Was Julius Caesar Justified Essay

Caesar: a name that gave birth to titles such as Kaiser and Tzar. Rome had many rulers throughout time, but Julius Caesar is easily the most famous. His legacy is one of conquest, victory, power, and ambition; however, these were the very things that ultimately led to his end. His thirst for power led to tyranny and oppression. No matter what source you read, it is clear: Caesar was dangerous. He was a danger to Rome’s enemies, but also to Rome and to himself. Even those close to him recognized the dangers of his greed, which resulted in his assassination. Although some view Caesar's death as a betrayal of a great leader, his assassination was justifiable. It is important to understand the context in which his murder took place. Caesar was

Although much had happened leading up to this, the symbolic nature of this act is a large part of his eventual death. Caesar knew the meaning of what he was about to do and indeed spent a significant amount of time pondering it (Plut. Caes. 32). Crossing the Rubicon was illegal. There was no doubt about it. It was law. No general was allowed to cross the Rubicon and enter Italy with an army without it being considered treason. By doing so, Caesar was making an irrevocable decision and starting a civil war. His fate was sealed, as he was well aware. Alea iacta est. Caesar was no longer fighting for glory, but rather for his life. Much occurred during the civil war, including the aforementioned death of Pompey and of Pompey’s

After all, the threat of Caesar’s seizure of the government was still only a threat. However, after years of fighting, Caesar succeeded. Caesar had won in many regards and after fighting his last war he commemorated his victory while simultaneously disrespecting Rome herself (Plut. Caes. 56). Not long after, he had effectively consolidated his power by taking on the role of dictator perpetuo, which gave him absolute control over Rome's government and military. This title went against the Republican tradition of regular elections and a limitation on terms of office. It was nowhere near the Roman tradition that had to be followed, but it happened regardless; after all, even though he was a dictator, the people accepted and hoped he would at least bring some level of peace after the civil war (Plut. Caes. 56). However, by accepting this title at all, Caesar was firmly establishing his desire for more and more power. Caesar already had so much influence over the government and the people. As dictator perpetuo, he would not have more ability to help Rome and her people than before and it was entirely unnecessary. The moral and “Roman” thing to do would’ve been to reject such a