The Words That Changed Rome Shiv Khera once said “There are good leaders who actively guide and bad leaders who actively misguide. Hence, leadership is about persuasion, presentation and people skills.” Having rhetoric skills is an immense in leadership. In Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, two persuasive speeches are given, one is much more effective than the other. Brutus and Antony use very different strategies of rhetoric to persuade the audience. They use various similar techniques and fallacies as well. In Act III, Caesar is killed by the conspirators, one of these men being Marcus Brutus. After the death of his friend, he gives a speech to the people of Rome explaining why Caesar had to be killed. Brutus’s speech had an effect on the easily persuaded …show more content…
Many fallacies are used by them including bandwagon appeal, red herrings and pity (ad misericordiam). Brutus uses an either/or fallacy when he says “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” by telling the audience they only have two options with Caesar’s power. He also uses a different literary device in his speech, a glittering generality. This uses emphasized words that connect with highly valued concepts, used when he says “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,”. Apposed to this, Antony uses the ad hominem fallacy to attack Brutus’s personal attributes instead of focusing on Caesar. To Antony’s benefit, he spoke after Brutus. Consequently, he had the people of Rome on his side. He knew how to convince the audience and he had the supports he needed. At Brutus’s fault, he used more logos and ethos when pathological arguments are more effective on the crowd. He also used repetition of one argument. Being that Caesar was ambitious. Antony was able to counter this argument with several reasons why Caesar was indeed, not