#sulla literally did the same thing as caesar but just stepped on less toes (or killed those that he did) and operated within the system

[telemachea]

Hi, you're the most classical civilization-y person I know, and I was wondering if you knew anything about The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti, which I'm reading rn. The gist of it is that the popular image held by many (including most Tumblrinas) of Caesar as a "tyrant" is wrong, or at least distorted by the classist nature of contemporary historians, and that Caesar was actually killed by senators angry at his pro-lower class reforms, such as cancelling debts, redistributing land, etc. Is this a popular perspective on the classic civilization perspective of Tumblr?

Hope you're doing well!

Hey, tysm for the ask I hope you are doing well as well!!

I haven't read the book in full but I am familiar with it since it was a scholarship for Julius Caesar's political position. It certainly challenges the classism within traditional classical viewpoints and offers some nuance into the 'Caesar is a tyrant' argument but it focuses too much on the economic/class factors imo.

It's helpful to know key contexts of Roman culture when discussing J.C's assasination. What you need to know is that the Roman Republic was never truly a Republic, especially towards the latter half. To even have a position within the Senate, you had to have a certain amount of wealth (an absurd amount, basically the equivalent of a millionare today on average). So senators basically voted and made policies in the interest of a) their wealth and b) their own political power. The Senate was also split into the optimates and the populares. The optimates were much more conservative and typically won votes through bribery since they were mostly from generational wealth. The populares were more open to change and Julius Caesar, as one of them, did ensure that there was improvement to the poor's life. However, that's not to say that it's out of the goodness of his heart. While the optimates got their votes from bribery, the populares got votes by entertaining the masses a.k.a panem et circenses (bread and circuses). Julius Caesar managed to grow in power because he had great military victories (which brought wealth to Rome and therefore the poor), was popular among the poor, and had the loyalty of his soldiers. To maintain that popularity, he redistributed senatorial land to his soldiers, encouraged class reform, gave money and food to the poor, all of which pissed off the optimates. In fact, previous politicians who had similar policies were killed by lynch mobs or other senators' armies (e.g the Gracchi). So yes, that was a major factor in the assassination.

But what is also important is Roman values itself. The Romans HatedTM monarchy. They hated a one-man rule because a core part of their cultural heritage was having overthrown a king. Having lots and lots of power and being an oligarch was fine in Rome. Lots of other people did it before Caesar. Sulla and Marius had a civil war (which Caesar himself lived through) and Sulla basically seized ultimate power in all but name. What really made the optimates hate Caesar though was that he had control of lots of land outside of Rome due to his conquests in Gaul and therefore had a massive army and power. He was also part of the First Triumvirate alongside Crassus and Pompey, and the three of them had almost total control over Roman politics. Crassus was the rich one for bribes, funding, ect. Pompey was the warlord. Caesar was the more public face of the three. On top of that, the alliance eventually broke down into a civil war between Caesar and Pompey, which threw Rome into even more political instability. Caesar also broke an important rule in the process by bringing his army into Rome by crossing the Rubicon, which added to his image as a powerhungry politician. Needless to say, the Senate was not happy.

There were also other transgressions of Roman social codes. He took Cleopatra as a lover despite her being a powerful, foreign queen (monarchy association). Caesar stepped on some toes by putting a gold statue of Cleopatra in the temple of Venus Genetrix. Obviously, monarchy association again. But it's also a vulgar display of luxuria (Roman concept of indulgence in wealth which they viewed as barbaric. You can be rich, you just can't show it off and indulge yourself) as well as sacrilege since Venus was one of the founding gods of Rome.

The final straw was when Caesar announced himself dictator perpetuus - dictator in perpetuity. Being a dictator wasn't a bad thing. It was just the term for someone given ultimate power for 6 months when Rome faces national crisis (from invasions to natural disasters, the post exists so decisions can be made quickly without vote). The problem lies with the fact that he would be dictator in perpetuity. Rome can't be in crisis forever. Why would you want ultimate power forever if you weren't trying to fashion yourself as a tyrant king? All of this led to his assassination on the Ides of March.

Of course, assassinating him didn't actually bring back the Republic. That thing had been dead from the moment it was conceived and only existed as a farce of democracy. What Caesar's death led to was a power vacuum and plenty of scrambling political wannabes. This led to three more civil wars (or four if you count the war with Sextus Pompeius) ending with Octavian/Augustus Caesar on top. Augustus then went on to create the Imperial system of rule while pretending it was a Republic (so not much of a difference from the poor's perspective tbh apart from maybe stricter moral laws and new aqueducts).

In summary, there's lots of different views on this. Some people think Julius Caesar was an actual tyrant who had it coming. Some think it was because the Senate didn't like the fact he tried to take ultimate power and left them with none. Some think it's because the Roman elite hated the poor. Some think it's a mixture. I've tried to be as hollistic as I could in this explanation so I hope this helps!