Why Did I Deserve Julius Caesar's Fame?

In the quote, “Not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more”. Brutus explains that he loved Caesar to his fullest and cared for him deeply, but Rome was more important and loved to him than Caesar would ever be. This goes to show that Brutus loved Rome and people so much that he was will to kill Caesar to make his people happy. Brutus also show Betrayal from saying that Caesar was ambitious which was one of the reasons that he kill or betrayed Caesar. In the Brutus speech he quotes, “ I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I slew him”.

Some of the risks that he took that where good to rome was that he was going to reform Rome to make it bigger and stronger. Since he was making it bigger and stronger it was not the Roman Republic anymore it was now the Roman Empire. One other major change he made to the government was that he made the senate from 300 people, to 900 people so that there was more representation. Since he was doing these changes to the government it was making everyone happy. This made the lower class and middle class like him very much, and became very popular.

"Do you think," said he, ‘I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable’” (Lives). Caesar’s desire for glory parallels the desire and actions of Alexander the Great. The Romans loved to read about glorious acts of their empire, and they undoubtedly enjoyed the comparison of Julius Caesar’s glory to that of Alexander the Great, one of the world’s greatest conquerors. Plutarch says that Alexander, as a young man, “was extremely eager and vehement, and in his love of glory, and the pursuit of it, he showed a solidity of high spirit and magnanimity far above his age” (Lives).

Alexander the Great did not only conquer several places that did not need conquering but also killed innocent people who did not agree with him. If you really look into what Alexander did you may find that he did not exactly live up to his name. Is Alexander the Great "not" so great? Alexander the Great was a villain because he demanded utmost allegiance, he conquered for money, and he failed to establish a working government before his death.

Brutus’s character was easy to understand. Brutus is not a virtuous character, even though he has strict moral standards. He killed Julius Caesar, where at one point they were great friends. This proves that he is unloyal to his friends.

This being said, Vespasian could have been a terrible ruler but based on Suetonius’s point of view we see him as a great ruler. He did not comment much on the flaws of Vespasian but rather focused on the achievements and good things by him. Now, that is not to be said that Vespasian was not a great ruler with minimum flaws but, Suetonius is only giving one side of the story with a small toe in the water for the other

“Great men are never good men.” To be great is to be considerably above average in terms of ability, quality or eminence. To the British, Sir Winston Churchill was indeed a great man and he is most well known for rallying and leading them during World War II during his term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. However, not all of his actions were “ethically sound”, or morally good, possessing and displaying moral virtue, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, even though his intentions were for the good of his people and country. Therefore, I agree with the quote and in this essay I will be evaluating the extent to which some of his decisions and actions were ethical or not.

Julius Caesar was a great man and did great things for Rome. Julius completed every task he was told and one many wars making Rome a gold mine. Julius was love by almost all the people of Rome and did his best to please each and every citizen of Rome (even if they weren’t full citizens). Even though some most people would have preferred Caesar to

After the speeches he decides he hasn’t done enough, so he wrote an essay called “Civil Disobedience” (Thoreau). It was his biggest and best act of civil disobedience (Internet). In his essay he describes slavery as unjust (Thoreau). His essay is very excellent written and is one of the best in history to be written.

For example, “ In a city so great and so corrupt Catiline found it a very easy matter to surround himself, as by a bodyguard, with troops of criminals and reprobates of every kind.” This just shows that even though citizens owed Rome loyalty and honesty it was just too corrupt that people had to turn on it. The strength of Rome's relationship with its citizens suffered leaving some of its not so great people to actually side with Catiline only hurting it

In the discussion of Julius Caesar, one controversial issue is how did he die. On the one hand, he is more of a victim than villain. On the other hand, he can be a villain more than a victim. Everyone has a different perspective for if he is a victim or villain. In the following paragraphs, there will be a comparison on Mark Antony’s Funeral Speech and Brutus’s Funeral Speech on whether Julius Caesar is a victim or villain.

Julius Caesar is a confident general who has won the favor of the people of Rome and is on the cusp of becoming the Supreme leader of Rome however he is cut down by his enemies and allies alike. Caesar is warned again, again and again that something bad is going to happen however Caesar’s inability to accept his vulnerability, his need to hide weakness and refusal to swallow his pride and open his eyes causes his death in the end. Caesar is a confident character, he acts like he is always on top of every situation and a lot of the time he is however he tends to ignore warnings because the possibility of someone close to him turning against him is so out of his mind he refuses to take hints. His first warning was a soothsayer telling him to