Is The Monarchist Approach On Government The Right Way?

Julius Caesar (100-44BC) was one of the greatest men produced by ancient Rome and he remains today a famous personality in world history (Barlow 2005). The conspirators were wrong to murder Julius Caesar in three ways. Firstly, they were morally wrong in the removal of Caesar. Secondly, they failed to consider a practical benefit to Rome in the murder of Caesar, resulting in only more problems. Lastly and most importantly, the conspirators were wrong to murder Julius Caesar because they placed their interests before those of Rome.

In the determination of whether Julius Caesar was an intelligent, political hero or an egocentric, dictating villain, it is important to look at all of the facts. Born in 100 B.C.E. and assassinated in 44 B.C.E., Julius Caesar was legendary. He along Pompey, and Crassus created the first unofficial Triumvirate which was negotiated to appease both the Roman citizens and the power hungry rivals. Still, this agreement would not last long. After Pompey’s wife, Julia Caesar and daughter of Caesar’s daughter given to Pompey to establish the Trimvirate, dies in childbirth, civil war breaks out as Caesar leads his army against Rome. He fights until Pompey is murdered in Egypt. As Rome is “shattered,” Julius Caesar one person should rule. He

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This illustrates the theme in the historical play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Julius Caesar was a man full of arrogance and he had a sense of being self-absorbed. This kind of personality lead to bad things, it eventually led to death. Caesar was a well-known man in Rome. The people of Rome didn 't care what he did. Everyone thought he was perfect. I ii 273 He was married to a woman named Calpurnia. She lived in Rome. At the beginning of the play, Caesar just had defeated Pompey. I i 53 Some of the people in Rome knew that Caesar was getting into deep trouble. Brutus had to make a big decision towards the end. Everyone wanted Brutus to kill Caesar because he was never going to change his personality. He didn 't know what he should do, he didn 't know what is best for Rome.

First, in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For example, in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Flavius says,“Be hung with Caesar’s trophies. I’ll about and drive away the vulgar from the streets.” (1.1.71-72). To clarify, Caesar is being celebrated because Pompey has just been defeated and Romans are celebrating but Flavius does not like Caesar's actions. Furthermore, after the death of Caesar one could concur that his final will was an act of corruption. For instance, when Antony reads Caesar’s will Antony reads, “Here is the will, and under Caesar’s seal: to every Roman citizen he gives, to every several man, seventy-five drachmas.” (3.2.243-25). Caesar leaving money to every citizen demonstrates he might want the citizens to rebel over his death. In conclusion, Caesar became corrupt because of the power he gained.

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.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

A republic, like Rome, moves at a maddeningly slow pace. Legislation is put through a system of checks and balances where rivals debate ad nauseum over proposed policies. In a perfect world, this ensures that only which is most beneficial for the state and her peoples becomes a reality. A Tyrant, however, can accomplish a great deal in only a short amount of time. A good leader, like Augustus, can propel his people forward unhindered by the chains of a republic. The Roman people, according to Tacitus: “prefered the security of the current regime to the dangers of old” (Yardley 2008, 3). Even if it lacked freedom, many were willing to submit to an empire if it meant stability and security.

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

Unlike the common view of leaders, the potential leaders of Julius Caesar are not necessarily nice or giving. However, sometimes that is necessary. In the play Julius Caesar, a long tale of leadership shows the true qualities of the greatest leaders. Where the reader finds themselves started is at the point which Antony and Caesar, the overconfident leader of Rome, are discussing people around them. This discussion boils to a point in which Antony and Caesar discuss the possibility of Cassius being a threat to Caesar. Later, readers find Cassius is indeed a threat, as he and multiple others, including Brutus, stab Caesar to death. Antony then brings Caesar’s body to the multitude, and with a great speech inspires a hatred for those who wrongfully stabbed him. At the next point Antony is seen, he and Octavius are the new rulers of Rome. These two comrades go and finally eliminate the last of the traitors, Cassius and Brutus, in a battle that cements the two as the new leaders of Rome. Throughout all these actions, one man particularly showed that he should control the Roman Empire. Antony was created to be Rome’s leader in Julius Caesar, where William Shakespeare gave him inspirational abilities, persuasiveness, and fearlessness which are unparalleled.

Cicero's basic viewpoint held that Rome was held together as a Republic because of the rule of the Senate, not the rule of one King or one Man. Cicero opposed the idea of Julius Caesar taking on more and more power and authority, because he saw this as diminishing the authority of the Senate. The Senate, Cicero thought, was the representative of the "people of Rome," and the discourse and disagreement during debate allowed for more egalitarian rule than that on a central figure. The rule of Rome, than, was based on "a man who is held worthy of defending"¦. Cannot be deemed unworthy of the constitution itself." This, and the idea of being born a common person, allowed Cicero to believe that it was the oratory and intellectual skills of the individual

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.

By ignoring the decrees of the Republic in an effort to become an autocrat, he undermined the Roman political system through murder, deceit, and lawlessness. However, moral integrity is not the only thing lost by Gaius Julius Caesar.

Power is a natural desire for humans. It is what structures society, makes the world turn, and to get more of it, people will do almost anything. Yet society often follows whoever is in power without a second thought. Because the Romans follow whoever is in power without considering that person’s morals and ideals, they are responsible for the anarchy that ensues after Caesar’s death.

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most well known in the history of Roman Emperors, yet there is no denying that his reign was filled with controversy, no reason more so than his devious rise to power and his mischievous ways of suppressing the senate. There is no doubt that in ruling as a Dictator; Caesar lost the support of the Roman people, who had fought for freedom against an Etruscan King, a role in which Caesar was playing. His death in 44BC coincided with what many believe to be the year in which the Republic completely its eventual ‘fall’ that it had been plummeting to since 133BC, and it is only by looking at the differences in the end of his reign to that of Augustus’ in 27BC that

     Specifically, Caesar’s problem was that his arrogance made the men closest to him feel threatened, mad and jealous. Caesar acted like he was better than everyone else, and he made others feel insignificant, even though they were great and noble also. “Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men /Walk under his huge legs and peep about/ To find ourselves dishonorable graves.” (I.ii.135-138) Cassius feels like he shouldn’t have to feel so small next to Caesar, and Caesar thinks he is better than everyone. Caesar talks to everyone like they are nothing compared to him, and he talks about himself as though he could never be questioned, which is basically a dictatorship. Rome was a Republic and the idea that one man could rule it as a king was a threat. Cassius points out, “When could they say (till now) that talked of Rome, that her wide walks encompassed but one man” (I.ii.154-155). This is a reference to the fact that Rome should never be a dictatorship, but a democracy. This is the point that convinces some of the men to move against him. They feel they had to do it to protect Rome. Additionally, Caesar acted so