Julius Caesar's Health Mystery: Epilepsy, Stroke, or Something Else?

Introduction

Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) is renowned as a Roman general, statesman, and dictator who played a pivotal role in the fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the Empire. But beyond his military conquests and political achievements, ancient historians have also noted peculiar health episodes in Caesar's life – episodes that have led to centuries of speculation about his medical condition.

Traditionally, it has been believed that Caesar suffered from epilepsy (the "falling sickness"), but modern scholars and medical experts have revisited the evidence and proposed alternative diagnoses, ranging from strokes to parasitic infection.

Despite his busy public life and active military campaigns, Caesar was not immune to illness. Ancient biographers describe him as generally robust and healthy in his earlier years, but they also note episodes of physical weakness or fainting later in life.

These accounts, though brief, have prompted much conjecture. Was Caesar an epileptic? Did he suffer a series of strokes late in life? Or might there be another explanation for his "falling sickness"?

To answer these questions, we must first turn to the primary sources from antiquity that mention Caesar's health.

Ancient Descriptions of Caesar's Health

Ancient writers provide a few tantalizing details about Julius Caesar's medical issues, especially in the final years of his life. Caesar himself left no writings about his health – unsurprisingly, as Roman aristocrats rarely documented personal ailments. However, several contemporaries or near-contemporaries recorded observations of his symptoms:

i) Suetonius – In his Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius notes that Caesar remained "sound of health, except that towards the end he was subject to sudden fainting fits and to nightmares." Suetonius further adds that Caesar "was twice attacked by the falling sickness during his campaigns."

The term "falling sickness" (morbus comitialis in Latin) was the common Roman name for epilepsy. This suggests that Suetonius believed Caesar experienced at least two epileptic seizures while on military campaign. Aside from these late-life episodes of collapse and possible seizures, Suetonius portrays Caesar as otherwise healthy and vigorous.

ii) Plutarch – Plutarch's Parallel Lives includes The Life of Caesar, which provides one of the most explicit accounts of Caesar's 'fits.' Describing the Battle of Thapsus in 46 BC (one of Caesar's last battles), Plutarch writes that as Caesar was preparing for the fight, "his usual sickness laid hold of him" and he was quickly ferried away to a nearby tower before he lost consciousness, where he stayed quietly during the battle while his subordinates won the day.

This vivid anecdote strongly supports the notion that Caesar experienced something like an epileptic seizure under stress. Notably, Plutarch frames it as Caesar's 'usual illness', indicating that it was a known recurring condition.

iii) Appian of Alexandria – The historian Appian, in his Roman Civil Wars, also alludes to Caesar's health problems. He mentions Caesar having "convulsions" at times, though Appian's references are brief.

In one episode, possibly the same Thapsus incident or during the Spanish campaign of 45 BC, Appian notes Caesar was not actively commanding because he was overcome by a sudden malady described as convulsions. While Appian does not explicitly label it epilepsy, the description aligns with a seizure or collapse.

iv) Cicero – An orator and contemporary of Caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero only obliquely references Caesar's health. In one report, during a speech by Cicero in the Senate in Caesar's later years, observers noted that Caesar's complexion changed, he trembled, and he dropped the papers he was holding.

These symptoms occurred as Caesar listened to an oration by Cicero and may indicate a kind of episode or dizzy spell. Ancient commentators thought Caesar reacted emotionally to Cicero's words, but modern analysts wonder if this was another small seizure or mini-stroke (more on that later).

v) Pliny the Elder – Although Pliny's Natural History does not describe Caesar's own sickness, it records an intriguing detail about Caesar's family history. Pliny notes that two of the Julii (men of Caesar's family) "died without any apparent cause, in the morning, while putting on their shoes; the former at Pisae, the latter at Rome" (source: perseus.tufts.edu).

He specifies that one of these sudden deaths was "the father of the Dictator Caesar." Indeed, Caesar's father died suddenly one morning in 85 BC with no warning, and reportedly another male relative had an identical sudden death. These accounts suggest a hereditary vulnerability – possibly to seizures or cardiac events – in Caesar's lineage.

