#this is a 101 Classics point I'm making so please no pedants in the comments

[avelera]

Reflections on the Ides of March

After all the excitement yesterday about the assassination of Julius Caesar, I think it's worth mentioning that Julius Caesar's death being celebrated as the common man's answer to tyranny is a little like celebrating the Mayflower Pilgrims for being on the side of religious tolerance.

Like, the Mayflower Pilgrims emigrated from England because England wasn't religiously controlling enough for them. They wanted more religious tyranny and were upset that the government was too moderate for their liking in allowing other ways of life.

In a bit of a distant parallel (bear with me, ADHD connection brain go brrrr) Julius Caesar first made enemies among the aristocrats who eventually murdered him by being a populist endeavoring to solve Rome's growing inequality issues by bringing land reform to Rome specifically targeted at redistributing land that had been gobbled up by the rich and powerful to give it back to its people.

It's a little complicated because, yes, Caesar's move to dub himself dictator for life was absolutely an authoritarian move. In addition, Augustus and subsequent European authoritarians/monarchs (I believe we should use the term more interchangeably tbh) used "Caesar" as a title and justified their reign going back to him via Augustus's eventual ascendence as his heir after a bitter power struggle and killing off all his other rivals who could claim that title, and thus brought an end to the (already tottering) Roman Republic. This puts Caesar as a step on the path to a reduction of a form of non-authoritarian rule.

But tyrant, as Caesar was referred to by those who assassinated him, in the ancient sense had a subtly different meaning. A tyrant was usually a figure who gained popularity among the masses by becoming their advocate against the rich and powerful and who ascended to power usually on the wave of a cult of personality and promises of egalitarian reform. They rarely established dynasties because the skills needed to reach their position of power rarely appeared in their biological heirs and without the structure of a monarchy to pass that mantle of authority onto their sons and heirs, the power structure of that tyrant usually fell apart upon their death.

Basically, one really magnetic person would occasionally rise up when the rich and powerful had gone too far in the societal imbalance. Rich aristocrats hated that. The enemy of most classical tyrants were the rich and powerful. Tyrants were populist leaders who usually took power for life (often, a rather short one if they couldn't keep the reins of power well in hand). This is a part of the rather complex political history of "rule by the people" and how it wasn't always a straight line from "rule by one" straight to democracy, sometimes a single authoritarian dictator/tyrant actually was the representative of the common man in confrontation against the accumulation of power by oligarchs.

So, Julius Caesar is a bit of a complicated figure here, because he rose to power by being a champion of the common man, in a tradition in Rome going back to the ill-fated Gracchi. By taking "dictator for life" powers, he was feared to be setting himself up as a king, or rather as a tyrant by Roman Senators, all wealthy aristocrats and by today's standards, oligarchs. Rome originally became a Republic, historically, when a Brutus family member assassinated the then-Etruscan tyrant so Rome could rule itself (or rather, could be ruled by its own oligarchs, which was much more democratic before it exploded into an empire by Caesar's time).

But the material damage the Roman Senators feared from Caear was just as much that he would take their land and money from them with that dictatorial power in order to repair the desperately crumbling "middle class" (term used loosely as it does not directly translate) which had been picked clean and robbed blind by the aristocrats over the past century or so in Rome since the Punic Wars. Caesar was championing anti-poverty measure that was looking out for the actual common citizens of Rome, something the Roman Senators did not want Caesar to do because it would bite into their wealth.

This makes it rather bitterly ironic that the common people today celebrate Caesar's death when, at the time, one of the reasons he was murdered was for being the champion of the common man. However, it is an understandable irony given how Caesar's legacy would be used by authoritarians after his death, up to and including in modern times.