Were Brutus and Cassius justified?Posted by: Black-Jesus
In 44 BC, the great Roman general, Julius Caesar was about to be appointed emperor of Rome back in the days of a republic. A coup d'etat led by senators Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius killed Caesar out of fear that he would turn to tyranny like all emperor before him. My question to you is? Were their acts of treachery justified?
The continued existence of Julius Caesar meant there was a strong potential for the Republic to be replaced by a monarchy. The original kingdom of Rome ended in tyranny, so it was replaced by a Republic. A return to monarchy could mean a return to tyranny. Though many emperors were good, emperors such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian proved them right ultimately. Even "good" emperors were unspeakably cruel.
The were protecting the republic from the return to autocracy that Caesar wanted. Caesar was a selfish bāstard and woukd have killed more had he not been stopped.
No. I think they should have at least waited until they got some confirmation on his tyranny first, then kill him.
They stabbed him 32 times. Sane people don't stab your 32 times.
Cassius and Brutus both used deception and treachery in the killing of Caesar. That was horrible. They were ultimately served right by Anthony.
there was very little evidence that Caesar would have become a tyrant after he was Emperor