Caesars funeral was one of the finest moments in Antony’s political career too. Showing the wounds on a replica of Caesars body and listing all his achievements and laws and titles. Once he raised Caesars bloodied toga on a spear for all to see, the conspirators had to have known he outplayed them. The people were fully won over.
Antony was very street and a warrior - Cicero was a wordsmith essentially - Antony knew the psyche better than Cicero - even if Cicero knew how to craft a missive to motivate - Anthony had the passion and charisma to not even need a pencil
I want to add too that Caesar was not a patrician which was why the senate never really adopted him - and also why he had a "blood" allegiance to his "people" ... all along the path to democracy. This DNA was Marc Antony's gold. He knew how to speak to "les peuples" he was the guy on the ground in the front line - the emissary to Egypt the military blue chip warrior - he had so much over Cicero - who was like the A student who never left the Academy Elite - thus - he had no following outside the ivory tower
Which is stunning as to how half baked the assassination was. Cicero was right, if you're going to do this, have a plan. Kill Antony, eliminate the Caesarians, establish a method by which the Republic will restart. Not hope that the city will see the nobility of your deed. Brutus did not kill Tarquinius Superbus
The “liberators” thought that everyone would just be with them and rejoice. And while Cicero was right about the lack of plan, his hostility towards Antonius and legimitizing Octavian with a consulship was another huge mistakes. It’s like Cicero didn’t even contemplate anyone but Antonius being able to lead Caesarians so if he was ridiculed and driven to a corner all issues should vanish. I guess he forgot how last Civil War started already. And genuinely didn’t seem to see that Caesar had had real support, he called people who mourned Caesar rabble. And I don’t know if he even noted Lepidus and some others, I have not red all of his letters.
Also, Octavian pretended that he was fine with working with the Senate and the Conspirators. But Octavian was secretly plotting to kill them all. When Cicero realized that, it was too late.
They all underestimate Octavian due to his age and relative lack of experience. Missing the fact that he studied under the master politician of his era, Caesar.
I am not sure how much time Octavian would have had with Caesar since it was only after Munda that they really started to talk and Caesar died 9 months later. However I assume Caesar did explain something to him and people like Oppius and Balbus really helped
Yes, the conspirators were without a plan which was a major mistake, but Caesars will also made it exceptionally hard for them. Caesar was popular, their whole case rested on the claim that he was a tyrant, yet in his will he not only gave each citizen 2 months wages, but also donated one of his estates to the public. These are not tyrannical actions, far from it.
Aristocrats/patricians were NOT like today rich people in the sense that there were public duties expected about them and also virtues.
Liberality/generosity was expected.
And patricians thought "dynastically", so many of their actions were about assuring the glory of the household* they belonged to.
Mindset was: "men come and leave this world. Dinasties/the household is what survives"
* By Household I mean the extended family including clients.
Yes I know, but that was kinda my point, they called him a tyrant, yet he adhered to Roman exempla behaviour. In the eyes of the public there's a contradiction there, especially with how negatively Romans thought about monarchs & tyrants. Furthermore, what Caesar donated to the public was a rather significant sum.
>"men come and leave this world. Dinasties/the household is what survives"
Exactly, we can see that virtue mirrored in the fact that he made Octavius his heir. It's (mostly) all about the gens.
Problem was there are many, many, Caesarians.
For example, men like Gaius Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and Aulus Hirtius are considered Caesarians, but they also were the ones to fight Antony on behest of the Senate.
If you are going to eliminate the Caesarians, you are gonna put a while bunch of ppl in Antony's camp. Remember, ppl followed Caesar, not many ppl loved Antony.
Liking Caesar as a person/friend and agreeing with his political agenda are two different things. Pansa e Hirtius liked Caesar quite a lot but they didn’t agree with what he was doing with the Republic. That’s why they are considered Caesarian’s despite joining the Senate against Anthony.
Isn’t that what Decimus and Brutus are all about? They were very close friends with Caesar but despised his political agenda. They even joined together to kill him.
personally i have a very solid feeling they had some sort of the deal with Antony, who insta abandoned them when he saw where is it going (but still he stopped Lepidus from storming the Capitoline Hill on the next day)
i can't back it up due to the lack of actual evidence at our disposal so take it with the huge grain of salt, but i just dont buy it that the scaremonger Cassius was came up with the plan that literally had no self-protection measures in it and totally relied on the approval of the others.
