United States Involvement in the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War was created by Cath Senker, an experienced author who specializes in modern history. The origin of the book was created by Heinemann Library publications in 2012. It was written to inform readers about the United States' involvement in the Vietnam war. The book is composed of chapters which are broken down into subtitles. Each section describes happened and it emphasizes what they were trying to show. Students are the intended audience for Senker's book because its easy enough to read and understand but has more than enough information to learn a lot about the Vietnam War. The content in this book establishes the connections between the Vietnam War and how the United States aided in the process.

Learning about the Vietnam War through this book is useful because it demonstrates how much the U.S. contributed in the war. The value of the origin makes the circumstances unconditional because the author wrote the book about four decades after the event happened. During and after are two different perspectives because even if you study and study on the topic of the Vietnam War, it won't be the same as living during the war and having first-hand experience. One positive value is that Cath Senker keeps an open-mind dur to her writing about both sides and not choosing to be one sided. When this was created (2012), there was the presidential election, gay marriage, and Syria, with these events it still doesn't accurately reflect the Vietnam War.

The limitations of the origin is that Senker studied modern history but didn't live through it which makes the book limited by "experience". The consultant; Andrew Farrow, was able to verify the content because he studied several major conflicts including Vietnam. The limitations of the purpose is that even though it is to inform the book lacks how it affected the women and children.

Gregory Feifer, The Great Gamble

The Great Gamble by Gregory Feifer, who is a National Public Radio's Moscow correspondent. Published by Ross Intellectual properties and created in 2009. The purpose of this book is to inform leaders how soldiers lived, how the Soviet and United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and the relevance it is to modern time as well. The Great Gamble is broken down into large broad sections which are then divided into small sections to give greater detail of each topic. The content of the book involves real interviews given during the Soviet military mission in Afghanistan.

The value of the content illustrates what people went through during the war in Afghanistan. It was created decades after it happened even though the thing in Afghanistan still had conflicts. The limitation of Feifer's book is that he focuses mainly on the Soviet soldiers point of view on the war instead of focusing on both sides which includes the United States army. During this time in history, 2009, the United States diminishes the role in Iraq and all the soldiers withdrew from the cities, it accurately reflects how Afghanistan and Iraq had relevance at the time of publication of the book.

The limitation of the origin is that Gregory Feifer wasn't a Soviet soldier at that time he is a Moscow correspondent, who is someone that will have contact with all things Russian. Interviews are first-hand which makes the book reliable because without the interviews The Great Gamble wouldn't be a primary source.

Did you like this example?

United States Involvement in the Vietnam War. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Julius Caesar’s Contribution to the World

Some people argue that Caesar was a selfish power-hungry emperor while others believe he was an intelligent strategist who developed revolutionary ideas that are still used today. To investigate these claims, several topics will be researched including the details of his rule and the many changes he made to develop Rome into an empire. Some specific research topics include Caesar's rise to power (The First Triumvirate), Caesar's expansion of the Roman empire, the conversion of Rome from a republic into an empire, and Caesar's reform for the city of Rome. These topics will point out that even though the poorer classes idolized his many achievements, Caesar's disregard for political procedures, powerful control of the military, and attempt to rule solely led to his untimely demise. The goal of the paper is to evaluate Caesar's accomplishments and determine if he truly was a power-hungry ruler or an ambitious emperor who was too smart for his own good.

Caesar's rise to power began on either the 12th or 13th of July 100 BC when he was born to Gaius Julius Caesar and Aurelia Cotta into the Julii family (Wheeler). The father and uncle of Julius had ties to the party of Marius which was known as the popular party (Taylor). At the age of 16, Julius became the head of his household when his father passed away. By this time, Caesar's uncle had risen to power and was named the consul which gave him the ability to appoint Julius to the position of High Priest of Jupiter (Wheeler). This was Caesar's first taste of a position of power, but he desired more and married into a noble family after divorcing his first wife in order to set himself in a position of higher status (Wheeler). Caesar's uncle was overturned as emperor and Caesar was stripped of his position as the High Priest of Jupiter by Sulla who had become dictator of Rome following the defeat of the Marius at the Battle of Colline Gate because he was unwilling to divorce his new wife to marry someone in Sulla's family (Taylor). This incident led to the fleeing of Caesar to the East where he joined the Roman army in Turkey. He received the Civic Crown in honor of his bravery in the Siege of Mytilene (Wheeler).

Caesar was then able to return to Rome following the death of Sulla in the year 78 BC, and he became a lawyer who was known for his ability to attack and defend in court (Wheeler). Caesar began his quick climb of the political ladder in 72 BC when he served as the military tribune for the year, and a quaestor in Spain, Rome following the death of his wife in 69 BC ( Wheeler). When Caesar returned from Spain, he married the granddaughter of Sulla and bribed his way into being elected Pontifex Maximus (Wheeler). Caesar later divorced this wife and was elected the governor of Spain which allowed him to create an unofficial alliance also known as the first triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus(Wheeler). This unofficial alliance was sealed when Caesar gave his daughter Julia to Pompey and was elected consul in the following year 59 BC (Wheeler). Through this election as consul, Caesar began to set the stage for his rise to power in the form of his Agrarian Bill which gave the wasteland in Italy to the soldiers and poor of Rome, gaining the support of the lower class and the soldiers. This election also set the stage for Caesar to become the governor of Roman Gaul in 58 BC (Wheeler). Caesar's rise to power shows us the dedication and perseverance Caesar had to become something greater than what he was. We also see the abilities of Caesar in combat as he was awarded the Civic Crown and this set the stage for his success in his desire to expand the borders of Rome.

Caesar's new position as the governor of the Roman Gaul led to his desire to expand his rule over more land and the people who inhabited these lands, so he set his sights on conquering all of Gaul which led to the Gallic Wars (Wheeler). Caesar was able to win battle after battle in the conquest of Gaul, and it wasn't long before he was able to focus on other conquests such as extending the Roman territory deeper than ever into Germany beyond the Rhine (Wheeler). These conquests and victories groomed Caesar into a brilliant leader and strategist that would later go on to extend the empire of Rome to a magnitude greater than it had ever been before. The success that Caesar was having as a general led to unrest back home in Rome as Pompey was growing more wary of the power that Caesar was accumulating. Fights were constantly breaking out between supporters of Caesar and the supporters of Pompey, but Caesar was unaware of these events and continued to press on into Gaul in his conquest (Wheeler). As Caesar continued to extend the Roman territory into new provinces, it raised questions as to whether Caesar was fighting for his own power, or for the good of the Roman empire and the people that were in it.

This question is answered as Caesar, against the wishes of the Senate, crossed the Rubicon River. This action was very significant because it directly disobeyed the leaders in Rome and it was an act of war according to the law of the Roman Republic (Redonet). Why would Caesar choose to disobey a direct command and declare war? From the account of the historian Suetonius, it was stated that a man sent from the gods sounded a trumpet, and Caesar declared Take we the course which the signs of the gods and the false dealing of our foes point out. The die is cast (Redonet). This states that Caesar based his decision to declare war, disobey the Senate, and begin a civil war in Rome on this apparition sent from the gods. Caesar's decision to directly disobey the law and Senate did, in fact, begin a war in Rome and began the end for the conquest of Gaul (Redonet). When Caesar subjugated Gaul, Rome gained a large increase in territory that protected it from invasions, but Caesar benefited from this victory the most in the form of war glory and Gallic gold that he used to pay off many Roman senators debt in exchange for their support (Redonet). This speaks volumes as to the man Caesar is. He disobeyed the law directly and began a war in the name of strengthening the power of Rome when the true intent was political gain and glory for himself. It shows that he was a superior war leader, but a corrupt individual with only the thirst for his own benefit. At the end of his conquest of Gaul, Pompey and his group of optimate allies obliged Caesar to give up his position as governor, dismantle his army, and lose his immunity that came with the position of governor (Redonet).

The end of the Gallic wars marked the beginning of Caesar's ascent to rule over Rome and the conversion of Rome from a republic to an empire. Caesar, even though he had broken Roman law would not resign his position of power as governor and decided he would remain governor and run for reelection the following year. Pompey and the optimates were set on taking away the power Caesar had accumulated and looked to the Senate to dismantle his army and elect a new governor, but once word of this reached Caesar, he decided he must defend himself politically and through his military power (Redonet). This again shows Caesar's direct disobedience of those in positions greater than his own, supporting the idea that he was merely looking out for his own gain. He resorted to bribery in the senate to avoid losing his power and position. After the deadline for Caesar to resign his position, Pompey began to take actions against Caesar such as tricking Caesar into sending a legion of troops to Italy where Pompey then took control of them (Redonet). This only angered Caesar and the rivalry between himself and Pompey only grew until an all-out war was on the brink of occurring (Redonet). The Senate voted that Caesar and Pompey both dismantle their armies at the same time, but secretly asked Pompey to act against Caesar in order to preserve the republic (Redonet).

The senate's desire for Pompey to take action against Caesar while also declaring a mutual peace agreement take place was against the law. This shows that it was common practice to disobey the Roman law when it was seen as for the good of Rome. In Caesar's eyes, he may have seen it as being for the good of the people when he previously crossed the Rubicon and broke the law, but this does show his corruption as a leader that he would break the law in order to achieve success. The Senate went on to vote to make Caesar a public enemy, but Mark Antony vetoed this action because he was Caesar's ally (Redonet). The Senate continued their votings and decided that they needed to pull armies together in order to protect Rome from any attacks, and when Antony and Quintus Cassius attempted to combat this vote, they were forced to flee for their lives to Caesar in Gaul (Redonet). Caesar felt he had no choice but to use his loyal army in order to take power over Rome to avoid losing his own power and commenced his long war with Pompey and his many followers. Caesar's struggle to end Pompey and his supporters brought him to Egypt where Pompey was killed by the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy XIII, and this is where Caesar helped Cleopatra VII, who would later play a role in Caesar's ultimate demise, to win the civil war that was going on in Egypt (Redonet). Caesar was finally able to return to Rome after several more battles to defeat the remaining supporters of Pompey the Roman people had only one choice, to accept him as their powerful ruler (Hussein). Caesar went on to end the republic in Rome declared himself as dictator for life (Heather).

Caesar once named the ruler of Rome drastically reformed the city of Rome in several ways. The most well-known change that took place was Caesar's rule as the only individual with power over Rome who was self-appointed, whereas, before Caesar, they had a republic with an appointed official to rule with a set of written laws that acted as a constitution. He created a lasting effect in Rome. The name Caesar became the new name for all of the new rulers after Caesar and even carried over into many cultures (Karpf). With his new power, Caesar began the practice of placing an image of himself on the coinage, a practice that is now very common in today's world (Karpf). He also improved how the land and grain was distributed, often giving more to the poor and to the soldiers that fought for Rome (Redonet). He also established new forms of government across Italy, putting officials into power that he felt were fit to do the job (Redonet). Caesar's actions pleased the commoners of Rome because he gave land, food, and entertainment to them, but the other political figures in Rome grew jealous of him and the power he now had. Caesar had grown comfortable in his position of power, and was unaware of the plot that was going on around him that included his most trusted friends including Marcus Brutus ""The Assassination of Julius Caesar, 44 BC. Caesar lay dying beneath the statue of Pompey, a legendary general, a man who served the people, a corrupt politician who used bribery, and a self-proclaimed ruler of Rome. With the many reforms that Caesar had begun to make, he had only had about a year before this assassination took place. The closest friends of Caesar, the men he trusted most had deemed it the best interest of Rome to end his life, an act that again supports the idea that Julius Caesar wasn't the compassionate, caring leader he thought himself to be.

Julius Caesar was one of the most successful war generals in Roman history who was able to extend the borders of Rome further than they had ever been before, but his success as a general led to his ultimate demise. He was a man hungry for power, so hungry that he was willing to break the laws of his people and create wars that killed many citizens in his quest for his power. The power he held caused him to change the way Rome ran, taking away the voice of the people and replaced it with what he thought was in their best interest. Julius Caesar did leave a lasting impression on the world, but it was not all in a positive way. Overall, Caesar was a power-hungry ruler who held himself above the law and ultimately caused his own downfall.

Did you like this example?

Julius Caesar's contribution to the World. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Gaius Julius Augustus Germanicus Caesar

Gaius Julius Augustus Germanicus Caesar was born on July 12 or July 13, 100 BCE, to the Praetor Gaius Julius Caesar, who controlled parts of Asia. His mother was a woman named Aurelia Cotta. When Julius became 16 years old, his father died. Being the oldest man alive in the family, Julius became head of the Caesar family. Soon after, Gaius became the high priest of Jupiter (Zeus), the god of lightning, thunder, and the gods. After becoming the High Priest of Jupiter, he became engaged to a patrician girl named Cornelia Cinna. The empire of Rome soon became under the rule of Sulla and purged Rome of people who believed in the Populare Ideology, and of his political enemies, like Cornelia's father. Sulla attempted to force Caesar to divorce Cornelia, who was the daughter of one of Sulla's rivals.

According to Ancient History.eu, The Populare ideology was about favoring a democratic government and giving more rights to the lower class citizens. Caesar then fled Rome in a hope to escape Sulla, but he was stripped of his role of high priest, and Cornelia's dowry was stolen. Without money, Caesar joined the Roman Army. During the time in the army, Gaius was given many awards, such as the civic crown, and was promoted to the ranks of military legate of Bithynia to gain control of a fleet of ships. Caesar then moved back to Rome for a new life after Sulla died. In 75 BCE, Caesar was captured by a group of pirates and was to be ransomed for 20 marks. Julius argued he should be ransomed for 50 marks, because of his talents on the battlefield. During his time during the ransom, he maintained a good relationship with the pirates. It is said that Caesar threatened the pirates multiple times to let him go or else when he was let free, he would hunt them down and crucify them. The pirates took this as a joke, however, and didn't believe him. After Caesar was let free, he hunted them down and slit the pirates throat before their crucifixion.

When he got back to Rome, he was honored as a military tribune when in Rome. He became a lawyer and was extremely successful. He then went to Rhodes to study philosophy. Cornelia soon died of giving birth to a stillborn child, and Caesar married the granddaughter of Sulla, Pompeia. According to biography.com, Caesar then created a private army and fought Mithridates VI (6) Eupator who declared war on Rome. Caesar was successful in his battle with Mithridates, and worked with Pompey, and went up in political status. They would soon divorce. With his close friends Pompey and Crassus in 60 BC, forming the first trimutive. The trimutive lasted 7 years. It would have lasted longer if Crassus was not killed in battle. Pompey soon saw Caesar as an enemy, because of his growing power. They fought, and the battle went to Egypt. Pompey was killed in Egypt by the hand of Caesar. Cleopatra and Caesar soon had an alliance and had a child. The child's name was Caesarion. Cleopatra wanted Caesar to take Caesarion to Rome, and make him his heir. However, Caesar's heir was already Octavian. He kept his promise to take Caesarion to Rome.

When Caesar arrived back to Rome, he was named emperor. Julius Caesar was a leader who favored his citizens. He got rid of taxes, initiated the police force, let former enemies go in the Caesar and more. There was a conspiracy of Caesar, and a group of senators, fearing their power, started to play an assassination on Caesar, expecting to be treated as heroes when the emperor fell to the ground, dead. They had a plan to kill Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC. He was given a warning of Beware the Ides of March. He chose to ignore it, as he did not understand. On the day of a Senate meeting, which was held on the Ides of March, he was talking to the senators, when a group of them stood up, with weapons in their hands, they went up, and stabbed Caesar 23 times. His last words were the phrase which translates to English as You too, Child? In William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, the last words of Caesar were Et tu, Brute? which means Even you, Brutus?. He died at the age of 55 8/12 years old. The conspirators went out and said People of Rome, you are free. and were met by angry citizens. instead treated instead of heroes, but as criminals, for Rome loved Caesar. Especially the commoners, who enjoyed how Caesar treated them. His death was the end of the Roman Republic, and the start of the bloody Roman Empire.

I believe that Caesar was a great man, who ruled justly and loved the people in Rome. It was nice to hear that Caesar made life easier for the Romans, and made it so the Roman Republic was at peace before he was assassinated. He didn't deserve his death, and if he were to live on, he would have reformed the Roman Republic, and make Rome better than ever.

