Cato and Caesar: Reform, Rigidity and One Person Rule

Cato and Caesar were there at the end of the Roman Republic.  We look at the both men to try to gain insights into the end of an era.  

Transcript

Cato or Caesar 

April 2026 

“Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.”

Cato the Elder

“Men willingly believe what they wish.” (From Commentarii de Bello Gallico).

Julius Caesar 

Cato stated, “Would Lucius have me live to swell the number Of Caesar’s slaves, or by a base submission Give up the cause of Rome, and own a tyrant?”

Joseph Addison, from the play Cato: A Tragedy 

The unhappy State of despotick Princes, compared with the happy Lot of such as rule by settled Laws. How the latter, by abusing their Trust, may forfeit their Crown

Cato’s Letters

John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon have some explaining to do by creating a fictional Cato vs. an historical one. In the early 1700s, these English writers penned Cato’s Letters, a series of influential 18th-century British essays advocating for civil liberties, free speech, and limited government. These essays, under the pen name “Cato,” were Part of the wider Enlightenment and even inspired the American Revolution.  

Or were the two authors the genesis for legendary Cato?  Maybe it is Joseph Addison who wrote the play, Cato: a Tragedy, a work scene, and loved by George Washington?  Probably not. Trenchard was a radical Whig who, in the 1690s, during the Standing Army Controversy, wrote two pamphlets with Walter Moyle: An Argument, Shewing that a Standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government (1697), and A Short History of Standing Armies in England (1698). Given that the play was first performed in 1713, well after Trenchard’s first works, the play and the letters are parallel in thinking. Sort of like releasing two movies in 1998, Deep Impact and Armageddon, big releases both featuring meteors smashing the Earth, and launching a spaceship to stop the blowup, or change the course, of said space projectile.   

However, among early 1700s thinkers, this constructed Cato came about: Cato the Younger was on the brain.  Here are some excerpts from Cato’s letters:

“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.  The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property...no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.”

And this gem that seems to be echoed by a later, better-known document, from a guy with a better turn of phrase, “All men are born free; liberty is a gift which they receive from God himself...” 

Many, myself included, misunderstood the Koch Brothers’ libertarian think tank’s name: The Cato Institute. I thought it was directly designated from the staunch ancient Roman Cato the Younger. Instead, it is a reference to Cato’s Letters, of which Trenchard and Gordon wrote an astonishing 138 essays.  Fine, but then why did the English pair name their work Cato’s Letters in the first place?  They condemned corruption and a lack of morality within the British political system and warned against standing armies, tyrannical rule, and the abuse of power. Another example, “all History affords, but few Instances of Men trusted with great Power without abusing it, when with Security they could.”

And you know who stood against tyranny in the person of Gaius Julius Caesar?  That would be Cato the Younger, arguably the most obdurate of Caesar’s many enemies. Spending time online with those who not only love history but are zealous about a particular time frame is illuminating.  I have seen pro-Confederates, people who wish Richard the Lionheart, or Richard III (what?) were ruling in England today, and a large group of Romanophiles.  And of course there is. Among a subset of males, myself included, who do in fact think of the Roman Empire every day, which is, to be fair, probably about 2-3 days too many in a given week.  Even history lovers should feel the grass once in a while.

There tends to be a strain of conservatism in the type of history buff who can provide chapter and verse on 14th armor.  Thus, I was surprised to learn that the aforementioned Romanophiles were near-universal supporters of Caesar and haters of Cato the Younger.  

I get it, as we shall see, there was much to admire about Caesar.  He excelled as a lawyer, priest, politician, writer, administrator, and above all else, a general. In so-called popular history, a term of which I have many, many issues with, military history is at the forefront. But at the end, Caesar’s desire for one-person rule is the antithesis to the Western values of individual liberty and anti-tyranny that is also our national hallmark, and not only captured in Cato’s letters. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” 

Many argue that the Roman Republic needed that rule to survive.  But note that Caesar did not reform the Republic.  He did not propose that Consuls serve more than one year, that generals should be rotated so as not to establish a personal connection to a group of legions, or that the Senate needed revision. Instead, he accepted the title “dictator perpetuo” for life.  The term “emperor” was used before that.  

Cato, on the other hand, opposed all of this one-person rule, was a staunch Republican, and a stoic, something also beloved by the Romanophiles.  You get a lot of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius quotes from them, but say the Epicureans? The Cynics? Not so much.  

The issue is which Cato? 

For example, in Addison’s play, Cato declares that he will continue to fight until Caesar reaches Utica, in Africa, and only then sue for peace.  The real-life Cato does not seem much of a suer of peace kind of guy, and his historical actions in Utica support this contention.  But as I have noted many times before, the Liberty Valence principle, a “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”  Instead of going with the Gordon or Addison legend, we will attempt to get a handle on the historical Cato.  

Cato the Younger stands as one of the most morally uncompromising and philosophically driven figures of the late Roman Republic, a period of roughly 140s BC to 27 BC. A statesman, orator, and ardent defender of republican liberty, Cato became a symbol—both in his own time and in later political thought—of resistance to tyranny and devotion to principle over expediency.  And, of course, by 'tyranny' we really mean Caesar.  Cato, who was born in 95 BC in Rome, was too young to affect events when Sulla became dictator.  Though Pompey the Great showed tendencies towards one-person rule, which Cato opposed vociferously, he was never seen as a greater threat than Caesar would later become.  Though Pompey operated unconstitutionally, his initial defeats in Spain at the hands of Sertorius and his lower birth, which occurred outside Rome, provided him with a certain vulnerability lacking in Caesar.  The latter was a patrician by birth from an august family, and after going from triumph to triumph, gave Caesar a certain kind of luster that drew fear in Cato and his political bloc.  It is a sign of Cato’s view of Pompey that they later allied themselves in opposition to Caesar.  

Though we have primary sources on figures such as Cicero and Caesar written by their own hand, we do not enjoy this with Cato.  The only work we have from him is a very short letter.  

So we have to rely on second-hand accounts, and many were written after Cato’s death.  Plutarch’s Life of Cato the Younger is the most comprehensive primary source written nearly 150 years after Cato’s death.  Plutarch was, of course, writing from earlier sources that have largely been lost.  To my frustration, we know of a Cicero work titled Cato, or Laudatio Catonis, along with a counterwork to Cicero’s by the same name, the Anticato. Both are gone.   Other key sources include Cicero, Cassius Dio, and Appian, again, second-hand and non-contemporaneous.  This probably explains why Gordon and Trenchard could summon the Cato they wanted, if not the exact historical figure. This is what we do know.  

Cato was born into the distinguished Porcian family, inheriting a legacy of stern moralism and public service. His great-grandfather, Cato the Elder, whom I quoted above, was famous for his rigid adherence to traditional Roman virtues. It was the Elder who engineered the minimization and discrediting of Scipio Africanus, the military hero of that time.  Cato the Elder also foresaw the end of Carthage, railing against their luxury and concerned that such attitudes might prevail in Rome. Length prevents a more thorough study of the Elder Cato, but it is fairly obvious that he was the critical role model for the Younger.  

From an early age, Cato the Younger displayed a serious temperament and a precocious commitment to justice. Stories from antiquity recount his refusal to flatter powerful men and his early resistance to corruption—traits that would define his political career.

Cato’s intellectual formation was deeply shaped by Stoicism, a philosophy that emphasized virtue, self-control, and rationality. Stoicism taught that the highest good lay in living in accordance with reason and nature, regardless of external circumstances. Cato embraced this doctrine not merely as an abstract philosophy but as a practical guide to life. 

One of the more famous examples of Cato’s austerity, and a little of possible madness, is his adoption of wearing simple clothing, walking barefoot in public, and rejecting luxury. Cato believed that, since early Romans went without a tunic under their togas to endure the cold Roman winters, so would he.  There is no record of a sizable group of Romans aping this trend.  

These habits were both affectations and deliberate expressions of his belief that moral integrity required independence from material excess. 

Cato entered Roman public life at a time of intense political upheaval. The Republic was strained by economic inequality, military expansion, and the growing power of individual generals, including the aforementioned Sulla, the first Roman to march on the city with a Roman force. Aligning himself, shockingly, with the conservative faction known as the optimates, Cato championed the authority of the Senate and the preservation of traditional republican institutions.

As a quaestor in 64 BC, Cato distinguished himself by his strict enforcement of financial accountability, pursuing corrupt officials and insisting on transparency. His tenure demonstrated his belief that public office was a moral duty rather than a means of personal gain.

Cato’s reputation for incorruptibility became legendary. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he refused bribes, political alliances of convenience, or compromises that might dilute his principles. One example was when he was sent out to organize Cyprus (58–56) as a Roman province, the opportunities for garnering wealth were, well, legion.  Squeezing provinces was not only known but, in a certain light, accepted.  Cato had very little of it.  

This rigidity earned him both admiration and criticism. While supporters saw him as a paragon of virtue, detractors viewed him as impractical and inflexible in a political environment that often required negotiation.  And here we come to the crux of those who despise Cato have a great point.  The political system designed to govern a city-state was completely incompatible with an Empire that, at Cato’s time, stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea.  Cato’s unyielding approach to any kind of reform doomed efforts to maintain the Republic.  

One of the defining moments of Cato’s career came during the Catiline Conspiracy. When the conspiracy led by Lucius Sergius Catilina threatened Rome's stability, the Senate debated how to respond to the captured conspirators.

In a famous debate, Julius Caesar argued for leniency, proposing life imprisonment rather than execution. One of the critical bases for Caesar’s argument was that the men deserved a trial. The fear was that a trial, with its attendant uncertainties, might see the conspirators go free.  Cato, however, delivered a forceful speech advocating for immediate execution, emphasizing the existential threat to the Republic. His argument prevailed, and the conspirators were put to death. In this case, we have Cicero’s direct account of the action, so we can judge that both Caesar and Cato acted as depicted.  This episode cemented Cato’s reputation as a defender of the state, willing to take harsh measures in the name of public safety. It also foreshadowed his later conflicts with Caesar, highlighting their fundamentally different political philosophies.

And in this story, we also detect a clear sign of Catonian hypocrisy.  As far back as the 500s BC, the Romans had trial systems as a key benefit of citizenship.  Cato abrogated this practice.  

Cato’s most consequential political struggle was his opposition to Julius Caesar. As Caesar rose to prominence through military success and political maneuvering, Cato became one of his most vocal critics. He opposed Caesar’s legislation, resisted his alliances, and warned that his accumulation of power threatened the Republic.

The formation of the First Triumvirate—an informal alliance between Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus—further marginalized Cato and his allies. Despite this, Cato remained steadfast, refusing to compromise or align himself with factions he believed undermined republican governance.

When tensions between Caesar and Pompey escalated into the Caesar’s Civil War, Cato sided with Pompey and the senatorial forces. Or more accurately, Pompey sided with the Optimates.  Although Pompey himself was not as ideologically committed to republican principles as Cato, he represented the best available opposition to Caesar’s dominance.

The civil war culminated in Caesar’s decisive victories, including the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC. After Pompey’s defeat and subsequent assassination, the republican cause continued in North Africa. Cato took command of the city of Utica, organizing its defense and maintaining order amid the collapsing resistance.

In 46 BCE, after Caesar’s victory at the Battle of Thapsus, it became clear that the republican cause was lost. Faced with the prospect of living under Caesar’s rule, Cato made a decision that would define his legacy. Refusing to accept what he saw as tyranny, he chose to end his own life rather than submit.

Contemporaries and later writers widely interpreted Cato’s death as a final act of philosophical consistency. To Stoics, it exemplified the principle that one should not live without honor or autonomy. To others, it was a tragic but futile gesture.

Cato the Younger’s legacy extends far beyond his lifetime. In the immediate aftermath of his death, he became a symbol of resistance to dictatorship. In addition to Plutarch, we have Lucan, who portrayed Cato as a hero of liberty in his epic Pharsalia, sort of a precursor to the legendary Cato.  

In later centuries, Cato’s reputation endured as an exemplar of republican virtue. During the Enlightenment, thinkers and revolutionaries looked to him as a model of principled opposition to tyranny. His life influenced political discourse in contexts ranging from the American Revolution to debates about governance and civic responsibility.

Yet Cato’s legacy is not without complexity. His unwavering commitment to principle, while admirable, also limited his effectiveness as a politician. In a system increasingly dominated by powerful individuals and shifting alliances, his refusal to compromise may have contributed to the very outcomes he opposed.

If you asked a typical person about Cato, you might get some interesting answers.  He was Green Hornet’s sidekick or the guy who was paid to attack Clouseau in the Pink Panther movies.  Among Romanophiles, they would not only know him but also ask whether it was a reference to the Elder or the Younger.  Recognition of Caesar has no such confusion.  

This very week, I saw two comparisons of President Donald Trump to Caesar.  And in a piece regarding the distribution of wealth issued by Pope Leo XIV, many cited the biblical passage about church and state, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” This was not a reference to the actual Caesar, but, given his reputation among Romans, his great-nephew Octavian adopted the name (Caesar posthumously adopted him) as his own.  And Caesar then became a byword for Emperor.  During the reign of Diocletian, it was a formal office.  

And later rulers adopted his name as their title, as in the cases of Tsar and Kaiser.  We even have direct references to Caesar that people are not really aware of, and I am not talking about salad dressing and the month of July, for example.  

Like Cato, we are reliant on non-contemporaneous sources for Caesar's early life.  Gaius Julius Caesar was born in 100 BC into the patrician Julian clan, a family that claimed descent from the goddess Venus. Although noble, his family was not particularly powerful at the time of his birth.

Caesar’s early career followed the traditional cursus honorum (sequence of public offices). He gained popularity through his oratory, charisma, and willingness to align himself with the populares—leaders who appealed to the common people rather than the aristocratic Senate, or as we have noted, the Optimates. His political advancement was aided by alliances, most notably the informal coalition known as the First Triumvirate, formed with Pompey the Great and Marcus Licinius Crassus. This alliance allowed Caesar to secure the consulship in 59 BC and later a governorship in Gaul.

Caesar’s command in Gaul (modern-day France and surrounding regions) proved decisive in establishing his reputation. From 58 to 50 BC, he conducted a series of campaigns known as the Gallic Wars, during which he significantly expanded Roman territory.

His military success was due to a combination of strategic brilliance, discipline, and adaptability. Caesar demonstrated remarkable logistical skill, building roads, bridges, and fortifications to support his armies. His victory over Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia showcased his ability to overcome numerically superior forces through engineering and tactical ingenuity.

Equally important was his use of propaganda. Caesar documented his campaigns in his work Commentarii de Bello Gallico, presenting himself as a rational and just leader while subtly enhancing his prestige back in Rome.

Tensions between Caesar and the Senate escalated after his successes in Gaul. Many senators feared his growing power, particularly his former ally Pompey, who had aligned himself with the Optimates. In 49 BC, Caesar made a fateful decision: he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, an act considered treason under Roman law. This event marked the beginning of a civil war.

The conflict between Caesar and Pompey culminated in Caesar’s decisive victory at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC. Pompey fled to Egypt, where he was assassinated.  Just before Cato’s suicide, Caesar won an important victory in Africa.  Later, he finished the last of the Republicans in Spain.  Caesar then became the dominant figure in Roman politics, effectively ending the republican system that had governed Rome for centuries.  

After his victories, Caesar was appointed dictator, eventually holding the title dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). While this alarmed many Romans who valued the Republic’s traditions, Caesar used his position to implement a series of reforms (almost all of which were opposed by Cato) aimed at stabilizing and modernizing Rome.

Among his most significant reforms was the introduction of the Julian calendar, which corrected inaccuracies in the Roman calendar and became the basis for the modern calendar system. He also restructured debt laws, expanded the Senate (though this diluted its traditional power), and initiated public works projects to provide employment and improve infrastructure.

Caesar extended citizenship to people in the provinces, promoting greater integration across the Roman world. These reforms reflected both his pragmatic governance and his desire to consolidate authority.

Despite his achievements, Caesar’s accumulation of power provoked fear and resentment among many senators. Instead of vying for power with each other, as had largely been the case for the previous 400 years, all power emanated from Caesar’s largesse.  A group of these jealous and fearful conspirators plotted his assassination.

On the Ides of March (March 15) in 44 BC, Caesar was stabbed to death in the Senate. Significantly, including some miscreants in the 20 or so assassins lay not only those Caesar pardoned, famously Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, but old lieutenants from the Gallic War days such as Decimus Brutus and Gaius Trebonius.  The conspirators claimed they acted to preserve the Republic, but their actions instead plunged Rome into further chaos. I speculate that they did it for their own careers.  It is simply the difference between being elected to high office by the electors and being appointed by one man.  

A new series of civil wars followed, ultimately leading to the rise of Caesar’s adopted heir, Octavian, who established the Roman Empire, though he did not call it that; it was one person rule.

The legacy of Gaius Julius Caesar is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, he was a champion of reform who sought to address systemic issues within Roman society. On the other hand, his concentration of power undermined the republican system and set a precedent for autocratic rule.

I have mentioned that Caesar’s influence extends beyond history into language, politics, and culture. giving rise to titles such as “Caesar,” “Kaiser,” and “Tsar.” His life has inspired countless works of literature, most famously William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, which explores themes of power, loyalty, and betrayal. 

So why do many Americans and Europeans, steeped in Republican, Democratic, and Constitutional monarchies wherein the ruling house has little power, seem to adhere more to Caesar than to Cato?  

Part of it is one of the faultiest concepts of our modern age, captured by Thomas Friedman’s “China for a day.”  The ability of a farseeing, brilliant visionary to enact quick reforms.  Alexander Hamilton admired Julius Caesar as the “greatest man that ever lived,” likely favoring him for his decisive leadership, military genius, and creation of a strong, centralized government, which aligned with Hamilton’s preference for a robust executive and a powerful national state over fragmented power. 

The problem is that the reformer can turn tyrannical. And once such power is accrued, it can be used by the next guy for purposes having little to do with the betterment of the state.  Augustus was highly successful, but later in his dynasty, we have Caligula and Nero.  In the 21st-century United States, the same people applauding the extra constitutionality of decisions made by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, decrying it when used by Trump, and vice versa.  

Cato understood this better than most.  Yet his solution was not to implement the reforms that accompanied the profound changes in the Roman government from a city-state to a multi-continental empire.  It was his intransigence that likely created what he most feared.  

And Part of it is the simple who would you like to have a beer question.  From the writings we do have, from the devotion of his armies, the hero worship of his great nephew, and yes, even his sexual conquests, of which there were reputed to be many, speak of an overwhelming charm and charisma, though none of it worked on Cato.  This is the guy to hang with. Contrast with the image of the charmless Cato yammering about a Republican system that was antiquated 100 years before his birth, and the hypocrisy of some of his actions.  No, I would not want to have a beer with Cato the Younger.    

What is missing here is the middle ground.  On the one hand the rigid revulsion to any reform.  On the other reform, but only towards the end of one person rule.  Later we have Octavian who, on paper at least, restored the Republic.  There was a Senate, tribunes of the Plebs, Consuls and Praetors.  Only that Octavian was, all at the same time, tribune, governor of several provinces, the ones with legions, and even Pontifex Maximus, chief of the state religion.  No dictator perpetuo but certainly no reformer of the Republic.  I hearken back to the Gracchi of the 110s, people who tried to reform the system, from within the system.  That neither Cato and Caesar tried this, (and Caesar supporters would argue he did but Cato etc.) is another aspect linking the two men.