Despite these attributes, Antony also is not morally strong. He cleverly cheats his arrangement with the conspirators, in which he claimed he would not speak ill of the assassins. Instead, he continually refuted their claims all while claiming that they were “all honorable men”. (3.2.92) Slowly, Antony planted seeds of doubt and anger towards the conspirators in the minds of the masses. As he ended his speech the seeds quickly sprouted and grew into unbridled rage aimed at Brutus and his allies. Resulting from this deception was the brief, but harmful, civil war between the assassins and Antony and Octavius, Caesar’s son. While his intentions may have been pure, revenge for what seemed an unnecessary tragedy, what he accomplished was not. He eventually killed some of those whom he considered friends and brought about the end of the Roman …show more content…
Not one of the three primary contenders possess every quality necessary to be considered a hero. Which character is the true champion of the play remains up to the reader. If one believes in what Brutus was trying to accomplish, then Brutus is the hero. If Antony appeals to the reader, then Mark Antony is the hero. Or if one is not wholly on Antony’s side, then could still select him solely by virtue of his opposing Brutus. Julius may be determined the hero because he was a martyr who could have continued the prosperity of Rome. Each character possess some of the traits required: Brutus had physical strength, bravery, and a degree of selflessness, Antony enjoyed nearly identical traits, and Julius Caesar commanded bravery, but all lacked in moral strength and in true selflessness. Inevitably, there is no true hero of the play, the hero is simply determined by the