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.
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 elected himself as the dictator of Rome. He became a favorite to many of the people of the lower classes. Unlike many leaders, Caesar valued the poor. Most people agreed with his decisions, but some of the higher classes’ did not. On March 15 44 BCE, now called the Ides of March, a few of Caesars’ closest peers decided to murder Caesar. Marcus Brutus killed Julius Caesar, on March 15.
He was making needed reforms and did good things for Rome. When they assassinated Caesar they opened a door to corruption and less order. While Caesar wasn’t in the Plebian class because of all his wealth and power, he made changes that many of them liked. Caesar was true to his people and that’s why he was well liked. He treated them all with respect. With such a well-liked leader assassination or murder of him will make many angry and without such reasoning the Conspirators are left in a troubled
Julius Caesar was unquestionable a cunning Politian as portrayed within historical documents, even though the events were documented after the accounts of his rule materialized there are still numerous theories about his political ability’s and how he was viewed by the people he governed. This paper is intended to present the reader clear vision on how Julius Caesar was viewed during his dictatorship of Rome. Was Julius Caesar a selfish dictator or model politician? There will be five diverse source accounts of the events which will be examined for similarities and differences based on the historical evidences.
In the account, “The Assassination of Julius Caesar”, written by Marcus Brutus, does not much speak on Caesar himself but by the will of so many whom conspired against him gives the impression that Caesar was seen by the majority as a “selfish dictator”. Although is seems as though he was not thought of in high regard...
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.
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.
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.
THESIS STATEMENT: The assassination of Julius Caesar was due to his increased power and the Senate's fear of losing their political relevance. PURPOSE STATEMENT: Through critical analysis and research, it has been shown that Caesar's gain in power worried the Senate. INTRODUCTION: On July 13, 100 B.C., Gaius Julius Caesar was born into a family that was proud of being patrician.
Caesar was sole consul and at times acted like a king. The senate did not like this because the Romans held the tradition of a hatred of kings. It was then that the senate believed that Julius Caesar was a threat to the Republic. The senate and everyone liked Caesar, but they had decided that the best way to save the Republic was to assassinate Caesar. This was yet another piece of the game that was pulled out of the structure of the Roman Republic. Yes, the Romans were able to destroy the person that they thought was the threat to the Republic, but it was the position not the person that was the threat. With Julius Caesar gone, the void was still there for someone to fill.
Julius Caesar is remembered as one of the greatest military minds in history and credited with arranging the basis for the Roman Empire. Caesar’s military brilliance bought Rome more land and more power, which led into the increase of size and strength of Rome. Caesar’s dictatorship helped the strength in Rome. Julius Caesar was assassinated which lead to a monarchy that was ruled by Octavin. Caesar’s death caused an effect to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Many people today in the 21st century try and follow the greatness of Julius Caesar. The assassination of Julius Caesar was a tragedy with the contributions Caesar made to strengthen Rome’s success.
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
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.
Ultimately, Caesar’s pride helped cause the end of his life. He was so self-absorbed and so confident that Decius was telling him the truth that Calpurnia’s dream was taken the wrong way. Noble Caesar believed the Roman citizens loved him and that he was their lifeblood, but really they wanted him gone. It is possible that Caesar would have been killed by the conspirators another day, but since he did not listen to what the soothsayer and his own wife had to say, he was tragically taken for
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