Was it justified?

was forgiving his enemies a tactic by Cæsar?
I've heard that being forgiven makes you indebpted to your enemy in the Roman world view
so Cæsar appeared kind and forgiving after the war, but he was actually dominating them?

This is not true. The problem was that the senate had no "next day" plan. I would think if I was going to kill the autocratic executive branch leader I would try and install a dictator with "Republican virtues" (oligarhic values aligned with the senate) ASAP but they didn't. They had no plan and they expected everyone to just be happy and have the whole power vaccume somehow fix itself

>Brutus and Cassius
>Burn in hell
Literally in the lowest circle of hell, chewed in the mouth of Satan himself, along with Judas Iscariot,

Attached: circles.jpg (400x606, 28K)

Caesar’s clemency works on multiple different angles.
One, it is at least partially genuine. Caesar consistently committed to using clemency even against Gallic barbarians. It was just in his nature to be merciful.
Two, sparing your enemies makes you look good. In a war that was essentially for Roman public opinion, sparing your enemies and being merciful and fostering brotherhood among Romans fought against Pompey’s propaganda that he was an outlaw. This also worked against Pompey because he was extremely violent and would execute anyone who fell into his hands.
3. It’s also an insult to those he spares. Domitius for example hated Caesar. When he was spared, it made him feel like he wasn’t important enough to be killed, and that he was indebted to Caesar. He was deprived of a martyrs death and embarrassed.
Caesar was a political genius and everything he did had multiple angles working for him.

on the other hand Augustus' policy of exterminating your enemies quickly during the start of your reign, then using propaganda to distance your later reign from the earlier atrocities worked just as well, if not significantly better.

True. Augustus could see the positives in both Caesar’s machinations and Sulla’s and merged the two. But of course, he was working from Caesar’s example, something the man himself could not. I feel like Augustus and Caesar were equal politic masterminds.

It worked well for Augustus, but not so much for his extended family, who all found themselves purged by one emperor or another, until the final member of his line was purged and another line was installed as Emperor.

That's what happens when you normalize blood politics.

Attached: death-of-nero.jpg (500x375, 149K)

well if we want to be technical, Tiberius wasn't related to him through blood at all
also his first and second heir died on him

And course Claudius being killed was not because he was a bad ruler or the people hated him but rather because Agrippina was a complete cunt

Was it justified? Yes.

Should it have happened? No.

>well if we want to be technical, Tiberius wasn't related to him through blood at all
He was the last man standing, Augustus's really distant third choice whom he really didn't want to tap but didn't have much of a choice, it was either Tiberius or someone outside the Julio-Claudian line. And Tiberius purged all of Caligula's family (he was young but old enough to remember what a horrible cunt uncle Tiberius was) and then raised him in his rape palace filled with child slaves, and then we wonder why Caligula grew up to become a little enfant terrible

Claudius was also a last man standing, avoiding execution because literally nobody took him seriously enough to purge him.

And Nero was the most useless fucking one of them all, forcing stodgy old administrators to listen to him play a set on his harp while they were there to discuss provincial tax policy, literally forcing people at sword point to attend his concerts, which were apparently so dull that people feigned horrible sickness to get out of it. He got more ruthless as his reign went on, and by the time he offed himself, people were fucking over the now extinct Julio-Claudians and their bloody purging ways.

Attached: history's first neckbeard.jpg (306x423, 25K)

Attached: 0680D220-8ECF-4EF3-8A6C-CA231A94C161.jpg (640x498, 47K)

It would be reversed 100% if they merely declared him a tyrant

>Tiberius demands a crown
>"wtf senate why'd you kill him?!"

t.quintus pompeiius

t. Octavianus

>Declare Caesar a tyrant
>When he commands the absolute loyalty of the legions
>When he's beloved by the people
>When he's still alive to give a magnificent speech defending his actions and rallying rome to his cause

yes this will work out just fine

>kill Caesar
>declare him a tyrant
That alone would've prevented the 2nd triumvirate

