Was Julius Caesar A Tyrant Essay

In question of whether Caesar was a hero or a tyrant. It is substantial to observe the evidence throughout the play. In the “Tragedy of Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, Rome’s government is defective. Caesar was the one person that could have ruled over Rome. Caesar evades from having monarchy by becoming dictator rather than electing himself to be a king. Caesar’s intentions may have been honorable, he controls the government and the political elections. In spite of Caesar, he creates alterations to support the financial steadiness of Rome, and he is proficient in making companions with antagonists by displaying integrity in preference to vengeance. It is factual that people saw him as a traitor for taking side with the people of Rome. The aristocratic assembly of Rome pronounced Caesar and that he needed to be stripped of his influence, and had to get involved. Caesar seemed to turn fraudulent in the beginning, but Caesar is still the hero. He only turned out to be fraudulent because he was dictator for the good of Rome, “This was the noblest Roman of them all. All conspirators only save he. Did that they did in envy of great Caesar. He is only in a general honest thought. …show more content…
The government of Rome, conspirators, and Brutus believe in a different way. The government, conspirators, and Brutus come to an understanding that Caesar should not become ruler of Rome. However, they are incorrect about Caesar. The government and the others are incorrect, because Caesar contributed to the people of Rome. Their argument does not make sense. Caesar gave the people of Rome events; chariot races, and gladiatorial games. Caesar did not want to have the government involved, because he was going to become king, “Caesar put on constant chariot races and gladiatorial games. As Sole ruler, bureaucracy and red tape were nonexistent to Caesar”, and if the government were involved they would be more tyrant than