Sudden unexplained death in a presumably healthy man could point to something like a fatal seizure (SUDEP, Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy) as later medical historians have speculated.

vi) Other Sources - Later Roman historians like Cassius Dio also mention Caesar's episodes in passing. Cassius Dio recounts that Caesar once failed to rise to greet the Senate due to a faintness or illness, which Dio notes some attributed to sickness, others to pride. This incident – Caesar remaining seated when the Senate honored him – was interpreted by contemporaries as either a sign of infirmity or arrogance. Regardless, it offended the Senate deeply.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), though not a historical source, popularized the image of Caesar having an epileptic seizure. In his play, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare dramatizes Caesar collapsing in front of the Roman crowd. Shakespeare took this detail from Plutarch (whom he used as a source), and it has cemented the idea of Caesar's epilepsy in popular culture.

The Problem With Ancient Sources

In writing biographies, ancient historians may have sometimes mixed anecdotes or exaggerated... either accidentally or deliberately. Interestingly, the accounts of Suetonius and Plutarch don't perfectly align. Suetonius says Caesar had only two attacks of falling sickness ever, whereas Plutarch implies a chronic condition that recurred whenever Caesar was under great stress. It's possible that later writers conflated different kinds of incidents.

Modern scholarship warns that we must treat these sources carefully; they are not clinical case reports but literary works. Suetonius, for example, loved including unusual personal details about famous men, and by noting Caesar's fainting fits, he helped paint a portrait of a leader who, for all his power, had human weaknesses. Plutarch, interested in moral lessons, might have highlighted Caesar's physical vulnerability to show that even Caesar had limits. This means historians today must parse what is factual from what might be narrative coloring.

The Case for Epilepsy

As evidenced above, Caesar's own contemporaries knew he had some kind of health issue – so much so that it was "usual" for him. With this ancient evidence in mind, historians and physicians have long attempted to retrodiagnose Caesar's condition.

For many centuries, the dominant interpretation has been that Julius Caesar suffered from epilepsy. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder marked by recurrent seizures, which in ancient times was often called the "falling sickness" because sufferers could suddenly collapse. Several points support the epilepsy hypothesis:

i) Ancient Testimony: As detailed above, Suetonius plainly says Caesar had the falling sickness, and Plutarch describes what sounds like an epileptic seizure. These are fairly direct pieces of evidence. It is rare for ancient writers to label a condition so specifically, and here we have two doing so. This gives considerable weight to the idea that Caesar experienced seizures consistent with epilepsy.

ii) Late Onset but Possible: Typically, epilepsy often begins in youth, but it can also first appear in adulthood (so-called late-onset epilepsy). Caesar's known attacks occurred in his 50s and perhaps late 40s. Some historians have wondered if he might have had milder absence seizures as a child or young man that went unrecorded.

One modern neurologist, Dr. John Hughes, argues that "Caesar likely had epilepsy on the basis of four attacks that were probably complex partial seizures". These four episodes correspond to those noted by the ancient sources above: (1) a possible seizure while hearing Cicero speak, (2) an attack in the Senate when offered a crown, (3) the collapse near Thapsus in 46 BC, and (4) a possible episode in Corduba (Spain) in 45 BC (source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Complex partial seizures could explain Caesar's symptoms of dizziness and momentary insensibility – not every seizure causes full convulsions; some cause confusion, staring, or fainting spells. Thus, even though Caesar wasn't known to have epilepsy in youth, a form of adult epilepsy (potentially due to underlying factors like scar tissue, trauma, or other lesions) is considered plausible by experts.

iii) Hereditary Factors: The pattern of sudden death in Caesar's family mentioned by Pliny the Elder has intrigued researchers. If both Caesar's father and perhaps grandfather died abruptly with no warning in mid-life, one possible cause is an inherited seizure disorder leading to a fatal convulsion or cardiac arrest.

Modern authors have pointed out that these could be cases of SUDEP – Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy – which is a risk for uncontrolled epilepsy. Moreover, it's reported (although on slim evidence) that Caesar's own son with Cleopatra, Caesarion, had epileptic seizures as a child.

If Caesar did have epilepsy, it might have been part of an inherited condition running through the Julian line.

iv) Modern Medical Opinion in Favor: In the medical community, the idea of Caesar's epilepsy has been taken seriously. A 2004 study in the journal Epilepsy & Behavior concluded that the most likely diagnosis is epilepsy, given the descriptions of his attacks. The authors noted the familial pattern and even raised the possibility of absence seizures (brief lapses in awareness) in Caesar's youth that went unnoticed (source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

They classify Caesar's known adult episodes as complex partial seizures evolving into secondarily generalized seizures – essentially meaning he may have had an aura (warning) and partial impairment (e.g., dizziness, faintness) that occasionally progressed to full loss of consciousness.

The fact that Caesar "was at once aware that it was beginning" (in Plutarch's words) and took action to secure himself during the Thapsus episode could indicate he felt an aura or warning sign, as many epileptic patients do.

v) Roman Cultural Context: In Caesar's time, epilepsy was sometimes called the "sacred disease." Rather than being heavily stigmatized, it was often viewed with a mixture of fear and awe, as if the person were touched by the gods.

Some modern historians have speculated that Caesar may not have been overly embarrassed by the condition – he might even have encouraged people to believe he had epilepsy for political advantage, as it could imply divine favor or an extraordinary nature.

Octavian (Augustus), Caesar's heir, perhaps did not rush to correct the narrative of Caesar's illness, and later Roman culture, with leaders like Emperor Claudius's son Britannicus openly known to have epilepsy, did not hide the affliction.

This context might explain why accounts of Caesar's "falling sickness" were preserved rather than covered up. If Caesar himself believed the condition had a sacred aspect, he might have been content to let others ascribe it to him.

Caesar's case, if truly epilepsy, would stand as one of the earliest recorded instances of a prominent leader with the condition, showing that his "falling sickness" did not stop him from conquering armies or governing Rome.

Despite the strong case for epilepsy, some aspects of Caesar's condition have troubled historians. Notably, as mentioned earlier, his seizures appear to have begun later in life (around age 50). While not unheard of, idiopathic epilepsy usually manifests earlier. This has led researchers to ask: might Caesar's late-life "epilepsy" have actually been a symptom of a different underlying problem?

Alternative Diagnoses: Strokes, Heart, or Other Ailments

In recent years, scholars have re-examined Caesar's symptoms through the lens of modern medicine and raised alternative explanations. The key alternatives include cardiovascular episodes (such as strokes or transient ischemic attacks), chronic illnesses like malaria or parasitic infection, or even a brain tumor.

Each theory attempts to explain the same set of ancient observations, sometimes better fitting the late onset and nature of Caesar's episodes. Here we explore these competing hypotheses:

i) Mini-Strokes (Transient Ischemic Attacks): A leading modern theory posits that Julius Caesar suffered not from epilepsy, but from a series of minor strokes. In 2015, two cardiologists, Dr. Francesco Galassi and Dr. Hutan Ashrafian, published an analysis arguing that Caesar's symptoms – vertigo, dizziness, limb weakness, and falls – align more closely with cerebrovascular events than with epilepsy (source: theguardian.com).

They point out that it is somewhat unusual for epilepsy to suddenly develop in a man in his 50s, whereas strokes or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) become more common with age. TIAs are brief episodes of neurological dysfunction caused by temporary loss of blood flow in the brain (essentially "mini-strokes"), which can cause fainting, confusion, weakness in limbs, or even brief convulsions – symptoms overlapping with epileptic seizures.

Galassi and Ashrafian note that Caesar had episodes of "limb weakness that on occasion caused him to fall over," as well as dizziness and vertigo according to ancient descriptions. These could be explained by transient reductions in brain circulation.