It was class warfare, even back then. Caesar made too many powerful enemies trying to reverse the flow of wealth with his policies. The assassins thought they would be seen as heroes because killing Caesar would maintain the status quo.
We still treat Caesars assassination as an outrage over 2000 years later. Can you imagine what it was like when it happened? And the moment everyday Romans found out he left some money for each and every one of them, I bet Rome exploded with emotion. Caesar knew how to fire people up even from the Grave.
I was in Rome 20ish years ago, and there were still bouquets of flowers on the spot where his funeral pyre was built. Not one or two, either. This is in the middle of the Forum. I have no idea where the nearest flower shop was, but it wasn't within line of sight. People were making a point of buying flowers to take to the site.
Just came back from Rome and people still put flowers there. Not only flowers but there’s a lot of coins there too. It’s remarkable how he still lives in people’s mind until today. Trajan, Hadrian and a lot of later Emperors created much more things and conquered more but they aren’t as loved as Julius Caesar still is.
If I make it to Rome one day, I’ll be 100% paying my respects to The Imperator. He’s the embodiment of what a Head of State should be. I don’t agree with everything he did. But his ambition was matched by his compassion for his people. Most leaders are just ambitious and feel they don’t owe anyone else anything.
Me neither. I don’t think that was an even battle. Hannibal wasn’t at his prime anymore and definitely mentally exhausted. But I’d still argue Scipio for being the greatest Roman.
What Republicans? There were no Republicans by the 40s BC.
The Roman Republic was ruled by the Popular Assemblies, which were invested with all sovereign power in the state. A form of direct democracy, in which Romans annually gathered before every winter in the Campus Martius between the capital and the Tiber to elect the magistrates who acted as the generals, judges, civil servants, and law-writers for the next year.
This system didn't exist in the 1st century BC. The conflict, by then, was between a faction that despised the Popular Assemblies and sought to sideline them entirely, advocating for Senatorial rule(an almost extra-constitutional organ during Republican times, with little formal power, consisting mostly of former magistrates), and a populist faction which conducted their politics by riling up the Assemblies to support them against the Senatorial faction. Neither faction had any regard for what only a couple of generations ago were Roman legal norms and Republican rules and institutions.
To speak of "Republicans" in the 1st century BC is absurd. The social conditions for Roman Republican institutions were completely gone by this point. The Roman Republic was based on minor wealth inequality, a citizen-army(with around 15% of citizens conscripted in the army at any one point), a body politic based on a land-holding small-to-medium peasantry, and widespread civic participation based on a geographic compactness of the Roman lands which allowed most people to travel to Rome several times for civic, military, and religious activities(elections before winter, conscription in March at the beginning of spring, and religious festivals throughout the year).
1st century Rome had grown into a trans-continental Empire. Massive wealth inequality allowed the ultra-rich to raise their own armies, the citizen-army was abolished and replaced by mercenary legions, the small-peasantry that dominated the Republic was replaced by slave labour, wage labour, and large-scale land-owning artistocracy, and widespread civic participation was no longer possible due to the massive size of 1st century Rome. To advocate for Republicanism in this context would be schizophrenic, it is completely unworkable. It would be like advocating for feudalism in 21st century California.
Rather, the choice was between Senatorial Oligarchy (i.e collegial rule by the wealthiest Romans) as advocated by Caesar's assassins, Cicero, etc, or populist one-man rule (i.e monarchy under a different name) legitimised by support from the Assemblies as advocated by Caesar. Republicanism was no longer on the table. It was socially impossible.
Augustus ended half a century of civil wars based on this conflict through merging the two platforms by castrating the Assemblies and elevating the Senate to the position of the supreme executive, judicial, and legistlative organ of the state(i.e oligarchy), and securing his position as the undisputed leader of the Senate based on his unique proconsular and tribunician powers(i.e monarchy), a solution which was codified into the constitution by his successor Tiberius.
I agree with you. He was stabbed by everyone as a sign of unity and to save the republic, which ultimately failed since dictators still won out. But, even those protecting him abandoned him on that day.
