Also it seems that the late politicians of the Roman empire had lost sight of what was most important: their empire. However, they only cared about how much power they had. Many of them plotted on how they could overthrow the emperor. They even fought each other over it when the time and energy could have been put toward fighting their enemies. They had only cared about power and money, even though that was something the Romans were running low
He did it all for the good of Rome. If he wouldn't have done any of this, Rome would've probably gone broke, or been taken over. If either of those things were to happen, Rome would've failed as a
Caesar himself documented a letter in 46 BC, stating his political aims to achieve ‘peace for the provinces, and security for the Empire’ (source 11). Although possibly serving as propaganda, Caesar essentially represents himself as champion of Rome. This did indeed occur, as Caesar established stability by establishing a uniform system of government among the provinces, and also reforming the tax system in order to reduce corruption (source 9). In addition, measures were passed in order to relieve debt and stabilise the economy, while the amount of senators was increased to 900, simultaneously increasing the number of praetors, questers and aediles (source 9). By increasing the number of senatorial positions, essentially, Caesar was transferring power to the plebeians, which is an obvious contradiction to claims Caesar was merely seeking personal glory, as his power was used to enhance
The Senate realized Caesar was going to be king for a long period, thus destroying the power of the Senate. The Senators intention was killing for the good, the integrity, and the survival of the Republic. They alleged that his power would end their representative government. By doing that, though, they brought on rule by strong emperors, which ended the power of the Roman Senate. This is shown by how the killers claimed the murder was the murder of a tyrant.
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar puts the definition of honor and being honorable into a many of different perspectives. He makes the reader question who is and isn’t honorable. Was Brutus honorable, or Julius, or even Mark Antony? For me, the question has an obvious answer; Brutus was honorable and acted with respectable actions. He loved and looked after his country and had stopped at nothing to make sure that Rome was in the best state.
I believe that within the book Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare the most admirable character would be Brutus, while a virtuous man whose dedication to Rome outweighs his loyalty to Caesar, is a person marked by complexities. He is filled with doubt and extremely troubled over the choice, to kill Caesar who is a beloved friend for the sake of his country.
Keep Power or Kill If you believed that the only way to save your state was to kill one of your friends, would you? The character Brutus killed one of his friends in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar(JC) by William Shakespeare. Some people believe that he is a villain and only killed Caesar to keep his own power in the government. However many people think that he killed Julius Caesar to help prevent Rome from becoming dictatorship.
Therefore, to gain supporters, he raised the number of senators. His reasoning for this is selfish. It is understandable that he wanted supporters, but it is not fair to take away people’s rights to gain the size of an empire. Raising the number of members in the senate weakened the power of the people, which led to the end of a republic and the start of an empire. There is a lot of contradictory on whether Julius Caesar was a hero or a villain.
The Romans showed their love for Caesar in many places, and other characters show their fear of his popularity, with Brutus saying: ”Why are they shouting? I’m afraid the people have made Caesar their king.” Whether or not Caesar would have been a good leader, Rome chose him, and it should have been the right of the people to make the decision, no matter how bad the outcome could have been. For Brutus, Cassius, and the other conspirators to interfere was a great betrayal of Rome’s
He was also a great friend to all. With that being said, because all Romans agree with this fact, it
My friend Brutus, We have known each other for many years, and as your friend, I feel as though I have a duty to Rome to contact you about the issue at hand. We should not kill Caesar. Caesar has made many mistakes by making his law then decided to break it, gave Gaul's places in the senate-house, and even went against the state by marching on Rome. Though Cassius has convinced you to kill Caesar, I plead with you to reconsider. Killing Caesar is not what the people want, but is what the conspirators are tricking you into thinking.
Individuals, such as Cassius and Brutus, in the senate were afraid of having their power decreased because Caesar, as Brutus states, is an “unhatched serpent’s egg” (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 33). Caesar has the potential of becoming a danger in the senate members point of view due to the fact that Caesar is gaining all the glory from the Plebeians and being compared to a god. Many of the Plebeians do not respect or think highly of the senate members as in Act 1, Scene 1 the cobbler uses puns and jokes to address Murellus and Flavius. Thus, Caesar was murdered out of fear and jealousy and not his rising power and therefore making his murder not
This of course created civil war in which the senate of other leading generals disagreed with Caesar’s actions. But still the young Julius prevailed, he eventually defeated those who opposed him and with his belief that the republic would be served better with one unified ruler, he was appointed dictator by the state for a period of 10 years, (www.regent.edu. 6.). Julius never got to experience the full extent of those 10 years because, but a few short years later he was assassinated by multiple members of the senate, to include his good friend and confidant Brutus “et tu Brute,” (Shakespeare, Act 3 Scene 1). Even in the murder of Julius, the republic still felt it was very righteous in its actions, no one man should be bigger than all of Rome. The Republic should always come first, little did they know how personal the people of Rome would take the murder of Caesar, who had become in their minds and hearts Rome with a face to go with the name.
In the morning, I opened my door and saw five horses standing in the street. Then I saw people on the horses riding toward my house. I met them, face to face, they were as far as I could tell normal citizens. They were light skinned and light roman style robes that drooped down to they feet. One man said “ You, o mighty Marcus Junius Brutus the younger can help us defeat the evil that befalls all of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar.”
William Shakespeare based his play, Julius Caesar, on Caesar’s real story, but he changed many aspects of it in order to make it more of a tragedy. He did this for many reasons, but one of the most important reasons was that he wanted to highlight that Brutus was the real tragic hero in the story and not Julius Caesar. He had to change Plutarch’s original script in order to do this. Although in Plutarch’s story, Brutus possesses some of the characteristics of a tragic hero, there are still a few main points that are missing such as the way Brutus expresses his fatal flaw. While the murder is when Brutus made his grave mistake, his tragic flaw isn’t shown until he lets Antony speak at the funeral.
