Caesar and Alexander
In 68 B.C., when Julius Caesar was quaestor, he visited Gades (modern-day Cadiz, Spain), and famously wept before a statue of Alexander the Great. Caesar was about the same age as Alexander was when he died. The common interpretation of the story says that Caesar wept because he had not achieved anything as significant as Alexander.
This is ironic considering that Caesar arguably had more impact on the world than monarchs in Europe, notably the Kaiser of Germany and the Czar of Russia, who had titles derived from Caesar’s name. Of course, we can’t forget how monumentally influential Caesar's decision was to adopt his grandnephew Octavian, the future Augustus, effectively making Octavian his heir. With this in mind, the influence of the Roman Empire on the world, in a way, is Caesar’s influence, though the dictator wasn’t the one to form the empire.
Caesar compared himself to Alexander, something that probably millions of people have done throughout history, and realized that he hadn’t accomplished a fraction of what Alexander had achieved. People can do the same thing with Caesar, who was a late bloomer to Alexander but achieved a near level of success and fame, if not the same levels, as Alexander. The moral of the story is that you never know what destiny has in store for you, and at what time in your life that you’ll achieve greatness.
There is another moral to this story, though. Caesar’s weeping shows that he held a similar level of ambition to Alexander and that he likely wanted the same level of power and authority that Alexander had. The quaestor was thinking solely of personal glory and power, and there lies the problem: Caesar was thinking about himself.
A good Roman, no, a good citizen of any country, particularly one holding public office as Caesar was, should have thought how they could better serve their country, not how they could obtain personal glory and power. It’s okay to look back at Alexander and Caesar and question whether we will accomplish as much as they did, but we should not seek to emulate either. Both were driven by selfish ambition; this is clearer with Alexander, who allowed his ambition for personal glory to drive him to conquer rather than to build a lasting empire. I talked about this in my Diogenes and Alexander post, which will be linked below. Whereas Caesar at least implemented reforms after he had secured his position as Rome’s sole leader.
But the point still stands: extreme, selfish personal ambition should not be emulated. Imagine how long the Macedonian Empire would have lasted if Alexander had turned from conquest to governing the lands he was responsible for. Could Caesar have saved the Republic if he had been less concerned with gaining power and more devoted to Rome? Perhaps.
That’s all for today. I know this is a shorter post than what I’ve been typically writing, but I’ve had a bad cold/flu all week, and I am writing this at nine in the morning today, knowing that I have to watch my niece at eleven, so I don’t have time for a longer post. If you liked what you read and aren’t already subscribed, then please consider subscribing. It’s free and sends these posts straight to your email. And if you know anyone else who would like this post and/or newsletter, then you can hit the magical buttons below and share one or both with them. As always, thanks for reading!