Comparing Mark Antony's Speeches Of Brutus And Marc Antony

In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar Brutus and Marc Antony are giving speeches over the death of Julius Caesar to the townspeople of Rome. Within the speeches given about why Caesar’s death was right or wrong, both speakers used credibility, logic, and emotion to prove their reasoning. During Brutus’s speech he was trying to appeal to the patriots and show that Caesar's death was for the best of the empire. As Brutus says, for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, he’s referring to himself has having credibility and reasoning to kill that man. He says that he had love for Caesar but, if he had not declared himself the dictator of rome then his death wouldn't have been wished upon. Giving Caesar the label of being arrogant and not necessarily caring for others Brutus persuaded them into thinking that Julius was a human who didn't have his morals in mind while he ruled. In one instance Brutus tells the townspeople, nor his offences enforced, for which he suffered death, as if saying Caesar’s laws were too extreme and weren't values that the romans would want in a leader. …show more content…
He says, the Noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious, him restating what brutus said made the audience think exactly about Caesar’s actions about what made him “ambitious”. Him saying if Caesar was truly ambitious why did he refuse the crown three times- an ambitious man would’ve accepted the crown with no hesitation. Marc using basic logic to appeal to the townspeople of what the typical ambitious man would do makes the crowd consider if Caesar truly was ambitious or if Brutus was accusing him of being something he wasn’t. Antony says, the evil that men do live after them, that has emotional appeal to the townspeople because it something everyone can relate to, yet he makes it noticed that Caesar was killed for the evils he did. The evils that any citizens could’ve made he was killed for and that shows no fairness to