The doctors also reinterpreted specific incidents: Caesar's collapse at Thapsus, for example, might have been a TIA triggered by stress and exertion, rather than a seizure. His failure to rise in the Senate (which others attributed to either arrogance or a fainting spell) is seen as potentially a result of a momentary ischemic attack leaving him briefly too weak or confused to stand.

They find further support in Caesar's reported depression and personality change in his final years. Personality changes can result from cumulative brain damage due to multiple small strokes, whereas epilepsy per se does not typically alter one's personality or cognitive abilities between seizures. Galassi was quoted saying, "All of the symptoms reported in Caesar's life are compatible with him having multiple mini-strokes," and that this theory is "simpler and more logical" than late-onset epilepsy.

Additionally, the cardiovascular hypothesis considers Caesar's risk factors. Was it plausible for a 50-something Roman general in apparently good physical shape to have strokes? Galassi and Ashrafian argue yes. They point out that heart disease and stroke are not exclusively modern problems – examinations of Egyptian mummies have revealed signs of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) even in ancient populations (source: bmcr.brynmawr.edu).

Romans, including aristocrats, could suffer from high blood pressure or cholesterol issues depending on diet and genetics. Caesar, despite a vigorous lifestyle and a relatively healthy diet by Mediterranean standards, might have had a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease. In fact, Galassi and Ashrafian note the same family history discussed earlier in this article could indicate, not epilepsy, but inherited heart problems. Caesar's father dying suddenly could have been a cardiac arrhythmia or stroke.

They argue that even Caesar's family history of sudden death – rather than pointing to epilepsy – might point to hereditary heart disease or propensity for strokes. "There is the added possibility of genetic predisposition towards cardiovascular disease," they write, given the familial pattern. Thus, they propose Caesar's health issues were manifestations of vascular problems.

Their original article (published in Neurological Sciences in 2015) and subsequent 2016 book, Julius Caesar's Disease, make the detailed case for this theory. The stroke hypothesis garnered media attention and has reinvigorated debate about Caesar's health (source: bmcr.brynmawr.edu).

ii) Migraines or Inner Ear (Ménière's Disease): Another angle is that Caesar's episodes might not have been seizures at all, but severe migrainous attacks or a vestibular disorder. Earlier historians proposed that Caesar perhaps suffered from complex migraines that can cause dizziness, vomiting, and even momentary loss of consciousness. Migraines can sometimes present with stroke-like symptoms or fainting, although they would be an unusual explanation for the specific "falling sickness" description.

In 1957, a physician named Terence Cawthorne suggested Caesar actually had Ménière's disease, an inner-ear disorder that leads to vertigo, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and balance problems. Ménière's can cause a person to fall or become disoriented, especially in stressful situations, which conceivably fits Caesar's dizzy spells.

However, this diagnosis has not found much support. Later scholars noted that Cawthorne seemed to base his theory on Shakespeare's dramatization more than the ancient texts. Crucially, Ménière's disease does not account well for the "convulsions" or loss of consciousness described by observers, and it wouldn't explain the family history.

Thus, while migraines or inner ear issues were floated as ideas (and are mentioned by some scholars as possibilities), they remain secondary hypotheses with less evidence.

iii) Malaria or Other Infections: Caesar spent time in the East – notably in Egypt in 48–47 BC during his affair with Cleopatra and the Alexandrian War. Some have speculated that Caesar contracted malaria in the Nile region, or another infectious disease that could cause neurological symptoms.

Malaria, especially Plasmodium falciparum malaria, can lead to intermittent fevers and, in severe cases, cerebral malaria, which involves seizures and coma. If Caesar had a lingering form of malaria or related complications, it might have flared up with feverish fits or weakness.

Another idea is neurocysticercosis, a parasitic infection of the brain caused by the pork tapeworm, which was not unknown in the ancient world. This parasite can cause epileptic seizures years after infection. Scholars have indeed proposed that Caesar's Egyptian campaign might have left him with a parasitic infection in his brain, leading to late-onset seizures. However, there is no direct evidence Caesar had malaria (no mention of fevers or chills in the sources), and a parasite is purely conjectural.