Did you like this example?

Gaius Julius Augustus Germanicus Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Idea of Betrayal in Williams Shakespeare’s Play Julius Caesar

As Brutus draws his blade preparing to stab Caesar, Caesar watches him with sunken eyes as his best friend betrays him. Caesar gasps in horror as the blade begins to slash into his torso. A big idea in Williams Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar is the idea of betrayal. Manipulation, reputation, and power are all very popular themes within the two works. In both the play Julius Caesar and the movie The Ides of March, the writers address these topics and incorporate them in into the plot in their own ways. The Movie The Ides of March begins to briefly portray these big ideas and themes. The play Julius Caesar portrays these themes in a more in depth way while adding detailed dialogue to better display the big ideas.

The big idea of manipulation is displayed the strongest in both the play and the movie. The movie does the best with this subject matter. The Ides of March includes many examples of this theme. For example, Tom Duffy tries to persuade and manipulate Steven to drop out of Mike Morris's campaign as he offers him a spot on Pullman's campaign. Also, Steven's friend and news reporter Ida manipulated Steven to get him to give her some campaign gossip for her news journal. Finally, Steven manipulated the governor, Mike Morris to hire him as the head campaign director and fire the current director as he had outed him for his meeting with Tom Duffy. The idea is not as detectable in the play as there is only one main example. That is when the conspirators that are plotting to kill Caesar and they persuade Brutus to join them in taking him down. They use Brutus because they know he is close to Caesar and he would be the easiest way to get to him.

The Second biggest idea is reputation. The movie also handles this topic better than the play. In the movie, Steven meets Tom Duffy at a disclosed location in efforts to hide the meeting from the press. If the press were to see him, he would be kicked off the campaign and people would think he was a traitor. Also, Molly the intern goes to Steven for help when she finds out she is pregnant. This is due to her family's background as Catholics and they would disown her if they knew she was pregnant and or getting an abortion. Finally, when Steven blackmails the governor, the governor knows he has to kick Paul off the campaign. This is to prevent Steven from outing him for sleeping and impregnating the intern, Molly. If people found out about this incident, he would not get the majority vote nor would he become president. Like the movie, reputation is big in the play also. In the play, the idea of killing both Antony and Caesar is presented. The conspirators decide not to kill Antony due to the impression this will make on the common people. If they were to only kill Caesar for the good of Rome, they would understand. If they were to kill both Antony and Caesar, there would be too much bloodshed and the people would turn against the conspirators.

The last big idea presented in both works is power. There are great examples in both the story and the play, but as usual, the movie handles this theme the best. In both Julius Caesar and The Ides of March, the characters are all fighting for power and doing everything to get it. In the movie when Steven meets with Duffy, Paul finds out and tells Ida. Ida then uses her press power to exploit Steven and get him fired off the campaign. Next, Steven uses his position in the campaign to access the funds to pay for Molly's abortion. He knew her situation could not gain attention nor would the governor want to clean up his own mess. Finally, Steven uses the suicide note Molly wrote as leverage to blackmail the governor. The note gave Steven the power he needed to gain a top spot in the campaign. The play uses Caesar as the main example of power. The conspirators take him down because the fear him gaining power. If he gained absolute power, Rome would turn into a dictatorship and the common people would be slaves under Caesar. The conspirators turn towards Brutus to get to Caesar knowing he had enough power and personal connection with him. Finally, the conspirators rise up against Caesar with their combined power and they assassinate him. This just shows the extent that they would go to prevent and gain power.

The movie and the book both portray these themes in their own ways. The movie has a more brief and implied way of explaining these points. Like every other movie, there was a lot of drama and scandalous events taking place. The play, since it is written, had a more in depth way of including the themes but there were only a few examples. The movie was more enjoyable and had more examples of the three big ideas. Overall, the movie did a better job at including manipulation, reputation, and power.

Did you like this example?

Idea of Betrayal in Williams Shakespeare's Play Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

George W Bush’s Protection of the Iraqi People and Caesar’s Protection of the Gauls

Contents

Advertisement
A note from John:

In 59BC, Julius Caesar declared he was so shocked by the incursions of the dangerous Helvetii tribe into Gaul, and the suffering of the Gaulish peoples, that he had himself appointed 'protector of the Gauls'. By the time he'd finished protecting them, a million Gauls were dead, another million enslaved and Julius Caesar owned most of Gaul. Now I'm not suggesting there is any similarity between George W Bush's protection of the Iraqi people and Caesar's protection of the Gauls.

For a start, Julius Caesar, as we all know, was bald, whereas George W Bush has a fine head of hair.

In any case, George W Bush is not personally making huge amounts of money out of it. The money-making is all left in the capable hands of companies like CACI International, Blackwater Security and Haliburton.

It's true that Vice-President Dick Cheney's stock options in his old company, Haliburton, went up from $241,498 in 2004 to $8m in 2005 - that's an increase of 3,281 per cent.

But then Dick Cheney is bald.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is absolutely no comparison to be made between Julius Caesar's invasion of Gaul in 58-50BC and George Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I mean, Julius Caesar had the nerve to pretend that the Roman state was being threatened by what was going on in Gaul. He claimed he had to carry out a pre-emptive strike against the Helvetii in the interests of homeland security. In reality, his motives were political. He desperately needed a military victory to boost his standing in Rome and give him the necessary popular base to seize power.

George W Bush, on the other hand, was already in power when he invaded Iraq and, in any case, he didn't need to boost his popularity, because the popular vote had nothing to do with his getting into power in the first place. Julius Caesar was also a very adroit propagandist who made damn sure that his version of events prevailed. He even wrote eight books about his wars in Gaul to make sure it did. George W Bush doesn't need to go to such lengths. He has Fox News.

When Julius Caesar claimed his glorious victory over the Helvetii, he made it sound as if he had destroyed a vast army of 'wild and savage men'. Julius Caesar reckoned he had slaughtered more than 250,000 'insurgents'. In fact, documents found in the remains of the Helvetii camp showed that out of 368,000 people, only 92,000 had been capable of bearing arms.

In other words, it wasn't an army that Julius Caesar massacred, but a whole population including women, children, old and sick, which, I suppose, is one thing that George W Bush and Julius Caesar do have in common: pretending civilians are armed insurgents.

But there the similarity ends. One of the most fundamental differences between Julius Caesar and George W Bush is that Julius Caesar counted his dead, whereas George W Bush can't be bothered. It seems that, as commander-in-chief, George W Bush instructed his soldiers not to count the enemy dead. So the fact that he still sticks to an estimate of only 30,000 dead Iraqis, even when a recently published study in the Lancet suggests he's slaughtered at least 655,000, can only be the result of his extraordinary modesty.

Why else would he dismiss the study as pure guesswork or claim it had used a 'methodology [that] is pretty well discredited', even though the US government has been spending millions of dollars a year to train NGOs in this exact same methodology? Julius Caesar would have seized on the figures with alacrity.

And that is the biggest difference of all: Julius Caesar was an ambitious, vainglorious, would-be tyrant. George W Bush is a modest and self-deprecating one.

$912,743

contributed

$1,000,000

our goal

In these critical times …

… The Guardian’s US editor John Mulholland urges you to show your support for independent journalism with a year-end gift to The Guardian. We are asking our US readers to help us raise $1 million dollars by early January to report on the most important stories in 2019.

A note from John:

In normal times we might not be making this appeal. But these are not normal times. Many of the values and beliefs we hold dear at The Guardian are under threat both here in the US and around the world. Facts, science, humanity, diversity and equality are being challenged daily. As is truth. Which is why we need your help.

Powerful public figures choose lies over truths, prefer supposition over science; and select hate over humanity. The US administration is foremost among them; whether in denying climate science or hating on immigrants; giving succor to racists or targeting journalists and the media. Many of these untruths and attacks find fertile ground on social media where tech platforms seem unable to cauterise lies. As a result, fake is in danger of overriding fact.

Almost 100 years ago, in 1921, the editor of The Guardian argued that the principal role of a newspaper was accurate reporting, insisting that “facts are sacred.” We still hold that to be true. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, but the challenge is more intense than ever as digital disruption threatens traditional media’s business model. We pride ourselves on not having a paywall because we believe truth should not come at a price for anyone. Our journalism remains open and accessible to everyone and with your help we can keep it that way.

Did you like this example?

George W Bush's Protection of the Iraqi People and Caesar's Protection of the Gauls. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Julius Caesar – Rise to Prominence

It was 44 B.C. and two men had very different views on the future for Rome, one a leader and one a protector. Both men were in high positions of honor and had great ideas for the city rising to success but neither of them would live to see their visions through. Marcus Brutus was a respected but naive man with sincere intentions for Rome and Julius Caesar was a general rising to power. On one hand, Marcus Brutus had good intentions, however; his means of achieving them were gravely flawed. On the other hand, Julius Caesar, hungry for power and approval by the citizens, had been too arrogant which dangerously affected his future. Neither man knew what was due to come. In the play, The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare writes about the pivotal moments in which two very well respected and important men cause their own demise. Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus are powerful men whose tragic endings are caused by their differing intentions and faulty traits Character and outlook are two traits that define a character. In the situation of Brutus and Caesar, these are traits that they differ to a great extent and when all is said and done ends up being a key factor in their fall out of power.

Marcus Brutus was a politically noble man that followed what he considered to be right and genuinely did what he thought was best for the citizens of Rome, however; he was too trusting. His honorable ideals led him to be manipulated and ultimately turned out to be his fatal flaw. Caesar was a Roman general and statesman that was exceptionally bright and clever. His political talents are somewhat the reasons he became such a successful ruler but his arrogance ultimately caused his demise. Brutus’ and Caesars’ character is portrayed as very different. This is shown when the conspirators ask for Ceasar to allow Metellus Cimber for enfranchisement, he replies, “I am constant as the northern star,/ Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality/ There is no fellow in the firmament” (3.1.66-68). This quote demonstrates Caesar's character in how he arrogant he is. He views himself as supreme leader and is furious they would even ask. His arrogance, for example, is shown right before he and Decius head to the Senate, Decius explains how someone else will take the crown if he didn't go. While Caesar is still considering to stay home for Calpurnia, Decius adds that he would lose public regard if he was influenced so easily by a woman.

Whereas Caesar was arrogant, yet cunning and generous, Brutus was known to be honorable. Even Marc Antony, a man who he betrayed, had said, “This was the noblest Roman of them all:/All the conspirators, save only he,/Did that they did in envy of great Caesar” ( citation)this signifies even though he wronged Antony, his character is still seen as honorable. Brutus’ honorability is shown when the conspiracy is formed. Brutus believes that all the men there are honorable so he decides not to take an oath. Overall, Caesar and Brutus were both respectable and admirable but Caesar's arrogance damaged his credibility and in spite of the fact that Brutus was honorable, he was too trusting which led him to be manipulated into doing something he would regret. Both Caesar’s and Brutus’ personalities seem to influence their intentions regarding Rome. Caesar wants the power to rule Rome as he pleases, whereas Brutus wants to save Rome and for it to be safe and prosperous. For instance, Caesar is offered the crown three times before he faints on the stage. Not because he does not want the crown, but because he wants the rabblement to want him unconditionally. Before the conspiracy was formed and Cassius had not manipulated Brutus, Brutus was worried for the sake of Rome. Brutus was anxious that Caesar would rise to power and lose his humility and become what Cassius says he will.

In his garden, Brutus construes himself, “Then lest he may, prevent/And, therefore, think him as a serpents egg/When hatched, would his kind grow mischievous” (2.1.26-34) this quote shows me how Brutus truly feels towards Caesar coming to power because there is no one for him to lie to but himself. After Cassius’ manipulation, Brutus truly feels as though he must kill Caesar to save Rome. Caesar, however; has no intentions on trying to save Rome. Caesar is an egotistic yet brave guy that fears nothing but losing power. When Calpurnia is worried about Caesar he tells her, “Cowards die many times before their deaths,/The valiant never taste of death but once.” (2.1.32-33) this signifies how brave he really is and does not waste precious hours of his life anticipating what could or could not happen. However, this also demonstrates how sure he is that he would not die which soon proves to be fatally wrong. At this point, Caesar and Brutus had dangerously affected their futures. Caesar's arrogance and Brutus’ means of achieving his goals end up being their fatal flaws.

Caesar’s and Brutus’ intentions regarding Rome lead them to both of their deaths and both at the hands of Brutus. On March 15th, 44 B.C Julius Caesar was killed on the steps of the senate-house after the conspirators asked for the enfranchisement of Metellus Cimber, and being too arrogant to allow it. Seconds later, as he sees his death is at the hands of his friend he mutters, “et tu brute”, signifying, and you, Brutus? Ironically, two years later on October 23, Marcus Brutus kills himself after the defeat at the second battle of Philippi. While Brutus is talking with Strato, he says, “ Caesar, now be still;/ I killed not thee with half so good a will” (5.5.50-51) this quote demonstrates how Brutus wants to kill himself more than he wanted to kill Caesar. Brutus' final words assure that what he does now is twice as pure as what he did to Caesar, who is avenged by this act. Although at the time killing, Caesar seems like the only way to achieve his goal, he now sees he made a mistake. Caesar, however, was not afraid of death and was, perhaps, maybe a little too brave about it. This is shown when Caesar says, Of all the wonders that I have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come (Act II, Scene 2) This demonstrates Caesar”s true feeling towards death and his views on the necessary end. He believes only cowards would actually fear their own demise; he is not a coward.

For instance, when Brutus kills Caesar, Caesar says “et tu brute” which signifies that although he is not scared he is completely confused about the betrayal of one of his closest friends. To summarize, Ceasar and Brutus both have a tragic ending at the hands of Brutus that was ultimately caused by arrogance and naivete. To conclude, Caesar and Brutus are two influential men in positions of power, whose tragic, fatal and disturbing endings are caused by their conflicting intentions and defective traits. Brutus is an honorable man that was manipulated by his brother-in-law due to his naivete. Brutus wanted the best for Rome but in the end would never see his ideas become reality. Caesar is a brave and generous man fighting for the common people. His intentions may have been flawed but he ultimately was an honorable man that did not deserve his tragic ending.

Did you like this example?

Julius Caesar - Rise to Prominence. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Julius Caesar ‘s Young Life

Contents

Becoming Political
Dictatorship
Works Cited:

Julius Caesar was not Rome's first emperor , but his name still reins as it is a name that is remembered by the world to this day. Julius is a an exceptional role model in leadership. Throughout his fifty-six years of life, he has accomplished an astronomical amount of achievements, one of them is becoming the dictator of Rome. The four main milestones are his early life, becoming political, the civil war, and when he became the dictator of Rome.

It was said that son of Gaius and Aurelia Caesar, Julius, was born on July 12 or 13 on the year 100 BC in Subura, Rome. Julius had some advantages over his peers growing up. His dad gained moderate political success and the Caesar family had a long line of noble history, which inturned had the Caesar family form some entitlement to some traditional and or sacred privileges no other experiences on a daily basis. Despite the privileges he had growing up, he still had a normal education. Once he completed school, at the age of 25 he was abducted by Cicilian pirates in the Aegean sea. The pirates asked for a ransom of 20 talents of silver (approximately 620 kg of silver, or $600,000 in today's silver values), Caesar laughed at their faces. They didn't know who they had captured, he said, and demanded that they ask for 50 (1550 kg of silver, or $1,500,000), because 20 talents was simply not enough. Of Course they took his significant upgrade of an offer. It took Caesar's associates about 38 days to gather the money and take it to the pirates.

Meanwhile Caesar was left alone with two servants and a trusted individual to guard him. Caesar refused to cower and treated the ones responsible for maintaining supervision on him as if they were his own subordinance. He went as far as demanding that no one shall talk whenever he decided to sleep. To keep himself occupied, Caesar would write and make his poetry. He would often recite it to the pirates. Caesar also participated in games and exercises with the pirates, generally acting as if he wasn't a prisoner, but rather, their leader. The pirate quickly learned to respect Caesar and let him do more or less what he wanted on the island and ships. Even though Caesar was friendly to the pirates he announced to them that once the ransom was paid he would hunt them down and have them crucified. Once Caesar was released, the first thing he did was gather up some people to form a small fleet for his retaliation. The pirates did not take his threats seriously, so they chose to stay making it easy for Caesar to find them one more. Once he found them he took his 50 talents back, along with their belonging of the spoils that they could find on all of the ships. Caesar showed some leniency and cut their throats instead. That act alone shows compassion and mercy to not only his enemies, but also those who follow him in footsteps. It show that even though you have bad blood, there will always be respect especially with your enemies.

