Don’t Judge a Book by It’s Cover
The word dictator commonly has a negative connotation. From Adolf Hitler to Mao Zedong, dictators are known for bringing pain and suffering. However, Julius Caesar might have not fallen into this category. The potential reign of Julius Caesar as king was a subject of great controversy in ancient Rome in 44 B.C. While the uneducated commoners celebrated Caesar, many members of the senate feared for the day he would receive the crown, for various reasons. However, overall, Julius Caesar was a good leader.
The first example of this is Caesar’s will. After Caesar’s death, Antony reads his will to the commoners of Rome. He tells the commoners that Caesar left seventy-five drachmas for each male citizen of Rome, and that he left his property, his gardens and orchards, to the public for recreational space. (Act III, scene ii, lines 232-234 and 237-241) This proves that Julius Caesar was a good leader because he gave his hard earned money, and his very home to his people after his death. He could have easily kept this to himself, or only shared it with …show more content…
This argument is supported when Brutus explains to the commoners of Rome that Caesar was too ambitious to have total power over Rome; that if Caesar would have been given that power, he would have enslaved all of Rome. (Act III, scene ii, lines 23-25) However, this judgement was merely speculation created by senators and other figures of authority in Rome. Antony tells the commoners multiple times that Brutus said Caesar was ambitious. (Act III, scene ii, lines 85, 92, and 97) However, Brutus never provided any evidence as to why Caesar was ambitious. Therefore, in saying this, Antony is telling the commoners that Brutus and the Conspiracy claim that Caesar was ambitious, yet, as they gave no evidence to prove this, are really only expressing what they believe, and therefore only killed Caesar on a suspicion at
The word dictator commonly has a negative connotation. From Adolf Hitler to Mao Zedong, dictators are known for bringing pain and suffering. However, Julius Caesar might have not fallen into this category. The potential reign of Julius Caesar as king was a subject of great controversy in ancient Rome in 44 B.C. While the uneducated commoners celebrated Caesar, many members of the senate feared for the day he would receive the crown, for various reasons. However, overall, Julius Caesar was a good leader.
The first example of this is Caesar’s will. After Caesar’s death, Antony reads his will to the commoners of Rome. He tells the commoners that Caesar left seventy-five drachmas for each male citizen of Rome, and that he left his property, his gardens and orchards, to the public for recreational space. (Act III, scene ii, lines 232-234 and 237-241) This proves that Julius Caesar was a good leader because he gave his hard earned money, and his very home to his people after his death. He could have easily kept this to himself, or only shared it with …show more content…
This argument is supported when Brutus explains to the commoners of Rome that Caesar was too ambitious to have total power over Rome; that if Caesar would have been given that power, he would have enslaved all of Rome. (Act III, scene ii, lines 23-25) However, this judgement was merely speculation created by senators and other figures of authority in Rome. Antony tells the commoners multiple times that Brutus said Caesar was ambitious. (Act III, scene ii, lines 85, 92, and 97) However, Brutus never provided any evidence as to why Caesar was ambitious. Therefore, in saying this, Antony is telling the commoners that Brutus and the Conspiracy claim that Caesar was ambitious, yet, as they gave no evidence to prove this, are really only expressing what they believe, and therefore only killed Caesar on a suspicion at