Category: Julius Caesar

Noble Romans, Have you spent time with your family today? Because a man who doesn’t spend time with his family is no man at all. My family is Rome, and as a real man, it is my duty to NURTURE, protect and care for my state. I shall defend this holy land from those who attempt to poison and destroy it, for they don’t realize that it wasn’t created, but embellished from the ashes of the fire and chaos that reigns outside the borders of this mighty empire.

Fellow Romans, What sets me apart from other men, is my strength; my willpower. I am truly determined and remarkable. When I decide upon something, I don’t hesitate to do it. I take the matters into my own hands. For example, in Gaul, it took 8 years, but I never gave up. I was loyal to my soldiers, and I would do anything for them, as they would for me. After 8 years, I became the governor of Gaul, which, I’ve done to gain a larger military force to expand the empire. I Julius Caesar, consider myself to be an eminent leader, I am able to rise through the ranks and command armies something other candidates lack. The actions I will take will be done to transform Rome and possibly influence the future of this world. By choosing me, the vast lands of Gaul will be a benefit for the empire. By choosing me, territories will be established under imperial control, and by choosing me, Rome will rise to be the greatest empire in history for all eternities.

Shall I say, that not everything is like a sea of roses, we all have some failures and some weaknesses? Shall I admit that sometimes I may seem to be overconfident, but who would want an emperor who wasn’t confident at all? Yes, I do give too much trust in people, but I believe that trust is the key to success. Shall I say that giving too much trust to others is a consequence, yes? I only hire a number of political agents to serve me, but at any time they can turn their backs and kill me, it’s just a matter of time. I shall also confess, I am quick to trust the intentions of the people and fail to understand the real motives behind people’s actions.

Today, I do have competition, but Brutus, oh is full of judgment, he decided to fight Antony and Octavius after hearing the advice Cassius had given him. Brutus isn’t ready for this responsibility, he is not ready to be a revolutionary. On the contrary, he is simply an impractical type of man who is fooled by Cassius’ ambition into becoming an assassin. Don’t even make me start talking about Cassius, shall I say he’s not a likable person? “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look”, his soul is fulfilled with jealousy and cowardice. Take me for example, I may be gritty for power, but this will bring power to Rome. The decision of a better Rome, a free Rome, the land of success, shall rise under my rule. I give you my word, my noble Romans, I will give full devotion to this state, no matter the situation; I will give you my full sweat and blood.

I chose to be Caesar because I believe he would actually be the best as an “emperor”. I started my speech by asking the noble Romans if they spend time with their family because it creates a connection between the listeners and Ceaser. I decided to use ethos, when saying, “Rome is my family”, by this Ceaser declares the love he has for the state and that he would do anything for it. For strengths, I decided to start out by saying what would stick out the most from other candidates, I think this is a good strategy to connect with the Romans. For weaknesses I said that Caesar is overconfident, however, I later ask, is it better to have an overconfident emperor or no confidence at all? Basically, my speech tries to connect with the Romans in a friendly way, a way that they would be convinced by what Caesar is saying and convince him that he will bring power to Rome.

Julius Caesar, in full Gaius Julius Caesar, (born July 1213, 100 BCE, Rome [Italy]—died March 15, 44 BCE, Rome), conqueror of Gaul (58–50 BCE), victor in the civil war of 49–45 BCE, and dictator (46–44 BCE), who was about to launch a series of political and social reforms when he was assassinated by a group of nobles in the Senate House. Most of us will fade without a trace in the cloak of history, and most people who appear in history do so because another person decides to record their achievements for posterity. He was widely regarded as one of history’s great men and naturally took care of his personal image. Caesar was a member of the highly patrician Julii family, whose roots dated back to the city’s founding. Nonetheless, the Caesar family was an impoverished line of the noble founding clans when he began. In previous generations, no Caesar has held the position of Consul. They were still highly respected but had little political power. His father, Gaius Julius, had also served in the Senate in a respected role but would be remembered mostly for his son’s reputation. His mother, Aurelia of the Aurelii Cotta line, appears to have been both a wonderful woman and a significant impact on her son’s life.

In his early life, the relationship he made with Marius was a huge influence on the future of Julius Caesar. Their careers have striking parallels, indicating that the uncle had a significant impact on the nephew. More importantly, Caesar benefited greatly from his aristocratic upbringing, which provided him significant advantages over Marius. He was also able to see both triumphs and mistakes and adapt his own future plans accordingly. Prior to Caesar’s birth, Marius was the pre-eminent Roman, holding six Consulships, winning the battle against Jugurtha, rebuilding the legions and social order, and protecting Rome from the Germanic Cimbri and Teutone danger. By the time Caesar was a young man, Marius had fallen out of favor, but he was still a notable player. As Caesar launched his own career, he was drawn into the upcoming disputes between Marius and his adversary Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Caesar’s development in light of the day’s turbulence is significant enough; the fact that he ever lived maybe even more astounding. The political situation in Rome was tumultuous as Julius Caesar approached his teenage years. The enmity between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla had erupted into a full civil war by 88 BC. Sulla’s following march on Rome was inspired by Marius’ followers’ attempts to overthrow Sulla’s order against Mithridates VI of Pontus. Sulla took over the city by force, and many of Marius’ allies were slaughtered. Caesar, despite his kinship to Marius, was still a youngster and was therefore exempt from any potential risk for the time being. These occurrences, together with the history of Rome in Caesar’s time, must have influenced the young man’s growth. From the time of his infancy until his early formative years, all Rome appeared to know was political turmoil, bloodshed, and the unknown. From the social upheaval caused by the Gracchi 30 years before his birth to the profound engagement of his own family in various crises, Caesar’s perspective on Roman politics would undoubtedly have a lasting influence. Marius died not long after being elected to his record Consulship. While the young Caesar’s personal connection with Marius is mostly unclear, there is no doubt about his bond with his aunt Julia, Marius’ wife. As demonstrated by her subsequent funeral oration, she was a powerful presence in his life, and it comes to assume that the uncle was as well. Regardless, he was undoubtedly influenced by the surviving Consul Cinna. He controlled Rome with an iron fist following Marius’ death and in the absence of Sulla for the next few years.

In 59 BC, Caesar and Bibulus were elected consuls in a sham election for the post of Roman Emperor. Caesar sought assistance from Cicero and formed an alliance with the rich Lucceius, but the establishment-backed Bibulus. Even Cato, who had a reputation for incorruptibility, is alleged to have bribed Bibulus, who had been aedile with Caesar some years ago. Caesar was already in debt to Crassus, but he made overtures to Pompey, who was fighting the Senate for approval of his eastern towns and farmland for his soldiers. Since they were consuls together in 70 BC, the two men had been at odds, and Caesar knew that if he sided with one, he might lose the support of another. They possessed enough money and political clout between them to govern public affairs. The marriage of Pompey to Caesar’s daughter Julia solidified the informal coalition known as the First Triumvirate (rule of three men). Caesar again remarried, this time to Calpurnia, daughter of Lucius Calpountius Piso Caesoninus, who was elected consul the following year. Caesar presented a measure to redistribute public lands to the poor, which was backed by Pompey, using force if necessary, and Crassus, making the triumvirate public. Bibulus sought to pronounce the omens unfavorable, thereby nullifying the new legislation but was chased out of the forum by Caesar’s armed allies. His lictors’ feces were shattered, two tribunes following him were injured, and Bibulus himself was thrown a bowl of excrement. Fearing for his survival, he retreated to his home for the remainder of the year, delivering infrequent declarations of bad luck. These efforts to oppose Caesar’s laws were futile. The year was forever referred to as ‘the consulship of Julius and Caesar’ by Roman satirists.

Julius Caesar, the Roman commander, conducted the Gallic Wars against the peoples of Gaul between 58 BC and 50 BC and in present-day France, and Belgium, along with parts of Germany and the United Kingdom. Gallic, Germanic, and British tribes struggled to protect their territory from an offensive Roman onslaught. The Wars ended in the pivotal Battle of Alesia in 52 BC when a total Roman victory resulted in the Roman Republic’s conquest throughout all of Gaul. Though the Gallic force was as formidable as the Romans’, internal differences among the Gallic tribes aided Caesar’s victory. The effort by Gallic ruler Vercingetorix to unify the Gauls under a single flag took too long. Caesar characterized the attack as a protective and preventive strike, but historians believe that he fought the Wars largely to further his career in politics and pay his debts. Conquering Gaul gave Rome control of the Rhine’s natural boundary. The Wars began in 58 BC with strife over the Helvetii’s movement, which drew in surrounding tribes and the Germanic Suebi. Caesar had intended to conquer all of Gaul by 57 BC. He commanded wars in the east, where he was nearly beaten by the Nervii. Caesar beat the Veneti in a sea battle in 56 BC and secured control of much of northwest Gaul. Caesar attempted to improve his public persona in 55 BC. When Caesar returned from Britain, Rome celebrated him as a hero, despite the fact that he had accomplished little more than arriving because his force was too little. He returned the following year with a real army and captured most of Britain. Tribes popped up on the continent, and the Romans were humiliated. A draconian expedition was launched against the Gauls in an attempt to pacify them in 53 BC. This failed, and in 52 BC, the Gauls organized a great insurrection commanded by Vercingetorix. The Gallic alliance gained a significant victory at the Battle of Gergovia, but the Romans’ unbreakable siege walls at the Battle of Alesia shattered the Gallic coalition. There was minimal opposition in 51 BC and 50 BC, and Caesar’s men were simply sweeping up. Gaul was conquered, although it did not become a Roman province until 27 BC, and resistance lasted until 70 AD. There is no definitive end date for the conflict, however, Caesar’s army withdrew in 50 BC due to the impending Roman Civil War. Caesar’s spectacular victories in the war made him rich and gave him legendary status. The Gallic Wars aided Caesar’s ability to win the Civil War and declare himself dictator, resulting in the end of the Roman Republic and the formation of the Roman Empire.

The Senate, commanded by Pompey, ordered Caesar to dissolve his force and come to Rome in 50 BC when his tenure as Proconsul had expired. Furthermore, the Senate barred Caesar from running for a second consulship in absentia. Caesar feared that if he reached Rome alone without the protection of a Consul or the force of his troops, he would be punished and politically marginalized. Pompey accused Caesar of disobedience and treason. On January 10, 49 BC, Caesar crossed the Rubicon River (the Italian border) with only one army, igniting a civil war. Plutarch claims that after passing the Rubicon, Caesar paraphrased the Athenian playwright Menander in Greek, saying anerrhiphth? kudos (let the dice be tossed). The Optimates retreated to the south, having little faith in the freshly recruited armies, especially after many places in northern Italy had freely yielded. A consular legion’s fight at Samarium resulted in the consul being given up by the defenders and the legion withdrawing without much combat. Despite vastly outmatching Caesar, who was only carrying his Thirteenth Legion, Pompey had no intention of fighting. Caesar chased Pompey to Brindisium in the hopes of capturing him before the imprisoned Senate and legions could flee. Pompey eluded Caesar by sailing out of the harbor before Caesar could smash through the barriers. Caesar opted to embark for Hispania, despite the fact that Pompey had already combed the coastlines of all ships for evacuation of his soldiers. Leaving Marcus Aemilius Lepidus as prefect of Rome and the remainder of Italy under the tribuneship of Mark Antony, Caesar conducted an incredible 27-day long march to Hispania, reuniting two of his Gallic legions and defeating Pompey’s commanders. He subsequently headed east to confront Pompey in Greece, where on 10 July 48 BC, at Dyrrhachium, Caesar narrowly averted a disastrous disaster when the fortress line was breached. Despite Pompey’s number advantage, he easily beat him at Pharsalus in a very brief encounter in 48 BC. He pursued Pompey to Alexandria, where he was slain by a former Roman soldier stationed in King Ptolemy XIII’s court.

On the Ides of March 44 BC, Julius Caesar was killed by a group of senators at a Senate hearing at the Curia of Pompey of the Theatre of Pompey in Rome, when the senators stabbed Caesar 23 times. At least 60 senators were involved in the plot, which was directed by Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus. They said they were acting out of concern that Caesar’s enormous consolidation of power during his dictatorship would undermine the Roman Republic. Despite Caesar’s murder, the conspirators were unable to restore the Republic’s institutions. The aftermath of the killing resulted in the Liberators’ civil war and, eventually, the Roman Empire’s Principate period.

The Life and Death of Julius Caesar: Leadership, Strategy, and Conflict.

