While I was going through the rest of the responses, I was worried that I would have nooone to argue with... The rest of the class has masterfully built the case on why Caesar must not have been killed. However, for this response I will try to rebut every point that George raised, just to eliminate any competition.
For a long time, Caesar has been considered a practical, kind, caring, wholesome leader. However, that was only because he was brutally murdered by a group of conspirators just before he was proposed as emperor for the fourth time, the one he would probably accept. He had denied the crown thrice either due to pure leadership skills (depicts him as a successful public figure), or due to actually not being ambitious. I am not stating …show more content…
If he did, I do not believe that he would use Brutus, the right hand of his key opponent, Pompey, as an advisor. So it is clear that Brutus is open to other opinions, at least in politics. It should not interest us what he did in anecdotal examples of his every day life, but what he did as a leader and a politician. Even if he was not open-minded, Rome was always a democracy, so if he gained enough support for his different opinions -but, last time I checked, Brutus did not have any big differences in his policy with Caesar- he would have been able to influence Rome's government through democratic means, Rome's institutions. Killing off his political opposition is never the (right) way to go.
After that, Caesar was actually a murderer. Julius Caesar was undeniably a mass murderer, due to his campaigns such as the Gallic wars. He even attacked the Roman Republic to have an unrivalled position of power and influence. Caesar was relentlessly and restlessly campaigning and was planning even more campaigns that were eventually cancelled due to his death. Personal feelings aside, a mass murderer, even nowadays in a few regions, is punished by death. What made Julius Caesar special? Nothing is the answer to that. From a humanitarian view, he deserved to die the way he did, maybe a bit less
For a long time, Caesar has been considered a practical, kind, caring, wholesome leader. However, that was only because he was brutally murdered by a group of conspirators just before he was proposed as emperor for the fourth time, the one he would probably accept. He had denied the crown thrice either due to pure leadership skills (depicts him as a successful public figure), or due to actually not being ambitious. I am not stating …show more content…
If he did, I do not believe that he would use Brutus, the right hand of his key opponent, Pompey, as an advisor. So it is clear that Brutus is open to other opinions, at least in politics. It should not interest us what he did in anecdotal examples of his every day life, but what he did as a leader and a politician. Even if he was not open-minded, Rome was always a democracy, so if he gained enough support for his different opinions -but, last time I checked, Brutus did not have any big differences in his policy with Caesar- he would have been able to influence Rome's government through democratic means, Rome's institutions. Killing off his political opposition is never the (right) way to go.
After that, Caesar was actually a murderer. Julius Caesar was undeniably a mass murderer, due to his campaigns such as the Gallic wars. He even attacked the Roman Republic to have an unrivalled position of power and influence. Caesar was relentlessly and restlessly campaigning and was planning even more campaigns that were eventually cancelled due to his death. Personal feelings aside, a mass murderer, even nowadays in a few regions, is punished by death. What made Julius Caesar special? Nothing is the answer to that. From a humanitarian view, he deserved to die the way he did, maybe a bit less