Talk:Julius Caesar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BsKulp (article contribs).

"Between x and y wounds later"

"... the dictator-for-life was dead." Could we maybe get this flowery language replaced by something less ambiguous? Does it mean he died between receiving the xth and yth wound or we don't know how many wounds he received in total? -- 2003:C9:474E:4300:E98E:9A10:3B3D:ABBC (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's much too flowery and confusing too. I've replaced it with "He was stabbed at least twenty-three times and died at once." I did consider "died there and then" but that felt a little unlike our normal encyclopedic language, and I felt "immediately" could be taken as "instantaneously", i.e. in seconds, which might be exaggeration, but I don't suppose "at once" is perfect either. NebY (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Cop-show/newspaper talk might be "on the scene", which I'm not advocating but gives time for famous last words, I suppose. The article doesn't seem to talk about the transporting of the body in the aftermath section.

Questionable wording that caught my eye when I was looking at NebY's improvement in context was Whether there was a tradition of tyrannicide at Rome is unclear. What would a clear "tradition" of tyrannicide look like? A ritual killing of the king periodically, attested in some cultures? Then no, there's no indication that tyrannicide was institutionalized as part of the mos maiorum. There were only seven kings in the semilegendary past, and there could be no tyrannicide once the Republic was founded because there was no tyrannos or rex to kill. Hence the resistance to a dictator in perpetuity. Is that simply an unknowing way to state the "no kings" cultural value in the Roman Republic? Does that sentence mean something like "Republican rhetoric about liberty rejected one-man rule to an extent that could condone assassination"? I state that awkwardly, but I don't get the intended meaning. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is an odd statement. The citation is Morstein-Marx p318, which has "Yet despite the fact that in the late Republic some senators (Cicero and Brutus most notably) developed the doctrine of “preventive tyrannicide” to justify the assassination of a series of popular heroes from the Gracchi to Publius Clodius on the grounds that they aspired to regnum, or were in practice already de facto reges, there is little evidence that the Roman citizenry as a whole adhered to the idea, often treated by scholars as if it were a constitutional axiom of the Republic, that no politician could be allowed to rise so far above his peers in the Senate that they could not control him collectively" and expands on that, then continues on p319 with "Those senators who were committed to Caesar’s destruction in January 49 were therefore not self-evidently identifiable with “the Republic ...”. I don't think we're representing him well. (But Wikipedia Library access is wonderful.) NebY (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Then no, ... There were only seven kings in the semilegendary past, and there could be no tyrannicide once the Republic was founded because there was no tyrannos or rex to kill. I don't understand this argument. You could easily just as well turn it around and say that because there was a "tradition of tyrannicide" – ie Spurius Maelius, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, Saturninius, etc were aspiring to overthrow the constitutional order but were killed before they had the chance to do it, in each case supported by "the people" (whatever that is), – the republic never fell into tyranny.

