Were the assassins right in killing Julius Caesar
Oct 15, 2021 8:09:24 GMT
Gerd von Rundstedt and Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat like this
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2021 8:09:24 GMT
Long title. Didn't really want to write a long ,detailed write-up about it since I had other things planned for that, so why not a discussion on it. In my opinion, I'd say they were somewhat justified, based on their perceptions of what was happening at the time,and even without, I'd say they were, but there's some personal bias on my side. The republic was founded on the fact that their last king was kind of an *Auto corrected*, so they swore to never have any elected king. That worked out well, despite the slow corruption and downfall of Rome as a lot of internal conflict weren't addressed: too much reliance on slaves, economy reliant on conquest, rich people buying out lands from farmers for cheap and causing those farmers to go bankrupt, not giving Roman citizenship to conquered citizens which caused unrest and the lead up to the roman Social war, among other things. Despite all that, the Roman Republic manged to be a lot more stable compared to the other system of governments of the time. Despite my issues with the Roman Republic, skipping over Julius Caesar winning the final Civil War against Labienus in the battle of Minda, he started showing quite some kingly ambitions, literally. He was able to wear his flamboyant clothing of a purple toga and a crown made of laurel leaves. He also commissioned a golden chair to be placed between to consuls in senate meetings, just a normal chair, definitely not a throne . He placed a lot of supporter in the senate, therefore any opposition would easily be vetoed, or be straight up silenced. He just gave consulships to people who supported him, which prompted Cicero to explain how Caesar was making a joke of the consulships. Caesar wouldn't even stand up before a consul along with a group of the senate, which sends a message that he is above the senate. Caesar basically was a king in all but name. Caesar had the talent of statemanship to be able to reform and make the republic stronger, but it seems that he doesn't have any intent to do so. In the eyes of the conspirators, it warranted his death. The big problem wasn't that they shanked Julius in his sensitive regions, but rather they never planned anything after doing so. Their goal was to restore the republic, as Julius Caesar made it a joke. They did not succeed due to the fact that they never thought of anything outside the stabby stuff. They could have allowed Caesar his Parthian Campaign then have him assassinated there and blame the Parthians, undermined Caesar's popularity through political maneuvering, or just waited it out until a more opportune moment appeared, say Julius Caesar suffering another one of his seizures and then making a move then. Basically, their plan to restore the republic by killing him was justified, atleast in their minds. However, by not planning it out well and letting their emotions get through their head, they inadvertently destroyed the republic by allowing Augustus to take over a few years later, and tho the empire did prosper under the rule of great emperors, it doesn't take a history major to look at how unstable the roman empire was, and it was a miracle that the roman empire, or rather the western Roman empire, survive for 4 centuries. The byzantines survived through a lot of reforms, tho it wasn't really the paragon of stability either.
Tl;Dr : yeah, kinda. But they should've thought it through.
Tl;Dr : yeah, kinda. But they should've thought it through.