Ranier Truesdale
Mrs. Ray
9th Grade Literature
November25,2015
Assassination Paper Caligula The assassination of the roman emperor Caligula is not very well documented beyond how many times and were he was stabbed; however there is enough evidence available for us to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the actions of the assassin were reasonable or not. The young emperor would rule for three years, ten months and eight days before being murdered outside the stables after attending a horse race. The murderers would consist of members of the emperor’s personal guard and the senate, who payed the gard and feared that the country was being ruled by a madman. The assassination of the emperor Caligula was unjust having no cause other than
…show more content…
these stories mainly come from one of the senate's hired authors, Suetonius, and his book The Twelve Caesars. There is a rumor that Caligula required families to attend the executions of their loved ones. this was mentioned briefly in The Twelve Caesars, by Suetonius who is not a reputable source on caligula’s policies or actions but this does lend to potential motives as Caligula may have requested the presence of some of the family of the guilty. Unfortunately Suetonius as not alive during Caligula’s rule and had his pockets lined with the senate's gold making it very hard to believe that he was not heavily influenced by the senate's overall negative view of the emperor meaning almost anything that he says is almost impossible to believe. recently people have been researching caligula and are finding that more and more sources from caligula’s time contradict Suetonius. There is some truth to the stories however as there is in almost every story but the likelihood of even a majority of Suetonius’s stories being based on actual research from reputable sources is slim especially since the diary of caligula and his sister were suddenly “lost” not long after his death lends to the idea that what the senate said about Caligula may not all be …show more content…
The argument arises when you ask if he was deserving of this; however the conflict completely dissipates when you realize that the people who wrote the history are the same people who subjected him to all of these hardships. when a person does something wrong they look for someone to blame oftentimes that person is the victim. Caligula was manipulated and lied to from the start and when you look for the truth instead of the story you realize that Caligula the Mad is different from Gaius the young emperor, Caligula is more a caricature of the emperor as opposed to someone who actually lived he is a creation of the senate who only serves the purpose of making the senate look good and to keep the people quiet and manageable as the last time the senate murdered the people’s emperor there was a revolt and many senators were killed they would not make that mistake again. The senate employed every tactic they knew how and have tainted history and opinions of Gaius since AD 41. The senate was not justified in killing Caligula and they knew it and they were scared someone else would figure it
If a friend asked me to tell him if it is worth it to read Suetonius' book "The Twelve Caesars", I would say it is. This book, though old, is still very interesting and informative today. It is important to note however, that the writing style of Suetonius' day was much different from our own. Some readers might be confused and exasperated with Suetonius' diction and syntax. He uses very long expressions and details to describe people and events that may not even be necessary to describe. But it is because of this extreme attention to detail that "The Twelve Cesars" is important to read.
In this case, the rise of Caesar’s power was considered by some as disregard and disrespect of authority, tradition, and Roman rules. Caesar on many occasions challenged Roman commander Pompey and his main opponent, thus leading to many civil wars. Additionally, his decision to cross Rubicon was contrary to the Roman law that restricted him to enter Rome because he was a governor of Gaul at the time. Additionally, following Pompey’s death, Caesar conferred more powers to himself by diluting the Senate’s reaches and powers (Alvin 82). One major flaw that Caesar possessed was his strong ambition. This made him overconfident and thought he had become invincible both in Rome and battle. Because his soldiers respected and loved him, Caesar thought that he would pursue whatever he desired. This is what led to his
According to Michael Parenti, author of “The Assassination of Julius Caesar”, states that “the writing of history has long been a privileged calling undertaken within the church, royal court, landed estate, affluent town house, government agency, university, and corporate-funded foundation.” Parenti writes this because he wants to point out the way history is published and mentions the church, royal court, landed estate, and affluent town house as a way history is written. “On the fifteenth of March, 44 B.C., in a meeting hall adjacent to Pompey’s theater, the Roman Senate awaited the arrival of the Republic’s supreme commander, Julius
He suffered from a permanent limp, speech impediments and abdominal pains. Because of his poor health he was not considered a political threat, but rather, his ill health became an advantage on the January 24th, AD 41, the night Caligula was assassinated. He strived to create a military image for himself and this was achieved through his conquest of Britain. He personally led his Roman armies to land in Britain, despite his physical disabilities.
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, commonly known as Caligula, was one of many problematic emperors of Rome. After conducting my research with various individuals in Rome, they mainly target Caligula’s cruelty, sadism, extravagance and sexual perversity.
Basically Caesar had many people disagree with his actions so they assassinated him.
