Julius Caesar as Ruler of Ancient Rome

Throughout history, many people have been removed from power. There is a fuzzy line between when it is and when it is not acceptable to remove a ruler. Some people say that small instances are mandatory, and others require it to be catastrophically large. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but when is it ever justified to remove a ruler? A ruler can be removed but only under specific circumstances. Julius Caesar was a ruler of Ancient Rome who was wrongfully murdered by some of his senators dubbed “the conspirators.

” Some of them even recognized that it was morally conflicting, like Brutus where he decides to “think [of Caesar] as a serpent’s egg/Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous/And kill him in the shell”. Brutus realizes that what he is considering is not appropriate. Just because there is a hunch for an evil deed in the future, that does not mean that it is guaranteed to happen, and dethroning someone because of a personal grudge is not proper either.

Even Antony recognized that “all the conspirators save only [Brutus]/did [what] they did in envy of great Caesar” . Overall, it was not justified for Caesar to be murdered because he did nothing inherently wrong.

Slobodan Milosevic was a Serbian-Yugoslavian ruler who committed the atrocities of ethnic cleansing. He was a sick and twisted man who was hellbent on eliminating all the Bosnian Muslims or “Bosniaks.” Milosevic has became famously known as the ‘Butcher of the Balkans.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified

Proficient in: Ethics

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

’ He is commonly compared to the most gruesome of dictators, and according to Ian Traynor of the Guardian newspaper of England, was also dubbed, ‘the man they call the Saddam Hussein of Europe.’ Milosevic managed to commit a task thought to be hard. He successfully manipulated men and women into believing views that set back the ideology of a whole country. According to an unnamed lawyer who had known Milosevic since their days in university, ‘He lacks the ethics of a modern European leader. Mentally, he behaves as though it’s still 1939. Morality doesn’t come into it,’ which helps to back up the fact that removing Slobodan Milosevic was justified because he not only slaughtered thousands of innocent people, he was toxic for a country’s government too.

These two leaders are simply fascinating because their situations are so vastly different. Julius Caesar was an emperor from Ancient Rome who was murdered by his senators because he was thought to be a little too ambitious, and Slobodan Milosevic was a leader of the Serbian-Yugoslavian area who committed ethnic cleansing against a religion that did nothing wrong, and when he was about to be put on trial, he killed himself. Shockingly enough they do have a likeness to each other. They both were leaders of a country who had a massive following. Both of the men promised things that seemed unachievable. Their deaths ended in a revolt of their people who tried to avenge them but were stopped. Yet through all of their similarities, they ended up in drastically different tips of the scale.

There is much consideration done when evaluating if a leader should remain in office. Some foremost reasons are abuse of the people, and if the leader benefits a country. Slobodan Milosevic and Julius Caesar where leaders that were removed from their position. Milosevic was removed justly because he harmed his people and caused suffering across his land. Caesar was unjustly removed due to there being a strong lack of evidence against him. A ruler can be removed but only under specific circumstances, and Slobodan Milosevic is a prime example of an evicted ruler.