He was not going to let his dream of being popular fade away. Little did Crassus know that someone who was admired throughout the Roman people was thinking about partnering up with him. As Julius Caesar was attempting to become a member of the consul in 60 BCE, he ran into a small problem with the fact that he did not have any money. He had spent all his money that he had and all the money he had borrowed to get him to the political stance he was up to at that point. Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey all knew that individually they did not have the power to overrule the Senate, so they came to their senses and realized if they could not beat them individually they should join together and take over.
An example of him being too power hungry was his desire to be Rome’s dictator for life. This shows he wanted to be the only one in control and wanted all the power to himself and didn’t want to share it with any individual. Another example is how he wanted to be like Alexandar the Great and conquer countries and have lots of power. In essence, this means his idol was a man of great power and a man who was famous for conquering countries and land. An idol like this means Caesar did not have good thoughts, and all he wanted was power and wanted people to bow down to him.
For example, in the poem “Ozymandias”, the king/ruler probably became too concerned with his power and he forgot about the prior goals he set. This most likely led to the destruction of his “works”. Macbeth somewhat demonstrates the same qualities as the ruler in the poem. Macbeth becomes too overly concerned with power and he forgets why exactly he is taking these actions. An example of this is his lack of any legitimate reasons for killing King Duncan and obtaining the throne except for his own ambition and greed to become king.
Julius Caesar: Brutus' Moral Ambiguity Shakepeare's intruiging play Julius Caesar tells a tale of a honorable man who puts his personal interests aside and pulls off a devastating move in order to protect Rome. When Caesar returns to Rome after killing General Pompey, he is given a hero's welcome but his crowning as king becomes a major conflict all throughtout the city and strikes fear in the hearts of many people. Marcus Brutus, a dear friend of Caesar is revealed as a morally ambiguous protagonist of the play as he is pressured into defending his highest values and becomes involved in plotting the assasination. Although Brutus' actions may seem questionable and ultimately lead to Caesar's death, his decision is made with good intentions that can be seen through his patriotism for Rome, idealistic views of the world, and moral obligations. Marcus Brutus was in fact one of the conspirators that murdered Caesar.
Because of this, he decides he must kill Banquo, so that there will be no heir. “Macbeth plots the murder of Banquo, out of jealousy and insecurity.” (Hompi 1) This is obviously an absurd idea, and prior to Macbeth’s murder of King Duncan he never would have considered it as a solution. Shakespeare uses this to show how power corrupts even the best of people. It is obvious that this is still a problem in society today, as people start off with good intentions but slowly get sidetracked. Before long, their objectives have changed completely.
Becoming a governor in his region of Rome was not enough, he wanted to be crowned king and serve as a dictator for life, something that Rome did not have for five hundred years. His need for absolute power, to become greedy and to bring Rome under Monarchy corrupted him and altered his thinking. Instead of thinking about the Roman people, he was thinking about himself, and that made him a horrible leader. Another reason that Julius Caesar was not the best leader was that he was weak. Although he appeared to be strong to the commoners, he was seen as weak to his own Senate members, especially Cassius.
He just wanted the job for himself, and not Caesar. He just said he didn't like the idea of a king as camouflage for his own ambition. That may be unduly cynical on my part, but on the other hand, he certainly took onto himself the kingly power of deciding, all by himself, whether an important government official should live or die. (5) It would mean it was no longer a republic, of course. A king implies that sovereignty no longer lies with the people, but with the king.
But due to Brutus being mislead and easily manipulated by Cassius, Brutus would be a more suitable leader to lead Post-Caesar Rome than Cassius, but not to convincingly lead the conspiracy against Caesar. But neither are able to lead the conspiracy and Rome as a whole. Both Cassius and Brutus are friends of Caesar, Brutus respects and loves Caesar but he believes that he would bring chaos to the state of Rome, in comparison to Cassius whom he despises out of jealously and resents the fact that Caesar shows him no favour and is clearly envious of Caesar's growing power and popularity. In the first Act of the play, Cassius was clearly trying to persuade Brutus into removing Caesar from power, but Brutus is uncertain to do so, as he loves Caesar out of respect. " I would not Cassius, yet I love him well..Set honour in one eye and death I'th' other And I will look on both indifferently.." This shows that Brutus is indecisive of Caesar and is unfazed by Cassius's attempt to manipulate him to conspire against Caesar.
Cassius is all bent out of shape because he thinks Caesar is running around acting like a king. Without coming right out and saying so directly, Cassius (who has been plotting against Caesar with a group of conspirators) suggests that maybe Brutus should lead Rome. Brutus says he gets what Cassius is saying, but he is also good friends with Caesar, so he needs a little time to think about
Brutus, for example, repeatedly refers to his own character, wanting to persuade the crowd that because he is an honorable man, what he did was right. He also praises the man he killed, which justifies it in the eyes of the crowd. We see this now when a politician will praise his opponent, even though he has previously devastated him (or her) just previously. “Who is here so vile that will not love his country” he asks (3.2.34). Who could say no?