Interesting premise, but not well executed
There needed to be something really funny to make this work, but I couldn't find it. Maybe you could have started with the image of Caesar and then quickly moved to other comedically effective images during his monologue.
To clear up the matter of emperorship, allow me to inform the audience a bit on Roman history. After the civil war with Pompey, the Senate (who had forbade Caesar to return to Italy) was not in his good graces. Caesar had the loyalty of the military, and the grant by the Senate of the title "Dictator for Life" merely acknowledged the reality of the situation. They did not, however, grant him the title of "Imperator" (the Latin equivalent of "Emperor," though it means, more precisely, "Commander"). His nephew, Octavius, would recieve this title later after yet another civil war. For the Romans, there would become real differences in the two titles. There were dictators before Caesar, who were granted unlimited power for prescribed periods during times of great danger to the republic. Those who took the title were greatly honored, but had to relinquish power when the danger was averted and the set time was up. Though the connotations of monarchical rule were not initially inherrent in the title "Emperor," the idea of a return to kingship was abhorrent to the Romans, who had carried out a revolution against it early in their history. Julius Caesar was never stupid enough to openly admit a desire to return to monarchical form of government, and would probably have rejected anything resembling the modern notion of monarchical emperorship out of fear of retirubution. Nonetheless, certain Senators feared a return to monarchy and killed him anyway.
