Gaius Iulius Caesar
is most famous
for reintroducing monarchy
to Rome, but this is simply
not the case. Caesar had a grand
scheme in mind for Rome, and his ascension
in 49 B.C. definitely reveals
, yet the common misconception
that he intended
to go one step further and establish
line of Iulian monarchs is just wrong
If you look at other Roman contemporaries, no one except Sulla had assumed a dictatorship since the fall of the Eburones and their Hellenistic monarchy. Even Sula had not intended to remain as dictator, but Caesar definetly was aiming for a Roman autocracy. Even in his consulship of 59 B.C. he assumed a virtual dictatorship by, basically, banishing his partner consul Bibulus. He pretty much stopped playing the game the way he was supposed to after this, but he broke no laws during the Gallic Wars (58-50 B.C.). What drove him over the edge, and indeed gave him the oppurtunity to assume dictatorship was Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
A senatus consultum ultimum was declared by the Senate in 49 B.C., ordering Caesar to relinquish control of Gaul and his legions and to return to Rome. Pompey was firmly under the Senate's thumb, though he believed he was furthering his own political career by exploiting the Senate. Caesar, of course, wouldn't hear of sacrificing his dignitas, and thus defied the order, instead marching straight over the Rubicon into Pompey's Spanish province.
This sparked Civil War, and skipping over the messy details, Spain and Italy fell in short order, and he was declared dictator for 11 days in 49 B.C. He then followed Pompey over to the East, defeating him in 48 B.C., at the pivotal Battle of Pharsalus in Macedonia. Pompey fled to Egypt where he was assassinated. Caesar now had to put down the rebellion of Lepidus (Mythridate's son) in the East, then destroy the last of the Republican forces in Africa. Sextus Pompeiius, Pompey's son, excaped however, and would persist to be a problem for the anti-Republicans for a long time.
Anyhow, Caesar returned to Rome in 47 B.C. and was declared dictator for one year in 47 B.C., another ten years in 46 B.C. and finally for imperpetuum in 44 B.C. So Caesar had become dictator, and he had nominated Octavian as his heir, and surely this would indicate that he intended to establish a monarchy, but it is not justifiably so.
First of all, Caesar constantly knocked back lavish titles that were offered to him, and while he accepted many, none ever even so much as alluded to Monarchy. Marcus Antonius constantly tried to offer him the title Rex (King) but he constantly rejected it, and his troops often hailed him as Imperator, basically meaning sole ruler, and he always berated them for it. Most of all, those who did persist to call him Rex or Imperator he issued proscriptions against to eliminate them. Even when describing his own position he was careful not to use Dictator.
Second of all, when Caesar did nominate Octavian as heir, it was only in death. He never told Octavian, and it was only known when Caesar's will was read out at his funeral. It seems that Caesar wanted to do all he could to prevent the Senate from regaining power, as he had lost faith in the Republic a time ago, and Octavian was his way of insuring that autocracy would carry on without him, but Caesar's aim was indeed not to establish a monarchy.