A powerful leader being assassinated is not new in the history of the world. Some have been powerful and some have not. President John F. Kennedy is maybe the most famous in the history of the United States, except maybe President Abraham Lincoln. The murder of Julius Caesar is one of the most famous and popular too. The debate is whether he should have been assassinated or not, depending on what you think he was doing within the empire. It is true that Julius Caesar was changing the republic into an empire, but is that reason enough to kill the leader of that change? I don't think he should have been assassinated.
I think that Julius Caesar was humble. If anything, he often put the people ahead of himself and sacrificed his own needs for the sake of the people. His humility seems to be evident by not making sure of his popularity and by making sure the needs of the republic was taken care of and made sure to happen. If Julius Caesar wasn't humble and giving then why did he put the needs of the empire ahead of his own? He did it because he cared about his republic more than his own desires. His humility is also indicated by his denial of the crown itself. This also is seen in the life of president John F. Kennedy because he donated every check he ever got as the President to charity. This shows his humility, like Caesar.
Julius Caesar loved the people as indicated by his humility, his denial of the crown and by putting his own desires behind those of the people. After he died he left the people land and money. If he was trying to get ahead for himself only, then he certainly wouldn't have been saving money and land to give to the people. President Kennedy, like Julius Caesar, gave to the people and not to himself. Julius Caesar was assassinated out of greed and envy by Brutus and Cassius, who though they seemed honorable, were in fact out to get their own ways and desires without any concern for anyone else....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document