In the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, it is evident that Brutus would be a better leader for Rome than Julius Caesar. William Shakespeare produced his famous play Julius Caesar in 1599. The first half of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar takes place in Rome during 44 BC. It focuses on a group of conspirators who convince Brutus, a noble man who is like a son to Julius Caesar, to contrive their assassination plan against Caesar. The conspirators manage to kill Caesar on the Ides of March, 44 BC. The conspirators, especially Brutus, claim that the reason for Caesar’s assassination was Caesar’s ever-growing ambition for power. Brutus exclaims that Caesar’s assassination was necessary for the sake of a dictator-free Rome. The Romans fell for Brutus’ use of pathos and ethos in his speech and stood with him until Mark Antony, Caesar’s friend, exposed the conspirators as traitors …show more content…
When considering Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, some might think Julius Caesar would be the better ruler of Rome because of his generosity and leadership, yet Brutus would truly be the better ruler because of his patriotism, nobility, and honor. There are many reasons why people believe that Caesar would make a better leader for the Romans than Brutus, one of which is Caesar’s generosity. Caesar is an extremely generous person towards all Romans, especially his wife, Calpurnia, throughout the play. When Calpurnia begs Caesar to stay at home due to a terrible nightmare she experienced, Caesar responds by saying, “Mark Anthony shall say I am not well, and for thy humor I will stay at home” (2.2.59-60). Calpurnia manages to dissuade Caesar from attending the very important meeting, unknowingly saving him from the malice soon to come. A generous person, such as Caesar, listens to all Romans, which is why when Brutus tries to convince him to attend the meeting, he