Becoming Political

Caesar was elected military tribune and, his wife Pompeia, a wealthy Optimate granddaughter of the Emperor Sulla. Rising now in prominence in Rome, Caesar had enough prestige to effectively support Gnaeus Pompeius (later known as Pompey the Great) for a generalship. During this time frame he established a friendship with Marcus Licinius Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome. it is thought that Crassus helped fund Caesar's campaign in becoming Chief Priest (Pontifex Maximus) which he won in 63 BCE. he was elected a praetor in 62 BCE (lower than a councilman). Not long after, Julius Caesar form the first triumvirate. A triumvirate is a informal alliance between three leaders. In this case it was Gaius Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great), and Marcus Licinius Crassus between the years 60 BCE- 53 BCE. Whether one looks to the unification of Sparta and Athens against the Persians in the 5th century BCE or the allied forces of the Triple Entente in World War I, nations and individuals - even former enemies - have sought assistance for one reason or another to overcome a common foe.

Ancient Rome was no different. The brink of being in a civil war and an unstable Republic brought three superiors to set their differences aside and comfrom into an alliance and dominate the Roman government, to the point where they were controlling the elections for nearly a decade. One of the three would eventually rise above the other two and become dictator of Rome. His name was Julius Caesar. However that would be years down the road. The Roman Empire was so that each member of the triumvirate took charge of a province. Pompey was in charge of modern day Spain to modern day Southern modern day France. Julius Caesar was in charge of modern day Italy to modern day Croatia. Crassus was in charge of modern day Bulgaria to the other side of the Black Sea. Crassus was also in charge of the Army. In 53 BCE Crassus was in the battle of Carrhae and he was defeated by the Parthians. His death symbolized the death of the first triumvirate. Following these events a civil war sparked between Pompey and Caesar lasting 4 years 3 months and 7 days (Jan 10, 49 BCE - March 17, 45 BCE).

Dictatorship

After winning the Roman Civil war in 45 BCE he declared himself dictator, for a couple of months to give Rome time to reconstruct. After the time came he wanted to extend his throne. He managed to extend his rule for a year. Once the year mark hit, he basically said, since i've been dictator for this long might as well make me dictator for life. That made the Roman Republic controversial. The Romans believed in the republic and not a king. No only were the citizens mad at this decision, but politicians were especially fearful. They thought that Caesar had a plan to overthrow the Senate and make the Roman Republic a totalitarian government. In fear of losing control of the government, they senators took it upon themselves to assassinate the dictator of the Roman Republic by stabbing him 23 adjacent to the Pompey Theatre. Unfortunately Julius Caesar died on March 15 on the year 44 BCE. The significance of his name is still prevalent in 2018 as it was back in 44 BCE. not only were his accomplishments uniquely conquered, but it took great courage to foresee them.

Works Cited:

https://www.ancient.eu/First_Triumvirate/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170402081306/https://piavindex.wordpress.com/2017

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/caesar_julius.shtml

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julius-Caesar-Roman-ruler

/04/01/caesar-courage-and-charisma/

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/caesar/

https://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html

Did you like this example?

Julius Caesar 's Young Life. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Pompey’s Favor of the Senate over Julius Caesar

Pompey was a Roman general who played a major part during the time of the First Triumvirate and the rise of Julius Caesar. He was an active participant in Roman politics, in which he controlled the food supply and conquered many foreign regions in the name of Rome (Woolf, 139). During his lifetime, he created tense relationships with both the Senate and with Julius Caesar. With the threat of civil war due to conflicts with Caesar, Pompey had to make a choice: side with Caesar, or side with the Senate. He decided the right choice was to side with the latter. Pompey had justified reasons to support his choice to go against Caesar such as he had family ties related to the Senate, they shared a fear of Caesar's success, and his previous relations in the Roman government.

One reason was that, Pompey had family ties that were related to the Senate. This allowed him to obtain special commands that benefited both him and the Senate (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?).Pompey had been born into a family that was in the senatorial class, due to his father Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). His family was particularly powerful in Picenum, which was a region that was east of Rome (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). This allowed the family to have clients to create their own private army, which they used to side with Marius during his war versus Sulla, the dictator of Rome at the time. (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). So when Gnaeus passed away, Pompey was able to obtain this private army, and his family's land which he put to good use. (Whalen, Sandvick. What Was the Contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman History?) He first switched sides of the war and became a lieutenant of Sulla (Coolidge, 16). When Sulla passed away, Pompey was in a position where he could go into dictatorship over Rome (Coolidge, 16). To the Senate's relief, he declined the offer (Coolidge, 16).

The opposition to his attempted dictatorship pleased the Senate, who greatly disliked the idea of a single ruler (Coolidge, 16). Pompey was also able to use his private army to get special commands from the Senate (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). In Spain he was able to end the rule of Sertorius (Wasson First Triumvirate). This allowed him to conquer and effectively lead Spain (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). This conquering benefitted both Pompey and the Senate, for it was the first time Rome had been able to rule the country (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). Later, he was also able to conquer Syria, Pontus, and Bithynia, all of which were turned into Roman provinces (Lloyd, Pompey). This greatly pleased the Senate, who gave more commands to Pompey in return (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). Pompey's second great success was being a part of the forming of the Annona, which was the supply of free grain for the Roman people (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). He had created a system where grain from Sicily, Egypt, and areas of North Africa was to be transported by sea, and then distributed to the people of Rome (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). Pompey was able to use this accomplishment as a way to gain support in the city, and for social stability (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). The Senate used the Annona as a way to benefit Rome's economy, their society, and even their political system (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?).

Both the Senate and Pompey had a shared fear and jealousy of what Julius Caesar had done. The Senate was an oligarchy and heavily disliked the idea of having a single, all-powerful ruler (Lendering, Gaius Julius Caesar: Constitutional Problems.). They were worried that Caesar may try to take over Rome and rule as a dictator (Lendering, Gaius Julius Caesar: Constitutional Problems.). This had already happened previously, with Sulla taking complete control over the Republic (Lloyd, Pompey). Caesar had experienced great success in conquering Gaul and other neighboring regions (Lendering, Gaius Julius Caesar: Constitutional Problems.). This caused Pompey to become jealous, for he had been one of the most successful generals in ancient Rome (Lloyd, Pompey). He also had a very unstable relationship with Julius Caesar due to marriage between their families (Wasson, First Triumvirate). To create an alliance between the two Pompey married Caesar's daughter, Julia, as part of a political move (Woolf, 141). There was peace between them until Julia Caesar died, causing their political links to be damaged, and Caesar and Pompey starting to go their separate ways (Woolf, 141).

Pompey also had previous relations to the Senate. Due to his former successes with the conquering of the East, in 70 CE Pompey was able to start his first consulship with Crassus (Lloyd, Pompey). Initially, he was ineligible for this due to his young age and him not becoming a quaestor or praetor before his term (Lloyd, Pompey). However, the Senate overlooked the rules and allowed Pompey to become consul (Lloyd, Pompey). When he returned from Spain he realized that the Senate was failing, and decided to turn it around by using his power to lower its responsibilities (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). During this time, he had been chosen by the Senate to take control of the piracy situation and Rome's food supply (Whalen, Sandvick. What was the contribution of Pompey the Great to Roman history?). His creation of the Gabinian Law in 67 CE allowed him to oppose the piracy that was occurring in the Mediterranean, which raised Rome's corn supply (Wasson, First Triumvirate). After this success, he returned and demanded that his army be given land (Lloyd, Pompey). His idea seemed logical, for no one wanted the unemployed veterans in the city, but the Senate disapproved (Lloyd, Pompey).

This helped form the First Triumvirate with Julius Caesar and another power in the Roman government, Crassus, were Pompey's only mission was to obtain this land for his soldiers (Lloyd, Pompey). Through this rule he was able to achieve this land (Lloyd, Pompey). But the triumvirate started to fall apart, so Pompey decided to return to a joint consulship with Crassus, and he became governor of Spain (Lloyd, Pompey). The triumvirate was further damaged when Crassus died, leaving Pompey on his own (Lloyd, Pompey). When Caesar decided to return to Rome, he requested consulship, which both the Senate and Pompey declined (Lloyd, Pompey). Instead, the Senate named Pompey consul with the support of Cato, who was a leader in government at the time (Lloyd, Pompey). This lead to the complete destruction of the relationship between Caesar and Pompey (Lloyd, Pompey).

In conclusion, Pompey had justified reasons to side with the Senate and to go against Caesar. Pompey and the Senate were able to join forces due to their shared jealousy and hatred over Julius Caesar, how Pompey had been apart of the Senate before, and how Pompey had family ties to the Senate which allowed him to improve Rome. Unfortunately, this alliance between powers failed. Pompey was killed when escaping from his defeat, and with his death caused the end of the oligarchy era in Rome (Wasson, First Triumvirate). Pompey's decision of choosing the Senate would affect how Rome was governed for the rest of the empire's reign.

Did you like this example?

Pompey's Favor of the Senate Over Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

How Woman are Potrayed in Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is a play about men: their relationships, their culture, and their actions. In the male-dominated world of ancient Rome, characters have a distinct understanding of what it means to be or act like a man. Women in Julius Caesar represent everything that Roman men are not supposed to be—however, the utter disdain men show for feminine traits eventually proves shortsighted, as the play argues that women and their special gifts are not to be taken lightly. In Julius Caesar, masculinity implies not only bravery, but also steadfastness. The opposite traits—weakness, fearfulness, and inconstancy—are mainly associated with women. Male characters continuously use terms such as “womanish” to taunt other men perceived as timid or tractable. Brutus refers to the “melting spirits of women” (2.1.121), and Caesar’s call for water following his epileptic seizure is derided as the actions of “ a sick girl” (1.2.130). When men do exhibit signs of wavering, they often blame their temporary weakness on their mothers, whose “spirits” counteract the decisive, stalwart natures they have inherited from their fathers.

At one point, Casca describes “three or four wenches” enthusiastically forgiving Caesar for his fit and claims that they would have done the same if Caesar had stabbed their own mothers, furthering the portrait of women as fickle, foolish, and gullible (1.2.267–269). The female characters of Julius Caesar seem to internalize these distinctions as well. Portia makes several blanket statements about the female character, exclaiming, “How hard it (2.4.8; 2.4.41–42). Fearing for her husband’s safety, she contrasts her firm, resolute “man’s heart,” which can withstand the strain, with her timorous “woman’s might” (2.4.7). Just as the men perceive the influence of their mothers and fathers as being at odds within their own selves, Portia sees a masculine side of herself competing with her feminine nature. Similarly, when Portia wishes to claim power for herself, she does so by invoking her male ancestors, inverting the male tendency to blame their undesirable qualities on their female ancestors. After Brutus refuses to acknowledge that her status as wife earns her the right to share his secrets, she takes a contrary tack and tries to appeal to him as a kind of fellow male. She claims that being descended from the great Cato, not to mention having been chosen by Brutus himself, makes her “stronger than [her] sex, / Being so fathered and so husbanded” (2.1.295–296). Then, to further prove her emotional and physical strength, she stabs herself in the thigh.

Throughout the play, men swear that they are not afraid to face death or injury; Portia proves her manliness by making good on those boasts. However, the play does present women as sharing a powerful, characteristically feminine trait: They each exhibit an instinctive type of foresight. The men of Julius Caesar, though powerful, are often caught unawares by their fate. Caesar refuses to heed the warnings of his own death, just as Brutus misguidedly believes the people will applaud Caesar’s assassination. The play seems to suggest that the same resoluteness the Romans revere as a supreme masculine virtue can become a liability when it turns into inflexibility and imperceptiveness. Calphurnia and Portia both anticipate the dangers ahead. Like animals that sense the arrival of an earthquake, the women seem tuned to a different frequency. Calphurnia dreams of Caesar’s statue pouring forth blood, with smiling Romans washing their hands in the flow. Decius scoffs at her fear, but Calphurnia knows that her dream portends ill luck for Caesar. Like an oracle, the unconscious Calphurnia predicts the future, and her three cries of “Help, ho! They murder Caesar!” has the force of prophecy (2.2.3). Similarly, long before Brutus’s downfall, Portia claims to have heard a tumultuous clamor on “the wind . . . from the Capitol,” which she interprets as trouble for her husband (2.4.20). Later, when she senses the sea change about to take place, she kills herself preemptively. Her suicide, described in mythical, grotesque terms, serves as yet another portent Brutus ignores. It would be too much to say that Julius Caesar valorizes women, but it does associate them with supernatural prescience. Certainly the play suggests that, if their advice had been followed, their husbands might have avoided some of the calamities that befall them. But in the end, the female characters in Julius Caesar become collateral damage in the tragedy, unable to escape what they foresee.

Did you like this example?

How woman are Potrayed in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Concept of Loyalty in Julius Caesar

Caesar’s loyalty is shown in many ways. It states “Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once” (Julius Caesar, Shakespeare). Julius Caesar was a great noble man, that was killed from the loyalty of the people in Rome. Caesar’s companions were loyal just not to himself. His friends were devoted to Rome and would do anything for Rome to succeed. For instance it states, “Brutus and Cassius, truly believe if Caesar were to become the king he was acting like, it would mean the end of the Republican system of government in Rome. If Caesar became king. The Senators, who assassinated him believe they would no longer be equal free men.” (Shakespeare). Caesars friends Brutus and Cassius believed that it was necessary for Caesar to be taken out for the good of Rome even though in the end it caused negative results. In Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, one of Shakespeare's messages is loyalty. Throughout the play loyalty differentiates in characters actions and language. It is important to notice the differences of loyalty between characters Cassius, Brutus, Antony, Calpurnia, and Portia.

Brutus was one of Caesar’s good friends but betrayed him. Brutus was only thinking for the good of Rome. Even when Brutus was convinced that having Caesar in power would cause a negative impact throughout Rome. It states that “Brutus very weak. He was noble towards his country, but disloyal towards Caesar” (Shakespeare). This explains that Brutus was close friends with Caesar but his loyalty for Rome was more important.

Mark Antony was another one of Caesar's friends who was loyal. Something that differs between Brutus and Antony is that Antony was not blinded by his loyalty of his country. Which shows that killing Caesar would not have a good impact on Rome. Once Caesar was killed instead of reasoning how Caesar was too ambitious to lead Rome. Antony chose to speak the truth about Caesar. He told the people of Rome that Caesar will not be blamed for the problems in Rome. However that Caesar was a great leader for the people of Rome. Although the Romans won’t forget what Brutus and Cassius did.

Loyalty tore Rome apart in many ways. The death of Caesar caused the outbreak of war between the people in Rome. The war symbolizes the conspirators fighting to see who shows more loyalty to Rome. It states that “If loyalty didn't play a part in the play, maybe Caesar would have lived on to become a great noble roman, and no war would have taken place, with Rome staying as a happy country.” (Shakespeare). This quote signifies whether things would be different in Rome if loyalty wasn’t involved. This emphasizes how loyalty made a huge impact on the play.

Overall loyalty had a negative impact on Rome. Shakespeare said that Loyalty can make or break men, In Julius Caesar many men were ruined because of their loyalty. Again causing Rome to fall apart because of people's selfish needs.

Did you like this example?

Concept of Loyalty in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Historical Figure – Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is a historical figure known for his political ambition, as well as the spotlight thrust upon him thanks to Williams Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar was born on July 13, 100 B.C. There is not much documentation on the childhood of Julius Caesar. He was born into privilege in a family that claims lineage from the son of Venus, the goddess. His father was a praetor and his mother was from an affluent family as well. However, even with their political connections, they were not politically influential (wikipedia.org).

