ASSASSINATION OF : A PEOPLES HISTORY OF ANCIENT PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Michael Parenti | 288 pages | 30 Aug 2004 | The New Press | 9781565849426 | English | New York, United States The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome by Michael Parenti

Often, when we consider history, we are in fact considering the history of biased men: aristocrats who write from a privileged view. Set around the first centuries B. Parenti begs to differ: In his view, Caesar was a reformer, dedicated to the people of Rome, with his killing and post-mortem disparagement being a result of the fear he inspired in the corrupt senators politically opposed to him. A hallmark of this book tends to be the light in which some of the famous figures of Roman history are portrayed. Caesar, certainly, is shown as less of an antagonist and more victim of his time; in contrast, certain members of Roman society who are generally accepted as great thinkers and leaders are shown through a less positive lens. First among these, by far, is Cicero: regarded by traditional historians as a great orator and philosopher, he is displayed here as a demagogue and a deceiver of the people. The first several chapters explore Roman society: the nature of the Roman slavery system, the rigid caste system of the day, the experience of females in Roman society, and the relative stasis that their society was kept in by the senators who ruled supreme. The chapters following those chart the rise of Caesar on the Roman political scene, the tactics senators used to get what they wanted death squads were a fairly common sight on Roman streets , and the conspiracy that led to his killing. One full chapter is given over to the assassination itself; it is approached as a straight retelling without much commentary, contrary to the rest of the book. The final couple chapters give a view of Rome post-Caesar, and chart the rise of the first true Roman Emperors contrary to historical belief, Caesar apparently had no designs on dictatorial power. This one reads rather like a novel, in many places. This should be a definite read for anyone who appreciates the proletariat view of history, and anyone who is interested in redefining their ideas of who the villains of history are. Jan 29, Steven Peterson rated it really liked it. Parenti's work focuses on a specific issue--Caesar as "populist," murdered by wary elitists. Goldsworthy's book is much more detailed, provides much more context. Parenti's book can be viewed within the larger context. Parent's thesis, outlined on page 3, is straightforward: "Caesar's sin, I shall argue, was not that he was subverting the Roman constitution--which was an unwritten one--but that he was loosening the oligarchy's overbearing grip on it. Worse still, he used state power to effect some limited benefits for small farmers, debtors, and urban proletariat, at the expense of the wealthy few. This is typical of Parenti's work more generally. He has a position and normally writes in such a way as to address that view in no uncertain terms. Some will appreciate this; others won't. But the question should not be whether or not one likes his passionate writing. The question should be: Does he make his case? This is why reading this book in concert with Goldsworthy's makes sense. In the latter volume, much the same theme is advanced, although presented in a much more nuanced, and, in fact, more convincing manner. This book is most useful in laying out a perspective that is straightforward and not subtle. Sometimes, the lack of subtlety undermines the logic of the analysis. Still, the volume provides a thesis that places Caesar in a political context. Apr 15, Stephen rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: anyone interested in history, ancient or otherwise. I am no historian, ancient or otherwise, and I found this book delightfully readable. You see, I am probably considered a Marxist. It is my belief that what ails us is respect for an individual class of people, and we dutifully defer to the upper classes as having the answers to a particular problem. It is my belief that this is a fallacy, and what ails us is the fact that we have given these people carte blanche. They, in Ancient Rome, or today, these elites or meritocracy, are acting only in t I am no historian, ancient or otherwise, and I found this book delightfully readable. They, in Ancient Rome, or today, these elites or meritocracy, are acting only in their best interests. I was not surprised in the least to read and reflect between the similarities of Ancient Rome and early 21st century AmeriKa. Copious research and reading by the author went into this well-written book. A tad-academic as I had to do a lot of jotting down of names and looking up later, or while I read to develop further my understanding, as though the author felt you already had a basic understanding of what your were reading. Worth the extra effort. May 04, Bmichael91 rated it it was amazing. It is rare to see a look into the lives of regular persons of history. We know much of Kings and Emperors, and little of peasants and plebians. Parenti gives us a view into the lives of the slaves and workers that built the Roman Empire, and challenges the idea that the upper class property owners assassinated Caesar for "tyrannicism". Parenti lays out a convincing argument in just about pages! Most interesting, to me, was a glimpse into the lives of the average Roman citizen who toiled away as a slave or worker to build vast palaces and riches for the Senatorial class. You will be hard pressed to find a better "bottom up" history book. Aug 12, Jolomo rated it really liked it. Nice use of ancient sources, relying on the holes they leave in the story for a completely different perspective. Going further than "Cicero was a self-absorbed ass" into seeing where many of the revered heroes of the were oligarchs of the greediest sort. This is the very definition of an "outsider history" which plays nicely with his portrayal of the "gentleman historian". Nice to have this in the back of my mind when I read more traditional histories to question some assumptions Nice use of ancient sources, relying on the holes they leave in the story for a completely different perspective. Nice to have this in the back of my mind when I read more traditional histories to question some assumptions made. A somewhat different view of the ancient Roman Republic. The noble Romans are portrayed as grubby money grubbers, while the people are justified in their resentment and economic demands. Cicero haha comes of particularly bad, as a vain mouthpiece for the oligarchy. Several reformers are described, the Gracchi obviously , while Julius Caesar is described as a responsible and socially just reformer, who would have saved the Republic , if he had been allowed to do so. Caesar was assassinated as A somewhat different view of the ancient Roman Republic. Caesar was assassinated as the oligarchs feared his reforms, as mild and necessary as they were. Excellent read. Nov 21, James rated it really liked it. Pretty good. Its a new take on the roman empire, in that caesar was actually a good guy and that left-wing leaders kept getting wacked in ancient rome. Also, I don't know if I totally agree with his conclusions about how the Roman Emperors kept power. I think they were able to keep it by appeasing their veterans and workers as much as appeasing the aristocrats who had largely been decimated in the purges of . Nov 05, John Ronald rated it it was amazing. A fresh re-evaluation of the political career of Julius Caesar and a historical examination that reads against the grain of received wisdom about Caesar. Argues that Caesar was willing to take a stand for plebeian interests against Roman aristocrats, and that THIS radical stance is what got him killed, a political chain of events that finds echoes down the centuries time and again, implies Parenti. Oct 29, Jamey