Do you believe that Julius Caesar's assassination was justified?

Question

Why or why not? could this have been avoided? Fully explain

Answer 1

Do you think someone wants a person to do his homework for him? Why or why not? could this have been avoided? Fully explain

Answer 2

Some may think that it was justified since Caesar had "tricked" his way into power and had become too corrupt, but he was very popular with the general public, so this is not a legitimate argument.

The assassination simply was not justified. When Caesar came to power, his speech was very moving; Cassius, Brutus, and Sibelius were offended by the subtle references that Caesar made about them, and took it personally. When Sibelius first composed the plan to kill Caesar, the other two actually fought against it. Through his masterful persuasion, Sibelius not only convinced them to commit the act, but he managed to keep himself distanced so that he could get Anthony "elected" as the new ruler.

When Caesar was warned to "beware the Ides", all of Shakespeare's audience would know that the reference was to Sibelius, not the modern interpretation of the 15th of March.

Answer 3

I would be inclined to say it wasn't.

Rome was in the process of growing into an empire, after operating as a republic for literally hundreds of years. Caesar was no more or less just as dictator of Rome than any of his immediate predecessors, but he showed brilliance as a military and political leader.

With the transition from republic to empire under way there was little likelihood that some form of tyranny could be totally avoided.

The conspirators who assassinated Julius Caesar were generally little or no better than he was--what they were doing was thwarting his rise to power and attempting to gain power themselves.

If they feared Caesar would have himself installed as emperor they did not succeed in preventing others who called themselves Caesar to be installed as emperors, beginning with Octavian, who became Augustus. Augustus and Tiberius generally ruled as justly as a Roman emperor could, while Gaius (Caligula) and Nero were full-blown tyrants.

Claudius, who ruled between Caligula and Nero, was reasonably just and at times brilliant.

It is difficult for me to believe that Rome under an emperor Julius Caesar would have fared worse than it did under Augustus through Nero.

But the priniciple reason I would argue against the assassination was the fact the assassins were themselves men of limited honor and competence who created instability and threw Rome into chaos until the inevitable empire was finally created.

Answer 4

Since Caesar was beloved by the people of Rome, was not causing any unrest in Italy or any of the provinces, and had a great record of defeating Rome's enemies and legislating laws that helped, the assassination was not justified.

Answer 5

I do not think it was justified. In Shakespeare's play, Marc Antony said that only noble Brutus slew Caesar for noble motives. The others were envious of his power and persuaded the naive Brutus to join them and add credibility to the deed. Caesar had ruled Rome in partnership with Crassus and Pompey for some time. Crassus was killed in a battle with the Parthians, and Pompey and Caesar had civil war that Caesar won. Then, he was the sole ruler of Rome. Cassius wanted such power, and the way to get it was to kill Caesar.

Answer 6

There is new evidence that he actually planned and helped to allow his assassination to happen.

Caesar was an epileptic. The frequency and severity of his epileptic fits was increasing as he aged. He wanted to solidify a legacy by NOT being an ill man, by naming his successor and by becoming a martyr. Allowing his assassination to happen solidified everything that he needed to create his place in history.

He went to the senate house without his body guards, he apparently had a note in his hand that warned him of the coming attack and yet he did nothing to stop it. This illustrates all of the signs of someone that wanted this fate to happen.

Answer 7

Sounds like a question of today's world. Remember that in Ancient Roman times things were very different. This is a huge problem with modern historians, epically teachers, they want us to think and view the world (and history) as they do. Problem is looking back in history we cannot do it with today's views and opinions.

Answer 8

It wasn't, as the Republic was dead, but it might have been had the Senate been restored in its power.

Answer 9

no i do not especially since he was betrayed by his best friend