Who Was Responsible For Julius Caesar's Death

Improved Essays
Julius Caesar’s Death

Is it okay to assassinate someone? World leaders have to face this decision every day. There have been some awful rulers around the world, but it is impossible to kill someone without there being consequences. When the U.S. decided to kill Saddam Husain, it caused chaos in Iraq which is still going on today. The same thing happened when the conspirators killed Julius Caesar. They rushed into it and didn’t think about the things that would follow after murdering him. Caesar had committed no crime and did not deserve to die so of course people were mad and they question the decision to kill him. Julius Caesar should not have been assassinated.
Julius Caesar had accomplished amazing things for Rome and was a great leader who did not
…show more content…
After Julius Caesar was murdered, Rome was in a state of chaos. A war broke out almost immediately after his death and Brutus, Cassius and many other were killed. It obviously was not a good idea to murder Caesar because the people of Rome questioned whether he actually deserved it. Once Antony had convinced them that Caesar did not deserve it they retaliated and attacked the conspirators. For a long time after that Rome still could not get back on its feet, and there were two civil wars back to back. There was so much chaos and destruction after Caesar was killed which proves that it was a bad decision to murder him.
In conclusion Julius Caesar should not have been assassinated. It is morally wrong to kill someone and it should be the last resort. There were better ways to handle the situation. There was also no reason for Caesar to be killed since he never actually did anything wrong. Finally, killing him just caused more trouble than before and it led to Brutus, Cassius and many others to be killed. Everyone would have been better off if the conspirators had of thought of these things before murdering Julius

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Caesar coming peacefully to Rome and yes maybe he would've been executed, but many other lives that didn't need to be taken for something so petty. Caesar being executed and dying honorable would've at least kept the citizens under control. Also the conspirators wouldn't be looked at so harshly and rioted against. Yes people would be upset and mourn Caesar however that way it would've been settled on more peaceful terms. That same act of Caesar crossing the rubicon started a gigantic chain of horrible deaths and uncontrollable riots.…

    • 998 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why Did Julius Caesar Die

    • 1220 Words
    • 5 Pages

    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.…

    • 1220 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the end, as in most Shakespearean tragedies, the death toll is immense and the conspiracy ultimately failed. The conspiracy responsible for the demise of Julius Caesar, did not succeed in their hunger for power; however, the small league did in fact kill Caesar, but endangered themselves in the action, leading to failure for all involved. Conspiracies with the intentions of killing a public leader should be confidential, yet when Cassius prompts an oath, Brutus refuses. The plot being all but spoiled, when Popilius bids them luck in the engagement, it is known that their affair is not…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Roman Republic Downfall

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Violence is also used with the killing of Julius Caesar who the senate felt was getting too powerful, even though they gave him all the power he wanted. With the use of violence anyone can gain supreme power, as seen with Octavian, and have no need for something as silly as a republic where they need to consult others for laws and the like. For Rome, the end of the Republic was unenviable and happened on 43 BCE, with the death of Brutus because he supported the republic until the…

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His goal was not to receive any personal gain from Caesar’s death; he would rather be at fault for murder than have his people live under tyranny. Brutus was also the last of the conspirators to stab Caesar. Even though he felt guilt for killing his friend, he would not let the means of reaching of his goals override his desire to help…

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Shakespeare created a character that had gone through a multitude amount of questioning and second guessing to do what he eventually did. His choice to participate in the assassination had a negative effect on his side along with the opposing side as both sides lost people and supplies. He just wanted to prove his nobility to the people of Rome and by killing his friend, he changed the fate of Rome by allowing Antony and Octavius to rule over it. The pair ended up making Rome suffer through a state that was a fair amount away from democracy. In the long run, his participation in the assassination made more aspects worse rather than…

    • 1524 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If it 's not Caesar then what does Mark Antony care. He is loyal to Caesar not some random guy off the street. If it’s not Caesar than Antony doesn’t get upset so therefore no civil war. No civil war again means no unnecessary deaths. But because it is Caesar it’s a big deal and everything that happens after the conspirators decide that Caesar is the one that needs to die and they successfully assassinate him the domino effect takes place.…

    • 1002 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Innocents are at risk of losing their lives for something they never did, and there has been many cases in the past where innocents have unfortunately died. Killing someone because they had killed someone is an unforgiving sentiment, and only serves to preserve the violent nature of society which may potentially lead to more people dying. The argument that the death penalty serves as a deterrent for crime is a false argument; not only does it do absolutely nothing to slow down the crime rate, it can lead to increase in the crime rate. Economic issues are found with the usage of the death penalty, that states spend an abnormal amount of money on cases with the death penalty and gaining nothing from it. The money should be more wisely invested, such as areas that are in critical need of funding.…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    All they wanted was for Julius to realize his actions and for him to not be so high up in his horse that he couldn’t come back down because then more people would rise up against him. Once the disorders starts they felt like the world was out of control and was at it’s most dangerous peak. The people that caused this are the lower classes because of Julius’s triumph. He overthrew the government and now held all the power. Too much power is bad as we later find out he is killed by his own people.…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sometimes killing like in cases of self-defense is justified or if that person has killed someone is justified. But when it becomes murder they should be punished. In cases of self-defense they should not be punished because it was either they killed the other person or they would be killed. George should not be punished because, Lennie had killed Curley’s wife. Also he was never going to get better and would always make the same mistakes to every single place they go.…

    • 255 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays