Caesar

Caesar

In Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, the conspirators killed Caesar for being ambitious. One of the conspirators, Brutus said “It must be by his death. And for my part/ I know no personal cause to spurn at him,/ But for the general”(2.1.10-12). This is saying that Brutus is convinced that Caesar must die, even though he has no reason to kill him himself, except he feels it is right for the people. How can this be a valid reason to kill Caesar if Brutus can not think of a simple reason to? The conspirators had no reason to kill Caesar because he helped Rome, killing is wrong, no matter what, and they never gave him a chance to rule.
First, Some people may say that Caesar was detrimental to Rome. However, Caesar brought much wealth to Rome. In Mark Antony’s speech he stated “He hath brought many captives to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill” (3.2.97-98). Caesar made Rome wealthy by taking prisoners from wars, and held them for ransom. How is Caesar bad for Rome if he helped Rome?
Second, a reader can see how the conspirators had reason to kill Caesar. However, killing is always wrong, no matter what situation. In Antony’s speech, he says “And men have lost their reason!” (3.2.115). In simpler terms, men are killing people in the streets just because it delights them. When this happens in a community, anarchy occurs, and anarchy is the downfall to all government, structure, and rules in that community.
Third, Caesar might have been a terrible leader, but he was never given a chance with power. How could the conspirators think that Caesar would have gone crazy with power if they never gave him the chance? Another quote from Antony’s speech: “Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?”(3.2.99). Antony knew that Caesar would not go crazy with power, as he was not ambitious. However, the killers believed that he was ambitious, with no reason to back that up, and decided Caesar was not good for Rome. If the killers had given Caesar a chance, saw he was a...

Similar Essays