The use of violence to achieve goals within the ancient world is very present. Ranging from the Iliad to the modern day, people have been using violence to solve their problems. Brutus and Odysseus are both strong people, whether physically strong like Odysseus or strong speakers like Brutus. Brutus is a very persuasive person and a close friend of Caesar. Odysseus is a Greek hero who returns from war. Although Brutus and Odysseus both use violence to solve a problem, Brutus could have avoided violence in assassinating Caesar. In contrast, Odysseus faced the imminent danger of losing his own life and the lives of his companions. Brutus was not the instigator …show more content…
When he says “I have done no more to Caesar than you shall do to Brutus,” he expresses that if he were to become a tyrant, he would want the same done to himself. While the use of violence is often frowned upon, there are instances where it can be deemed necessary. Although Brutus did not initiate the use of violence, he did not oppose it either. He delivered a powerful monologue justifying the conspirators' actions as a necessary means to achieve a greater end. Joseph W. Houppert, a professor at the University of Maryland, stated in a study about the logic in Julius Caesar: “Brutus induces disorder in his soul and in the state by committing himself to violence on insufficient evidence but on the highest abstract principles.” Odysseus, on the other hand, was in a situation where the use of violence was necessary and he had enough evidence for the use of his violence. Odysseus uses violence to save both himself and his surviving comrades from death at the hands of a cyclops. His plan, unlike the plan of the conspirators, was carefully thought out and necessary for their survival. The Cyclops is demonstrated eating the men. It is stated: “His hands reached out, seized two of them, and