In the name of function Caesars office was to set the state in order again, [2]In a paradoxical situation Napoleon

receives most acclaim (apart from in the military) for his work in creating efficient governmental systems. Caesar does not, though he is not without accomplishment or ideas, there is much evidence that both men set about rebuilding their nations and it is true to say that a large part of their image was consolidated while in government. They would become the best example of peoples monarchs of peoples empires, not a tyrannical establishment but a glorious expansion of liberty becoming the ultimate leader figure unifying the nation under new ideals after the disunion of a revolutionary age. The institutions of the republican years would therefore become great symbols of the efficiency of the imperial state. This would culminate in their celebrated legacies that would become synonymous with Emperor, unifying the people and the military through politics to consolidate power in government. Instituiile din anii republicii ar deveni , prin urmare, mari simboluri ale eficienei statului imperial. Acest lucru ar culmina cu motenirile celebre devenite sinonim cu mpratul, unirea poporului i consolidarea puterii n guvern prin politic. The transitional period began before Napoleon and Caesar came to power as both would create new government through previous governments already existing institutions and practices. Caesar himself never had to invent new institutions as age old ones were still workable. Revolutionary France however needed new institutions for a new governmental structure and though the Directory had began the foundations for reforming the financial and administrative institutions it was unpopular and by no means efficient. Perioada de tranziie n ambele situaii a nceput nainte ca Napoleon i Caesar s vin la putere ca cei doi s creeze un nou stil de guvernare bazat pe instituiile i practicile guvernrilor anterioare. n cazul Franei motivele care au determinat declanarea revoluiei s -au cristalizat nc din perioada de nceput a modernismului. Caesar, de exemplu, nu a fost nevoit s inaugureze noi instituii dac cele vechi erau funcionale ns Frana revoluionar necesita schimbri avnd n vedere c structura societii era aceeai ca n Evul Mediu i cu toate c Directoratul ncepea s pune bazele unor reform e financiare i administrative aceste aciuni au fost ineficiente. 1

The inefficiency of the previous governments was, like the revolutionary situations, similar. To begin with Republican Rome had suffered a social rupture resulting in a clique dominating government as discussed in the last chapter. Not only did this disenfranchise the people but it also led to inefficient government. The expansion allowed the aristocrats to maintain their position; but the republican setup was suitable only for a city-state and was not effective enough to govern the growing empire. The people needed a voice, the colonies needed a voice, other Italian states even needed a voice, and all needed an expanded government administration in order to achieve efficient rule rather than the short term Rome-centric governance of the Republic. The conflict between people and clique ruptured into the provinces and fermented further social strife, strong government was therefore lacking and badly needed. Revolutionary France arrived in the same situation though by different means, firstly it had paradoxically replaced an old clique with a new one by the time of the Directory which was a compromise of the conflicting factions. This did not solve the dissenting problems and the government became even more inefficient as there was no strong executive power and different factions continued to strive against the establishment. In both cases therefore we see the people, and even many of the elites striving against the established government held onto by a clique who refused to give up power. They were inefficient due to misrepresentation, lack of reform and control causing chaos and anger in the divided nations. This paired with expansion, a primary cause of inefficient government, caused more friction as both nations required strong government at home to govern effectively abroad. Imperial history lies in a long social development by which the empire lasts its dependence on precisely those republican institutions.[5] -only for it to be completed by his heir Augustus in consolidating the Caesar figure in government. Napoleon, combining the roles of Caesar and Augustus, restored order and built a new government and system that slowly transformed into empire under his control, yet still like Augustus and Caesar purporting republican principles. Caesar and Napoleon both came to power in this context to fill the vacuum that had been created by political and social upheaval. 2

Napoleon, combinnd stilul de conducere al lui Iulius Caesar cu cel al lui Augustus a reinstaurat ordinea i a reuit s construiasc un nou govern i un sistem care ncetul cu ncetul a transformat Frana ntr-un imperiu sub controlul su pstrnd totui principiile celor doi amintii anterior.

To begin with both reconciled divided nations; Caesar was merciful to his enemies ensuring that all were reconciled within his regime and though many of the ruling class still felt disaffected, many prominent Romans supported his regime encouraged by his clemency. Napoleon mirrored this by inviting many of the pre-Revolution elites, the migrs, to return in an attempt to reconcile old and new France by uniting all factions under him. Ceea ce mai preluat Napoleon de la Caesar este idea reconcilierii. Caesar manifesta o anumit clemen fa de dumanii si i fa de popoarele cucerite cu scopul de a se asigura c toi sunt de accord cu regimul su i cu toate c unii patricieni erau nemulumii cei mai muli oameni i susineau iniiativele tocmai datorit aceste indulgene. Aceast atitudine a lui Caesar s-a reflectat n comportamentul lui Napoleon prin invitarea elitelor pre-revoluionare i a emigranilor s se ntoarc n ar pentru a unifica poporul sub conducerea sa. Caesar and Napoleon were therefore attempting to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. They rallied much support as despite the violent coups that brought them to power, people wanted to see the regimes succeed after years of civil strife and disorder. With most of the nation now reconciled Caesar and Napoleon could begin the reconstruction and ordering of the nation. Caesar i de asemenea Napoleon ncearc s reprezinte interesele naiunii ca un ntreg. n ciuda loviturilor de stat puternice care i-au adus la putere au reuit s beneficieze de un grad ridicat de putere tocmai pentru c oamenii i doreau linite dup ani de tulburri i conflicte civile. The structure of the two regimes was very similar as Napoleon and his collaborators copied the Roman Republican system symbolically drawing the key names of institutions from Republican Rome. Napoleon later transformed it into empire and like Rome used the same Republican institutions to govern efficiently;

Structura celor dou regimuri a fost att de asemntoare nct ne putem nchipui c Napoleon i subordonaii si au copiat sistemul republican roman printr-un desen n care au reprezentat grafic toate instituiile cheie ale Romei. Ulterior, Bonaparte a transforman republica ntr-un imperius pstrnd aceai structuri pentru a guverna eficient, urmnd ndeaproape modelul evoluiei romane. Caesar did not need to build a new system but new government. The Roman Republic and French Consulate both consisted of a Senate to discuss and advise on legislature as well as elected institutions, the popular assemblies and the national lists respectively. In Rome the popular assemblies would elect magistrates and pass legislation but in the Consulate those elected to the national lists were chosen for placement in the Legislative Assembly which then voted in legislation. The people were represented in government in Rome by the Tribunes and in the Consulate by the Tribunate (chosen from national lists). In the Consulate their power was limited to debate but in Rome they had the enormous power of veto over any proposed laws by magistrates, even the Consuls. Despite the blunted democratic element to the Consulate (which may say something about Napoleons aims) both men proceeded to set up a structure that created strong government. In both cases democracy was crushed behind a faade of republic and the responsibility of government was tied together in one man, but at the same time it became more efficient for ruling an expansive empire and paradoxically to champion the rights of the people, as actions in their rule show. Caesar won dictatorship after the Civil War with the senate granting him the combined the roles of Consul, Aedile, Pontifex Maximus and Praetor in monarchical fashion, as an Imperator. Napoleon preserved a fiction of Republican forms, while retaining the real power himself. This occurred after a senatus consultum in 1801 allowed him to bypass and override the legislative chambers, thereby establishing him as dictator. Caesar took power away from the popular assemblies by appointing magistrates rather than them being elected. Napoleon later did the same by appointing the Prefects an addition that Augustus had added to Rome. Napoleon went on from this to forge the French Empire, Caesar would not take the next step (indeed he may not have intended it) and Augustus would complete that task. The result in both situations was however was the same, an empire based upon republican values (or at least purporting them) with similar structures inspired by the role Caesar defined as dictator. There was no direct democracy in the French or Roman empires but the people became represented by the peoples leaders rather than a politics or party, this was personified in the Emperor or Caesar.

