Julius Caesar, the Roman dictator, was assassinated by a group of around 60 senators during a Senate meeting on March 15, 44 BC. The conspirators, known as the “Liberators”, had various motivations but a common thread: the fear of Caesar’s despotic rule and the potential end of the Roman Republic. They stabbed Caesar 23 times, killing the Roman leader.
The conspirators, led by Marcus Junius Brutus, Gaius Cassius Longinus, and Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, claimed to be acting over fears that Caesar’s unprecedented concentration of power during his dictatorship was undermining the Roman Republic. At least 60 to 70 senators were party to the conspiracy, led by Brutus. Brutus was the heart of the conspiracy against Julius Caesar but also the reason the conspiracy failed. His blunders were too much to overcome for the conspiracy to succeed.
The political assassination of Julius Caesar was a play written by William Shakespeare and based on historical events. At least 60 people, and possibly more than 80, were involved in the plot against Caesar. The mastermind of the conspiracy was Cassius, who had little knowledge of his early life. The problem from those wanting to plot an assassination is discovery. There were already suspicions of conspiracy and, in retrospect, ominous portents.
Brutus’s main reason for killing Caesar is to stop him before he gets too powerful. Once inside the Capitol, the conspirators gather around Caesar under the guise of pleading for the return of an exile. Beginning with Casca, they stab Caesar to death. Even though Caesar was his friend, Brutus joined the conspiracy against Caesar’s life because he felt that Caesar’s death was better for Rome.
📹 The great conspiracy against Julius Caesar – Kathryn Tempest
Dig into the personal and political assassination of Roman dictator Julius Caesar, and find out why his senators plotted against …
What is Caesar’s tragic mistake?
Despite his professed love for the republic, Caesar is ultimately driven by a desire for power. His primary deficiency is an excess of self-assurance, which renders him susceptible to the circumstances that ultimately result in his demise.
Why was Caesar so unpopular?
The senators who assassinated King Pompey held the view that he had assumed an excessive degree of authority, with a number of them seeking to eliminate him for the sake of consolidating their own power and influence.
Why didn’t people like Caesar?
On March 15, 44 B. C., around 40 Roman senators stabbed dictator Caesar to death, despite his popularity among the Roman people. The senators plotted to kill Caesar, but their plan backfired, as the Roman people hated them even more for killing their beloved. Over 1, 500 years later, William Shakespeare immortalized Caesar’s death in his play “Julius Caesar”, where Caesar’s friend Brutus is the last senator to stab him. Caesar’s true words as he died remain unknown.
Why did the Senate hate Cesar?
The Senate, a group of appointed political leaders, resented Caesar’s popularity and arrogance, leading to his assassination by a group of up to 60 conspirators on March 15, 44 B. C. E. The group stabbed Caesar 23 times, killing him. However, the death had a negative impact on the Roman public, leading to civil wars. Eventually, Caesar’s grandnephew and adoptive son, Octavian, emerged as Rome’s leader, renaming himself Augustus Caesar. Augustus’ reign marked the end of the Roman Republic and the start of the Roman Empire.
Why did the Senate dislike Caesar?
Caesar was assassinated in March 44 BC, with the conspirators’ motives being both personal and political. Many of the conspirators were senators, angry about Caesar’s deprivation of the senate of power and prestige, and rumors of him becoming king. Their grievances were vague, and their plan against him was unclear.
After Caesar’s assassination, Mark Antony formed an alliance with Caesar’s adopted son and great-nephew, Gaius Octavian, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who formed the Second Triumvirate. They held powers nearly identical to Caesar’s, making the senate and assemblies powerless. The conspirators were defeated at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC, and Lepidus became powerless. Antony went to Egypt for glory, while Octavian remained in Rome.
Eventually, Antony and Octavian fought against each other in one last battle, with Antony being defeated in the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BC and committing suicide in 30 BC. In 29 BC, Octavian returned to Rome as the unchallenged master of the state. In 27 BC, Octavian offered to give up his Dictatorial powers, but the senate refused, ratifying his status as master of the state. He became the first Roman Emperor, Augustus, and the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire was complete.
Why didn’t people like Julius Caesar?
On March 15, 44 B. C., around 40 Roman senators stabbed dictator Caesar to death, despite his popularity among the Roman people. The senators plotted to kill Caesar, but their plan backfired, as the Roman people hated them even more for killing their beloved. Over 1, 500 years later, William Shakespeare immortalized Caesar’s death in his play “Julius Caesar”, where Caesar’s friend Brutus is the last senator to stab him. Caesar’s true words as he died remain unknown.
What was the charge against Caesar?
