Julius Caesar's Responsibility for His Own Death in William Shakespeare's Play

that the war won’t be restored occurs when he says he isn’t afraid. “He knows the sniper will fire

Julius Caesar's death was a Tragedy. Ironically the play name is The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, so of course it was a tragedy. Caesar's death is caused by his personality and himself, if he had lived, there would be more tragedy in Rome than if he died. In the Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Caesar dies due to the conspiracy’s beliefs on killing him being right, and how he ignores the warnings of his death. Proving that his personality got in his own way, and would have lead to future chaos in Rome.

Julius Caesar, a Roman general, dictator, and leader, is considered to be one of history 's most influential and powerful rulers to this day, in which his rise to power, conquest of Europe, and controversial downfall all remain to be told during modern days. The play Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare, portrays the events leading up to Julius Caesar’s assassination, and how those who conspired against him banded together and plotted Caesar’s demise. Many of those conspirators assassinated Caesar due to his quick rise to absolute power, his “acts” of disrespect against the senate such as his failing to stand to receive the title of becoming a “god,” and pure jealousy and anger towards Caesar’s success and rule over the Roman empire. Caesar, an ambitious man, was able to conquer many lands and peoples for Rome through successful military campaigns in which he became one Rome’s best generals due to the amount of successful battles he had won and the amount of blood he had shed for Rome’s expansion. However, Caesar’s trait of ambitiousness would prove to be a double edged sword.

They were characterized by despair. This is because of several reasons. The kings had the rights and serfs were farmers and could be called to war.Most of them were miserable. There was also a weak system and government. Feudalism became the main type of government. Also the Vassals challenged the king's authority. They did this also so they could gain power. King john also lost power and had to sign a document. This stated he could not tax without permission. He also could not break the laws now. There was a lot of war. There were 100 years of war. This caused taxes and hurt the lower class. This also hurt the jews. The christians blamed the jews for Jesus’s death. Then there was the plague. The plague was caused by rats with fleas this killed

William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar is one of his most monumental plays that cover Julius Caesar’s death and the fallout after it. He got the material for this play from a Greek writing called the Life of Julius Caesar. This was actually a famous biography written by Plutarch in the first century, I was later translated by Sir Thomas North in 1579. Published in 1599 this play is assumed to be the first to be ever preformed in the famous Globe Theater, it was a smash success that moved audiences. This play has stood the test of time being regarded as a timeless masterpiece and work of perfection. Shakespeare did this by displaying deep moving characters, vibrant and astounding settings, and intriguing points of view in Julius Caesar.

The topic of leadership in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar has been discussed and argued ever since the play was written. The most prevalent discussion of leadership in the play revolves around Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Marcus Brutus, and the cause of his downfall. According to Shakespeare critic James Bundy, “Brutus... is a man whose affections sway more than his reason, in whom there is this tragic confederacy of passion and imagination against reason” (qtd. in Palmer 402). Ernest Shanzer, however, says that Brutus is “by no means devoid of political shrewdness and practical wisdom”, but he is a “bad judge of character” (Shanzer 1). Although both critics’ descriptions of Brutus have merit, Brutus’ shortcoming, as well as the success of the opposing leader, Mark Antony, is more accurately explained using the observations of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince. In this book Machiavelli outlines the characteristics of a successful leader. When using The Prince as a lens to read Julius Caesar, the correlation between a leader’s Machiavellianism and their success becomes very apparent. Marcus Brutus is undoubtedly an honorable and respectable man, but his morality prevents him from adhering to Machiavelli’s principles. Due to his lack of princely virtues, Brutus is doomed to fail, while Antony, a much more Machiavellian prince, successfully seizes power.

Well, honor is the subject of my story. I cannot tell you what other men Think of this life, but for my single self, I had as lief not be, as live to be In awe of such a thing as myself” (1.2.90-96.). Brutus goes through with killing Caesar,but talks the men out of killing Mark Antony out of the belief he has done nothing wrong. Caesar believes he has done the correct thing and has saved the people of Rome from a corrupt leader, and he performs a speech to the people of Rome explaining his actions and why he murdered Caesar. This leads to his downfall in the end, because the act of not killing Mark Antony creates a war that is order to kill Cassius and Brutus.

There have been many rulers in history who have been betrayed by those they trust, but The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (William Shakespeare,1959) still holds a special place in Western literature as one of the most enigmatic human beings to ever exist. Powerful men like Julius Caesar shaped the life and times of the late Roman Republic, just before Rome would officially become the Roman Empire on the crowning of Augustus as the first Roman emperor. Julius Caesar was a powerful general who expanded Rome's power and who was beloved by the people for his generous charity after his successful conquests. Despite knowing the story of Julius Caesar to some extent, most 16th/17th century English would not have ever visited Rome, nor would know what the Roman Republic was like, which presented a unique opportunity to William Shakespeare to create a play unlike any other he had created before. (Shakespeare Julius Caesar, 1599) Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is a reimagining of Rome from a Elizabethan point of view, and despite some inaccuracies, the play depicts an enlightening view on Roman life, and the life of the Roman general, Julius Caesar.

Should Julius Caesar have been killed? This question has plagued history for years without a real answer. Julius Caesar was corrupt and all powerful, and his death saved Rome. It really is that simple; he declared himself dictator for life and ignored the Senate’s power. A man with that much power can only hurt a nation.

thinking he is in love with Rosaline (a lady whom we never see). It is

He encourages people to stay away from entering war because he feels there is no need to put yourself into that type of intensity and stress.

In Act One Scene 1, Cassius had created a secret club of people to over-run Julius Caesar. Cassius did this because he wasn’t fond of Caesar’s actions. Cassius, Cinna, and Casca want Brutus to join because he is very popular and wealthy. Many people look up to Brutus. It’s possible that if Brutus joins the club, his followers would support him and help over-run Caesar, they’re going to need as much support as they can get. “Three parts of him ours already, and the man entire upon the next encounter, yield him ours.” Act 1, Scene 3, PG.30)

I do not believe the conspirators were just in assassinating Caesar. One could argue they were at fault for killing Caesar due to the fact that he denied being crowned not once, but three times. I think the conspirators were overreacting to Caesars following. I feel as though the conspirators had enough control over their politics and the general public to further limit Caesars power and actions if he ever was to take power of Rome.

In 1599 the famous English writer, William Shakespeare, wrote the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. The story takes place toward the end of the Roman Republic in 44 BC in Ancient Rome. The play follows the words and actions of the Roman senators, plebeians and their emperor Julius Caesar. As the story begins, readers find out the many of the senators are not pleased with Caesar as a ruler of the Roman people. Two characters, Brutus and Cassius are especially passionate about killing Caesar to end his rule. Through discussing plans and creating alliances, the senators get their way and murder Caesar on the foreshadowed Ides of March. One question that comes up while reading the play is was Caesar’s assassination really justified by the murderers? Although he did show signs of hubris, or excessive pride, Caesar’s assassination by the conspirators was not justified because their reasons were based on theories and biased opinions, Caesar was a good man, and his murder was committed for the good of the people killing him and not for the good of Rome.

First and foremost, Julius Caesar’s tragic flaw was that he was too arrogant. Which because of that lead to his death by the conspirators consisting of his closest politicians and generals. At the very minute finishing the book, I immediately thought that Julius Caesar should have taken the crown the three times he was offered it. However, he chose not to so he could gain more of a better opinion to the eyes of the people in Rome. Which I believe from the text of the play is how Julius Caesar intended to play his actions. Based on the reading, Brutus and Cassius don’t believe that Julius Caesar was the king to the throne. Brutus feared for his people that they would “Choose Caesar for their king.” (Shakespeare 36). Brutus and Cassius believed