Although Gaius Julius Caesar was a prominent figure in the history of Rome- well-known for his unprecedented actions while in power such as becoming dictator for life among others- people debate whether his death was justified or not. Some argue it was not justified because there were not enough reasons to kill him despite becoming dictator for life, while others argue that it was justified because there was a possibility that he wanted to become a king. The latter represented a strong reason to kill him because since Rome became a republic, one of its main aims has been to punish harshly those who exhibit a potential of gaining too much power and turning the republic into a monarchy. However, I believe Caesar’s assassination was not morally …show more content…
justified but it was politically justified. It was not moral because of the people who killed him, yet it was politically correct because this has been the way in which the Senate has reacted in almost all the cases in which people have tried to become the absolute leader or ruler of Rome. First of all it is important to take into account the fact that years before, Rome had to deal with Sulla who made several reforms and declared himself dictator as well, yet, when he finished with his reforms, he resigned his power, which is something that Caesar did not seem he would do as he said “Sulla was a fool when he gave up the dictatorship” (77) As a result, when Caesar started to do similar things as Sulla, the senate among others started to get worried that he could become another Sulla.
When Rome became a republic, the primary issue they wanted to avoid was having a person with too much power. Therefore, having Caesar now with this unlimited amount of power was definitely something to worry …show more content…
about. Additionally, Caesar began to act with insolence and arrogance, he mentioned: “men should now have more consideration in speaking with me and regarding what I say as law” (77) which proves his level of haughtiness. He received and accepted more honors than anyone else before. For instance, he had a month of a year named after him, he had a golden seat in the senate house, statues, altars, he was consul several times etc. He failed to rise from his chair when a senatorial deputation came to see him and Cleopatra and Caesarion came to Rome in 46 which could only “fueled suspicious that Caesar had it in mind to found a dynasty” (Talbert, 253) Consequently, many began to envy him, others fear that he would become king, and some followed him since he rewarded those that supported him. Furthermore, Caesar was a very smart man.
For example, instead of eliminating the monthly free grain he reduced the rations. He knew that if he would have abolished it “the blow to his popularity would be too great” (Talbert, 248) Also, he did numerous reforms that helped Roman citizens such as permitting tenants to pay no rent for a year. Such reforms allowed him to become even more popular among the population of Rome. Hence, when it comes to the occasions in which Antony offered a crown to him in public events and he did not accept it, I believe he was testing people’s reactions to this possibility of him becoming king. The fact that he didn’t accept it in several occasions does not mean that he didn’t want it, but rather that he was testing the waters to know if he had support or not, or if it was the right time or
not. For all reasons mentioned above, a group of conspirators against him decided to kill him. Among these were Brutus and Cassius who were pardoned by him when they switch to Pompey’s side in the first place. So it is ironic that those whom he forgave ended up killing him. However, it is also ironic that the conspirators killed Caesar but not Antony when the latter was as influential and dangerous as Caesar. The purpose of murdering Julius Caesar was to protect the republic from dictators, yet they failed to end with all those that represented a threat to it like Antony. In conclusion, Caesar was assassinated by the conspirators because the Roman republic was based on the idea that no one man should have the total power and control. Caesar was becoming too powerful and was taking their power away. They believed that Caesar was bad for Rome and that he would destroy it. Thus killing Caesar seemed like the way to go despite the fact that the outcome was not the one expected by the murderers.
Clearly, Caesar contributed significantly to preventing the destruction of Rome and therefore, he should not have been assassinated by the conspirators. Caesar should not be assassinated by the conspirators because they had personal reasons for hating him. Firstly, they hated Caesar because they were not trusted by him.... ... middle of paper ...
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, one must read the text closely to track the shifting motivations and loyalties of each character as the play progresses. An important factor that must be kept in mind while reading is the degree of loyalty, in other words, the degree to which characters act out of a motivation to help others. Throughout the play, each character's current degree of loyalty to others is clearly exhibited by words or behavior – this holds true for the characters of Brutus, Cassius, Antony, Portia, and Calpurnia. The focus on loyalty is critical because before the play ends an even-handed justice is meted out to a number of people who fail to live up to an expected standard of loyalty to others.
Would an honorable man murder his best friend? In William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Caesar started as an innocent citizen of Rome, but soon made his way to the throne. Caesar started bettering Rome, but certain men accused him of becoming too ambitious. The conspirators, the men against Caesar, brutally murdered him because of his “ambition”. Marcus Brutus was Caesar’s supposed best friend but led the revolt against him. Brutus is characterized in the play as being gullible, noble, and naïve.