Caesar, who was still serving as proconsul for several more years, was dismissed by the Senate, which announced its intention to prosecute him for a range of offenses, including bribery and “sacrilegious conduct,” which Caesar had established during his “holy days.”
What is to blame for Caesar’s downfall?
The conspirators, led by Cassius, perpetrate a murder that ultimately results in Caesar’s downfall. The play underscores the imminent demise of the audience through the use of nightmares and the issuance of a warning by the soothsayer, urging them to beware of the forthcoming “Ides of March.”
Why was Caesar declared an enemy of Rome?
Caesar, a Roman general, was in a better position than Caesar, as he was no longer immune to prosecution if he refused to obey the Senate’s demands. If Caesar refused, he would be declared an enemy of the state and the Senate would appoint a commander with extraordinary powers, likely Pompey. In 49 BCE, Caesar was asked to hand over his ten well-trained legions to a new governor. He chose to rebel, choosing the dignity of war over the humiliation of a process.
On 10/11 January, Caesar’s Thirteenth legion advanced to Rimini, controlling the passes across the Apennines and crossing the river Rubicon, invading Italy and provoking the Second Civil War. Caesar’s perspective was not great, as nine of his legions were still on duty in Gaul. However, the Senate made a disastrous mistake, believing that the issue was between a rebel and legitimate rulers. Italy was skeptical about its champions and showed little enthusiasm to defend the senatorial constitution. Caesar’s soldiers’ pension depended on this campaign, and doubts disappeared when Caesar doubled the wages of the legionaries.
What was the problem with Caesar?
Gaius Julius Caesar, a Roman statesman, general, and author, was known for his conquest of Gaul and his subsequent coup d’état. He transformed the Roman republic into a monarchy and established the foundations of a Mediterranean empire. Caesar’s main issue was his growing power, as the Roman republic was an oligarchy with shared powers among senators. Despite the Senate’s defeat, oligarchic sentiments remained strong, and Caesar had to find a way to make his rule tolerable.
His clemency was important, but it was merely a precondition. Caesar may have wanted to evade the question by leaving Rome and starting a new military campaign. In spring 44, an expeditionary force, consisting of at least the legions II, IIII, XXVII, XXXV, XXXVI, and XXXVII, was on its way to the east to avenge Crassus’ death. The dictator planned to attack the Parthian empire, but success in the east would not solve the domestic problem.
📹 The CONSPIRACY Against JULIUS CAESAR.
The death of Julius Caesar is a pivotal moment in ancient Roman history. It occurred on March 15, 44 BCE, famously known as …
I feel a bit bad about how Caesar gave up fighting when he saw Brutus, the boy whose life he had saved and raised like a son. It’s shattering to be honest. I can’t imagine what Brutus also must have gone through after witnessing that scene. Caesar also must have been heart broken. The want for power broke both Caesar and Brutus.
Beautifully animated and well-researched, but I do feel that the writers of this article have taken the more optimistic and idealistic view of Brutus that Shakespeare popularized, where he was an honourable man standing up against tyranny that he thought would destroy the Republic. In reality the Republic was as corrupt and inefficient as they come, and Brutus was no exception to this. He was a part of the corrupt and broken system that he claimed to fight for, and he was more than happy to accept the honours and titles that Caesar himself gave him.
The “Republic” was merely an oligarchy, where a tiny class of the rich and powerful concentrated power and wealth in their hands. Caesar may have been a “tyrant”, but he gave a voice to the common people and drastically improved their standards of living. I support democracy, but I feel as though Caesar was the good guy in this case.
It’s surprising how little thought they gave to the aftermath of their plot, you would think they would be concerned with the mobs and those loyal to Caesar seizing power after his death, leading to a worse situation. It’s also interesting to see how, yet again, as seems the case throughout history, betrayal is followed by tragedy for those involved (i.e. they, and most everyone around them, would have been far better off with the status quo and they painfully realized it afterwards).
He was a close friend to Julius right?? He could’ve just said “Hey bro, think about it tho, you have like, so much power, I think you should take it down a notch before we turn into a monarchy again,” and seeing that ending, I’m sure that Julius would understand his point of view completely. This was all a big misunderstanding and it could’ve been solved by just talking to the man himself. But no, they had to do it Game of Thrones style didn’t they.
Have to give GRRM his props. He used this one story in history to inspire an important scene in his book and also, an entirely separate character. Caesar’s death at the hands of the Senators and the way he said “And you, child?” reminds me of how Jon said “Olly” right before he was stabbed in the heart. But not only that, I think Brutus was the inspiration behind Theone Greyjoy because Theone always struggled with a dual sense of loyalty, both to his House but also to the Starks who raised him and accepted him as one of their own. In the end, I kind of feel very sorry for Brutus 😔 I think in his heart, he knew killing Caesar was wrong but he was conflicted because of what so many other people were telling him and because of his own past. I think he went through with the assassination because he convinced himself it was right but when the tides turned and what they did caused more war and strife, the guilt at what he’d done ate away at him and he killed himself. It’s such all round tragic story 😢
It is known that despite the fact that Rome and Greek cities had democracy or republic or however you want to call it the power was not equally distributed between the people and the nobles. Nobles still had more influence on politics and more power. The assassination of Julius Ceasar had nothing to do with ideology. it was all about the wealthy men of the time keeping their prestige. Ceasar wasn’t a tyrrant, he was benevolent, at least with his own people. He clearly didn’t desire to exploit people’s struggle for his benefit.
Julius pardoned Brutus for siding with Pompey and treated him like a son most likely because he WAS Julius’ son, although illegitimate. Roman historian Suetonius wrote that Julius Caesar had a well-known affair with Brutus’ mother about a year before he was born. In fact during the assassination Julius was even reported to have blurted out in Greek, “Kai su tek non?!” as Brutus stabbed him, meaning, “And you my son?!” (He did not say, “Et tu Brute?!”, that was an invention of Shakespeare’s). Brutus was reported to appear very troubled and brooding in the days leading up to the assassination, and who wouldn’t be when pressure was being placed on you to murder your own father.
I suppose we may neve really know some of the details of this event, being unable to personally meet/experience Julius Caesar or Brutus and thereby gain insight into their true intentions, however I feel the truth is pretty obvious based on other facts. This is how I interpret Julius Caesar from what I’ve heard and read: Julius Caesar GENUINELY wanted to help the most possible people, both because that is what “justice” is, and to be “just” was one of the virtues emphasized in Roman society but also because the Romans were smart enough to understand and accept mortality and he recognized it was the greatest way to secure undying fame. The way he saw it, the greatest good and his own personal glory were on the same path. Was he vain? Absolutely. Was he a tyrant? No; he was benevolent, just, and did a fantastic job reorganizing and reinspiring a society that had become sucked dry by the aristocrats in recent years. The senators were not trying to defend justice, no trying to defend the people from tyranny; they were having their wealth more fairly distributed and taxed, and Julius Caesar neither fear nor respected them and they hated him for it. It was a personal vendetta to secure their fortunes. They, and perhaps his own mother (who Caesar had an affair with and left; “hell hath no fury”) probably convinced Brutus to take part under the reasoning that “your family has always fought against the kind of kinghood Caesar has seized, it’s your Roman >duty< to also do so". What is important to note is that A) Julius Caesar fought alongside his men in many of the great battles he fought, which is one of the reason he inspired so much love, constantly risking his own life and wellbeing for his people. B) even in all the years he held the title of "dictator" (before and after adding "perpetuo"), he never attempted to set up a dynasty whereby his family assumed his power upon death; this suggests he didn't intend that. THAT was one of the main problems with the early kings like Tarquinn that early Romans took issue with: potentially incapable/corrupt rulers not chosen by the people C) If you really want someone terrible, look to his nephew Augustus, who history SOMEHOW remembers fondly despite all his treachery against Rome while Julius's good name is besmirched. There was little evidence of any kind that Caesar actually chose Augustus as an heir despite his claim, and we see him being an honorless opportunist countless times during his reign, first claiming association with his uncle Julius to gain power after the outrage that followed his assassination, then selling out to the same aristocrats Julius fought and tearing down many of the laws he had fought so hard to institute as soon he could for money and power. Augustus never fought in his battles, even conveniently feigning sickness (despite consistent good health otherwise) at the only 2 real battles he was expected to lead. And we see exactly WHY dynasties are so bad when he becomes emperor. A) he is weak and gets consistently used by Brutus' wife, Livia, who convinces him to take her as his wife after he beats Brutus (she has no desire to join him while she thinks Brutus still may win). B) Augustus is the first one of Rome's leaders to basically stop, or drastically slow down, the advancing of Roman territory and wealth, and this trend will be one of the effects which destroys Rome. Yea, he mildly improved the infrastructure with some roads, but sowed the seeds of apathy and a completely useless dynastical ruling class being in charge. C) When he dies, even though he was mildly effective as a ruler, moderately serving the interests of his people when he wasn't vying for personal power at any cost, we get to watch Livia twist his unintelligent and incapable (worse yet, often insane and tyrannical) heirs around her finger rather than see Rome led by anyone capable of or inspired to see Rome actually thrive. In other words: YES, we weren't there.....however YES, we can also pretty easily interpret Julius Caesar's motives through his actions and the motives of those opposing him, especially when comparing him to his nephew's legacy. Julius, having already spent decades bravely fighting right alongside his men in battle, worked almost exclusively on improving the good of the public he felt he served, even if he hoped for glory in the process. He would not take an action purely for glory if it did not also coincide with the good of Rome. Augustus refused to be present in basically any battle, even the most important ones in a civil war fought in HIS name, frequently sold out the good of Rome whenever it was useful to his accumulating power, and installed a dynasty that selfishly ensured that no matter how incapable or terrible his sons and grandsons were they would be the ones that held the reins of power over Rome. I feel it's rather obvious that even if Julius Caesar was vain, his intentions were primarily noble and the world lost one of it's most just and capable rulers the day he was attacked by a thuggish group of cowards.
