Personality of Julius Caesar and His Effect on Rome Report

December 14, 2021 by Essay Writer


Julius Caesar is an ancient Roman personality and an influential political figure. Moreover, conspirators, led by a personality called Brutus, assassinated him. Caesar’s role in the play is not immense, though he dominates the play, even after his demise in the third act of the play.

He is enigmatic and represents the focal theme of the play, the moral haziness surrounding his assassination (Shakespeare, 2011). The assassinating leader is an influential political figure and coveted leader who is a brutal and sadistic tyrant. Therefore, the conspiracy against him appears to be dignified and similarly malevolent.

Caesar’s Personality

Caesar is undoubtedly domineering. His first appearance depicts scores of admiring followers behind him. He is accustomed to dominion. Caesar depicts his dominance by dismissing the soothsayer when they warn him (Loos & Bloom, 2008). Sooner, Caesar’s undoubted and profound self-confidence disappears.

Additionally, Caesar’s smug feeling of power and dominion against other forces is conspicuously apparent in the way he converses or delivers his speeches to the people. He refers to himself as the royal ‘we’ and shows off his intentions of going to the senate and deferring unwelcome omens.

Alternatively, Caesar presents himself as the foremost man of the entire whole world. This clearly depicts itself when Brutus refers to him as a profound leader with influence and strength to lead. He only has few physical defects and disabilities including some epilepsy and mild deafness.

He is less susceptible to illness as Cassius complains. This, however, shows that Cassius is rather envious of Caesar. As Brutus notes, Caesar does not let his emotions rule his judgment capabilities (H.S.C). We depict his apt judgment quality; by the way, he portrays Cassius. Antony and Brutus did orate in funeral regarding Caesar’s profound virtues. All other characters always depict Caesar’s virtues in their dispositions.

It is odd that the central figure of the play demises before the play is half. Caesar’s spirit, however, continues dominating the play, even after his demise. Antony’s revenge for Caesar’s assassination forms a plot for the second half of the play as Brutus and Cassius contemplate upon Caesars’s thoughts.

This brings him to life throughout the entire play. Notably, both his conspirators speak about him on his death. They depict his ingenious and apt capabilities, his leadership and dominating spirit (Loos & Bloom, 2008). Brutus deviously demonstrates the psychology of influence by taking up Caesar’s arrogances, showing Caesar’s thirst for power and utter influence.

Caesar’s character revolves around a leader with various defects: manifested physically. Caesar has deafness, mild epilepsy and poor swimming. During his last days, Caesar takes up and believes in superstitions. This stresses and intellectual corruption that power can trigger which makes the audiences of the play sympathize with the assassins as they plot to murder Caesar.

Shakespeare softens Caesar’s guilt and conviction when he applies accusations against Caesar. Moreover, they would elicit the guilt in him and leave minimal room of doubt against his murder. He is responsible for looting a temple and dishonoring his wife to ease divorce procedures. Historians have established that Caesar’s policies and stipulations were not for creating a monarchy but were event-driven.

Caesar had various conquests in Britain and Gaul. In the due course of the play, he had won a war against Pompey. He headed a faction that would admit people into the new group that composed of the ruling class. He had fought several conservatives, depicting republican qualities that Brutus depicted in his personality.

He was not a revolutionary but was associated with dictatorship, where the system of awarding chief military commandants in times of war (H.S.C). He held a legitimate office in the Roman government, which he used to dispense his powers and protect his gains from the civil wars.

Apparently, Caesar was to get the crown and move the capital of Rome to Ilium, from where he would deliver his leadership to the entire nation. These came as rumors to Caesar, and he used his indispensable tactics to fend off the rumors. He refuted the crown as Casca reported (Shakespeare, 2011).

This shows that Caesar was extremely conservative than the nobility dreaded. He was aware of the assassination threats, instilling his extraordinary powers to give him an upper hand in dealing with his fears. Caesar required dictatorial powers to suppress and counter fight his foes in order to retain the Roman government. He resisted drastic reforms from his enemies and preserved the ancient Rome to a notable degree.

