Sad anniversary . . .

[indianasmith]

On this day in 44 BC, Gaius Julius Caesar was murdered.

The dagger-wielding idiots who thought they were saving the Republic only hastened its demise. 

[guidoLaMoto]

Their mistake was being too timid. They should have had a bolder plot to take out Antonius and Lepidus also, and they didn't have the financial resources to buy back the plebs. Too bad they didn't have Daniel Burnham to counsel them- "Make no small plans."

[indianasmith]

That would have left Octavian, and Caesar's legions, untouched.  The soldiers were loyal to Caesar and would have transferred their affections to Caesar's heir.  Without Antony as a rival, Octavian would have leveraged Caesar's popularity with the great mass of the Roman plebs into absolute power even more quickly.
The best hope for the future of the Republic would have been to let Caesar finish his conquest of Parthia, and then use the loot from that campaign to rebuild and reform Rome.  I don't think he wanted a permanent dictatorship.

[guidoLaMoto]

I left out Octavian because they probably couldn't have anticipated that a 19 y/o kid would have garnered much credibility and be a threat.

What leads you to believe Caesar didn't want a permanent dictatorship? He accepted  one of 10 yrs, -- 20x longer than the "constitutional" limit. Already in his 50s and in poor health, that was essentially a lifetime appointment.....He had ostentatiously rejected a crown earlier....but a Roman dictator actually had more unchecked power than the trational kings. The kings were supposed to get Senate approval of edicts while the dictator's authority was unrestricted.

[indianasmith]

There is no evidence he ever asked for a permanent dictatorship.  If you look at the reforms he instituted, they were dedicated to reforming, not destroying, Rome's political fabric.  I think the "Dictator for Life" was foisted on him by the Senate in order to further the idea that he wanted to make himself a king.

If you go back to the beginnings of the conflict with the Senate, all Caesar ever asked for was to run for consul in absentia, serve out his term, and then go east to conquer Parthia and regain the eagle standards lost by Crassus.  

We'll never know, really, barring the discovery of more detailed ancient records of the era.  

[guy]

On 3/16/2025 at 1:25 PM, indianasmith said:

Without Antony as a rival, Octavian would have leveraged Caesar's popularity with the great mass of the Roman plebs into absolute power even more quickly.

Without Antony, Octavian would have lost decisively early on. It was only later that his military advisor and confidant, Agrippa, grew into the more confident military mastermind.

[indianasmith]

19 hours ago, guy said:

Without Antony, Octavian would have lost decisively early on. It was only later that his military advisor and confidant, Agrippa, grew into the more confident military mastermind.

I suppose that is possible - but who would he have lost to?  Octavian was incredibly clever and a very deep thinker, even at a young age.   I don't think there was a mind among the conspirators to equal his.

[guy]

On 3/18/2025 at 3:42 PM, indianasmith said:

suppose that is possible - but who would he have lost to?  Octavian was incredibly clever and a very deep thinker, even at a young age.   I don't think there was a mind among the conspirators to equal his.

 

While Octavian (future Augustus) attended the Battle of Philippi, where the conspirators were defeated, his contributions were significantly less impactful than Antony's leadership. At that time, Agrippa, Octavian's future military advisor, was still relatively unknown and had not yet established himself as a trusted leader of Octavian's forces. Agrippa was not present at the Battle of Philippi.

 

Let's look at just two of the conspirators:

• Gaius Cassius Longinus: Cassius was an experienced and skilled general. He gained recognition for his role in the Roman-Parthian War, where he successfully defended Roman territory. After Caesar's assassination, he allied with Brutus to lead the conspirators' armies during the ensuing conflict.

• Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus was a seasoned military leader and one of Caesar's trusted lieutenants during the Gallic Wars. He made significant contributions to Caesar's campaigns and was later appointed to key commands before betraying Caesar. Despite Caesar's wife's admonitions against attending the fateful Senate meeting, he was persuaded to go by Decimus. 

These individuals weren't just senators—they were battle-hardened figures who had fought alongside Caesar.

Only Marcus Junius Brutus was not known for his military prowess before the Ides of March. (This is the Brutus of Shakespeare's famous but historically inaccurate "Et tu, Brute?" line.)

Edited Sunday at 08:54 PM by guy

[indianasmith]

I think Cassius Longinus was the abler of the two, to be sure.  

Who would the legions have sided with?  I think that would be the deciding factor, in the end.  Could Octavian have won their loyalty?

[guidoLaMoto]

Keeping in mind that a conservative is one who wants to save/preserve the constitution/traditional ways, while a liberal is one who feels free to stretch or change the constitution/traditional ways, Caesar was a liberal-- having stretched the traditional limits of authority as proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul by invading Translpine Gaul, he wanted to again stretch things to run for consul again in absentia (a) so he could avoid Senatorial prosecution if he returned to Rome with office expired and (b) not return until re-elected to consular office and thus be immune from prosecution (sound familiar to more recent American history?)...and again, he did accept a 10 yrs dictatorship- way more liberal than tradition.....None of that is in keeping with conservatism and trying to return to the Republican constitution.

[indianasmith]

True - but all of those choices were forced upon him to some degree - the invasion of Transalpine Gaul probably the least so, but the threats to prosecute him for acts which the Senate had already voted public thanksgiving feasts for were the main reason for his insisting on running again.  Most of the things he asked for were not without precedent - goodness knows they had made so many exceptions to the rules for Pompeius Magnus already, including letting him serve as "Consul Without a Colleague." Caesar only asked the Senate extend the same exemptions to him that Pompey had already been given. 
   By the time the extended dictatorship was voted on, the Republic was so shattered by civil war that all the old norms were thrown out.  I think Caesar was a reformer, but I don't think his end goal was something like the principate that eventually emerged. Then again, my concept of him may well be inaccurate.  I think we all, to some extent, see historical figures as we wish them to be as much as we see them as they were. 

[guidoLaMoto]

Was Caesar driven by altruism or ambition & greed?....and don't forget that he was suspiciously supportive of Cataline in the Senate deliberations in 63.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by guidoLaMoto