What do you think?
Rate this book
Ο θάνατος του Καίσαρα
Το συγκλονιστικό χρονικό ενός από τα διασημότερα ιστορικά γεγονότα, τώρα πλήρως ενταγμένο στο πλαίσιο των εμφύλιων πολέμων της Ρώμης από τον έγκριτο ακαδημαϊκό Barry Strauss.
Χάρη στον Σαίξπηρ, ο θάνατος του Ιουλίου Καίσαρα είναι η διασημότερη δολοφονία στην ιστορία. Μα αυτό που όντως συνέβη στις 15 Μαρτίου του 44 π.Χ. είναι πιο συναρπαστικό απ’ ό,τι παρουσιάζεται στο έργο του Βάρδου. Ενώ ο Σαίξπηρ απεικονίζει τη δολοφονία του Καίσαρα ως ερασιτεχνική και ιδεαλιστική υπόθεση, ο Strauss αποδεικνύει ότι επρόκειτο για επιμελώς οργανωμένη παραστρατιωτική επιχείρηση, χαρτογραφώντας το πραγματικό παρασκήνιο του εγκλήματος, καθώς και τις συνέπειές του.
Ο Καίσαρας εκπροσωπούσε μια μόνιμη αλλαγή στον ρωμαϊκό τρόπο ζωής και την ισχύ των συγκλητικών. Ο Βρούτος και ο Κάσσιος πράγματι διαδραμάτισαν ρόλους-κλειδί στη δολοφονία του, ωστόσο είχαν την καθοριστική βοήθεια ενός από τους πλέον ένδοξους στρατηγούς του Καίσαρα και φίλου του επί μακρόν. Μέσα από μία σχεδόν κινηματογραφική αφήγηση, ο ιστορικός μάς συστήνει τον πραγματικό προδότη.
Χάρη στον Σαίξπηρ, ο θάνατος του Ιουλίου Καίσαρα είναι η διασημότερη δολοφονία στην ιστορία. Μα αυτό που όντως συνέβη στις 15 Μαρτίου του 44 π.Χ. είναι πιο συναρπαστικό απ’ ό,τι παρουσιάζεται στο έργο του Βάρδου. Ενώ ο Σαίξπηρ απεικονίζει τη δολοφονία του Καίσαρα ως ερασιτεχνική και ιδεαλιστική υπόθεση, ο Strauss αποδεικνύει ότι επρόκειτο για επιμελώς οργανωμένη παραστρατιωτική επιχείρηση, χαρτογραφώντας το πραγματικό παρασκήνιο του εγκλήματος, καθώς και τις συνέπειές του.
Ο Καίσαρας εκπροσωπούσε μια μόνιμη αλλαγή στον ρωμαϊκό τρόπο ζωής και την ισχύ των συγκλητικών. Ο Βρούτος και ο Κάσσιος πράγματι διαδραμάτισαν ρόλους-κλειδί στη δολοφονία του, ωστόσο είχαν την καθοριστική βοήθεια ενός από τους πλέον ένδοξους στρατηγούς του Καίσαρα και φίλου του επί μακρόν. Μέσα από μία σχεδόν κινηματογραφική αφήγηση, ο ιστορικός μάς συστήνει τον πραγματικό προδότη.
408 pages, Paperback
First published March 2, 2015
219 people are currently reading
4636 people want to read
About the author
Barry S. Strauss
46 books353 followersBarry Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, is a leading expert on ancient military history. He has written or edited several books, including The Battle of Salamis, The Trojan War, The Spartacus War, Masters of Command, The Death of Caesar, and Ten Caesars.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 296 reviews
August 27, 2022
I just completed a re-read. It was better this time since there are 7 more years of life experience to bring to it.
This time, what stood out were the relationships of the participants. Strauss, in plain language, notes the family ties and how forebears fought for or against Sulla and Pompey. Another stand out was the leadership of Marc Antony. He clearly, despite the sudden loss of his friend/colleague/mentor had to swallow that Caesar preferred the teenaged Octavian to him, and showed great leadership.
The marvel of how a teenager was able to bend the political class to support him was clearer to me now that I have seen how the members of major a US political party have fallen in line for fear and/or career.
I was prompted to revisit this after reading Persians: The Age of the Great Kings and there are parallels. The lesson of high profile assassinations is cruel: If you kill the leader, you have to kill the supporters and enablers or, in the aftermath, no one is safe... even the moderates.
Here is my review from 7 years ago:
It seems that this must have been done before. There must be an earlier book focusing on this event for the general reader. If this is the first, and to my knowledge it is, thank you Barry Strauss for your long overdue work.
Strauss believes the conspiracy began a month before the assassination. He describes events that may have triggered it and the personal motives of the plotters. He tells about the omens read from birds, dreams and weather patterns. You learn of Caesar dismissing his body guards, Calpurnia’s warning and Caesar being late to the meeting.
Strauss shows how Shakespeare’s take is buried deep within the lore – the most treacherous ingrate was not Brutus but Decimus.
I like how Strauss shows where sources conflict, agree and/or remain silent, especially in describing the assassination, immediate aftermath and the funeral. Again, Strauss reminds the reader that Shakespeare’s plays are fiction. Primary sources bring us fragments but point to a whole different oration by Mark Antony. I was glad that Strauss noted that Cleopatra was in Rome at Caesar’s villa in this period. Other materials drop her for this period.
The aftermath covers familiar ground, and is a good summary.
This is an excellent book, bringing together all that we know and don’t know with some ideas in the why and commentary on the impact.
This time, what stood out were the relationships of the participants. Strauss, in plain language, notes the family ties and how forebears fought for or against Sulla and Pompey. Another stand out was the leadership of Marc Antony. He clearly, despite the sudden loss of his friend/colleague/mentor had to swallow that Caesar preferred the teenaged Octavian to him, and showed great leadership.
The marvel of how a teenager was able to bend the political class to support him was clearer to me now that I have seen how the members of major a US political party have fallen in line for fear and/or career.
I was prompted to revisit this after reading Persians: The Age of the Great Kings and there are parallels. The lesson of high profile assassinations is cruel: If you kill the leader, you have to kill the supporters and enablers or, in the aftermath, no one is safe... even the moderates.
Here is my review from 7 years ago:
It seems that this must have been done before. There must be an earlier book focusing on this event for the general reader. If this is the first, and to my knowledge it is, thank you Barry Strauss for your long overdue work.
Strauss believes the conspiracy began a month before the assassination. He describes events that may have triggered it and the personal motives of the plotters. He tells about the omens read from birds, dreams and weather patterns. You learn of Caesar dismissing his body guards, Calpurnia’s warning and Caesar being late to the meeting.
Strauss shows how Shakespeare’s take is buried deep within the lore – the most treacherous ingrate was not Brutus but Decimus.
I like how Strauss shows where sources conflict, agree and/or remain silent, especially in describing the assassination, immediate aftermath and the funeral. Again, Strauss reminds the reader that Shakespeare’s plays are fiction. Primary sources bring us fragments but point to a whole different oration by Mark Antony. I was glad that Strauss noted that Cleopatra was in Rome at Caesar’s villa in this period. Other materials drop her for this period.
The aftermath covers familiar ground, and is a good summary.
This is an excellent book, bringing together all that we know and don’t know with some ideas in the why and commentary on the impact.
September 9, 2021
This was a very well written story of the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Dictator for Life. The motives of the conspirators included jealousy, honor, hatred, self interest and the desire to defend the republic. However, they were ultimately not able to contend with the combined powers of the legions loyal to Caesar, Marc Anthony and Octavian (the teenager who became Caesar's adopted son and successor).
Despite being ill and having been told of numerous bad omens, Caesar allowed himself to be persuaded by his old comrade Decimus to go to the senate house of Pompeii on the Ides of March. The author's description of that day was very exciting but the events both before and after that day were also related in a very compelling manner.
The book was informative, entertaining and easy to follow. However, I thought that the description of the period following the assassination felt a little rushed. The narration of the audiobook by Robertson Dean was very good.
