Do You Agree that Brutus had a Noble Motive When Murdering His Adopted Father, Julius Caesar ?

  Based from the Historical Events that occurred in the past, I believe that Brutus had a noble motive when murdering his father, Julius Caesar in order to prevent his father from becoming a horrible tyrant. There are several reasons that just might support such issue.

  First of all Brutus knew that his father had done so many immoral acts towards the society. His father sleeps with senator's wife. He knew that his father killed and impale prisoners without any mercy. He knew that his father was trying to gain full superior power and thus to stop this issue from getting worse was to kill his father.

  Moreover, Brutus had no intention of seeking high power. This can be seen where he consider on the other senators in the Roman society. Due to Caesar's dictatorship, most of Roman senators had no grip of power thus he had to give way so that an Roman power can be given equally among these senators.

  Furthermore, even if Brutus didn't killed his father and took over the throne, he fear that he will be a tyrant just like his father because of the power and superiority he possess. Thus his feebleness thought lead to his noble motives that was to murder his own father.

  In conclusion the killings of Julius Caesar by Brutus is a noble motive. However Brutus's noble motives leads to conspiracy and it opens a gateway for many greedy and cunning Roman senators to take over Julius Caesar's throne and thus leads to civil war among the Romans and Brutus own death.

Based on the Documentary A.B.B, Do You Think All The Vices Committed By Julius Caesar Were Necessary In Order To Safeguard the Superiority Of Rome As The Greatest Civilization In The Ancient World?

 

  Based from the documentary Ancients Behaving Badly, even though Julius Caesar was a bad ass. I strongly agree that Julius Caesar's vices was necessary in order to maintain Rome's superiority in the ancient civilization. There are several justification and evidences that might support my reason.

  First of all, he avoided the dividend of power among the Roman Senators, Roman Senators during his time whom are filled with the greed for power and conspiracy among themselves. The rise of Caesar really marks a decline in the power and influence of the rich Senatorial Classes in Roman Politics. The Senate becomes little more than a rubber stamp for Caesar and his successors. We can see a shift of power away from the patrician classes towards Caesar's supporters as the military, the businesmen, and the lower classes. By doing his immoral acts by sleeping with high politicians wives he was able to control the senators and thus avoided the usurpation among the Roman Politician. Thus making them to focus only on Caesar as the main figure in their mind.

 

  In the battle of Alesia, the reason why Caesar allowed thousands of women and children to starve to death is because in previous conquest the war between the Gallic and Roman army were merely divide and conquer. The land surrounding has no food to be supplied to both Caesar's army and Vercingetorix's men. Even if Caeser let the Gallic women and children go there is a large possibility they will not survive. Moreover, some of Caesar's lieutenants began to despair as they advised Caesar to try to fight his way back to safety, to preserve what he could from the ruin and abandon Gaul. Caesar refused and said 'It would have been shameful and humiliating' and therefore unthinkable. Whatever his own doubt and weariness, his outward show of confidence remained as sovereign as ever. In Caesar's energy there was something demonic and sublime. Touched by boldness, perseverance and a yearning to be the best, it was the spirit of the Republic at its most inspiring and lethal. 

  In the end when Caesar won the battle, the Gallic people who survived even though were enslaved, even so they were given shelter and food by the Romans. Furthermore, the Gallic tribes of Edua and Arverna (about 20,000 soldiers), were released and pardoned as she forms to assure the alliance between these important tribes and Rome. The chopping of hands by the Romans to the Gallic people is a strategy to bring fear in the hearts and minds towards those who oppose the Roman civilization. Thus improving Rome's superiority in the ancient world.

 

  On the other hand, Caesar's military successes brought Roman massive economic benefits. Increased Roman expansion opened up trade routes to Roman merchants and small businesses and slaves brought in from Roman conquests resulted in an increasing use of slaves for jobs that ordinary Romans would do such as farming therefore leaving more Romans to be accessible for longer periods of military service. He also gave an acceleration to the "Roma Colonies" system. He systematically created colonies for his former soldiers in provinces, spreading humanization for the Roman Empire.

  In conclusion, even though Julius Caesar was a ruthless and a immoral leader, his vices changed Rome literally making Rome a powerful empire during his time.

Sources

http://angryharry.com/es_battle_for_Alesia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia

  

There Were Many Suspects In The JTR Murders Over The Years. What Are The Evidence That Supports The Claim That James Kelly Was JTR? If You Are A Rival Detective, How Do you Eliminate All The Evidence That You've Identified In The Documentary?

Based from the documentary Jack The Ripper In America, there are support of evidence shows that James Kelly is Jack The Ripper. Among them are:

• James Kelly killed his wife with a knife and his wife was being cut at the throat. He killed his wife because he assume that his wife is having an affair with someone else.
• He worked as a furniture upholsterer which improves his skills with knifes.
• He went to the US and at that same time the Jack The Ripper murder pattern also occurred towards the killings of prostitutes there.
• He suffered from mental illness and was placed in a mental institution.
• He was a cunning guy. He create his own key and managed to escape from the mental institution. 
• His appearance matches with the 19th century eyewitness description when James Kelly himself is 40 years younger.

  As a rival detective, all of the evidence above has its flaw. First of all even if John Kelly killed his wife with a knife that doesn't mean that he is capable of killing other people because he does not have purposes and motives on every killing he did. James Kelly does not have the purpose and reasons to kill prostitutes because there is no links and connection between him and the prostitutes he killed.

  Secondly, he suffered from mental disorder, as most people know mentally ill people are incapable of doing a clean murder. The murder of Jack The Ripper is so clean that no evidence is being left behind besides a dead body. How can a mentally ill person such as John Kelly could leave many murder without leaving any signs of evidence.

  Regarding the eyewitness description, one should know that the disadvantage of eyewitness is most of its sources are not reliable because the evidence that was gathered might not be as accurate compared to the real life image description. Thus it shows that the eyewitness is not concrete enough to support the evidence.

 

   Thirdly the letter written by the murder of Jack The Ripper In America is completely different compared to the murder done the original Jack The Ripper that happened in London. Thus it shows the murder in America was done by someone else.

   In conclusion, the murder in the United States claimed Ed Norris by the is not linked to the one that occurred in London in the 18th century. Therefore the murderer was different and probably the real Jack The Ripper will be known in time as research and investigation will be done thoroughly from time to time.