Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Julius caesar theme response on leadership
Leadership traits and principles
Different aspects of leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Julius caesar theme response on leadership
In Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar, the use of diverse leaders plays an important role in the plot, showing vividly how strong personalities conflict. This is the case with Brutus and Cassius, the two leaders among the several conspirators. The story of Julius Caesar is set in ancient Rome during a time when Julius Caesar is to become king. This, however, angers Cassius, a nobleman, and he plots with Brutus and others to kill him before he becomes king. They do just that, justifying their actions by saying Caesar was too ambitious and would have gone insane with power. This backfires with the Roman citizens after an emotional speech by Mark Antony, Caesar’s right hand man. This forces the conspirators to flee Rome and go to war with Antony and eventually take their own lives. Because of their great leadership qualities, Brutus and Cassius take the leader roles among the conspirators. Nevertheless, they at times do argue over the course of action. Though Brutus and Cassius are both similar in that they are great leaders, their differences in character are instrumental in determining the conclusion of the play.
Despite their differences, Brutus and Cassius have similar traits that give rise to great leaders. Both Brutus and Cassius are noble, intelligent men. They usually have good intentions and understand the situation they are in. This is why they both agree to go along with the conspiracy to kill Caesar. The two also like to think out and plan their actions. They do this two significant times in the play. When the two plan Caesar’s assassination and during the planning of the final move for Brutus and Cassius’ army. When the assassination is developing, Cassius thinks to kill Antony as well as Caesar saying, “Mark Antony, so well beloved of Caesar, Should outlive Caesar. We shall find of him A shrewd contriver; and you know his means, If he improve them, may well stretch so far As to annoy us all. Which to prevent, Let Antony and Caesar fall together” (2.1.157-162). Brutus, however, responds with his own reasoning, “Our course will seen too bloody, Caius Cassius, To cut the head off and then hack at the limbs, Like wrath in death and envy afterwards; For Antony is but a limb of Caesar” (2.1.163-166). They two are also self reliant and self-dependent. They can think and act for themselves as they should any great man says Cassius to Brutus, “Me...
... middle of paper ...
...derable differences in trust and loyalty are the ultimate factors that influence the conclusion of the play. Both of these characters have great qualities such as intelligence, self-dependence, and reasoning ability that make them excellent leaders. It, however, is their differences that govern the end result of the conspiracy. The single most outstanding decision of the play was when the conspirators resolved not to kill Antony along with Caesar. Brutus’ overwhelming trust of Antony led him to believe Antony was not going to be a problem. There are many implications of leadership as seen in Julius Caesar. Those who tend to exhibit strong leadership characteristics will have much more impact on those who tend to stand back and fall into the crowd, even if the decisions being made are illogical. When two strong leaders interact, there usually is a disagreement on the course of action, which can be harmful for the group. The strong characters of Brutus and Cassius, and the weaker conspirators, prove both these conclusions.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." Houghton Mifflin Company. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston, 1994.
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar.” Elements of Literature: Kylene Beers. Austin: Holt, 2009. 842-963. Print.
les of this when he is attempting to manipulate Brutus to join the conspiracy. Brutus gives us the impression that he is very indecisive and hesitant; we also see that he is very quiet and that Cassius overrules him in the conversation; we do however go on to find out that Brutus isn’t really like this. In Act 2 Scene 1, we see Brutus’ true characteristics; he takes charge of the conspiracy and he is very commanding; Cassius steps down. Cassius is overwhelmed by Brutus’ character and has to let Brutus take over. In Act 4 Scene 3 we see some negative
When Brutus says, “Let me not hinder, Cassius, your desires” (1.2.35) it is clear that Cassius has swayed Brutus to believe in his cause.... ... middle of paper ... ... Caesar passed up power, was generous, and was naive, which led to him to be killed by his best friend, Brutus, thus making Caesar an ineffective leader. In Julius Caesar, Machiavellian traits are manifested through multiple characters. Those characters who obeyed Machiavelli’s guidance were successful in achieving their goals; those who did not conform to the recommendations failed.
Throughout the play many characters are not who they turn out to be. Julius Caesar is a very good judge of character, he does not ruts Cassius, he says “ He thinks too much man, such men are dangerous”( shakespeare,1.2.195). Caesar foreshadows now dangerous Cassius is, Cassius is one person who stabs Caesar. Unlike Caesar, Brutus trusts people too much to see who they are. After Caesar 's death, Brutus trusts Marc Antony to give his speech, but Cassius says “ You know not what you do. Do not consent./ that Antony speak in his funeral. I know you how much the people may be moved/ by that which he will utter.” (shakespeare,3.2.333-335). Caesar was an amazing military leader, Brutus was not. Before Caesar becomes king, he gained land back to Rome “ Julius Caesar has just returned to Rome after a long civil war in which he defeated the forces of pompey” (applebee) Caesar led his military to victory and has the chance to take full control of Rome. brutus is a humble military leader company to Caesar. After Brutus won his battle over Octavius’ army, he left his men begin looting. Instead of helping Cassius’ army “ O Cassius, Brutus gave the word too early,/ who, having some advantages on Octavius/ took it too eagerly. His soldiers fell to spoil/ whilst we by Antony are all enclosed .(Shakespeare,5.3.5-8) Brutus had a bad call when he did not send his army to help Cassius. With Caesars flaw being
Two powerful leaders, one power hungry whose ambitious ideas lead to his downfall, the other mindful of people who deserve their higher positions. A true leader is someone who has a vision, a drive and commitment to achieve what's best. In the play written by William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Brutus and Caesar are one of the main characters. They demonstrate leadership qualities that are still relevant to today. They are both very ambitious characters; however, they do so for different reasons and differ in their openness to others. There are many similarities and differences that lie between them. Both are noble and great men with loyal followers and neither man questions the rightness of his own path. Both made crucial mistakes that resulted in their death. However, Caesar acts out of love for for himself, his country, and to retain his power as ruler of Rome. Brutus on the other hand acts out of love for freedom of Rome. This essay will discuss and compare their qualities as leaders as well as their styles and how they are effective/ineffective in the play.
