|
RELATED LINKS:
Page Contents:
Julius Caesar
Why Caesar Was Really Killed
Julius Caesar
He was born into the gens (clan) Julii, an aristocratic group
that had fallen on hard times. His own family was neither wealthy nor influential.
Such a lack of cash would have discouraged most men, as
ancient Roman politics required periodic displays of munificence that could burn a hole in even the deepest toga pocket. The
ruling elite covered this expense by claiming political positions that allowed them to plunder foreign territories even as
they repressed the Italian peasantry. Many peasants moved into military service, where they formed armies more loyal to their
generals than to Rome.
Hated at home and abroad, the Roman political order was
ripe for upheaval, and a young and ambitious Julius Caesar knew it. Caesar began his public career at age 16, soon after his
father died. He revealed his political leanings when he married Cornelia Cinna, the daughter of a radical conspirator in a
recent revolution. In 83 BC, Rome crushed the revolution and ordered Julius to divorce his wife. He refused and discreetly
spent five years with the army in Asia until things blew over.
For the next 15 years, Caesar worked his way up the ladder
of Roman politics. In the process he went deeper and deeper into debt. Finally, in 61 BC, he gained the governorship of part
of Spain. A military expedition along that frontier gathered enough plunder for him to pay off his debts. In 59 BC, with his
credit cards paid off, Caesar sought, and gained, Rome's highest elected office: the consulship.
That same year, he sealed an alliance with the powerful
generals Pompey and Crassus. Roman politics was a game of personal influence, where every politician could call on the support
of loyal men, some quite powerful in their own right. Between them, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had enough influence to control
the government. Their behind-the-scenes arrangement came to be known as the First Triumvirate. Rome was moving from republic
to autocracy.
When their terms were up, consuls traditionally became
governors of lucrative territories. Caesar took over Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul (basically, northern Italy, France, Switzerland,
Belgium, and the Netherlands). Between 58 and 50 BC, Caesar pushed the frontier back to the Rhine, ultimately crossing into
Germany and even making raids into Britain. His goal was to gain the military manpower, money, and prestige he needed to push
through his reforms, which aimed at the complete reorganization of the Roman state.
Yet the powerful Triumvirate had been wobbling for some
time, in part because Crassus and Pompey hated each other. When Crassus died in battle against the Parthians, the coalition
broke down. Pompey allied himself with the old nobility against Caesar, who now seemed dangerously powerful. In 50-49 BC,
Caesar's enemies directed him to resign his command, even as they gave Pompey command of all the legions in Italy. Since resigning
would have meant signing his death warrant, Caesar mobilized his army and invaded Italy instead.
Caesar's army quickly chased Pompey out of Italy. For the
next few years, it hunted down opponents throughout the empire: Spain, Thessaly, Egypt (where Pompey was murdered), Africa,
and back to Spain again. By 45 BC, Caesar had quelled just about all dissent.
Caesar's armies were largely composed of peasants who had
been forced off their land, so his first act was to provide his veterans with public land in Italy and northern Africa. He
then pursued a series of reforms intended to punish misconduct by provincial governors, reorganize the territories to make
them easier to control, establish constitutions for the local Italian governments, grant Roman citizenship to a range of aliens,
and increase the size of the Senate.
Caesar didn't get the opportunity to do more. On March
15, 44 BC--less than a year after defeating the last armed resistance to his rule--he was ambushed in the Senate House and
stabbed to death. The most notable of the conspirators were Cassius and Brutus (of "Et tu, Brute?" fame). Both were former
opponents whom Caesar had pardoned and given important positions in his government.
Killing Caesar did nothing to remove the forces that had
brought him to power. The lower classes still hated the Roman elite, and the armies on the frontiers still represented the
real power in Rome. Whoever controlled the legions could make himself ruler of all. Caesar's successes had revealed this simple
fact. And in just a short time, his grand-nephew and adopted son Octavian, later called Augustus, would prove it again. But
that's a Caesar story for a different day.
Mark Diller
KnowledgeNews is brought to you by Every Learner, Inc., an independent
small business dedicated to supporting lifelong learners. Copyright © 2007, Every Learner, Inc. All rights reserved.
Michael Parenti has a fascinating theory why Julius Ceasar was really
killed by his minions. According to Mr. Parenti, Ceasar was murdered, not because he was an insufferable tyrant, but
because he was a reformer, who wanted to empower the masses, at the expense of the rich and powerful. I really enjoy
his theory, and feel it may have merit. After all, not much has changed since then. The rich and powerful want
to retain their standing, and eliminate whomever gets in their way. The masses must be kept in their place, no matter
what the cost. What do you think, gentle reader?
Why Caesar Was Really Killed
By Michael Parenti
Mr. Parenti’s latest books include The Assassination of Julius Ceasar:
A People’s History of Ancient Rome, (New Press 2003); The Terrorism Trap (City Lights 2002); and To Kill a Nation: The
Attack on Yugoslavia (Verso 2000).
On the 15th of March, 44 BC, in a meeting hall adjacent to Pompey's
theater, the Roman Senate awaited the arrival of the Republic's supreme commander, Julius Caesar. This particular session
did not promise to be an eventful one for most of the senators. But others among them were fully alive to what was in the
offing. They stood about trying to maintain a calm and casual pose---with daggers concealed beneath their togas.
Finally Caesar entered the chamber. He had an imposing presence, augmented by
an air of command that came with being at the height of his power. Moving quickly to the front of the hall, he sat himself
in the place of honor. First to approach him was a senator who pretended to enter a personal plea on behalf of a relative.
Close behind came a group of others who crowded around the ceremonial chair. At a given signal, they began to slash at their
prey with their knives, delivering fatal wounds. By this act, the assailants believed they had saved the Roman Republic. In
fact, they had set the stage for its complete undoing.
The question remains, why did a coterie of Roman senators assassinate their fellow
aristocrat and celebrated ruler, Julius Caesar? An inquiry into this incident reveals something important about the nature
of political rule, class power, and a people's struggle for democracy and social justice---issues that are still very much
with us. The assassination also marked a turning point in the history of Rome. It set in motion a civil war, and put an end
to whatever democracy there had been, ushering in an absolutist rule that would prevail over Western Europe for centuries
to come.
The prevailing opinion among historians, ancient and modern alike, is that the
senatorial assassins were intent upon restoring republican liberties by doing away with a despotic usurper. This is the justification
proffered by the assassins themselves. In my recent book, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient
Rome, I present an alternative explanation: the Senate aristocrats killed Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular
leader who threatened their privileged interests. By this view, the deed was more an act of treason than tyrannicide, one
incident in a line of political murders dating back across the better part of a century, a dramatic manifestation of a long-standing
struggle between opulent conservatives and popularly supported reformers.
Just about every leader of the Middle and Late Republics who took up the popular
cause met a violent end, beginning with Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. and continuing on to Gaius Gracchus, Fulvius Flaccus,
Livius Drusus, Sulpicius Rufus, Cornelius Cinna, Marius Gratidianus, Appuleius Saturninus, Cnaeus Sicinius, Quintus Sertorius,
Servilius Glaucia, Sergius Catiline, Clodius Pulcher, and ending with Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. Caesar's death also marked
the end of the 500-year Roman Republic. Even more reprehensible, the aristocratic oligarchs and their hired goons killed thousands
of the Roman commoners who supported these various reform leaders.
The history of the Late Republic has been distorted by those writers who regularly
downplay the importance of material interests, those whose ideological taboos about class realities dim their perception of
the past. This distortion is also manifested in the way many historians, both ancient and modern, have portrayed the common
people of Rome as being little better than a noisome rabble and riotous mob. In word and action, wealthy Romans made no secret
of their fear and hatred of the common people and of anyone else who infringed upon their class prerogatives. History is full
of examples of politico-economic elites who equate any challenge to their privileged social order as a challenge to all social
order, an invitation to chaos and perdition.
The oligarchs of Rome were no exception. Steeped in utter opulence and luxury,
they remained forever inhospitable to Rome's democratic element. They valued the Republic only as long as it served their
way of life. They dismissed as "demagogues" and usurpers the dedicated leaders who took up the popular cause. The historians
of that day, often wealthy slaveholders themselves, usually agreed with this assessment. What is rather startling is the fact
that the great majority of classical historians of the modern era adopt a viewpoint not too different from the one held by
the Roman aristocracy. Whatever their differences in nationality, religion, language, and epoch, most of these historians
share the same class-bound ideology, causing them to see the struggles of ancient Rome from the perspective of the elites
rather than from that of the struggling proletarii and plebs.
Caesar's sin was not that he was subverting the Roman constitution---which was
an unwritten one---but that he was loosening the oligarchy's overbearing grip on it. Worse still, he used state power to effect
some limited benefits for small farmers, debtors, and urban proletariat, at the expense of the wealthy few. No matter how
limited these reforms proved to be, the oligarchs never forgave him. And so Caesar met the same fate as numerous other reformers
before him---and so many other reformers down through the centuries since his day.
|