These remain intriguing but unproven hypotheses; the ancient writers did not describe the kind of recurrent fevers one would expect if malaria were the culprit. Still, Roman historians did blame "Egyptian disease" for some ailments in other cases, so it was natural for some to wonder if Caesar "brought something back" from the East. Without more evidence, malaria or parasites are considered outside possibilities.

iv) Brain Tumor or Neurological Disease: A more dramatic proposal is that Caesar's seizures were caused by a brain tumor. This theory tries to explain the late onset of symptoms and the progression of both physical, and perhaps mental, changes. A 1995 article by J.G. Gomez, J.A. Kotler and J.B. Long asked "Was Julius Caesar's epilepsy due to a brain tumor?

The authors noted Caesar had headaches (though ancient sources don't emphasize headaches much, Caesar's busy life and letters do not record them, but it's assumed from context he may have had some) and personality changes toward the end – which could fit a slow-growing tumor in the brain's frontal or temporal lobe.

They hypothesized a meningioma (a typically benign but space-occupying tumor of the brain's coverings) or a slow-growing glioma could have caused new-onset seizures in Caesar's last two years.

Such a tumor might not overtly affect skull shape, but if it did, one might expect some distortion. Suetonius's description of Caesar's appearance mentions "shapely limbs, a somewhat full face" but nothing about an abnormal skull, except that Caesar suffered from baldness.

The 1995 study noted that examination of busts and coins of Caesar did not clearly show any skull deformity that a large long-term tumor might cause. (The Tusculum bust of Caesar (see image below), believed to be made in his lifetime, does show a slightly elongated head, but this is thought to be a realistic trait due to how his skull naturally was, not evidence of a tumor).

The conclusion of that analysis was, that while a brain tumor is an interesting possibility for Caesar's late-life epilepsy, there's no way to confirm it. If a meningioma had been present, Caesar's skull might have shown signs, but since he was cremated, we have no remains to examine. Nonetheless, the brain tumor hypothesis at least highlights that late-onset seizures usually have an underlying cause – if not strokes or infection, then perhaps a tumor.

Another modern paper even speculated about a brain arteriovenous malformation (an abnormal tangle of blood vessels) as a cause of Caesar's seizures, further illustrating the range of medical conjecture.

v) Psychological Factors or Feigned Illness: A more cynical take from a few historians (not widely endorsed it should be noted) is that Caesar could have faked or exaggerated his infirmity for effect. In 1937, a scholar named Jules Donnadieu proposed that Caesar pretended to have epilepsy as a political stunt – to excuse any public "lapses" and perhaps garner sympathy.

This theory doesn't have much evidence; it mainly springs from the idea that Caesar was exceptionally calculated. Donnadieu's suggestion is considered far-fetched, and many call it an "eccentric theory". It is unlikely Caesar would deliberately exhibit weakness in front of troops or the Senate, as that ran counter to Roman expectations of leadership.

There's also the possibility of stress-related episodes – that his collapses were fainting spells triggered by stress or orthostatic hypotension (sudden blood pressure drop). But given the descriptions (especially Plutarch's), outright fainting from stress seems less likely than a neurological event.

What Do Historians and Doctors Believe Today?

With several competing hypotheses on the table, is there a consensus about Julius Caesar's health? The short answer is no – not a firm one. The question of Caesar's ailment remains open to interpretation, and scholars often acknowledge the uncertainty.

Many classical historians still lean towards the epilepsy interpretation, as it is the straightforward reading of the ancient texts. The fact that two reputable ancient biographers explicitly reference what sounds like epilepsy is hard to ignore. In essence, historians acknowledge the new ideas, but often stick with the traditional view unless more evidence tilts the scale.

Medical and neurological experts are divided. Some, like Dr. Hughes in 2004, find the epilepsy diagnosis convincing and even map Caesar's family tree to a pattern of hereditary epilepsy. Others, like Dr. Galassi and colleagues in 2015, argue the stroke hypothesis fits better with late onset and the nature of the symptoms.