Bell, Andrea L., and Katie A. Meinelt. "A Past, Present, and Future Look at No Child Left Behind." Human Rights. 38.4 (2011): 11-14. MAS Complete. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
Caesar and Brutus were truly noble people. Caesar was a dignified and courageous man. He gained his power through hard work and courage. However, Caesar was marked by a weakness: he wanted too much power. This weakness proved to be fatal in the play. Brutus, on the other hand, was a strong leader throughout the whole play. People listened to him easily and he showed his nobility by always being open to others. Despite his good character, he did make one fatal mistake in judgment. He killed Caesar thinking he would gain too much power, yet it was truly his friend Cassius’s jealously of Caesar that truly snared him into the conspiracy.
The No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001. It was not written by teachers, educators, or parents, but by legislators who did not have experience in education. The act was written because the government felt that students were not proficient enough in basic skills, such as reading level, fundamental math skills, as well as other subjects. The writers believed that every person should have the same education, which would produce the same outcome in each child. NCLB changed school curriculums to focus on their standardized tests, which would ultimately evaluate how well the teachers, school districts, and students are performing. Arne Duncan, an American education administrator, believes that “…NCLB holds all students to the same, challenging standards…” is the best way to explain the program in an unbiased perspective. To put it more harshly, “No Child Left Behind is a test-and-punish scheme that fails to deal with real problems in schools,” says Michelle Rhee, a chancellor in Washington, D.C. “[It] ends up dumbing down educational quality.”
As argued in “Making the Grade,” the No Child Left Behind Act seeks to reduce gaps in testing areas that have allowed kids to advance without having high-quality skills in subjects such as math and reading. By discovering what kids are slipping through the gaps in testing, it will be easier for schools to aid these students and make sure they are not left behind. Other main goals of this act include to find teachers who are not well educated in the subjects they are currently teaching, and to locate those schools who fail t...
Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. Elements of Literature. Ed. Edwina McMahon et al. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1997.
The ambition possessed by each character, leads Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius to power. It will be the same ambition, that quest for power, that makes each one susceptible to their own weakness. For Caesar, it will be his ego and inability to heed warnings, Brutus his love of Rome, and Cassius his dedication to power. These qualities prove that although intentions may be noble, ambition can make a person ruthless and blind them to their original goals. Ambition kills those who lose sight of their conscience and although it may prove beneficial in many instances, in this case, it leads the characters to lose all that they
Honor and power is what drives the conspirators to assassinate Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar. Caesar is now the single leader of Rome, and members of the Senate have concerns that he will abuse his sole power. Therefore, they plot and accomplish the assassination of Caesar in an attempt to rebuild the balance of Rome. Rome falls into chaos with an unknown future with no central leader for the people to follow. In Act I, Scene 2, Cassius, a member of the Senate, explains to his friend, Brutus, that Caesar is not the god he makes himself out to be. Instead, he argues both he and Brutus are equal to Caesar and are just as deserving of the throne. Cassius’ speech to Brutus diminishes Caesar’s godly demeanor through
Brutus’ tragic flaw was his perception that all men were identical to him in their motives. This factored allowed his decisions to be easily influenced by others whose motives were devious. Cassius was able to convince Brutus to join the conspiracy because Brutus thought the only reason behind the conspiracy was to prevent one man from becoming “Rex.” He allowed Antony’s speech to occur because he was sure that Antony was motivated by the same “honor” which motivated himself.
Shakespeare, William. "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." Houghton Mifflin Company. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston, 1994.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is an intimate portrayal of the famed assassination of Julius Caesar and the complex inner workings of the men who committed the crime. In one particularly revealing scene, two of the men closest to Caesar, one a conspirator in his murder and one his second-in command, give orations for the deceased. Despite being simple in appearance, these two speeches do much of the work in developing and exposing the two characters in question. Though both have a love for Caesar, Mark Antony's is mixed with a selfish desire for power, while Brutus' is pure in nature, brought to a screeching halt by his overpowering stoicism. These starkly-contrasted personalities influence the whole of the play, leading to its tragic-but-inevitable end.