Caius Iulius Caesar, better known as Julius Caesar and widely regarded as one of history’s great figures, was naturally concerned with his personal reputation. The world would not be what it is now if Julius Caesar had not been. Caesar aided in shaping Rome into a strong worldwide power with a tremendous impact on the world. His military successes resulted in the inclusion of new areas and citizens under the protection of Rome. Julius Caesar was an intellectual – strategic prodigy who destabilized Rome’s dying political structure and established a tyranny in its stead. He won the Roman Civil War but was killed by people who saw him have become too strong.

Early Life

Julius Caesar was born on July 12 or 13, 100 BC, in Subura, Rome, into a powerful family, the gens Julia, who traced lineage from Iulus, son of the fabled Trojan prince Aeneas. Caesar’s father passed away when he was merely 16 years old, placing him as the leader of the family (“Julius Caesar Biography – Life, Family, Death, History, Young, Son, Old, Information, Born, House, Marriage,” 2013). Caesar was betrothed to Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, and they had a daughter whom they had named Iulia to honor his paternal aunt. Sulla’s dictatorship had gone very close to ending Caesar’s existence andor reputation, and we can see a strong premonition of the figure he was to become in the masterful way Caesar managed the highly perilous circumstances he encountered. When Sulla stormed Rome on his second quest to establish lengthy, urgent rulership, he demanded that 18-year-old Caesar divorce Cornelia as a sign of fealty. Caesar declined. This seemed to impress Sulla as it showed great loyalty.

Military Life

Julius Caesar joined the Roman army at the age of 22 in 81 BC. Two years later, in 79 BC, Caesar was able to serve as a military legate’s staff and save someone’s life. His commander dispatched him on a trip to Nicomedes; Caesar was sent to bargain with him in order to purchase a fleet of ships. Caesar was effective, which helped his career in the army. Julius Caesar was named ruler of Gaul in 58 BC. He spent the following 8 years in Gaul. Caesar was able to command the four armies in the region in most need of power and wealth. There were two provinces in Gaul that were untamed areas nearby, and Caesar had the resources to invade them.

The Civil War

In 54 BC, the First Triumvirate, a supporter of famous leaders Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar, was gradually dissolving. Crassus died in 53 BC during a battle with the Parthians, which strained Caesar and Pompey’s friendship. The trio dissolved. The next year, there was a massive uprising in Rome, prompting Pompey to be appointed as the only senator. Pompey sided with the Optimates, a political party that supported affluent aristocracy and the Senate. Caesar returned to Italy and proceeded to Rome without relinquishing the power of his troops. A civil war erupted, and Caesar’s army defeated Pompey. After losing the fight, Pompey fled to Egypt in quest of safety. Instead, he was slain in the Egyptian monarch Ptolemy XIII’s attempt to overthrow Caesar. Caesar stepped up to become the sole emperor and ruler of Rome.

Caesar’s Invasions

Caesar is regarded as one of the world’s greatest generals. He lost a few conflicts and was knocked around a little, but he never lost a battle. He even physically fought in several conflicts. Caesar ruled over a territory known as Gaul from 58 to 51 B.C., which is currently known as France. Gaul was teeming with savage tribes that posed a potential menace to the Romans. Caesar seized Gaul and extended his empire all the way into modern-day Belgium after seven years of battle.

Invasion of Germany

Caesar was overjoyed after conquering Gaul. During Caesar’s Gaul campaign, German rebels hindered his path. Caesar led his Military expedition to Germany to teach Germans a lesson. A bloody conflict erupted between the armies of Germany and Rome. Finally, the German troops were vanquished. However, once Caesar had just moved back from Germany, the Germans rebelled. Caesar stormed furiously into Germany, inflicting a humiliating loss on them. He pushed them all the distance to the opposite side of the Rhine.

Invasion of England

Caesar occupied England in 54 B.C. Only because Prince Cassivellaunus of England tormented the Romans in Gaul. So, Caesarea took warships over the English Channel and disembarked on the Thames Riverbank. He vanquished England’s troops. England’s reputation was devastated. Caesar’s triumph earned him a reputation among his men.

Caesar’s Greatest Achievements

Julius Caesar did much more than just win wars against other powers. He was unquestionably one of Rome’s most prominent political and military leaders. His skills and drive were instrumental in transforming the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. In Rome, he adopted the Egyptian calendar. The Julian calendar, as it became called afterward. The Roman calendar was not only imprecise but it was also altered for political interests. Julius Caesar supplanted this calendar with one relying on the Egyptian calendar, which was governed by the sun. He increased the duration of the year to 365.25 days by inserting a day at the end of February every fourth year. The Julian calendar began on January 1, 45 BC, and was the dominant calendar in much of Europe until the Gregorian calendar, which is still commonly used today.

He won spectacular successes in the Gallic wars, destroying all Gallic tribes, and spreading Roman districts throughout the whole Gaul region. The works he authored on his career in the military in Gaul and his deeds during the civil war with Pompey are part of Caesar’s legacy. Reflections on the Gallic War, a seven-volume series, contains most of what we know about ancient Gaul and the Celtic people. As a result, he became quite popular with the Romans. In addition, Caesar rebuilt Carthage, which had been devastated by the Romans during the Punic Wars in 146 BCE.

When Caesar became ruler, Rome was in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by successive civil wars. Property prices had plummeted, and there was a currency scarcity owing to hoarding. Julius Caesar commanded that assets be accepted for reimbursement at their pre-war worth and reintroduced a former edict that prohibited any one individual from owning more than 60,000 sesterces in currency. He also enacted legislation restricting extravagant clothing, burial expenditures, and feasts. He also helped the underprivileged and put mechanisms in place to assure their employment.

The republican era of ancient Rome was a period in which Rome was ruled by the senate, a group of Patricians with no single person in power. The republican era ended with Julius Caesar and many assume that Caesar solely led to the downfall of republican Rome, however, there were many significant figures that ultimately led to the downfall of this instated government. Sulla was one of these such figures and due to his dictatorship, proscriptions, and reforms in the republican system, he contributed greatly to Caesar’s final blow against the Roman Republic. Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138-78 BCE) was a ruthless military commander, who first distinguished himself in the Numidian War under the command of Gaius Marius. His relationship with Marius soured during the conflicts that would follow and lead to a rivalry that would only end with Marius’ death. Sulla eventually seized control of the Republic, named himself dictator, and after eliminating his enemies, initiated crucial reforms. However, the reforms he initiated could not save the city from its future. Despite believing in a Republican system, sulla used force to come into power in Rome which indirectly led to people believing that they too, with enough manpower, could also take control of Rome. Additionally, once dictator, he made multiple reforms to the system he governed which contradicted the very idea of a republican government as they were slowly reinstating regal concepts. Sulla’s dictatorship and regal pretensions started the deterioration of the republican system and ultimately led to its downfall.