rated it really liked it Shelves: biography-and-memoir , history. I enjoyed this a lot. Caesar appears as an emancipatory populist who tried to make an alliance with the masses against the oligarchs in the Senate and got killed for it. Also, apparently, Cicero was a dick. Jun 11, sologdin rated it it was ok Shelves: leftwing-polemical. JC's populism is placed in a long tradition of similar politics in Rome. I'm not sure if that works or not, but it's damned interesting. Mar 08, Alex marked it as to-read. Patrick says this book is hella good. Nov 30, Carl Stevens rated it really liked it. Novelists need to defend the republic for the many with words as sharp as daggers. Parenti argues well that the senators slew Caesar in defense of the republic for the few. Apr 09, David rated it it was amazing. The book is maybe a bit too quick to apologize for Caesar on a personal level; it largely skirts by a serious discussion of his power politics, or the genocide of the Gauls and its contribution to his popularity -- not completely, but largely. In doing so, it misses what could've been a more complicated discussion of how Rome's organization of power materially changed under him, and how that set up the autocracy of the Empire. That being said, this accessible book does an incredible job of tellin The book is maybe a bit too quick to apologize for Caesar on a personal level; it largely skirts by a serious discussion of his power politics, or the genocide of the Gauls and its contribution to his popularity -- not completely, but largely. That being said, this accessible book does an incredible job of telling the hundred-year story of the late republic with a sharp, radical and humane attention to the throughline of political struggle waged by the common people and their progressive champions against an authoritarian and murderous ruling class whose side of the story has been passed down happily by "gentlemen historians" -- one which was all to happy to accept like Sulla exactly as long as they served their class interests, and was all too willing to cry and sic death squads on anyone who proposed to weaken the boot on the people's throat. Its picture of power is chilling, detailed and material, if polemic, and grimly articulates the limits of chamge within the system. The people of Rome fought for institutional representation, the redistribution of public land, subsidized food, an end to the ruling class's looting of the public treasury for personal profit, the right to organize and the expansion of voting rights, among other things -- they fought for themselves and each other, for the same kinds of things against the same kinds of forces we're fighting now. Ultimately, they lost. Now I'm going to copy-paste the last 2 paragraphs of Orwell's essay "Looking Back On The Spanish War" from because a it clarifies the stakes then and now especially considering that the Roman Empire and fascist Spain loom over the 2 texts, as the growing corporatist, fascist right looms over our time and b this is my post and I'll post what I damn well want to. I wrote about this man at the beginning of my book on the Spanish war, and do not want to repeat what I said there. When I remember — oh, how vividly! In spite of power politics and journalistic lying, the central issue of the war was the attempt of people like this to win the decent life which they knew to be their birthright. Since I met him in the Lenin Barracks he was probably a Trotskyist or an Anarchist, and in the peculiar conditions of our time, when people of that sort are not killed by the Gestapo they are usually killed by the G. But that does not affect the long- term issues. He symbolizes for me the flower of the European working class, harried by the police of all countries, the people who fill the mass graves of the Spanish battlefields and are now, to the tune of several millions, rotting in forced-labour camps. What a crew! But the clue is really very simple. They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings. All that the working man demands is what these others would consider the indispensable minimum without which human life cannot be lived at all. And how easily that minimum could be attained if we chose to set our minds to it for only twenty years! To raise the standard of living of the whole world to that of Britain would not be a greater undertaking than the war we are now fighting. It is merely that privation and brute labour have to be abolished before the real problems of humanity can be tackled. The major problem of our time is the decay of the belief in personal immortality, and it cannot be dealt with while the average human being is either drudging like an ox or shivering in fear of the secret police. How right they are to realize that the belly comes before the soul, not in the scale of values but in point of time! Understand that, and the long horror that we are enduring becomes at least intelligible. The question is very simple. Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not? I myself believe, perhaps on insufficient grounds, that the common man will win his fight sooner or later, but I want it to be sooner and not later — some time within the next hundred years, say, and not some time within the next ten thousand years. That was the real issue of the Spanish war, and of the present war, and perhaps of other wars yet to come. Jun 10, Ray rated it really liked it. A different perspective on the assassination of Julius Caesar. As history is often wrote by upper class people, it is often depressing how the ordinary people get shafted by the biases of rich people. Parenti gives light to the plight of the Roman proletarian even with limited material. Thus, the book gives us critical examination of the actions of the so-called "Roman mob" that these "gentleman historians" as Parenti puts it never seem to critically examine, probably because due to their own cl A different perspective on the assassination of Julius Caesar. Thus, the book gives us critical examination of the actions of the so-called "Roman mob" that these "gentleman historians" as Parenti puts it never seem to critically examine, probably because due to their own class biases as well. While some of Parenti's history is kinda iffy at times and gives too much praise to Caesar, it is a one of a kind book that everyone should read if they have passing interest in the late Roman Republic. Jan 30, Nedda rated it liked it Shelves: history , non-fiction , biography , politics. I don't know why I find the way he died so brutal and heartbreaking.. May 30, Josh Melissari rated it it was amazing. This well argued and researched book effectively defends it's central thesis: that Julius Caesar, rather than the typical strong man tyrant often portrayed, was a popular leader who attempted reforms to help the common people of Rome, and the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar owed its motives to greed and class interest rather than high minded republican ideals. Parenti also criticizes many classical historians for ignoring the struggles of the common people of Rome. Highly recommend this book fo This well argued and researched book effectively defends it's central thesis: that Julius Caesar, rather than the typical strong man tyrant often portrayed, was a popular leader who attempted reforms to help the common people of Rome, and the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar owed its motives to greed and class interest rather than high minded republican ideals. Highly recommend this book for the layperson interested in Roman politics from the point of view of the average struggling person rather than just the elite. Mar 10, Evan rated it liked it Shelves: , for-school. This was a book I read for a class on conspiracy in the ancient and modern world at university. It was assigned due to the fact that Parenti, in his quest to portray a people's history of Rome, selected both the Catilinarian Conspiracy as well as