The Role Of Marcus Brutus In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

1524 Words 7 Pages
The Ides of March recalls a day where a man named Marcus Junius Brutus participated in the assassination of his dear friend Julius Caesar for what he assumed to be the best option for Rome. Brutus wanted Rome to continue as a democratic empire and feared Caesar was becoming both a tyrant and a dictator. He became what many would call a tragic hero today as he was born to a noble family and suffered a calamity. William Shakespeare however created a different understanding to the term by adding opposing desires, hesitation, and doubt before the deed is done.
Lucius Junius Brutus, the ancestor of Marcus Brutus led a revolution and created the Roman Republic in 509 B.C. He defeated the tyrannical king and started the democracy of Rome. Brutus is
…show more content…
He not only lost his closest friend for what he thought was the best option of Rome, but he also ended up benefiting those who stood for an opposing cause than him fired by envy. Brutus found it an immensely more difficult decision to help kill Caesar than to commit suicide after he learned of the loss of Cassius and the general sorrows he suffered. His servants would not help him with his suicide as he was treated with high respect and honor not only from them, but also the plebeians of the empire. He mistakenly declared victory when his counterpart Cassius and his army were still busy at war at another location. He ended up keeping what his ancestors had created directly after the assassination, but also brought a civil war with him. Brutus and Cassius fought against Antony and Octavius with an outstanding amount of supplies and soldiers. Brutus’s wife committed suicide though he expected her to do so and felt stoic towards the matter. He made a plentiful amount of mistakes that ended up pushing him toward his ultimate death. 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

Related Documents