Ides of March

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Does anyone have anything vaguely Caesar related we could publish on the Ides? Book review, article, personal essay, whatever?

 

Moonlapse is teaching me how to publish, and while there are items in queue, there is nothing appropriate to this central annual event.

 

 

We can start by saying that the assassination took place on 14 March and not on the 15

 

 

Edit : Has anyone here read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti ? Worth reading ? I understand that there is a new perspective on the whole matter

Edited February 26, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Caesar CXXXVII]

It is bacause of "The leap year error" that was born after the Iulian calendar's reform of 45 BCE . The poor pontifices added a leap day (for Februar) every 3 years instead of every 4 years . It came to be that the Roman dates for the years 45 to 32 BCE were one day (or even two) before the same Iulian date .

 

Here is a full (not simple) explanation -

"The equation of Id. Mart. 710 A.U.C. ("The Ides of March") to 15 March 44 B.C. is undoubtedly the most famous calendrical conversion in all of chronology. It is almost certainly wrong..." http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbenne..._rom_anl-45.htm

 

 

Now I will rename my movie to "What happened on the Ides of Mars minus one day" or maybe to "Caesar - The man and the "one day" mistake" .

The man who changed his birthyear from 102 to 100 BCE in order to become younger lost a whole day because of the foolishness of the pontifices (he was their chief...) .

[Artimi]

Here is an interesting take on the 'real reason' Julius Caesar was assassinated. (found this article on another site)

 

 

 

http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/35...caesar_was.html

[Primus Pilus]

Here is an interesting take on the 'real reason' Julius Caesar was assassinated. (found this article on another site)

 

 

 

http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/35...caesar_was.html

 

Aside from the zeal of the article's author for the highly objective greatness of Caesar, I found the theory to be interesting. Unfortunately, the theory fails to stand on its own when the reality of Caesar's assassination is considered. Had the greatest concern of the Liberators actually been the potential tyranny and debauchery of Antonius, then it very well would've been Antonius that was targeted along with, or instead of Caesar. Not only was Antonius not targeted but he was purposely left alive in order to prove that the assassination was truly tyrannicide and not a political purge. The sources are fairly clear that the liberators did in fact consider Caesar to be a tyrant and that his death was a necessity.

[Ursus]

Edit : Has anyone here read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti ? Worth reading ? I understand that there is a new perspective on the whole matter

 

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/assasination.php

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Edit : Has anyone here read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti ? Worth reading ? I understand that there is a new perspective on the whole matter

 

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/assasination.php

 

 

Thanks .

Worth reading, I say !

Edited February 27, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[P.Clodius]

Parenti's Caesar has a somewhat 'modern' socialist tone to it, but it does provide plenty of ammo for sniping!

[Caesar CXXXVII]

BTW, lets say that Plutarchus and Sallustius' biographies of Caesar were writen in c. 100 (did Aurelius Victor wrote one ?) - When the next biograhy of Caeasr was writen ? I mean, there are about 100 books about the guy since 1870 or so, are there older ? Since c.100 to c. 1800 ?

[Gaius Valerius]

Hi all:

 

As a new member to this group, I first want to say how much I have enjoyed reading many of the very informative posts of the members over the past several weeks. So now I will take the plunge.

 

A question that I have been asking for years regarding the assassination of Caesar is simply this. How could someone as so clearly politically astute as Caesar, for lack of a better way of saying it, "not seen this thing coming?" Although he did publicly turn down M. Antonius' offer of the crown so to speak, he seems to have often dressed the part of a king, (that three letter word that gentlemen in Rome did not use in public) and displayed an attitude of kingship. How could he not have foreseen the reaction of the liberatores to his actions and seen the conspiracy coming and prevented it? Was it just arrogance? Foolishness? A combination of both? I appreciate everyone's thoughts.

[Fulvia]

The man who changed his birthyear from 102 to 100 BCE in order to become younger....

 

What is this now? This is news to me, please elaborate.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Fulvia

[P.Clodius]

The man who changed his birthyear from 102 to 100 BCE in order to become younger....

 

What is this now? This is news to me, please elaborate.

Hahaha..Yeah quit the revisionism. Caesar's birth date has already been discussed at length and the idea that he changed it to appear younger is retarded.

[Nephele]

The man who changed his birthyear from 102 to 100 BCE in order to become younger....

 

What is this now? This is news to me, please elaborate.

 

Here's the word on Caesar's birth year, from our own Primus Pilus, who authored this introduction to The First Triumvirate:

 

"Of interesting note regarding the election is Caesar's age. The constitution, under normal circumstances, required a Consular candidate to be 42 years of age. Caesar, however, according to common beliefs, being born in 100 BC, was only 40 years old. This has led to much speculation that he was actually born in 102 BC to make him the right age for the office. The fact that the 'boni' and their ultra conservative policies make little argument against the legality of Caesar running for Consul, lends credence to the argument that Caesar was actually born 2 years earlier. In fact, each office Caesar held was exactly 2 years prior to being legally eligible. However, circumstances throughout this imperatorial period of the Republic often negated such rules. Pompey served as consul in his 20's without even having been a Senator first. Both Plutarch and Suetonius, ancient Rome's great biographers, both say that Caesar died during his 56th year. He would have turned 56 in July of 44 BC making it seem quite clear that Caesar was indeed born in 100 BC. Some theories have suggested that his age may have been overlooked because Caesar won the corona civica in his youth while on campaign in the east. Regardless, no special legislation or extenuating circumstances seemed to block Caesar's legal position to run for Consul."

 

I, also, am unaware of any primary source stating that Caesar changed his birthdate "in order to become younger." That does seem a rather extraordinary claim.

 

-- Nephele

[P.Clodius]

The romans also admired maturity of age in politics, it would have been an advantage to make yourself older not younger.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Got you there, didn't I... me and my nonesense...

It was my way to re open the debate about Caesar birth year.

Now that we know (at least me) that he was assassinated in Mars 14th 44 and not the 15, here is my arguments for 102 BCE as his birth year (I must say that I prefer 100) :

 

1. Caesar was made flamen dialis at the age of 16 (Suetonius), who were the consuls ? Marius and Cinna, that is 86 BCE - 86 + 16 = 102

2. If he was born in 100 BCE, he would have held each of his official ranks two years before the minimum age (there were precendents for that but we are talking about every post he had)

3. In 49 Caesar isseud a coin with LII on it . If that was a reference to his age at the time, he would have been born in 102 or 101 BC.

4. Eutropius said he was 56 at the battle of Munda (March 45)

5. Mommsen said so

 

Again, I prefer 100 .

[M. Porcius Cato]

This thread seems to be a grab bag of random topics about Caesar, so just a few thoughts:

 

(1) Parenti's book is terrible. He really doesn't have much of any background on ancient Rome, and the book is Michael Moore-ish in its cartoonish treatment of historical events. Clodius mentioned the socialist tone of the bio, but I don't even think Parenti is even competent at that. Presumably a consistent Marxist would celebrate Spartacus rather than the guy who bragged he enslaved a million Gallic men, women, and children... but then Marxists have always had a funny way of tolerating real slavery while shaking their fists at capitalist 'exploiters' ...

 

(2) PP and I had a long discussion of Caesar's birth date in a previous thread (HERE and HERE), and we came to the conclusion that 102 is more likely. Specialists on the late republic who wrote on the topic came to a similar conclusion as well.

 

(3) On the ides itself, I still highly recommend Nicolaus of Damascus' treatment. Of all the ancient historians, he comes closest to providing an eyewitness account.

 

(EDIT: included links to previous discussions.)

Edited March 2, 2009 by M. Porcius Cato