Caesar's father died unexpectedly and he found himself as the man of the house. At this time, his uncle was involved in a war between his uncle and Sulla. It was during this time that Caesar was nominated to be a high priest and he was married to Cornelia. When his uncle was defeated, however, Caesar lost all of his titles, as well as his inheritance. He was supposed to divorce his wife but he refused and went into hiding. His mother's family had connections to Sulla and they lifted all threats against him and he was able to move back into the public light. However, he did not feel safe to be so close to Sulla, his uncle's enemy, so he moved away from Rome and started his military career. He went back to Rome only after the death of Sulla, when he truly felt safe.

Caesar finally gets a taste of politics when he is elected to the military tribune. During this time, his Aunt Julia passed away, as well as his wife, Cornelia. This would set the stage for Caesar's ultimate goal. After her funeral, Caesar went to serve in Spain and it is here that he encounters a statue of Alexander the Great. Caesar pondered his life and realized that he really has not accomplished much in his life. When he returned to Rome, he married Pompeia. He soon divorced her after her involvement in a religious scandal. He decided to run for the title of Pontifex Maximus. Using his political savvy, it was an easy win for him.

Later on, he ran for the position on consul and he won. Caesar was indebted to a man named Crassus, who did not get along with Pompey. Caesar wanted the men to get along because combined, the men had enough money and influence to control public business. This is how the first triumvirate was formed - it was an informal group. Eventually this triumvirate fell apart as Caesar and Pompey were engaged in a civil war against each other. Caesar's authority and political influence are sealed here. He is appointed dictator and he conquers many tribes and nations.

Caesar experienced a time of greatness. Everything seemed good. Everyone was celebrating the many victories Caesar had accumulated. During his dictatorship, Caesar had many contributions. He set out to make Rome a true Republic. One on his greatest and most influential changes had to do with changing the calendar. The calendar was once based on the movement of the moon. Caesar opted to follow the Egyptian example and based the calendar on the movement of the sun, including adding room for a leap year.

Caesar had amassed some enemies during his climb to the top. Instead of punishing them, however, he forgave them. He actually formally pardoned them. This allowed them to still hold political offices and to remain close to Caesar. This action made his ultimate demise that much more of a true backstabbing: these men were supposed to be his friends. Some of these very men were part of the conspiracy to assassinate him. Caesar was set to appear before the Senate that day, on the Ides of March, which according to Shakespeare, he probably would have been better off staying at home. There were around sixty men involved in the assassination. Some were involved with the actual stabbing, others were responsible for making sure Caesar made it to his meeting with the Senate, while others were responsible for keeping other people away from Caesar so they would not interfere. Caesar was approached by Tillius Cimber with a paper asking for the reinstatement of his exiled brother. It was during this time that Caesar was attacked. He was stabbed twenty three times. Even though he was stabbed so many times, only one wound actually killed him: the dagger struck in the chest. Caesar was left to lay on the steps for three hours until somebody finally came to collect his body.

The assassination of Julius Caesar was supposed to be a major political move by the members of the Senate. However, they were blinded by their political agenda. Caesar may not have been very popular among the Senate or among Rome's richest because of the reforms that he passed that were not beneficial to them. They failed to recognize how popular Caesar was with the lower and middle class of Rome. Caesar's reforms were beneficial to them and they were now angry because Caesar, who fought for them, was taken away by the Senate and as they saw it, the upper class. This ignited several civil wars and signaled the end of the Roman Republic.

Julius Caesar's life reads like a Hollywood tabloid. It is full of fame, fortune, drama, scandal, and then backstabbing. He started his life with no real political savvy, even though his family was upper class. He then found himself on the wrong side of the law and had no money and was in debt. A chance meeting with a statue of Alexander the Great put him on the path to greatness, where, surrounded by friends, he meets his gruesome end.

Did you like this example?

Historical Figure - Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Women S Roles in Julius Caesar

Throughout history, a woman's role in society has been viewed differently by different perspectives across the world. While women in today's modern, western society enjoy relative equality, women in the past were viewed as inferior to men, solely useful for bearing children and maintaining the home. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, women are seen as overly emotional, not constant, superstitious, and had no voice in their homes or in the political world. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar uses Calpurnia and Portia to portray the struggle between the perceived nature of women during Roman times and the true nature of women.Calpurnia represents the power of womanhood that is underestimated because of stereotypes of women during Roman times. Calpurnia has ominous dreams of Caesar's impending murder and tries to convince him to not go forth today and even gets on her knees to prevail in this (Shakespeare 2.2.54-55, 58).

Calpurnia tries to persuade Caesar to stay home out of her own love and concern for him. She embodies wifely love and support and encompasses the true power of womanhood by even getting down on one knee to convince him. Once Caesar is convinced to stay home, Decius, one of the conspirators, convinces Caesar to come to the Senate by manipulating Calpurnia's description of her dreams saying that they signified reviving blood, and that great men shall press/ For tinctures, stains, relics, and cognizance (Shakespeare 2.2.94-95). Caesar is quick to recoil on what his wife told him, asking, How foolish do your fears seem now, Calpurnia! and states he is ashamed I [Caesar] did yield to them (Shakespeare 2.2.110-112). Caesar quickly discounts Calpurnia's thoughts over the thoughts of another man's even though Calpurnia is his wife and has his best interests at heart.. Calpurnia's power as a wife and a woman is taken from her and underestimated, and seen as womanish superstition (Plutarch: Life of Caesar).

The underestimation of women in Roman times, specifically Portia, occurs because of stereotypes and the inferior image of women in Roman society.Portia does not represent the underestimation of women; rather the incorrect assumption that womanly strength is manly strength. Seeing that Brutus is distressed and awake in the middle of the night, she asks him to tell me [Portia] your counsels, and even gives proof of my [Portia's] constancy by stabbing herself in her thigh (Shakespeare 2.1.318-323). Even though Portia is a woman herself, she believes the incorrect Roman stereotypes about women and tries to prove that she is not like them. Although Portia possesses powerful womanly and wifely strength, Portia tries to prove that she is worthy and able to handle Brutus' secret by convincing [him] that a man's body is not that much different from a woman's body after all (Hamer).

Desperate and anxious for good news regarding Brutus and the conspiracy, Portia faces enormous pressure to keep the secret, stating that she has man's mind but a woman's might (Shakespeare 2.4.9). Being impatient of my [Brutus'] absence, the grief causes her to swallow fire (Shakespeare 4.3.174, 179). Being an Roman educated woman, she has been taught to value manly power and silence her womanly instincts and conscience (Hamer). Because she does not value her power as a woman, she could not recognize when she was putting herself in mental distress and real danger. Portia represents the antithetical misconception that womanly and manly strength are the same.The stereotypes in the Roman World and the misunderstandings of women's true power result in death and demise. Because he does not listen to Calpurnia's warnings and pleads, then fall Caesar (Shakespeare 3.1.199). Caesar suffered the consequences of not believing his wife through his death. Caesar's assassination insinuates that men should put more faith into the insight and warnings of women (Lone).

Feeling guilt and being haunted by Caesar's ghost at the battlefield, feeling imminent defeat to the forces of Mark Antony and Octavius, Brutus commits suicide and calls for Caesar to now be still stating that he killed him with not half so good a will (Shakespeare 5.5.56-57). He regrets his decision to go against his morals and reason by killing Caesar. Lone says, They {Portia and Calpurnia} themselves are strong women, but the men are unwilling to accept the reality and in the end become pathetic figures, and die tragic deaths (Lone). At the end of the bloody battle, Octavius, the new Caesar of the Roman Empire, leaves to part the glories of this happy day (Shakespeare 5.5.87). Octavius goes on to reap the rewards of the battle by destroying the republic that Brutus killed to protect. The imminent destruction and annihilation of the republic is a direct result of the relations between Roman men and women, specifically the misconceptions of the role of women in Roman life.

Misconceptions about the role and power of women in society brings about death and destruction in Julius Caesar.In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare utilizes Portia and Calpurnia to convey the conflict between the perceived disposition of women in Roman society and the true disposition of women. The inherent power and strength of women is seen in both Portia and Calpurnia, but societal norms hold them back from reaching their potential and eventually culminates in the end of the Roman republic. Although women and men are not the same physically and mentally, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, both are equally needed and important in order to maintain a stable society in our world.

Did you like this example?

Women s Roles in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Women in Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar could not see his death coming, but perhaps his wife did. In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, there is more to it than betrayal and death. Besides Caesar and Brutus, other characters play a major role in the story and they are not all men. Two of the main men in the plays, Caesar and Brutus, their wives have a big role in the story line. One of them is Portia Brutus´ wife and the next is Calphurnia Caesar's wife. Portia and Calpurnia have small but yet significant scenes, that goes on and is remembered throughout the whole play. Their roles and actions foreshadow the biggest part of the story, Caesar´s death and then later, Brutus´s.

One necessary female roll in the play was Portia, she is the daughter of Cato. She is also Brutus’ wife. Portia, in all the chaos and drama goes on and proves her loyalty to Brutus. To prove her loyalty and that she can be trusted, first she cut her leg open to prove that if she could handle that then she can handle whatever Brutus was dealing with. She later killed herself. ¨Impatient of my absence ,and grief that young octavius with Mark Antony”(IV.3.150-151). She does this for reasons that brutus is gone and two bad men are in charge. He does not trust her to tell her where he is going an what is happening, he believes she cant handle it because she is a woman.

Calphurnia, Caesar's’ wife, has an unexpected dream that changes everything. Calpurnia has a dream about a bloody caesar statue and the people of rome were washing their hands in the blood. This is a very odd because what come to happen to Caesar. This dream probably had Calphurnia very worried and scared for what can happen. “Help, ho! They murdered Caesar!”(2.2.3). She did not even keep it in she let Ceaser know. She does everything she's capable of doing to keep him home. She tells him all the signs that has happened that he should not go out to where something bad can happen. Ceaser did stay home but eventually left.

Both Caesar's’ and Brutus’ wives had a impact on both of them. Of course if they were were couples the men had their thoughts of them. The women were very strong, to be in the positions going through the death and confusion. Although Caesar did eventually he considered Calpurnia's feelings and her concerns. This showed that he indeed did care and love her. Brutus and Portia had a complicated relationship. Brutus felt that he couldn't tell her everything and kept very important things from her. Brutus seen how Portia is determined to prove her loyalty to him by slashing herself in the thigh “Here in the thigh, can i bear that with patience”(2.1.301). She proves that she is more than just another girl. And not just used to have sex with. And that she can be trusted.

Did you like this example?

Women in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Julius Caesar Study Questions

Contents

Act I
Act II
Act III
Act IV

Act I

1. The point between the interchange with Marullus and the commoners is to show how devoted and blind the commoners can be, and explaining how easily people can be influenced.

2. Antony is into sports and Brutus isn’t, Brutus also seems sad and not happy with himself while Antony doesn’t.

3. Cassius is manipulative, and well spoken.

4. The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves

5. Caesar seems to have a lot of pride in what he does and is skeptical for anyone that gets in the way of that.

6. He calls the populace tag rag but still wants to save them.

7. Hot and malleable, basically saying he can mold him into whatever Cassius pleases.

8. Foreshadowing or warning Caesar.

9. Casca is two faced.

10. Cassius says he will kill himself if Caesar becomes king, so he isn’t his slave.

11. Alchemy means changing lead to gold compared to Assassination which changes evil to good

Act II

12. He tries expressing that it is the right thing to do and the killing is the only way.

13. He thinks the conspirators are acting in secret.

14. It is ironic because he believes killing Caesar is justice but killing Antony is just murder.

15. Portia cares deeply about her husband, and shows her concern for her husband.

16. He convince brutus what he is doing is acceptable.

17. Calpurnia’s talk with caesar made him change his mind about going for the moment.

18. How they are all in the car together.

19. Artemidorus scene is to warn Caesar.

20. Shows how Portia might have a clue about what is going on and the servant might do something to interfere.

Act III

21. The purpose of the opening dialogue is to show that Artemidorus tries to protect Caesar with his letter but Cassius stops him and distracts Caesar with another matter.

22. Just before Caesar dies he says En tu, Brute meaning and you too Brutus, showing how Caesar trusted Brutus and how he betrayed him.

23. Brutus says it was a moral act and Cassius said it is a step towards a new government.

24. Cassius and Brutus approach Antony by saying they don’t wish to kill Antony and they feel pity for Caesar. Also they want to know if Antony is loyal to them.

25. Letting Antony speak at the funeral was a poor decision revealing he is bad at judging character.

26. When antony speaks to Brutus he makes sure to conceal his emotions so he could speak at the funeral.

27. Antony’s speech was more persuasive than Brutus’.

28. Antony uses persuasion and plays on the crowd’s emotions in his speech.

29. Cassius has underestimated the people, when he thought they would change over a dead body.

Act IV

30. Antony has grown new seriousness and strength during this scene.

31. They are ruthless, greedy, and power hungry. As leaders they are worse than the conspirators.

32. Their quarrel shows the disintegration of the conspiracy.

33. The news of Portia's death and it's gruesome manner creates sympathy for for Brutus.

34. Brutus realizes that Cassius is flawed and that he himself has been misled by him.

35. Ghost were crowd-pleasers back in the day. It is vital because it links the murder of Caesar to Brutus and he will die.

Did you like this example?

Julius Caesar Study Questions. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Julius Caesar’s Human Error

Many people regard William Shakespeare as one of the most renowned playwrights in the English language. In Shakespeare's work The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, an important character, as he also believes of himself, named Julius Caesar is looking to gain more power in Rome. There are several subtle hints that Shakespeare includes in this work to demonstrate Caesar's arrogance and thirst for power ultimately leads to his assassination. Julius Caesar's arrogance is demonstrated in several instances in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. In one case Caesar said, but I am as constant as the Northern Star, / of whose true-fixed and resting quality / there is no fellow in the firmament(3, 1, 60-63).

Like these lines state, Caesar believes that there is nobody as mighty as himself and nobody can move him from this position. This ego Caesar possesses is fairly evident in this statement he made; he believed that nobody could be like him. There is only one Northern Star, just as Caesar is saying of himself. During this time in Rome, there is a class system in place that is followed by the masses. Julius Caesar is an individual who practices the use of a class system in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. A prime example of this is when the soothsayer attempts to warn Caesar of what is going to happen on the Ides of March. Caesar brushes it off saying, He is a dreamer; let us leave him(1, 2, 24). If someone such as Mark Antony would have said the same thing as the soothsayer, Caesar would have listened to him because they are of a similar class. Caesar's belief of the class system just further proves his arrogance, which is one of his major flaws that become part of his demise.

Julius Caesar is actively trying to acquire more power in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. He always ensures that the uneducated commoners can't see through his thickly veiled motives. More highly educated individuals, such as Marcus Brutus and the other conspirators, can see his true motives and that is why they assassinate him. Brutus describes what he believes is going to happen if Caesar gets more power; the outcome is unfavorable for Rome. Caesar already saw the Senate as his when he said, What is now amiss / that Caesar and his Senate must redress?(3, 1, 32-33). Caesar likes being in charge of a small group of people, so what is to stop him from wanting all the power in Rome? The conspirators see this and take action on Caesar's thirst for power, which indirectly causes his assassination. Arrogance and power are two dangerous things to possess. Julius Caesar has both. Believing that you are above everyone is a bad idea especially when you must share power. Eventually, Caesar will want all the power in Rome. These two things are what ultimately lead to Caesar being assassinated.

Did you like this example?

Julius Caesar's Human Error. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Brutus and Caesar Characters in the Tragedy of Julius Caesar

“I love the name of honor, more than I fear death.” This was said by Julius Caesar who later died due to his pride and honor devoted to himself and his city. Caesar is a powerful, well spoken and persuasive man in power. Brutus, on the other hand, is loyal, noble, and patriotic. Both characters love their city but show their pride in different ways. Unfortunately, Caesar was killed before being able to show his capability and what he could achieve but, he shows his personality traits before his death. Brutus shows his attributes throughout the whole play. Caesar’s characteristics seem to make him flourish while Brutus’s personality traits seem to be his biggest fault. Shakespeare portrays these characters in many different ways throughout the play, but mainly through Caesar’s arrogance and Brutus’s naivety.

Julius Caesar has an extreme amount of power over the populaion throughout the time he is alive and that power remained strong after his death. From the beginning of the play to his death, Caesar is shown to be power-hungry. One of Caesar’s main goals was to seek of authority over Rome. This search for power causes Caesar to show both his positive and negative personality traits. These traits include; being exceptionally cunning, well driven, while also being foolish. Caesar shows his foolishness when the soothsayer tries to warn him and Caesar replies with, “He is a dreamer; let us leave him: pass” (1.2.24). Since the soothsayer can forsee the future, it would have been wise of Caesar to take notice of his warning. Caesar also tries to show the plebeians his courage and selflesness when he says:

Caesar should be a beast without a heart

If he should stay at home to-day for fear.

No, Caesar shall not. Danger knows full well

That Caesar is more dangerous than he

(2.2.45-51)

Ceasar thinking that he should be a beast without a heart not only shows his courage but also his determination to depict a strong leader to the citizens.

Marcus Brutus has the faulty quality of being too naive for his own good. He truly wants what is best for Rome but his lack of being able to think for himself is what truly fails him in the end. Brutus shows his naivety when he tells Cassius that Antony should not worry them. Brutus says, “Our action will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,/ To cut the head off and then hack the limbs” (2.1.61-65). Brutus should have known Antony would retaliate being Antony is so devoted Caesar. Another one of Brutus’s attributes would be his loyalty. Brutus demonstrates that he is trustworthy and loyal when he tells the conspiators they do not need an oath. Brutus says, “if not the face of men,/ The sufferance of our souls, the time's abuse,—/ If these be motives weak, break off betimes” (2.1.114-116).Brutus thinks that the rest of the consipirators are as loyal to the conspiracy as he is. Not only does this display that he is trustful, it again shows his gullibility.

At face value, Julius Caesar and Brutus seem very different from each other, but they may be more similar than they appear. Caesar and Brutus are well-liked by the commoners. Due to this, they both can pursuade them easily. Julius is very charming and that shows when he declines the crown three times. Casca explains to the conspirators what she saw. “and he put it by thrice, every/ time gentler than other, and at every putting-by/ mine honest neighbours shouted” (1.2.321-323). Although Brutus was never offered a crown, he shows his charm in a different way. Brutus persuades the crowd into thinking that killing Caesar was necessary, “—Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved/ Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and/ die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead“ (3.2.1555-1557). Although he persuaded the crowd, what he failed to accomplish was the emotional aspect of the speech, which Antony thrived at in his. In addition to them both having charm, Brutus and Caesar are both extremely conceited. Caesar is conceited in obvious ways where Brutus is not. Cassius convinces Brutus that he is as, if not more, intelligent and powerfull than Caesar. “I was born free as Caesar; so were you:/ We both have fed as well, and we can both/ Endure the winter's cold as well as he” (1.2.187-189). Gradually, this makes Brutus believe that instead of Caesar, he should be the person in power of Rome. When Brutus comes to believe that he should be in power, he in turn becomes arrogant.

To conclude, these characters are both strong, powerful men who are illustrated in many different ways through the beginning to the end of the play. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar was truly a tragedy for both of these authoritative Romans. Brutus let his innocence hinder his means of achieving his goals and Caesar allowed his pride to interfere with his success. The plot of the play establishes the qualities and virtues of both of these dynamic people. Although they were influential, Brutus and Caesar both had faults that ultimately led to their demise.

Did you like this example?

Brutus and Caesar Characters in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

In life, people can change for the good or bad, or maybe the bad has always been in them and they finally let it out. All throughout history, you see groups of people conquering parts of the world, but yet to some, they are still good and to others, they are murderers, fugitives, and or vagabonds. Greed can change someone, wanting power can simply create a monster, like Christopher Columbus discovered America when he was a murderer inreality. Everyone will pay for their sins, this is the way of life, the way God set things up but everything happens for a reason. What do you say about your friends or family who turn on you for power, or simply because they feel like it's the right thing to do? Would you ignore the signs that God has sent you in ways you can't understand? In the Tragedy of Julius Caesar, we see how some people change or show who they really are or even the simple fact that some of us don't take heed to warnings at all.

Luke 12:15 then said to them, Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. God said to watch out for greedy people much like Cassius. Cassius was a snake in the grass who presented itself like he was your friend. He was able to manipulate Brutus and changed him in a way he can't change or undo for his sins are with him. Cassius was okay with ruining others life because it shows that he barely even valued his own life. Proverbs 15:27 He who is greedy for gain troubles in his own house, but he who hates bribes will live During the story, everyone started to lose something or someone they loved because of their actions.

Caesar was going to be king of Rome because he won the battle of Pompey. But did his big headedness bring death upon him? Fate has it's way of revealing itself one way or another. 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded: be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Caesar thought that he was immortal, as if he was a God and that no harm could come his way. People like that can become very dangerous or die. In this world, you have to keep both eyes open and keep your enemies close and your friends closer. People can turn on your no matter how long you've been friends. His bestfriend Brutus is a prime example of this, he killed Caesar.

Sometimes, you can trust yourself because no one will have your back like you will.

Friendship and loyalty is very important in this world. We need people in order to survive that's how it was set up. Brutus was a very loyal and honorable man, but someone broke him. He was manipulated into killing Caesar his bestfriend! He tried to keep the good in him, so he did it for the people of Rome, to save them. Everyone should be able to trust someone but people will always look out for themselves in their own way.

The circle of life was present during this story there was a domino effect. Greed always ends up bad for it is a sin and your fate depends on your actions. Caesar was the reason he died because he was so immortal. The moral of this play is take heed and always be cautious. I will never let my guard down! Everyone knows what goes around comes back around, and this play has showed us this in the most brutal way. We learn from our mistakes or history will keep repeating itself.

Did you like this example?

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Importance of Preserving History through Primary Sources

What does a memory represent? What does it mean to the 7.7 billion individuals that live on Earth today (Current World Population)? John D. Hicks, of Oxford University, once asked his students: What would a man do without a memory? (Hicks). The students were baffled until Hicks gave the example that the man would not know the difference between a door and a window, and would not know what to do next. The students seemed to understand the pure chaos that would come into this man's life if he lost all of his memory. He would not remember people, places, things, or processes. He would be completely lost. Hicks then asked, what would a people, a nation, a world do without its memory? (Hicks) and the students erupted in competing voices. They asked how the world could continue to function if all people lost their memory like the first man. John Hicks explained that the functioning would not be possible, and the entire world would plunge into chaos.

History is simply a collection of memories that play a vital role in everybody's life. Humans constantly are reminded of our past, and learn from it, in order to build a greater future. Steve Berry, a journalist from the Huffington Post, concludes that History serves as a model not only of who and what we are to be, we learn what to champion and what to avoid. Everyday decision-making around the world is constantly based on what came before us. (Berry). Today, more than 30,000 archives, historical societies, libraries, and museums in the United States hold approximately 4.8 billion historical artifacts (Berry). Imagine what one could learn from all of those memories. Now, visualize what the world would lose if those artifacts disappeared. The lack of funding for preserving history in the United States places a third, more than 1.6 billion, of these artifacts at risk for being lost. The libraries, historical societies, archives, and museums preserve humans' heritage. The artifacts represent and teach us who and what we are. Many historical records have been lost in fires, floods, or purposeful destruction throughout history. Today, the current records of the world are on the verge of being lost on the basis of simple neglect (Berry). Improper funding, low use, and abandonment cause people of power, private funders, and everyday people to stop believing in the power of history. The largest deposit of knowledge in the ancient world could have easily rotted away as a victim of neglect and indifference, and we would never know. However, centennial celebrations often encourage people to rediscover and remember the history of events others left behind. In 2018, this becomes increasingly relevant as the centennial of World War I approaches.

A common history textbook would describe World War I in all of its political fighting and conflicting powers. Before the war, there were five major powers within Europe: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain. Prior to August of 1914, two of these major powers were already tied up in political disagreements. Germany was inflicting serious political pressure on France in a show of power. Russia then intervened in the fighting to relieve the pressure on France. Italy, a smaller power in Europe, remained undecided despite their involvement in the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The secret agreement did not commit Italy to fight, but the two major powers placed a lot of pressure on the country. Following the first nine months of the war, Italy broke their habit of neutrality by declaring war on Austria-Hungary in 1915. Turning on one of their Allies shocked the world, and Italy's decision seemed to be influenced by an offer for land in exchange for participation. In response to similar bribes, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece entered the war. These countries were all offered land in exchange for participation in the war for Germany. The major power bombed British warships, killing Americans and initiating America's involvement in the war. From there, the fighting continued for more than four years between all of these major powers (The Diplomatic Drift). Some would generalize that history is past politics and present politics is future history; however, this is not true as history encompasses much more than just politics, even though textbooks do not leave room for these other aspects (Hicks).

Now, because the textbook description of World War I consistently focuses on politics, the only way to understand the full history of the Great War is to analyze first-hand documents. It is also difficult to trust the authenticity of second-hand accounts of the war because of World War II. World War I was labeled as the war to end all wars, and the details were fresh in everyone's mind. For the next two decades, people around the world published details of the Great War. However, another global conflict quickly arose which caused the sacrifices of Americans in the first war to be overlooked (Remembering World War I). This is detrimental to history because the small details were not majorly recorded, and more information was forgotten. George Santayana once pointed out, those who forgot their history might be doomed to relive it (Hicks). The small details that do not make it into history textbooks or common recollections, will not be remembered. What other aspects of the war are missing, and what will humanity lose if we do not remember them? E. L. Godkin, a respected journalist, once said, "He who cannot see very far backward cannot see very far forward. (Hicks). This means, if the forgotten small details compile an important aspect of the war, it will be something to remember, but people will not learn from them. An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Felix Frankfurter, has explained: "There is no inevitability in history except as men make it." If we are wise, we shall try to plan our course. (Hicks). This follows the logic of Godkin, and the small details that were not properly recorded or remembered after World War I will not be there to guide the future of humanity. It is understood by Santayana, Godkin, and Frankfurter that losing these small details will impact human history, but what are the small details that textbook histories miss? Julius N. Kirk, a soldier in World War I, is just one of the people who provide the missing information.

When the American President, Woodrow Wilson, declared war against Germany, he insisted that the world must be made safe for democracy, and two million doughboys fought for that ideal on the battlefield (Remembering World War I). A soldier from Middletown, Delaware would make a lasting impact on the history of the war. Julius N. Kirk was a Middletown businessman born into a large family. He was born on March 12th, 1893, in Glasgow, DE. As any other man would do, he registered for the draft on June 5th, 1917, and was later called into the force on April 1st, 1918. On a paper resume, his life can be seen as dull and uninteresting. His involvement in the war is summarized by him being wounded in action on October 18, promoted to Sergeant in December, and being discharged in January of 2019. He was trained in marksmanship, bayonet, gas attack and air raid drills, and an incredible amount of marching. Kirk did make the W.W.I. Honor Roll after returning to Delaware, but his achievements were sparse. From this resume, it is difficult to see what Julius Kirk provided to the war if anything at all. However, his success is irrelevant because he did not provide America with a win, he provided history (M.O.T.).

Julius N. Kirk wrote countless letters back home, as well as keeping his own form of a journal. He reassured his loved ones he was alive and well, but also provided a first-hand account of the horrors of the war. His letters described his day to day activities and the battlefields. He did not explain the political powers fighting each other, similar to history textbooks. One of his most vivid letters was written on October 2nd, 1918. Immediately, he explained why he had not written in eighteen days. It was clear he made writing letters a priority. He and his fellow soldiers were constantly fighting on the battlefield for those two weeks. He described how they captured a lot of materials, railroad outfits, ammunition, mules, horses, and more. In the first few days of fighting, friends of Julius discovered that German soldiers were carrying alcohol on the battlefield. This provides evidence that soldiers were unhappy while fighting and drank to ease their thoughts. The psychological effect on the soldiers was serious and evidenced by experienced soldiers carrying booze.

Kirk later recorded that he was carrying a pocket knife, a bottle of whiskey, and coffee. Julius likely found the booze on the German soldier while retrieving a pencil he saw the man carrying. His sole writing utensil was one he took of a dead body on the battlefield (AEF Letter). A few months earlier, Julius described an attack he witnesses while traveling with the military on June 2nd. Julius writes the following in his journal: Attack. Two subs destroyed. Note violence of depth bombs scares on ship. Activity of chasers. (War Letters). The next day, he saw warcrafts in the waters. Not only that, he saw a dead boy kept in a lifeboat afloat in the water. He saw countless aviators fly over him constantly, and read in the papers that eleven American warcrafts had been sunk. Julius read this while traveling on an American ship (War Letters). The cognitive influence this had on him, as well on other soldiers, was severely negative and the complexities of the terrors experienced are only justified by first-hand accounts.

In addition to describing violence, Julius recorded the long days and strenuous work of the American soldiers. Before entering the battlefield, Kirk was instructed that his rifle and gas mask would be his best friends. However, in one of his letters, he said he found more use in his pick and shovel (AEF Letter). He had large blisters on his fingers and hands from digging for three nights due to the advancing positions of the enemy. 200-300 shells were also dropping on the American soldiers per minute as they dug holes (AEF Letter). On June 27th, 1918, Julius recorded the following in his journal: Moving at 12:00 without dinner, hiked ten miles, full pack, return at six pm. Tired plus sore feet. return to same billets drilled on the field until ten am, [and] went 12 hours without eat[ing]" (War Letters). On the 28th, they arose at 6:25 am and stayed on guard until four. The next day, they woke up at three in the morning and returned from the field at 4:30 pm. On July 2nd, Julius arose at five am, arrived at the field at seven, and returned at four pm. He mentioned it was "hot during day at noon", which is one of the last things historians would think about when studying the difficulties of fighting soldiers. On July 3rd, the soldiers arose at 5 am, listened to instructions on trench fighting and grenades, then ate lunch on the battlefield. They spent the afternoon working on extended order drilling combat and ate stew for dinner at 5:30 pm (War Letters).

This first-hand account of the horrors and pains of the war provides historians with a large amount of information on the facets of the war that impacted the soldiers forced into drafts. The common textbook history discussed earlier would not have mentioned these events. The images described by Julius N. Kirk could be seen as too horrifying, but it is most likely excluded from history because it is not seen as important by itself. When the journals of several soldiers are analyzed, there are overwhelming accounts of fear, death, and physical labor that showcase the extremities of the war. The five political powers in Europe quickly engaged in fighting and drafted numerous soldiers to place on the battlefield, without accounting for the impacts on the men. The information the Julius preserved in his journal and letters is very valuable to fully remembering the war. Julius Kirk was not a decorated soldier in his time during the war, but he is immensely decorated and important to historians today.

Currently, the National Archives have been scrambling to preserve and digitalize primary records from the Great War including letters, photographs, and film. As their work progressed, they developed a resource to World War I that is incomparable to others. An app was launched to make photographs and film more accessible to the general public. Specifically, the app was designed for educators and the museum community but anyone interested in exploring the Great War has access (Remembering World War I). The National Archives also partnered with the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. All three institutions provided content for the app. In addition, the WWI Centennial Commission, American Association for State and Local History, and the National WWI Museum and Memorial contributed to remembering World War I through this technology. All in all, the government is projected to spend fifty million dollars on commemorations of the Great War (Mount). These celebrations and technological resources would not be available if not for men such as Julius N. Kirk and the people who helped to preserve his letters after he returned. Harry Mount, a simple journalist for The Telegraph, reminds us No one [can] argue with the desire obligation, even for modern generations to remember the war, especially not as its centenary approaches. (Mount).

Works Cited

Berry, Steve. Why Preserving History Matters. The Huffington Post,
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 June 2012,
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-berry/why-preserving-history-matters_b_1446631.html
Current World Population. World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2018) -
Worldometers, www.worldometers.info/world-population/.
Hicks, John D. Changing Concepts of History. The Western Historical Quarterly, vol. 2, no.
1, 1971, pp. 2135. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/967675.
Julius N. Kirk. An AEF Letter. 2 October 1918. Pages 1-3.
Julius N Kirk. War Letters. 30 May 1918 to 4 July 1918. Pages 1 - 14.
M.O.T. Answers the Call, a World War One Exhibition. August 2017 - August 2018.
Mount, Harry. How Should We Remember the First World War? The Telegraph, Telegraph
Media Group, 9 June 2013,
www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10109434/How-should-we-remember-the-First-World-War.h
Remembering World War I. National Archives and Records Administration, National
Archives and Records Administration,
www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2017/spring/archivist-wwi.
Remembering WWI from the US National Archives. Remembering WWI from the US
National Archives - World War I Centennial,
www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/communicate/press-media/wwi-centennial-news
The Diplomatic Drift towards War: 1890-1914. HISTORY OF THE FIRST WORLD
WAR, www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa01.

Did you like this example?

The Importance of Preserving History Through Primary Sources. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Rise of Julius Caesar

Gaius Julius Caesar, a roman general and statesman who was able to turn the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, conqueror of Gaul, victor in the civil war of 49-45 BCE, and dictator from 46-44 BCE (Julius Caesar Biography). Gaius is known to the world as Julius Caesar. He had a life filled with many events and accomplished much during his time including doing a series of political and social reforms. In this paper, I will talk about the rise of Gaius Julius Caesar. It will include his family, and a look into his death. Some say that Julius did much throughout his time here, and he got far. He died an infamous death that is taught worldwide to this day.

On July 12 100 BCE, parents Aurelia Cotta and Gaius Julius Caesar gave birth to a man who would eventually become a powerful person through his lifetime. His mother, Aurelia, was a great noble at birth and his father, Gaius, was a praetor who governed the province of Asia. Julius's father passed away when he was only 16 years old, and he became the head of the family as a result. (Mark)

As head of his family now, Julius declared himself as the 'new High Priest of Jupiter.' During this time, he married a woman by the name of Cornelia. Through this time, Cornelia and Julius had a child named Julia Caesaris. During their marriage, a roman ruler Sulla declared himself the dictator and wanted a purge of all enemies he ever encountered especially those in support of the Populare ideology. In support of this, Caesar decided it was time to flee Rome (Mark). Still, Sulla ordered him to divorce Cornelia or lose his property, to escape this ultimatum, he decided to join the Army. Julius proved himself to be a successful soldier during this time (Julius Caesar Biography).

In 78 BCE, Sulla died and Julius took this as an opportunity to return back to Rome. While in Rome, he became not only an orator, but an eloquent speaker also. He decided to move to Rhodes so he could study in the field of philosophy. Later this year, Julius set sail to Greece and ended up being kidnapped along the way by pirates. During this time, Julius promised once he was released that he would find them and then kill them all. Once he was released, he did just that. (Mark)

After returning back to Rome, Julius was elected for military tribune, and his wife died shortly after. Not too long after, he went on to marry the granddaughter of Sulla, Pompeia. During this time, Caesar was able to gain the friendship and support of Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey the Great) and Marcus Licinius Crassus. Running in an election for Chief Priest, Crassus helped fund Julius's bid in the election. Which he went on to win in 63 BCE. Later in 62 BCE, Julius was elected praetor and soon after decided to divorce his wife Pompeia. After the divorce, he decided to sail to Spain as Propraetor of Hispania. While in Spain Julius accomplished much. He was able to defeat their rival tribes and therefore was able to bring peace and stability to Spain. Accomplishing such a great thing, the Senate awarded him with a consulship. After he left a good name for himself in Spain, Caesar thought it was time to finally head back to Rome. Returning home, he entered into an agreement with Crassus and Pompeius. This agreement was known as the First Triumvirate. With Julius elected as consul, the three ruled all of Rome together. (Mark)

During his time, Julius made lots of enemies, people who wanted revenge. Among those people, were the Optimates. Julius went against the Optimate sentiment, and they were not happy. But Caesar was supported by the means of Pompeius and Crassus. But, they said as long as he was a public servant, he could not be touched. But as soon as his position ended, he would be persecuted for the things he had done. (Mark)

Furthermore, Caesar was in debt to Crassus and somehow needed to get the money and his power back. Caesar then left Rome with his legions and sailed to Gaul in 58 BCE. During this time he was able to defeat tribes of the North and not once, but twice, invaded Britain. And through his completion of the conquest of Gaul, he defeated the Gallic leader, Vercingetorix, in the Battle of Alesia. With that being said, he was now the sovereign of the province of Gaul. (Mark)

Back in Rome, the First Triumvirate was done for. Crassus was killed in battle and Pompey became the sole military and political power in Rome. After this, Pompey made sure the Senate declared Caesar's governship of Gaul to be terminated and he was ordered to come back to Rome and live among the citizens as one of them. And if he were to return back to Rome and become a regular citizen again, he would have to be punished by the Optimate for the things he had done as a consul. However, Julius decided instead of going home, he would cross over into the Rubicon river and him and his legions marched into the city on 49 BCE. The Rubicon river was the border that flowed in between Gaul and Rome, so this was considered an act of war. (Mark)

After Julius's march, Pompey fled to Spain and then over to Greece. He was defeated by Julius's force at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BCE. Pompey finally escaped and fled to Egypt, but was killed the moment he came ashore. He was killed by the Egyptians because they believed Caesar was in the Gods favor. Outraged over Pompey's death, Julius sailed to Egypt. Once in Egypt, Caesar proclaimed martial law and then took over the royal palace. Egypt is where Julius deposed Ptolemy XIII and also aligned himself with Cleopatra VII. This was also considered an act of war and created a war between Caesar's legions and the Egyptian army. Julius then went to Asia Minor and at the Battle of Thapsus, his legions defeated the forces of the Optimate faction in 46 BCE. After defeating them, he returned back to Rome. Even though the Senate was upset about his indiscretion between Cleopatra and Calpurnia (who he was married to), he was still awarded the title Dictator Perpetuus in 44 BCE. He initiated many reforms including further land redistribution among the poor, land reform for veterans which elimanted the need to displace other citizens, as well as political reforms which proved unpopular with Senate. He reformed the calendar, created a police force, ordered re-building of Carthage, abolished the tax system, among many other pieces of legislation (Mark) He had little to no regard to the Senate during his ruling. With his return back to Rome, Caesar was able to relieve the debt and he reformed the Senate by increasing its size. (Mark)

Moreover, the Senate, and in particular the Optimate faction, thought that Julius could've been getting too powerful for them to handle, and thought he could one day abolish the Senate so he could rule as a king (Mark). Since they thought this, Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BCE by the Senate (Julius Caesar Biography). He was stabbed 23 times and he had died at the base of Pompey's statue. The death of Julius Caesar .caused the civil wars that ended the Republic also ended. And keeping the accomplishments, and their name as one of the greatest in History, Caesar's nephew and heir, Octavian, as Augustus came up as the first emperor (Julius Caesar 100 BC-44 BC). Also, Caesar became the first Roman figure to be deified (Toynbee). A few results that came from Julius Caesar's death include the fact that many people were upset with the killing of Julius. The Senate also went on to give him the title The Divine Julius. Also, in November 2017, evidence was found linking the invasion of Britain in 54 BCE to Julius Caesar (Julius Caesar Biography).

In conclusion, Julius Caesar was a powerful man who did much throughout his short-lived life. He was only around the age 56 according to history. He was a great Roman ruler and statesman. He was able to lead his legions to victory in many battles. Despite many marriages, a few kids, and his own friends turning on him, he was able to lead a great life. His views were different than most and because of that, he developed numerous enemies along the way. Julius Caesar was a great man who will forever be taught by teachers to students in history."

Did you like this example?

The Rise of Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Loyalty in Julius Caesar

Brutus is an honorable man. Brutus is the most honorable man as he selflessly chose his country over his leader and friend. Although Marcus Brutus was a conspirator in Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar, his intentions were honorable as Brutus made his decision selflessly, without jealousy or site, was willing to die if the people judged him too ambitious, and chose his for Rome over his loyalty to caesar.

Made decision selflessly, no jealousy or ambition.

Did not at first want to listen to Cassius

Only acted after receiving letters

Was loved by the people and known to be close and loyal to Caesar

(in his speech) talks about Caesar's ambition

Wanted to assasinate only Caesar.

Although Marcus Brutus was a conspirator in shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar, his intentions were honorable as Brutus made the decision selflessly, without jealousy or site, was willing to die if the people judged him ambitious, and chose his love for Rome over his loyalty in Caesar. Brutus has courage beyond any other man, to be willing to betray and assassinate his friend and leader for the good of his country. And such is the honor and courage of MArcus Brutus.

Swore no oath, said was willing to die

Begs people to judge him and, if he is deemed ambitious, to kill him knew that assassinating Caesar would mean his own death.

Made decision selflessly, no jealousy or ambition.

Did not at first want to listen to Cassius

Only acted after receiving letters

Was loved by the people and known to be close and loyal to Caesar

(in his speech) talks about Caesar's ambition

Wanted to assasinate only Caesar.

Was noted to be most loyal to Caesar

Did not want to betray his leader and friend

(in his speech) talked about his love of Caesar

Only acted after receiving letter from the people

Did you like this example?

Loyalty in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Character of Portia in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

In William Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the character Portia, second wife to Brutus, seemed to be one of the most burdened with secrets. There were only two women in the play, and Portia was the one who proved strength over most of the male characters, both physically and mentally. Portia was born between 73 BC and 64 BC and loved philosophy and had an obvious understanding of courage (Wikipedia.org). Portia was the only wife in the play who knew about the plot to kill Caesar. Brutus divorced his first wife, Claudia Pulchra, to marry Portia. Brutus's mother, Servilia, was jealous of Brutus's love for Portia (Wikipedia.org). Every character in this play intertwines as a soap opera would. Most marriages were for political reasons and arranged, but Portia and Brutus married for love. Portia represents a woman who sees herself as strong as a man and tries to prove her strength throughout the play, (Wikipedia.org). When Brutus refuses to tell her secrets saying she would not be strong enough to handle such things, Portia stabs herself in the leg.

This is her effort to not only prove her pain can be hidden, but she can also keep a secret. This symbolizes her strength and loyalty. Men are usually seen as the violent characters in the play. Portia shows more self-inflicting pain than any other character. She's torn before Caesar's murder, because she knew about the murder plot. She may have been the powerful one who could have prevented Caesar's assassination, if she had told someone or warned Caesar. Her loyalty to Brutus may have also been the death of her. Although she's dead by Chapter IV, Portia still plays a huge part in this chapter, as far as showing Brutus's character. Portia only appears in the entire play a few times, but her role plays a huge significance. Brutus mentions Portia, during his conversation with Cassius as they prepare for their final battle. Brutus shows his own conflicting feelings about his role in Caesar's death and his guilt for also contributing to Portia's suicide (Shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar). Brutus says, No man bears sorrow better. Portia is dead when explaining to Cassius how Portia was stronger than any man, but she was now dead from swallowing the hot coals.

In Act 4: Scene 3: Brutus's tent, Cassius asks Brutus during their emotional conversation, how Portia died, Of what illness? (Shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar). Brutus replies blaming himself for being absent during Portia's grief, blaming himself for her suicide. During this conversation, Brutus tells Cassius to get him bowl of wine, so he can bury all unkindness or unwanted feelings. (Shakespeare.mit.edu). Brutus acts completely different when he speaks to Cassius in private. Brutus is a completely different man when in the public eye. Many historians argue about the exact timing of Portia's suicide. Contemporary and modern historians also argue whether she actually swallowed hot coals or died of carbon monoxide poisoning (Wikipedia.org). Contemporary historians believe she killed herself after hearing Brutus died following the second battle of Philippi and modern believe she may have died from the plague (Wikipedia.org).

By reading Shakespeare's play, it is seems as if Portia died from grief. She was torn the day of Caesar's assassination, knowing her husband was involved, but could not be comforted. She had to keep these worries to herself. Portia's role in the play represents the deep pain and sorrow inside of Brutus's conscious by the end of the play, (Shakespeare.mit.edu). Portia, being a woman, was not trusted to keep the plot to kill Caesar silent. To prove her loyalty to silence, she inflicted a wound upon her thigh with a barber's knife. She left the wound untreated for over a day (Wikipedia.org). Feeling the pain of her wounded leg in silence. She used this example to prove she could endure physical and emotional pain, while keeping her secrets to herself. She could keep this secret from her husband, Brutus (Wikipedia.org). Portia's loyalty to her husband is proven over and over throughout the play. She has so much anxiety the day of Caesar's assissination, she faints. She worries about her and sends messengers to mahusbanke sure he's still alive (Shakespeare.mit.edu).

Did you like this example?

The Character of Portia in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Life and Accomplishments of Julius Caesar

Hello! I am Julius Caesar. I came from one of Rome's oldest family, the Julii, who go all the way back to Rome's founder, Romulus, and according to myth, the goddess Venus. I was born on July 13, 100 B.C. Because I was born in a time of multiple problems in the Roman Republic, I would use these problems to advance my power. My impact on Rome was leading it to become a powerhouse in the ancient world by using different methods to rule Rome, expand my rule, territory, and popularity, and helping Rome have a good reputation some parts of the ancient world.

I maintained Marian connections restored Marius' monuments that were dismantled under Sulla in 65 B.C. to gain a good reputation. They increased my popularity that eventually helped me look at one day being consul for 59 B.C. I made the first Roman Triumvirate, which consisted of me and two other men, Pompey and Crassus. I made the group primarily to help me reach consulship, but a secondary effect of the group was to help me rule Rome later on. The relationship between me and Pompey was strengthened when my daughter, Julia, married Pompey in 58 B.C. I also took control of Gaul, or present day France to expand the rule of the Triumvirate. Even though I had some trouble keeping it under control at first, I eventually got it under control. I made myself the first Roman dictator in an attempt to replace an useless oligarchy. I couldn't risk another person like Pompey betraying me.

Finally, I also made an overseas expedition to Britain in 55-54 B.C. and started to conquer them, which caused excitement in Rome and accelerated my popularity. I was killed by a conspiracy of people including my best friend, Brutus, and some other people, who stabbed my to death in the Senate Chamber on March 15, 44 B.C. Just after my death, Brutus made a speech at my funeral that helped unite Rome for a small moment, but when my best friend and advisor Mark Antony spoke, he turned Rome against Brutus and the conspiracy. My death caused a civil war in Rome against the conspiracy for killing me. Brutus and one of his friends from the conspiracy, Cassius, fought against Mark Antony, and my grandnephew, Octavian. Octavian would make a second Triumvirate. At the end of all of it, Cassius committed suicide as he thought that they were going to lose and Brutus did the same shortly after. My grandnephew, Octavian, succeeded me as ruler of Rome. That is what I, Julius Caesar did during my lifetime and how I impacted Rome.

Did you like this example?

The Life and Accomplishments of Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Betrayal in Julius Caesar

We saw a lot of betrayal in the movie of Julius Caesar, the main point in the movie was the plot to kill Caesar by Brutus, who was once thought to be his friend. This wasn’t the only instance of betrayal there are many more such as, Cassius, who was jealous of Caesar's power, and Marc Antony, who stayed true to Caesar but was disloyal to Brutus. Betrayal was a big part of the whole movie and showed what it had been like to have power back then.

Another instance of Betrayal I didn't mention before is when Caesar betrayed his wife Calpurnia when he had an affair with Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen. When Pompey fled to Egypt Caesar followed him to make things right, but when he arrived there, he found that the Egyptians had cut off Pompey's head and put it in a box. Caesar was disappointed, while he was in his room, a servant came and asked to speak to Caesar, the servant was actually Cleopatra in a disguise; she seduced Caesar and thus began the affair. Soon he and Cleopatra had a son named Caesarion, he and Cleopatra returned to Rome and started his short-lived life with Cleopatra. Leading into Brutus’s Betraying skills.

Upon caesar’s return, he was warned to beware of the ides of march by a soothsayer,; he dismissed the warning, but soon after his ex-wife Calpurnia had a dream he had been killed, she went to warn Caesar. Although still he dismissed it. He should have listened to all the warnings because, Cassius had started a plot against the dictator and Brutus had joined in on it gathering as many other Senators as they could. Caesar going into the meeting had dismissed his guards, the Senators approached the Caesar to supposedly take care of a manner of business but soon after the assassination began. The senators took turns stabbing Caesar, the last person was Brutus, who Caesar thought was his friend, Caesar died in front of a statue of Pompey. This was the worst Betrayal of all, Caesar knew the Senators had hated him but, he never expected them to take it this far.

In conclusion Friendship and Betrayal were at the center of everything in the movie. Many people in Ancient Rome wanted to have more and more power which made them do selfish things which almost always ended badly. So, I believe a betrayal is one of the worst things you can do to a person once you gain their trust; it shows that you care more for your own desires than others. Everyone has friends and enemies but just like the saying says keep your friends close and your enemies closer, always watch your back and have others backs when they need you most.

Did you like this example?

Betrayal in Julius Caesar. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Malcolm X’s Strategies

Malcolm X was civil rights activist, born in Omaha Nebraska in 1925. He wrote many essays to inform citizens in the United States of the struggles and difficulties that African Americans face while simply attempting to get an education. He also wanted to persuade African Americans to take action in the civil rights movement. In this essay, I will be exploring Malcolm X's article Learning to Read looking more deeply into techniques and strategies like pathos, ethos, logos, and tone used in writing that helped convey his message.

Malcolm X wanted to stress the importance, especially to African Americans, of reading and writing. He states that In the streets, I had been the most articulate hustler out there- I had commanded attention when I said something. But now, trying to write simple English, I not only wasn't eloquent, I wasn't even functional (Malcolm 107). When Malcolm was only in the eighth grade he became involved in organized crime and could not read or write. When is prison he changed his life for the better. He dedicated his time and energy teaching himself to read and write. He made an important point that it doesn't matter how weak your rhetoric skills are you can always advance them.

Malcolm X uses many rhetoric devices, but one that is very evident is his use of tone. Tone is established when one puts the language together. The first part of the language is punctuation. Malcolm's uses dashes to help support his point. An example of when he uses dashes is when he says that between Mr. Muhammad's teaching. My correspondence, my visitors usually Ella and Reginald-and my reading books.. (Malcolm 108). This dash emphasizes the words 'reading books' and the importance behind them. Another factor that contributes to the language is his use of quotation marks. For example, when he talks about skin game he puts quotation marks around the phrase because he wants to stress the significance of the tension happening in the United Nations through sarcasm with quotation marks (Malcolm 113). The next factor in language is when Malcolm uses italicized words. He says how is a black man going to get civil rights before first he wins human rights (Malcolm 114). The italicized word immediately catches the reader's eye. In this specific example, he italicize 'human' to show how ridiculous it is that people believe if they give people equality based on skin color it will somehow make up for the loss of their human rights, to be treated with respect. Although the tone in the essay changes multiple times throughout the essay from anger to passive to formal, I believe the overall tone is passion.

In Malcolm X's essay Learning to Read he uses pathos, ethos, and logos to make his argument stronger by persuading the reader. The main point he is trying to make is that formal education is good but not needed because you can become educated through other options. He says that the most important rhetoric skill to advance you in society is reading, writing and persuasive speaking. Malcolm taught himself to read and write in prison by asking for a dictionary, paper and something to write with. Next, he copied down every single word in the entire dictionary. When talking about the process he says I woke up the next morning, thinking about those words-immensely proud to realize that not only had I written so much at one time, but I'd written words that I never knew were in the world. Moreover, with little effort, I also could remember what many of these words meant (Malcolm 108). He uses logos by explaining his advancement to his readers by saying I suppose it was inevitable that as ny word-base broaden, I could for the first time pick up a book and read and now begin to understand what the book is saying (Malcolm 108). Another techniques he uses is pathos, by explaining how reading has been very beneficial by saying I knew right there in prison that reading had changed forever the course of my life. As I see it today, the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive (Malcolm 113). This helps establish a connection between him and his audience emotionally. Another key part of pathos is using high vocabulary, like Malcolm X does. When he gets to a subject he feels extremely passionate about, he uses words that represent the emotion he feels. Again helping readers connect to the piece. Malcolm proves his credibility by stating that he was contacted by an English journalist from London. The journalist asks him about his experiences and asks about Malcolm's alma mater. He responds that his alma mater was books (Malcolm 113). The significance of the interview between the two, is proving that Malcolm sounds intelligence, so the journalist makes the assumption he went to college. This helps prove his point that even if you aren't a college graduate you can still make a difference in society.

In Malcolm X's essay Learning to Read he persuades his audience to support his beliefs and ideas by the use of rhetorical strategies. His argument is supported through logos, pathos, ethos and tone. At the start of the essay Malcolm X was a drop out and imprisoned, but with motivation and dedication he has changed his life completely. He argued that his studies in prison are more valuable than a college degree. Malcolm X was so angered by the inequality toward African Americans he established an organization. He demonstrates his rhetoric skills that he acquired in his prison studies to become a very well respected and intelligent civil rights activist in the world. Malcolm X uses his rhetoric style in his autobiography to express his thoughts and beliefs about education and inequality, and the style he uses is why this essay is still very popular today.

Did you like this example?

Malcolm X's Strategies. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Race and Gender Throughout Malcolm X’s Life

The Autobiography of Malcolm X, is a book that talks and mentions Malcolm x's life on how race and gender played an important role in his life and what turned him into who he was and how it had an effect on his later decisions on his further days of his life. Race has always been an issue, even during remote times. The racial differences lead to discrimination and the belief that some races were better than others, black, white, Asian, Latino, it was always a game of who is who, and who is the superior race. Based on the book by Alex Haley, it is clearly shown that events that occur throughout our lives shape us onto the person we are and the decisions taken in the future, whether the effect is positive or negative. Fortunately, in this case, what Malcolm X had experienced and witnessed throughout his early years in life, had a positive effect in his life, which then led him to follow the religion of Islamic culture, or Muslim even though this had led him to believe that all white people were the devil.

There are certain events in our lives that affect the way we think and take decisions. For Malcolm X, according to the Autobiography of Malcolm X, the events that mark him for life in his childhood were the death of his father and the separation of his family years later after his mother had a mental breakdown. For Malcolm X was devastating because both were white people's fault because his father was killed violently by white people and his mother suffered years, she tried getting jobs but did not get to stay in one because she was a widow of a black man and she struggled while the great depression while welfare was trying to take her children. As we can see all the little thing in his childhood were affecting his actions after everything that happened. Malcolm X did not understand the racism that was going on in his life when he was a child, he did suffer when his family was apart and was sent to a foster home where he was treated just like a pet. Although he was treated alright and he went to a white school, his teacher told him that he couldn't be a lawyer for the color of his skin. He was devastated because his dreams were crushed, racism is crealy shown in the way it was said it to him, and how white people believed that black people had to do certain jobs like carpeting and plumbing but not lawyers or businessmen, Malcolm X had limitations because he was black,he did not feel free to be himself.

Racism and gender played from both parts in the history. At the time of malcolm x's life, people still believe that black people were less of a person just for the color of the skin, but at the same time black people whe. They began to be muslims had the wrong idea to believe that white people are devils as is mentioned in the book. When malcolm X was older he started getting different jobs, started selling drugs and become addicted. He ruined a girl that was smart and educated just to be with a white woman for status. Is clear that status was very important at that time, having a white girlfriend was like trying to imitate white culture, this was because black men wanted to feel more, they wanted to have the same opportunities as white people. As time passed he depended on sophia for her money but and was always in cocaine, sophia's husband wanted to kill him because he was sleeping with her, this affected his life in many ways because for this reason he went to jail. Gender was another factor that is seen because how is described on the book as they are objects, malcolm described that women were black women were prostitutes, and he used sophia just for his personal interest, also his mother was a victim of sexist ways of thinking, she was an educated woman but still was always doing chores pleased her family and when she was looking for a job she could not find something better that clean white family's houses. Women are stereotypically described as housewives and objects to men, that they could do anything else than just stay home and make their family happy, also like if women were made topleased men's needs, and like they don't have feelings.

There is thing that mark your life and make the biggest change. One of the events that affected malcolm x the most is when he went to prison because for the most part he didn't went to prison because burglary, it was because his relationship with a white woman. Race was a factor the we can notice in his time given in prison, 10 years was given to him when the white women were 1 year for the same crime. Even the laws were unfair with black men and it's obvious that black were treated unfair. When he was in prison he first knew about islam because of his family, he thought about the his past how white people affected his life in many ways, all the events to where he was at that moment, it had a positive effect in his life when he became muslim because after everything he went through , he started filling his mind with knowledge instead of drugs and when he got out of prison became a person that was respected by everyone because of his great speeches in the black community.

Did you like this example?

Race and Gender Throughout Malcolm X's Life. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Rhetorical Analysis of Malcolm X

Over the course of the history segregation between races has been a major problem, so much so that some races were treated so lowly that they were slaves to the others. As time went on there were laws and acts passed that that limited and even stopped slavery throughout the United States. African Americans were a large population that made up the slave labor class and to this day are still treated by some people as lower than a White man. Although racism is still alive the African American were given rights equal to the White man's rights. The Civil rights movement made it possible for an African American to sit where they want on buses, in restaurants, and in schools. It allowed them to get jobs of equal status to whites, drink out of the same drinking fountain, and talk to a white without being scolded for doing so.

Many people were involved and made the Civil Rights movement possible but there were some that made more of an impact in the sense of protests, speeches, and peaceful approaches. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were two very influential men in the fight that got African Americans the rights they deserved but because of Martin Luther's peaceable approach to racial separation and inequality between Whites and African Americans he made more of an impact on the Civil Rights Movement when compared to the violent approach of Malcolm X. Martin Luther King Jr. was born on January 15th, 1929 in Atlanta Georgia to Martin Luther King Sr. and Alberta Williams King. He grew up in a faith-based household. He was raised in the Baptist Church and his father along with his grandfather were Baptists ministers. He thrived in school and graduated from a segregated high school at the age of 15. then went on to Crosier Seminary where he studies theology for three years.

During his schooling, he met his wife Coretta Scott with who he had 4 children. He decided he wanted to be a minister, so he went to the seminary and graduated at top of his class in 1951. He went on to become the twentieth pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. He led Malcolm X originally known as Malcolm Little was a revolutionary, a man with an Idea that anything that the African Americans wanted and that was refused by the government was to be fought for by any means necessary. Malcolm X was born in Omaha, Nebraska on May 19th, 1925 to Earl and Louise Little. Grew up with a complicated home life and his family was constantly targeted by white supremacist groups. His father was a member of a black supremacist group making him a greater target other than being an African American. One night his home was mysteriously burned down and his father was killed, at this time Malcolm was only six. When Malcolm was thirteen his mother was admitted into a mental hospital due to a mental breakdown caused by his father died. Malcolm was then put into foster care and slight up with his sisters and brothers losing all communication with them. He was admitted into a school where he started to thrive but one of his teachers to him that an African American could never be a lawyer which was his dream. He then gave up on his dream and dropped out of school.

At the age of twenty, he entered a life of crime and got arrested for stealing and was sentenced to 10 years. While in prison he realized his faith and converted to the Nation of Islam. Once he was from prison he studied the religion and in December of 1953 Malcolm became an Islamic Minister. He was a minister at three different temples in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York. In 1958 he married Betty Shabazz who he had six children with. Malcolm continued his life taking interest in the civil rights movement and racism. He believed that the government would not help them, so they would have to help themselves. He went on to lead many Muslims and Africans in protests for equality between African Americans and Whites. He was one of the main leaders in the civil rights movement until February 21, 1965. Malcolm was scheduled to give a speech at the Audubon Ballroom when he was assassinated by a member of the Nation of Islam, Thomas Hagan.

Did you like this example?

Rhetorical Analysis of Malcolm X. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Malcolm X: the Ballod or the Bullet

In the speech ballot or bullet, Malcolm x was addressing racial, economic, and social justice issues that were affecting the black community in 1964. Malcolm x identified other Christian ministers that were in the political struggle for economic and social justice. Despite being a Muslim who acknowledged Mohamed as his savior, Malcolm X believed religion was his personal business between himself and the God he believed, just as it was with other social justice advocates who were Christians including the likes of Dr. Martin Luther. He believed that religion should not bring divisiveness among the black community if they were to succeed in their struggle for justice. Mr. Malcolm X insists that if the black community could ignore their religious difference and maintain it only between themselves and their God, then they could be able to join each other on a common fight for their rights and freedom.

Brother Malcolm criticized the whites for controlling the black politicians and black politic and encouraged Black Nationalism and letting the blacks represent themselves by voting politicians they wanted. Malcolm X spoke against the blacks who were political projects and puppets of the whites. He encouraged his fellow black community members to be politically mature in order to avoid being misled to supporting politicians who did not have the best interest of the community at heart; this included them knowing the role the politics plays in their lives. He encouraged political consciousness and maturity among to enable elect leaders who suited their interest.

Mr. Malcolm X informed on the need for the black people to be in control of their economy, he encouraged the black community to spend their money on businesses started by their black fellows as even the whites would not allow a black person to operate in the white communities. He educated that by taking a dollar out of a community the place will eventually become poor and ghetto while enriching where the dollar is taken. He encouraged the black to start small businesses which would grow after time and create employment opportunity for their population.

Malcolm X understood that all blacks suffered from political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation from the whites' government hence the need to unite against their common enemy. Consistently Malcolm X insisted to the black community on the needs to rely on themselves for solution and introduction of education program, he introduced the Black Nationalism as the self-help program needed to solve their problem. He argued the blacks to stand and act strongly against the oppression of any kind especially second class citizenship which he referred as slavery insisted that the time to act was then as the people were fed up of being taxed and misrepresented, degraded and abused. Malcolm X classified himself as either a democrat or republican but a black victim of them all.

Brother x discourages the greed of black folks in a political position which makes them easily manipulated by white politicians. He informed that there is no distinction between Democrats and Republicans but fooled the blacks in order to get their votes and was done with them after that. Therefore, by electing any party they wanted, the black community would still get the same results as all parties were controlled by the majority whites who acted without the goodwill of the black man at their heart. Malcolm X advocated for Black Nationalism which informed bloody revolution action which would have more bloodshed than the Russian and Chinese revolution rather than the peaceful course of action advocated by other social justice fighters. Malcolm X discouraged fear among the black community of their odds of winning the war of revolution against the whites by informing them that the atomic bombs were useless. He outlined that America was involved in many wars but there was nowhere they were winning and even the African countries were winning against colonial powers despite their poor and crude weapons.

Malcolm x utilizes repetition he his speech regularly, for instance, "I am a Muslim minister, the same as they are Christian ministers, I am a Muslim minister". The repetitive device used helps to keep the audience hooked and interested. Repetition helps drive a point home with ease and also keeps the crowded expecting more or ready to understand. Malcolm X uses this device effectively to keep his audience lively and ready to listen more. Malcolm X also while in the nation of Islam also gave a speech in Detroit, Michigan where he outlined all the basic of Black Nationalist's philosophy and established movement of civil rights as a major critic.

Did you like this example?

Malcolm X: The Ballod or the Bullet. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

Malcolm X’s Idea

You might look at Malcolm and think that he's a leader and that he tries to spread religion. He became a political and religious speaker, telling people that Islam was the perfect religion for black people. He spread the words of Elijah Muhammad, the messenger of Allah, and tried to tell people what they should do and how they should become better by converting themselves into something they may not want to be but, under the persuasive words of Malcolm X, will become.

It's troubling that he tries to convert people to a different religion because he wants them to change. He may show or try to reason as to why the change is needed and that it will make a person better, but it in no way has exact proof behind it other than buttered up words and the preachings of something that has not shown itself in physicality, but can apparently be felt through the soul. This is worrisome and confusing because Malcolm has no reason to tell people to live their lives in a certain way. His past speaks differently than his present, which may show that he has changed, but it also shows that he has not been a good man. Why trust someone that has chosen to walk down such a path, to lead yours? If he has went into prison because he has stolen, done and sold drugs, why should he be allowed to tell you what to do, who to look up to, and how you should be looking at others? Why does a man that has spiraled down, have the power to tell so many people what to do with themselves from what he does and doesn't want?

