Julius Caesar Analysis

Julius Caesar is very much a warrior and he thinks that he is above every one else and that he is more than an ordinary man. As a result he is very arrogant and takes very little notice of the people around him. As far as he is concerned, they are meaningless and not worth his time. He believes he is honourable but really is not. In a way he wants to be trusted and to be a trusted leader of the Roman people but he is very unwilling to do anything to gain trust. Ordinary people have a great deal of respect for Caesar and probably believe that he would be a good, powerful leader who has Roman's troubles at heart. Caesar probably believes those things as well but he is ruthless and he craves power. He also believes that everybody likes him

Julius Caesar is unwilling to believe several warnings that could have saved his life. Julius Caesar was warned many times by many different people and yet

There have been many famous leaders in Roman history but none could match Julius Caesar[See Figure 1]. Julius Caesar was born on July 13, 100 BC in Rome and died March 15, 44 BC in Rome. Julius Caesar is best known for his military mind and how he laid the framework for the Roman Republic. One of the quotes he is famous for is "I came, I saw, I conquered." Caesar has not just influenced Rome, he also influenced the world too. The Roman Calendar was rigged to help political purposes. Caesar devised a new Calendar called the Julian Calendar to combat that manipulation[See Figure 2]. The Calendar still has an influence in Eastern Orthodox Christian countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Greece and much more. That is only one out of many

1. When Caesar says that Cassius thinks too much, I agree. Cassius tends to look into the details and over think simple situations. He becomes very meticulous about how the group of the conspirators is organized. Also, while Cassius is the one who originally comes up with the idea of the conspiracy and that he wants Brutus to be in charge, he thinks through the plan, yet does not want to take responsibility. Cassius just about argues with himself, due to too many thoughts running through his mind. He thinks about so vile a thing as Caesar! But, O grief, where hast thou led me? I perhaps speak this before a willing bondman. Then I know my answer must be made. But I am armed and dangers to me

Brutus is a betrayer. He stabs his best friend, Caesar after conspiring against him with a group of others. However, many people would disagree on my opinion. They say that Brutus was doing what was right for his country and that he HAD to stab his best friend to save Rome.

A death of a hero; the fate chosen for the protagonist in most dramatic tragedies. Though, in William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’, there are two characters that are given this outcome; Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus. With the most potential, the self-titled, Julius Caesar possesses the characteristics that label him as this Tragic Hero. Caesar’s tragic flaw is hubris when he acknowledges himself. The insight of others that observe Caesar, prove his high ranking. Caesar also struggles with internal conflict when he makes key decisions in the play. By examining his tragic flaw, high rank, and internal conflict, Julius Caesar is clearly the tragic hero in this tragedy.

His craving for power was the secret ingredient for the cake he was baking. “After weeks of fighting Vercingetorix, facing starvation, is forced to surrender” (Campbell) Weeks and weeks had to pass for someone to surrender and even though Caesar´s men were suffering the same hunger as their enemies Julius didn´t even think about surrender. He just wanted to prove he was stronger than Vercingetorix was and not only some of his army died because of starvation or simply because their bodies gave up he also left women and children die because he didn´t let them in his shelter for protection. But even though he left all those people dying he was still an exceptional leader.

“Julius Caesar”, a play by William Shakespeare, constantly is unclear about who is in the right and provokes ambiguity, yet sometimes, it evokes deep pathos and divides the audience into two parts based on the audience’s personality. There were many choices to be made in the text; most of the important one’s , such as Caesar’s, are decisions that can swing in both directions. This also applies to the first scene of Caesar’s triumph. On the contrary, the moving speeches of Brutus and Antony at Caesar’s funeral will divide the audience into two. Without emotions, most events are ambiguous, but as sentiments allow the text to connect more personally with the audience, a rift is created within it.

The Shakespearean play featuring a man being stabbed 23 times to death, “Julius Caesar,” is quite unique in many perspectives, because unlike most plays, this play has a plot that deals with controversial events, leaving the bulk of the readers in a state of ambiguity and division. The scene where Julius Caesar was stabbed is ambiguous, because it is a good thing for the people, but the way he was murdered is much too brutal. Whether or not Brutus should have joined the conspiracy to kill Caesar divides the audience, since it is unclear if it was beneficial or detrimental to the people of Rome. The audience is also divided on their perception of Caesar, due to his actions that could be interpreted as both arrogance or confidence. These three points demonstrate that the play’s flexible plot line opens itself up for the audiences’ own interpretation.

Mahatma Gandhi once said “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” This quote illustrates the idea that man must live longer with his conscience than with a simple decision made in a courtroom. The distinction between right and wrong must be derived from one’s morals, not the rulings of the state. This concept of conscience conquering law can be applied to works of literature such as the Sophocles’ Greek tragedy Antigone and Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men.

In the play by William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar is the dictator of Rome. The Senate of Rome is not pleased with Caesar as a dictator; nor do they want Caesar to become a King. Some members of the Senate, Conspirators, worked to kill Caesar to prevent him from becoming king, in effort to protect the Republic of Rome. Because of the way Caesar had bettered Rome and the way he died many consider him a tragic hero. It is debated who the real tragic hero is: Julius Caesar or Marcus Brutus, a conspirator who plots to kill Caesar. To be a tragic hero a character must possess three traits: a status of nobility, a tragic flaw, and accept his or her fate. Throughout the play it is clear that Julius Caesar has all of the required traits. Julius Caesar is the true tragic hero in the play.

William Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, is generally focused on the assassination of Julius Caesar. Caesar valued Rome highly and did not have any intentions of abusing personal power. On the other hand, Brutus and Cassius craved power and their way of pursuing it was to assassinate Caesar. Moreover, Brutus feared that Caesar would rule as a tyrant which, he thought, would not be best for Rome. Brutus supposedly foresaw that Caesar would rule, but not with the desire to treat his people fairly.

The universe is full of events that occur for reasons that can not be explained in full certainty until the day we die, and until then we may only speculate their reason. Depending on who is asked, they may say that we are slaves to fate, or deciders of our lives by choice. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar shows both of these possibilities throughout the play. The lives and deaths of the characters are dictated by these forces and how they live can be analyzed from both sides. The story is a case split between bad choices causing death, and the fate to die.

In Machiavelli’s novel “The Prince” it gives a brief theory to how leaders should rule or control there land, government, and society. The novel explains that life is not a fairy tale, but a cruel place where only the careless succeed into to leadership by following his theory. The use of Machiavelli’s advice can be seen manifested in Shakespeare’s novel Julius Caesar where a character uses careless actions to take down Julius Caesar. In Julius Caesar, three characters show similar actions that represent many attributes used in Machiavelli’s novel The Prince. In this essay, the characters are compared upon there similar actions and what rules were used.

Some people may say that Caesar is the tragic hero, but his ambitions and ego get in the way of doing what’s best for Rome, so some people may say otherwise. An example of Caesar’s ego is when he said, “ I am constant as the Northern Star”, this means that Caesar believes that he is so important that everything revolves around him. This also means that he can’t be moved and he thinks his choice is right and doesn’t want to hear anyone else out. An example of Caesar’s ambition is saying, “ Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much: such men are dangerous”, this shows how he fears the educated, the ones who will act out when Caesar tries to become the dictator. He resents people who will stop his fame and glory, the ones who grow with