Editing Julius Caesar (section)

== First consulship and the Gallic Wars ==
{{main|Military campaigns of Julius Caesar|First Triumvirate}}
[[File:RSC 0022 - transparent background.png|thumb|upright=1.15|A [[denarius]] depicting Julius Caesar, dated to February–March 44 BC{{snd}}the goddess [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]] is shown on the reverse, holding [[Victoria (mythology)|Victoria]] and a scepter. Caption: CAESAR IMP. M. / L. AEMILIVS BVCA.]]
Caesar stood for the consulship of 59&nbsp;BC along with two other candidates. His political position at the time was strong: he had supporters among the families which had supported Marius or Cinna; his connection with the Sullan aristocracy was good; his support of Pompey had won him support in turn. His support for reconciliation in continuing aftershocks of the civil war was popular in all parts of society.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|p=28}} With the support of Crassus, who supported Caesar's joint ticket with one [[Lucius Lucceius]], Caesar won. Lucceius, however, did not and the voters returned [[Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus]] instead, one of Caesar's long-standing personal and political enemies.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|pp=30–31}}<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|2009|p=28}}; {{harvnb|Broughton|1952|pp=158, 173|ps=. Bibulus was Caesar's colleague both in the curule aedileship and the praetorship. They clashed politically in both magistracies.}} On credit for the aedilican games, see {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=10}}, {{harvnb|Dio|loc=37.8.2}}, and {{harvnb|Plut. ''Caes.''|loc=5.5}}.</ref>

=== First consulship ===
{{further|First Triumvirate}}

After the elections, Caesar reconciled Pompey and Crassus, two political foes, in a three-way alliance misleadingly<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=119|ps=. "[A]n alliance which in modern times has come, quite misleadingly, to be called the 'First Triumvirate'... the very phrase... invokes a misleading teleology. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to use [it] without adopting some version of the view that it was a kind of conspiracy against the republic".}}</ref> termed the "First Triumvirate" in modern times.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ridley |first=R |year=1999 |title=What's in the Name: the so-called First Triumvirate |journal=Arctos: Acta Philological Fennica |volume=33 |pages=133–44 |url=https://journal.fi/arctos/article/download/85987/44908 }} The first usage of the term was in 1681.</ref> Caesar was still at work in December of 60&nbsp;BC attempting to find allies for his consulship and the alliance was finalised only some time around its start.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|p=31}} Pompey and Crassus joined in pursuit of two respective goals: the ratification of [[Pompey's eastern settlement]] and the bailing out of tax farmers in Asia, many of whom were Crassus' clients. All three sought the extended patronage of land grants, with Pompey especially seeking the promised land grants for his veterans.<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|2009|p=31}}; {{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=121–22|ps=, noting that the Senate had approved distribution of lands to Pompey's veterans from the [[Sertorian War]] all the way back in 70&nbsp;BC.}}</ref>

Caesar's first act was to [[Acta Diurna|publish]] the minutes of the Senate and the assemblies, signalling the Senate's accountability to the public. He then brought in the Senate a bill – crafted to avoid objections to previous land reform proposals and any indications of radicalism – to purchase property from willing sellers to distribute to Pompey's veterans and the urban poor. It would be administered by a board of twenty (with Caesar excluded), and financed by Pompey's plunder and territorial gains.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|p=32}} Referring it to the Senate in hope that it would take up the matter to show its beneficence for the people,{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=125–29}} there was little opposition and the obstructionism that occurred was largely unprincipled, firmly opposing it not on grounds of public interest but rather opposition to Caesar's political advancement.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|p=32}} Unable to overcome Cato's filibustering, he moved the bill before the people and, at a public meeting, Caesar's co-consul Bibulus threatened a permanent veto for the entire year. This clearly violated the people's well-established legislative sovereignty{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=130, 132}} and triggered a riot in which Bibulus' fasces were broken, symbolising popular rejection of his magistracy.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=138}} The bill was then voted through. Bibulus attempted to induce the Senate to nullify it on grounds it was passed by violence and contrary to the auspices but the Senate refused.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=139–40}}