In the final years of the roman republic, the government was split into two factions. The optimates favored the traditional organization of government which was controlled primarily by the Senate. On the other hand, there were the Populares who used the rights and powers of the popular assemblies to enact their agendas, however, they were not led by the people but rather were an aristocratic party seeking to circumvent the power of the Senate. The division began in the time of the Gracchi, generations earlier, and this rivalry eventually led to the cesarean civil war which brought on the fall of the republic era. Forty years prior to the fall, the two parties engaged in a mass bloodshed now known as the civil war of Marius and Sulla. Sulla was the leader of the optimates and the Populares soon became known as the party of Marius. Their rivalry broke out into open hostilities when Sulla was elected consul in 88 B.C., and was also chosen to lead an army against Mithridates. The Populares however, favored Marius to lead the army, and revoked Sulla’s commission, so that the leadership of the army became a point of contention between the two political parties, thus turning what had been a political rivalry into a contest of wills between two powerful generals. When the Populares faction prevailed, Sulla fled to his army, camped outside the city, and then, for the first time in history, he led a Roman army into the city itself, in gross violation of all principles of government. He was welcomed by the senate, however, who considered the election of Marius an illegal act. Thus, Sulla made himself the dictator of Rome to reinstate the power of the Senate.

As Plutarch describes it, “… he revived a type of office that had not been used for 120 years and proclaimed himself dictator. And a decree was passed giving him immunity from all his past deeds and for the future, the power to condemn people to death, to confiscate property, found colonies, raze towns, and overthrow kings at whim”(Plutarch 211). This was a level of power that was unprecedented for the Republic and created chaos within Rome as Sulla proceeded to do whatever struck his fancy. The new dictator introduced a judicial process called the prescription. Essentially this new concept was an open publication listing names of people he deemed to be undesirable. A reign of terror ensued with rewards offered for the death or capture of any name on the list. At first, the proscriptions were mainly focused on Sulla’s direct enemies and supporters, but eventually, the death toll would reach epidemic proportions. As Plutarch said, “He seems to have had a character that was very irregular and full of inconsistencies. He would have a man beaten to death for some inconsiderable offense; yet on other occasions, he would meekly put up with serious misdeeds”. Plutarch was a biographer shortly after the time of Sulla and he often wrote biographies of people in the worst possible light. Despite the possibility of bias, he based his work on available sources and made up nothing himself and he is therefore a valid and reliable source. Simply by forcing himself as dictator of Rome and breaking the constitution, he showed the populous of Rome that with enough manpower, the city of Rome could be theirs. Sulla not only butchered the constitution through various reforms he made but also focused his power on the leading members of the Roman ruling classes. “…he was proscribing everyone who came to mind… He also proscribed anyone who sheltered and saved the life of a proscribed person…”(Plutarch 209). Senators and enemies were listed on his proscription list. Thus, with Sulla’s actions, a Republic established by the murder of many of its senators by a murderous tyrant would now be undone by the murder of many of its senators by a murderous tyrant.

Even if Sulla did not realize the full magnitude of his actions as he tried to reform the Senate, he did try to use his action to make changes to the Senate. Nevertheless, Sulla’s attempt to recreate and rebrand the Roman Republic proved feeble to fight the trends that Sulla himself set in motion. “It was the this republic of Sulla, not a more traditional one, that proved so unstable in the 70s BC and beyond, as it slowly disintegrated, even as no second lawgiver emerged to propose a systematic and workable revision of Sulla’s system of government”(Harriet 12-13). Sulla’s constitution, constantly revised in the years after his death, was simply a holdover until a more permanent governing system replaced it. Despite strengthening the senate during his dictatorship, he overall threatened the existence of the senate and a republican government. Through his extensive program of constitutional reform, he intended mainly to re-establish the supremacy of the Senate in the Roman state, and his administrative reforms did indeed survive to the end of the republic. However, there is no denying the fact that the forcible control of Rome contributed to its inevitable downfall.

The Republic would never truly recover from the shock of this civil war and was but a shadow of its former self as other dictators like Caesar would soon rise to take Sulla’s place. “When the civil war came and the victor once again had to have a position beyond challenge, Caesar found that the only office which he could devise was precisely the monster invented by Sulla”(Ridley 229)

The Populares political fraction was based on the ideology that championed the needs of the plebian population, however, it is unknown whether it was to help the common people or to further their own political careers. The Populares political fraction is not a political party in the modern sense there was no formal membership and no set of policies or ideology that they would plan to implement there was more concern for an individual`s political power and advancement of their career rather than the collective unit of a Populares party. The Gracchi brothers were the first significant Populares individuals of the Roman Republic using their positions as Tribune to the Plebs to promote a more Populares agenda enacting land reforms, grain reforms, and military reforms in favor of the Plebs. Hence, setting precedence for subsequent politicians Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar to use Populare’s policies to gain popularity and favor with the plebs.

Julius Caesar

Sallust marks the decline of Rome as during the dictatorship of Sulla who changed the political landscape for the future generation, the senate had changed it was no longer the same as before Sulla. Once he had retired the membership of the senate had expanded with new blood entering the senate who may have different responses than the traditional aristocracy changing the attitude of the senate towards certain matters. Furthermore, the introduction of dictatorship through loyal armies gave ambitious individuals such as Julius Caesar a platform to take power. Caesar was the nephew of Marius who married his aunt Julia, his family ties may have influenced his ambitions as a Populares politician, Plutarch writes of Caesar as an Aedile restoring the statues and trophies of Marius reminding the people of Marius’ military victories, popularity, and Caesar’s familial connections. This perhaps represents the political climate was not so violent but more likely Caesar’s faith in his own popularity with the people because of his connections, as Marius seemingly did not want to be connected to the Gracchi`s vetoing a grain bill similar to Gaius Gracchus. He further showed his commitment to radical Populares by marrying Cornelia the daughter of Cinna a supporter of Marius against Sulla. This shows the importance of marriage and familial ties in politics in order to show support for the political fraction.

Similarly, to Gaius Gracchus, Caesar introduced grain reforms after facing grain shortages in Rome, to fix this he arranged better supervision of the supplies coming into Rome and improved access to grain by building a new canal. Although Suetonius notes that he halved the number of people receiving government grain, changing Gaius Gracchus’ original bill however his popularity with the plebs remained Suetonius mentions Caesar`s use of entertainment putting on games for the people to bolster his popularity. Ultimately, Caesar used non-traditional aggressive methods not used by the Gracchi`s or Marius as he marched on Rome with his army loyal to him, not the senate to become a dictator.

To conclude Populares politicians Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Marius and Julius Caesar reacted to the social crisis in their time within the Roman Republic, they had different policies to adapt to the different situations. However, focused their reforms within the same areas of Roman society which were important to the people such as Grain, Military, and land reforms whilst focusing on distributing power from the senate to give the people more freedom with elector rights. This helped to secure their place of popularity with the plebians, leading Populares figures Tiberius, Marius, and Caesar also had great military careers helping their career in politics and gaining the respect of the plebians. Earlier figures Tiberius and Gaius struggled more than the subsequent ones getting their policies to be approved by the senate and aristocracy this may have changed due to the rise of ambitious individuals and attitudes in the senate with the military reforms of Marius giving individuals more power and the rise of Sulla, bringing in new blood to the senate causing it to move away from its traditions. Both Caesar and Marius broke senate traditions to push through their own agenda with Marius illegally granting citizenship to two groups of Italian allies. Caesar`s ambitions made him disobey the senate refusing to disband his army, showing the lack of control the senate eventually had overambitious Populares like Caesar. The Gracchi`s set the precedence by going against the senate and using the position of tribune as a position of political importance that can be used by ambitious men to gain popularity and power.

Chaos, is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “complete disorder and confusion,” (Oxford University Press). In Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, the reporter figure Casca, accidentally meets Cicero, a prominent senator in Roman politics. From lines 15-32, Casca gives a long speech where he reveals more details about the storm of which he has a great fear. The first image of significance Casca identifies is a “common slave,” (1.3.15) who held up his left hand which is on fire but remains unscorched. The next image identified is the lion who remains calm in front of the Capital. Nonetheless, in Shakespeare’s plays, weather often plays a huge role in setting the tone of the play and foreshadows what will happen; when it rains fire is no exception. The final significant image is used in many of Shakespeare’s plays; “the bird of Night” (1.3.26), who sits hooting and shrieking in the afternoon. Casca identifies many images that not only symbolize the chaos in Rome but also foreshadow events that could take place in the future. The first image Casca describes, the “common slave,” (1.3.15) who holds up his left hand which is on fire but remains unscorched, has a deeper meaning that symbolizes the chaos in Rome and also foreshadows events. When Casca speaks of the firestorm, the meaning is deeper than what is on the surface.

The person Casca speaks of is someone Cicero knows well. It talks about his hand burning but “[remaining] unscorched,” (1.3.18). A burning fire hurts and if there’s no trace of the pain such as “[remaining] unscorched,” (1.3.18) then no one can see the pain the person is in. This man is hurt on the inside but appears to everyone else to be fine. The images symbolize what is happening in the minds of the Romans. This causes chaos because flames burn the surface it is on but in the play, “his left hand, [was] not sensible of fire,” (1.3.16). This goes against order meaning what is so post to happen does not actually happen causing chaos. Casca’s image of the common slave who suffers from internal conflict is Brutus. This image foreshadows what Brutus deals with later in the play. His character in particular has to deal with a lot of inner conflicts; he truly wants what is best for Rome which is why he will soon kills Caesar. As the play continues, he feels awful for what he did to his friend and has to live knowing he hurt his friend. Julius Caesar was a leader in Rome and many people wanted him to be king. In the animal kingdom, a lion is known to be king.

Casca speaks of “[meeting] a lion, who glared upon [him] and went surly by, without annoying [him]”(1.3.20-23). This event would be considered chaos because a lion is out of place when roaming in the streets but in addition, it was calm which was unusual for a lion. This “king of the jungle” is acting unnaturally in the play, which foreshadows that Caesar, who could possibly become “king of men” will not reach this status. When Cassius speaks of ‘the lion in the Capitol'(1.3.20) he talks about the need to overthrow him. Later, Caesar identifies himself as a lion but at the same time claims that he is more dangerous than danger itself when he says: ‘We are two lions litter in one day, And I the elder and more terrible’ (2.2.46-47). This goes to show the image of ‘the lion in the Capitol'(1.3.20) foreshadows the conspirators overthrowing him not letting him become the “king of men” which causes chaos in Rome. Shakespeare often uses weather in his tragedies, such as when there’s lightning and thunder, to foreshadow that something bad is about to happen. In Casa’s speech, he speaks of a large storm with lots of wind and angry clouds causing the earth to shake and “tempest-dropping fire” (I.III. 10) meaning it was raining fire. Casa explains he has never seen anything like it which means it is “complete disorder and confusion”(Oxford University Press). When Cassius hears this, he knows it is a warning that something bad is coming: ‘Either there is a civil strife in heaven, / or else the world, too saucy with the gods, / Incenses them to send destruction’ (I.III.11-13). This goes to show omens can be interpreted differently depending on what you want them to mean.

One interpretation that Cassius had was it was a warning for the Romans about Caesar’s ‘monstrous state’ of tyranny in Rome (I.III.73-74). This is why they had to continue to plot his murder. This omen ends up foreshadowing the civil war that is a result of Caesar’s death. Cassius says that the bad omens mean trouble for Julius Caesar. “The bird of night” (1.3.26), who sits hooting and shrieking in the afternoon is yet another omen that points to Caesar’s death in the play. The fact the bird of night is out in the afternoon is the first sign of chaos but it is not just sitting there quietly, instead, it is hooting and shrieking. Birds are another image that Shakespeare often uses to warn the audience to prepare themself for a tragedy. In Casca’s speech, many images point to chaos in Rome but also foreshadow events such as Caesar’s death and the outcome of it. The common slave who is suffering, the animals: lions and birds, and the weather all have an effect on foreshadowing events that are yet to come.

For this assignment, I will be playing the role of Portia from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar Act 2 Scene 1. Portia is the daughter of Cato and the devoted wife of Brutus. She is proud of her identity as related to two eminent families of Rome and takes her role as Brutus’s wife very seriously. She makes her first appearance in the act just after Caesar’s murder conspirators exit from their home. Portia is a beautiful and intelligent woman as well as a loyal and concerned wife. She is described as a woman who is dignified, beautiful, kind, clever, diligent, and possessing great dignity. Portia can be described as a woman trapped in the Roman male-dominant world. But besides this, she is not a typical tragic female character instead, she is strong-willed, courageous, and concerned enough to confront her husband. She is confident as well as observant enough to notice the detailed account of how her husband behaved and what is he going through. I see Portia as a very unconventional woman with a strong character presence who knows what she wants and how she can get it.

This scene starts when Cassius along with other conspirators, who were planning to kill Caesar, left Brutus’ home. Portia came to Brutus to ask what is happening as she knows that something is bothering Brutus which he has been hiding from her and as a wife, she demands to know what disturbs him. Hence, she confronts him in the middle of the night and insisted on Brutus tell her the truth about what is going on with him and in his life. She responded to him logically stating that she will not accept any of his excuses that he was sick as if he were, he wouldn’t be out in the rain in the middle of the night.

She is persistently asking Brutus to tell her what is he going through and when he says he can’t tell her about anything she uses her various persuasion tactics to make him tell. She compelled him to say that she is part of two prestigious families and that her father and husband both are powerful men, so she is strong enough to know his secret. She is selected by him as a wife and they took marriage promises, so it should be enough to tell her his secret. She even tries to put him guilty, saying that if he is not going to share his life with her and she is just there to eat and sleep, she may as well be his courtesan rather than his wife. Lastly, to impel Brutus she tried to show her physical and mental strength she stabs herself in the thigh with a knife. She tells Brutus that if she could withstand the physical pain, then truly Brutus can disclose his situation to her.

In the introduction part, the paper will explore and give a shortened synopsis of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar play and explore the modern interpretations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar as a problem play. This will be achieved through the appraisal of some of the main actors such as Cassius, Brutus, and Julius Caesar, and give a detailed presentation of their characters. The introduction section will also involve divergence into the historical setting of the paper, provide the historical context of Julius Caesar’s reign as Roman Emperor and give an outline of his achievements. Also, this section will try to show why Shakespeare presented the play as a tragic, heroic piece and why Julius Caesar was murdered by a trusted friend yet the historical context of the Emperor’s murder is well known (Paolucci, 34). In the introduction part, the paper will also give a detailed evaluation of the study of the play and the historical and cultural aspects that have led to discrepancies in the study of this play. The part will also involve the appraisal of different criticisms of the play and why the play has remained popular among school studies. Further, different interpretations of the play will be given.

Another part of the play which will be presented in this study is the structure of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and how this has been applied by scholars in giving their interpretations of the play. It is a common practice for scholars to try and show the organization of the play. Here, the study will explore the ambiguous nature that is presented in the play with the central part of the play, the murder, drawing the first attention. The fundamental aspect of the play’s structure that most scholars find to be unique is the satirical parallelism of the play (Velz, 21). The murder of Caesar, which Brutus wanted to be a ritual and the most significant sacrifice for the larger good turns out to be presented as just murder as shown by Antony’s speech. Some important arguments will be given such as Leo Kirschbaum’s disapproval with the insistence from some critics to remove blood from the scene. Kirschbaum argues that the bloody handshake between Brutus and Antony is significant and should not be ignored as Antony uses it to term Brutus’ act of murdering Julius Caesar, a butcher (Dean, 272).

Here, it will be necessary for the historical context of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to be made to encourage interpretations of its cultural concerns. The complexity of Julius Caesar cannot be ignored. From the late 18th century, scholars found complexity in the way Julius Caesar was being interpreted. Thus, students should first have an understanding of Elizabethan theater and Elizabethan legacies (Dean, 274). Application of this type of analysis of the play reveals why some translations have stated that Caesar was a great leader, but Brutus murdered him because he (Brutus) could not efficiently judge character. The Elizabethan legacy clearly shows that in assassinating Caesar, Brutus makes an analogy of man as a microcosm and the fallout of his will on the macrocosm of society, corresponding to the beginning of his degeneration (Paolucci, 71). The historical context can also be important in giving the right political interpretation of this increasingly complex play. Here, scholars use the argument that Shakespeare might have applied concepts from the Renaissance to paint Julius Caesar as a monstrous tyrant making Brutus the tragic hero (Shakespeare, 53).

In the continuation of the above historical and cultural interpretation of the play, it will be essential to explore the various themes that Shakespeare presents in the play. The most common topics that most scholars have identified from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar include corruption, betrayal, honor, leadership, and friendship among many more (Thomas, 32). The play is commonly praised for its wonderful exploration of leadership and friendship and popularity. Of particular interest will be the detailing of the obsession with power and how it can corrupt the mind of the ruler. The main aim of this part of the study will be to give an understanding of the reason behind some scholars’ interest in the corruption behind the murder of Julius Caesar. The play is sometimes interpreted as being fuelled by jealousy for power on Brutus’ part with his quote that “As Julius Caesar was ambitious I murdered him” is extensively used in this interpretation (Bloom, 23). Some interpretations have also stated that it is Cassius who is the envious one but uses Brutus to give credibility to his act of assassinating Caesar.

In this subsection, the modern interpretation of the play will be explored. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar has had diverse modern interpretations in film and music. The play has also had interpretations regarding current historical events such as the assassination of President John F Kennedy (Dean, 451). Here, modern interpretations will be appraised regarding their view of the characters of Julius Caesar and Brutus. As already discussed, the two most popular divergent interpretations regarding the play involve whether Julius Caesar is a benevolent and wise leader or if he is a tyrant. The historical context of the John Kennedy assassination will be explored to show why modern interpretations have taken the path of creating a parallelism between the murder of Julius Caesar and those of modern American leaders (Thomas, 37). Other interpretations in film and music will also be explored such as the murder of Cinna, the poet from the play where Holland is famous for stating that the killing (Cinna’s) is reminiscent of Brutus’ mentality and the mobs.

After presenting all the interpretations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the paper will give the presentation which it best agrees with the paper’s position. In this case, the position the study will take will agree with the initial thesis made. The argument of the study asserts that throughout Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, power leads someone to corruption (Fortin, 341). Extensive evidence will be used from the play and other criticisms of the play to prove this notion. Firstly, the study will establish how Brutus and Cassius, his co-conspirator is envious of Julius Caesar’s position as the emperor of Rome. At the beginning of the play, Rome is enjoying a period of peace and prosperity, and this demonstrates that Caesar was not at all an evil leader (Niles et al., n.d). Cassius and Brutus and the other conspirators in the murder are influential people in the Roman Senate who only hate Caesar because of his honor and position. Such intuitions are best presented from Antony’s realization that Brutus murdered Caesar because of his popularity. Take this example;

Cassius: Why, man, doth he bestrides the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves in dishonorable graves.

Men at some time are masters of their fates.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars

But in ourselves that we are underlings (Niles et al., n.d).

Here, Cassius is talking about Julius Caesar, and his envy is evident. Despite being a senior man in the Senate, Cassius refers to himself as a petty man. His inferiority complex thus fuels him to be envious and hate Caesar. Cassius also feels that Caesar’s perceived larger-than-life stature makes him and others live dishonorable lives. He further believes that the fault that they are prepared to feel dishonored does not lie with their fate but rather at their hands signifying the conspiracy to do away with Caesar.

The corrupting influence of power is also shown in Julius Caesar. Caesar wants all the power but is cunning as can be demonstrated by his rejection of the crown three times when Antony offers it to him (HaengSoo, 331). However, Caesar’s modest thirst for the poet shows his empathic nature. Contrasted with the aggressiveness and even manipulation of Decius and Cassius, the play presents a particularly unusual perspective around power. It becomes evident that the brutal Cassius has sociopathic tendencies and he is only preoccupied with the murder of Caesar to achieve power (HeangSoo, 330). The paper will then diverge into the psychological traits of sociopaths and psychopaths which makes them susceptible to killing for a perceived sense of being in control. For instance, it is known that most serial killers are driven by the compulsion of being in control (Hare, 189). The play will also show how power can corrupt even the noblest of all the men such as Brutus whose act stuns Caesar for he never expected Brutus to do that to him.

In conclusion, this paper has given the historical as well as cultural contexts in the various interpretations of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The article has shown the main explanations that most critics and scholars have given regarding Shakespeare’s work. Arguments from different scholars have been presented. Also, modern and political interpretations of the play have been appraised in the study before the most convenient interpretation was chosen. The interpretation accepted reaffirms the thesis of the study. The nature of power to corrupt has then been explored through the tragic murder of Julius Caesar.

Works Cited

1. Bloom, Harold, et al. William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Infobase Publishing, 2009.
2. Dean, Leonard F. ‘ Julius Caesar’ and Modern Criticism.’ The English Journal, vol. 50, no. 7, 2001, p. 451.
3. Fortin, Rene E. ‘Julius Caesar: An Experiment in Point of View.’ Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, 2008, p. 341.
4. HaengSoo Lee. ‘Julius Caesar: Will to Power.’ Shakespeare Review, vol. 43, no. 2, 2007, pp. 329-348.
5. Hare, Robert D. ‘Criminal Psychopaths.’ Police Selection and Training, 2005, pp. 187-206.
6. Niles, Rebecca, et al. ‘Folger Digital Texts.’ Folger Digital Texts, www.folgerdigitaltexts.org/?chapter=5&play=JC&loc=p7.
7. Paolucci, Anne. ‘The Tragic Hero in Julius Caesar.’ Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 3, 2011, p. 329.
8. Shakespeare, William. ‘THE STAGE-HISTORY OF JULIUS CÆSAR.’ Julius Caesar, pp. xxxiv-xlvi.
9. Thomas, Derrick. Understanding Shakespeare’s’ Julius Caesar’ Online: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents. Greenwood Publishing Group,
10. Velz, John W. ‘Undular Structure in ‘Julius Caesar.” The Modern Language Review, vol. 66, no. 1, 2011, p. 21.

A rhetorical device utilizes words in a certain way to convey meaning/convince and is a strategy that stirs emotions within the reader or audience. In many popular speeches, the speaker uses this strategy to cause the audience to agree with their claims or to create a feeling of fervor and intensity throughout the crowd. In the play “Julius Caesar,” Brutus makes a speech to the citizens of Rome about the death of Caesar with the intent of becoming the new ruler. He uses different rhetorical devices to convince the people that Caesar was unfit to rule and talks in a way for the people to clearly understand what he is saying. The techniques used by Brutus are present in other speeches such as John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address (January 1961) and Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech (April 1964). Three rhetorical devices used by the orators, to sway the readers are repetition, parallelism, and pathos.

One effective rhetorical device used to sway the readers in each speech is repetition. In Malcolm X’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet” he surveys historic and current obstacles set up to shield dark individuals from casting a ballot and proposes that if these blocks proceed, African Americans should arm themselves against dehumanizing powers. In his speech, he repeats the words “I am not here.” He does this to confirm that his audience understands his purpose is not to discuss religion or differentiate himself from others. His purpose is to discuss equality and how it can make an impact. Malcolm X repeats “human rights” quite a few times as well, to remind the crowd they have the same rights as the Causains and that they are willing to fight for their ability to vote. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus speaks to the people of Rome about the murder of Caesar and he goes on to justify his [Brutus] actions. Before he began speaking, he attempted to gain the audience’s full attention by repeating ‘Hear, Hear’. Brutus’ use of repetition was to make the people in the crowd listen and be included in his lecture. John F. Kennedy uses the device similarly when describing his intentions as president of the United States. In his inaugural address, he repeats the phrase ‘my fellow citizens’ on two separate occasions. Kennedy’s purpose was to address the citizens of the United States and create a connection with them. The first time, he says: “In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.” The second time, he says “My fellow citizens of the world ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” Claiming his position as president, John had to gain the people’s trust and show them that they made the right choice voting for him. Using rhetorical strategies he challenged the nations to come together through peace, offering friendship and companionship. The speeches use repetition to make the crowd take away their words and remember the important points that were made.