Despite being ill and having been told of numerous bad omens, Caesar allowed himself to be persuaded by his old comrade Decimus to go to the senate house of Pompeii on the Ides of March. The author's description of that day was very exciting but the events both before and after that day were also related in a very compelling manner.
The book was informative, entertaining and easy to follow. However, I thought that the description of the period following the assassination felt a little rushed. The narration of the audiobook by Robertson Dean was very good.
September 10, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️💫 (4.5 stars)
That’s right, I read another book about Roman history—and this one by historian Barry Strauss was fantastic. The Death of Caesar tells the timeless story of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and Strauss brings it to life with a cinematic scope that pulled me right in.
What I really appreciate about Strauss’s work is how he doesn’t just tell history broadly; instead, he dissects specific events in sharp detail. This book is no different. He takes one of the most famous turning points in Western history and examines the people, motivations, and political stakes that made it possible.
Even though I’ve read and studied plenty about Caesar before, I gained some new insights here. Strauss highlights not just Caesar himself, but also the conspirators, their backgrounds, and the messy aftermath of the Ides of March. He shows how this wasn’t just a single dramatic act—it was part of a much larger political drama that shaped Rome’s fate.
As someone who loves Roman history, this book was right in my wheelhouse. I really enjoyed how readable it was while still packed with scholarship. My only small critique—and the reason I’m giving this 4.5 instead of 5 stars—is that at times it felt a little too cinematic, like I was watching a movie version of events rather than digging into the gritty complexity of the period. But honestly, that’s part of what makes Strauss so engaging to read.
A fantastic, focused history book. Highly recommended for fellow Roman history fans or anyone who wants to better understand why Caesar’s death remains one of the most famous assassinations in history.
That’s right, I read another book about Roman history—and this one by historian Barry Strauss was fantastic. The Death of Caesar tells the timeless story of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and Strauss brings it to life with a cinematic scope that pulled me right in.
What I really appreciate about Strauss’s work is how he doesn’t just tell history broadly; instead, he dissects specific events in sharp detail. This book is no different. He takes one of the most famous turning points in Western history and examines the people, motivations, and political stakes that made it possible.
Even though I’ve read and studied plenty about Caesar before, I gained some new insights here. Strauss highlights not just Caesar himself, but also the conspirators, their backgrounds, and the messy aftermath of the Ides of March. He shows how this wasn’t just a single dramatic act—it was part of a much larger political drama that shaped Rome’s fate.
As someone who loves Roman history, this book was right in my wheelhouse. I really enjoyed how readable it was while still packed with scholarship. My only small critique—and the reason I’m giving this 4.5 instead of 5 stars—is that at times it felt a little too cinematic, like I was watching a movie version of events rather than digging into the gritty complexity of the period. But honestly, that’s part of what makes Strauss so engaging to read.
A fantastic, focused history book. Highly recommended for fellow Roman history fans or anyone who wants to better understand why Caesar’s death remains one of the most famous assassinations in history.
July 27, 2021
Now I've read 4 books by Barry S Strauss, and so far two of them have been 5 stars, one have been 3 and one have been 2. This book was utterly interesting and very fascinating. It was easy to follow and was never boring to read.
January 28, 2015
This book begins seven months before the Ides of March, in 45 BC, with Caesar planning to enter Rome in triumph to declare the end of the Civil War. Three men were beside him at that time: Decimus Junius Brutus Albinius, Mark Antony and his seventeen year old grand nephew, Octavian. As the author points out, within seven months, one of these men would betray him. Although, obviously, we know which man would be the betrayer, the author manages to build a great sense of tension about these events, even though they happened so long ago. Whether you know a lot about the history of this period, or area complete novice, you will be able to follow the events and characters easily.
The author gives clear portraits of all the main characters. The handsome, athletic and self-assured Mark Antony, the wealthy Decimus – a military hero and, as the author wryly puts it, “on the rise,” and the young Octavian. Octavian is the only one of the group who is not of pure Roman nobility, his father being of a slightly lower status. Yet, despite his rather frail health and his youth, it is obvious that Caesar saw something special about this ambitious, intelligent and rather ruthless young man.
Back in Rome, we are introduced to the conspirators and, also, to the reasons why they deemed it necessary to assassinate Caesar. At this point, Caesar has been proclaimed Dictator for Ten Years. However, with the Civil War over, Rome’s senators are ready to take back power. There are fears he wants to be named Dictator in Perpetuity and make himself a virtual king. Cleopatra is also housed just outside the city and there are concerns she wishes to have her son recognised as Caesar’s child. Also, there is good old ambition and the political jostling for power and the wish to be recognised as Caesar’s heir. Therefore, people are acting for different reasons – whether it is to defend the Republic, out of jealousy, dislike or self interest.
Thanks to written accounts and letters which have survived from that period, much of them from Cicero, we are lucky to have a great deal of detail about what happened around the time of the assassination of Caesar. The author outlines the many portents, omens and bad dreams which supposedly warned Caesar of the coming danger. He also takes us through the events of that day, including many of the myths which have surrounded what happened, such as Caesar’s last words. We learn about not only what led up to the plot to assassinate Caesar and the actual events, but also the aftermath. This is a very entertaining and informative book, which gives you a real sense of the people involved in this conspiracy. Lastly, I received a copy of this book from the publisher, via NetGalley, for review.
The author gives clear portraits of all the main characters. The handsome, athletic and self-assured Mark Antony, the wealthy Decimus – a military hero and, as the author wryly puts it, “on the rise,” and the young Octavian. Octavian is the only one of the group who is not of pure Roman nobility, his father being of a slightly lower status. Yet, despite his rather frail health and his youth, it is obvious that Caesar saw something special about this ambitious, intelligent and rather ruthless young man.
Back in Rome, we are introduced to the conspirators and, also, to the reasons why they deemed it necessary to assassinate Caesar. At this point, Caesar has been proclaimed Dictator for Ten Years. However, with the Civil War over, Rome’s senators are ready to take back power. There are fears he wants to be named Dictator in Perpetuity and make himself a virtual king. Cleopatra is also housed just outside the city and there are concerns she wishes to have her son recognised as Caesar’s child. Also, there is good old ambition and the political jostling for power and the wish to be recognised as Caesar’s heir. Therefore, people are acting for different reasons – whether it is to defend the Republic, out of jealousy, dislike or self interest.
Thanks to written accounts and letters which have survived from that period, much of them from Cicero, we are lucky to have a great deal of detail about what happened around the time of the assassination of Caesar. The author outlines the many portents, omens and bad dreams which supposedly warned Caesar of the coming danger. He also takes us through the events of that day, including many of the myths which have surrounded what happened, such as Caesar’s last words. We learn about not only what led up to the plot to assassinate Caesar and the actual events, but also the aftermath. This is a very entertaining and informative book, which gives you a real sense of the people involved in this conspiracy. Lastly, I received a copy of this book from the publisher, via NetGalley, for review.
March 24, 2015
On March 15, 44 B.C., Julius Caesar fell to the knives of Brutus, Cassius and perhaps 21 other senators. Strauss’s book covers only a three year span of time. Starting the year before the ides of March to the battle of Philippi two years later, when Brutus, defeated by pro-Caesar forces, took his own life.
The author of this historical study tries to capture the tension of an unfolding crisis but also runs into strong headwinds when it comes to questions of character and motive.
The author points out that thanks to William Shakespeare, the death of Julius Caesar is the most famous assassination in history. Shakespeare shows Caesar’s assassination to be an amateur and idealistic affair. Strauss points out that the real killing was a carefully planned paramilitary operation; a general’s plot put together by Caesar’s disaffected officers and designed with precision.
The author tells of a key person, Decimus. He was the mole in Caesar’s entourage, one of Caesar’s leading generals and a lifelong friend. According to Strauss it was he, not Brutus, who truly betrayed Caesar. Strauss sheds new light on this fascinating pivotal moment in Roman history.