Caesar also brought and passed a one-third write-down of tax farmers' arrears for Crassus and ratification of Pompey's eastern settlements. Both bills were passed with little or no debate in the Senate.{{sfn|Wiseman|1994|p=372}} Caesar then moved to extend his agrarian bill to Campania some time in May; this may be when Bibulus withdrew to his house.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=143 (Bibulus), 147 (dating to May)}} Pompey, shortly thereafter, also wed Caesar's daughter Julia to seal their alliance.{{sfn|Wiseman|1994|p=374}} An ally of Caesar's, plebeian tribune [[Publius Vatinius]] moved the ''[[lex Vatinia]]'' assigning the provinces of [[Illyricum (Roman province)|Illyricum]] and [[Cisalpine Gaul]] to Caesar for five years.{{sfn|Drogula|2019|p=137}}<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|2009|p=33}}, noting that the {{lang|la|lex Vatinia}} was "no means unprecedented... or even controversial".</ref> Suetonius' claim that the Senate had assigned to Caesar the {{lang|la|silvae callesque}} ("woods and tracks") is likely an exaggeration: fear of Gallic invasion had grown in 60&nbsp;BC and it is more likely that the consuls had been assigned to Italy, a defensive posture that Caesarian partisans dismissed as "mere 'forest tracks'".<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=175}}, citing {{Cite journal |last=Balsdon |first=J P V D |date=1939 |title=Consular provinces under the late Republic – II. Caesar's Gallic command |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/297143 |journal=Journal of Roman Studies |volume=29 |pages=167–83 |doi=10.2307/297143 |jstor=297143 |s2cid=163892529 |issn=0075-4358}} Moreover, Caesar's eventual provinces of Trans- and Cisalpine Gaul had been assigned to the consuls of 60 and therefore would have been unavailable. {{Cite journal |last=Rafferty |first=David |date=2017 |title=Cisalpine Gaul as a consular province in the late Republic |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019257 |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=147–172 |doi=10.25162/historia-2017-0008 |jstor=45019257 |s2cid=231088284 |issn=0018-2311}}</ref> The Senate was also persuaded to assign to Caesar [[Transalpine Gaul]] as well, subject to annual renewal, most likely to control his ability to make war on the far side of the Alps.{{sfnm|Morstein-Marx|2021|1pp=176–77|Gruen|2009|2p=34}}

Some time in the year, perhaps after the passing of the bill distributing the Campanian land<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=143}}: {{harvnb|Dio|loc=38.6.5}} and {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=20.1}} say around late January; {{harvnb|Plut. ''Pomp.''|loc=48.5}} says in early May; {{harvnb|Vell. Pat.|loc=2.44.5}} says May.</ref> and after these political defeats, Bibulus withdrew to his house. There, he issued edicts in absentia, purporting unprecedentedly to cancel all days on which Caesar or his allies could hold votes for religious reasons.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=142–44}} Cato too attempted symbolic gestures against Caesar, which allowed him and his allies to "feign victimisation"; these tactics were successful in building revulsion to Caesar and his allies through the year.<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|2009|p=34|ps=, also citing {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=20.2}} – the "consulship of Julius and Caesar" – as part of Catonian propaganda.}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=150–51|ps=, noting that Bibulus' voluntary seclusion "presented the image of the city dominated by one man [Caesar]... unchecked by a colleague".}}</ref> This opposition caused serious political difficulties to Caesar and his allies, belying the common depiction of triumviral political supremacy.{{sfn|Gruen|2009|p=34}} Later in the year, however, Caesar – with the support of his opponents – brought and passed the {{lang|la|[[lex Julia de repetundis]]}} to crack down on provincial corruption.{{sfn|Drogula|2019|pp=138–39, noting Cato's support of Caesar's anti-corruption bill and the possibility that Cato gave input for some of its provisions}} When his consulship ended, Caesar's legislation was challenged by two of the new praetors but discussion in the Senate stalled and was regardless dropped. He stayed near the city until some time around mid-March.<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=182–83, 182 n. 260}}, citing {{harvnb|Suet. ''Iul.''|loc=23.1}}; pace {{harvnb|Ramsey|2009|p=38}}.</ref>

