So while I was in the shower, thinking about Romans as all normal people do, I had a thought about the Liberatores and it occurred to me that they broke the first rule of revolution: no martyrs.
In the present day this is usually achieved through trial, due process and imprisonment of dissenters. It pisses off their followers (if they have any) but when you hold their beloved hostage they have more incentive to fall in line, provided that the situation isn't so far gone that they'd rather fight and let their leader die. So my thought was, how could you disgrace Caesar in such a way to render his position vacant but also leave him alive so that none can take up his mantle?
My solution was, instead of killing Caesar in the Senate house, seize him, cut out his eyes, hands and tongue and throw him out of the Senate building and parade him through the streets.* Sort of a mix of Gadafi, Oedipus, and Belisarius that leaves an old man useless, cursed and punished in the eyes of the populace and presumably the gods.
My question is, would this have helped the conspirators to paint Caesar as a tyrant or have only hastened their downfall and turn the people onto them instantly? I don't know much about their attitudes to this sort of thing.
TL;DR: If you mutilate and cripple Caesar instead of assassinating him to do you help the Conspirators or hasten their fall?
*I actually think that Caesar was the best thing Rome could have gotten all things considered, plus the idea itself just feels extreme for anyone. (That's not to say it couldn't happen, I just don't support it) I don't want anyone thinking I support mutilating old men.
In the present day this is usually achieved through trial, due process and imprisonment of dissenters. It pisses off their followers (if they have any) but when you hold their beloved hostage they have more incentive to fall in line, provided that the situation isn't so far gone that they'd rather fight and let their leader die. So my thought was, how could you disgrace Caesar in such a way to render his position vacant but also leave him alive so that none can take up his mantle?
My solution was, instead of killing Caesar in the Senate house, seize him, cut out his eyes, hands and tongue and throw him out of the Senate building and parade him through the streets.* Sort of a mix of Gadafi, Oedipus, and Belisarius that leaves an old man useless, cursed and punished in the eyes of the populace and presumably the gods.
My question is, would this have helped the conspirators to paint Caesar as a tyrant or have only hastened their downfall and turn the people onto them instantly? I don't know much about their attitudes to this sort of thing.
TL;DR: If you mutilate and cripple Caesar instead of assassinating him to do you help the Conspirators or hasten their fall?
*I actually think that Caesar was the best thing Rome could have gotten all things considered, plus the idea itself just feels extreme for anyone. (That's not to say it couldn't happen, I just don't support it) I don't want anyone thinking I support mutilating old men.