As to MM 2021 p 318, the question was whether tyrannicide was popularly acceptable. My first thoughts are as to the Athenian tyrannicides. Per NebY, some in the aristocracy believed so: and there are writings and discussions of Brutus' thoughts specifically (see Tempest 2017) that paint him in the camp of answering firmly in the affirmative. (Similarly, the story about Cato – Plut Cat Min 3.3 – as a child asking for a sword to free the state from Sulla.) There's scholarly disagreement, signposted by often treated by scholars as if it were a constitutional axiom, as to whether tyrannicide was acceptable or not. What do you think a rewriting should be? Ifly6 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something along these lines: "It's unclear whether Roman citizens in general thought politicians should be prevented, by tyrannicide or other extreme measures, from becoming too powerful, though some senators did use the popular hatred of monarchy as a justification for killings"? I'm sure that phrasing can be improved on but the approach hews a little closer to MM. Yes, it does also fit with my ill-informed mistrust of the senatorial justifications for eliminating the Gracchi and others and my nervousness about Plutarch accepting them or even actively framing some killings in such a way, presenting his audience with a little nobility of purpose in the late Republican welter of blood. NebY (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That wording seems preferable to casting tyrannicide as a Roman "tradition". Programmatic tyrannicide is surely not the same thing as the defense of liberty, though I would have no problem with saying tyrannicide was a proud family tradition of the Bruti and their liberator propaganda. But two more points NebY made here are also good and useful: the distinction between actual would-be "tyrants" and the political rhetoric of characterizing one's political opponents as such, and the reminder that Roman histories were mostly written by the disgruntled senatorial class whose oligarchic privileges were diminished. Who counted as a tyrant is where the matter of perspective comes in; that's probably where the lack of moral and hence verbal clarity lies. (And of course nobody did actually step up to assassinate Sulla, who was surely more of a tyrant than the Gracchi, Saturninus, and Clodius ever got close to being.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(My apologies to Plutarch; he finds no nobility of purpose in the killings of the Gracchi, retails the accusation that Tiberius would be king without any confidence, and has it stir only the senate.) NebY (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Val Max at least is in that camp. Help me Anakin Scaevola, the Jedi Tiberius is taking over! Ifly6 Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) But joking aside, the question of whether Caesar was a tyrant was then disputed. Eg Matius I know the criticisms people have levelled against me since Caesar's death ... They say that one's country should come before friendship[,] as though they have proved that his [Caesar's] loss was beneficial to the res publica (Tempest 2017 p 217 citing Cic Fam 11.28). Matius is writing as if many people believed, or as he implies assumed without justification, that Caesar was a tyrant (or at least adjacent thereto) and I think belief in Caesarian tyranny is at least better founded than Clodian or Gracchan tyranny (that business with Saturninus probably counts). Ifly6 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps It is not clear whether Roman political culture embraced the pre-emptive assassination of tyrants, whether incipient or realised, but many aristocratic writers of the period supported such radical action in the abstract. There is little evidence that the Roman public supported such action in general or, assuming they did, would have characterised Caesar as a tyrant. ? Ifly6 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think my issue with how to state this in the article is that factional political violence resulting in a death of an opponent is not the same thing as tyrannicide, a word that has a specific meaning. Tyrannicide targets a person who holds supreme power and has no intention of relinquishing it – that's part of what makes them a tyrant and why assassination seems like the only way to get rid of them. The assassination of Caesar was planned as an intentional tyrannicide to remove him from holding perpetual power held outside normal electoral processes. The last ennobled tyrannicide in Rome before that was Tarquin, was it not? The "no kings" Republican cultural value of resisting tyranny, at least as expressed in elite literature, would justify the killing of a tyrant in the name of libertas, but that doesn't mean that Romans thought it was OK to kill an office-holder just cuz. Sulla was a tyrant, and there were longings for tyrannicide, but in the end he just got old and sick and retired. What the sources might be getting at is that despite political rhetoric from rivals, the death of a populist like a Gracchus, Saturninus, or Clodius was by definition not tyrannicide because they did not hold a position of tyrannical power. (And of course their murder was experienced by their supporters as the loss of a champion.) The response to Caesar's assassination, which was clearly tyrannicide because of the way he was positioned in power and the intentions of the assassins, was mixed — the Jewish community, for example, was said to have greatly mourned him because he had made himself their patron contra Pompey.

It's entirely clear that the Romans thought violence could become necessary in the cause of libertas, and that the killing of a tyrannus or would-be rex was justified. But libertas to a senator is something different from libertas to a free working person. What is also clear is that not every Roman citizen thought Caesar ought to be killed, tyrannus or not, and the liberators weren't universally acclaimed as such outside their circle of peers. Or even within it – if they had just let him go off to Parthia to avenge the Crassi, problem likely solved. Anyway, I think we can say this much more simply. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure but it feels to me there's a conflation in this response between tyrannicide and what MM 2021 is discussing, pre-emptive tyrannicide, which members of the aristocracy supported. Moreover, supporting the latter with argumentation like that of the Old Academy (Brutus) basically requires supporting the former. Yes, killing Tiberius Gracchus, Saturninus, or Clodius is not tyrannicide per se because they were not yet tyrants; however, the justification for killing them was that they were about to become tyrants. MM's statements on pp 318–19 in full context are these:

1. In the late Republic some senators (Cicero and Brutus most notably) developed the doctrine of "preventive tyrannicide" to justify the assassination of [alleged aspirants] to regnum, or were in practice already de facto reges.
2. there is little evidence that the Roman citizenry as a whole adhered to the idea.
3. The idea is often treated by scholars as if it were a constitutional axiom of the Republic and that people generally accepted it.
4. The average citizen was able to distinguish between potential threats to the liberty of the res publica and potential threats to the full political independence of senators [emphasis in original].
5. The senators [who conspired to kill Caesar] were therefore not self-evidently identifiable with "the republic", although many modern scholars have not shied away from accepting their self-representation as such.
6. Caesar too could and did claim to be "defending the republic" and he had in most respects [imo an overstatement] the more credible case, certainly for the average Roman voter and contio goer

I think what is relevant for our article is three things: (1) some Roman aristocrats believed that tyrants, realised and incipient, should be killed to save the republic; (2) contrary to many modern narratives, not all Romans would have accepted that belief on face value; (3) in the specific case of Caesar, not all Romans would have also agreed Caesar was a tyrant regardless.