the assassination of Caesar as two of his big organizing themes. I'm not going to review on the merits of my assignment, however, but rather on the intent of Parenti in writing the book which we ended up doing a fair bit of in class haha. Warning, I'm This was a book I read for a class on conspiracy in the ancient and modern world at university. Warning, I'm going to launch directly into the content of the book with no regard for whether or not you know anything about Roman history. If you're interested, I suggest you look into it as I found myself thoroughly fascinated once I got past the surface. This book is unabashedly written from the political left, as evidenced by the sub-title. Parenti makes the case for Catiline, the Gracchi, Caesar and a few other smaller personages to be representatives of the people, through their role as political "populares", and states that their role as popular reformers was sullied and decried in the history of the period we have today. This is due to the prevalence of "gentleman historians" who comprise the majority of our sources, well-off individuals who were the only ones possessing the resources to produce a work of history that could survive to the present day to be observed by us. Ultimately, as I think holds true for almost anyone trying to make a strident political point, regardless of side, he simply goes too far. I am relatively convinced that, as he claims, there was a level of class-consciousness among the proletariati which is underrepresented in the literature. However, I also think that he extrapolates more than he has any right to do so while still claiming to be a responsible historian. Ultimately, he oversteps his bounds in a desire to make a point and it partially undermines his argument; this is not a total dismissal obviously, as I stated previously that I agreed with him, but I think it devalues the work as a whole. A worthy read, but only if you're interested in either the subject matter or the themes he discusses. This book is the overview of the Late Roman Republic that politically conscious social justice advocates didn't know they needed to read. It was at times frustrating to learn how old the ways the wealthy wield and accumulate power and fight for their class interests are. The prevailing opinion among historians, ancient and modern alike, is that the senatorial assassins were intent upon restoring republican liberties by doing away with a despotic usurper. This is the justification proffered by the This book is the overview of the Late Roman Republic that politically conscious social justice advocates didn't know they needed to read. This is the justification proffered by the assassins themselves. In this book I present an altnerative explanation: The Senate aristocrats killed Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular leader who threatened their privileged interests. I really appreciated the emphasis in this book to point out how our narrative of Caesar has been constructed for us by a lineage of white, upper-class, male historians, and sorts through these biases. The chapters are well organized, to the point, and not overly long. Despite the death of Caesar, the conspirators were unable to restore the institutions of the Republic. The ramifications of the assassination led to the Liberators' civil war and ultimately to the Principate period of the Roman Empire. Caesar had served the Republic for eight years in the , fully conquering the region of Gaul roughly equivalent to modern-day France. After the Roman Senate demanded Caesar to disband his army and return home as a civilian, he refused, with his army and plunging Rome into Caesar's Civil War in 49 BC. After defeating the last of the opposition, Caesar was appointed dictator perpetuo "dictator in perpetuity" in early 44 BC. He also joked about their news, saying that his honours needed to be cut back instead of increased. The second incident occurred in 44 BC. Marullus and Flavus, the aforementioned tribunes, were not amused, and ordered the man who first cried "Rex" arrested. In a later senate meeting, Caesar accused the tribunes of attempting to create opposition to him, and had them removed from office and membership in the Senate. The third incident took place at the festival of the Lupercalia , on the 15th of February, 44 BC. , who had been elected co-consul with Caesar, climbed onto the Rostra and placed a diadem on Caesar's head, saying "The People give this to you through me. Caesar removed the diadem from his head; Antony again placed it on him, only to get the same response from the crowd. According to Suetonius , Caesar's assassination ultimately occurred primarily due to concerns that he wished to crown himself the king of Rome. In just a few months, Caesar had disrespected the Senate, removed People's Tribunes, and toyed with monarchy. By February, the conspiracy that caused his assassination was being born. The conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar began with a meeting between Cassius Longinus and his brother-in-law Marcus Brutus [14] in the evening of 22 February 44 BC, [15] when after some discussion the two agreed that something had to be done to prevent Caesar from becoming king of the Romans. The two men then began to recruit others. While it took only one man to murder another, Brutus believed that for the assassination of Caesar to be considered a legitimate removal of a tyrant, done for the sake of their country, it must include a large amount of Rome's leading men. They preferred friends to acquaintances and recruited neither reckless youths nor feeble elders. In the end, the conspirators recruited senators near the age of forty, as were they. The men assessed each potential recruit with innocent-sounding questions. Notable conspirators included Quintus Labeo , who answered affirmatively on 2 March when Brutus asked him whether it was wise for a man to put himself into danger if it meant overcoming evil or foolish men; [20] Decimus Brutus , who joined on 7 March after being approached by Labeo and Cassius; [21] Gaius Trebonius , [22] Tillius Cimber , Minucius Basilus , and the brothers Gaius and Publius Servilius Casca , all men from Caesar's own ranks; [23] and Pontius Aquila , who had been personally humiliated by Caesar. First, the conspirators discussed the addition of two other men to the conspiracy. Cicero , the famous orator, was trusted by both Cassius and Brutus, and had made it no secret that he considered Caesar's rule oppressive. He also had great popularity among the common people and a large network of friends, which would help attract others to join their cause. This rejection to the old conspiracy caused the conspirators to decide against recruiting Antony. Now, however, a new idea took place. Antony was strong because of his familiarity with the soldiers, and powerful due to his consulship. If Antony was not to join them, then they must assassinate Antony as well, lest he interfere with the conspiracy. The optimates , the "Best Men" of Rome, [30] among the conspirators wanted to go back to the way things were before Caesar. This would entail killing both Caesar and all the men around him, including Antony, and reverting Caesar's reforms. However, even they agreed to kill Antony. Brutus disagreed with both. He argued that killing Caesar, and doing nothing else, was the option they should choose. The conspirators claimed to be acting based on the principles of law and justice, he told them, and it would be unjust to kill Antony. While the assassination of Caesar would be viewed as the killing of a tyrant, killing his supporters would only be seen as a politicized purge and the work of Pompey's former supporters. By keeping Caesar's reforms intact, they would both keep the support of the Roman people, who Brutus believed opposed Caesar the king, not Caesar the reformer, and the support of Caesar's soldiers and other supporters. His argument convinced the other