The book is superbly researched and well written. The author paints clear portraits of all the main characters such as Mark Antony, Decimus, Brutus, and Octavian. The book raises as many questions as it tries to answer. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Robertson Dean narrated the book.
The author of this historical study tries to capture the tension of an unfolding crisis but also runs into strong headwinds when it comes to questions of character and motive.
The author points out that thanks to William Shakespeare, the death of Julius Caesar is the most famous assassination in history. Shakespeare shows Caesar’s assassination to be an amateur and idealistic affair. Strauss points out that the real killing was a carefully planned paramilitary operation; a general’s plot put together by Caesar’s disaffected officers and designed with precision.
The author tells of a key person, Decimus. He was the mole in Caesar’s entourage, one of Caesar’s leading generals and a lifelong friend. According to Strauss it was he, not Brutus, who truly betrayed Caesar. Strauss sheds new light on this fascinating pivotal moment in Roman history.
The book is superbly researched and well written. The author paints clear portraits of all the main characters such as Mark Antony, Decimus, Brutus, and Octavian. The book raises as many questions as it tries to answer. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Robertson Dean narrated the book.
December 15, 2015
Very interesting book. I liked having it as an audiobook. Didn't really know much about what happened to Julius Caesar.
February 4, 2020
A vivid, almost cinematic history of Caesar’s assassination and the months leading up to it.
Strauss begins with the triumph following Caesar’s last campaign and ends with the suicide of Mark Antony. While Shakespeare’s play would be an obvious comparison with this book, Strauss isn’t too enamored of Caesar like Shakespeare, and his Caesar comes off as an arrogant, violent man who recklessly disregarded risk, while Brutus comes off as a paradoxically idealistic backstabber. All of the assassins come off as hopeless idealists. Although, the assassination caused a lot of upheaval, it failed to achieve the assassins’ goal: restoring the old Republic.
Strauss gives us clear portraits of all of the assassins, exploring their possible motives for taking part in the assassination, an interesting question given how diverse they all were; they united to kill Caesar but fell apart again once he was dead. While this part is speculative at times, Strauss does not pretend to offer definitive answers here. He also does a fine job fleshing out the setting and atmosphere.
Like his other works, Strauss’s book has a folksy, often breezy tone, which at times is humorous, other times just annoying, and in some sections it becomes somewhat stilted. Also, the later section of the book following Caesar’s death seems rushed, and the reader may not grasp the full significance of the battles of Philippi and Actium, or the rise of Octavian.
A well-written, well-organized, and tense history of an iconic event.
Strauss begins with the triumph following Caesar’s last campaign and ends with the suicide of Mark Antony. While Shakespeare’s play would be an obvious comparison with this book, Strauss isn’t too enamored of Caesar like Shakespeare, and his Caesar comes off as an arrogant, violent man who recklessly disregarded risk, while Brutus comes off as a paradoxically idealistic backstabber. All of the assassins come off as hopeless idealists. Although, the assassination caused a lot of upheaval, it failed to achieve the assassins’ goal: restoring the old Republic.
Strauss gives us clear portraits of all of the assassins, exploring their possible motives for taking part in the assassination, an interesting question given how diverse they all were; they united to kill Caesar but fell apart again once he was dead. While this part is speculative at times, Strauss does not pretend to offer definitive answers here. He also does a fine job fleshing out the setting and atmosphere.
Like his other works, Strauss’s book has a folksy, often breezy tone, which at times is humorous, other times just annoying, and in some sections it becomes somewhat stilted. Also, the later section of the book following Caesar’s death seems rushed, and the reader may not grasp the full significance of the battles of Philippi and Actium, or the rise of Octavian.
A well-written, well-organized, and tense history of an iconic event.
June 2, 2025
I've always been intrigued by the brazen assassination of Julius Caesar. I first read about it in an illustrated comic book as a young child of ten, and naturally, with a child's precise, impressionable moral compass I knew it was appallingly wrong. Unforgivable. At that time, I thought it was a work of pure fiction. I also recall pronouncing his name KA-E-SAR.
Later I would be fascinated by Julius Caesar, the man. This, thanks to one late-night viewing of Cleopatra, which starred Elizabeth Taylor, Rex Harrison, and Richard Burton, spurred no doubt by the knowledge of the l'affair Liz and Burton which flourished during the shoot. In any case, that movie lionized the man, and served to validate my earlier sentiments about Caesar's death.
Then a couple of years ago, my reading group took up Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, which exposed the man as all too human in his frailties and judgment, and amazingly, revealed some sparks of humanity in his assassins. Ironically, while I had already long known this to be based on a true story, at that point I chose to read it as a work of fiction. I suppose this made it easier to empathize, in theory, with some of the assassins and the logic in support of their actions.
Today, having read a handful of books on Julius Caesar and the Caesars who came after him, I am in awe of Julius Caesar, the consummate, decisive general, imperator, dictator. And I am amazed at the questionable magnanimity showed his sworn enemies, having previously pardoned the top three ringleaders responsible for his assassination.
This book corroborates all these. And more, in fact. It also forces the reader to see the situation from the assassins' and their supporters' point of view, and explains what may have spurred Brutus, Cassius, and Decimus to take such extraordinary measures. To save the Republic. Sprinkled with a little (or a lot) of self-interests. In the philosopher, Greek-quoting Brutus's case, I now think it to be more of the latter. Strauss seems duly impressed with Decimus's military record, but for having so nonchalantly broken bread with Caesar the night before his murder, I find him the most despicable among the assassins. This book also leaves me with much admiration at how deftly a then-eighteen year old Octavian manoeuvred his position into inevitable, even-handed Caesarhood. I also find myself now in agreement with Edo when he says how miscast Rex Harrison, "a wimp," was in portraying the General, Julius Caesar.
Having processed this, did Julius Caesar deserve to die the way he did? Did he deserve to die at all? To the first question I'm adamant that no, he did not deserve to die the way he did--surely there were other expedient ways to kill the man? As to the second question, I will forever remain ambivalent on this one. Because we'll never know how Rome would have fared had he stayed alive.
* This is my second book by Barry Strauss, the first being the very finely written Masters of Command.
Later I would be fascinated by Julius Caesar, the man. This, thanks to one late-night viewing of Cleopatra, which starred Elizabeth Taylor, Rex Harrison, and Richard Burton, spurred no doubt by the knowledge of the l'affair Liz and Burton which flourished during the shoot. In any case, that movie lionized the man, and served to validate my earlier sentiments about Caesar's death.
Then a couple of years ago, my reading group took up Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, which exposed the man as all too human in his frailties and judgment, and amazingly, revealed some sparks of humanity in his assassins. Ironically, while I had already long known this to be based on a true story, at that point I chose to read it as a work of fiction. I suppose this made it easier to empathize, in theory, with some of the assassins and the logic in support of their actions.
Today, having read a handful of books on Julius Caesar and the Caesars who came after him, I am in awe of Julius Caesar, the consummate, decisive general, imperator, dictator. And I am amazed at the questionable magnanimity showed his sworn enemies, having previously pardoned the top three ringleaders responsible for his assassination.
This book corroborates all these. And more, in fact. It also forces the reader to see the situation from the assassins' and their supporters' point of view, and explains what may have spurred Brutus, Cassius, and Decimus to take such extraordinary measures. To save the Republic. Sprinkled with a little (or a lot) of self-interests. In the philosopher, Greek-quoting Brutus's case, I now think it to be more of the latter. Strauss seems duly impressed with Decimus's military record, but for having so nonchalantly broken bread with Caesar the night before his murder, I find him the most despicable among the assassins. This book also leaves me with much admiration at how deftly a then-eighteen year old Octavian manoeuvred his position into inevitable, even-handed Caesarhood. I also find myself now in agreement with Edo when he says how miscast Rex Harrison, "a wimp," was in portraying the General, Julius Caesar.
Having processed this, did Julius Caesar deserve to die the way he did? Did he deserve to die at all? To the first question I'm adamant that no, he did not deserve to die the way he did--surely there were other expedient ways to kill the man? As to the second question, I will forever remain ambivalent on this one. Because we'll never know how Rome would have fared had he stayed alive.
