Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.
The conspirators were wrong to kill Julius Caesar because he contributed to the upturn and reformation of Rome into an orderly state. Caesar reformed Rome and prevented Rome from demolition. For instance, Caesar "reorganized the town governments in Italy, reformed the courts, planned to codify the law to improve administration. Besides that, Caesar brought peace and stability to Rome. Evidently, Caesar successfully stopped the civil wars in 45 BC. This allowed the Romans to live in harmony and collaborate on improving their country. It appears that Caesar's death marked an epoch in Roman history where civil wars were once again resurrected. Furthermore, Caesar introduced social and economic reforms. In his process of ameliorating Rome's social condition, the provinces became richer as the Roman businessmen were restricted from exploiting them. This is crucial because a country's capital is strongly related to the government's stability. Besides that, the poor were helped when he established a public works programme, which provided employment to them. 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, ...
... middle of paper ...
...for the Romans. Besides that, he conquered Gaul (modern France) and defeated his rival Pompey in the civil war of 49-45 BC. By doing so, he managed to bring peace to Rome and also expanded Rome's provinces. Caesar proved himself as a potential leader, whom the Romans agreed after the conspirators killed him.
In conclusion, it is clear that the conspirators made a wrong decision to assassinate Caesar because of the following reasons: Caesar recreated Rome, conspirators had personal motives in his assassination, he did not force the Romans to give him honours, the conspirators' failure in gaining freedom for the Romans, Caesar's position as the Chief Priest, monarchy was the best government available, the conspirators' wrong judgement in killing Caesar, and Caesar was a consummate statesman. Caesar's death caused cataclysm in Rome and made the Romans suffered more.
The Conspirators did not even wait to see if Caesar would become the evil dictator they believed would come out of him. They moved too fast with their actions and did not give Caesar the opportunity to be a possibly great leader of Rome. Without proof and evidence of these things they
Augustus officially brought Rome into imperial status. Julius Caesar climbed the governmental ladder and ended up as the consul and eventually, dictator for life. When he was killed, all hope for the Roman Republic to be cured and survive was lost. By killing him, the senators ensured that the Roman Republic would either fall or continue to be corrupted. Had Julius Caesar not been killed, the Roman Republic could have been revived and cured of corruption, and the Roman Empire might never have existed.
Julius Caesar however, did enjoy his standing power which could be construed as an unfavorable account to his political image, which was quoted as such in the article “This act, along with his continual effort to adorn himself with the trappings of power, turned many in the Senate against him.”(The Assassination of Julius Caesar, 44 BC) This power which Caesar possessed could have given him an inherent selfish attitude and support the outcome that Caesar was egocentric. In an article written called “Plutarch: The Assassination of Julius Caesar, From Marcus Brutus (excerpts) Translated by John Dryden, the account of the assassination was similar. This article shows that Julius Caesar very much in power and needing to be stopped for the betterment of the Republic of Rome due to his arrogant leadership was essential. His political agenda was longing in power and control, however Caesar still had followers who conceded in his proposal or else too scared to take opposition. An article written and titled “Julius Caesar: Historical Background” shows facts very similar to
In the account, “The death of Caesar”, written by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Caesar's biographer (c.70-c.135). Portrays Caesar as a “selfish dictator”. Author Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus writes that not only a few had conspired to kill Caesar but in fact sixty had joined (“Lives of the 12 Caesars”). The conspirators united “since even the general populations were no longer pleased with present conditions [under Caesars rule]” (“Lives of the 12 Caesars”). By foreigners being allowed into the senate, the population begun to believe Caesar had become an oppressive and cruel ruler, no longer for the “commonwealth” and asked for aid in their liberty both secretly and publicly (“Lives of the 12 Caesars”).
Basically Caesar had many people disagree with his actions so they assassinated him.
Julius Caesar was a very influential figure in Roman history. Many features of the Roman Empire came from his reign as dictator. But what, specifically, were some of those great achievements? In this research paper, I will explain Julius Caesar’s youth, the Roman Republic before Caesar came to power, the Roman government before Caesar became dictator-for-life, the effects of Julius Caesar, the reasons for his assassination, and what affects there were when the public learned about his assassination.
After the murderous confrontation, it was not too late to prevent the anger of Caesar’s allies and the citizens or, even, to avoid future civil war. But it was here that Brutus made his second and third mistakes. Marcus Brutus rose before the Roman populace and attempted to offer a justification of Caesar’s murder. His flawed judgment came when he deemed Antony trustworthy and allowed him to speak at Caesar’s funeral. Brutus naively let Antony draw the mob in his favor. No one could dare refute Antony’s impassioned pleas in behalf of Caesar.
From 100 BC to 44 BC, Julius Caesar changed Rome through his rise to political power, conquest, feuds and assassination. Over time Caesar gained acclaim through his multiple political roles in Rome such as Pontifex, governor and Praetor, leading him to become dictator. He formed an alliance with Crassus and Pompey that ruled Rome for seven years, but led to a civil war later on. Julius Caesar conquered many countries that helped him change the map such as the conquest of Gaul. Caesar played a vital role in the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Empire, which cause him to be assassinated and make rise to Octavian as the next ruler. All of these aspects are what allowed Julius Caesar to change Rome.
The conspirators thought they should kill Caesar because he was ambitious, and he certainly was. His conquests brought wealth and slaves to Rome. He was often seen with tears in his when
Caesar is all about conquering power and he is afraid of nothing. Before he is murdered, he says “The things that threatened me ne’er looked but on my back. When they shall see the face of Caesar, they shall vanish” (II, ii, 575). This shows how his mind is only set on killing others to get rid of a problem.
When Caesar died,he was stabbed 23 times by the senate and his best friend Marcus. All because they did not like the choice he had made. That's misguide because after Caesar died Rome's history changed from being horrible to being good. All because of Julius Caesar and how he impacted people's lives. This shows that Caesar did something good when he still was alive and how history changed from
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
One source states, “The conspirators kill Caesar because of his egotism: as republicans, they fear he will become a dictator”(“Shakespeare ’s World of Death”p. 76). Brutus, Cassius, Casca, Cimber, Decius, Metallus, Lagarious, and many others were involved in the stabbing. His death is so tragic because he never would have thought that his best friends would betray him.
The assassination of Julius Caesar was due to his increased power and the senate’s fear of losing political relevance. They were losing their freedoms and thought the only way to resolve this problem was to kill Caesar. Killing Caesar never really did anything to help make the government a democracy like the senate had wanted. Marcus Brutus and Cassius ended up leaving Rome, so their plot did not do anything to help them. Caesar was the leader of Rome, the top of the Roman Empire. The people he thought he could trust most, his so-called friends, took him to the bottom of the Roman Empire, to his grave.
First of all, the reason Caesar was assassinated was because of his arrogance. He showed that when he crossed the Rubicon towards Pompey to start a civil war, which was treason. Just little things like that made him unpopular with the senate. His arrogance, consequently, got him killed because he had a note that told him that he was going to be assassinated at the senate meeting. Therefore, his ignorant