conspirators. They began making plans for Caesar's assassination. The conspirators believed that how and where they assassinated Caesar would make a difference. An ambush in a secluded area would have a different impact on public opinion than an assassination in the heart of Rome. The conspirators came up with multiple ideas for the assassination. Another idea was to wait to attack him during the elections for new consuls. The conspirators would wait for Caesar to begin crossing the bridge that all voters crossed as part of the election procedures, [33] and then topple him over the rail and into the water. There would be conspirators waiting in the water for Caesar, with daggers drawn. Another plan was to attack at a gladiatorial game, which had the benefit that nobody would be suspicious of armed men. Finally, somebody brought up a different idea. What if the conspirators assassinated Caesar at one of the senate meetings? Most of these friends were imposing and dangerous-looking and the conspirators were afraid that they would interfere with the assassination. Here, this would not be an issue, since only senators were allowed in the Senate House. Caesar would be leaving the city on 18 March to embark on a military campaign against the Getae and the Parthians. The last senate meeting before that date was on the 15th, the , and so the conspirators chose this as the day of the assassination. In the days leading up to the Ides, Caesar was not completely oblivious to what was being planned. According to the ancient historian Plutarch , a seer had warned Caesar that his life would be in danger no later than the Ides of March. On March 15, 44 B. Caesar was also a popular author who wrote about his travels, theories, and political views. After Caesar attained the status of dictator for life in 44 B. A group of as many as 60 conspirators decided to assassinate Caesar at the meeting of the Senate on March 15, the ides of March. Collectively, the group stabbed Caesar a reported 23 times, killing the Roman leader. The death of Julius Caesar ultimately had the opposite impact of what his assassins hoped. He renamed himself Augustus Caesar. The United States is a republic. The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society. For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about licensing content on this page, please contact ngimagecollection natgeo. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. She or he will best know the preferred format. Assassination of Julius Caesar - Wikipedia

In 65 B. Two years later, he was elected Pontifex Maximus. Caesar divorced in 62 B. One year later, Caesar became governor of Spain. A series of successful military and political maneuvers, along with the support of Pompey and Marcus Licinius Crassus known as the richest man in Rome , helped Caesar get elected as senior Roman consul in 59 B. The union terrified the Roman Senate who knew that a partnership between three such powerful men would prove unstoppable. They were right, and the triumvirate soon controlled Rome. Caesar was appointed governor of the vast region of Gaul north-central Europe in 58 B. During the subsequent Gallic Wars, Caesar conducted a series of brilliant campaigns to conquer and stabilize the region, earning a reputation as a formidable and ruthless military leader. But his great successes in the region caused Pompey to resent him and complicated the already-strained relationship between Pompey and Crassus. As Caesar conquered Gaul, the political situation in Rome became increasingly volatile, with Pompey its lone consul. Caesar refused and, in a bold and decisive maneuver, directed his army to cross the Rubicon River into Italy, triggering a civil war between his supporters and those of Pompey. Caesar and his armies pursued Pompey to Spain, Greece and, finally, Egypt. Caesar became her lover and partnered with her to overthrow Ptolemy and make her ruler of Egypt. The pair never married but their long-term affair produced a son, Ptolemy XV Caesar, known as . In 46 B. Many people still consider Caesar a great leader with keen insights into human nature. Over the centuries, many of his words have become famous quotes, such as:. Caesar declared himself dictator for life in 44 B. Fearing he would become king, a group of senators conspired to end his life. On the Ides of March March 15, 44 B. Set in 44 B. The play is thought to have made its debut in at the Globe Theater in London and continues to mesmerize audiences to this day, inspiring songs, novels, films, television shows and even comedy acts. It has also provided many well-known quotes — attributed to Shakespeare, not Caesar — including:. A Timeline of the Life of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Houghton Mifflin Books. Start your free trial today. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! Subscribe for fascinating stories connecting the past to the present. On March 15, 44 B. The dictator fell bleeding to his death from 23 stab wounds before the horrified eyes of the rest of the house. It was a little after noon on the Ides of March, as Gaius Julius Caesar arrived in the world on July 13, B. Although the procedure existed at the time, it was usually fatal to the mother and therefore Ethnic and Political Attitudes. Arno Press , Martin's Press , Martin's Press, San Francisco: City Lights Books, Dirty Truths. Includes some autobiographical essays. Verso , The New Press, Seven Stories Press, Prometheus Books, The Face of Imperialism Paradigm, Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies Routledge , Communism portal Socialism portal Politics portal. He isn't associated with the party. Michael Parenti. Archived from the original on 27 October Retrieved 25 December City Lights Books. Archived from the original on 26 October Democracy for the Few Eight ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Archived from the original on 30 August Retrieved 3 January Outsider in the House. Retrieved 2 January Kirkus Reviews. December 1, Retrieved November 11, New Statesman. Retrieved March 8, Publishers Weekly. June 1, Retrieved November 12, May 26, Political Affairs. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 24, Michael Parenti - Wikipedia

Two years later, he was elected Pontifex Maximus. Caesar divorced Pompeia in 62 B. One year later, Caesar became governor of Spain. A series of successful military and political maneuvers, along with the support of Pompey and Marcus Licinius Crassus known as the richest man in Rome , helped Caesar get elected as senior Roman consul in 59 B. The union terrified the Roman Senate who knew that a partnership between three such powerful men would prove unstoppable. They were right, and the triumvirate soon controlled Rome. Caesar was appointed governor of the vast region of Gaul north-central Europe in 58 B. During the subsequent Gallic Wars, Caesar conducted a series of brilliant campaigns to conquer and stabilize the region, earning a reputation as a formidable and ruthless military leader. But his great successes in the region caused Pompey to resent him and complicated the already-strained relationship between Pompey and Crassus. As Caesar conquered Gaul, the political situation in Rome became increasingly volatile, with Pompey its lone consul. Caesar refused and, in a bold and decisive maneuver, directed his army to cross the Rubicon River into Italy, triggering a civil war between his supporters and those of Pompey. Caesar and his armies pursued Pompey to Spain, Greece and, finally, Egypt. Caesar became her lover and partnered with her to overthrow Ptolemy and make her ruler of Egypt. The pair never married but their long-term affair produced a son, Ptolemy XV Caesar, known as Caesarion. In 46 B. Many people still consider Caesar a great leader with keen insights into human nature. Over the centuries, many of his words have become famous quotes, such as:. Caesar declared himself dictator for life in 44 B. Fearing he would become king, a group of senators conspired to end his life. On the Ides of March March 15, 44 B. Set in 44 B. The play is thought to have made its debut in at the Globe Theater in London and continues to mesmerize audiences to this day, inspiring songs, novels, films, television shows and even comedy acts. It has also provided many well-known quotes — attributed to Shakespeare, not Caesar — including:. A Timeline of the Life of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Houghton Mifflin Books. Start your free trial today. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! Subscribe for fascinating stories connecting the past to the present. On March 15, 44 B. The dictator fell bleeding to his death from 23 stab wounds before the horrified eyes of the rest of the house. It was a little after noon on the Ides of March, as Gaius Julius Caesar arrived in the world on July 13, B. Although the procedure existed at the time, it was usually fatal to the mother and therefore Galassi and Hutan Ashrafian of Imperial College London argue that the Roman general may have been afflicted by cerebrovascular disease. Defunct organizations. Related topics. CovertAction Information Bulletin , No. Books The Anti-Communist Impulse. Random House , Trends and Tragedies in American Foreign Policy. Little, Brown, Ethnic and Political Attitudes. Arno Press , Martin's Press , Martin's Press, San Francisco: City Lights Books, Dirty Truths. Includes some autobiographical essays. Verso , The New Press, Seven Stories Press, Prometheus Books, The Face of Imperialism Paradigm, Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies Routledge , Communism portal Socialism portal Politics portal. He isn't associated with the party. Michael Parenti. Archived from the original on 27 October Retrieved 25 December City Lights Books. Archived from the original on 26 October Democracy for the Few Eight ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Archived from the original on 30 August Retrieved 3 January Outsider in the House. Retrieved 2 January Kirkus Reviews. December 1, Retrieved November 11, New Statesman. Retrieved March 8,

Julius Caesar Assassinated | National Geographic Society

The death of Julius Caesar ultimately had the opposite impact of what his assassins hoped. He renamed himself Augustus Caesar. The United States is a republic. The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society. For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about licensing content on this page, please contact ngimagecollection natgeo. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. She or he will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to him or her, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource. If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media. Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service. Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives. Others say that Aeneas and some of his followers escaped the fall of Troy and established the town. A people known for their military, political, and social institutions, the ancient Romans conquered vast amounts of land in Europe and northern Africa, built roads and aqueducts, and spread Latin, their language, far and wide. Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire after power shifted away from a representative democracy to a centralized imperial authority, with the emperor holding the most power. Julius Caesar was a Roman general and politician who named himself dictator of the Roman Empire, a rule that lasted less than one year before he was famously assassinated by political rivals in 44 B. During his reign, Augustus restored peace and prosperity to the Roman state and changed nearly every aspect of Roman life. Join our community of educators and receive the latest information on National Geographic's resources for you and your students. Even before reading this book, I always thought Cato and Cicero to be self serving hypocrites. This book reinforced my admiration of Caesar as a historical character. Beautifully written. Highly recommended. Oct 19, Ben rated it it was ok Shelves: non-fiction. This book focuses on the history leading up to Julius Caesar's assassination, and in particular the reformers, starting from the Gracchi's and the Roman Senate's consistent violent suppression of any attempts at reform. Parenti does two things very well. First he points out the hypocrisy of ancient Roman writers, particularly Cicero, and how they claimed to be preserving the Republic when in fact they were merely preserving their own wealth and power. It is very important to keep this in mind whe This book focuses on the history leading up to Julius Caesar's assassination, and in particular the reformers, starting from the Gracchi's and the Roman Senate's consistent violent suppression of any attempts at reform. It is very important to keep this in mind when reading the ancient texts, because, as Parenti points out, we don't have any other point of view. Parenti also takes to task more modern classicists, and their embracing of the opinions and values of the ancient oligarchs, buying into the idea that the Roman Senate was fighting for anything larger than itself. However, there were some ways that this book failed for me. First, while Parenti lays out the case that Caesar was a devoted reformer, it never quite convinced me. Second, Parenti is a big believer in the wisdom and nobility of the masses. This is a nice idea, but my opinion, the masses are just as prone to short sited policy and ideas as the rich. Finally, I quickly got tired of Parenti shouting his opinion on every page of the book, even though I am sympathetic to his politics in general. I realize the book is written to appeal to progressives, but I thought his constant hammering on this undermined, for me, my ability to process the book. I thought that many, if not all of his arguments, could have stood on their own, without his shrill commentary. Every time I read his relentless attacks, it took me out of the history and the story he was trying to tell. I felt he could have made an effective case against both the classical writers, particularly Cicero, as well as their modern counter-points, and opened his book to a wider audience. For all those reluctant teenage classicists who hated Cicero as an arrogant blowhard and loved Antony for killing him, this is the book for you. Parenti begs to differ with the standard view that men like Cicero and Cato were sober virtuous men who sought to preserve a constitutional republic against an insatiably violent ochlocracy. Cicero, Cato, and their fellow optimates were simply rich fatcats who wanted the common people kept as far away as possible from their wealth and privilege. Parenti For all those reluctant teenage classicists who hated Cicero as an arrogant blowhard and loved Antony for killing him, this is the book for you. Parenti argues that the common people of Rome were not an unthinking mob who rioted because they did not want to work. Instead, they were in genuinely desperate straits, having been robbed of their land and livelihood by unconstitutional land grabs and chattel slavery. The proletariat in Rome had almost nothing else to do except riot. There was a crying need for economic reform, and Julius Caesar was the one who heard this cry. Caesar was not assassinated because he was a tyrant. Tyranny did not bother the optimates at all. If it did, they would have killed Sulla and not acquiesced so readily to Augustus. Caesar was assassinated because he, though patrician, was a plebian threat to patrician privilege. Caesar was a traitor to his class millennia before FDR. Parenti objects vociferously to the characterization of the plebians as an unthinking mob--when it comes to economic matters, at least. When it comes to religious matters, then Parenti is willing to call the people a mob, especially when the people are Christian. Yes, Parenti does manage to get a swipe in at Christians even in a book that is supposed to chronicle a period of History entirely B. View 1 comment. Feb 12, Peter Pete Mcloughlin rated it really liked it Shelves: both , african-history , european-history , general-history , biography , bce-toce , asian-history , world- history , complexity , nonfiction. Caesar used populist appeal to get power but I don't think he was much more than a strongman who happened to be on Populares faction against the optimates. I think he was just another ambitious man who wanted as much power as he could get. To equate him as some kind of Bernie Sanders figure of the classical world is a stretch. Oct 01, Nicholas rated it it was amazing Shelves: history-theme-republican-rome. A refreshing take on the story of Julius Caesar. Parenti's thesis is one that's not traditionally told: Caesar's assassination had less to do with tyrannicide than it did straight political assassination by a conservative group of Senators who sought to eliminate popular reform and maintain their socioeconomic and political hegemony over a burgeoning Roman imperial power. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that he's one hundred percent correct. As evidence, Parenti traces the longer history of trib A refreshing take on the story of Julius Caesar. As evidence, Parenti traces the longer history of tribunal reform attempts beginning with the Gracchus brothers, placing Caesar's assassination in a larger context of attempts at land and citizenship reforms over two centuries. When approached in that way, a startling pattern emerges. It seems that the Optimate faction of elites in Roman society have a dirty habit of using death squads to eliminate reformers, cloaking their perfidy in the language of democratic ideals. After each assassination, the Optimates tighten political control and extend their economic reach while making sure that the literate world learns of their noble struggle against demagogues and would-be tyrants by controlling the narrative of events that follow. Probably some legitimately saw that the preservation of their interests was in the best interests of the republic as a whole. For those not sold on the argument, Parenti reveals the hypocrisy of both Optimate action and words on center stage - showing how willing they are to throw away "democracy" when they can rest assured that the person receiving power will promote their self-interest. They seldom hesitated to depart from their own constitution when expediency dictated. Through the last eighty years of the Republic, they repeatedly invoked the senatus consultum ultimum , suspending all constitutional protections by raison d'etat. So common was their tendency to turn to one-man absolutism - even before the senatus consulted ultimatum - that Appian voices surprise about one occasion when they did not. Because it was dominated by a select few sources from the winning side and assembled mostly by individuals from the aristocratic class themselves who found the idea of popular democracy disdainful, whether it be Appian, Polybius or Gibbon. The most extant account of the period is by Cicero - hardly a neutral or trustworthy source several preserved letters to friends show his deep-rooted superficiality and concern for his image. In one, he asks a friend composing a history to write kindly of him, even at the expense of going overboard, so that posterity would know how much he'd done for Rome. And so "in the highly skewed accounts of what is called history, Cicero, Brutus, Cato, and other oligarchs come down to us as the defenders of republican liberty; while Caesar - who tried to move against their power and privilege and do something for the poor - comes down to us as a tyrant and usurper. Surely, the view that he was a martyr for the poor is as equally erroneous as the view that he was a through-and-through tyrant. Parenti acknowledges many of Caesar's character failings while avoiding the black and white caricature that has dominated previous renditions of his life. He was certainly ambitious and he certainly had a massively inflated view of himself. But how does that make him any different than any of the other major figures of the late Republic? Surely the self-aggrandizing Cicero and the self-styled Pompey "the Great" could be said to exhibit the same tendencies that traditional historians have labeled so despotic in Caesar. Parenti also does a fantastic job recreating the Roman socioeconomic world from the viewpoint of those who've been traditionally overlooked - devoting significant passages to women, slaves and the urban poor who are commonly lumped into the category of the mobs or the masses with proper aristocratic disdain. Parenti's writing style is both "provocative and eloquent" in the words of Howard Zinn, and The Assassination of Julius Caesar could probably be more aptly titled A People's History of Republican Rome , emulating that materialist or Marxist historical approach made so compelling by Zinn himself in his survey of American history. Is it the whole story? But it's a desperately needed counterweight to the historical narratives that dominate discussion of this era of history. In all honesty, it appeals to my own political proclivities and perhaps that's why I find it so refreshing. There's definitely a certain amount of selection bias and I just find that the perspective presented meshes with what I believe about the world. Someone less inclined toward a class-based view of society and history would probably be turned off and while I thoroughly acknowledge that Marx's key mistake in his interpretation of history is the discounting of other factors like culture, religious belief or just sheer human unpredictability, I do think that, to a large extent, people are driven by material interests. I think they seek to defend those interests more so than any other they may have in life, at least taken on a collective rather than individual scale. I think the lessons gleaned from dissecting the 'republican heroes' of Rome can teach us a lot about how American 'democracy' functions. And I think that Parenti's description of their pursuit of their self-interest should sound awfully familiar to people in just about every society today: "Caesar seems not to have comprehended that in the conflict between the haves and have-nots, the haves are really the have-it-alls. The Roman aristocrats lambasted the palest reforms as the worst kind of thievery, the beginnings of a calamitous revolutionary leveling, necessitating extreme countermeasures Such ruling-class rapacity rarely parades in naked form. Those ensconced at the social apex utilize every advantage in money, property, education, organization, and prestige to maintain their ideological hegemony over the rest of society. They marshal a variety of arguments to justify their privileged position, arguments that are all the more sincerely embraced for being so self-serving. Each hitting home like a freight train. They present their privileged special interests as equivalent to the general interest. They argue that reforms like rent caps or welfare doles undermine the fiber of the recipients. They maintain that redistribution efforts impose ruinous costs on the entire society and not just to themselves. And when these arguments fail, they attack the motives and character of reformers. Again, certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but worth listing as required reading to get a completely different perspective on the murder of Caesar. Parenti does a fantastic job as a researcher and sources are thoroughly examined and listed comprehensibly. His historiographic work is readable to the average lay person and, like Stacy Schiff's , enlightening in and of itself. If I had to pick one book from my Roman history reading theme this year as my favorite, this would be it. Oct 13, Ben Peyton rated it it was amazing. This book is the best book I've read all year. I can't recommend