* This is my second book by Barry Strauss, the first being the very finely written Masters of Command.
May 12, 2015
Very readable synopsis of the world's most famous assassination, written for the educated layperson.
First part: background information on Caesar, his career, personality and many people whose lives touch his for good or ill. While reading, remember all is, as the author says, "informed speculation." The author has melded all primary sources on the event: from Cicero [contemporaneous] to Nicolaus of Damascus [several decades after] to Plutarch, Suetonius and the latest, Cassio Dio [late 100s A.D.]. The author considers Nicolaus the most reliable, even so not perfect. Much of the sources you have to take with a shakerful of salt. Three men possibly cooked up the conspiracy: Brutus, Cassius, AND Decimus, the last maybe the ringleader. None were shining lights: all were venal, greedy, opportunistic, self-serving.... Caesar himself was an egoist and master manipulator, despite his charisma.
Part 2: the meat of the drama: 100 times more exciting than Shakespeare, who based his play only on Plutarch. This part set out criteria for other conspirators besides these three. There were a prediction, ill omens, and dreams beforehand that Caesar blithely ignored. It was fascinating to read how the assassination was carried out and where. The pugio [military dagger] pictured on the cover was the weapon used. It struck me the television potboiler "Rome" was very accurate in its portrayal of the murder and death of Caesar. This particular scene is worth watching to visualize what might have been the most likely scenario. No "Et tu, Brute" in sight!
Part 3: The conspirators did kill Caesar but made a botch of trying to restore the Republic and taking control of the legions. The funeral was much more theatrical and melodramatic than Shakespeare. After years of fighting, Octavian emerged on top; the last conspirator was killed by 30 BC. Author's conclusions seemed a bit rushed or maybe my eyes were glazing over by that time.
This is an excellent analysis, especially Part 2. Supplementary matter was complete and useful. Highly recommended.
First part: background information on Caesar, his career, personality and many people whose lives touch his for good or ill. While reading, remember all is, as the author says, "informed speculation." The author has melded all primary sources on the event: from Cicero [contemporaneous] to Nicolaus of Damascus [several decades after] to Plutarch, Suetonius and the latest, Cassio Dio [late 100s A.D.]. The author considers Nicolaus the most reliable, even so not perfect. Much of the sources you have to take with a shakerful of salt. Three men possibly cooked up the conspiracy: Brutus, Cassius, AND Decimus, the last maybe the ringleader. None were shining lights: all were venal, greedy, opportunistic, self-serving.... Caesar himself was an egoist and master manipulator, despite his charisma.
Part 2: the meat of the drama: 100 times more exciting than Shakespeare, who based his play only on Plutarch. This part set out criteria for other conspirators besides these three. There were a prediction, ill omens, and dreams beforehand that Caesar blithely ignored. It was fascinating to read how the assassination was carried out and where. The pugio [military dagger] pictured on the cover was the weapon used. It struck me the television potboiler "Rome" was very accurate in its portrayal of the murder and death of Caesar. This particular scene is worth watching to visualize what might have been the most likely scenario. No "Et tu, Brute" in sight!
Part 3: The conspirators did kill Caesar but made a botch of trying to restore the Republic and taking control of the legions. The funeral was much more theatrical and melodramatic than Shakespeare. After years of fighting, Octavian emerged on top; the last conspirator was killed by 30 BC. Author's conclusions seemed a bit rushed or maybe my eyes were glazing over by that time.
This is an excellent analysis, especially Part 2. Supplementary matter was complete and useful. Highly recommended.
May 1, 2017
I was interested to read The Death of Caesar, since I’d read Barry Strauss’ work before — his book on Spartacus, for one, and the one on the Trojan War. I was less impressed with this one — it’s still informative and interesting, and it even pulled out things I didn’t know about the Ides of March and Caesar’s life in general. For example, if I’m thinking about the Ides of March, I’m thinking about Brutus and Cassius, and not about a guy called Decimus who didn’t even make it into Shakespeare’s version properly. And yet Strauss brings Decimus back into the foreground, pointing out how close he was to Caesar. If Caesar’s last words were “et tu, Brute?”, then he was referring to this Brutus: Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus.
But. The book didn’t have quite the energy I remembered from the book on Spartacus, and things seemed to drag on. Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t only cover the death of Julius Caesar, but also somewhat of the rise of Mark Anthony and Octavian (Augustus). It seems to wander a little from the point — but then, how would you write a whole book about the Ides of March? And doesn’t it make sense to cover the political fallout and the fate of the assassins?
So possibly I’m just being picky, but this didn’t feel as riveting as Strauss’ other books. Interesting, though, definitely.
Originally reviewed for breathesbooks.com.
But. The book didn’t have quite the energy I remembered from the book on Spartacus, and things seemed to drag on. Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t only cover the death of Julius Caesar, but also somewhat of the rise of Mark Anthony and Octavian (Augustus). It seems to wander a little from the point — but then, how would you write a whole book about the Ides of March? And doesn’t it make sense to cover the political fallout and the fate of the assassins?
So possibly I’m just being picky, but this didn’t feel as riveting as Strauss’ other books. Interesting, though, definitely.
Originally reviewed for breathesbooks.com.
October 16, 2021
Ενδιαφέρον αλλά η ντοκυμαντερίστικη γραφή του με κούρασε
November 9, 2023
Barry Strauss continues to be my favorite author when it comes to ancient Rome. He always has an accessible and uncomplicated writing style which I can really appreciate in nonfiction. I'm slowly making my way through his books and this one is all about the assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, 45 BC. Before I started it I felt like I knew a considerable amount of things about this famous historical event but I actually learned a lot of new details and facts, which I of course loved.
The book starts out seven months before the bloody assassination of Caesar in the Roman Senate. Even though every reader knows where everything is leading to I must say that Strauss still managed to even make a nonfiction suspenseful. What I also enjoyed was how the book not only went into Caesar but also in the other main players on the scene: Brutus, Cassius, Decimus, Mark Antony and Octavian. Although not all of these men were actually part of the conspiratiors (as far as we know anyways, you never know) they all played a role in ancient Rome's political world. I'm glad to have learned more about Cassius and Decimus, especially because I feel like the other three always have more of an highlight when you read books or watch documentaries of Caesar's death.
It can feel hard to connect with all these people from ancient Rome that are long dead, at least in some other books, but I've always found Strauss to be able to correlate the ancient world with our own modern one. Especially with this book it became rather apparant that not that much has changed in those thousand of years, notably in a political sort of way.
The Death of Caesar is stand-out book about the most famous assassination in history. Strauss once agian managed to write about the intriguing and often cruel world of the ancient Romans in an easy-to-read, accessible but still skillful way. I highly recommend this book and all of his work.
The book starts out seven months before the bloody assassination of Caesar in the Roman Senate. Even though every reader knows where everything is leading to I must say that Strauss still managed to even make a nonfiction suspenseful. What I also enjoyed was how the book not only went into Caesar but also in the other main players on the scene: Brutus, Cassius, Decimus, Mark Antony and Octavian. Although not all of these men were actually part of the conspiratiors (as far as we know anyways, you never know) they all played a role in ancient Rome's political world. I'm glad to have learned more about Cassius and Decimus, especially because I feel like the other three always have more of an highlight when you read books or watch documentaries of Caesar's death.
It can feel hard to connect with all these people from ancient Rome that are long dead, at least in some other books, but I've always found Strauss to be able to correlate the ancient world with our own modern one. Especially with this book it became rather apparant that not that much has changed in those thousand of years, notably in a political sort of way.
The Death of Caesar is stand-out book about the most famous assassination in history. Strauss once agian managed to write about the intriguing and often cruel world of the ancient Romans in an easy-to-read, accessible but still skillful way. I highly recommend this book and all of his work.
September 13, 2021
You have to be a bit of a liar to tell a story the right way. Too much truth confuses the facts. Too much honesty makes you sound insincere. Patrick Rothfuss - In the name of the wind.