A 2010 article in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences titled "Julius Caesar's Late Onset Epilepsy: a case of historic proportions" discussed these possibilities without arriving at certainty (source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). It's fair to say the medical community finds it an intriguing case study in retrospective diagnosis, but as one review noted, "none of the available evidence is sufficient to suggest that the Julio-Claudians suffered from a hereditary disease" – cautioning that we simply lack definitive proof (source: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu).

One point of agreement is that we will likely never know for sure what afflicted Caesar. Since Caesar's body was cremated, no physical remains exist to allow modern forensic or medical examination. This contrasts with, for example, the remains of Philip II of Macedon (Alexander the Great's father) which have been studied to diagnose battle wounds. With Caesar, we are limited to textual evidence and our interpretations of it. As a result, even advanced medical imaging or genetic tests – which have been used on some historic figures – cannot be applied here. We are essentially doing educated guesswork.

Comparisons with Other Historical Figures

Julius Caesar's case invites comparison with other notable figures in history who experienced similar health issues, as it helps put his condition in perspective:

i) Britannicus (41–55 AD): The example of Britannicus, great-grandson of Augustus, is instructive. He had epilepsy from childhood – in the midst of a dinner, he famously had a seizure that Nero (his stepbrother) mocked, calling it the "sacred disease" in derision. Britannicus' condition was well-known in Rome and was used politically against him. Tacitus records that Agrippina (Britannicus' mother) feared mentioning his epilepsy publicly, as it might undermine his claim to rule.

In the end, Nero eliminated Britannicus (likely poisoning him at a dinner where he suffered a convulsion and died). This shows that while epilepsy was not necessarily shameful (it was "sacred"), it could affect a leader's image and succession.

Caesar's seizures, by contrast, came at the end of his career, so they didn't impede his rise – but like Britannicus, if they had been more frequent or earlier, they could have posed an issue for public perception.

ii) Caligula (12–41 AD): Caligula (born Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus) reportedly had epileptic episodes in infancy and perhaps in his youth. Suetonius in The Twelve Caesars mentions that Caligula as a child had a weakness for falling asleep or a kind of seizure in his early years.

Caligula grew out of any severe symptoms by adulthood (at least nothing is recorded during his reign regarding seizures), but some speculate his notorious behavior as emperor – volatile mood swings, irrational acts etc – could hint at neurological or mental illness. There's no clear evidence tying Caligula's insanity to epilepsy, but it's an example of another Julio-Claudian where neurological issues were recorded.

Comparatively, Caesar's demeanor remained rational and controlled; no ancient source suggests his mind was affected until possibly some depression late in life. This underscores that Caesar's condition, whatever it was, did not manifest in mental instability, whereas other figures like Caligula illustrate that not all ailments are created equal.

iii) Alexander the Great (356–323 BC): Alexander is sometimes brought into this discussion due to later assertions claiming he had "fits." While ancient biographies of Alexander, such as Plutarch's Life of Alexander, do not explicitly mention epilepsy, there is a tale that, as a child, Alexander once collapsed frothing at the mouth after diving into a river – a story of dubious validity.

Some medical historians have retroactively posited Alexander might have had epilepsy because his mother, Olympias, allegedly did, or simply to draw a parallel with Caesar. However, mainstream historians find little concrete evidence for Alexander having epilepsy. He endured extreme hardships and injuries, but no recorded seizures.

The comparison persists largely because both Alexander and Caesar were world-conquerors, and it can be inspiring to note that even had they shared a neurological condition, it did not impede their conquests.

iv) Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821): Moving to a later era, Napoleon was rumored to suffer epileptic attacks as well, although this is contested. Contemporary accounts mention Napoleon had "falling sickness" in youth after severe anxiety, and that he had a fainting episode during the Coup of 18 Brumaire (1799) which some observers thought was an epileptic fit (source: jamanetwork.com).

