Because of his leadership style that was characterized by exemplary traits and strengths, survival of Caesar would mean a more enduring Rome founded on strong models of governance and an adequate military process within the country. Had he to follow such autonomies, Caesar would have leveraged Rome in a historic overview supported by his well-monitored state of jurisdiction. Julius Caesar, an excellent politician and army general, lived from 100 BC to 44 BC and was ruler in Rome from 46 to 44 BC. Despite the fact that Caesar ruled for a brief period, he gave Rome new hope and an entire family of emperors. Caesar had an important role to play in the reorganization of the Republic of Rome into the Roman Empire. Born in an upper-class family, Caesar was brought up during bleak times when Rome was unable to manage its power and size (Harris 11). In addition, the upper class was widely discredited, and the once-present order had disappeared to be replaced by chaos. Military dictatorship was the sole clear option.
Caesar would have further employed his former and historical populist strategies of incorporating other important and well-knowledgeable icons on his state leadership thus devolving powers across many people. This would consequently imply that the running of the state would not have solely rested on his hands but in a devolved power distribution. Traditionally, Caesar employed populist strategies as a political icon. Having real power, Julius collaborated with two major persons, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompey Magnus toward the close of the 60s and the early 50s BC. Pompey was a battle hero who had previously been badly treated by the Rome Senate. On the other hand, Crassus was a very rich person (Sandner 18). The two individuals were foes, but Caesar managed to bring them together. Therefore, the three men developed the influential first triumvirate. This alliance dominated the Roman political scene for a number of years. If this would have been his future legacy, Rome would have rested on a peaceful and more constitutionally rationale place.
With his zeal on reform program, he could have made Rome a better place to live in by changing the impending traditional models and policies to yet new ones that addressed the needs of the people in a more adaptable manner. His first program, the triumvirate, assumed power in 59 BC after the election of Caesar as consul. The reform program of the triumvirate was endorsed after which Caesar got himself nominated governor in charge of Gaul and Illyricum. Power within Rome was attained via military invasion. Through this method, the general acquired riches from the conquered, a devoted army, as well as prestige and popularity at home. Therefore, the Gaul and Illyricum governorship permitted Caesar to assume the conqueror and general statuses he very much wanted to have.
Julius Caesar started a stunning war of invasion in central Europe. In a sequence of moderately brilliant drives, Caesar added a substantial amount of land to the Roman kingdom within northern Belgium, France, and, southern Great Britain (Baugh 39). He vanquished the Celts within such territories. If Caesar were to follow pursuit to such program implementation, he could have led to more equitable resource distribution for his people and therefore a better country to live in.
He could also have harnessed great strengths chiefly as exemplified in the way he related with his military troops. For example, he allotted land to them as a sign of honoring their struggle that would have led to even stringer and peaceful nation without any external attack. As consul, Julius Caesar wished to recompense Pompey's troops by allotting them community land. Such a move was unpopular, and hence, in order to implement it, Caesar planned for a protest and employed the accompanying melee to implement his wishes. Gaul accorded Julius some power base to conscript troops as well as carry out military drives that were meant to build his name as well as earn himself a fortune (Berlin 26).
Employing his military skills further during his course of living would have meant a more revamped military energy for his troop hence greater levels of safety for his country from external attacks. For instance, Julius Caesar employed his skills in military tactics as well as the discipline and military training of the Roman army to subdue and conquer the other part of Gaul all the way to the Rhine River. This expanded the Roman Empire into the North Sea. During 55 BC, Caesar carried out the initial roman attack of Britain as well. Such accomplishments granted Caesar unrivaled military, threatening to obscure the power wielded by Pompey. The future of his military success required such skills, which were well-endowed in his capacity
With his ideal capacity of statesmanship and writing he could have hallmarked the history of his leadership yet to greater heights by speaking for his people and writing important and persuading commentaries on his leadership. Caesar was among the most famous generals and statesmen history has ever known. His abilities as a speaker were exceptional. Caesar was a talented writer as well.
