How great a success do you think Cicero’s prosecution of Verres was? Give reasons for your view Cicero’s prosecution of Verres was a success; although, many aspects of the trial limit the brilliance of his achievement in winning the case. Gaius Verres was a Roman senator and magistrate, however according to Cicero he administrated the province with unparalleled corruption. The reasoning behind this accusation is that Verres ransacked public places and private homes for works of art and other wealth. Cicero was asked by Plaintiffs to be the prosecutor of this trial due to his previous fairness while serving as quaestor in Sicily’s western district five years earlier.
Of all of the characters in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Cassius was the most deceiving. He turned numerous loyal supporters of Caesar against him (Caesar). Cassius was the most skilled at making people see things his way, and want to join him. An example of this is when he falsely leads Brutus into thinking that the people, whom Brutus cares so much for, hate Caesar. Of all of Cassius’s traits, there are three that are the most seen; he is jealous, a liar, and a manipulator.
This not only makes Paris responsible for the outbreak of a long, devastating and all-round unnecessary war, but also shows him to be a shallow man. Had he chosen the offers that Hera or Athene made, Paris would have not have suffered as much and would not have been responsible for war, death and anguish. Another reason is that Hera and Athene made far better offers to Paris. Hera offered him a large kingdom, and Athene offered him military glory, both of which are better offers than a beautiful woman. Had Paris accepted Hera’s offer, then he would have become one of the most powerful men in the world, and had he chosen to accept the offer made by Athene, Paris could have become a hero that rivalled Odysseus in his glory.
It is shown through out the play in many different acts and scenes that the real hero is actually not Julius Caesar. Many people might say that Julius Caesar is the real hero in the play but the real hero is Marcus Brutus. Brutus was a hero in a different type of way; in a way that bad was done to save the good. He persisted qualities that no other person did and he was a master to his family, friends, and people of Rome. The three qualities that make Brutus a hero are that he was not a man that would deceive people, he was noble and influenced others in a positive way.
Brutus was a man of much sympathy and gratefulness, whose heart led him to do what he believed, was best for his people. Brutus was a loving friend, a great military leader, and an all around wonderful person. Although some may not be fond of Brutus for killing Caesar, I am here to inform everyone about how good of a person he really was and how his intentions were for the greater good. Brutus thought that by killing Caesar, the future of Rome would be better. Initially, Brutus was a man for the people who did what he believed was necessary.
He acts as Caesar’s friend and along with Caesar, has a powerful position in Rome. Since they both have a lot of power, Brutus has no reason to be jealous of Caesar. When Brutus finally decides what to do, he bases it on what he thinks is best for Rome, but is also tricked into thinking that the conspirators are doing it for the same reason. He says, “What need we any spur but our own cause / To prick us to redress? What other bond / Than the secret Romans that have spoke the word, / And will not palter?
Many have come to the question: What were the contributing factors to the fail of the Roman Empire? Political downfall, social wrecking, economic destruction, and military confusion brought on the collapse of the Roman Empire. What was once a thriving republic that the public knew and loved turned into an unjust and corrupted empire and with it brought confusion. Julius Caesar, a military leader, had earned the support and trust of Rome and was appointed dictator. Caesar would later destroy what was left of the republic.
It was very successful and at times controlled vast swathes of the World. However, these very successes were also somewhat responsible for its own downfall. When analysing if the Roman Republic was a victim of its own success one must first point out the reasons for the fall of the Republic. These can be drawn down to four key reasons; one factor which stands out above all others behind the fall of the Republic was the various weaknesses of the government and the way in which it cracked under the Imperial pressure placed upon it which led to Augustus doing simply what was necessary to maintain the Roman way of life. Another key reason behind the fall of the Republic was the influx of slaves and money, which the new found conquering brought to Rome.
Therefor, though Caesar succeeded in gaining power and uniting the country, the glory of his success blinded him and lead him down a path full of misery. Success can bring out the worst in people and turn terribly disastrous. Just as Caesar's prideful arrogance was his tragic flaw that prevented him from seeing the harm he was doing and the harm that have been planned against him, Macbeth's destructive ambitions lead to his wife’s suicide and his assassination. All in all, the glory from achieving success can distort one's perception and ability to reason and can lead to
Concepts such as the ‘careers open to talent’ and the Code Napoleon are prime examples of such reforms. Some have however poured cold water over his achievements claiming instead that the advent of his empire spelt the death sentence for the revolution and all the good it stood for. While there maybe some truth in those assertions, it would be a gross exaggeration to claim that he completely destroyed the revolution. This essay seeks to show that Napoleon 1 did not end the revolution however much his reign was negative. It is necessary to clarify what the revolution really was before Napoleon is brought to judgement.