So what, if he tells others how to live their life? He walked down the wrong path, and choses to tell people his beliefs and share them and force them into these followings by using pretty words and interesting concepts and racism to gain people on his side instead of preaching as a preacher, and, instead, preaching as a politician. He has learned from his past mistakes and has grown as a person, but in no way should have the power and command of the people he has changed. He isn't even the messenger. He's a stoop that Elijah the paperboy drops with the words of Allah scribbled into the newspaper. He, as a wrong and misjudged man, should not have the right of judging others purely because he was, and still is, judged. His power should be spreading the Muslim faith, not his superiority complex onto others.

What about Malcolm leading people makes you feel conflicted? --- Malcolm leading people conflicts me because he came from prison for commiting crimes. He made multiple bad decisions in life and was judged by it, as I'm doing now, and I just see him as unfit for being a leader due to his mistakes.

So what if he made bad decisions? Doesn't a person learn from mistakes? --- On pages 156-157, the character, Bimbi, is mentioned. He's the one that made Malcolm change his mind and gain a more critical thinking. Bimbi helped Malcolm get past his bad decisions, but did it help Malcolm see through his mistakes? Bimbi is his motivation to learn more, but is he Malcolms answer?

Why does Bimbi seem to matter so much as to change the perspective of Malcolm? --- Bimbi is the one that was known for being philosophical and having many good arguments and rebuttals against people that had an opinion or decided to speak their mind. For a person to change in prison due to another person and not due to the prison itself is a bit weird, but usually you hear people say Prison really changes you, but here it's Bimbi.

Does it make sense for a person to change Malcolms mind than a solitary area? --- I think Malcolm learning and being persuaded by a person makes sense to me, but I feel that in a solitary place, he would probably turn out similar as his mom. He needs argument and facts and passion to be capable of understanding a topic. He needs persuasion and cognitive thinking, not a blank wall to stare at and be lost in his mind. He needs to hear new ideas to change.

Do you think this change is what Malcolm is trying to put onto others to join the Nation Of Islam? --- I think Malcolm had an idea of the same change being implemented onto others, but I think he's going along the same idea in a different fashion. He made himself loud, biased, and rude, which, when trying to prove an idea or opinion, isn't always the most useful strategy.

Why is the form of implementation different for being loud and the such? --- The form of implementation is weird because he tries to talk about the religion as if it's a saving grace and as if it'll change the race problem in The United States. On pages 193-194, it states how Malcolm tried to use religion or add it into his debates, so that other people would become more aware of it. This was, in my opinion, a sick way of trying to make the idea of religion more known, but it was his method.

Why is the spreading of religion sick? --- It's not that the spreading of the religion is sick. It's the way that he states it that creates confusion and slight anger. You come for a debate and all the time people care about the gist, but then you trail off and go from Thing 1 to Thing 2. It may look the same and add up, but they're two different things.

Don't you normally see this as a smart way of convincing people of something? --- I do see this as a good way of convincing someone of something because then different points can be used and expanded on based on the topic. The reason why I'm so mad here is the fact that he's cheating people into converting to another religion. It disgusts me that a person would stoop so low and be so pathetic, in my opinion, as to very lightly and delicately slide in your morals and attempt to change theirs. The idea of a change of a strangers morals are unsettling to me.

Why is it bad to change a person's morals? --- It's not the change itself that's bad. It's the idea of a person changing their morals to yours because you want them to makes me feel uncomfortable because everyone has their own idea and I don't believe they should have to change them for someone else. I hate it when people tell you what to do. Ella converted because she wanted to, not only because of Malcolm X.

Did you like this example?

Malcolm X's Idea. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

The Comparison of MKL and Malcolm X

While MLK's letter tends to white conservatives and Malcolm X's discourse tends to members of the African American people group, they each are attempting to discover to upgrade the lives of African Americans by utilizing inciting disfavor in their gathering of people. Dr. Ruler bodes well disgrace about not satisfying both their otherworldly and moral commitments to the development. By summoning the scriptural principles of Christianity and Judaism, the talk of the letter makes the gathering of people involvement as despite the fact that they are neglecting to live in understanding to their confidence. He starts to do this in the second passage of the letter. There, Dr. Ruler interfaces himself with Christianity through uncovering that he is the leader of the SCLC and associated with the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Such associations are vital on the grounds that they remind his peruser that he shares their confidence. He looks at his situation to the Apostle Paul, taking note of "Like Paul, I should constantly answer to the Macedonian call for help" (King 1). He additionally makes a similarity of his predicament to that of Jesus. While tending to allegations that he is a fanatic, he asks "Was not any more Jesus a radical in affection?" (King 4). With these two analogies, Dr. Lord adjusts the Civil Rights Movement to the abuse of Jesus and the wants of St. Paul. For a non-common crowd, such an arrangement would make them question any reservations that they have about the development. In this manner, it is verifiable that individuals who can't help contradicting Dr. Lord's objectives and systems are not abiding as indicated by their confidence.

MLK's references to religious researchers and his verbalization of his error in the religious system are used to induce disrespect. Dr. Lord references St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Burber intentionally. Since these researchers may now not be as ordinary for the reliably Christian or Jew, Dr. Ruler uses them to demonstrate his information of confounded non standard precepts, thusly setting himself in an unrivaled position. These references further pressure the misleading quality of approaching individuals who are searching for fundamental social freedoms to delay. At whatever point arranged researchers share his dispute that injustice of any kind is a moral floundering, by then his gathering of spectators may request their viewpoint of the Social Liberties Development and feel humiliated about their powerlessness to encourage the improvement. Perhaps the most huge logical gadget that is proposed to reason disfavor is his disposition of "dissatisfaction" in the white focus portrayal organize. He gives the remaining two pages of the letter to clearing up his disappointment. To be in a circumstance to out and out disappointment prescribes that he and his feelings are morally overwhelming. Thusly, his appearance of disappointment is a kind of decry that burdens that any activity towards his ability is at present not in staying aware of significant precept and need to cause disfavor.

Dr. Ruler makes use of standard illustrative equipment that make his target advertise feel disapproval moreover. For example, he counters ensures that he is damaging laws by using helping his social event to remember individuals that Hitler's lead was once genuine, anyway degenerate. The evaluation to Hitler is high bore as a result of the truth only twenty years after the finish of WWII, Americans consider Hitler to be the end event of insidiousness. Along these lines, the planned intrigue gathering would be frightened to be in any way to considered to him. The Hitler connection makes the gathering of spectators feel disgrace that they are more connected with what is legal offense than in what is morally right. Finally, the discussion affects disfavor without ability to stay up to the rules of our nation. Dr. Ruler references America's setting up dads. He illuminates that "We [African Americans] will win our chance in light of the fact that the blessed heritage of our state and the everlasting will of God are embodied in our resonating solicitations" (5). This is gigantic due to the truth it helps the social event to remember individuals that a need to frustrate African Americans and the name for African Americans to take transport of unfaltering freedom is opposite to the models whereupon this kingdom used to be built up, as authentically as reverse to the Judeo-Christian custom. By evaluating their political commitment and their reluctance to shield themselves rationally and mentally, Malcolm X, similar to Martin Luther King, disgraces his intended interest group with the end goal to rouse them to enhance their lives. By examining their political duty and their hesitance to watch themselves judiciously and rationally, Malcolm X, like Martin Luther King, disfavors his planned intrigue aggregate with the true objective to energize them to improve their lives. From the get-go in his talk, Malcolm X makes his African American target gathering of on looker's experience humiliated about their outwardly disabled complicity in their very own unique maltreatment through America's political system. He pronounces that "the Democrats have gotten the organization sewed up, and you're [African Americans] the individual who sewed it up structure them. Likewise, what have they given you for it? Four years in office, and a couple of moments back getting around to some social uniformity order" (X 27). Here, he is attempting to look good inept about their assistance for law based government authorities like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Malcolm X's proposal is that the democrats earned African American votes by methods for control and rejected the needs and needs of that hoard once picked. He needs African Americans to experience humiliated about being used as pawns. He besides condemns the Johnson association. He fights that Johnson is in "cahoots" with "his buddy" Richard Russell, a staunch foe to social freedoms control (X 27). He furthermore battles that they are strolling a "con preoccupation" and "playing with" African American voters (X 27). The words "cahoots" and "con redirection" are the two articulations related with offense (Malcolm X 27). Along these lines, he sets these administrators as wrongdoers, and he gives his proposed intrigue assemble a job as silly individuals who inadvertently supportive resource guilty parties. Likewise, the likelihood that the African American voters is being performed besides exhibits a nonappearance of multifaceted nature and guilelessness in that social occasion. These are each quality for which, he recommends, they be humiliated.

Be that as it may, Minister Malcolm scorns standard social uniformity activists, making them feel humiliated about what he sees as their misled undertakings to search for social balance through the political system. He calls African Americans who have been related with the standard Social freedoms Development "tissue heads" (X 31). This term is tremendous in light of the way that it was a severe term used to depict African Americans who were obliging to white master and willing to recognize a below average position. He anticipates that this attack will make normal rights pioneers, some of whom were accessible when he gave this talk, and moreover the customary people who admire them feel that the present social freedoms inspiration isn't dynamic enough. He ponders these social occasions to frail people who recognize fair conditions; he needs them to feel humiliated about their weakness. Malcolm X in like manner declares that "we don't intend to let them [mainstream social freedoms leaders] pussyfoot and delay and exchange off any more" (31). Essentially, he accuses the pioneers for putting off or blocking progress. Like the control that Martin Luther Ruler states when he disfavors white preservationists and church pioneers, Malcolm X's ask for that he is more strong and along these lines more grounded exhibits his power and additionally underscores what he sees as the disgracefulness of their gradualist position. He continues with his usage of non-genuine request by asking " How may you thank a man for giving you what's starting at now yours? How by then would you have the capacity to express profound gratitude to him for giving you simply bit of what's currently yours? You haven't made progress, if what's being given to you, you should have starting at now" (X 31). By rehashing the dilemma of the social equity fight in its minimum complex edge, he makes the social freedoms arrange have all the earmarks of being disgracefully ludicrous and silly.

Malcolm X disgraces individuals who are hesitant to address the physical and mental dangers caused by prejudice. He clarifies "The ticket or the slug. In case you're reluctant to utilize an articulation like that, you ought to get out of the nation, you ought to get back in the cotton fix, you ought to get back in the rear way" (X 28). He makes the gathering of people feel embarrassed about their reluctance to forfeit everything to the battle against racial persecution if important. He adjusts such reluctance to the cotton fix, which is intended to conjure pictures of subjugation, as one of the south's essential harvests was at one time cotton and exhausting farming ventures, for example, sharecropping and cultivate working that were noticeable in the principal half of the twentieth century. Accordingly, to go back to the cotton fix would be backward. Malcolm X keeps on utilizing disgrace as a logical gadget once more when he notes " If you [African Americans] don't take this sort of stand, your little kids will grow up and take a gander at you and think 'disgrace'" (34). Guardians need to be good examples for their youngsters. He is demanding that inability to remain against persecution will lessen the more youthful age's regard for the more seasoned one. This makes his group of onlookers feel embarrassed about inaction and frightful that inaction will distance them from their kids. Like, MLK's declaration that all good and energetic natives ought to be embarrassed about disregarding metro and religious regulations, Malcolm X declares that African Americans who neglect to defend their unavoidable rights ought to be embarrassed about themselves as guardians and smart individuals. Therefore, the two pioneers utilize disgrace as an amazing logical gadget

Did you like this example?

The Comparison Of MKL and Malcolm X. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

MLK and Malcolm X Comparison

Both Martin luther king and Malcolm X were two prominent civil rights leaders in the fight for the betterment of black peoples lives although they are both agreed on achieving civil rights for the black community and agreed that the treatment of black people by white people was unjust their philosophy and how to achieve justice was different. Martin luther king and Malcolm X had very different views on the interaction of black and white people. Martin Luther preached for black people to have the same rights and freedoms as white people and coexist with whites and was even open to having white people join in on the protest for equality. Must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers , as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. (MLK, p3)

Where was Malcolm X believed in Black nationalism and was and was really negative towards white people and politicians. Even Though you can vote they fix it so you're voting for nobody. Because either dog you chose I guarantee you you'll still be in the dog house. (Malcolm X, p8) By the dog, he means the political parties, no matter who the black community votes fore they all are against them. The dixiecrats in the south being obviously against them, and the democrats in the north pretending to be for them. The negro 'revolt' is controlled by the white man. and all of the demonstrations to desegregate are just artificial fires that have been ignited and fanned by the white liberals in desperate hope that they can use this artificial revolution to fight off the real black revolution (Malcolm X , p17).

There are efforts to desegregate public places, have white people realize that black people are no different from them and they should have the same rights. And Malcolm is just calling it trick to get black people to vote. And that also raises the point that he seems to be against black and whites integrating into society as one people. Martin Luther king and Malcolm x had divergent views about how the the to best achieve black rights. King believed that non violence is the answer. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force (MLK, p2) Because you can only achieve peace with peace, and violence breeds violence. Non violence is effective because there is nothing the other side can do, they are not breaking any laws that could them trowen in jail, they are just peacefully protesting tring the to get the word out about racial inequality and at the same time showing that they are just peaceful and respectful people that belong in the society. Malcolm on the other hand believes in violence brought down by god.

Revolutions are never peaceful, never loving, never nonviolent. Nor are they ever compromising. Revolutions are destructive and bloody. (Malcolm X, p 17). He claims that god controls the black revolution to violently get rid of the power of the white oppressors. They both of these civil rights leaders agree on strengthening the black economy Malcolm X states: The economic philosophy of Black Nationalism only means that we should own and operate and control the economy of our community.(p2). He blames black people for their poverty and terrible housing, by supporting the white man's economy rather than the back economy, he advocates that blacks setup storers and business and blacks to shop at those businesses. So that the money stays in the black community, rather than in the white comuti and making the white man richer. Businesses set up by the black community would also give black people jobs. King preaches: we just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, 'we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, ...Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we [must withdraw] economic support from you.' (p8).

If these companies don't follow the wishes of the blacks for fair treatment they are hurting themselves by losing customers and therefore profit. And black are going to spend their money black businesses instead. Both of them also base their beliefs on religion. Martin Luther who is a christian preaches ...but god has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day (p8) I just want to do god's will (p11). Martin Luther king and Malcolm X brought fought for civil rights for the black community. Some of their ideas were similar such the idea of building strong black economy and both of their beliefs came from religion. How ever they also disagreed on other ideas such as Martin luther's idea of unity of white and black community and non violence vs. Malcolm X's black nationalism and violent approach. Yet in the end together they achieved the a monumental and glorious agenda of civil rights for blacks. And therefore deserve recognition of going down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation (MLK,p2)

Did you like this example?

MLK and Malcolm X Comparison. (2019, Mar 26). Retrieved November 4, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/7/

United States Involvement in the Vietnam War

Gregory Feifer, The Great Gamble

Cite this page

Julius Caesar’s Contribution to the World

Cite this page

Gaius Julius Augustus Germanicus Caesar

Cite this page

Idea of Betrayal in Williams Shakespeare’s Play Julius Caesar

Cite this page

George W Bush’s Protection of the Iraqi People and Caesar’s Protection of the Gauls

Advertisement

A note from John:

Cite this page

Julius Caesar – Rise to Prominence

Cite this page

Julius Caesar ‘s Young Life

Becoming Political

Dictatorship

Works Cited:

Cite this page

Pompey’s Favor of the Senate over Julius Caesar

Cite this page

How Woman are Potrayed in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Concept of Loyalty in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Historical Figure – Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Women S Roles in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Women in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Julius Caesar Study Questions

Act I

Act II

Act III

Act IV

Cite this page

Julius Caesar’s Human Error

Cite this page

Brutus and Caesar Characters in the Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Cite this page

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

Cite this page

The Importance of Preserving History through Primary Sources

Works Cited

Cite this page

The Rise of Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Loyalty in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

The Character of Portia in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Cite this page

The Life and Accomplishments of Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Betrayal in Julius Caesar

Cite this page

Malcolm X’s Strategies

Cite this page

Race and Gender Throughout Malcolm X’s Life

Cite this page

Rhetorical Analysis of Malcolm X

Cite this page

Malcolm X: the Ballod or the Bullet

Cite this page

Malcolm X’s Idea

Cite this page

The Comparison of MKL and Malcolm X

Cite this page

MLK and Malcolm X Comparison

Cite this page