The Importance Of Leadership In Julius Caesar

1. Introduction In William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, Gaius Julius Caesar is described by the character of Mark Antony as being, “…the noblest Roman of them all…” (Shakespeare Julius Caesar 5.5.67.231). Julius Caesar has been represented in history as a multi-faceted Roman leader, excelling in the military, social and political spheres of Roman life.

Brutus is too trusting of others because he assumes others have the same honorable ideals as he does in trying to do what is best for Rome. People such

In Act 3 Scene 2 Brutus said during his speech, “If that friend then demands to know why Brutus turned against Caesar, this is my answer: Not because I cared for Caesar less, but because I cared for Rome more”. Brutus had courage to kill Caesar, not because he wanted to, but for the good of Rome and its people. During the entirety of the story, Brutus

A quality all humans possess is questioning leadership. The reasons why we challenge or rebel against our leaders describe what kind of individual we are. Cassius and Brutus have different reasons for questioning Caesars power. Both characters have a common goal but exceedingly different values, thought process, and motives for killing Caesar. Cassius and Brutus are characters who have opposite values.

At this point in the play, Brutus was making all of the decisions for the conspirators. He would not listen to Cassius when he should have. For example, if they would have killed Antony he would not have had to flee Rome, another thing he should have listened to is that Brutus should not have let Antony make a speech in act 3 scene 2 lines 73-105. Antony was able to use pathos during his speech to turn the people against the conspirators, while Brutus tried using logos. If Brutus would have used a different approach he would not have had the people turn against

When Brutus was talking to the conspirators Brutus was going back and forth think if he should help the conspirators kill Julius Caesar. He was going back and forth because he was thinking of the power he could have and could rule Rome. The reason behind Brutus killing Caesar was for the better of Rome. If Brutus would not have killed Caesar, Rome would have turned into a dictatorship, and in turn it would have ruined Rome and all of its people. Brutus did not kill Julius just for the power to rule Rome, he killed Julius to save Rome from Caesar’s dictatorship.

Corruption is defined as dishonest or illegal behavior, especially by powerful people, and just like its definition, corruption and power go hand in hand. The more power a person has, generally, the easier it is for them to be corrupted. Just like in Julius Caesar where power and corruption are very prevalent, and most of the leaders in Julius Caesar became corrupted by their power, but in some rare cases leaders have avoided corruption, these people are very valuable in society, and must not be taken for granted. Just like many other leaders in Julius Caesar, Caesar was corrupted by his power. He wasn’t corrupt in the normal sense, he was socially corrupt in the fact that he didn’t stick to the social norms of respecting fellow senators in

Julius Caesar was the Dictator of Rome in 42 BC who accomplished many things. Many people believed that he was a hero, but Julius Caesar was a very ambitious dictator and was more of a villain than a hero. Julius Caesar was a villain because he didn’t think first before doing something, he forced the Senate to name him dictator for life and he also was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. To begin with, Julius Caesar was a was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. Caesar used his power as dictator more towards his advantage instead of helping the people in Rome.

Persuasive Essay     “Life is full of tough decisions, and nothing makes them easy. But the worst ones are really your personal koans, and tormenting ambivalence is just the sense of satori rising. Try, trust, try, and trust again, and eventually you'll feel your mind change its focus to a new level of understanding.”  - Martha Beck. This is like the decision Brutus is making in his life at the moment in trying to decide whether or not to join the conspiracy in the way that it talks about it as you can’t always look at the personal things the for the better on the rest.

Brutus realized the great harm Caesar could bring to Rome if the was crowned king. Although Brutus was easily persuaded by Cassius to go as far as committing a murder, Brutus did it because he thought that it was the best for Rome. Brutus does what he thinks is the absolute best for Rome which really shows his great honor and

Is a good deed still a good deed when looked at from an ice cold eye? Was it ever really a good deed at all? It’s all about perspective. In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, ethos, pathos, and logos is used to show both sides of a deed that was good in one eye and cold in the other. He uses ethos to show the credibility of the speeches, logos to show facts given, and pathos to show the emotion shown throughout the eulogies.

Caesar shows us that politicians/leaders can control people with their words. Do you remember when Obama gave his campaign promises? Even though we didn't have full evidence that Obama could fulfill those promises we still believed and voted for him. Leaders use words to control the people who is voting for them.

Publicly, Julius Caesar is invincible and tries to portray himself as a great leader who is able to do all things in greatness and nobility for Rome. Caesar is always careful to present himself as steadfast even in front of his close friends but even more so to the public. For example, when Caesar wanders through the streets, his presence commands respect, and he offers the best version of himself. His “I am the greatest star” speech shows that he puts in effort that’ll make him look superior to others, “ But I am constant as the northern star, Of whose true-fixed and resting quality, There is no fellow in the firmament.

Abstract: In this paper, I discuss the film Gladiator and the specific main characters of Maximus, Commodus and Marcus Aurelius. They displayed both good and bad leadership throughout the film. Maximus mostly exemplified the positive theories of leadership, while Marcus Aurelius and Commidus represented the bad forms. Maximus mainly displayed the leadership traits of transformational leadership, LMX theory, referent and legitimate power and Great Man Theory.

The play begins with Julius Caesar returning from a victory over Pompey to a cheering crowd of Romans. He is an ambitious leader who wants Rome to prosper and looks out for his countrymen over himself, though he has his own, darker, flaws. This selflessness is explicitly demonstrated by him saying “What touches us shall be last served” (III.I.9) when he is told to deal with a letter because it most directly related to him. His goal is to further Rome and gain the approval of his people, which he does very well.