They tried to declare him a tyrant, but the people of Rome wouldn't let them
had they declared him a tyrant and stayed in Rome to justify declaring him a tyrant, the entire senate would have been lynched

honestly the only chance for the senate would have been to let caesar have have a shot at doing his planned conquests and then pray he gets wrecked and THEN pounce on him as his popularity was at an all time low
failing that they should have gone full purge and wiped out his family and closest supporters as well to prevent say, Mark Anthony from giving the best oration of his life at Caesars funeral

Caesar didn't start that process tho. he was a major contributor yes but the process was mostly started by Sulla

Marius*

>They tried to declare him a tyrant
No they didn't, they wanted to keep his reforms

Declaring Caesar a tyrant would have made all his legislation void, including appointments of the conspirators to the provinces/legions.

why would anyone care about a bunch of oligarchic backwards fucks trying to govern an empire like it was an overgrown city state?
I mean, why would the provincials care if they were ruled by 1 roman aristocrat or 500? Heck they had a better shot of getting in positions of power under several emperors than they ever had under the senate.

honestly this alone shows that Caesar's assassination was undeserved
his assassins were just as big a self-serving assholes as he was and literally nobody had Rome's best interest in mind

>literally nobody had Rome's best interest in mind
Cicero did

There hadn't been a Roman aristocracy in some time

No. The Optimates were living in a bubble of autism and refused to acknowledge that the republic needed actual reform and redistribution of land and wealth. They murdered anybody who attempted to use legitimate methods to bring reform to the floor then cornered Caesar so his only option was to take direct power or die. Then they genuinely expected to be hailed as heroes for killing the man who had done more to help the majority of Rome than any of them.

Other than Franz Ferdinand, I don't think there was any fucking dumber an assassination in history.

t. Cicero

Attached: 7FC616ED-6B03-42AA-9148-F13EDEE863C4.jpg (640x1136, 50K)

The assassination was poorly planned. Why the fuck didn't they kill Antony? He was Caesar's second and the consul of that year. They were retards and deserved their miserable ends

no

this

Attached: 1521052715291.jpg (3200x1600, 663K)

That's actually beautiful, where does it come from?

dont know lad i got it here

Yes. He was a mass murderer war-monger. Destroyed Gaul and the german Rhine region killed hundreds of thousands.

>t.cato
careful with those knifes lad you might just cut yourself

>the (((Celtic))) “””Holocaust”””
Never happened (but I wish it did)
Stay mad Jean-Pierre von Shekelsteinberg

Attached: CCE6230C-F94E-43B0-BBC3-64AE6C05E19A.jpg (640x404, 34K)

in the end though, you gotta give it to him, he had guts

Attached: 1490497193400.png (500x402, 59K)

He killed millions.

To save trillions.

To kill quadrillions.

>be c*%sar
>kill hundreds of millions of aryan white people
>enslave as much
>literally rape and burn down entire villages
>rule them opressivily

Yeah, and I, as Jew, am really mad that a lot of white people died
Also, the romans weren't never that bad, it was him, a lot of roman generals would do these things while opposing the senate, doing it to stay more in power and accumulate more wealth. Who is the jew white-hater here?

Attached: (267).jpg (1024x768, 55K)

>hundreds of thousands
FIXD

>waaaaaaah we invaded Rome and sacked it then helped Hannibal slaughter Romans at the Trebia and Cannae then helped the Teutons raid Italy then begged for Caesar to come save us from Germans now he’s killing rebellious uppity Gauls waaaaaaaah genocide #CaesarisLITERALLYHitler

Attached: 4B944937-BBBA-49DC-BCE9-3FEB5CF93EAB.jpg (402x415, 43K)

I'm not saying that the germans didn't do bad things, still, it's wrong to massacre hundreds of thousands of innocents. Also, I see it more as Hannibal's fault, but it doesn't matter whose fault it is.

>some slavery hundreds of years ago
>germans did the "holocaust" one hundred years ago
>today: PAY REPARATIONS

This is some high quality shitposting right here

No. Political intrigue, bribery, intimidation, power-mongering and what not was all standard politics for Rome but those fuckers decided to have an outburst of autistic rage and stab someone to death in the Senate. It was just pathetic. It was equivalent to flipping over the chessboard and screeching "I WON! I WON!" just before a defeat.

the source is literally in the image, you blinkered idiot

>ywn march with him on gaul
>ywn prevent his murder
>ywn wipe of his tears as he bled out
why even live

Attached: 1515535162042.png (633x758, 293K)

>you blinkered idiot
Calm down, now.

The Celts were a threat, that was a fact. You can’t retroactively shame Caesar thousands of years after the fact. As the Celts said when they sacked Rome- “Vae Victis.” The rules of war were played differently then.

T. Dante "the bootlicker" al niggeri

>still, it's wrong to massacre hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Caesar was literally invited into Gaul to settle their differences, at one point repelling a Germanic horde which would have almost certainly overrun Celtic society, and been a far more brutal subjugation than the one that clement Caesar gave them.

Caesar was generous to the tribes which allied with Rome, and made it a point to show them that friendship with Rome was by no means a one way street. Most of the tribes who resisted to the bitter end were peoples whose core tribal culture was built on raiding and marauding, something that there just wouldn't be a place for in the new Roman world order, where differences were settled by arbitration and litigation rather than by violence

Attached: 5dce5d35a11ee895821d8a42221cc5e1.jpg (564x564, 67K)

>ywn swear eternal fealty to Caesar, and die in his place

Why live?

Attached: 1520414606975.png (1124x1165, 171K)

Can anyone explain why the Germanic tribes were so strong that they could repel the Romans so badly they just gave up and stuck behind the river?

Attached: Lindy.jpg (736x414, 29K)

I can

After Augustus defeated the other triumvirs he fundamentally restructured the way that Romans engaged in conquest, and was in the process of cutting down on military spending as Rome had no current threat, so he was utterly reliant on a small, stripped down force of hardened professionals to form the backbone of his military.

When Publius Quinctilius Varus blundered into the disaster at Teutoborg Forest it may have only been three legions, but they represented virtually all of Rome's experienced officers and soldiers. Losing them was a devastating blow to Augustus's ambitions (later in life he was known to randomly blurt out Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions!) and was not really in any sort of financial position to build another expeditionary force

In the following generation Germanicus would go on to thoroughly spank the Germanics in battle, and probably would have succeeded in conquering them but was recalled by Tiberius as he did not consider the cost and effort of pacifying Germania to ever be worth the expense

Other emperors turned to more lucrative targets than backwater Germanics but Marcus Aurelius was again on the verge of totally pacifying them but died right on the eve of victory, possibly due to the plague. His son Commodus was a total fuck up who hated military life and walked away from his father's conquest even though it was his dying wish for him to stay and see the campaign through to the end

Alexander Severus was murdered his men because, once again, Rome had Germania in the palm of its hand but the boy emperor (or rather, his mother who was pulling the strings behind the scenes) completely dropped the ball and botched the conquest

After the third century there was just too much political instability for Rome to ever feasibly consider conquering Germania, as by then so much wealth had flown from Rome into Germanic coffers that they began forming "super tribes", organizing on the level that Romans were organizing.

Attached: Appian_Way.jpg (800x532, 159K)

Thank you so much for that explanation user. I'm grateful for it. Have this cool image in return.

Attached: 24 States of Australia.png (2000x1400, 129K)

The Julio-Claudian line continued for centuries after the family lost power through the grand-daughter of Augustus. There are Italian nobility that claim descent from her to this day but that probably bullshit as the family disappeared from historical record during Hadrians reign.

Your welcome, user. Glad to have shared it with you, have a picture of the Amalfi coast, aka quite possibly the comfiest place on Earth

Attached: 33243_13961874.jpg (800x533, 376K)

Caesar may have had uncles and cousins, we might not know about.

There was also another family branch of Caesars, that were distantly related to Julius Caesar.

Have one in return user.

Attached: family names.png (600x416, 218K)

Oh yes, Vercingetorix had such a kindly and merciful fate