Caesar and Napoleons rule in government encompassed rebuilding the nation, as well as completing the aims of restoring order and their nations to rights as Napoleon put it to restore the glory of France. [6] As gifted administrators both men were extremely successful in achieving efficient government and consolidating the revolutionary ideas of the era. Both men began this process by centralising power; Caesar was the first Roman statesmen to have political authority bound not to the city-state but the empire itself. He increased the number of magistrates, to govern the provinces more efficiently, redistributed corn more effectively, forced capitalists to invest in land to raise its value, and brought in professionals by offering citizenship to foreign doctors and artists. He dominated the senate by increasing its number from 600 to approx. 900, mainly with provincials, by the time of his death. This gave the provinces a voice in government that not only relieved tensions but further centralised the state into a more efficient imperial system; Caesar had gathered all the power of the state into his own hands. Napoleon reorganised the financial state stopping people selling themselves short and made taxation more efficient by creating The Bank of France to administer finance. He also conducted municipal reform creating municipal councils for Mayors and their deputies. Napoleon also reformed the judiciary creating a more hierarchical system and increased government involvement, causing them to be renamed imperial courts rather than tribunal courts. These reforms, tied with the creation of a new governing class or nobility, further centralised the administrative state by adding a social structure. This organised it into an imperial system and thus in their quest for unity and order both had centralised and created an imperial state. They went further by introducing moral codes, Napoleon the Civil Code which later developed into the Code Napoleon and Caesar a general moral rule to restore civil unity that had deteriorated in both nations; and they also banned political clubs so that no dissenters could challenge their regime. They had thus both moderated in unifying and rebuilding the nations but at the same time they, particularly Caesar, introduced reform on behalf of the people. Caesar forced employers to employ freedmen in Latifunda and redistributing land and granting Latin rights to Greeks on Sicily and some Gallic communities.

Napoleon pursued a social policy which Ellis argues was more flexible than some have articulated. It consolidated the careers open to talent of the Revolution and worked enough for Napoleon to favour the most efficient men in government. Therefore both maintained the populist line not only in rhetoric but in policy also. It is also worth noting that both men not only organised the central administration of empires but were a crucial part of expanding the empires to begin with, taking the imperial image unto themselves. Linked to this both also advocated colonial policies to expand and solve problems of population. They were imperialists and had expanded their nations empire as well as taking a part in its governmental creation. This was reflected in their rule as they granted kingships and used the imperial offices as patronage to reward loyalty to the regime. In their governance and rule they created order and unity in the once divided nations by centralising power on one man leading to a more centralised state for the future empires. All of this of course increased their own personal power and the question of whether they were ambitious tyrants intending supreme personal power or were true saviours must be asked. It cannot be denied that they enjoyed the trappings of a monarch; Caesar although not named king certainly enjoyed the power of a monarch and even celebrated it wearing purple and laurel leaves in reference to his descent from kings. Caesar however was cut short, and with no evidence of preparations for a hereditary monarchy or a monarchical system for himself or a successor it seems unlikely he intended to go any further than he did. He defined his position to a crowd shouting King, by stating Not King, but Caesar,[8] Though Caesar may not have advocated monarchy or one-man rule he set the precedent for this new kind of monarchy as the peoples leader in government and the very fact that the debate exists shows them to be the same kind of controversial figure. Particularly as both crucially arrived at leadership by the same path where Caesars successors only occupied the role he had defined, Napoleon recreated it. The role of a military and political leader that represented the interests of the people was defined by Caesar and rediscovered by Napoleon similarly through the strife of a revolutionary age. In coming to power via the military and representing the people no matter what their true aims Caesar set the precedent and Napoleon like Augustus consolidated the role bringing stronger and more centralised government incorporating the new revolutionary ideas to restore their nations. By doing so they consolidated this Caesar figure in government which became a crucial part of the transition from republic to empire. The figure who filled the vacuum that 6

social strife and chaos had left by supporting the people and unifying and rebuilding the nation to rule by popular legitimacy with a new kind of empire. This is the Caesar figure in government, the creator of empire; Caesar himself may have had reforms to enable the Republic to go on however it would still have become a more centralised empire, ruled by a reformed more populist republic. The Revolutionaries and Napoleon realised their similarity and emulated it as seen in the art and imagery of their age, most noticeable the change from republican to imperial imagery as Napoleon succeeded as the heir of Caesar creating once again an imperial Europe.

[1] Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, (New York, 1939), p. 52. [2] Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon on Napoleon, (London, 1992), p. 135, Adding, he must know himself. - He like Caesar through government became the bridge to construction rather than destruction, and thus saved their nations. [3] Rice T. Holmes, The Roman Empire and its Neighbours, (Oxford, 1928), Preface, p. xi. [4] F.R Cowell, Cicero and the Roman Republic, (London, 1948), p. 150. [5] Everitt, p. 249, Caesar wanted to restore the constitution but also wanted to ensure that a strong executive authority should replace the senatorial government. [6] Napoleon, p. 137. [7] Adrian Goldsworthy, Caesar: The Life of a Colossus, (London, 2006), p. 606. [8] It is worth noting that many French were more willing to accept monarchy than the Romans who were had not seen a monarchy for hundreds of years even under Augustus republican values had to be purported.