I'm not a big fan of history books when they try to be so accurate that they become dull and full of "we don't really know". The death of caesar is such a great story that it has indeed inspired plenty of fiction and nonfiction about it. There are great modern interpretations, from youtube channels (Historia Civilis), to TV series (HBO's Rome), and even podcasts (Hardcore History). This event has been told and re-told.
I'll say that I prefer the other media, for their dramatic interpretation, but this book is a good source of no nonsense facts about a historical event. I would recommend this as the natural follow up for all people that watched any other media interpretation and want to know a little more.
I'm not a big fan of history books when they try to be so accurate that they become dull and full of "we don't really know". The death of caesar is such a great story that it has indeed inspired plenty of fiction and nonfiction about it. There are great modern interpretations, from youtube channels (Historia Civilis), to TV series (HBO's Rome), and even podcasts (Hardcore History). This event has been told and re-told.
I'll say that I prefer the other media, for their dramatic interpretation, but this book is a good source of no nonsense facts about a historical event. I would recommend this as the natural follow up for all people that watched any other media interpretation and want to know a little more.
January 1, 2021
This book was short and sweet. Good overview of one of the most famous assassinations in history. The first part is on the main characters and the motives of the conspirators. Then the book spends some time on the days surrounding the assassination. It then ends listing the fate of the main actors involved in the killing of Julius Caesar.
The roles played by Marcus Brutus and Cassius in the killing of Julius Caesar was familiar to me, but this book also mentions a third name which I was less familiar with: Decimus Brutus. A close supporter of Julius Caesar since their times in Gaul, he would go on to betray Caesar by becoming one of the main actors involved in his assassination.
I really liked this book and would recommend it. It left me wanting to read more about Decimus Brutus. His story seems really interesting.
The roles played by Marcus Brutus and Cassius in the killing of Julius Caesar was familiar to me, but this book also mentions a third name which I was less familiar with: Decimus Brutus. A close supporter of Julius Caesar since their times in Gaul, he would go on to betray Caesar by becoming one of the main actors involved in his assassination.
I really liked this book and would recommend it. It left me wanting to read more about Decimus Brutus. His story seems really interesting.
October 5, 2020
How do you make an assassination boring? Couldn’t finish it.
March 9, 2018
We have had our share of political assassinations in the history of the United States, from John Wilkes Booth to Sirhan Sirhan disgruntled dissidents have been driven to strike down the high and mighty, but (despite the conspiracy theories) it has almost always been a lone gunman and it has never been anyone of political importance who has carried out the murder.
Now imagine if, while meeting with lawmakers on capitol hill, the President was suddenly surrounded by a group of United States Senators. Most of them are from the other party, Democrats, but there are a few Republicans sprinkled in there. They close around him in a way that, in hindsight, is hostile, but in the moment he thinks nothing of it. Suddenly, Chuck Schumer, who has HAD IT with the president, pulls out a knife, no, it's an edged weapon but it's scarier than a knife, longer, designed for killing humans. It's a dagger. Schumer strikes at the president with it, a glancing blow, but it draws blood. The president, dressed in an expensive suit and surrounded by men and women who are also dressed in money and success, is shocked. The shock intensifies when he sees Elizabeth Warren, Pocahontas herself, suddenly thrust her blade into his body (which was, doctors assure us, in tip top condition up until that moment). Then Ted Cruz, a member of the president's party but nursing old grudges, sticks his blade into his thigh. Blood spurts, and now a frenzy begins. Every senator wants to drive in their dagger. In the confusion some of the senators accidentally stab each other. Most of the president's wounds are superficial, but they do the trick. The president, lying on the ground now, covers his face with his enormous red tie and expires.
This happened in Rome 2000 years ago. And the Romans were more used to violence than we are, but it was still shocking. The great men of Rome wanted their leader dead, so they did it themselves. It's one of the most dramatic stories in history and Barry Strauss tells it very well. This is the fourth book of ancient history I've read by Strauss, and I have enjoyed every single one of them (especially his book about the battle of Salamis). He tells history's stories with both narrative drive and attention to detail.
Now imagine if, while meeting with lawmakers on capitol hill, the President was suddenly surrounded by a group of United States Senators. Most of them are from the other party, Democrats, but there are a few Republicans sprinkled in there. They close around him in a way that, in hindsight, is hostile, but in the moment he thinks nothing of it. Suddenly, Chuck Schumer, who has HAD IT with the president, pulls out a knife, no, it's an edged weapon but it's scarier than a knife, longer, designed for killing humans. It's a dagger. Schumer strikes at the president with it, a glancing blow, but it draws blood. The president, dressed in an expensive suit and surrounded by men and women who are also dressed in money and success, is shocked. The shock intensifies when he sees Elizabeth Warren, Pocahontas herself, suddenly thrust her blade into his body (which was, doctors assure us, in tip top condition up until that moment). Then Ted Cruz, a member of the president's party but nursing old grudges, sticks his blade into his thigh. Blood spurts, and now a frenzy begins. Every senator wants to drive in their dagger. In the confusion some of the senators accidentally stab each other. Most of the president's wounds are superficial, but they do the trick. The president, lying on the ground now, covers his face with his enormous red tie and expires.
This happened in Rome 2000 years ago. And the Romans were more used to violence than we are, but it was still shocking. The great men of Rome wanted their leader dead, so they did it themselves. It's one of the most dramatic stories in history and Barry Strauss tells it very well. This is the fourth book of ancient history I've read by Strauss, and I have enjoyed every single one of them (especially his book about the battle of Salamis). He tells history's stories with both narrative drive and attention to detail.
January 11, 2020
A really good synthesis of the historical sources to detail the rise and execution of the conspiracy to take out Julius Caesar. Most readers probably get their details from Shakespeare's play, which does get many things right and very few slightly dramatized. However, there a lot of details left out for the two hours' traffic of the stage and Strauss gets to the bottom of the realpolitik of Brutus, Cassius, and the conspirator formally know as Decius Brutus, who in actuality was a third person deeply behind the murder (what is it with the Romans and "three man" rules?). Easily readable, and rewarding for those seeking more on this key event in history. Most history surveys speed through the event, but Strauss gives us the aftermath as well, including the rise of Augustus. Good stuff for those interested in the subject. (For those REALLY interested, a 1-2 day read as well).
March 31, 2015
This book is the true story of the great Roman General Julius Caesar and the day he died. It goes into detail the different people that were his rivals, his betrayals, as well as his allies. It culminates everything that builds up to that one act of betrayal. The author did an excellent job recreating the complete background and character buildup for an event that affected two different nations. I would recommend this book to anyone that likes true history and/or is a fan of one the biggest figures in history.
September 1, 2015
This is an excellent book for those who (like me) really love ancient Roman history. I took four years of Latin in high school, translating the works of Cicero and of course, Julius Caesar. For those whose knowledge of Caesar's assassination comes from Shakespeare, here is the source for the true story.
March 11, 2015
Superb assessment of the assassins, Caesar, and the aftermath.
August 20, 2015
“The Death of Caesar” is Barry Strauss’s latest work on the politics and warfare of the Classical World. Strauss is perhaps today’s most prominent author writing histories of this type—highly readable, not too lengthy, cogent analyses that are designed for the general modern reader. Among other topics, Strauss has covered the Trojan War, Salamis, Spartacus, and now Caesar. This is actually the second book in which Strauss has focused on Caesar—“Masters Of Command” includes the life Caesar as one of its three foci, and “The Death of Caesar” focuses on, unsurprisingly, his death.
Strauss’s special talent, in my view, is that he writes compellingly, boiling down the facts at hand (which are usually spotty, unclear and disputed) to their essence, while at the same time adding his own analytical framework to pull it all together. He manages to do this without his framework feeling obtrusive and while drawing the reader in, creating highly compelling portraits of individuals and how they fit into history. This is the third Strauss book I’ve read, and I remain impressed by his talents to bring all these threads together.
