The Bush administration had many similarities and connections to leaders during the time of Julius Caesar. 2 people whose decisions stood out the most to me were Mark Antony and Former President George W. Bush. Mark Antony’s character really stood out while choosing between the others. Antony was a threat that hasn’t been recognized by the opponent’s side. Later on in the story of Julius Caesar’s tragedy, he takes the lead. In my evaluation, he led in a way that soon George W. Bush shall lead. Mark Antony had displayed tactics in his to power which were soon to be found in “The Prince” By Niccolo Machiavelli. Bush soon displayed many tactics from “The Prince” to help reach the decisions he made.
“The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli was a guide-book on how a ruler is to rule and maintain their power as ruler. Many present and past leaders have read and understood “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli. In my opinion many tactics found in the time of Julius Caeser have mood on to be included in “The Prince”.
Mark Antony was born in 83 B.C. Antony was well educated. He focused on classes that helped him on his political future. Mark Antony was a military general and conquered alongside Julius Caesar. He rose to higher power and popularity after the assassination of Julius Caesar. He moved on to defeat Brutus and Cassius in a Roman civil war alongside Caesar’s son Octavius.
Mark Antony was a very devoted person when it comes to the matters he is dealing with.
The tragedy of Julius Caesar has highlighted many tactics on how to gain and sustain power which was promptly to be found in the Prince by Machiavelli. The person whom I considered to be enriched in Machiavellian tactics the most would be Mark Antony. I believe Mark Antony was not looking to achieve goals that were for the asset of Rome however they were for his own good. He centered his agenda on expanding his support from the people of Rome and maintain that support. Using that advantage, he moves on essentially alongside Octavius, to use it to build his lead in winning the war against Brutus & Cassius. This tactic is found in chapter 7 of the Prince by Machiavelli. To summarize, Chapter 7 states that a leader can rise to power swiftly but preserving that power at the top is difficult. Antony was able to rise to power promptly after the assassination of Julius Caesar. Antony had obtained the support of the people of Rome rather quickly with his speech at the stairs of the Senate building. Through the victorious war he led, he was able to maintain the support and remain in power. Chapter 11 also displays a tactic that was found in the leadership of Mark Antony. To summarize chapter 11 it claims that a leader of a strong nation who is loved, will not be attacked from foreign enemies and if so will have his people defend him. To add on to that, Chapter 12 claims “We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin”. This is present in Mark Antony and Octavius’ rise to power. Julius Caesar has conquered and set up a mighty empire ready for the next ruler. The foundations were laid but in order to gain the power to control the country, Antony’s forces had to battle Brutus’ forces to determine what kind of empire will be formulated off of that foundation.
During the W. Bush administration, many of the cabinet members have presented Machiavellian tactics. The person who I believe expressed essential Machiavellian tactics was the President himself, George W. Bush. Bush had demonstrated many Machiavellian tactics as the role of the president. One of the chapters that I believe W. Bush borrowed a key tactic from the book was chapter 18. To summarize chapter 18 of the prince, it claims that it is key for a prince to keep faith close to his heart. George W. Bush was as some people claim one of the most religious presidents. Bush stated to James Robinson “I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.” This shows how Bush is emphasizing the importance in a leader to show deep care in religion as claimed in chapter 18 of the Prince. This also shows a low-level form of God’s-Mandate by stating that he feels God wants him to do it. Bush has gained much support off of this and that had helped him win re-election. W. Bush has also used faith in his role as president by proposing to help (financially) faith-based groups that helped take care of those in need. Another chapter that shows a tactic that has been used by W. Bush was chapter 14. To summarize chapter 14 it talks about a leader, his military & war. George W. Bush had declared war on Iraq and had used Machiavellian tactics to defend his reasoning. Bush & his vice-president Cheney have claimed that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and ties to the world trade center attacks. As reliable as Bush seemed to be at that time those claims were false. Bush had also used many other false claims about Iraq to gain political support in going to war. Bush had claimed that Iraq has gained Uranium from Africa which was proven false. During Colin Powell’s address to the U.N., he claimed that Iraq had decontamination trucks and Jets. These claims were later on proven to be false. Bush’s main goal was to get economic profit from Iraq’s oil.
Mark Antony and George W. Bush had some similar choices when they have power in their hands. Let’s start off from the beginning of Mark Antony’s rise to power. When Antony declared war against Brutus and Cassius his reason was to avenge Julius Caesar, pave his version of what a nation is to look like, & that they are a threat. This action is very similar to the argumentation Bush gave for advocating the war on Iraq. Bush claimed that Iraq is responsible for the world trade center attacks & have weapons of mass destruction which threatened the United States Security. This is comparable to the assassination of Julius Caesar. However, the government set-up at that time is different from the one bush was under and we still are. Bush had to get permission from the Senate in order to go to war with Iraq. Mark Antony didn’t need permission and reasoning to start a war upon Brutus and Cassius’s but still provided some to gain support. Though Mark Antony didn’t have absolute power, he had a significant influence on the person who did Julius Caesar. Mark Antony had supported Julius Caesar in taking over Gaul. After that Mark Antony moved on to defend Julius Caesar from the Roman senate. He defended Julius Caesar and his military from the Senate overpowering them & drawing in their weaponry.
In my opinion, if Mark Antony were to take George W. Bush’s position he would’ve made the same decisions that Bush himself did. However, he would’ve been more precise with his reports. Based on Mark Antony’s character, I believe he wouldn’t have wagered war on Syria for the reasons Bush did. As a general, Mark Antony would have been more accurate with his reports possibly preventing the war on Iraq. I also believe that Mark Antony would have provided more transparency of the government he is ruling. Mark Antony was a very devoted person to his career. Just like Bush he had a great love for the things he did. Bush had great pride in religion and Antony had great pride in his military work.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer