Octavian and Marc Antony- The Duel of Words and Deeds

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.

       In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, although Marc Antony is allowed to make a speech at Caesar's funeral, he must not speak ill of either the conspirators or Caesar.  Antony was infuriated with Caesar's assassination, and wants to seek revenge on his killers as well as gain power for himself in Rome's government.  He must persuade the crowd that has gathered that Caesar's murder was unjust, and turn them against Brutus and Cassius.  He tries to stir his listeners' anger, rousing them into action and yet say nothing bad about his enemies.  Marc Antony uses several persuasive devices in his speech, which allows him to successfully convince the citizens of Rome to turn

Marc Antony, Brutus, and Cassius are all critical characters in William Shakespeare’s famous play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Due to their distinctive personalities and values, there is no trait that all of these characters share, although they do share some traits with one another. Firstly, Marc Antony and Cassius are manipulative in nature, while Brutus is not. Secondly, the root of Brutus and Cassius’ failure is their personality flaw, while Marc Antony proves strong in all the ways they prove weak. Lastly, Antony and Cassius, unlike Brutus, do not separate their private affairs from their public actions while acts only with honor and virtue and completely ignores his personal concerns.

In the arising chaos of Caesar’s death, Mark Antony, Octavion, and others fought a series of five civil wars, which would end in the formation of the Roman Empire. The Roman middle and lower classes, with whom Caesar was popular, became angry that a small group of aristocrats had killed Caesar, especially after Antony gave a dramatic applause that appealed to the common people, a reflection of public opinion following Caesar's murder. About 43 B.C, the second triumvirate was formed between Octavion, Mark Antony, and Lepidus. Sometime after 43 B.C, Afterward, Mark Antony married Caesar's lover, Cleopatra, intending to use the fabulously wealthy Egypt as a base to dominate Rome. A third civil war broke out between Octavion and Antony. This final civil war resulted in the final ascendancy of Octavian, who became the first Roman emperor, under the name Caesar Augustus, a name that raised him to status of an idol.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

However, he felt his duty was to carry on Caesar's reign and clear his name. Therefore he joined the Second Triumvirate and became a great leader.

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

Octavian, while seeking after numerous procedures like Caesar's, he managed his enemies in a more successful way. Octavian too went into a Trium viral agreement in 43 B.C. with Marc Athony and Lepidus, this time an open understanding ratified by the Senate. Given control, the Triumvirate chose to issue a proscription against their political foes, such as Caesar's conspirators, a procedure utilized beforehand by Sulla. Notwithstanding expelling their political foes, a proscription would give truly necessary financial help to the Triumvirate from confiscated assets. The proscription prompted numerous deaths. Subsequently, Octavian was without big enemies inside the city of Rome. Both Roman custom and political strategy directed that Octavian

The first triumvirate was and alliance between three prominent politicians, Crassus, Pompey and Julius Caesar. The Roman historian Livy described the First Triumvirate as 'a conspiracy against the state by its three leading citizens'. The agreement was unofficial and private. It was formed in the summer of 60-59 B.C. The first triumvirate however is a bit misleading in name. Not only was it never called that by the contemporary Romans, but it was a far more inclusive factio (faction) than the term triumvirate implies.

Octavian enabled the long, nonviolent time of the Pax Romana, (Latin for Roman peace) by changing Rome from a frail, collapsing republican government to a powerful empire. He is known as the first, and one of the greatest, Roman Emperors ever. Octavian was born on September 23, 63 BC, and died in 14 AD. Born with the name Gaius Octavius Thurinus, he was adopted posthumously by his great-uncle Gaius Julius Caesar via his will, and then was named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This happened in 44 BC when his great uncle, Julius Caesar, was assassinated by a group of conspirators. Additionally, he received the name “Augustus” a term meaning “the revered one” from the Roman Senate in 27 BC. Because of the various names he had, it is

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

In this paper, I will discuss the historic events of a Roman coup as written by Gaius Sallustius also known as Sallust. Early Rome, according to Sallust’s best knowledge, was built by two groups of people, exiled Trojan soldiers under Aeneas and native aborigines without government or law. For a time after the founding of this settlement, they prospered and no ill intents of human nature toward another were found. As the city continued to grow in wealth, size, and number it was soon the envy of neighboring kingdoms who were wrought with greed. The Romans having held ground and won these neighboring kingdoms through battle, established a city founded on monarchy law and created allies with nearby kingdoms. After the seed of tyrannical rule was developed Rome changed government and appointed two rulers with annual power, the king and the senate. Now as Rome was under new command of the usurper Sulla the Roman army, for the first time, indulged in women, drink, material wealth, and riches. Now these plagues of sin have taken hold of young romans and continued their destructive paths to conquer the minds of all Rome. This was the setting for Sallust’s history about the

The Second Triumvirate was a “formal magistracy legally appointed which could dominate the Senate and the State” (Scullard) and would prove to be the final straw in an already failed Republican system. The Roman Republic was ruled by a Constitution, which relied on a balance of three elements; The Senate; the Magistrates; the Assemblies. When the balance was upset either by ambitious magistrates, armies or tribunes then civil war was the result. The Senate proved ineffectual in preventing the Second Triumvirate from unbalancing this concept thus the played a significant role in the Republic’s fall. The Second Triumvirate, like those before them, had been able to take advantage of a vulnerable Senate to achieve their own personal aims in defiance of the Senate. The lack of faith in the Senate, which was present for this period of time, was what granted the Second Triumvirate to be the final push in the fall of the Republic. The Sullan legacy continued to be displayed in unlawful acts conducted by this three-man rule. Marc Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus all knew the significance of having an army at their hands and wealth that would ensure two things for them, power and civil war at the hands of conflict. It is therefor known that the Second Triumvirate played a significant role in the fall of an already fallen Republic.

The tragic and untimely death of Julius Caesar, a condemned Roman tyrant, triggered William Shakespeare's creativity. In his play Julius Caesar Shakespeare writes of the treacherous conspirators, Marcus Brutus and Caius Cassius, and their plans to assassinate their Roman leader, Julius Caesar. The story continues to explain how Caesar's loyal friend, Marc Antony, helps avenge the brutal murder. After Antony receives soldiers to fight his battle, his character begins to change. The  fair and faithful Marc Antony transforms to a darker and more deceitful character. Marc Antony is not suitable to rule Rome because he holds a grand desire of great power, his conceit

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