In “The Death of Caesar,” Strauss weaves together all the known ancient sources (and discusses Shakespeare, from whom we get a lot of our impressions of the death of Caesar). Strauss also swiftly shows for each ancient source what his angle and bias was, and mentions where the sources radically differ (which is often). And he emphasizes some sources not frequently relied on, such as Nicolaus of Damascus.
As I say, Strauss approaches his histories within a framework, not just as a list of happenings. In “The Death of Caesar,” part of Strauss’s framework is the accepted fact that revolutions betray the moderate. Brutus, Cassius and Decimus (the latter restored to his position as one of the three leaders of the conspiracy) wanted a revolution to result from killing Caesar, but a revolution bearing Romans into the past. They wanted to cause a revolution to retain the Republic. The conspirators thought a surgical strike against Caesar, followed by compromise and moderation, would be the best path to accomplish their goal.
But revolutions are like fire—once lit, they often cannot be controlled by their makers, and their path does not favor those who want either compromise or a return to past modes of action. This is true both of those rare revolutions that seek to restore the past (perhaps better thought of as a coup), or the more common revolutions to create the future. As Strauss says, “Roman history, alas, did not provide support for this plan [of moderation]. It showed, rather, that in order to stop a domestic political movement by violence, you had to kill or at least drive out a man’s followers as well as the leader.” The American Revolution is the exception. Most revolutions throughout history have ended in bloodbaths that drown their creators, followed by unpleasant structural changes to the society unfortunate enough to experience the revolution.
Another part of Strauss’s framework is to show that Caesar’s policy of clemency toward his enemies in the just-finished Roman civil war against Pompey ultimately did Caesar no favors. The proud men who received clemency frequently did not return the favor with gratitude but with resentment. Strauss’s point is the same as that of Tacitus, whom he does not cite, but who wrote: “Good turns are pleasing only in so far as they seem repayable; much beyond that we repay with hatred, not gratitude.” And it angered those who had always been loyal to Caesar to see their former enemies not only forgiven, but frequently elevated above them. This was one of several such miscalculations by Caesar—but then, miscalculations are easy to see in hindsight, and if Caesar had ultimately installed himself as a formal king with success, none of these steps would have been held against him, but rather praised as wise foresight.
Strauss frequently analyzes the behavior of the men and women who are the actors on his page. These individual behaviors are interesting, because they show that people of the Classical World were both exactly the same as us and very different. As for being the same, we see the same archetypes in any period of history. We see the greedy, the principled, the ambitious, the brawler, the drunk. But Romans were different in the framework in which behaviors were embedded (though Strauss does not note this). Because of the interposition of two thousand years of Christianity, any description of the behaviors of people seems like a funhouse mirror version of our world. In modern Western culture, despite its headlong descent to a post-Christian society, we still retain many visceral Christian concepts of virtue—how we are to behave. We know we are expected to forgive our enemies, to be modest and kind, and to turn the other cheek. We don’t do that, for the most part, and the ambitious and powerful do it even less, but it is still part of what we expect in a virtuous person. But in the Classical World, a man who did anything but punish his enemies and reward his friends, or who turned the other cheek, would have been regarded as insane. Strauss quotes the dictator Sulla, “No friend ever served me and no enemy ever wronged me whom I have not repaid in full.” Of course, this is still the way of most successful politicians—look at the Clintons. But we tend to hide it, and to honor those who avoid following their own nature and instead abide by the Christian virtues. St. Francis of Assisi would not have been admired in Rome, but we admire him. This is a key difference in understanding those times.
Naturally, in today’s world, Strauss writes for an audience who knows little or nothing about Caesar. This is the inevitable consequence of the deterioration of education and the denigration of Western culture for the past few decades. We are forced to pretend that all cultures are equal and equally important to us, and that the Iroquois and Mansa Musa are relevant to our modern society and institutions, when they are most assuredly not. As a result, historical stories and details that every educated person would know in 1950, nearly nobody knows today. This poses a difficulty for Strauss, in that he can’t dumb his book down too much, or it becomes a remedial text, but he can’t assume that his readers know much. I can’t say his balance is wrong, but to a reader who does know something about the topic, it seems remedial sometimes. For example, when Strauss notes that Caesar conquered Gaul, he then writes a paragraph defining Gaul, and then mentions that Caesar also invaded Britain. But I’m not sure how else Strauss could do it.
Occasionally, Strauss’s writing seems a bit melodramatic. He is addicted to the word “surely,” used as a modifier to show the likelihood of something—he uses it thirty-eight times in a relatively short book, several times twice in a paragraph. He reminds us six different times that Brutus was descended from a man who expelled Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome. And in a short section on Cato the Younger, Strauss abruptly totally stops discussing Cato and switches to talking solely about Brutus again. So perhaps a good editor might have helped. But these are minor gripes in what is really a major accomplishment—bringing a seminal event in Western history and Western culture to the current under-educated generation, and making it relevant with its lessons to the present day. For ultimately what the events surrounding the death of Caesar show is that there is no thing new under the Sun.
Strauss’s special talent, in my view, is that he writes compellingly, boiling down the facts at hand (which are usually spotty, unclear and disputed) to their essence, while at the same time adding his own analytical framework to pull it all together. He manages to do this without his framework feeling obtrusive and while drawing the reader in, creating highly compelling portraits of individuals and how they fit into history. This is the third Strauss book I’ve read, and I remain impressed by his talents to bring all these threads together.
In “The Death of Caesar,” Strauss weaves together all the known ancient sources (and discusses Shakespeare, from whom we get a lot of our impressions of the death of Caesar). Strauss also swiftly shows for each ancient source what his angle and bias was, and mentions where the sources radically differ (which is often). And he emphasizes some sources not frequently relied on, such as Nicolaus of Damascus.
As I say, Strauss approaches his histories within a framework, not just as a list of happenings. In “The Death of Caesar,” part of Strauss’s framework is the accepted fact that revolutions betray the moderate. Brutus, Cassius and Decimus (the latter restored to his position as one of the three leaders of the conspiracy) wanted a revolution to result from killing Caesar, but a revolution bearing Romans into the past. They wanted to cause a revolution to retain the Republic. The conspirators thought a surgical strike against Caesar, followed by compromise and moderation, would be the best path to accomplish their goal.
But revolutions are like fire—once lit, they often cannot be controlled by their makers, and their path does not favor those who want either compromise or a return to past modes of action. This is true both of those rare revolutions that seek to restore the past (perhaps better thought of as a coup), or the more common revolutions to create the future. As Strauss says, “Roman history, alas, did not provide support for this plan [of moderation]. It showed, rather, that in order to stop a domestic political movement by violence, you had to kill or at least drive out a man’s followers as well as the leader.” The American Revolution is the exception. Most revolutions throughout history have ended in bloodbaths that drown their creators, followed by unpleasant structural changes to the society unfortunate enough to experience the revolution.
Another part of Strauss’s framework is to show that Caesar’s policy of clemency toward his enemies in the just-finished Roman civil war against Pompey ultimately did Caesar no favors. The proud men who received clemency frequently did not return the favor with gratitude but with resentment. Strauss’s point is the same as that of Tacitus, whom he does not cite, but who wrote: “Good turns are pleasing only in so far as they seem repayable; much beyond that we repay with hatred, not gratitude.” And it angered those who had always been loyal to Caesar to see their former enemies not only forgiven, but frequently elevated above them. This was one of several such miscalculations by Caesar—but then, miscalculations are easy to see in hindsight, and if Caesar had ultimately installed himself as a formal king with success, none of these steps would have been held against him, but rather praised as wise foresight.
