Julius Caesar Mutilation Question

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.

 
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?

No way.

They even spread the rumour, that he likes to become a King, which is a no go in Rome. But it did not work. In 44 BC Caesars position in the senate and the comitia was simply too strong to get rid of him in a legal way.

TL;DR: If you mutilate and cripple Caesar instead of assassinating him to do you help the Conspirators or hasten their fall?
In this case, none of the assassins would leave Rome alive.
 
Last edited:
The best outcome for the conspirators is to not try to assassinate Caesar and just cross their fingers and hope he just drops dead within the next few days. That's the only way you have a chance of getting back to a semi-normal republican state, otherwise Octavian and other Caesarians are going to capitalize on Caesar's martyrdom and you're going to get the same analogue going.
 
The best outcome for the conspirators is to not try to assassinate Caesar and just cross their fingers and hope he just drops dead within the next few days. That's the only way you have a chance of getting back to a semi-normal republican state, otherwise Octavian and other Caesarians are going to capitalize on Caesar's martyrdom and you're going to get the same analogue going.

Do you think it would have helped if they'd killed Antony as well, as some of the conspirators supposedly wanted? He was pretty much the most important Caesarean after Caesar's death.
 
Do you think it would have helped if they'd killed Antony as well, as some of the conspirators supposedly wanted? He was pretty much the most important Caesarean after Caesar's death.

I mean, if you're thinking really long term-Philippi campaign long-then yeah, it helps. But otherwise, Antony was willing to just keep calm and carry on with the government. It was ironically enough Cicero, and of course Octavian, who drove Antony into rebel status and gave Octavian an army. The real key to all this is Octavian. Killing Antony I think is only going to become a factor when Octavian has to actually face his opponents in battle, which he is woefully unprepared for. And someone like Lepidus or Dolabella aren't stupid enough to throw their lot in with him alone.
 
I mean, if you're thinking really long term-Philippi campaign long-then yeah, it helps. But otherwise, Antony was willing to just keep calm and carry on with the government. It was ironically enough Cicero, and of course Octavian, who drove Antony into rebel status and gave Octavian an army. The real key to all this is Octavian. Killing Antony I think is only going to become a factor when Octavian has to actually face his opponents in battle, which he is woefully unprepared for. And someone like Lepidus or Dolabella aren't stupid enough to throw their lot in with him alone.

But even then there was no shortage of old and as time went on new generals loyal to Ceaser and the Liberators were kind of shit...did they or their faction not lose a single campaign?
 
But even then there was no shortage of old and as time went on new generals loyal to Ceaser and the Liberators were kind of shit...did they or their faction not lose a single campaign?

There's no reason why there should be a unified Caesarian faction. Plenty were plain old opportunists like Dolabella, who was quickly dispatched by Cassius in Syria. The rest...there not really die hard Caesarians. The liberatores by the way won many campaigns. Certainly Sextus Pompey was nearly the death of Octavian on a couple of ocasions and the liberatore navy wreaked havoc on the Caesarians, even capturing two Caesarian legions during the Philippi campaign. Antony is rightfully hailed as the hero of Philippi for a reason. He was the closest thing to a competent general either side had. Short of that, the men with the most military experience are Cassius, who helped keep ahold of Syria after the disaster at Carrhae, and Decimus Brutus. Both of course were not Caesarians.

It should be noted most "Caesarians" didn't really care much about his death. Certainly the two consuls that participated in going after Antony in the Mutina campaign owed their positions to Caesar.
 
Top