Download Amaury Figueroa

Amaury Figueroa-Pérez
Political Murder of Julius Caesar and the Gracchi Brothers.
Why assassination? What is to be gained by those who plan it and conduct it? How
assassinations change history? There are important accounts that we could discuss like the
assassination of leaders like Julius Caesar, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. It seems like every time
we assess a new account there is the need to add new elements to the definition of political
murder. These new elements influence the ability to justify the action of killing a person.
It seems like in times of confusion, terror, or when there is lack of resources to assist the
citizens of a nation, is when disputes arise. When humans feel fear, the insecurity of losing their
social status, personal property, job, or income they will react in different ways. Using violence
to eliminate the person or the leader who is considered the threat is one of the many tactics an
individual or a group could use. Historically these are some of the reasons many groups utilized
as a justification for the murders of political or social figures. But on the other hand there are
cases where political ideologies, the desire to change history, the hunger for power and money,
or simply the longing for fame provide enough fuel to initiate a revolt.1 Violence has become a
source to eliminate leaders who brought hope to the community and have a different perspective
than the attacker, but it is also used to remove leaders who were believed to be a threat. This
type of violence is what we have identified as a political murder. A political murder is a
homicide related to the body politic and its governance.2 Political murder includes random
killings with the objective to neutralize an opponent while he or she attempts to focus on a
particular topic of interest.
1
Lindsay Porter, Assassination: A History of Political Murder, (New York, NY: The Overlook Press, 2010), 10
Franklin L Ford, Political Murder: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism,(London, England: Harvard University Press,
1985), 1.
2
Figueroa-Perez
Through class discussion, we continue debating about the elements of a political murder:
Could they be justified? Does this type of murder changes history? We also defined important
concepts that are necessary to understand in order to have an active class conversation and a
better idea of what is the exact ideology, purpose, and consequences of a political murder. These
additional concepts are assassination and tyrannicide. Based on our class discussion, tyrannicide
is the killing of a tyrant and assassination was defined as the action of killing using any type of
violence. We have tried to establish a relationship between these two concepts and political
murder, but we still debating on this dilemma because it seems impossible to establish a
consensus based on the information we have gathered. Franklyn L. Ford a distinguished historian
and former dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science at Harvard University3, introduces a brief
description of the relationship between political murder, assassination, and tyrannicide. In his
book, Political Murder: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism, he relates these concepts as follow:
…political murder in general, assassination as its most individualized expression,
and tyrannicide as the latter’s ostensibly justifiable subcategory…4
Even when Ford establishes a brief relationship between all the concepts, the debate continues
the creation of new ideas and perspective about the topic.
Lindsay Porter, a cultural historian who has published several books related to the topic
of assassination presented several examples of cases like the death of Julius Caesar and others. In
her book Assassination: A History of Political Murder she adopts a Plutarchian view to describe
Caesar as a dictator. She takes advantage of this characteristic and tries to justify his death.
Porter claims that the killing of the Roman general was based on his performance as a statesman
solely by saying:
3
4
Harvard University Gazette, Obituary, 2003.
Ford, 2.
~2~
Figueroa-Perez
The justification for political murder-in this case tyrannicide- has been repeatedly
explored, debated and reinterpreted throughout history, and continues to be so
today.5
Porter questions the real reasons for killing Caesar. She argues that his murder was more
than an incident of violence. She claims that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by his friends and
political advisors to stop him from gaining power. An important factor in this account is that
Caesar contributed to his empire with a long term of stability. He was a successful military
strategist and his people admired him because he was very generous. His ambition was the key to
expand the Roman Empire and that helped him gain popularity among the people in the empire.
He was well respected among the Roman’s enemies due to his clemency and all the pardons he
granted to them. The only part of the community that he did not convince to join his military and
political causes was the Senate. The democratic alignment chosen by Caesar caused a high level
of discomfort among the member of the Senate who were aristocrats.
The senate started to think of Caesar as a tyrant because of the radical changes he began
to implement. Member of the aristocracy did not agree with his behavior, his way to govern, and
his sycophancy. Not having another way to take his power away they conspired against him.
According to the information portrayed by Porter, Caesar’s assassination was the result of
disagreement between himself and members of the Roman Senate. He was killed after Lucius
Tullius Cimber, a member of the Senate who requested Caesar to pardon his brother and allow
him to return to Rome. Caesar rejected his petition and Lucius became violently angry and
attacked him. During the incident all the senators joined Lucius’s action; it was Casca, a tribune
from the Senate, who drew his dagger and introduced it into Caesar’s neck. After the first attack
he was wounded twenty-three more times by the rest of the senates. The last person who stabbed
him was his friend Brutus.
5
Porter, 10.