Strauss frequently analyzes the behavior of the men and women who are the actors on his page. These individual behaviors are interesting, because they show that people of the Classical World were both exactly the same as us and very different. As for being the same, we see the same archetypes in any period of history. We see the greedy, the principled, the ambitious, the brawler, the drunk. But Romans were different in the framework in which behaviors were embedded (though Strauss does not note this). Because of the interposition of two thousand years of Christianity, any description of the behaviors of people seems like a funhouse mirror version of our world. In modern Western culture, despite its headlong descent to a post-Christian society, we still retain many visceral Christian concepts of virtue—how we are to behave. We know we are expected to forgive our enemies, to be modest and kind, and to turn the other cheek. We don’t do that, for the most part, and the ambitious and powerful do it even less, but it is still part of what we expect in a virtuous person. But in the Classical World, a man who did anything but punish his enemies and reward his friends, or who turned the other cheek, would have been regarded as insane. Strauss quotes the dictator Sulla, “No friend ever served me and no enemy ever wronged me whom I have not repaid in full.” Of course, this is still the way of most successful politicians—look at the Clintons. But we tend to hide it, and to honor those who avoid following their own nature and instead abide by the Christian virtues. St. Francis of Assisi would not have been admired in Rome, but we admire him. This is a key difference in understanding those times.
Naturally, in today’s world, Strauss writes for an audience who knows little or nothing about Caesar. This is the inevitable consequence of the deterioration of education and the denigration of Western culture for the past few decades. We are forced to pretend that all cultures are equal and equally important to us, and that the Iroquois and Mansa Musa are relevant to our modern society and institutions, when they are most assuredly not. As a result, historical stories and details that every educated person would know in 1950, nearly nobody knows today. This poses a difficulty for Strauss, in that he can’t dumb his book down too much, or it becomes a remedial text, but he can’t assume that his readers know much. I can’t say his balance is wrong, but to a reader who does know something about the topic, it seems remedial sometimes. For example, when Strauss notes that Caesar conquered Gaul, he then writes a paragraph defining Gaul, and then mentions that Caesar also invaded Britain. But I’m not sure how else Strauss could do it.
Occasionally, Strauss’s writing seems a bit melodramatic. He is addicted to the word “surely,” used as a modifier to show the likelihood of something—he uses it thirty-eight times in a relatively short book, several times twice in a paragraph. He reminds us six different times that Brutus was descended from a man who expelled Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome. And in a short section on Cato the Younger, Strauss abruptly totally stops discussing Cato and switches to talking solely about Brutus again. So perhaps a good editor might have helped. But these are minor gripes in what is really a major accomplishment—bringing a seminal event in Western history and Western culture to the current under-educated generation, and making it relevant with its lessons to the present day. For ultimately what the events surrounding the death of Caesar show is that there is no thing new under the Sun.
December 26, 2025
Barry Strauss never disappoints. Like everything else I’ve read from him, this book is well written, easy to follow for lay readers, and doesn’t waste time on filler to pad out the page count.
June 8, 2015
Thought-provoking, but doesn't live up to its hype.
Strauss does good to encourage some speculative new thought about Caesar's assassination, but he overloads speculation about the Roman general Decimus, as well as painting a less than accurate picture about one Roman leader at that time.
I agree with following Nicholas of Damascus and Appian more, and Plutarch less, on the basics of the plot, assassination and aftermath, while using good historical methodology. However, even Nicholas doesn't tell us enough about Decimus for the judgment Strauss makes, namely that Decimus' motives for the plot were largely disinterested and patriotic, rather than selfish.
Rather, I think that, although he (and Mark Antony) didn't know about the revision of Caesar's will to adopt Octavian, he did see how the personal wind was blowing, and also was personally hurt to not get more military recognition, and also not more career preferment in Caesar's Dictatorship.
Ditto for Strauss' interpretation of why Titus Labienus went over to Pompey.
Next, that "Roman citizen"? Strauss talks relatively little about how much of a gloryhound, as well as a weathervane, Cicero was. Yes, he covers this somewhat, but not as much as he could.
Finally, his alt-history speculation doesn't ring true. Had Antony moved to pair up with Decimus, whether before or after sidling up to Lepidus, many of Caesar's veterans among his troops likely would have deserted to Octavian. Guided by Agrippa, especially if Lepidus joins them, Octavian easily wins that battle. He then addresses Brutus/Cassius, likely with the same result as in reality. Then, Sextus Pompey is finished off, as in reality, by 36 BCE. That leaves an independent Cleopatra never falling into Antony's arms. Octavian probably guarantees her her independence for her lifetime, if she turns Caesarion over to him. Peace, half a decade earlier, and with less bloodshed, over the Empire. Octavian then finds it easier to expand the German border as far as the Elbe, with better generalship than Varus.
That said, Strauss gives a good look at Caesar's last couple of years, as dictator of Rome, and just how he could have learned from his grandnephew on "stroking" senators, taking time on some of his changes, and more. So, I'll keep this at a third star, but stress again that it doesn't live up to its hype.
As a sidebar, Strauss' author photo is a bit off-putting to me. I don't expect academic historians to look like investment bankers, but looking like a mix of semi-Indiana Jones and a 1920s Mafia don from "The Untouchables" was a bit jarring.
Strauss does good to encourage some speculative new thought about Caesar's assassination, but he overloads speculation about the Roman general Decimus, as well as painting a less than accurate picture about one Roman leader at that time.
I agree with following Nicholas of Damascus and Appian more, and Plutarch less, on the basics of the plot, assassination and aftermath, while using good historical methodology. However, even Nicholas doesn't tell us enough about Decimus for the judgment Strauss makes, namely that Decimus' motives for the plot were largely disinterested and patriotic, rather than selfish.
Rather, I think that, although he (and Mark Antony) didn't know about the revision of Caesar's will to adopt Octavian, he did see how the personal wind was blowing, and also was personally hurt to not get more military recognition, and also not more career preferment in Caesar's Dictatorship.
Ditto for Strauss' interpretation of why Titus Labienus went over to Pompey.
Next, that "Roman citizen"? Strauss talks relatively little about how much of a gloryhound, as well as a weathervane, Cicero was. Yes, he covers this somewhat, but not as much as he could.
Finally, his alt-history speculation doesn't ring true. Had Antony moved to pair up with Decimus, whether before or after sidling up to Lepidus, many of Caesar's veterans among his troops likely would have deserted to Octavian. Guided by Agrippa, especially if Lepidus joins them, Octavian easily wins that battle. He then addresses Brutus/Cassius, likely with the same result as in reality. Then, Sextus Pompey is finished off, as in reality, by 36 BCE. That leaves an independent Cleopatra never falling into Antony's arms. Octavian probably guarantees her her independence for her lifetime, if she turns Caesarion over to him. Peace, half a decade earlier, and with less bloodshed, over the Empire. Octavian then finds it easier to expand the German border as far as the Elbe, with better generalship than Varus.
That said, Strauss gives a good look at Caesar's last couple of years, as dictator of Rome, and just how he could have learned from his grandnephew on "stroking" senators, taking time on some of his changes, and more. So, I'll keep this at a third star, but stress again that it doesn't live up to its hype.
As a sidebar, Strauss' author photo is a bit off-putting to me. I don't expect academic historians to look like investment bankers, but looking like a mix of semi-Indiana Jones and a 1920s Mafia don from "The Untouchables" was a bit jarring.
June 7, 2016
There are very few events in history that resonate powerfully into the present. Easter Sunday is one as is July 4, 1776. But few are as widely known and mythologized as March 15, 44 B.C., the Ides of March. The assassination of Julius Caesar on that day,along with Shakespeare's famous play of that event, has inspired so many books and so many tales. Because of this it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction. This is even more true due to the few original sources that we have about the Ides of March and all of them have some kind of axe to grind. Enter this wonderfully informative and highly readable book by Barry Strauss, a classical historian who did such a great job of making the Battle of Salamis come alive. Not only does Mr. Strauss synthesize the major documents into one perfectly flowing narrative, but he also adds new details that few know about. For example, Mr. Strauss reveals the large role that one of Caesar's former generals, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, played in the assassination. Misspelled and given a bit part by Shakespeare in his play, without Decimus it is quite possible that the assassins would have failed that day. Mr. Strauss also does a great job of examining the different motives each of the assassins had in killing Caesar. True, much of this is conjecture, but Mr. Strauss seems to have good judgment when it comes to assessing these ancient men. I will say that once the Battle of Phillipi takes place in 42 B.C., which saw the deaths of Brutus and Cassius, Mr. Strauss's narrative moves a little too quickly towards its conclusion. However, since the subject of this book is the assassination and the fate of the assassins, Mr. Strauss can be forgiven for wanting to get to the end quickly. In summation, this will most likely be the definitive text on the assassination of Julius Caesar for some time to come. It is highly readable and I would recommend it to both history buffs and newcomers to Roman history.
