The Persuasion of Rome Julius Caesar has been assassinated. Two speeches follow his murder: One by his “best friend”, Brutus; The other by his best friend, Antony. Since Caesar had potential to be the king of Rome, potentially a corrupt one, a group of Roman senators banded together to assassinate him. Their fears of Caesar destroying Rome's democracy and envy of his power led to his assassination, even though there was no true evidence that permitted his assassination. Although Brutus and Antony both use pathos, rhetorical questions, and logos, Antony used these tactics in a more persuasive manner. Antony was more logical, truthful, and passionate which in turn led to Antony being more successful in his persuasion of the Roman people. Antony’s …show more content…
In fact, he used it so well that the people of Rome were convinced that Caesar was actually not a power hungry man. In Julius Caesar, by Shakespeare, Antony says: “I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?” He of course didn’t intend for the Romans to answer, instead, he asked the question to make them think about if Caesar truly was power-hungry, like Brutus insinuated. This was wildly successful in persuading the people due to the truthfulness, and because he made them think about if Caesar was power hungry, or not, themselves instead of just telling them he is. Some may say Brutus also uses rhetorical questions to persuade the Roman people because he said things like “Had you rather Caesar were living and dying all slaves, than Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” which was stated in Julius Caesar, by Shakespeare. Although the quote is a rhetorical question, it’s not as effective as Antony’s since his claims have little to no backing. When Brutus used rhetorical questions, he used assumptions and “what-if’s” rather than the facts presented to him. Antony, however, used real events that could be backed by the Roman people to defend Caesar, therefore his persuasion was more