Comparing Caesar And Julius Caesar

Ever compared two great leaders to each other? Well, if you have, I will be offering a comparison idea based on Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln. They both were vigorously influencing leaders and managed to move the world's heart at once. These men were born the same day of the month but different months and year. Caesar was born on the twelfth of July, 100 B. C and Lincoln on the twelfth of February 1809.

Julius Caesar, a tale of a great leader that was evidently taken down in the worst way. Julius Caesar was one of Shakespeare’s greatest plays; showing how a leader should present himself, and his people. It really is magnificent; except, Julius Caesar does have a dark side. Friends that Caesar trusted, with Brutus as the leader, stabbed Caesar to death and bathed in his blood. They went on to make sure that Caesar was determined, as Brutus says, “ambitious” (III.ii.24). Though, this play is not all sadness and woes. Marc Antony, a great friend of Caesar’s, turned the tables on his unjust death. When he goes to give his eulogy, he uses pathos, logos, and ethos, to persuade the people. By using these rhetorical strategies, he was able

Julius Caesar’s, one of the main leaders of Ancient Rome, reign was short lived because some of his fellow leaders, including his best friend, Brutus, murdered him. Mark Antony, a Roman politician, general, and ally of this leader, gives a speech at his funeral in William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar. Antony’s purpose is to convince the people of Rome that Brutus and his men wrongfully murdered Caesar. He adopts a sarcastic and snarky tone in order to convince the public that Brutus and his “honorable men” are not the noble, just people that they call themselves. Mark Antony delivers a speech at Julius Caesar’s funeral to persuade his audience that Brutus and his men unjustifiably murdered Caesar.

Mark Antony’s speech following Julius Caesar’s assassination uses his own understanding of ethos, pathos, and logos to make the crowd feel his pain and play effectively into his own motivations unknowingly. As Mark Antony delivers his speech to the crowd of plebeians his purpose and motivation is revealed when in context before the actual speech is delivered when Antony says, “A curse shall light upon the limbs of men; Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;” (III.i.262-264).Antony’s motives have been uncovered to reveal his desire for a civil war that will bring him more power and throughout his speech he is also trying to disprove those, in his opinion, false accusations of ambition Caesar’s murderers have given as cause for his death.

In the play Julius Caesar written by the whimsical, sophisticated William Shakespeare both beloved Brutus and noble Antony deliver their most thorough attempts to win over the delicate citizens of Rome into what they believed was correct. Brutus gave it a valiant effort in trying to convince the citizens that murdering the noble Caesar was the best thing to do for the people. In the end Brutus’ effort was not enough because Antony was able to turn every Roman against Brutus and the other deceitful conspirators during his speech with his extraordinary use of logos, pathos, and ethos.

The play Julius Caesar written by Julius Caesar illustrates the murder of Julius Caesar by his Senate and the events that happened after his death. The famous funeral speeches given by Mark Antony and Brutus give the Roman people two different sides of Julius Caesar and his leadership using ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos is the credibility of the speaker, logos is the logic or reasoning, and pathos is the emotion of the audience. Mark Antony delivers the most effective speech in the play as he appeals to these three elements in his speech in a more convincing manner than Brutus.

The topic of leadership in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar has been discussed and argued ever since the play was written. The most prevalent discussion of leadership in the play revolves around Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Marcus Brutus, and the cause of his downfall. According to Shakespeare critic James Bundy, “Brutus... is a man whose affections sway more than his reason, in whom there is this tragic confederacy of passion and imagination against reason” (qtd. in Palmer 402). Ernest Shanzer, however, says that Brutus is “by no means devoid of political shrewdness and practical wisdom”, but he is a “bad judge of character” (Shanzer 1). Although both critics’ descriptions of Brutus have merit, Brutus’ shortcoming, as well as the success of the opposing leader, Mark Antony, is more accurately explained using the observations of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince. In this book Machiavelli outlines the characteristics of a successful leader. When using The Prince as a lens to read Julius Caesar, the correlation between a leader’s Machiavellianism and their success becomes very apparent. Marcus Brutus is undoubtedly an honorable and respectable man, but his morality prevents him from adhering to Machiavelli’s principles. Due to his lack of princely virtues, Brutus is doomed to fail, while Antony, a much more Machiavellian prince, successfully seizes power.

