Why Is Julius Caesar Bad

1076 Words3 Pages

That is bad, but that is worse Politics are dishonest and underhanded in every aspect of its existence. It’s been that way from the times of the earliest civilizations to the current day governments. Power is a strong motivator for human nature and that hasn’t changed throughout the generations. Ruthless rulers have gone down in history for either bad deeds or their rise to power. A excellent example is none other than the infamous Julius Caesar. He didn't commit a horrible deed during his rein. This is because he was stabbed with “twenty-three blows” (Wasson) by a group of conspirators, therefore he did not commit an unforgivable crime. His rise to power is full of lies and flattery, a constant battle much like Queen Elizabeth I. After a series of plots …show more content…

In order to become the dictator and king of Rome Julius Caesar had to gain the people's trust and after that he had to get rid of those who stood in his way. He wanted to put up a front of looking firm and decisive but he couldn’t have anyone defy him. If he allowed one to defy him and let him live. Caesar believed it would give others the idea that they could ignore his commands as well and not pay the consequences. This could have lead to a loss of respect from his troops and followers. Queen Elizabeth did not have to use this idea as often as Julius. Caesar had many enemies as well as followers. He eliminated them to silence there rebellion. Queen Elizabeth I didn’t have to take out the heirs who were before her. They were removed by other people and conspirators and the blame was placed on her as a cover-up for them. She had to defend herself iusing logic and careful words. “Elizabeth had to persuade her interrogators she knew nothing of the plot” (Sharnette) The plot in which it references is the plot to remove all the other heirs or competion. The kidnapping of the prince, who was the first heir to the throne, was the main part of this

Open Document