I believe that this is justified because he continued to carry out many successes with little failures. Julius Caesar accomplished many other things other than his usual victories in wars. He wasn’t only brilliant in military strategy but he was superior as a statesman, a lawgiver, an orator and historian. Because he excelled in many other tasks besides military responsibility, is what I think sets him apart from the other candidates. He genuinely cared about the public and did what he could to help reform their society; in some ways he’s like a
middle of paper ... ... I personally believe that homicides can be justified in very few scenarios, but they can be, nonetheless. Pertaining to Caesar, I believe Brutus had a justifiable motive to kill Caesar, and the homicide, similar to the murder of Osama Bin Laden, was committed to stop a tyrant from gaining more power. Had Brutus let Caesar live, he would’ve become a sovereign, and all hell would’ve broken loose.
Have you ever thought about an assassination and why it occurred? Many people have been assainated for a number of reasons.Sometimes these assainations can be unjust and wrongful.One famous assaination was Julius Ceasar.Julius Casear was born July 12 ,100 BCE in Rome ,Italy.His parents were far from rich. He married Cornelia the daughter of Sulla a Roman general. Caesar went into the military to get away from Sulla because he wanted him to divorce his wife or give up his land.He soon returned after the death of Sulla.After returning from the military he began his career in politics.He was said to have one of the greatest intellects on military leadership in history. When he returned he started his military and political career. Julius Caesar assassination was unjustified because he was a great military leader who solved many economic problems; although people may argue he had too much power.
What is “Julius Caesar”? It was a play based on the death of Julius Caesar. This play was written by the playwright William Shakespeare. This play consisted, in my standpoint of writing this, two main characteristic of rulers. The question is what are the two main characteristics of rulers? The two main types of ruling characteristics that are expressed in this play are pragmatism and a man of principle. Now the question is what is better? A ruler that is a man of principle is better because this person is idealistic, has self-control, and is honorable.
Caesar’s power in Rome was growing, and people were afraid he was going to turn Rome into a monarchy. However, Caesar did not want to be known as a king, but he was appointed dictator for life.
...y was an unrivaled general, however Caesar, while a talented leader and tactician, rose mostly due to his family’s name. Crassus governed Syria and Pompey ruled Hispania, while Julius Caesar ruled over Gaul and what is now Croatia and Albania. This is just one of ways the Caesar before Shakespeare’s play opens displays his overwhelming ambition and green. After the death of Julius Caesar, Rome entered a period of unparalleled prosperity. Augustus assumed control of Rome and transformed it into a full-blown empire, which is what Brutus feared the most; however, that is not to say that Julius Caesar would have been would have taken Rome down the same path, thus Brutus’ decision, while impossible to prove, stands justified.
I know that Brutus is motivated by honor, weak, and doesn’t think strongly of his actions beforehand. Most of you know me for being close to both Caesar and Brutus. I also grew up with them as close friends, so I’ve known them for awhile now. Brutus held no grudge towards Caesar but was convinced to involve himself to kill his best friend without having some sort of communication for change. Brutus justified his death by saying he killed him because he cared about Rome more than Caesar.
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.
Caesar's Fate Brutus opens up by saying how Caesar needed to be killed before he was crowned. Caesar had not done anything wrong to Brutus, but Brutus just wanted what was best for the people of Rome. Brutus feels Caesar has all the power, but Roman people trust Brutus more. Brutus battles himself internally in what he should do, trust Cassius and help kill Caesar or keep living his life with Caesar getting crowned? For Brutus says “It is the bright day that brings forth the adder; And that craves wary walking.
There is a theory that if we were to see a clone of ourselves we would not be able to recognize them right away. We do not know what we look like in person. We have only seen our faces through reflections and pictures. However, those can be deceiving because our perception of how we look is different from how we appear in reality to other people. Similarly, Shakespeare uses the motif of eyes, mirrors, and reflections in Act 1 Scene 2 of Julius Caesar in the conversation between Brutus and Cassius in order propel the plot forward by using it as a way for Cassius to convince Brutus into murdering Caesar as well as spur the reader to think about good and bad in society and whether an unjust person can perform an unjust deed.
From the beginning of time, men have always been coerced to do things they don’t necessarily want to do. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Caesar is killed in Act III ii. In the play, a group of conspirators, consisted of Roman men, devise a plan to kill him. Their main reason for this is to restore order back into Rome while possibly implementing a more democratic system. The justification of Julius Caesar goes so, Caesar needed to die because he became to much of a tyrant of Rome, he was ambitious while his intentions would have indubitably harmed Rome and finally he became a narcissistic and sadistic dictator who would have kept the Roman people and the city in enslavement and bondage.
Throughout history, the world has seen a copious amount of emperors, but Julius Caesar was a historic model to the society of Rome. According to McKay, Hill, Buckler, Crowston, Weisner- Hanks, and Perry, (2014), born in 100 B.C. to an honorable family, Caesar went to school and received an outstanding education, which he later advanced by studying in Greece with some of the famous Greek teachers we learn about today. Caesar’s first wife Cornelia was the daughter of the consul at the time, Lucius Cornelius Cinna. His original plans were to marry the daughter of a wealthy business class family, but considering he wanted to be the flamen he had to marry a patrician. Even though he fulfilled the requirements and married Cornelia, consul Cinna never