Mark Antony's Use Of Rhetorical Strategies In Julius Caesar

When it comes to murder, the culprit almost always rationalizes his or her actions to make them seem innocent in the situation. The murderer usually rationalizes their actions by using the victim's characteristics and using that to measure the value of the victim's life. In the play Julius Caesar, written by William Shakespeare, Brutus and others decide to kill Caesar to protect the citizens of their home for they fear Caesar and his “ambition” would enslave the people of Rome. After they murder Caesar, Brutus speaks to the people to explain his actions and Mark Antony, one of Caesar's close companions, speaks on Caesar's behalf. Mark Antony was able to use rhetorical strategies better than Brutus in his speech in order to gain a level of

He, unlike Brutus, gives examples and evidences to back up his argument, usno logical fallacies, depicts ethos effectively, and emotionally impacts his audience. Brutus does not use any type of actual evidence to back up his argument but instead uses opinionated statements and logical fallacies. Both Mark Antony and Brutus have strong ethos in their speech but Brutus’s ethos wasn't used effectivly; he had no evidence from his sources. Mark Antony had stronger pathos because the emotions he expressed to his audience was stronger and more impactive than the emotions Brutus inflicted. Although Brutus had way less of an effective speech it is clear from the reader's perspective that Brutus’s arguments were somewhat truthful and factual. Before the death of Caesar, it is shown in the play that Caesar was actually ambitious and somewhat arrogant, but the way Brutus explained this to his audience made it seem like he wasn't telling the truth. This doesn't mean that Brutus had the right to murder Caesar but this does show how important execution is when arguing something. One could say that in these two speeches Shakespeare really showed and explained how execution, rhetorical strategies, and style can make or break an