In reading #35, The Romans and Their Land, it is puzzling what Caesar as a person was truly like. The reading suggested that he was a competent leader and military genius, while the play, also suggesting those things added in a bit of arrogance that made him unappealing to the common Roman. His character is described in the reading as an ambitious man who climbed the political ladder "as rapidly as legal requirements permitted." His ambition caused him to crush the Triumverate by defeating his ally Pompey and thus ensuring power for himself by "crossing the Rubicon" or making a final decision that would have drastic results.

Caesar knew how to play his cards correctly and when to ally with people and who to trust. As soon as he saw an opportunity to better his circumstances, he broke alliances and forged new friendships. He made several mistakes, and, in his trusting, was stabbed to death on the ides of March in the senate. Perhaps we will never know, between history and the play who Julius Caesar the man truly was. Each recorder had a bias and an agenda in writing about Caesar. Pure history about what Caesar was and what his intentions were only existed in his mind, and will never be found.