I’m in 8 the grade and we’re studying Shakespeares julius ceaser and I’m so amused by it, there’s this one part where Cassius is trying to convince Brutus to side against Caesar and tell him a story about how they swam in the river Tiber and Caesar drowns and it says that they fought the troubled Tiber with their ” lusty sinews ” and I don’t know why but I find it really funny, I imagine Cassius to be like the ancestor of gaston or something
A very interesting and visually descriptive article however, as has been previously stated, you give far too much credit to the conspirators and don’t really touch on the more common view; that Caesar was a hero. This is my opinion mind, so don’t think i’m dictating (pun intended) anything. I tend to be more opportunistic and pragmatic and consequently this probably impacts my view; but the way I see it the Roman Republic was falling apart. The Gracchi highlighted the huge problems with the class divides, only the Patricians could become senators (and only very wealthy ones at that, plus familial connections were near to necessary in order to gain prominence – this makes Cicero that much more remarkable) and the senators held all the powers (Marian reforms causing the armies to be held by individual senators, or members of families who’s head would be a senator). The Plebeians had been under-represented since the birth of the Republic, and only when the Populares challenged the Optimates did the Plebeians gain slightly more representation (and Senatus, Popularesque Roma was adopted). Gracchus used the Lex Sempronia Agraria to attempt to redistribute land; the huge amount of slaves owned by patricians meant that the Plebeians didn’t have enough land of their own, it was being purchased by slaving monopolies and causing unemployment, which led to migration from the countryside into Rome and consequently resulting in slums and poverty. However, he was killed before he could force the Patricians to give up their land.
I literally found this out about a day ago. One of the reasons why Julius Caesar spared Brutus’ wife is because he was having an affair with Brutus’s mother. Brutus’s mother was named Servilla. They need to make a series about Julius Caesar’s life. His love and war stories would put soap opera and Spartacus to shame.😮
Unfortunately the book is a bit biased to Caesar because he was a dictator. Dictatorship doesn’t neccessarily means tyranny. For example Alexander the Great was an absolute monarch but not a tyrant. The same can be said for dozens of other great historical figure. Tyranny is basically when the common people is opressed by a ruler or an oligarchical team who acts to each own benefit which most times is against the lower classes. If you search for a tyrant in Rome trace the dictator Sylla, he killed all his opponents and even rewarded people or even slaves who will prove that they have killed one or more of his political enemies. Sylla also gave nearly all power to the noble Senate and turned the Republic to an Aristocratic Oligarchy. Caesar forgave all of his enemies (who ironically assasinated him) and those enemiea where all in the same side as Sylla was. Caesar was a great reformer and loved his people and had not been assasinated he would have done many more great things…
“The Time Traveler” Ok so you get in a time machine and travel back to the old rome. But when you step out of the Time Machine you get taken by roman soldiers. So after you are put before Julius Caeser he ask you who you are? You reply “A time traveler” and he ask you for how he will die. After stuttering for a second yoy say… “Surrounded by friends” and he lets you go (for some reason) Well imagine his face when they attack him “oh thats why he (or she) stuttered”
It’s possible you could have lived long enough to witness Julius Caesar getting assassinated, the start of the year 1, witness Jesus’ life & teachings & the first century church, & everything in between? Truly the greatest generation. Though to live through the two most massive World Wars, the Cold War, & everything in between for those is also pretty insane.
My History teacher told us that Julius was wearing metal laurel on his head to cover his receding hair. When he was attacked by senators he immediately broke of piece if it and started stabbing senators. When he realised that there is too much opponents he tear a piece of his toga and covered his face with it. He did that to make sure his face will be intact so people could make his bust.