Apparently, various people purport that Caesar anticipated his end and demise, as it would progressively result into the elimination of aristocracy and dictatorship in the Roman history. He purportedly believed that his demise would bring grave repercussions to Rome. After his death, Rome experienced much greater tyranny and civil unrest.

Caesar’s Effect on Rome

Caesar, being the first ruler of the Roman Empire, was an instrumental figure in transforming Rome from a republic to an empire. He achieved this by meeting with various influential leaders at Triumvirate. Caesar formed an alliance with Pompey and Crassus, which lasted for some time (Riggsby, 2006).

This alliance made the Roman republic transform entirely into an empire. His negotiations and deliberations with Pompey through Crassus gave Caesar profound political influence and mettle, which subsequently eliminated civil war in Rome and made him the overall ruler of the empire. Additionally, it elicited better relationships between the leaders and pacified the Roman territories at that epoch.

The Gallic wars brought an advantage to the Roman Empire, through initiatives by Caesar to annex numerous territories and acquired more territory for Rome. He initiated various military crusades against the rival Gallic tribes, who lived in the present France (Riggsby, 2006). These crusades and operations were Gallic wars, where the Roman military, under Caesar’s influence, fought and annexed their territories.

Caesar’s profound tactics with his leadership brought about undisputed and immense victory for the Roman Empire. The victory against the Gallic tribes also augmented the Roman Empire’s territory coverage principally, under the sole leadership of Caesar. Because of the victory, Caesar made various constitutional reforms and became the ultimate ruler of Rome. Further campaigns expanded Roman territories.

Cesar inculcated a civil scuffle that lasted for a long period. He fought the civil wars with mettle and obtained the victory against his foes. In conjunction with the victory from the Gallic wars, Caesar solidified his role as the sole and influential leader of the Roman Empire. He was fighting the conservative Optimates from the Roman senate with ample reinforcement from his numerous followers.

The Optimates had an alliance with Pompey, one of the stakeholders in the first Triumvirate (Loos & Bloom, 2008). His sun disputed victory ensured that he retained his power against his foes, making Rome a dictatorship. This eased its ability to pursue more territories and win in future conquests amid political interference.

Kevin Rudd Compared to Caesar

Kevin Rudd currently serves as Australia’s Prime since 2007. He refers to himself as an acutely determined bastard, which sounds determined. There are several uncanny similarities between the Rudd and Caesar. First, both grew up in the wrong tracks, with a conception that they have to prove themselves more powerful, influential and superior to other aristocrats.

Both possess the sense of pride and self-determination, without dread for any circumstances in their way. They have the mettle to deal with their opponents with a profound magnitude of determination and esteem.

In terms of foreign policy, both Rudd and Caesar appear as expansionists and outward looking personalities. For instance, Rudd pursued an intense crusade for a chair on the Security board on the Libyan territory. Similarly, Caesar had to conquer in the Gallic wars. He dedicated his ample time and effort to secure more territories for Rome without limit and fought the Optimates and his foes without mercy. He promoted internal civil strife to satisfy his greedy desires of power and influence over his opponents and subjects.

Additionally, both had not established their political reform advances when their political rivals opposed them for various parochial or individual reasons. In Caesar’s case, he delegated his obligatory responsibilities of saving the Roman Empire from bankruptcy by fighting his foes and offering legal prerogatives and land to the poor folk. As for Rudd, he saved Australia from a grave financial disaster it had lagged in for a century. Notably, neither feat both practiced saved them from extermination by their hideous rivals.


If Caesar existed in today’s world, I suppose that he would still be dictatorial and egocentric. Despite his determination to dispense power and profound belief in autonomy, he would be inculcating numerous crusades to expand Roman territories. That would bring affluence to Rome, but still scuffles would comprise a humongous deal of adverse ties that come with his leadership.

Additionally, he would be a tyrant and a ruthless dictator who would bring affluence to his empire but inconvenience other nations. He would bring more demerits than benefits.


H.S.C. (n.d). Character Directory. Retrieved from

Loos, P. & Bloom, H. (2008). Julius Caesar. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.

Riggsby, A. M. (2006). Caesar in Gaul and Rome: war in words. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Shakespeare, W. (2011). Julius Caesar. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Read more