Another rhetorical device used in each speech is parallelism. In the play, Julius Caesar, Brutus says “As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate. I rejoice at it. As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him.” Brutus used the technique to neatly show how he loved Caesar, but his ambition would lead to his death. His use of parallelism made his speech effective and persuaded the people to side with him in a matter of minutes. In John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, he says “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” What he wanted to get across was the idea of unity and bettering the country together. His use of parallelism makes his quotes have rhythm & order to them, which causes the reader to think about what he says. JFK continues, “My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” This quote is similar to what he said before, but it opens a dialogue about the extent of freedom in America. In The Ballot or the Bullet, Malcolm X says, “Now speaking like this, it doesn’t mean that we’re anti-white, but it does mean we’re anti-exploitation, we’re anti-degradation, we’re anti-oppression.” This means that the rally they are holding is not to be hateful towards people of the white race but to put a stop to oppression. Malcolm uses parallelism to clarify a possible misconception people had about his intentions and builds on it by saying what he is about. The speeches use parallelism to organize ideas and to make them memorable.

A rhetorical device in each speech that evokes emotion in readers is pathos. Malcolm X states, ‘And you spend so much time barking up the civil-rights tree, you don’t even know there’s a human-rights tree on the same floor’ in his speech. What he meant by this was the administration attempts to stay away from the topic of human rights since it is a greater issue, so they attempt to keep individuals enveloped with social liberties. His use of this quote causes the audience to have feelings against the administration that attempts to divert from the greater picture. In John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech he said, “People of the developing world were struggling to break the bonds of mass misery.’ He compared a bond to a mass misery which means that being tied is being in misery. Another metaphor he used is “the chains of poverty.” He used the metaphor as a way to describe how bad poverty in America is. This causes the audience to feel deeply upset about what is happening in their country. In Julius Caesar, Brutus says, “Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar was dead, to live all free men?” This makes the crowd begin to open their eyes and learn how Caesar was “ambitious” and want to side with Brutus. All of the speeches use pathos to have an emotional influence on the audience.

In conclusion, the three rhetorical devices used by the speakers, to influence their audiences are repetition, parallelism, and pathos. The speakers used rhetorical devices with a specific goal in mind, to conjure up feelings inside the audience. In numerous speeches, the speaker utilizes the method of rhetoric to persuade and excite the viewers.

The Romans came to end because the senators murder the Gracchus brothers. The senators killed them because they were trying to the Gracchus brothers pushed reforms to help the poor by giving them land. According to the book, it said That is when competition for power by the great men’ Sulla, Pompey, and Julius Caesar peaked in destruction civil war.

Optimates and Populares:

Optimates and Populares were a group of senators reformed by the Gracchus Brothers. The Populares were a group of senates who appealed to a lot of people, and they wanted to win the support and popularity of the people to increase their standing in political office. The optimate’s senates were known as the best men.

Julius Caesars:

Julius Caesars born in 100 B.C.E, gain declared his loyalty to the community, but really, he was pursuing his advancement. While doing so, he also had a powerful competitor named Gnaeus Pompey. Both Julius and Gnaeus created the civil war that ended the Roman Republic and led back to the monarchy. Pompey was a military fame in his early twenties, he won battles to support Sulla. Pompey defeated a massive slave rebellion created by the gladiator Spartacus. Pompey also ended the Seleucid king and expand Rome to the Mediterranean`s eastern coast. People thought Pompey was as good as Alexander the Great. Pompey did really care for the senate`s tradition of conquering foreign territories or behaving like an independent king. The people of Rome loved Pompey, the senators got jealous of all the attention and praise Pompey was getting. So, the senator blocked his organization and his land for his army veterans. Pompey then went to make a deal with his rivals Caesar and Crassus. They were Pompey`s political rivals. The three of them created an unofficial arrangement called the First Triumvirate. All three of them had a different view of politics, to make them bind, Caesar had his daughter Julia marry Pompey even though Julia was engaged to someone else. According to the book, Pompey and Julia apparently fell in love in their arranged marriage. Pompey loved Julia, so that kept peace between him and Caesars.

In 50 B.C.E, Caesars gain his loyalty by winning the war in Gaul. After the war, Caesar added Gaul to Roman provinces. When Caesar returned to Rome, his political enemies dreaded his return. When Julia died in 54 B.C.E., Pompey broke his bond with Caesars. Then the two of them broke out in violence. The war got so bad in 53 B.C.E, the election was canceled.

The civil war began when the Senate commanded Caesar to surrender his command. Caesar got angry, so he attacked Rome like Sulla. When Caesar told his people that the war had begun and they can`t turn back. The people of his instead of leaving cheered him on and followed him. Caesar got so many supporters, it made Pompey and most of the senators leave Greece. Caesar returned peacefully back to Rome. Caesar then left to attack Spain, then to Greece. He almost lost because he ran out of supplies. If it weren`t for his loyal armies, he probably wouldn`t have won. Caesar defeated the senates and Pompey, then Pompey went to Egypt, and he got killed by the pharaoh.

Caesar invaded Egypt in 69 B.C.E. He won and put Cleopatra VII back in the Egyptian throng in 30 B.C.E. Cleopatra charmed her way to make Caesar share a bed with her and made him support her rule. Everyone was shocked about their love affair.

Caesar won the civil war in 45 B.C.E. Caesar wanted to end the violence of the factions (Optimates and Populares). The oldest republic tradition forbids monarchy, so Caesar made himself king without the title, he uses the Roman title of a dictator and used it as a temporary emergency ruler. He told his people that he will continue as a dictator with no terms and that he is not a king. Caesar treated his opponents kindlier, so he would have grateful clients. How Caesar was ruling satisfy his people but made the optimates mad. They called Caesar a traitor because Caesar used to be one of their people, but the optimates got defeated by Caesar. Marcus Junius Brutus, one of Caesar`s close friends, led some of the senators. They made a plot to kill Caesar. They stabbed him to death in the Senate house on March 15, 44 B.C.E. At Caesar`s funeral, people rioted and vent their anger against the upper class and they also robbed them. The people could reform a united front, but the elite reenter their personal feud. Therefore, the republic couldn`t save its traditional value.

The Roman Republic came to an end because the republic got too big. Soldiers and armies went to different parts of the republic and became loyal to their general instead of Rome. All the generals fought each other to see who is more powerful. The senates couldn`t run the provinces that were too far from them, so they had the generals to run them. The generals became dictators. They had corruption in government and politics. Constant war and the abuse of taxation police caused the rich and poor relationship to an end. Basically, the roman republic came to an end because the civil war started between different loyalties for them to gain more power. After Caesar`s death, people started to riot, and the elites return to their life.