~3~
Figueroa-Perez
Killing Caesar was the mechanism use by the senate to reject his political, military
control and power. Porter uses Plutarch’s narrations to analyze this and states that:
The Roman political elite operated in an incredibly small world…6
Those who were part of the body politic were Patricians, the original aristocratic families who
govern ancient Rome. For hundreds of years these families controlled the Empire, they were
wealthy, powerful and had many privileges. Patricians considered that having Caesar as a
statesman was a threat for their families because there was a risk that he could take away their
power, properties and demote their social status. That is why they agreed to kill the Roman
emperor as long as Brutus took the lead.7
Plutarch emphasizes how Brutus has no personal quarrel with Caesar and is
motivated [to kill him] purely by the abstract ideal of removing a tyrant from the
body politic. 8
We could say that Caesar was a tyrant, but we can not ignore the fact that the members of
the Senate were not in favor of his beliefs because they were battling to retain the power they had
for generations. Is necessary to look at this argument and understand that the only reason they
assassinated Caesar was to remain in control of their wealth, social status and the power to vote
in favor of what they own.
Porter agrees that for many centuries Caesar’s assassination has raised questions and
doubts. Those who study the events have produced new perspectives and interpretations. In the
act of a political murder, those who lead the efforts and organize the act expect that eliminating
the individual that is unifying or spreading the citizens will resume everything back to normal.
This argument could be contrasted with the following statement:
6
Porter, 22.
Porter, 22.
8
Porter, 22.
7
~4~
Figueroa-Perez
Following the assassination [of Caesar], all was confusion: many of the
conspirators, Brutus included, had been wounded in the mêlée, and the assemble
witnesses recoiled in honor at the spectacle before them. The assassins burst from
the senate, the sight of the bloodied mob causing panic in the streets. Doors were
bolted, shutters slammed and locked, and shop and counters were left unattended
as people ran to and fro, spreading news.9
Other accounts that we have taken under consideration are the Gracchi brothers; Tiberius
and Gaius Gracchus. This pair of brothers was related to various Romans who impacted the
history of the Empire. They belonged to one of the most notable and wealthy families in Rome.
Their bloodline included three generations of consuls; they were the sons of a successful general,
administrator and diplomat. In addition, their mother was the daughter of Scipio Africanus, a
general in the Second Punic War and a statesman.10 They were popular among the people of
Rome not only because of all the acts their family members contributed to the community, but
also for their own acts.
Tiberius was a very ambitious man, well educated, and an effective diplomat who was
considered to be an amazing military strategist. Once his military service concluded he acted as a
tribune. It was in this position that he tried to solve issues related to land. His goal was to better
the problems within the system of agriculture by approving laws that were not well accepted by
the majority in the Senate. The rejection of his proposals was based on the fact that he was
giving land to poor members of the population and the Senate did not agree. To approve this and
other proposals, he grouped with others senators and insisted on passing the law even when it
was not approved the first time it passed. He manipulated the process and fulfilled approving the
law, an action that created a broad dissatisfaction among the rest of the member of the Senate.
This is one of the reasons why Tiberius became an antagonist figure. Even when some of the
proposals he presented were reasonable and consistent, the manner with which he conducted the
9
Porter, 26.
Ford, 51.
10
~5~
Figueroa-Perez
approval process was consider abrupt and radical. He adopted a democratic and socialist
philosophy that shocked many of the members of the Senate. Tiberius Gracchi died murder
bitten by a mob of senators and other men the day he was going to begin a new mandate as a
tribune. Tiberius’s murder was the first political assassination in the Roman Republic. Scholars
related Gracchi’s mistake to his political ideologies and the hunger for power.
Based on the information provided by Franklyn Ford, Tiberius’ brother Gaius was more
doctrinaire, more effective and more related to politics.11 He was considered a great orator but
unlike his brother he did not accomplished any important military awards. When he served in the
tribune, he managed to complete his brother’s agenda of inserting reforms into the constitution to
try to implement agricultural changes. But again, aristocratic senators opposed his attempt to
creating an agrarian reform. He tried to run again for a third term for the tribune but lost the
election. After losing the elections the Senate declared him enemy of the republic and repealed
some of the laws of his authorship. In an attempt to defend the laws created under his
administration he marched accompanied by hundreds of supporters. It was in that protest where
he died, stabbed by some of the latter’s henchmen. Ford states the following:
Tiberius Gracchus had died at the hands of a lynch mob; Gaius, by contrast, was
now formally declared to be an enemy of the Republic, in effect an outlaw whose
followers were disrupting the body politic through riot and murder.12
In my opinion all three accounts are examples of political murder because all of the men
functioned as statesman. Their ambition and the way they ruled did not help their cause and
created a strong opposition. Even though they all ruled in different terms they all had something
in common: the hunger for power. Their political ideologies were to be blame for their
assassinations. I believe that is important to mention that even when some of their proposals
11
12
Ford, 56.
Ford, 57.
~6~
Figueroa-Perez
were addressed to help poor members of the population, those ideas pushed the senator’s
contempt. It seems clear the risk a man of state has to take to pursue a political career, and no
matter the period of time there will be opponents of the power who will convince others to use
violence to carry out an act of political murder.
~7~
Figueroa-Perez
Work Cited:
Ford, Franklin L. Political Murder: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism. London, England:
Harvard University Press. 1985.
Harvard University Gazette. Obituary. 2003.
Porter, Lindsay. Assassination: A History of Political Murder. New York, NY: The Overlook
Press. 2010.
~8~