=== Campaigns in Gaul ===
{{main|Gallic Wars}}
[[File:RomanRepublic40BC.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|The extent of the Roman Republic in 40 BC after Caesar's conquests]]
During the Gallic Wars, Caesar wrote his ''Commentaries'' thereon, which were acknowledged even in his time as a Latin literary masterwork. Meant to document Caesar's campaigns in his own words and maintain support in Rome for his military operations and career, he produced some ten volumes covering operations in Gaul from 58 to 52&nbsp;BC.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2006|pp=186–87}} Each was likely produced in the year following the events described and was likely aimed at the general, or at least literate, population in Rome;{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2006|p=188–89}} the account is naturally partial to Caesar – his defeats are excused and victories highlighted – but it is almost the sole source for events in Gaul in this period.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2006|pp=189–90}}

Gaul in 58&nbsp;BC was in the midst of some instability. Tribes had raided into Transalpine Gaul and there was an on-going struggle between two tribes in central Gaul which collaterally involved Roman alliances and politics. The divisions within the Gauls – they were no unified bloc – would be exploited in the coming years.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2006|p=204}} The first engagement was in April 58&nbsp;BC when Caesar prevented the migrating [[Helvetii]] from moving through Roman territory, allegedly because he feared they would unseat a Roman ally.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2006|pp=205, 208–10}} Building a wall, he stopped their movement near Geneva and – after raising two legions – defeated them at the [[Battle of Bibracte]] before forcing them to return to their original homes.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|pp=212–15}} He was drawn further north responding to requests from Gallic tribes, including the [[Aedui]], for aid against [[Ariovistus]] – king of the [[Suebi]] and a declared friend of Rome by the Senate during Caesar's own consulship – and he defeated them at the [[Battle of Vosges (58 BC)|Battle of Vosges]].{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|p=217}} Wintering in northeastern Gaul near the [[Belgae]] in the winter of 58–57, Caesar's forward military position triggered an uprising to remove his troops; able to eke out a victory at the [[Battle of the Sabis]], Caesar spent much of 56&nbsp;BC suppressing the Belgae and dispersing his troops to campaign across much of Gaul, including against the [[Veneti (Gaul)|Veneti]] in what is now [[Brittany]].{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|p=220}} At this point, almost all of Gaul – except its central regions – fell under Roman subjugation.{{sfn|Boatwright|2004|p=242}}

[[File:Siege-alesia-vercingetorix-jules-cesar.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|[[Vercingetorix]] throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Caesar, painting by [[Lionel Royer]] in 1899. [[Musée Crozatier]], [[Le Puy-en-Velay]], France.]]

Seeking to buttress his military reputation, he engaged Germans attempting to cross the Rhine, which marked it as a Roman frontier;{{sfn|Boatwright|2004|p=242}} he here built a [[Caesar's Rhine bridges|bridge across the Rhine]] in a feat of engineering meant to show Rome's ability to project power.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|p=203}} Ostensibly seeking to interdict British aid to his Gallic enemies, he led expeditions into southern Britain in 55 and 54&nbsp;BC, perhaps seeking further conquests or otherwise wanting to impress readers in Rome; Britain at the time was to the Romans an "island of mystery" and "a land of wonder".{{sfnm|Goldsworthy|2016|1pp=221–22|Boatwright|2004|2p=242}} He, however, withdrew from the island in the face of winter uprisings in Gaul led by the [[Eburones]] and [[Belgae]] starting in late 54&nbsp;BC which ambushed and virtually annihilated a legion and five cohorts.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|p=222}} Caesar was, however, able to lure the rebels into unfavourable terrain and routed them in battle.{{sfn|Goldsworthy|2016|p=223}} The next year, a greater challenge emerged with the uprising of most of central Gaul, led by [[Vercingetorix]] of the [[Averni]]. Caesar was initially defeated at [[Battle of Gergovia|Gergovia]] before [[Battle of Alesia|besieging Vercingetorix at Alesia]]. After becoming himself besieged, Caesar won a major victory which forced Vercingetorix's surrender; Caesar then spent much of his time into 51&nbsp;BC suppressing any remaining resistance.{{sfnm|Goldsworthy|2016|1pp=229–32, 233–38|Boatwright|2004|2p=242}}

