The assassination of Julius Caesar



On the 15th March 44 B.C (Ides of March), Julius Caesar was assassinated. Suetonius, not surprisingly, gives us a detailed account of those events.

"As soon as Caesar took his seat the conspirators crowded around him as if to pay their respects. Tillius Cimber, who had taken the lead, came up close, pretending to ask a question. Caesar made a gesture of postponment, but Cimber caught hold of his shoulders. 'This is violence!' Caesar cried, and at that moment, as he turned away, one of the Casca brothers with a sweep of his dagger stabbed him just below the throat. Caesar grasped Casca's arm and ran it through with his stylus; he was leaping away when another dagger blow stopped him. Confronted by a ring of drawn daggers, he drew the top of his gown over his face and at the same time ungirded the lower part, letting it fall to his feet so that he would die with both legs decently covered. Twenty-three dagger thrusts went home as he stood there. Caesar did not utter a sound after Casca's blow had drawn a groan from him; though some say that when he saw Marcus Brutus about to deliver the second blow, he reproached him in Greek with: 'You too my child?'
The entire Senate then dispersed in confusion and Caesar was left lying dead for some time until three slave boys carried him home in a litter, with one arm hanging over the side."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Bloody traitors!
Sunday, 31 July, 2005
Anna said…
I know, it is so horrible. I watched a film on tv the other night about him and when it showed the assassination scene I cried and cried...couldn't stop crying. They just kept stabbing him and stabbing him. What a terrible way to go. Betrayal is horrendous..
Sunday, 31 July, 2005
Anonymous said…
His assassination was the best thing that could've happened to him.

Had he not been killed, before too long he would have been just another Marius or Sulla. His early death coupled with his rapid rise to power has meant he, like Alexander, is still regarded as a legend.
Monday, 01 August, 2005
Anna said…
So, you reckon Octavian was better than Caesar?
Monday, 01 August, 2005
Anonymous said…
Have you read Christian Parenti's book with the same name as your post? It sites Ceaser's murder within the political struggles of the late Republic. In his interpretation Ceaser's murder was the assassination of a popularis who represented the common people by the representatives of Rome's ruling class.

Also:

'Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me'
Tuesday, 02 August, 2005
Anna said…
Yes, I have read Michael Parenti's book which poses a very interesting viewpoint. Yes, I believe Rome's ruling class were not too hapopy with Caesar who did not cater specifically for their interests alone, as they would have liked him to have done. I think the Principate that Octavian (Augustus) set up was disastrous in many respects, even though it led to the Roman Peace...
Tuesday, 02 August, 2005
Anonymous said…
I think the distinction between Ceaser and Augustus is that, while both were seeking to preserve Rome's great power status, and the existing balance of class power within Rome, Ceaser attempted to do this through reform and empowering the plebians against the nobility, whereas Augustus bought off the common people with 'bread and circuses' and left Rome's social structure unchanged. Augustus' achievement was to preserve the existing power of Rome's ruling class whilst at the same time permitting the entry of the 'new men' who had been excluded from power by the Republican aristocracy.

There's been some good left-wing Roman history written recently along with Parenti's book, there's Therese Urbanzyck's 'Spartacus' and Neil Faulkners' 'Apocalypse' and 'The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain'. Theyre worth reading.
Tuesday, 02 August, 2005
Anna said…
Thanks for telling me about those books. I will try and get them on Saturday.
As for your views on Augustus, I agree with you one-hundred percent.
Tuesday, 02 August, 2005
Anonymous said…
Octavian was a much better politician than Caesar; he was also aware of his weaknesses and not afraid to rely on his friends to compensate (I'm thinking particularly of his appalling soldiering skills, and his reliance on Agrippa in this area).

Basically, I view Octavian on a par with Henry VII; not an innovator, but a very necessary ruler at a time of chaos in that he brought stability.
Thursday, 04 August, 2005
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Catherine the Great and her Many Lovers

Image
Catherine the Great was empress of Russia from 1762 until she died in 1796. She was born in 1729 in Poland and in 1744 was taken to Russia to marry the young Grand Duke Peter, heir to the throne and not of a sane mind. For seven years during their marriage Peter spent his time playing with toy soldiers and dogs and showed no interest in sex. In fact he had a physical disability, a very tight foreskin, which may have played an important part in that matter. Finally the empress Elizabeth gave Catherine the permission to take a lover, which she did and was soon pregnant. She convinced Peter it was his own child, as was the plan anyway. In the meantime he had been circumcised so that he could perform the sexual act. Catherine developed a taste for young soldiers. She had a special area built in her bedroom, which was curtained off and where she received her lovers. Gregory Orlov was her on and off lover for around thirteen years. He was said to possess excellent equipment, unbelievable ‘st...
Read more

Emperor Elagabalus; the Teenage Pervert

Image
When the emperor Caracalla was murdered in 217, the fourteen-year-old Elagabalus succeeded him. He only ruled for 4 years, but in that short period of time he commited a variety of grotesque and debauched acts, enough to make Caligula and Commodus seem rather plain. His real name was Bassianus but as he developed an intense interest in worshippng the Syrian god Elagabal, became High Priest of the cult and so had his name changed to Elagabalus. To honor his god, he demanded that hundereds of cattle were slaughtered daily on huge sacrificial altars. He had a temple built on the Palatine Hill and ordered the Romans to worship a statue of a giant phallus, which didn't go down very well at all... Eventually he decided he was the god embodied. He started to wear women's clothes and make-up, implored his surgeons to cut his penis off and make him a vagina and when they said tehy could not do this he settled for circumcision. His body is said to have been very effeminate and he had a m...
Read more

The Smelly Woad Dyers

Image
Woad leaves Before Indigo was imported from the East in the 16th Century, the only source of rich blue dye was Woad, Isatis Tinctoria, a plant which is a member of the cabbage family and which was brought to Britain by the Celts. They called it Glasto, hence Glastonbury, which means ‘a place where woad grows’. The process by which the dye was extracted was lengthy and very smelly indeed, (think combination of raw sewage and rotten cabbage) and the people who did this work, woad dyers, were outcasts of society, since they smelt so much. As a result they were isolated and inbred. There was no way of hiding if you were a woad dyer as even if you washed yourself really well to remove the stench, the blue dye could be seen on your fingers and under your fingernails. Queen Elizabeth I, not being able to stand the stench from their workshops, decreed that woad dyers should be at least 5 miles away from wherever she was staying. As it took 50 kilos of woad in order to produce 5 kilos of pigme...
Read more