Cassius’ Justified Murder of Julius Caesar
In assassination of Julius Caesar essay in which Cassius's justification of Causar's death is analysed. Legacy; something that many Romans had got the opportunity to leave behind. From Brutus’ legacy as the noblest Roman to Caesar being the most infamous general, their legacies play a huge part into how these historical figures are remembered. Among the 300 senators of Rome, only a few stands out from the crowd. In this metaphorical competition of getting attention and recognized, the senator Gaius Cassius immediately stands out. In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Cassius, being the one who started it all, was a “regular” senator, following the crowd and the norm. Through the play, was Cassius’ legacy as a traitor to Rome and killer of an honorable ruler? Or was his legacy a hero who helped Rome from ambitious tyrant? Cassius has been seen as many different things to different people throughout history. However, when Caesar was rapidly getting more powerful, he began to despise the idea of Caesar rising to power, and eventually taking the crown. Cassius decided to step out and do something. Using his wicked and brilliant mind, Cassius intricately orchestrated the infamous assassination of the great Caesar. Without Cassius’ mastermind steering the events, the assassination would have most likely not have been successful or even at all. What ensued was not just hell fire raining down on Rome, but a lucky dodge of a bullet from being taken over by a corrupt and ambitious monarch. Thus, Gaius Cassius, the mastermind behind Caesar’s death, although being hated for assassinating one of the most important persons in history, he ultimately did Rome a favor by stopping a tyrannical monarch from taking control.
Julius Caesar was a tyrant who stated in numerous accounts will turn corrupt when confronted with immense power. Cassius was introduced when he attempts to persuade Brutus to join a conspiracy which he has already organized, being the assassination of Julius Caesar. Meanwhile, Caesar was returning from war against Pompey. Although it was not mentioned in the novel, historically speaking, Pompey was a longtime friend of Caesar, and someone who Caesar respects. So much so that there’s even a statue of Pompey in memory of this fallen warrior and friend; which was also where Caesar was assassinated. If Pompey was such a respected figure in Caesar’s life, why would he go out of his way to kill Pompey? The issue at hand is far more than some quarrel between friends gone wrong. Pompey being the ruler of a nearby Kingdom, was in the way of Caesar’s plans for territorial expansion. Thus, Pompey was killed and conquered in the name of political and territorial dominance. If Caesar is willing to kill a close friend of his so that no one could stand in his way, it would only go downhill from there for Caesar. Upon the irrational ambition that Caesar had, he was granted the title of a “lifetime dictator”. With the amount of power and influence that Caesar held with Rome, he could very well bring prosperity or doom to his mighty empire. In the play, Cinna exclaimed “Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!'. This quote from Cinna shows that Caesar was indeed a tyrant and was relieved when Caesar will no longer abuse this power which he holds. Caesar was such an important figure that he public looked up to, he was the first emperor who got their faces printed on the Roman currency and the first to dress like an actual dictator. With this much power in hand, Caesar could go corrupt and be consumed by his ambition and the need of attaining even more power. Historically speaking, with Pompey out of the picture, Caesar decided to march north east and conquer their main opposing force of the Gaul’s. At this point, the Roman Empire has officially become the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, and no one could tell him otherwise. Even though the empire of Rome itself would’ve benefitted greatly from this power, with Caesar consolidating so much power to himself, the people in Rome very well could’ve lived under tyranny and corrupt emperor. As Brutus said in his soliloquy “But for the general. He would be crowned. How that might change his nature, there’s the question,” Caesar’s nature will be corrupt if presented with so much power all to himself. With the lifelong status of being an emperor and the Roman empire consisting of fifty percent of the world population, no one could do anything to stop Caesar or challenge him. Sooner or later, people are going to realize that the only way to stop Caesar is to assassinate him. Cassius foresaw this disaster that was soon to be written into reality and decided to do something about it. Even though Cassius was jealous of Caesar’s power and status, Cassius ultimately saw the flaws of Caesar and used his jealousy to fortify the notion that Caesar needed to be taken out.
Julius Caesar needed to be assassinated to preserve the Roman Empire. Upon the tyranny Caesar was enforcing on the general public, he was growing too fast and too strong for the wellbeing of the Roman empire. Caesar was slowly shifting the Roman republic back into monarchy. The senators had equal power and jurisdictions with the emperor. However, Caesar undermined them and acted like a monarch, rising above them. The conspirators acted in the name of the senate and many people agreed with the conspirators. During Brutus’ speech after the assassination, a plebian said “’This Caesar was a tyrant.’ ‘Nay, that’s certain. We are blest that Rome is rid of him' . This shows that the plebeians agree with Brutus and the conspirators in doing such, for the benefit of Rome. Although many argue that this assassination may have help Rome from a tyrant, but it also sent Rome into seventeen years of civil conflict. The citizens and plebeians were extremely uneducated and gullible. With the right motivation and wits in a speech done correctly, the plebeians could be very easily convinced to contradict themselves. As seen in the responses after Antony’s speech, “’If thou consider rightly of the matter, Caesar has had great wrong’… ‘Marked ye his words? He would not take the crown. Therefore, ‘is certain he was not ambitious.’” The citizens completely contradicted their previous statements about how great and righteous Brutus and Cassius was assassinating Caesar. These people don’t know right from wrong and most certainly doesn’t understand why Caesar was truly assassinated or whether he was a tyrant or not.
To conclude, there are certain ways where people view the world might affect their opinion on Cassius. The characters in this novel are apt to line up as heroes and villains, resulting in a very black and white view. The term conspirator, for example, would bear a negative impression. A person or group of people that was given this title might bear the risk of being looked down upon. And the belief that their motives must be bad. Cassius in this novel perfectly captured that point. Although there wasn’t any evidence that he had dishonorable motives, he was frowned upon and was resented. All he wanted to do was for the conspiracy to succeed. Cassius is driven by the same motives as actuate Flavius, and Marullus, and Brutus. There is really no problem here. His formation of the conspiracy does not make him out to be either a good man or a bad man. It has no bearing upon his moral make-up. However, despite being hated for orchestrating one of the most infamous assassinations in history, Gaius Cassius, even out of jealousy, had set Rome up for success for preventing a lifelong monarch take control of the greatest Empire. Henceforth, Cassius’ legacy even though smeared by Caesar’s blood and guilt, has ultimately secured his place in being one of Rome’s greatest forgotten and misunderstood Roman.
