I'm responding to an earlier post or two about the popularis designation of Caesar's party. That's really pretty incorrect. I know it's tempting to pretend that we Romans had any political 'parties' but that's an entirely modern notion; the very concept of the "left" and the "right" didn't even begin until the French Revolution (when, interestingly, it derived from which side of the National Assembly politicians sat on); even in Europe, political parties as such have only been around for 200 years.

In Rome, it was much more like voting for an individual within the context of his family. That individual had no need to adhere to any party line. Calling us optimates or populares, with its modern connotation, doesn't really work. Individuals in the late Republic, with the backing of their family heritage and affinity, pretty much acted on their own. There was some hint in my family, largely due to Gaius Marius, that we were more open to non-optimate participation and concerns than the families of other nobles, but that really didn't matter much in my own elections. I was elected because I was Caesar and I was a good politician - a good name was important, but I was always elected on a platform of personality. I did not feel obliged to do anything for those who voted for me, other than follow my own impressions of what was best for Rome.