Introduction
The history surrounding the death of Caesar, just like other stories of antiquity, is not clear. Julius Caesar was a Roman general and a shrewd statesman who is also blamed by many historians as the person who played a key role in the fall of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire's subsequent emergence. He championed a series of significant political reforms for the empire, including banning carriages in the city streets during the first ten hours of the day. He also played a key role in the preservation of the Greek culture during his time. A group of senators, however, killed him. This paper examines if Caesar was a model politician or a dictator by reading the primary materials that contain eyewitnesses accounts of what happened when he was killed.
From the readings, the underlying idea and motivation that led to the senators' decision to kill Caesar were his dictatorial tendencies. He was at the pinnacle of his rule when his assassination happened, and the senators wanted to preserve the Roman republic rule, and ending Caesar's reign was the most important step towards making the empire republic (Dryden, 2020). The emperor had become a known and prominent figure in the ancient world. He has successfully galvanized his power in Rome through military conquests and savvy political demeanor. He was instrumental in establishing Rome as a republic system but soon after establishing himself, he changed. He dissolved the Roman republic and created an imperial system. He marginalized the republic and seized the empire's control, which angered many Romans, including people he did not just know but also considered close political allies and friends.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The senators begin to plan for Caesar's assassination through secret meetings, and the fact that many prominent senators supported the idea is a hint to indicate how despised Caesar had become to his own people. According to Brutus' excerpt, the senators did not even take an oath of secrecy (Livius, 2020). It means that they were loyal to the idea and needed no oath. Favonius, one of the people involved, declared that civil war is better than having an illegal monarchy implying that they were even ready to cause a civil was to rid them of Caesar's monarchial rule that was illegal by their understanding. When someone refused to stand to Brutus's award, he looked around at the people present in the senate and stated that Caesar does not hinder him and will not hinder him from doing what he believes is according to the law (Livius, 20200. Brutus's statements are a direct indication of a complaint about the lack of adherence to the rule of law on Caesar's part.
Gaius Suetonius , a famous Roman historian, also gives a similar account, pointing to the Romans' dissatisfaction concerning how Caesar was running things (Livius, 2020). To avoid giving assent to Caesar's unpopular proposal, the conspirators decided to proceed quickly with their assassination plan. Soon, a conspiracy plot that had been previously formed by just a few individual groups was now a general conspiracy supported by many because even the common Roman Citizens were not impressed by the prevailing conditions in the empire. They secretly rebelled against the tyranny and carried out for people to come out and defend their liberty. Caesar had become an enemy of liberty in the empire, and everyone wanted him out by any means. The growing unpopularity indicates that he was not seen as a model political leader but a dictator whose intent was to take away liberty from the population (Eyewitness to history, 2020).
From the book, it is clear that Caesar was a leader who had some sense of nobility but was deeply dictatorial. He named himself a dictator of the Roman Empire and directly contributed to the shortening of his rule empire (Alston, 2015). He created a major political alliance upon returning to Rome, which helped him become the governor of Gaul. He increased his military power throughout his years as the governor. When his rivals in Rome demanded a return to private citizenship, he used his already strong military power and marched to Italy, which created a civil war between his forces and Pompey's (Alston, 2015). He emerged victoriously, and he started the process of consolidating power. He literally made himself a dictator and used his influence to enlarge the state while creating positive government reforms along the way, which, to his credit, improved the empire for some time. However, his aspiration to be the king did not work well, as the book also affirms. The senators saw all the indications that he would be a bad ruler, and a few months into his declaration, plots to have him killed started to erupt.
Conclusion
His tragic death marks the history of Julius Caesar in the hands of those he trusted and knew at a personal level. Even though there are varying accounts of how he died, the underlying issue was that people had become restless with him and feared that he would become a dictator. Romans started to think that he will take away their liberty when they saw him making political and military moves to consolidate his grip on power. People preferred a liberal system and not a dictatorship government. As a result, many wanted him out of power.
References
Alston, R. (2015). Rome's Revolution: Death of the republic and birth of the empire . Corby: Oxford University Press.
Dryden, J. (2020, January 21). Ancient History Sourcebook: Plutarch: The Assassination of Julius Caesar, from Marcus Brutus . Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Fordham University: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/plutarch-caesar.asp
eyewitness to history. (2004, March 1). The Assassination of Julius Caesar, 44 BC . Retrieved September 28, 2020, from eyewitnesstohistory.com: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar2.htm
Livius. (2020, July 16). Suetonius on the death of Caesar . Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Livius. Org: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/suetonius/suetonius-on-the-death-of-caesar/