=== Politics, Gaul, and Rome ===
In the initial years from the end of Caesar's consulship in 59&nbsp;BC, the three so-called triumvirs sought to maintain the goodwill of the extremely popular [[Publius Clodius Pulcher]],<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|1995|p=98|ps=. "It should no longer be necessary to refute the older notion that Clodius acted as agent or tool of the triumvirate". Clodius was an independent agent not beholden to the triumvirs or any putative popular party. {{cite journal |last=Gruen |first=Erich S |title=P. Clodius: Instrument or Independent Agent? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1086053 |journal=Phoenix |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=120–30 |date=1966 |issn=0031-8299 |jstor=1086053 |doi=10.2307/1086053}}}}</ref> who was [[plebeian tribune]] in 58&nbsp;BC and in that year successfully sent Cicero into exile. When Clodius took an anti-Pompeian stance later that year, he unsettled Pompey's eastern arrangements, started attacking the validity of Caesar's consular legislation, and by August 58 forced Pompey into seclusion. Caesar and Pompey responded by successfully backing the election of magistrates to recall Cicero from exile on the condition that Cicero would refrain from criticism or obstruction of the allies.{{sfn|Ramsey|2009|pp=37–38}}<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=194|ps=, noting Caesar's opposition – in early 58&nbsp;BC – to Cicero's banishment. Caesar offered Cicero a position on his staff which would have conferred immunity from prosecution but Cicero refused. {{harvnb|Ramsey|2009|p=37}}.}}</ref>{{sfn|Ramsey|2009|p=39}}

Politics in Rome fell into violent street clashes between Clodius and two tribunes who were friends of Cicero. With Cicero now supporting Caesar and Pompey, Caesar sent news of Gaul to Rome and claimed total victory and pacification. The Senate at Cicero's motion voted him an unprecedented fifteen days of thanksgiving.<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=220|ps=, citing Gelzer, "this extraordinary honour... cut the ground from under the feet of those who maintained that since 58 Caesar had held his position illegally"; Morstein-Marx also rejects the claim of senatorial duress at {{harvnb|Plut. ''Caes.''|loc=21.7–9}}.}}</ref> Such reports were necessary for Caesar, especially in light of senatorial opponents, to prevent the Senate from reassigning his command in Transalpine Gaul, even if his position in Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum was guaranteed by the ''lex Vatinia'' until 54&nbsp;BC.{{sfnm|Morstein-Marx|2021|1pp=196, 220|Ramsey|2009|2pp=39–40}} His success was evidently recognised when the Senate voted state funds for some of Caesar's legions, which until this time Caesar had paid for personally.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=220–21}}

The three allies' relations broke down in 57&nbsp;BC: one of Pompey's allies challenged Caesar's land reform bill and the allies had a poor showing in the elections that year.{{sfn|Ramsey|2009|pp=39–40}} With a real threat to Caesar's command and {{lang|la|acta}} brewing in 56&nbsp;BC under the aegis of the unfriendly consuls, Caesar needed his allies' political support.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=229}} Pompey and Crassus too wanted military commands. Their combined interests led to a renewal of the alliance; drawing in the support of [[Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 54 BC)|Appius Claudius Pulcher]] and his younger brother Clodius for the consulship of 54&nbsp;BC, they planned second consulships with following governorships in 55&nbsp;BC for both Pompey and Crassus. Caesar, for his part, would receive a five-year extension of command.{{sfnm|Ramsey|2009|1pp=41–42|Morstein-Marx|2021|2p=232}}

