The Speech That Changed Rome How much impact can a good speech make, how much can it change things? In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Antony and Brutus both gave speeches to the Plebeians of Rome in an attempt to persuade them on their beliefs. Antony’s speech is more effective than Brutus’s speech because Antony connected with the audience better and persuaded them more, while Brutus acted above them when he spoke to them. Antony used pathos to relate to the audience better, he read the will of Caesar and showed the people Caesar’s cloak in order to make feel sympathetic and loving of Caesar, and he used many rhetorical devices and fallacies to persuade them into his beliefs. Brutus lacked the emotion and persuasion to get the Plebeians on his side and keep them there. Antony knew what he needed to do to get the people on his side. Pathos is a very powerful tool when it comes to writing and speaking. Antony used pathos to make the audience think that he was one of them and was on their side, he understood what they felt. He made the audience feel sorry for him that his friend died, and he gave reminders that it was Brutus who did it. He made them feel sorry for him when he said “he was my friend, he was faithful and just to …show more content…
Brutus used logos and ethos in his speech, he was much more logical and intelligent in the way he spoke. To some this may seem like Brutus had a better speech and knew better than Antony. Although he was logical and intelligent, Antony was emotional and emotion connects with an audience, specifically this audience, more than logic. Antony was also very manipulative and knew he could get the Plebeians to go along with whatever he says if he spoke to them, Brutus on the other hand did not realize this an spoke above the people of Rome. Brutus is logical and smart while Antony knows how to manipulate people, thus Antony was able to win over the