Cassius would have been a far better leader in the conspirac

In the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the conspirator's movement to assassinate Caesar and to establish a new order where everyone is supposedly a freeman is headed by character Brutus. It is considered by many, that Cassius, Brutus’ partner, but subsidiary in the movement would have served as a better leader. I completely agree with this assertion. In the play, Brutus is portrayed as being much too noble to effectively lead a conspiracy. He is almost never practical. However, Cassius possess a mind that sounds very practical. In fact, he is portrayed as so honorable, that had he himself been a general and conqueror, the Roman population would have viewed him as highly as they did Caesar. Brutus and Caesar were greatly alike on other things as well. For instance, both were of a greatly charitable nature and neither were “ambitious”, although Brutus oftentimes appears in that light throughout the duration of the play.
First, it is important to consider the differences between Cassius and Brutus to distinguish between them; what motives drove each man and what qualities of their characters would render them poor or appropriate leaders for a conspiracy. Cassius was covetous, ruthless and devilishly cunning. Brutus was nowhere near as intelligent as Cassius. He was also loyal, and inexperienced. After Caesar’s assassination, Cassius had wanted to kill Mark Antony as well, and he did not hesitate to use any methods to finance the conspirators’ military campaign. This clearly displays the practical mind that Cassius posses because Mark Antony soon turned out to cause tremendous harm to the lives of all conspirators. Brutus not only allowed for Mark Antony to live, but he also lets him speak to the public at Caesar’s funeral. To add to this disgraceful err, he did not even stay at the funeral to listen to what Mark Antony had to say. This act of carelessness costs him his life in the end.