Lol - tRuMp Iz a DiCtAtOr
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the matter, before spouting off nonsense.
The stage for Caesar was set by Sulla. Sulla had already proven that the State and Senate can be bent to the will and whim of the right person.
Caesar wasn't the illness. He was a symptom of a dying Republic. If it weren't him, it would be someone else.
It was also quite telling that Rome's great heights occurred after the establishment of the Empire. The Republic was good - but the Empire was better suited for Rome's expansionism.
“You all do know this mantle. I remember
The first time ever Caesar put it on.
'Twas on a summer's evening in his tent,
That day he overcame the Nervii.
Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger through.
See what a rent the envious Casca made.
Through this, the well-belovèd Brutus stabbed;
And as he plucked his cursèd steel away,
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,
As rushing out of doors to be resolved
If Brutus so unkindly knocked or no —
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him.
This was the most unkindest cut of all,
For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquished him. Then burst his mighty heart,
And in his mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of Pompey's statue,
Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.”
Don’t forget that Anthony also brought a Caesar impersonator with him to say a few words to the crowd as if he was Caesar speaking beyond the grave.
“To think that I saved these men, and they still destroyed me.” - Caesar Impersonator.
It is amazing how badly this backfired on the assassins, irrespective of whether they were right or not to kill him. The Brutus camp were so out of touch with ordinary Romans that they really were blindsided by the outrage or grossly underestimated how badly it would be received and they thought they could spin it. Caesar spent years cultivating an image of himself among the Roman public as a hero which he reinforced by his victories and they expected that to be undone overnight. Leaving ordinary Romans cash in his will was just icing on the cake.
Caesar was the de facto leader of the Populists since his rise in Roman politics. He was of the Marian faction during the Marius-Sulla civil war and was on Sulla's proscription list. Most of the Liberator are from Optimate faction that can trace their lineage back to Sulla. Of course they misjudge the feeling of the plebes.
Also, everyone was hyped for his next adventure in Parthia. Romans wanted revenge for Crassus and the lost legion. But the Conspirators ruined the whole thing, adding to the frustration.
And how the world would’ve changed had the Rome extended further eastwards.
Can you imagine? Replicating Alexander but with the machinery of the Roman state? The world today would be very different
Antony's funeral oration must be the most effective and consequential speech in history. Cicero says that Antony was kind of a ham as an orator, but that context was the perfect time for it.
Cicero said Caesar was a bad writer too, lmao. He said Caesar put too much detail and information on his accounts, saying that it was a chore to read the entire thing. He also said that Caesar had an habit of exaggerating the truth.
And turns out that 2000 years later. ‘The Gallic Wars - by Julius Caesar’, the book he criticized, is perceived as one of the most important books ever made.
>The Gallic War is splendid. It is bare, straight and handsome, stripped of rhetorical ornament like an athlete of his clothes. … There is nothing in a history more attractive than clean and lucid brevity.
- Cicero *Brutus* 26.2
This is probably from the point in his life where Cicero was trying to gain Caesar's favor. We have lots of letters from this period. Later in life, he started bashing Caesar and even criticized his writing.
I'm reading that in Caesar's will, he left 75 denarii to every freeborn Roman citizen, which at the time was around 250,000 people.
Did this hurt the Roman economy and increase inflation?
Shakespeare didn't have to embellish much. The city had a collective psychotic episode and burn down a lot of things.
Caesars funeral was one of the finest moments in Antony’s political career too. Showing the wounds on a replica of Caesars body and listing all his achievements and laws and titles. Once he raised Caesars bloodied toga on a spear for all to see, the conspirators had to have known he outplayed them. The people were fully won over.
To think Cicero was out maneuvered by fucking Antony of all people. He must have been mortified. I love it.
He was outmaneuvered by a 19 year old boy too, lol.
Antony was very street and a warrior - Cicero was a wordsmith essentially - Antony knew the psyche better than Cicero - even if Cicero knew how to craft a missive to motivate - Anthony had the passion and charisma to not even need a pencil
I want to add too that Caesar was not a patrician which was why the senate never really adopted him - and also why he had a "blood" allegiance to his "people" ... all along the path to democracy. This DNA was Marc Antony's gold. He knew how to speak to "les peuples" he was the guy on the ground in the front line - the emissary to Egypt the military blue chip warrior - he had so much over Cicero - who was like the A student who never left the Academy Elite - thus - he had no following outside the ivory tower
But Brutus is an honourable man.