Brutus turned on his best friend and stabbed him in the back. In Julius Caesar’s final moments he noticed his best friend as a traitor. “Et tu, Brute! Then fall, Caesar”, these are Caesars last words as he is stabbed in the back by his friend. Since Brutus thought what he did was for Rome, he did not kill his best friend out of spite or hate he killed his best friend Julius Caesar so that Rome could live. Brutus was tricked into believing that Caesar would not be fit to be king, and would destroy the place Brutus loves, Brutus killed Caesar to protect Rome. Despite what Brutus did, he did only what he thought was the only thing he could do to save Rome. He thought not about his position he thought about the people. Yet he killed Caesar off
Clearly, Caesar contributed significantly to preventing the destruction of Rome and therefore, he should not have been assassinated by the conspirators. Caesar should not be assassinated by the conspirators because they had personal reasons for hating him. Firstly, they hated Caesar because they were not trusted by him.... ... middle of paper ...
...tension of himself. He had the power to stand up to Cassius and stop this conspiracy before it even began, but did he? He does manage to muster some sympathy in that he lost everyone that meant anything to him. “I had rather be a dog and bay at the moon, than such a roman” (966). He has lost everything and become what he truly feared and hated most. Who could do that to that and realize it in such a form to ruin his whole life. He made the cowardly choice and took the suicide battle over having a chance to reclaim his life.
In the light of Germanicus’ death, Caligula’s family had drifted out of the heart of Tiberius, who then saw the brothers, sisters, and mother of Caligula to be rivals. He accused all of such of treason. To which they all were either exiled, or imprisoned. Thus was the death of the family – all except “little boots”, himself.
They were jealous of his power and the Ultimately, Caesar’s pride helped cause the end of his life. He was so self-absorbed and so confident that Decius was telling him the truth that Calpurnia’s dream was taken the wrong way. Noble Caesar believed the Roman citizens loved him and that he was their lifeblood, but really they wanted him gone. It is possible that Caesar would have been killed by the conspirators another day, but since he did not listen to what the soothsayer and his own wife had to say, he was tragically taken for
... different possible answers, and it is all up to speculation. I personally believe that homicides can be justified in very few scenarios, but can be, nonetheless. Pertaining to Caesar, I believe Brutus had justifiable motive to kill Caesar, and the homicide, similar to the murder of Osama Bin Laden was committed to stop a tyrant from gaining more power. Had Brutus let Caesar live, he would’ve become a sovereign and all hell would’ve broke loose. Caesar would’ve tromped all who stood before him, and ancient Europe would’ve become an ant under Caesar’s boot. If Brutus really did kill Caesar for the good will of Rome, I do not believe he was in any way a bad man, and even proved how strong of a man he was. In most cases, homicides are ugly, heinous crimes. But in a select few instances, they can be not only justifiable, but the overall best outcome of a situation.
Tragedies most often refer back to the actions of men. The play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, provides a good example to how the quote is shown to be accurate." The calamities of tragedy do not simply happen, nor are they sent [by the gods]: they proceed mainly from actions, and those actions of men." This statement is profoundly proven through the past and present actions of the conspirators throughout the play. From the beginning of the play, the reader can identify who will necessarily betray and plot to murder Caesar.
The assassination of Julius Caesar was due to his increased power and the senate’s fear of losing political relevance. They were losing their freedoms and thought the only way to resolve this problem was to kill Caesar. Killing Caesar never really did anything to help make the government a democracy like the senate had wanted. Marcus Brutus and Cassius ended up leaving Rome, so their plot did not do anything to help them. Caesar was the leader of Rome, the top of the Roman Empire. The people he thought he could trust most, his so-called friends, took him to the bottom of the Roman Empire, to his grave.
Sakespear's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar holds two possible candidates for a tragic hero, however Brutus fits the persona best. The true definition of a tragic hero, as found by Aristotle, is a character who falls from a high standing to a low standing. They suffer enourmous loss, but are eventually enlightened of their own flaw or flaws. Initially the play begins with Caesar returning to Rome from defeating Pompey. Meanwhile, the first seeds of conspiracy are begining to take root. Although Brutus ignores Cassius's chiding to join the conspirators his tragic flaw of being easily molded and persuaded lead him to fall prey and join. As time progresses Brutus makes many grievous errors, and his flawed logic leads him to become bereft of all he once held dear. In the end, preceding his death, Brutus grasps the fact that he has no one to blame for his loss but himself; thus the enlightenment. All of these characteristics classify Brutus as the tragic hero of this play.