In William Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, two speeches are given to the people of Rome about Caesar's death. In Act 3, Scene 2 of this play Brutus and Antony both try to sway the minds of the Romans toward their views. Brutus tried to make the people believe he killed Caesar for a noble cause. Antony tried to persuade the people that the conspirators committed an act of brutality toward Caesar and were traitors. The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of both Antony's and Brutus's speech to the people are conveyed through tone and rhetorical devices.

For most contemporary readers, Niccolò Machiavelli is a name synonymous with deceit, cunning, and manipulation, a reputation which stems almost entirely from his authorship of one of the central works of modern political philosophy: The Prince. Given this image, it is incredibly ironic that the Italian word virtù and its derivatives appear no less than seventy-two times throughout the work. While the translator goes to great lengths to adapt this versatile word to the context of the situation, it is nevertheless clear that virtù is closely related to its English cognate virtue. This, along with the political nature of Machiavelli’s work, shapes the discourse about the nature of princedoms into one in which the author explores the more

In the tragic play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the ruler of Rome, Julius Caesar, is stabbed to death by some of his so-called friends. Brutus, one of Caesar's best friends, is approached by some of the other senators to join the conspiracy to kill Caesar. Brutus weighs his options and decides to join the conspirators for the good of Rome. At Caesars's funeral, Brutus gives a speech to convince the citizens that the conspirators were right to kill Caesar. In contrast, Antony gives a speech to convince the Romans that there was no real reason to kill Caesar. Both characters try to persuade the audience, but they achieve different tones using literary and rhetorical devices. The tone of Brutus' speech is prideful, while the tone of Antony's speech is dramatic and inflammatory.

The Renaissance era of Europe produced a great multitude of political thinkers. Among this plethora is perhaps the most controversial philosopher of his age, Niccolò Machiavelli. The Florentine politician, known most famously for his work, The Prince, discusses, among other things, the relationship between morality and political action. However, unlike the vast majority of his European predecessors, who often argued that political power should be in the hands of the morally virtuous ruler, Machiavelli produces a contrary argument, in which morality plays no role in judging the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. To this end, he argues that a ruler’s only concerns are the acquisition and maintenance of political power. This reputation, whether wholly deserved or not, results in Machiavelli being seen as Renaissance Italy’s strongest proponent of Realism and the true state of humanity and the world.

In the Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Calphurnia, Caesar's wife, tells Caesar that he should not go out today because it’s the Ides of March, but that she also had a dream. A dream that she saw a statue of Caesar that had blood running down it while Romans were washing their hands in the blood of Caesar with smiles on their faces. Eventually, Caesar does get murdered and there's a funeral held for him which Brutus and Marc Antony talk at. They Roman's follow both men, but can not decide who is more effective.

There are many differences between Macbeth and Julius Caesar. There are also many comparisons. There are mostly similarities these are two fairly similar plays by Shakespeare. I am going to be comparing and contrasting the two plays. Both Brutus and Lady Macbeth are responsible for the murder of a leader.

Machiavelli and Shakespeare reveal similar underlying views on authority and leadership however they provide different perspectives due to their form, context and purpose. Niccolo Machiavelli’s laudatory treatise The Prince (1515) was written in a turbulent Renaissance Italy after the return of the De’ Medici’s as an attempt to regain political power. Machiavelli reveals his perspective on authority and leadership by advocating the appearance of virtue and necessary cruelty as a means of maintaining power. William Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar (1599) differs his perspective on authority and leadership due to his Elizabethan audience yet reveals similar attitudes. Through a dramatic representation it is revealed that manipulation and

Mark Antony’s funeral speech incorporates the rhetorical devices of sarcasm, irony, and repetition to turn the people of Rome. The ironic use of repetition slowly displaced the conspirators. To exemplify, Mark Antony repeatedly calls the conspirators, “ honorable men” (3.2.79). The habit of repeating the word ‘honorable’ is extremely sarcastic, and Antony is purposefully overusing the word on account that it makes the citizens question the legitimacy of the murder. As a result, the crowd wonders if the conspirators are allowed to get away with the crime solely based on