Were the conspirators justified?
For what reasons did Brutus, Cassius, Cicero, etc., so adamantly oppose Caesar?
Were the Roman people on the side of Caesar before his assassination?
Was Caesar are better ruler than the SPQR?
Also, what right did Caesar have to cross the Rubicon and impose himself on Rome?
Were the people better off under the Republic or the Empire?
What were public morals like immediately before the collapse of the Republic? Did the Empire increase Roman civic virtue or decrease it?
>>1369062
>>1369073
>For what reasons did Brutus, Cassius, Cicero, etc., so adamantly oppose Caesar?
The general opinion at the time was that Caesar fancied himself as king, although whenever he had a chance he denied such claims (usually because the crowd was always silent when the idea of a king was brought up)
The Republic always had great disdain for monarchy.
>Were the Roman people on the side of Caesar before his assassination?
Before and after, Rome was thrown into a civil war involving Caesar's adopted son Octavian (Augustus Caesar), Mark Antony, and the liberators (the conspirators) with the Senate backing Octavian.
>Was Caesar are better ruler than the SPQR?
While he only reigned as dictator in perpetuity for about a year he brought many reforms.
>Also, what right did Caesar have to cross the Rubicon and impose himself on Rome?
Caesar must of been at least a little desperate, he was going back to Rome as either king of the castle or not at all.
>Were the people better off under the Republic or the Empire?
The late republic was a cesspit of corruption,
The Grachi brothers and others were the first signs that the republic was falling, Caesar was the killing blow.
>What were public morals like immediately before the collapse of the Republic? Did the Empire increase Roman civic virtue or decrease it?
Well Augustus instituted many morality laws, like banning adultery for example these were viewed with mixed opinion and adultery was still very common.
>>1369073
>Also, what right did Caesar have to cross the Rubicon and impose himself on Rome?
>right
What right does anyone have to lead? He wanted the role and he took it.
Has it ever been different? Whether by social or political graces or by physical and martial intimidation someone always uses their resources to dominate. There is no justice in it past the pragmatic view of which leader would best promote the prosperity and longevity of his people. Plenty of assholes with no right to anything raped and pillaged their way to power and their victims lineages were better for it in the long run.