October 11, 2015
Strauss does a very good job of covering what is probably one of the most important murders/assassinations in history with this book. A professor at Cornell University with a specialty in military history, Strauss covers the details that cover the murder in a way to explain why the conspirators did what they did, how they did it, and what the results were for the Roman Empire and Western civilization as a whole.
In part, Strauss is almost representing Shakespeare's Tragedy of Julius Caesar in form in that there is definitely a run-up to the murder itself. In doing so, readers are able to get a chance to see who all the major players were and why they made the decision to move forward with an assassination. Readers also get a chance to see what made Caesar both a great man and a tyrant.
The plot and actual murder are covered in great detail before Strauss moves on to highlight what happened to each of the participants in the events connected to the murder and how this influenced the evolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
The writing style is casual and the narrative is almost a storytelling form. Strauss does a really good job of humanizing the giant names from ancient history that are involved with both the events of the book and sharing them through their histories in the centuries after. That makes the presentation very approachable for most readers. It is not necessarily a book for experts, but instead one for the everyday reader with an interested in Classical history.
In part, Strauss is almost representing Shakespeare's Tragedy of Julius Caesar in form in that there is definitely a run-up to the murder itself. In doing so, readers are able to get a chance to see who all the major players were and why they made the decision to move forward with an assassination. Readers also get a chance to see what made Caesar both a great man and a tyrant.
The plot and actual murder are covered in great detail before Strauss moves on to highlight what happened to each of the participants in the events connected to the murder and how this influenced the evolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
The writing style is casual and the narrative is almost a storytelling form. Strauss does a really good job of humanizing the giant names from ancient history that are involved with both the events of the book and sharing them through their histories in the centuries after. That makes the presentation very approachable for most readers. It is not necessarily a book for experts, but instead one for the everyday reader with an interested in Classical history.
March 27, 2015
Thank you Goodreads and Barry Strauss! I am so looking forward to this book and will post my review as soon as I have received and read The Death of Caesar: The Story of History’s Most Famous Assassination.
Update - I have to agree that this book seems designed for readers with not a lot knowledge about this period of history, which was just fine for me. I did spend some time flipping back and forth to make sure I kept people and events straight………..
I am not a big history buff. The last time I had read about Caesar was in high school, so I very much enjoyed “re-learning” about what led up to the plot to assassinate Caesar, the actual events and the aftermath. Strauss does a good job introducing all of the major players (especially some I had forgotten). I learned a quite a bit more about Julius Caesar, the conspiracy and the war that occurred following his assassination.
Very well done! I honestly have to say that I got engrossed in The Death of Caesar. Just goes to prove that you are never too old to learn! This is certainly a very good book to pick up if you want to begin exploring the life and death of Julius Caesar and a very important moment in world history. Absolutely worth the read!!! Wish Goodreads had 1/2 star marks..... I give this book 4 1/2 stars as I did need to spend some time "deciphering" the players.
Update - I have to agree that this book seems designed for readers with not a lot knowledge about this period of history, which was just fine for me. I did spend some time flipping back and forth to make sure I kept people and events straight………..
I am not a big history buff. The last time I had read about Caesar was in high school, so I very much enjoyed “re-learning” about what led up to the plot to assassinate Caesar, the actual events and the aftermath. Strauss does a good job introducing all of the major players (especially some I had forgotten). I learned a quite a bit more about Julius Caesar, the conspiracy and the war that occurred following his assassination.
Very well done! I honestly have to say that I got engrossed in The Death of Caesar. Just goes to prove that you are never too old to learn! This is certainly a very good book to pick up if you want to begin exploring the life and death of Julius Caesar and a very important moment in world history. Absolutely worth the read!!! Wish Goodreads had 1/2 star marks..... I give this book 4 1/2 stars as I did need to spend some time "deciphering" the players.
March 30, 2015
In the tradition of Barbara Tuchman, Barry Strauss is a good story teller. The assassination of Caesar may be the most well known event in ancient history, but Strauss, the chair of Cornell's history department, gives his death a fresh airing.
This being ancient history, Strauss has to tangle with the notorious dearth of actual sources, especially primary sources. This he does expertly. He is generally quite clear about where his information comes from, and he does a good job of evaluating the reliability of the source without breaking the flow of the story he is telling.
This is a compelling narrative that builds to a satisfying climax surrounding the events of the assassination and the fervor that followed during the last days of the Roman Republic. It follows the scheming and plotting of Brutus, Cassius, and Decimus -- an actor I was not very familiar with before reading "Caesar." Was Brutus an honorable man? Perhaps, but he was also a violent and competitive man as were his opponents, Antony and Octavian. Did Caesar have to die? Probably, he did if the Republic were to be saved, but the tragedy is that his assassination, meant to save the Republic, marked it's death cry years and years of bloody civil war.
This book will certainly add to Mr. Strauss' dignitas.
This being ancient history, Strauss has to tangle with the notorious dearth of actual sources, especially primary sources. This he does expertly. He is generally quite clear about where his information comes from, and he does a good job of evaluating the reliability of the source without breaking the flow of the story he is telling.
This is a compelling narrative that builds to a satisfying climax surrounding the events of the assassination and the fervor that followed during the last days of the Roman Republic. It follows the scheming and plotting of Brutus, Cassius, and Decimus -- an actor I was not very familiar with before reading "Caesar." Was Brutus an honorable man? Perhaps, but he was also a violent and competitive man as were his opponents, Antony and Octavian. Did Caesar have to die? Probably, he did if the Republic were to be saved, but the tragedy is that his assassination, meant to save the Republic, marked it's death cry years and years of bloody civil war.
This book will certainly add to Mr. Strauss' dignitas.
March 20, 2015
THE DEATH OF CAESAR tells a familiar tale, but it does three valuable things in addition to that. First, author and classicist Barry Strauss takes the time to put the characters of the assassination into their political context. Roman politics are not that different from our own, perhaps, but they operated on principles of gravitas and dignitas that have not prevailed in the United States since the early days of the Republic. What happened to Caesar on the Ides of March occurred for a variety of reasons, depending on the individual conspirators, and Strauss does a thorough job of explicating the conflicts and fault lines of Roman politics. He weaves in the short-term rationales for the assassination together with the bloody history of dictatorships and civil wars that caused the Senate to fear Caesar’s ambition.
Read more of this review at Bookreporter.com.
Read more of this review at Bookreporter.com.
June 7, 2015
I found the book extremely readable. The events leading up to the assassination, the people who had a hand in it, and the circumstances that created the conspiracy, are all written in great detail, and include most, if not all, contemporary accounts of the events. But this is no dry narrative of some ancient history. The people and events come alive. I’ve read several books on the life of Julius Caesar. And while many have been of larger scope, I believe this one to be the most comprehensive when it comes to the assassination.
That said, I didn’t agree with the author’s conclusion regarding the true aims of the conspirators. Rome’s Republic had been under attack for decades and was already on its deathbed, so it’s hard for me to believe that their motives were simply patriotic. It’s easier to believe that Caesar threatened their position and power, so had to be eliminated. But by killing Caesar, they unintentionally gave the Republic that final shove.
That said, I didn’t agree with the author’s conclusion regarding the true aims of the conspirators. Rome’s Republic had been under attack for decades and was already on its deathbed, so it’s hard for me to believe that their motives were simply patriotic. It’s easier to believe that Caesar threatened their position and power, so had to be eliminated. But by killing Caesar, they unintentionally gave the Republic that final shove.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 296 reviews