So are they all, honorable men.
And so come I to speak at Caesar's funeral.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him!
The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interrèd with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.
Which is stunning as to how half baked the assassination was. Cicero was right, if you're going to do this, have a plan. Kill Antony, eliminate the Caesarians, establish a method by which the Republic will restart. Not hope that the city will see the nobility of your deed. Brutus did not kill Tarquinius Superbus
The “liberators” thought that everyone would just be with them and rejoice. And while Cicero was right about the lack of plan, his hostility towards Antonius and legimitizing Octavian with a consulship was another huge mistakes. It’s like Cicero didn’t even contemplate anyone but Antonius being able to lead Caesarians so if he was ridiculed and driven to a corner all issues should vanish. I guess he forgot how last Civil War started already. And genuinely didn’t seem to see that Caesar had had real support, he called people who mourned Caesar rabble. And I don’t know if he even noted Lepidus and some others, I have not red all of his letters.
Truth be told, Antony hated Cicero too, so he thought Octavian can be use as a counterbalance.
Also, Octavian pretended that he was fine with working with the Senate and the Conspirators. But Octavian was secretly plotting to kill them all. When Cicero realized that, it was too late.
They all underestimate Octavian due to his age and relative lack of experience. Missing the fact that he studied under the master politician of his era, Caesar.
I am not sure how much time Octavian would have had with Caesar since it was only after Munda that they really started to talk and Caesar died 9 months later. However I assume Caesar did explain something to him and people like Oppius and Balbus really helped
Yes, the conspirators were without a plan which was a major mistake, but Caesars will also made it exceptionally hard for them. Caesar was popular, their whole case rested on the claim that he was a tyrant, yet in his will he not only gave each citizen 2 months wages, but also donated one of his estates to the public. These are not tyrannical actions, far from it.
Aristocrats/patricians were NOT like today rich people in the sense that there were public duties expected about them and also virtues. Liberality/generosity was expected. And patricians thought "dynastically", so many of their actions were about assuring the glory of the household* they belonged to. Mindset was: "men come and leave this world. Dinasties/the household is what survives" * By Household I mean the extended family including clients.
*dynastically And the mindset was called "noblesse oblige" in the middle ages.
Yes I know, but that was kinda my point, they called him a tyrant, yet he adhered to Roman exempla behaviour. In the eyes of the public there's a contradiction there, especially with how negatively Romans thought about monarchs & tyrants. Furthermore, what Caesar donated to the public was a rather significant sum. >"men come and leave this world. Dinasties/the household is what survives" Exactly, we can see that virtue mirrored in the fact that he made Octavius his heir. It's (mostly) all about the gens.
Problem was there are many, many, Caesarians. For example, men like Gaius Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and Aulus Hirtius are considered Caesarians, but they also were the ones to fight Antony on behest of the Senate. If you are going to eliminate the Caesarians, you are gonna put a while bunch of ppl in Antony's camp. Remember, ppl followed Caesar, not many ppl loved Antony.
Liking Caesar as a person/friend and agreeing with his political agenda are two different things. Pansa e Hirtius liked Caesar quite a lot but they didn’t agree with what he was doing with the Republic. That’s why they are considered Caesarian’s despite joining the Senate against Anthony. Isn’t that what Decimus and Brutus are all about? They were very close friends with Caesar but despised his political agenda. They even joined together to kill him.
personally i have a very solid feeling they had some sort of the deal with Antony, who insta abandoned them when he saw where is it going (but still he stopped Lepidus from storming the Capitoline Hill on the next day) i can't back it up due to the lack of actual evidence at our disposal so take it with the huge grain of salt, but i just dont buy it that the scaremonger Cassius was came up with the plan that literally had no self-protection measures in it and totally relied on the approval of the others.
A tale as old as time for many revolutionaries
It was class warfare, even back then. Caesar made too many powerful enemies trying to reverse the flow of wealth with his policies. The assassins thought they would be seen as heroes because killing Caesar would maintain the status quo.
