Although the play is referred to as "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar" Caesar was partly at fault for his own death. His arrogant attitude towards Romans and his self centered attitude brought an early death upon him. Caesar received many warnings which may have saved his life but unfortunately hubris got the best of him and Caesar was brought down. Arrogance is defined as "offensive display of superiority or self importance and overwhelming pride". This was the character of Caesar in a single sentence.
“you all did love him once, not without cause: what cause withholds you then to mourn for him now”(citation). Here Antony depicts how the crowd once did love him but because a man has put false ideas into their heads, they turn on him. A citizen of Rome should stand for their beliefs, not the ones that are put into their heads even if it is by a powerful and honorable man. Not only does Antony show much emotion towards the subject, but so does Brutus when he speaks during his own eulogy. Here Brutus illustrates his love Rome, “not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved Rome more” (citation).
Et tu, Bruté?” Should Caesar have been so surprised to see Brutus among the conspirators? Brutus was merely a humble man who wished for the betterment of Rome. He was justified in killing Caesar, one man, to save and help the lives of thousands. This was a selfless act of kindness. Caesar was not a strong enough leader for Rome, a booming city that was quickly accumulating knowledge and wealth.
Certainly these changes were massive, quite abrupt and differed drastically from the norm; however that does not necessarily make them bad. Except, that is how they are viewed by many historians today. The historian N.Reeves believes Akhenaten was unsuccessful, but more in his religion reforms. 'For ordinary folk, there is little doubt that Akhenaten's actions as king over time inflicted the greatest misery: the people were confused by the man's religious vision, frightened by the ruthless manner in which it was imposed and quite likely appalled by his personal behaviour.' Reeves believe that the changes would have confusing and scary for the common people.
Why was his spirit tormented and unable to cross the River Styx? Because this King, King Creon, wanted to make a point to his people. The point that he is cruel, unfair, self-centered, pompous, stubborn, and incoherent king, who is not fit to rule. King Creon’s unfounded command is seen in all his actions and decrees. His fickle favor toward his servants, and not to mention his family, proves his inconsistency and instability.
Caesar does not deserve what he is given, and that is death. The reasons for why Caesar did not deserve to die, are because Caesar is giving, kind, and selfless, are these traits that are liable to get him killed, Definitely not. First off, Caesar is a giving man for several reasons. He cares deeply about all of the people of Rome, and he has nothing but their best interests at heart, and that is quite evident. The people that are conspiring against him argue that he was selfish, but that is just blasphemous, he cared about the people before himself, any day.
Christopher Davis Per.1 H English 10 5/23/13 Letter to Rome Dear the most noble citizens of Rome, I must first admit, knew not Caesar well enough to spin a tale of a grand adventure. But I do know he was as courageous as I am angered. I did consider Caesar a friend, though we seldom made casual conversation with each other. You are all intelligent people, and you can all plainly see Caesar’s death was unjustified. In mine eyes, Brutus is a shell of his once honorable self.
Assess the impact of the Emperor Tiberius on the Principate The impact that the Emperor Tiberius had on the principate was contested by both the ancient and modern historians through time. Ancient historians mostly comprised detested Tiberius as it was their obligation to expose the evils of the principate under the Julio-Claudians and portray its degeneration into tyranny. His flaws are highlighted by the end of his reign particularly caused by his enigmatic personality, deteriorating relationship with the senate, influence of Sejanus and the repercussions of the treason trials. Whilst modern sources illustrate him from a more positive perspective pointing out his good intentions, effectively administrating the state, vastly improving
To what extent was the reign of Tiberius successful? An evaluation of Tiberius’ success or otherwise is difficult. Ancient sources are quick to point to his failings, right from his accession to the ‘princeps’, which Suetonius claims only came about by default, “for want of any better choice”. Tacitus may not be as theatrical in his treatise on Tiberius, but he too was often critical of the emperor, highlighting how Tiberius was cruel and arrogant, and how Tiberius’ murder of his potential rival, Agrippa Postumus, was callous. Such subjectivity clouds much of the ancient appraisals of Tiberius.
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.