Cicero was induced to oppose reassignment of Caesar's provinces and to defend a number of the allies' clients; his gloomy predictions of a triumviral set of consuls-designate for years on end proved an exaggeration when, only by desperate tactics, bribery, intimidation and violence were Pompey and Crassus elected consuls for 55&nbsp;BC.{{sfnm|Ramsey|2009|1p=43|Morstein-Marx|2021|2pp=232–33}} During their consulship, Pompey and Crassus passed – with some tribunician support – the {{lang|la|lex Pompeia Licinia}} extending Caesar's command and the [[Lex Trebonia (55 BC)|''lex Trebonia'']] giving them respective commands in Spain and Syria,{{sfnm|Ramsey|2009|1p=44|Morstein-Marx|2021|2pp=232–33}} though Pompey never left for the province and remained politically active at Rome.{{sfn|Gruen|1995|p=451}} The opposition again unified against their heavy-handed political tactics – though not against Caesar's activities in Gaul<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=238}}, citing Cic. ''Sest.'', 51, "hardly anyone has lost popularity among the citizens for winning wars".</ref> – and defeated the allies in the elections of that year.{{sfn|Ramsey|2009|p=44}}

The ambush and destruction in Gaul of a legion and five cohorts in the winter of 55–54&nbsp;BC produced substantial concern in Rome about Caesar's command and competence, evidenced by the highly defensive narrative in Caesar's ''Commentaries''.<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=241ff|ps=, citing {{harvnb|Caes. ''BGall.''|loc=5.26–52}}.}}</ref> The death of Caesar's daughter and Pompey's wife Julia in childbirth {{circa|late August 54}} did not create a rift between Caesar and Pompey.<ref>{{harvnb|Morstein-Marx|2021|p=272 n. 42|ps=: "Gruen.. and Raaflaub... have effectively disposed of the old idea, too heavily influenced by [Plutarch]", citing {{harnvb|Plut. ''Caes.''|loc=28.1}} and {{harvnb|Plut. ''Pomp.''|loc=53.6–54.2}}, "that Pompey had now turned against Caesar... since Julia's death in 54".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ramsey|2009|p=46|ps=: "Despite the fact that Pompey declined Caesar's later offer to form another marriage connection, their political alliance showed no signs of strain for the next several years".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|1995|pp=451–52, 453|ps=: "Julia's death came in the late summer of 54[;] if it opened a breach between Pompey and Caesar, there is no sign of it in subsequent months... The evidence indicates no change in the relationship during 53"; "Julia's death provoked no change in the contract[;] Caesar did not cut Pompey out of his will until the outbreak of civil war".}}</ref> At the start of 53&nbsp;BC, Caesar sought and received reinforcements by recruitment and a private deal with Pompey before two years of largely unsuccessful campaigning against Gallic insurgents.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=243–44}} In the same year, Crassus's campaign ended in disaster at the [[Battle of Carrhae]], culminating in his death at the hands of the [[Parthian Empire|Parthians]]. When in 52&nbsp;BC Pompey started the year with a sole consulship to restore order to the city,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ramsey |first=J T |date=2016 |title=How and why was Pompey made sole consul in 52 BC? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019234 |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=298–324 |doi=10.25162/historia-2016-0017 |jstor=45019234 |s2cid=252459421 |issn=0018-2311}}</ref> Caesar was in Gaul suppressing insurgencies; after news of his victory at Alesia, with the support of Pompey he received twenty days of thanksgiving and, pursuant to the "Law of the Ten Tribunes", the right to stand for the consulship in absentia.{{sfn|Morstein-Marx|2021|pp=247–48, 260, 265–66}}{{sfn|Wiseman|1994|p=412}}