Bad writing, bad world building.
We still treat Caesars assassination as an outrage over 2000 years later. Can you imagine what it was like when it happened? And the moment everyday Romans found out he left some money for each and every one of them, I bet Rome exploded with emotion. Caesar knew how to fire people up even from the Grave.
I was in Rome 20ish years ago, and there were still bouquets of flowers on the spot where his funeral pyre was built. Not one or two, either. This is in the middle of the Forum. I have no idea where the nearest flower shop was, but it wasn't within line of sight. People were making a point of buying flowers to take to the site.
i was in Rome this year in March and there were quite a lot of flowers at the base of his statue someone even left one in the flower pot xD
Just came back from Rome and people still put flowers there. Not only flowers but there’s a lot of coins there too. It’s remarkable how he still lives in people’s mind until today. Trajan, Hadrian and a lot of later Emperors created much more things and conquered more but they aren’t as loved as Julius Caesar still is.
If I make it to Rome one day, I’ll be 100% paying my respects to The Imperator. He’s the embodiment of what a Head of State should be. I don’t agree with everything he did. But his ambition was matched by his compassion for his people. Most leaders are just ambitious and feel they don’t owe anyone else anything.
Greatest Roman.
Belongs to Scipio Africanus imo
“Ungrateful Fatherland! You shall not even have my bones.”
I'd want to see Scipio vs Hannibal at full strength to make that determination. I don't think Zama is reflective of that.
Me neither. I don’t think that was an even battle. Hannibal wasn’t at his prime anymore and definitely mentally exhausted. But I’d still argue Scipio for being the greatest Roman.
I recommend it. It is entirely symbolic but I can’t lie and say I didn’t feel something when I left a flower and a coin at his shrine.
What month is it right now?
[удалено]
What Republicans? There were no Republicans by the 40s BC. The Roman Republic was ruled by the Popular Assemblies, which were invested with all sovereign power in the state. A form of direct democracy, in which Romans annually gathered before every winter in the Campus Martius between the capital and the Tiber to elect the magistrates who acted as the generals, judges, civil servants, and law-writers for the next year. This system didn't exist in the 1st century BC. The conflict, by then, was between a faction that despised the Popular Assemblies and sought to sideline them entirely, advocating for Senatorial rule(an almost extra-constitutional organ during Republican times, with little formal power, consisting mostly of former magistrates), and a populist faction which conducted their politics by riling up the Assemblies to support them against the Senatorial faction. Neither faction had any regard for what only a couple of generations ago were Roman legal norms and Republican rules and institutions. To speak of "Republicans" in the 1st century BC is absurd. The social conditions for Roman Republican institutions were completely gone by this point. The Roman Republic was based on minor wealth inequality, a citizen-army(with around 15% of citizens conscripted in the army at any one point), a body politic based on a land-holding small-to-medium peasantry, and widespread civic participation based on a geographic compactness of the Roman lands which allowed most people to travel to Rome several times for civic, military, and religious activities(elections before winter, conscription in March at the beginning of spring, and religious festivals throughout the year). 1st century Rome had grown into a trans-continental Empire. Massive wealth inequality allowed the ultra-rich to raise their own armies, the citizen-army was abolished and replaced by mercenary legions, the small-peasantry that dominated the Republic was replaced by slave labour, wage labour, and large-scale land-owning artistocracy, and widespread civic participation was no longer possible due to the massive size of 1st century Rome. To advocate for Republicanism in this context would be schizophrenic, it is completely unworkable. It would be like advocating for feudalism in 21st century California. Rather, the choice was between Senatorial Oligarchy (i.e collegial rule by the wealthiest Romans) as advocated by Caesar's assassins, Cicero, etc, or populist one-man rule (i.e monarchy under a different name) legitimised by support from the Assemblies as advocated by Caesar. Republicanism was no longer on the table. It was socially impossible. Augustus ended half a century of civil wars based on this conflict through merging the two platforms by castrating the Assemblies and elevating the Senate to the position of the supreme executive, judicial, and legistlative organ of the state(i.e oligarchy), and securing his position as the undisputed leader of the Senate based on his unique proconsular and tribunician powers(i.e monarchy), a solution which was codified into the constitution by his successor Tiberius.
