This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
don’t think so. I agree that the niceness and weak constitution of Caesar
didn’t make him qualify to be the ruler of so big a kingdom like Rome, and that he doesn’t deserve the title, but killing him only for that reason was too much. The conspirators could have talked to him about humbly refusing the crown and how to improve his weak points. Caesar is humble, generous, and respectable – the makings of a good leader – but the people didn’t see his physical weakness, such as seizures and challenging Cassius to a contest but failing it himself. For Caesar to be a leader he must not only be known for his social deeds, but also for physical, mental and spiritual deeds. Killing him was unjustifiable because, first of all, Caesar did nothing bad to them. It was not his fault that people wanted to make him a king because of his acts. As a person it was his duty to help people, and by being good, it paradoxically made him look bad to his close friends. Secondly, Cassius spurred Brutus to conspiracy and consequentially, started it. His reasons involved equality. But what happened in the end was not equality. By equality, every man has an opportunity to correct his mistakes, an opportunity to defend his side and speak about his views. Cassius and company didn’t give Caesar the chance to explain himself. Even if he was given the crucial chance, the conspirators would have shunned his words as “a desperate act to save himself from the evil he himself created”. This showed that the conspirators were trapped in their paradigm that what they believe – that Caesar is too weak to be a ruler – is the truth, and that any ideas or beliefs that are against it are lies which one creates. Also, Caesar
wasn’t given the chance to know why the things happened to him. As a good man, he believed that Brutus was his friend and trusted him. By seeing Brutus stab he wasn’t only the final physical blow, but also the final emotional blow. Men are used to having close friends to which they can confide themselves to, and, aside from their wives, are usually men. Men aren’t used to exposing his emotional side, and by having a close male friend in which he can tell everything, men are sensitive to betrayals. When Caesar saw Brutus, it was most likely he felt like he was the most betrayed person in the world, for he knew that Brutus would never do such a thing. By witnessing it, he lost his spirit, and consequently, his life. If Caesar was given the chance to know the conspirators’ reasons, then not only could he have talked them out of it, they could have seen that Caesar didn’t really do anything wrong and was just being a good person just like a newborn baby.
I wouldn’t. First of all, I don’t like getting involved in politics, or
anything related to that. It may seem that I don’t care about our government – I do, it’s just that I’m all words and not action. I don’t like arguments, and so as much as possible I prefer to be neutral to avoid adding stress. I have inferiority tendencies, and so when it comes to something that involves hierarchy (like in presidencies) I prefer to stay quiet and go along with the flow. Even if I share the same intentions as the conspiracy, I wouldn’t get involved. Secondly, I’m easily scared, and to be a conspirator you have to be brave enough to fight off the guards, brave enough to kill somebody and can endure tortures and interrogations. For the first part, I’m not physically fit enough to fight off the usual muscular guards. In conspiracy, there’s almost
always no pity in regards to the enemy, and I don’t think I’m bad and heartless enough to kill somebody, even if it’s for “the good cause”. Besides, I can’t bear to watch simple horror movies; much more if it’s reality. Above all, I don’t like pain. That statement alone speaks for itself. If there exists a conspiracy with no social, physical, mental, spiritual and emotional pain involved, I will not join simply for the cause of peace on Earth, even if I’m so sided with the conspirators. Except of course for some extreme cases, which are unlikely to happen. Lastly, in conspiracies everybody is your enemy; everybody can lie to you; everybody can betray you. In my past experiences, one of the things I came to unlike in my life is betrayal. It brings me emotional breakdown. I may be selfish in thinking only of my fears and intentions, but it can happen to everybody. The main goal why they are joining the conspiracy is for their respective happiness. Betrayal certainly doesn’t bring that kind of feeling, even if in the end, your side won.
certainly possesses almost every trait a president should have –
humble, generous, pitiful, strong will – but, as said earlier, lacks physical strength. What’s the use of all those great characteristics if the bearer can die anytime? The people, instead of feeling safe, will worry more than they should because their ruler can die anytime, and anarchy is the last thing that can happen in a place civilized and prestige such as Rome before it will result in chaos and dissolve. Brutus on the other hand certainly possesses almost the same characteristics as Julius, but he lacks the will to express his opinions. At the very beginning, Brutus didn’t like the notion of having Caesar as the president. Being close friends with Caesar didn’t stop him
from not telling Julius his opinions, preferring to go with what the public wants – Julius Caesar. It took him lies and taunting from Cassius before he agreed to partake in the conspiracy. Although he showed a good deed by not acting violently as Cassius planned: by saying that there was no need to kill Anthony and even Caesar himself, because all they need to do was to kill Caesar’s spirit to make the people choose someone else more deserving as their ruler. Cassius certainly can’t be a good president with his sudden accusations of Brutus and violent plans. What a president should do is to maintain peace and unity among the territory, and obviously Cassius can’t do that. With this, I’ll choose Brutus as president. He may seem to be a meek and incapable person, but killing Caesar certainly erases the thought of him being incapable. As for the meek side, his need to be persuaded showed that. He never really meant to kill Caesar anyways; it was Cassius who urged him to do so. What he wanted was just to erase Caesar’s possibility to be Rome’s ruler. As close friends with Caesar, and the possibility of the feeling of betrayal, killing him, he chose to resolve the problem by nonviolent means. If he can be more determined and not so easily swayed by the thoughts and persuasion of others people, especially his close friends, then he can certainly be a good president. He doesn’t have to be perfect – after all nobody’s perfect – but as long as he will choose good over evil and maintains his good characteristics, then he is enough to rule all over Rome.