I cannot claim to know much about this field of Roman history but I would like to share my thoughts. Perhaps a more knowledgeable person can rectify any mistakes I make in my presumptions 🙂 I’m interested more in the legacy left behind by Brutus. His descent from an arguable more upright ancestry might have incentivized the Liberators to invite him, as a means to justify and legitimize their killing of Caesar. After all, his ancestor, Lucius Junius Brutus, had done the noble thing to remove a tyrant and return democratic rule to the people. Yet in the minds of the Liberators, were they as noble? IMO backstabbing a man because of political reasons would have been the least democratic means to an end, yet they claim to be bring freedom. Furthermore how sure is it that the same democratic return is ensured? Did they fear a dictatorship or a limit to their personal political clout? Maybe they had sought to fill in that political vacuum themselves, bickering and politicking instead of effectively ruling the empire, as the article did mention. And where does Brutus play in this? The article did make him out to be the young man, so perhaps he was naive and succumb to smooth talking? I find it hard to believe that a legacy 400+ years ago would have a moral burden on him, but I cannot be sure. Ultimately the legacy he himself leaves to us cannot be so black & white. Dante was mentioned for writing Brutus into the deepest parts of Hell, but was he regarding the act of betrayal as the worst sin or Brutus?
CEASAR was a hero of the populus,he tried to change rome to better way,he gave the land to PEOPLE,he tried to integrated so called Barbarians into senate he forgives his enemies in order to create better rome he fight against roman elite and lost, and we now the rest how romes ended.Ofc he was genocide and enslaved entire gaulia.but you cant make omlette without breaking some eggs.
Why should Caesar get to stomp around like a giant, while the rest of us try not to get smushed under his big feet? What’s so great about Caesar? Hm? Brutus is just as cute as Caesar. Brutus is just as smart as Caesar. People totally like Brutus just as much as they like Caesar. And when did it become okay for one person to be the boss of everybody, huh? Because that’s not what Rome is about. We should totally just stab Caesar!
The liberty bit was crap, if the population was happy and the nation was prosperous there is absolutely no reason to risk all that for you’re own BS beliefs, the entire point of democracy(which was not present) and the republic was so the people/nation had a better life, but it doesn’t matter even if he was a dictator(which he wasn’t) he was the best result for the nation and not only would he have been elected but would have probably resumed the Republic even after declaring emperor after his death.
Behold, the celestial autocrat who danced upon the stars, Julius Caesar, a sovereign whose very presence commanded the heavens to bow in supplication. His noble visage, chiseled by the gods themselves, bore witness to the weight of a thousand triumphs and the burdens of a thousand empires. Cloaked in the robes of wisdom, his eyes glimmered with the fiery intensity of a conquering sun, illuminating a path untrodden by mortal souls. His voice, thundering like the roar of a tempest, stirred hearts and silenced doubts with its hypnotic cadence. His rule, a symphony of strength and splendor, orchestrated an empire from the ashes of discord, uniting disparate lands under the relentless banner of Roman might. Like a master sculptor, he molded Rome into a masterpiece of grandeur, crafting a society where order reigned supreme, and prosperity flowed like rivers of gold. Yet, even the most triumphant sun must eventually set. In the kaleidoscope of power, jealousy slithered through the shadows, whispering deceit into the ears of those once loyal. Betrayal seeped into the Empire’s veins, a venomous serpent creeping through the gardens of loyalty. Beneath the hallowed vaults of the Senate, where wisdom once reigned supreme, treachery emerged like ravenous wolves. The daggers of deceit, unsheathed by those he trusted most, pierced his noble heart, turning crimson rivers into a lament of lost glory. As the light faded from his eyes, the celestial autocrat descended into darkness, leaving behind a void, as if a constellation had vanished from the firmament.
Personally, as much as I like the legend of Caesar’s last words, I don’t think he said anything. I mean, he was ambushed and stabbed multiple times. You would think that he, in mangled condition, would not have the strength to utter even a couple words. Either way though, the thought of being betrayed by a close confidant is tragic.
I noticed that in Shakespeare’s play, Caesar’s last words were “Et tu, Brute?” – referring to Brutus, and Brutus’ last words: “Caesar, now be still. / I killed not thee with half so good a will.” – referring to Caesar. Pretty sentimental fr man both died saying eachother’s name in their last words. (In Shakespeare’s play) Also, Brutus’ last words mean that he’s killing himself with more sureness and certainty than when he killed Ceasar.
This is remind me, Indonesia have similar story. One of our founding father (out first president) walk into path of dictatorship, and declare himself as a long life president. His close friend which also his vice president didn’t like it, but instead of plotting to kill him the vice president choose to step down and leave. Sadly our first president passed away in an exile 🙁