title in the Republic. And his power came from holding existing offices. He was careful to make himself the ruler of Rome using the existing governing framework.
He just negotiated that he would hold these positions for life.
This is the same thing Julius Caesar did, except the existing title he held - dictator - carried too much political baggage.
He was declared dictator-for-life and was in open war with much of the senate. Not hyper-democratic. And then he was killed, so we don’t know what his final goal was. Maybe he was going to set things right (in his opinion) and then hand back control to the senate, like Sulla had done a generation earlier, or maybe he would have done what Octavian did later.
Was it Caesar though and not Octavian? A dictator can be elected and changed democratically.
Caesar started a civil war that ended with him being emperor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon
You’re both right. Caesar was emperor except in name. His title was Dictator. Octavian/Augustus was the first emperor.
Worth nothing that Augustus used the title “princeps”, which was also an existing title in the Republic. And his power came from holding existing offices. He was careful to make himself the ruler of Rome using the existing governing framework.
He just negotiated that he would hold these positions for life.
This is the same thing Julius Caesar did, except the existing title he held - dictator - carried too much political baggage.
He was declared dictator-for-life and was in open war with much of the senate. Not hyper-democratic. And then he was killed, so we don’t know what his final goal was. Maybe he was going to set things right (in his opinion) and then hand back control to the senate, like Sulla had done a generation earlier, or maybe he would have done what Octavian did later.