Chapters
Two of the most well-known and often repeated aspects of Caesar’s assassination are the number of conspirators involved in the conspiracy and the number of wounds he received. Most of the ancient sources agree that there were sixty or so conspirators involved and that Caesar ended up with twenty-three stab wounds. As such, it is not uncommon to hear it said that a group of Senators killed Caesar, or that he was killed after being stabbed twenty-three times. Usually, the ancient sources and modern writers group all of the assassins, referring to the murder of Caesar as one collective action, his death the result of his many stab wounds. However, the reality may be different.
The report of Suetonius
At the end of his biography of Caesar in The Twelve Caesars, the ancient writer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus claimed, ‘The physician Antistius concluded that none of the wounds had been mortal except the second one to the breast.’ (Suetonius, 39) Depending on the source, the location of the second blow is different. Suetonius claims it was Caesar’s breast, but Appian and Nicolaus of Damascus both report that it was his side. If Suetonius’s account is to be believed, however, then Caesar’s death was ultimately caused by the second conspirator to stab him, irrespective of where the blow landed.
Although most of the ancient sources do not explicitly state this, the second strike was presumably delivered by Gaius Casca. He should not be confused with his brother, Publius Casca, who struck Caesar first. According to Plutarch, Publius called for the help of his brother after delivering the first strike, whilst Nicolaus explicitly states that Gaius stabbed Caesar in the side immediately afterwards. Appian and Suetonius agree that a second blow to his side or breast was delivered right after Publius landed the first blow. It is, therefore, probable that Gaius Casca was the one responsible for the supposedly fatal wound.
The one true assassin?
Assuming that Suetonius’s claim is valid, this would make Gaius Casca the true assassin of Caesar. But intriguing though this idea may be, it is vital to consider the plausibility of this assertion. Of all the sources, only Suetonius includes this information. Further throwing the validity of this assertion into question is that Suetonius was known for being gossipy in his work. Taking these two facts into account, along with the lack of corroborating evidence, suggests that Suetonius was repeating something that he had heard, or maybe he wished to introduce an extra layer of intrigue to appease his patron, Hadrian. Even if Suetonius was correct, we cannot know for sure if Antistius’ observations were accurate. As a physician, he was most qualified to make this claim, but it would not be surprising if he had an ulterior motive, such as undermining the efficiency of the conspirators. They wanted to depict the slaying of Caesar as a collective and united action, but having only one of them actually succeed would have damaged the ‘group effort’ image. It is possible that Caesar died of blood loss because of his many wounds, although this would not necessarily have been as immediate.
Yet, there may be some truth to Suetonius’ report. It is worth taking into account the context of the situation. As mentioned before, there were some sixty members in the conspiracy. Whilst it is unlikely that they all got up at once to accost Caesar, several of them probably grouped around him in preparation for the attack – a number that may have increased once the stabbing began. If several conspirators were crowding around Caesar at once, with each of them attempting to stab him, there is no doubt that it would have been a chaotic situation. Certainly, some of the ancient sources paint such a picture.
With this in mind, it would have been difficult for the conspirators to land accurate blows; indeed, some of the sources report that Cassius accidentally hit Brutus in the hand, whilst Minucius caught Rubrius in the thigh. This issue would, no doubt, have been confounded by nerves. Stabbing someone in public surrounded by a crowd of Senators that could potentially have intervened likely took a lot of guts. The accounts already demonstrate such an attack of nerves playing out in Publius Casca, who misaimed and only inflicted a slight wound on Caesar’s shoulder. Besides, Caesar would have been wearing a toga as it was a Senate meeting. Given that a toga is heavy and woollen, it would have taken a lot of strength and precision to aim a direct hit as it was. Yes, some experienced military minds were involved in the assassination – Cassius and Decimus Brutus being two of them – but even they may have had trouble landing a fatal blow if the above elements came into play.
Overall, Suetonius’s claim that only one wound was fatal should not be taken for granted as absolute fact, but it certainly is a possibility. We cannot be certain that Gaius Casca was the second attacker since the ancient sources report different names and areas in which Caesar was stabbed. But most of them do state that Publius Casca called for his brother’s assistance right after he made the first strike, which strongly suggests that Gaius Casca stabbed Caesar next, as Nicolaus reports.
A lack of sufficient evidence means that Historians can only speculate about the truth by using the available information and considering the context of the situation. If the ‘one fatal wound’ theory is true, it puts a new perspective on the assassination. Rather than accredit Caesar’s demise to a group of disgruntled Senators, it would be correct to attribute it to a single man – Gaius Casca. The other Senators would merely have been adding fuel to the fire with the superficial wounds that they inflicted. Instead of being a mere footnote in history, known mainly for being the brother of Publius, Gaius should be known for what he was: the one true assassin of Caesar. Moreover, the conspirators’ inability to kill Caesar with their blades would emphasise their overall failure. Not only did they fail to achieve their long-term goals, but they also failed to carry out the act itself.
