Roughly speaking, when the Roman Empire faced a crisis, or needed something done not handled by commit-tee, they appointed a temporary dictator, or a small team. This person/team would act on Rome's behalf with full backing of the Senate, and then relinquish the power once Rome's goals were accomplished. The cultur-ally powerful custom whereby Romans would go to extraordinary lengths to perceived societal obligations kept the process of relinquishing power fairly smooth. However, as these free-lancing generals became im-mensely popular with their troops, it didn't take long for them to realize they could impose their will upon the entire empire. Julius Caesar was the first man to attempt to do this and claim the title: CAESAR DICT PER-PETVO (Caesar, dictator for life).

Caesar's bold power grab resulted in his forever famous assassination (March 15, 44 BC) and another decade of civil war and strife. Finally, Caesar's great-nephew, Octavian defeated Mark Athony at the battle of Actium (31 BC) which left him the undisputed leader of the Roman Empire at 33 years of age. Octavian accepted the title of Augustus (emperor) and took that as his name. Augustus completed the transition from Republican to Imperial governance by consolidating all the powers and titles into his grasp, thereby leaving a legacy for Rome to be ruled by a single enormously powerful man.

The question remains, was it truly Julius Caesar who ignited the Roman Empire's wrenching change or was he simply the first popular (and brilliant) military commander to recognize the inherent power of a man owning the hearts and souls of the fighting men of Rome?