Journal One-Option #1

Caesar had no children to carry on after him, but he was not ruler of Rome either. A male child would have been an assurance that, if he had prospered in his conquest to become the ruler of Rome, he would have had an heir. Yet, Caesar had Octavius to carry on the throne and Caesars ideals after he died, so that Caesar would be forever immortalized in the hearts of Romans, and in the heart of the city itself. Someone had to carry on after Caesar after he died, so Caesar adopted Octavius instead of waiting for his heir to be born. As the play clearly shows, Octavius was nothing like Caesar in his motives. He had a very passive attitude towards ruling. If Caesar had lived, Octavius may have been better prepared for the future and what we know to be Rome (or maybe even the whole of Europe) may be altogether different today. Caesar was ultimately given the honor of ruling Rome, yet it would have been against the will of many people. Most of Romes population was opposed to a monarchy, yet, that was exactly what Caesar desired. He gained popularity in order to win the hearts of the Romans. Even though he was popular, through all his travails, triumphs and other attempts to gain popularity, he couldn't gain enough popularity to let them see that he "should be" king.