If the objection is merely to the use of the word tyrannicide, I am less sanguine. The word is commonly used to describe Brutus et al as well as the killing. For example, the subtitle for MJB in OCD⁴ is literally Roman praetor and tyrannicide, 44 BCE. I think it would be NPOV to banish the word: OCD⁴ literally uses it in the shortest of short descriptions; MM accedes, in a book where he is pushing the hypothesis that Caesar was not anti-republican, that many scholars accept the opposite. Ifly6 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've finally got round to amending this, more briefly than I first suggested, from "Whether there was a tradition of tyrannicide at Rome is unclear" to "Whether the Romans thought they had a tradition of tyrannicide is unclear".[1] I think that's Morstein-Marx's point and one on which i think we're rather in agreement. I've added a footnote with M-M's examples showing how rarely tyrants or supposed wannabes had been killed without any previous legitimising process or indeed at all - not even the last king! NebY (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories

Caesar is currently part of the category "Genocide perpetrators". No part of this article seems to justify this, if there is consensus to considers parts of the Gallic wars a genocide it should be mentioned in the article to justify the inclusion, if not then the category should be removed. Looking at the Gallic wars article, one of the historians mentioned includes it in his book about historical genocide, the others dont seem to refer to it as such. There is a large disparity in actual casualty estimates by different authors, with the article weirdly and uncritically accepting those of David Henige, who is an Africanist and not a roman historian, and doesn't seem exceptionally prominent even in his own field. Generally historians seem to consider the casualty claims to be overexaggerated to flatter Caesar, with some stating they were nonetheless brutal while others claim they were comparatively mild to standard for the time. No claims are made that would indicate genocidal intent, not the mention the practical impossibility of executing one with four legions during something historians consider a propaganda and looting excursion. tl;dr things not supported by the article should not be implied by inclusion in a category. — jonas (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Furius (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The lack of justification itself justifies removal of the category under WP:CATVER. Ifly6 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

suspected spelling error

I think Pomey (ex. "Theatre of Pompey") is spelled "Pompeii"</ref></ref> Mr. sus amogus (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. It isn't. The theatre is named for Pompey, the general. Pompeii was a city. Ifly6 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2025

For offices held by Caesar, add: Quaestor 68 BC Aedile 65 BC Praetor 63 BC Dmcd7 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This information is, as you know, mentioned in the article itself. The infobox is reserved for key facts about a subject, not exhaustive lists. Remsense ‥ 论 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Health and appearance paragraph ordering

Moved from User talk:Remsense § Caesar

Hi, elaborate please what you mean by "most reliable" Becarefulbro (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The Suetonius paragraph literally begins that he was writing a century after the fact. How would he know? If he did, he certainly didn't better than those writing prior to him. Remsense ‥ 论 17:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That note can be removed, because Plutarch lived at the same time as Suetonius. How would he know? Like Plutarch, he used ancient sources and saw statues of Caesar. Becarefulbro (talk) Becarefulbro (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Inheriting knowledge of his seizures is one thing, articulating a lush description of his good looks with any confidence is quite another. Of course they were working from the same potential pool of sources—that's how we can make judgment calls about who's more reliable here. Remsense ‥ 论 17:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

They are reliable to the same extent. Suetonius saw realistic painted lifetime images of Caesar. Becarefulbro (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

They would not be quite realistic enough to be reliable carriers of historical information with this level of specificity, to my understanding. The point is, it's better to lead a section with concrete factual information than with more interpretation-heavy information, all else being equal (this is a bit of an odd case, really) Remsense ‥ 论 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider unreliable in his description? Becarefulbro (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Mainly "tall" and "shapely limbs", really. Those are attributes that—especially the former—have potential to get muddled in the historical record instantly, sometimes even in the age of photography. This is verging on OR on my part at this point, so if you have secondary sources telling me I'm wrong here I'd be happy to defer. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

But we know for sure the stature of Augustus, for example. Shapely limbs are visible on statues. Becarefulbro (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually going to move this to the article talk page so we can see what others think. Interesting stuff I hadn't pondered so far, though. Remsense ‥ 论 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Becarefulbro (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Augustus is also heavily idealized on his statues (and does not even age in his 70s). Most Roman emperors are depicted as tall, well-built men, but that doesn't mean they actually were. The portraits do have individualistic traits to make them recognizable but still adhere to the "portrait types" that convey ideological agenda about the regime,, rather than being photographic snapshots of the individuals. Soidling (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to these claims about who looked like what, I would strongly defer only to secondary sources. Images in the imperial era are heavily polished and idealised; it's rather plausible that descriptions written decades after the fact are not reliable (reflecting those idealised images rather than reality). I think we should not present any primary source material in the matter except as quoted by reliable secondary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Only the sources that are contemporary or the later sources that directly depend on them inform some reliable details about someone's looks. As for Caesar's appearance, Suetonius begins with "he is said to have been (Fuisse traditur)", which is saying that he is relying on hearsay, not a definitive eyewitness. This contrasts with the other instances where he actually cites his sources like Cicero's letters or the speeches of Gaius Memmius. I'd argue that we need to put back the information that Suetonius was not Caesar's contemporary and that he was relying on hearsay. Soidling (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've boldly done so in this edit. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Julius_Caesar&diff=prev&oldid=1272351256. Ifly6 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References