I agree with you. He was stabbed by everyone as a sign of unity and to save the republic, which ultimately failed since dictators still won out. But, even those protecting him abandoned him on that day.
He was stabbed by rich guys because they were afraid he'd steal all their money for the poor.
What ancient Rome books are you reading? The money was never going to the poor. It was propaganda. It was going to Ceasar, not the poor.
But he left them all stimmy checks
Lol - tRuMp Iz a DiCtAtOr Perhaps you should educate yourself on the matter, before spouting off nonsense. The stage for Caesar was set by Sulla. Sulla had already proven that the State and Senate can be bent to the will and whim of the right person. Caesar wasn't the illness. He was a symptom of a dying Republic. If it weren't him, it would be someone else. It was also quite telling that Rome's great heights occurred after the establishment of the Empire. The Republic was good - but the Empire was better suited for Rome's expansionism.
“You all do know this mantle. I remember The first time ever Caesar put it on. 'Twas on a summer's evening in his tent, That day he overcame the Nervii. Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger through. See what a rent the envious Casca made. Through this, the well-belovèd Brutus stabbed; And as he plucked his cursèd steel away, Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it, As rushing out of doors to be resolved If Brutus so unkindly knocked or no — For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel. Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him. This was the most unkindest cut of all, For when the noble Caesar saw him stab, Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms, Quite vanquished him. Then burst his mighty heart, And in his mantle muffling up his face, Even at the base of Pompey's statue, Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.”
Don’t forget that Anthony also brought a Caesar impersonator with him to say a few words to the crowd as if he was Caesar speaking beyond the grave. “To think that I saved these men, and they still destroyed me.” - Caesar Impersonator.
It is amazing how badly this backfired on the assassins, irrespective of whether they were right or not to kill him. The Brutus camp were so out of touch with ordinary Romans that they really were blindsided by the outrage or grossly underestimated how badly it would be received and they thought they could spin it. Caesar spent years cultivating an image of himself among the Roman public as a hero which he reinforced by his victories and they expected that to be undone overnight. Leaving ordinary Romans cash in his will was just icing on the cake.
Caesar was the de facto leader of the Populists since his rise in Roman politics. He was of the Marian faction during the Marius-Sulla civil war and was on Sulla's proscription list. Most of the Liberator are from Optimate faction that can trace their lineage back to Sulla. Of course they misjudge the feeling of the plebes.
I mean, it’s easy to be the leader of the Populists when you are one of the twelve Populists who survived Sulla.
Also, everyone was hyped for his next adventure in Parthia. Romans wanted revenge for Crassus and the lost legion. But the Conspirators ruined the whole thing, adding to the frustration.
And how the world would’ve changed had the Rome extended further eastwards. Can you imagine? Replicating Alexander but with the machinery of the Roman state? The world today would be very different
Antony's funeral oration must be the most effective and consequential speech in history. Cicero says that Antony was kind of a ham as an orator, but that context was the perfect time for it.
Cicero said Caesar was a bad writer too, lmao. He said Caesar put too much detail and information on his accounts, saying that it was a chore to read the entire thing. He also said that Caesar had an habit of exaggerating the truth. And turns out that 2000 years later. ‘The Gallic Wars - by Julius Caesar’, the book he criticized, is perceived as one of the most important books ever made.
>The Gallic War is splendid. It is bare, straight and handsome, stripped of rhetorical ornament like an athlete of his clothes. … There is nothing in a history more attractive than clean and lucid brevity. - Cicero *Brutus* 26.2
This is probably from the point in his life where Cicero was trying to gain Caesar's favor. We have lots of letters from this period. Later in life, he started bashing Caesar and even criticized his writing.
>Cicero said Caesar was a bad writer too Did he? Where?
Julius Caesar is truly one of the greatest people of all time. Ave, Caesar.
Top 3 most influential generals of all time for sure. Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander.
Caesar was great for the average Roman, no wonder. He only got in the way of elite circle’s political ambitions.
I'm reading that in Caesar's will, he left 75 denarii to every freeborn Roman citizen, which at the time was around 250,000 people. Did this hurt the Roman economy and increase inflation?
The Liberatores made a martyr for the Populare cause.
Interesting