The innocence of Brutus Brutus was not guilty when he killed Caesar. He was an honorable person to do such a brave thing. He didn’t just do it because of ambition, like what most people think, but he did it to save Rome. He cared about Rome and knew that Caesar wasn’t doing a good job at keeping the romans safe. Caesar was so ambitious that it wasn’t good for high power.
"And why should we start standing up to him now?" asked Cicero. The next day he wrote to Atticus: "We should have stood up to him [Caesar] when he was weak, and that would have been easy. Now we have to deal with eleven legions...." Though he hated the idea of civil war, the only course, said Cicero, was to follow "the honest men or whoever may be called such, even if they plunge." And who were these "honest men"?
Trying Brutus Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears! Throughout William Shakespeare’s historical play, Julius Caesar, there is an omnipresent sense of questioning deriving from the play’s most controversial character, Marcus Brutus, and his sense of honor, or more, whether he has any honor to speak of. The debate concerning Brutus’ possible antagonism and inherent hubris isn’t unfounded by any means; however, the evidence of his honorability seems to outweigh anything supporting his lack of it. It is likely that without the presence of Caius Cassius, Brutus never would have even considered murdering Caesar, a man among his most beloved friends.
He tried to teach the Romans that if they were not at war, there could be growth and prosperity all throughout Rome. However, Augustus had to cover up the damage that his adopted father, Julius Caesar, had done to Rome. At first, people believed that Julius Caesar would be a good leader, but sadly, he used the power for his own personal gain. He had a daughter named Julia, who he married to Pompey, creating an alliance. Once Julia died,
Clearly this was quite a vigorous act, Cicero undertook this in full knowledge it could perhaps lead to his death as Caesar’s army, though lacking numbers, was full of war veterans. However one could call this acting against the republic, as Cicero spent more time with Pompey and his legions it was clear that the upkeep of the republic was not the motive of war but defeating Caesar was. He quarrelled with several of the more prominent Pompeian commanders over their eagerness to shed Roman blood. In Cicero’s opinion, the Pompeians had lost all sense of perspective in their lust to destroy
Describe the methods Julius Caesar used to advance his career up to 60BC. 10 marks Gaius Julius Caesar was born into a patrician, aristocratic family in 100BC and can be considered the most famous and well-known man of ancient Rome. His methods used to advance his career up to 60BC are often thought to be controversial and topics of debate. The hostility among both ancient and modern sources must be examined but also allow for the acknowledgement of Caesar’s accomplishments including his political office, public popularity and role as pontifex. Marian connections, political alliances and marriages all contributed to Caesar’s success up until 60BC.
Throughout these speeches, some men occasionally proved their worth by acquiring an equivalent position held by their predecessors but most made it seem that the debt owed to their ancestors was far too great. Cicero had no opportunity to speak about his ancestors the same way, for they were not rendered illustrious nor enjoyed popular favour.2 He also warned his son about living up to a distinguished name, and how the eyes of the world will turn upon him, his life and character scrutinised in good deeds and bad.3 The value of ancestry also flowed into Roman funeral processions. This commonly involved a parade of ancestral portraits, which was offered as respect to the deceased; and destined every member of the family that had ever existed to be present at their descendant’s funeral.4 People attending the funeral would listen to the details from orators about the virtues and successes accomplished by the deceased. Afterwards they would
Excerpts from Plutarch’s Life of Caesar. However, the Romans gave way before the good fortune of the man and accepted the bit, and regarding the monarchy as a respite from the evils of the civil wars, they appointed him dictator for life. This was confessedly a tyranny, since the monarchy, besides the element of irresponsibility, now took on that of permanence. 2 It was Cicero who proposed the first honours for him in the senate, and their magnitude was, after all, not too great for a man; but others added excessive honours and vied with one another in proposing them, thus rendering Caesar odious and obnoxious even to the mildest citizens because of the pretension and extravagance of what was decreed for him. 3 It is thought, too, that the
He provided no insight to the enemies of Rome even though they were pretty spectacular in their ability to organize armies even after so many defeats. He would also make insults to the enemies of Rome, insults that a true historian would never dream of making. Even when he did dig deeper into the societies of Rome’s enemies, such as the Campanians, he was never too positive, always shinning a negative light on them. It finally to the resolve of the Samnites to draw any praise for Roman foes out of Livy. To me, Livy was a great patriot, but a terrible historian.
He also wanted to create a bill that was beyond Washington beyond partisan politics. Max Baucus was their secret weapon in passing this. He had secret connections with Chuck Grassley. They needed something that could get 75-80 votes or a consensus bill. Most saw nothing for the Republican Party in Baucus’s proposals making them not want to be apart of this.