On March 15, 44 B.C.E., Julius Caesar was stabbed to death in Rome, Italy. Caesar was the dictator of the Roman Republic, and his assassins were Roman senators, fellow politicians who helped shape Roman policy and government.

Military Success & Reforms

Gaius Julius Caesar had returned to Rome in triumph, hailed as a hero. During his time as a Roman general, he claimed to have killed almost two million people in fifty decisive battles. Although loved by the citizens of Rome, he caused, in many ways, worry among those in the Roman Senate - especially the old elite, the Optimates. The man who was soon to be hailed as dictator for life (dictator perpetuo) transferred his skill as a military commander into the ability to lead the Republic. Seeing the need and demonstrating that he truly loved the people of Rome, he decreed a number of significant and necessary reforms - reforms that further endeared him to the Roman citizenry.

While these reforms made him popular among the commoners, they brought panic to many of his enemies and even some of his friends. To these men, their beloved republic no longer existed, especially after Caesar was named dictator for life in February 44 BCE - a completely unconstitutional act. They believed they no longer had a voice as Rome was quickly coming under the control of a would-be tyrant. Caesar's extreme arrogance and vanity offended many in the Roman Senate.

A Conspiracy Rises

The time had come to save the Republic from this would-be king, and thereby a conspiracy was borne. The four leading men of the conspiracy were an unusual mix of both friends and enemies. The first two men believed they had not been rewarded substantially enough for their service to Caesar: Gaius Trebonius served as a praetor and consul and had fought with Caesar in Spain; Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus was governor of Gaul and had been victorious against the Gauls. The next two conspirators were obviously not friends of Caesar: Gaius Cassius Longinus who had served with both Crassus and Pompey as a naval commander and who some believe conceived the plot, and lastly, the greedy and arrogant Marcus Junius Brutus who had also served under Pompey and who was the brother-in-law of Cassius.

After considerable debate, the final decision was to strike during a session of the Senate at the Theater of Pompey on March 15, 44 BCE, the Ides of March. The attackers had chosen their weapon of choice wisely - a double-edged dagger or pugio of about eight inches long instead of a sword. Daggers were better for close contact and could be hidden under their togas.

The Attack

A large crowd accompanied Caesar on his way to the Senate. The dictator entered and sat on his throne. Mark Antony, who had accompanied Caesar, was conveniently delayed outside by Trebonius, as planned. In the theater, there were 200 senators in attendance along with ten tribunes and a number of slaves and secretaries.

Cimber approached the unsuspecting Caesar and handed him a petition on behalf of his exiled brother; Caesar, of course, did not rise to greet him. Cimber grabbed at Caesar's toga and pulled it back. Caesar reportedly said, "Why, this is violence?" Casca dealt the first blow with his knife; Caesar immediately tried to defend himself by raising his hands to cover his face. The remaining conspirators surrounded the shocked Caesar - Cassius struck him in the face, Decimus to the ribs. Caesar collapsed, dead, ironically at the foot of a statue of his old enemy Pompey.

Aftermath

While the conspiracy had all the makings of a great plan, little attempt was made to prepare for afterwards. The conspirators made their way to Capitoline Hill and the Temple of Jupiter. Brutus spoke from a platform at the foot of the hill, trying in vain to calm the crowd.

Brutus believed the death of Caesar would bring a return of the old Roman spirit; unfortunately, the city was in shock, and people became increasingly more hostile. On March 17 the Senate sought a compromise with the urging of Mark Antony: While the laws of Caesar would remain intact, there would be amnesty for the conspirators. Unfortunately, peace was impossible and the conspirators fled Rome and would all ultimately meet their end.

For Rome, the young Octavian, the adopted son of Caesar, received not only his war chest but also the support of the army. A final conflict between Mark Antony (with the help of Cleopatra) and Octavian would bring Octavian to power as Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

    • oranje [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      i am not meaning to be a dick but i'm not sure you are recalling his book correctly or are inferring these takes based on what you read rather than take Parenti for what he's actually writing which is mostly plainly about the period he's talking about. like i dont think he's implying Rome is analogous to a capitalist society, but rather he's implying all throughout that the existence of wealth dialectically points to the existence of poverty, and that this dialectic then points to all these shared political issues and shared contradictory class interests between Roman society and modern society

      from there you can see he's not actually interested in what Caesar /is/ but what he /did/ and why that was treated as autocratic and treasonous and punishable by death to his extremely wealthy peers of the higher class

      that is to say i don't really see how Parenti was wrong about Caesar, and that Caesar's death shouldn't be some weird celebration of a defeat of tyranny

      and about him being a genuine force for good for (some of) the lower classes of Roman society, you're saying this is unsupported and that what Parenti explicitly claims he did (such as wiping debts, preventing people from selling themselves into slavery, bypassing the senate to pass measures that would go against their class interests, among many other things Parenti lists) either didnt happen or can't be attributed to him? this is mainly what i thought you were going to disprove

      clarifying: i have read the book but he basically summarises himself in this speech https://youtu.be/_IO_Ldn2H4o at 23:39 he lists these accomplishments of Caesar - if these are true then the thrust of Parenti's arguments is entirely acceptable to me