His character as a ruthless leader was perhaps the most admissible one that would have waged his nation on bounds of political and resource equality as well as fighting for the rights of the weak. For example, when fighting with overseas foes, Julius Caesar exhibited ruthlessness, i.e., surrounding rebels within the present-day Dordogne, Julius waited up to the time their water supply was exhausted after which he severed the hands of every survivor. This was a good example of what he could have done for his people even in the future.
With his insight for his country, he could have brought widely expanded horizons of changes through growth and development of his country. For instance, Julius Caesar diverted his concentration back home. The triumvirate was under extreme pressure. Pompey became increasingly envious of the success of Caesar whereas Pompey was still hated by Crassus. Following the death of Crassus at war, Caesar and Pompey drifted apart, finally finding themselves on opposite sides. This was facilitated by political reorganizations within Rome because Pompey had sided with the Senate. However, Caesar was by this time very successful. On the other hand, Caesar had numerous foes, and hence, his life and his position were threatened. However, his love for Rome ignited him with the reservation of working even harder toward its success.
Julius recorded some initial victories; in 46 BC, he was Rome's dictator for 10 years, an unmatched leader in the Roman world. Caeser was accorded imperium over the empire. He was therefore essentially above the constitution and the law. After one year spent in getting rid of his foes, Caesar went back home. Bighearted in victory, Caesar exhibited kindness toward his beaten foes, according all of them amnesties and also inviting a number of them to his government. He started extensive transformations in the Roman society. Caesar greatly decentralized the red tape of the nation and was therefore declared dictator in perpetuity.
The imperator title of Julius Caesar was yet another hallmark of his future leadership. He led through generosity and courage and put into consideration all the importance officers in the government. This was an ideal aspect for the success of Rome. For example, following his appointment by the Senate as lifetime dictator, in 44 BC, Caesar was accorded the imperator title. Caesar quickly assumed every one of the significant officers within the regime. The word emperor word is derived from this title. Caesar's courage and generosity had greatly popularized him among his troops. However, his arrogance and power infuriated many people. Despite the fact that Caesar rejected being publicly crowned, telling his fans that he was not king but Caesar, the general feeling was that he intended to reinstate the kingdom. His future leadership would thus have put Rome into a remarkable advantage where observation of the rule of law was implicit (Baugh 50).
Additionally, his nature of governance was recognized as remarkable only by the few. This implied that putting his state of governance in such a context, all the structures would have run as expected as no conflict within the internal layout of the same. For example, Caesar reorganized the regime in numerous ways. However, such reorganizing was functionally worthless because Caesar had absolute power. Such absolute power (lifetime imperium) was very much like some monarchy; it was essentially a monarchy. The Roman people, taking pride in their Republican custom, deeply hated Caesar's power.
His dictatorial regime would have been one that would provide social ties for future growth and success of his country. However, Caesar's foes collaborated with several of his fans who had been fed up with his dictatorial regime. On 15th March 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated within the Roman Senate on the Ides of March. At the time of his assassination, Caesar was entering the Senate in his customary method, without protection or bodyguards. The aftermath of Caesar's assassination was that the Roman Republic came to an end. The Roman lower and middle classes, who were die-hard fans of Caesar, were angry that a little clique of noblemen had murdered their icon (Harris 23). Despite the fact that the rule of Caesar was not remarkable, his triumph within the Civil War restored a nation, governed by the Senate and the consuls with a kingdom, ruled by emperors as well as their family heirs. Caesar's assassinators were under the command of Marcus Junius Brutus. The assassinators hoped that the ordinary operation of the nation would resume and that the nation would mysteriously reconcile itself. However, an additional civil war broke out. This very brutal war lasted for 13 years. When such war ended, the Roman Republic had been shattered to an extent that it by no means again appears in history. This was ultimately resulted in the setting up of an enduring autocracy by Gaius Octavian, Julius' adopted heir. Octavian came to be known as the emperor Augustus (Sandner 170).