Comparing Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln English II Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln are undeniable two of the greatest men in history. When comparing the two, there are not a lot of things they have in common. However, there are some main things that they did have in common. Both of them were powerful leaders, they both lost parents at a young age, they were in the military and they both were assassinated. Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln lived during different time periods.
The classical historian, Suetonius, writes of how Nero’s grandfather loved the brutal performances of the gladiators so much that Augustus had him rebuked and how his father was known for his quick temper and violent nature. These negative characteristics would definitely have an impact on the young emperor, as these figures are his role models. Whether Nero started the Fire of Rome or not is still argued about today. Most historic texts like that of Suetonius accuse him of the disaster. However, Tacitus
Clint Eastwood, who directed the film and stared in it as Walt Kowalski, was more going for the vigilante justice, which is like most of his movies. I do not think that it handled it in any realistic type of way. Walt seemed to more of a grumpy old man who hated everyone. He even hated his own kids. Gran Torino was more of a movie that focused on sentimental values and emotional manipulation to do justice to the racial issue.
Many people like to believe the cause of World War I was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Although that did trigger the war, it did not start the up rising problems. War doesn’t just happen over night; there were problems long before Franz Ferdinand died. Problems such as militarism, alliances, nationalism, imperialism, and then the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Militarism led to problems because every country had confidence that its new technological weaponry and troop count could defeat any other country, which led to a severe lack of negotiations.
He is now adulterated by the glory and material wealth of earth that he has lost the strength of his purity, a power that can only come when he fights only with his bare hands and without the protection of metal. Beowulf fights two more battles after his first victory: a battle with Beowulf’s mother, then a battle with the dragon that terrorizes his own kingdom. The two other battles that follow later in Beowulf’s life becomes increasingly difficult, ultimately leading to his death; this process is an indication of Beowulf’s corruption as he indulges in the earthly goods along with the glory following his deeds. By the end of the poem, Beowulf
In my own opinion Alexander does deserve his reputation because he did this mostly by himself. He conquered the entire known world, with the army that he established because he had the resources and the ideals, to be a successful leader. He managed himself in a well manner with all of his soldiers and even though all feared him, all also loved him. It is beyond me to say that Alexander does not deserve what he accomplished. Saying that he does not deserve this is as if almost to say he did not exist.
I think that in the movie Little Big Man, General Custer is the most selfish character and his ignorance results in the ruining of many lives. At first, Custer’s grand behavior seems appealing and admirable to Jack. Custer continues to state that he is always right and is angered by those who disagree. Only a self-centered man could have such an outlook on life. It is either Custer’s way or the highway.
Me and my classmates were fed all those great examples of people fighting during Second World War sacrificing their lives and not even dare to look for any kind of reward other then admitting them into “hero ranks” of their “great” country. Fighting for reward was not hero like behavior. I realize though that this understanding of hero was more due to the norms and obligations of certain time and society. In “The Iliad” hero is noted for his courage and strength and desire to fight especially if they risk their life or put it in any kind of danger. But at the same time Homer also pays great attention to rewards, heroes get for their fighting.
They are both selfish men, led by irrational motives. Macbeth killed a good king; he speaks greatly of Duncan when he reconsiders murdering Duncan due to his good heart; “Besides, this Duncan hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his great office that his virtues shall plead trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation of his taking off. "(1.7.16-20) Macbeth also happened to be related to Duncan but that still didn’t stop him from murdering him and fulfilling his prophecy. Under Macbeth’s rule, people were in constant worry due to the numerous assassinations and experienced food shortages. The narrator in ATTH, killed because he claimed the old man’s eyes resembled that of a vulture’s and that he felt uncomfortable because he also claimed that whenever they fell on him, his “blood ran cold”.
He throws himself into situations, believing that he would always win since he is the emperor, but ends up failing drastically in the end. For example, when he challenges Maximus to a fight, Maximus knows that Commodus is only fooling himself. From the very beginning of the movie, Commodus is visibly a weak man both physically and mentally. He always scares himself when near a sword