Was the assasination of Caesar justified?

[M. Caecilius]

Like Robert said, it depends on who you ask. Several people nowadays would argue that murder is never justified. There have been a number of murders (attempted or achieved) of tyrants (or people considered by one party to be a tyrant).

Caesar was not a particularly bloodthirsty or tyrannical ruler, as far as treating his enemies was concerned: there were no proscriptions, which were known under Cinna, Marius and Sulla, and which would again be known under the Second Triumvirate. He replied to the idealization of Cato by a pamphlet of his own, not by executing the writer. He was known for his clemency. So, as long as you were not one of the one million Gauls he may have killed (and few of the Senators on either side would have cared about those), you were probably safe. It's difficult to say what the result would have been if Pompey had won, considering he never got the chance, but Pompey was less subtle.

Still, Caesar clearly strove towards a monarchical rule. He may not have accepted a crown and refused the title "rex", but that's sophistry. The title "dictator perpetuus" alone would have justified, by Roman standards, his murder: it worked for Spurius Maelius, M. Manlius Capitolinus, Ti. and C. Gracchus, and it was possible for Cicero, decades before the day Caesar was killed, to defend C, Rabirius, one of the murderers of L. Apuleius Saturninus. C. Rabirius was condemned but then the matter was dropped: it was anyway as much political as properly legalistic. Cicero himself could execute the Catilinarians, and though he was exiled for this, he was also recalled. Caesar had gone much further in his quest for sole rule than any of of these previous cases (most of which could not be proven in a modern court of law). So there is plenty of precedent for killing people who could be thought to seek regnum, never mind declaring themselves "dictator for life".

Suetonius interestingly quotes, at Div. Iul. 76, "praegravant tamen cetera facta dictaque eius, ut et abusus dominatione et iure caesus existimetur", "his other actions and sayings turned the scale, so that it may be thought that he abused his power and was murdered justly." Note the subjunctive, so Suetonius does not come out clear; note also that much of what Suetonius reports could be invented or distorted by Caesar's enemies, but given the other sources of the time, it's hardly difficult to see how Caesar abused his power, and, unlike Sulla, he did not seem inclined to retire after putting things in order (however naive that would have been).

As to why the "liberators" did not plan further ahead, first, I don't think we can judge the motives of the conspirators with the benefit of hindsight: the question was whether the assassination was justified, not whether it was wise.

Still, it may simply have been a naive hope that with Caesar removed, matters would work out. People would recognise them as a new L. Brutus, (a new Harmodion if they were Greek-inclined). This was not so optimistic as it may seem. According to Suetonius, there were 60 conspirators, usually, about 40 are assumed, some go as low as 30 - in a Senate which Caesar had raised from 300 to 600, so that's 10-20% of the "Old Senate". The liberators could hope that the newcomers would soon be struck from the list (their legitimacy relied entirely on Caesar), that others, such as Cicero, would follow their lead. And, by Roman ideas, where the Senate lead, the people would follow: after all, the clientela system would see to that. In fact, they did get considerable parts of the Roman army on their side, too - and let's not forget that Augustan propaganda had over half a century to discredit the conspirators and those who followed after them (such as Sextus Pompeius).

Besides, it would appear to the conspirators that the entire problem rested on Caesar anyway. Pompey was conveniently out of the picture already. No other single man should have had this kind of support: nobody had a career, or wealth, or support enough to match Caesar or Pompey. Anthony had not exactly shone up until now. A few years before, he had messed up so much that Caesar had to put him aside for a while. Who could have expected Octavian? A nobody just out of his toga praetexta. Lepidus? His did not even have the support of his family. Besides, they had competent people on their side: Cassius had held the eastern provinces against the Parthians; Cicero could be expected to use his talent to return peace.

The conspirators were ready to the compromise offered by Anthony, to grant immunity to Caesar's murderers but not to declare his edicts void, which may show that they really believed it all just hinged on Caesar. Granted, many of them owed important positions to Caesar, and it would have caused considerable chaos and a few major personal sacrifices to declare Caesar's acts illegal. Unfortunately, accepting that compromise allowed Anthony and later Octavian to built up their case.

And besides: they did not really get a chance to show how they would have tackled the problems of the Republic, considering they were driven out rather rapidly by the unlikely alliance between Octavian and Anthony. I agree that it is most probable they would have returned to "normal", which meant that the upheavals of the previous century, with its civil wars, gang warfare, political plotting, ignorance of social problems, corruption and backstabbing would have continued, but these were people trying to defend the world they knew and defending Liberty (not the livelihood of the veterans, urban plebs or small-scale farmers), which they set above all else. Their entire upbringing had revolved around the idea of Liberty, and even if the rule of the upper classes of ancient Rome seem rather unjust in out terms, I don't think we should judge them in our terms.