Modern analyses of Napoleon's health suggest he may have had both psychogenic seizures (stress-induced non-epileptic events) and true epileptic seizures, possibly related to the intense stress of battle, and possibly a prior head injury.

Even so, Napoleon's alleged epilepsy - like Caesar's - never stopped him from commanding armies across Europe. If both cases were true, it's remarkable that two of history's greatest generals might have shared this neurological vulnerability. It also demonstrates how difficult it is to diagnose historical figures – debates still rage about Napoleon's medical issues (ranging from epilepsy to stomach cancer, which likely killed him). Caesar's situation is similarly debated, and likely always will be.

v) Modern Parallels: In more recent times, plenty of leaders and influential figures have had significant health challenges. For instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States from a wheelchair due to polio. Winston Churchill suffered strokes while in office. These cases show that a determined individual can rule despite physical illness, sometimes keeping it hidden from public view.

Caesar's seizures, if they were mini-strokes or epilepsy, appear to have been relatively infrequent – perhaps only a handful of incidents over a few years. He was able to carry on his duties; in fact, right after the North African campaign (where Thapsus occurred), Caesar proceeded to Spain to fight another battle at Munda in 45 BC. Any health episodes did not stop him from this grueling schedule.

It's conceivable that had he not been assassinated in 44 BC, his condition might have worsened or become more known, much as Churchill's strokes became an issue late in his career. But Caesar's death cut short any further progression of the illness.

Conclusion

So, did Julius Caesar have epilepsy? The balance of historical evidence suggests yes, he probably did suffer from what the Romans identified as epilepsy. However, modern medical retrospectives raise the valid possibility that his "epilepsy" was a misdiagnosis of another condition.

It could be that the truth lies somewhere in between: Caesar might have had seizures caused by an underlying problem like cardiovascular disease or a parasite. Unfortunately, lacking a time machine or Caesar's DNA, we cannot arrive at a final diagnosis with absolute confidence.

Julius Caesar's medical mystery remains a fascinating footnote to his life. Ancient writers clearly document that he endured some kind of ailment in his later years – described as fainting fits, "the falling sickness," or seizures. Traditionally, this has been interpreted as epilepsy, and there is strong evidence to support that diagnosis, from the terminology used by ancient Roman writers, to possible hereditary patterns.

Modern medical knowledge has expanded the discussion, suggesting Caesar's symptoms could be explained by mini-strokes or other conditions rather than idiopathic epilepsy. Each theory – be it epilepsy, stroke/TIA, infection, or tumor – finds some support in the scant historical details, and each has its difficulties.

Ultimately, without the ability to examine Caesar directly, our conclusions must remain probabilistic. Both historians and physicians use the tools of their trades – textual analysis and medical knowledge – to reconstruct what might have happened. The result is a richer understanding of the possibilities, but also a recognition of the limits of our certainty.

What we can say with confidence is that Caesar's condition, whatever its exact nature, did not define him. It was a footnote in a life filled with outsized accomplishments. If anything, the image of Julius Caesar suffering a seizure or collapse in between winning battles and governing Rome adds a poignant human dimension to his story. It reminds us that behind the legend of the undefeated general was a man who had to deal with sudden bouts of physical weakness.

In that sense, Caesar's story intersects with those of other great individuals who overcame health challenges. His legacy does not hinge on whether he had epilepsy or strokes, but the question has provided an enduring puzzle that connects ancient history with modern science.

In conclusion, the consensus (to the extent there is one) leans toward the view that Julius Caesar likely experienced epileptic seizures in his later years, but we must remain open to other interpretations. The debate itself – drawing on sources from Plutarch to modern neurology journals – showcases the interdisciplinary curiosity that Caesar's life still ignites.

Over 2,000 years later, we find that even in examining his health, "I came, I saw, I conquered" continues to hold true: Caesar's story conquers our imagination, inviting us to diagnose the dictator perpetuo long after his death.

Whatever the true cause of his "falling sickness," it is a testament to Caesar's fortitude that he led Rome to glory, while privately bearing a burden that would fell lesser men.