it enough. This book is written so well and is so concise and fair and powerful that I can't really think of another book like it that I've read. It's the people's history of ancient Rome but, I think, it means a lot today. Not to fall into cliches about how history repeats its self or anything but there are a couple of important points I will take away this work. One, it is a huge reminder that history, like everything else, is in This book is the best book I've read all year. One, it is a huge reminder that history, like everything else, is influenced by the class biases of those who write it. It just so happens that those at the top of the class structure seem to be the ones who write history more than anyone else. Second, class struggle is a not a new thing or a thing from the recent past- it goes back all the way to the ancient past, and those who fought it back then are just as important as those now. I really found this to be an amazing book. It might not be for everyone but I enjoyed it immensely. Aug 08, Kyle rated it it was ok Shelves: roman- sem , ancient. Aug 01, Harrison rated it it was amazing Shelves: non-fiction. Parenti does not hold back in this book. And he has no fear whatsoever when it comes to challenging long-held sacred cows about the Late Republic of Rome and the 'noble' murder of Julius Caesar. Take the highly esteemed Cicero. It's hard to believe after reading the man in his own words which Parenti quotes liberally , that so many scholars can hold such a man in such high regard. Slumlord, racist, massive egotist, opportunist, liar, flatterer, he epitomized everything that has come to be assoc Parenti does not hold back in this book. And not only Cicero: practically the entire Senate was a den of vipers, affluent men from powerful families that prospered while the rest of Rome struggled to pay their rent, earn enough to feed their families, and just survive, many of them living in run-down slums owned by the likes of Cicero who, by the way, thought it was 'not even a nuisance' when several of his collapsed, killing inhabitants - he had a profitable scheme in mind to make even more money. Combined with endless wars, rampant debt, and no jobs the rich simply had slaves do the majority of the work - cheap labor , yeah, the common people had every reason to be pissed off. So when a string of popular leaders in the last years of the Republic cropped up with social reforms to ease the plight of the people rent control, debt relief, land redistribution, jobs, food, etc. From Tiberius Gracchus to Julius Caesar, some 15 'populares' were cut down, along with thousands of their supporters. And yet historians old and new what Parenti calls the 'gentlemen scholars', from Dio, Plutarch, and Suetonius to Gibbon, Mommsen, and more modern-day experts have sided with the assassins and blamed the victims. This is one of the highlights of Parenti's book: the historians and scholars, in their own words, coming up with the lamest excuses for these atrocities, writing off the reformers as self-interested, power-hungry 'demagogues. The reformers did what they did knowing full well the consequences. They could have easily toed the party line and achieved great wealth and power by simply doing what all the other wealthy elites did. But they didn't. They fought for justice and equality in a cruel world of extreme inequality. And they paid the price for such audacity. Which brings us to Caesar. Parenti makes it perfectly clear that Caesar was anything but a power-hungry monster. He was a principled, intelligent reformer. And the people loved him for it. The gentlemen historians are quick to pounce on Caesar for his 'lust for power', and the unconstitutional method by which he achieved it. Yet they have nothing bad to say about all those former and later leaders like Sulla and the emperors who violated the unwritten Roman constitution. When Caesar breaks the rules non-violently, granting unprecedented clemency to his enemies, in the service of positive social reforms, it is the most depraved demagoguery. Yet when the optimates violate the constitution to block reforms, take away rights, and arm death squads to kill thousands of their rivals, they are merely defending the Republic. Parenti is quick to point this out, as well as other other double standards and examples of blatant hypocrisy. There is just too much great information and commentary in this book to comment on in a short review. For example, the chapter on Cicero's witch-hunt against Catiline is a highlight: another display of the esteemed orator's utter paucity of decency and humanity. If you're interested in what was really going on in the Late Republic, and the truth about Caesar and his reforms, and the bigoted treachery behind his murder, do check this one out. Kudos to Michael Parenti for setting the record straight and exposing the not-so-hidden mendacity of historians more concerned with preserving the myth of their own entitlement than with truth and justice. Feb 26, Doug Richman rated it really liked it. Often, when we consider history, we are in fact considering the history of biased men: aristocrats who write from a privileged view. Set around the first centuries B. Parenti begs to differ: In his view, Caesar was a reformer, dedicated to the people of Rome, with his killing and post-mortem disparagement being a result of the fear he inspired in the corrupt senators politically opposed to him. A hallmark of this book tends to be the light in which some of the famous figures of Roman history are portrayed. Caesar, certainly, is shown as less of an antagonist and more victim of his time; in contrast, certain members of Roman society who are generally accepted as great thinkers and leaders are shown through a less positive lens. First among these, by far, is Cicero: regarded by traditional historians as a great orator and philosopher, he is displayed here as a demagogue and a deceiver of the people. The first several chapters explore Roman society: the nature of the Roman slavery system, the rigid caste system of the day, the experience of females in Roman society, and the relative stasis that their society was kept in by the senators who ruled supreme. The chapters following those chart the rise of Caesar on the Roman political scene, the tactics senators used to get what they wanted death squads were a fairly common sight on Roman streets , and the conspiracy that led to his killing. One full chapter is given over to the assassination itself; it is approached as a straight retelling without much commentary, contrary to the rest of the book. The final couple chapters give a view of Rome post-Caesar, and chart the rise of the first true Roman Emperors contrary to historical belief, Caesar apparently had no designs on dictatorial power. This one reads rather like a novel, in many places. This should be a definite read for anyone who appreciates the proletariat view of history, and anyone who is interested in redefining their ideas of who the villains of history are. Jan 29, Steven Peterson rated it really liked it. Parenti's work focuses on a specific issue--Caesar as "populist," murdered by wary elitists. Goldsworthy's book is much more detailed, provides much more context. Parenti's book can be viewed within the larger context. Parent's thesis, outlined on page 3, is straightforward: "Caesar's sin, I shall argue, was not that he was subverting the Roman constitution--which was an unwritten one--but that he was loosening the oligarchy's overbearing grip on it. Worse still, he used state power to effect some limited benefits for small farmers, debtors, and urban proletariat, at the expense of the wealthy few. This is typical of Parenti's work more generally. He has a position and normally writes in such a way as to address that view in no uncertain terms. Some will appreciate this; others won't. But the question should not be whether or not one likes his passionate writing. The question should