Julius Caesar Decision

Salad. A Caesar Salad. Stabbed like a salad twenty-three times. Who was responsible for Caesar’s murder. Julius Caesar had reached the highest point in his life for Rome as a dictator. While some were rejoicing, others were planning, planning the murder that would change Rome forever. According to my findings, Cassius Brutus, and the Senate are responsible for this devastating murder.

Two powerful men remained, racing to get through the gate first. Many people feared a civil war would erupt. With fear of civil war, the Senate demanded both men to disable their armies. Pompey decided to listen in the hopes that he was in the Senate’s good graces, and he knew that Caesar was not. He gave up his army knowing that if Caesar did not, that Caesar would be declared an enemy of the Empire.

Though Pompey sought power by manipulating the political system to his own advantage, the fact that the Senate was already weak and hence gave him this power.This shows that although Pompey’s actions were detrimental to the fall of the Republic, he was not the sole contributor. Pompey was both underage and had held none of the required offices, yet the Senate passed decrees exempting him from these traditional prerequisites, thus allowing for him to be joint consul with Crassus in 70 BC. According to Cicero, “absolute power” was what he had sought, and thus this ambition had nothing to do with “the happiness and honour of the community.” This reveals a callously ruthless dimension to Pompey, in that he would undertake any measure to achieve his own goals. However, it should also be noted that Cicero’s interest areas are sometimes narrow and deliberately, or accidentally selective. By reaching the top without any previously held positions of consequence, Pompey the Great had manipulated the political system to his own advantage. Thus, by doing so he undermined the Senate, reiterating its insignificance and weakness.

In the exciting play, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare describes the intense emotion and tension of an event that changed the Roman empire forever. Julius Caesar, the main character, is brought up to two opposing arguments, one from his wife and the second from his colleague, he must decide whether or not it is a smart decision to go to the Senate House or not. Julius is tested by his two weaknesses: his ego and superstition. Conclusively Caesar decide to side with Decius,his colleague, and go to the Senate House. Decius’s argument is much stronger because he addresses Caesar as more than just a husband, but as a strong leader. Decius also states that Caesars political goals are much more important than the relationship with his wife.

But the safety of the commonwealth must not be too often allowed to be risked on one man. As long as you, O Catiline, plotted against me while I was the consul elect, I defended myself not with a public guard, but by my own private diligence. When, in the next consular comitia, you wished to slay me when I was actually consul, and your competitors also, in the Campus Martius, (Cicero, Catilinarian I, V)

Brutus, in Act II Scene I of William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, delivers an intrinsically-directed speech regarding the future of Caesar’s reign. He contemplates within himself what possible solutions there are in event of a downturn in Caesar’s attitude towards power, concluding that the only method of maintaining Rome’s greatness is to kill Caesar. In Brutus’ speech, he claims that, upon the occurrence of a difference arising in Caesar’s separation of power and compassion, Caesar must die in favor of the Roman people. Furthermore, the claim made by Brutus is classified as a claim of policy due to the fact that Brutus asserts that a change has to be made. This claim is qualified by Brutus’ use of the word “must” in the statement, “it must be by his death;” the connotation of “must” leaves very little room for doubt. Brutus asserts with the use of the aforementioned word his complete security in the validity of Caesar’s killing. However, this claim is not founded on sufficiently concrete evidence that a deed such as murdering the king may be carried out.

5. The third plebeian’s cry of “Let him be Caesar,” (3.2.52) is ironic because, while the people do not know of the truth being the conspiracy, the goal was to take out Caesar, not replace him. While their quest seems successful, the true hardships have yet to begin.

My fellow senators, if I may begin by bringing attention to the issue at hand. We speak of Catiline and his crimes, and what should be done to defend Rome from his devious plots of insurrection. I have heard several of his followers speak before me, and they seem to disregard the accusations against the very man that leads them. His proposals are not the matter we are currently discussing. How can you speak of highly of reforms without voicing defense of the man who proposed them? He, who has been accused of attempted assassination upon our presiding magistrate? Even worse, he denies his involvement in the face of his failure. Unlike the brave Gaius Mucius Scaevola, Catiline will not show honor by thrusting his hand into the fire and facing these accusations as a true Roman should. Instead, he proves himself to be a coward by hiding in claims that the assassination was never attempted; or, at least, not by him.

1) Judging from the events in Act I, the political mood and behavior of the Romans are best described how?

He describes how the people will think he is a coward for not going, and how he would receive the crown if he went. The arrogant Caesar changed his mind in a heartbeat, blinded by his fear of looking foolish.

Brutus tells the people that allowing Caesar to rule and fulfill his ambition would mean the end of democracy and freedom in Rome, alluding to the fact that Caesar’s motivation may have been faulty. Antony tells the Plebeians that they should not disapprove of Brutus and his actions, however they still should remember Caesar for the great leader and war hero that he was.

But for the general. He would be crowned./ How that might change his nature, there’s the question,” (II, i, l 10 - 14). He struggles with this decision, rendering him sleepless and avoiding eating and talking. But believing that others are also afraid of Caesar’s ambition made him believe there was good reason to bring him down.

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

Playwright, William Shakespeare, wrote The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, a piece written in 1599, about the ill-timed death and avengement of Julius Caesar. After the death of Caesar took place, highly-ranked nobleman, Marcus Brutus, attempted to persuade the Roman people that the conspirators’ dire need to kill Caesar was for the sake of Rome. A good friend of the late Caesar, Mark Antony, counters Brutus’s argument by giving a speech that persuades the citizens that Brutus is terribly wrong by addressing the gruesome way in which Caesar was killed, and then flaunting the generosity of Caesar. The Roman citizens become outraged that their humble leader was brutally killed, and they evidently turn against the conspirators and start a civil war. In William Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by comparing and contrasting the elements of direct evidence, rhetorical questions, and emotional appeal, it is clear that Mark Antony’s speech at Caesar’s funeral is more effective than Brutus’s speech in persuading the Roman citizens on whether or not Caesar deserved his untimely death.

At the start of the timelessly classic play, Julius Caesar was in the final stages of parlaying his military prowess and growing cult of personality into enthronement as the long absent autocrat of Rome. His brother-in-arms, Marcus Brutus, after fighting at Caesar’s side for so long, was forced to weigh his loyalty to Caesar against his loyalty to Rome, setting the stage for the troubling events to come. As Caesar’s divine right to rule and infallibility were trumpeted throughout Rome, others were not so convinced of his purity and worthiness. Cassius, a dissident Senator, opened Brutus’ eyes to the circumstances unfolding before them and to what could be lost should Caesar take the throne. Cassius voiced his opposition strongly, saying: