Michael Parenti's 2003 novel The
Assassination of Julius Caesar: A peoples history of Rome. The
history of how and why the great Roman General of the late Republic
was Assassinated by his peers in Society, his friends. The Causation
for this Assassination as given by the Assassins themselves was that
“the senatorial assassins where intent in restoring republican
liberties by doing away with a despotic usurper”.1
This is also how the ancient
Historians, Plutarch and Suetonius record the events. However
Parenti strangely does not accept this causation he believes that,
“The Senate aristocrats killed
Caesar because they perceived him to be a popular leader who
threatened there privileged interest”2
I plan to explore the differing
opinions of the past historians Plutarch and Suetonius to that of the
modern Historian and writer Michael Parenti. Evaluating what is
different, why it is different and give my oppinion on the
reliability of the accounts.
1pg.
2 Parenti
2Pg.2
Parenti
I think the first sentence isn't really a sentence and for me the second sentence makes no sense. But if both sentences are there to complement each other, I think you should join them into one sentence. Otherwise the rest is good. Hope that helped.
ReplyDeleteOn second reading, the first two sentences do make sense, but I think they would be better off joined.