On the morning of March 15, 44 BC, a group of Roman senators arrived at the Theatre of Pompey with daggers hidden beneath their togas, convinced they were saving the Republic. Within hours, Julius Caesar lay dead at the foot of Pompey’s statue, stabbed twenty-three times. Within three years, the Republic they died to protect was gone forever. The men who killed Caesar had studied him for months. They still had no idea who he was.
The name “Caesar” echoes through history like a thunderclap—synonymous with power, ambition, and the razor’s edge between genius and destruction. Two thousand years after his death, we still measure leaders against him, debate his motives, and dissect his brutal end. But beneath the marble statues and Shakespearean drama, who was the real Julius Caesar? A revolutionary who lifted Rome to new heights, or a tyrant who doomed the Republic? A military savant who never lost a war, or a gambler whose final risk cost him everything?
In Simply Caesar, historians Matthew Zarzeczny and J. David Markham strip away centuries of myth to confront the man behind the legend. This isn’t just another retelling of battles and betrayals—it’s a sharp, provocative examination of Caesar’s cunning, his contradictions, and the dangerous allure of absolute power. How much of his story was shaped by his own brilliance, and how much by the chaos of his times? And why does his shadow still loom so large over modern politics?
Matthew Zarzeczny, known for his incisive takes on overlooked historical figures, teams up with Napoleonic expert J. David Markham to deliver a fresh, unflinching portrait of Caesar. Together, they challenge long-held assumptions and force us to reckon with uncomfortable questions: Was Caesar’s assassination justice or tragedy? Could Rome have survived his rule, or was his death the only way to stop a dictator? And in an era of rising strongmen, what chilling—or instructive—lessons does his rise and fall hold for us today?
Charles Carlini: Caesar’s reputation swings between "visionary statesman" and "tyrant in the making." Where do you land in that debate, and what’s the most misunderstood aspect of his rule?
Matthew Zarzeczny: I would lean more towards a visionary statesman. He absolutely could be ruthless and certainly wanted power for himself, but he also envisioned unifying much of the ancient world and was forgiving of his enemies, to the fault of being assassinated by them. Although a “tyrant,” as Dictator, Caesar recognized the necessity of accommodating other powerful men and institutions and thus knew when he had to show mercy or compromise to achieve his goals, many of which were certainly goals that worked to the benefit of the people and the state.
CC: You’ve co-written this book with a Napoleonic scholar—how did that influence your approach? Did comparing Caesar to later autocrats like Napoleon reveal any surprising parallels or contrasts?
MZ: My co-author and I definitely approached the book in part as a prequel to Simply Napoleon. While there are some similarities between the two men as intelligent and charismatic commanders of men, as well as the fact that they were both men with many talents (simultaneously generals, politicians, and authors), in addition to having multiple romances, their circumstances varied quite a bit. For example, Napoleon stayed in power much longer. Another similarity, though, is that both men were part of a triumvirate before seizing sole authority. Napoleon went on to be an emperor for several years, whereas Caesar’s lifetime dictatorship was relatively short-lived. Their deaths were also significantly different, with Caesar’s being far more violent.
CC: Caesar famously said, “If you must break the law, do it to seize power; for all other crimes, keep within it.” Was his rise a case of ends justifying means, or was he playing by a different set of rules entirely?
MZ: It sounds from that quotation as if only seizing power was an instance where breaking the law was justifiable, while he otherwise seems to be recommending staying within the law, and even then he is saying “if” you “must” rather than you “should.” Given the time period in which he grew up under such figures as Sulla, Caesar played by rules that seemed necessary for his survival.
CC: One of the great “what-ifs” of history: Had Caesar not been assassinated, could he have stabilized Rome, or was civil war inevitable by that point?
MZ: I believe he would have continued to face friction/opposition from competing individuals and institutions, which means assassination or civil war may have happened later anyway, although not necessarily before Caesar would have died naturally. Sextus Pompey, one of Pompey’s sons, was still around when Caesar died in real life and continued to wield a degree of power during the historic Second Triumvirate. So, if Caesar lived and won his planned wars against Dacia and Parthia, he would also have had to contend with whatever forces Sextus Pompey commanded in either Spain or Sicily.
CC: Shakespeare gave us the immortal line, “Et tu, Brute?”—but how accurate is the popular image of Caesar’s assassination as a moral showdown between liberty and tyranny?
MZ: As with so many historical accounts, many “witnesses” leaving a description of the murder may not have actually seen the event in person or may have had a personal reason for bias in their description of the event. Even actual eyewitnesses may differ in their accounts of events and may not have had insight into the true motivation of the assassins.
CC: Caesar’s Commentaries are masterpieces of propaganda. How much of his own myth did he consciously craft, and how do we separate the man from his self-promotion?
MZ: It must be assumed Caesar colored his comments through the prism of intentional or unintentional personal bias and analysis of how and why events transpired. Few central characters are so perfect as to avoid at least some self-serving spinning of accounts, even if unintentional. Most likely, Caesar willfully painted a more flattering picture of his deeds than an unbiased observer might have.
CC: You’ve written about overlooked figures in history—what’s the most neglected or surprising aspect of Caesar’s life that your book brings to light?
MZ: That he may have had a fourth wife (Cossutia) beyond the agreed-upon three (Cornelia, Pompeia, and Calpurnia). We acknowledge this mystery in our book. I wish sources were available that would let us go even further. It would be great to know the truth behind the mystery. Furthermore, of these four women mentioned above and his mistress, Cleopatra VII, I wonder which woman he would have regarded as the love of his life, or if he even truly regarded any of them in such a manner?
CC: Modern leaders still invoke Caesar (for better or worse). What’s the most dangerous misconception about him that persists in politics today?
MZ: That a dictatorship is somehow better than a democratic republic. Perhaps also that a particularly charismatic leader is a “savior” with some kind of divine ability that makes him always right. People sometimes put too much hope and faith in politicians when they are just human beings with flaws like everyone else.
CC: Cicero called Caesar’s ambition “monstrous,” yet many Romans cheered his reforms. Was he truly a man of the people, or just a brilliant opportunist?
MZ: Both, as he sought support for his own power by looking after the needs of the public: both low and high classes, a most difficult balancing act, indeed.
CC: If you could ask Caesar one question—and get an honest answer—what would it be?
MZ: Were you really intending to become a king? Also, what did you want or foresee for Rome's future government after your passing?
Recommended Reading
0 comments