The Assassination of Julius Caesar

Although, the city was being run well by Caesar, he was going against the old tradition of the Democracy of the citizens of Rome. ” He clearly is a proponent of a Democracy for Rome. Both of these leaders were assassinated while they were doing positive things for their people and country. He says that, “Democracy has a fair-appearing name and conveys the impression of bringing equal rights to all through equal laws” and that “Monarchy, on the contrary, has an unpleasant sound, but is the most practical form of government. ” He backs up this point by stating that if Democracy indeed does work, Cassius and Brutus would have never murdered Julius Caesar. I think that Rome would have been better off with Caesar as its ruler, because after he was killed Rome was turned almost instantly in turmoil.

I feel that Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar because they had an imbedded idea of government in the minds as most of Rome’s people also carried with them. He thought it was not morally correct for a Roman person to be an absolute leader of his own people.

Caesars assassination could be compared to the assassination of United States of America President Kennedy. Dio Cassius also thinks that Caesar is not blameless for his own death. Cicero, the man who called Caesar a madman enforced this idea by calling him this name.

On the other hand, a man by the name of Dio Cassius feels that Caesar did many good things while he was alive.

Dio Cassius also compares Democracy and Monarchy in this passage on page 127 of the sourcebook. When something is done for a long time it becomes the correct way, whether it is or not.