be: Does he make his case? This is why reading this book in concert with Goldsworthy's makes sense. In the latter volume, much the same theme is advanced, although presented in a much more nuanced, and, in fact, more convincing manner. This book is most useful in laying out a perspective that is straightforward and not subtle. Sometimes, the lack of subtlety undermines the logic of the analysis. Still, the volume provides a thesis that places Caesar in a political context. Apr 15, Stephen rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: anyone interested in history, ancient or otherwise. I am no historian, ancient or otherwise, and I found this book delightfully readable. You see, I am probably considered a Marxist. It is my belief that what ails us is respect for an individual class of people, and we dutifully defer to the upper classes as having the answers to a particular problem. It is my belief that this is a fallacy, and what ails us is the fact that we have given these people carte blanche. They, in Ancient Rome, or today, these elites or meritocracy, are acting only in t I am no historian, ancient or otherwise, and I found this book delightfully readable. They, in Ancient Rome, or today, these elites or meritocracy, are acting only in their best interests. I was not surprised in the least to read and reflect between the similarities of Ancient Rome and early 21st century AmeriKa. Copious research and reading by the author went into this well-written book. A tad-academic as I had to do a lot of jotting down of names and looking up later, or while I read to develop further my understanding, as though the author felt you already had a basic understanding of what your were reading. Worth the extra effort. May 04, Bmichael91 rated it it was amazing. It is rare to see a look into the lives of regular persons of history. We know much of Kings and Emperors, and little of peasants and plebians. Parenti gives us a view into the lives of the slaves and workers that built the Roman Empire, and challenges the idea that the upper class property owners assassinated Caesar for "tyrannicism". Parenti lays out a convincing argument in just about pages! Most interesting, to me, was a glimpse into the lives of the average Roman citizen who toiled away as a slave or worker to build vast palaces and riches for the Senatorial class. You will be hard pressed to find a better "bottom up" history book. Aug 12, Jolomo rated it really liked it. Nice use of ancient sources, relying on the holes they leave in the story for a completely different perspective. Going further than "Cicero was a self-absorbed ass" into seeing where many of the revered heroes of the Roman Republic were oligarchs of the greediest sort. This is the very definition of an "outsider history" which plays nicely with his portrayal of the "gentleman historian". Nice to have this in the back of my mind when I read more traditional histories to question some assumptions Nice use of ancient sources, relying on the holes they leave in the story for a completely different perspective. Nice to have this in the back of my mind when I read more traditional histories to question some assumptions made. A somewhat different view of the ancient Roman Republic. The noble Romans are portrayed as grubby money grubbers, while the people are justified in their resentment and economic demands. Cicero haha comes of particularly bad, as a vain mouthpiece for the oligarchy. Several reformers are described, the Gracchi obviously , while Julius Caesar is described as a responsible and socially just reformer, who would have saved the Republic , if he had been allowed to do so. Caesar was assassinated as A somewhat different view of the ancient Roman Republic. Caesar was assassinated as the oligarchs feared his reforms, as mild and necessary as they were. Excellent read. Nov 21, James rated it really liked it. Pretty good. Its a new take on the roman empire, in that caesar was actually a good guy and that left-wing leaders kept getting wacked in ancient rome. Also, I don't know if I totally agree with his conclusions about how the Roman Emperors kept power. I think they were able to keep it by appeasing their veterans and workers as much as appeasing the aristocrats who had largely been decimated in the purges of Augustus. Nov 05, John Ronald rated it it was amazing. A fresh re-evaluation of the political career of Julius Caesar and a historical examination that reads against the grain of received wisdom about Caesar. Argues that Caesar was willing to take a stand for plebeian interests against Roman aristocrats, and that THIS radical stance is what got him killed, a political chain of events that finds echoes down the centuries time and again, implies Parenti. Oct 29, Jamey rated it really liked it Shelves: biography-and-memoir , history. I enjoyed this a lot. Caesar appears as an emancipatory populist who tried to make an alliance with the masses against the oligarchs in the Senate and got killed for it. Also, apparently, Cicero was a dick. Jun 11, sologdin rated it it was ok Shelves: leftwing- polemical. JC's populism is placed in a long tradition of similar politics in Rome. I'm not sure if that works or not, but it's damned interesting. Mar 08, Alex marked it as to-read. Patrick says this book is hella good. Nov 30, Carl Stevens rated it really liked it. Novelists need to defend the republic for the many with words as sharp as daggers. Parenti argues well that the senators slew Caesar in defense of the republic for the few. Apr 09, David rated it it was amazing. The book is maybe a bit too quick to apologize for Caesar on a personal level; it largely skirts by a serious discussion of his power politics, or the genocide of the Gauls and its contribution to his popularity -- not completely, but largely. In doing so, it misses what could've been a more complicated discussion of how Rome's organization of power materially changed under him, and how that set up the autocracy of the Empire. That being said, this accessible book does an incredible job of tellin The book is maybe a bit too quick to apologize for Caesar on a personal level; it largely skirts by a serious discussion of his power politics, or the genocide of the Gauls and its contribution to his popularity -- not completely, but largely. That being said, this accessible book does an incredible job of telling the hundred-year story of the late republic with a sharp, radical and humane attention to the throughline of political struggle waged by the common people and their progressive champions against an authoritarian and murderous ruling class whose side of the story has been passed down happily by "gentlemen historians" -- one which was all to happy to accept dictators like Sulla exactly as long as they served their class interests, and was all too willing to cry dictator and sic death squads on anyone who proposed to weaken the boot on the people's throat. Its picture of power is chilling, detailed and material, if polemic, and grimly articulates the limits of chamge within the system. The people of Rome fought for institutional representation, the redistribution of public land, subsidized food, an end to the ruling class's looting of the public treasury for personal profit, the right to organize and the expansion of voting rights, among other things -- they fought for themselves and each other, for the same kinds of things against the same kinds of forces we're fighting now. Ultimately, they lost.

https://files8.webydo.com/9590163/UploadedFiles/01A3521A-AD68-C45D-718F-DDB5B87D55D5.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644803/normal_60201c978e604.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4638512/normal_602052d7569c6.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9590455/UploadedFiles/856FFC21-C516-5D26-4FA6-09B200700808.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9592883/UploadedFiles/AB8066E3-AB5A-31AE-53CA-EDD842CE655D.pdf