Sahil Kapoor
11/21/14
Period 1
A 21st Century Roman The crowd begins to loot and destroy the market. Plans for mutiny are made and houses are set fire. Anarchy takes root as riots spread throughout the city while Antony orates passive aggressively at the forum. All of the conspirators are forced to flee the city, and Antony emerges victorious. Shakespeare was able to depict a marvelous leader who transcends time in Mark Antony within his play Julius Caesar. He is a character whose leadership qualities should always be able to unite nations. If Mark Antony was a world leader today, he would have handled 9/11 and the war in Iraq, the Arab Spring, and the Ukraine Crisis in his own ways using his incredible rhetoric. If Mark Antony were the President of the United States in 2001, he would have …show more content…
First, when he is speaking after Caesar’s death, he remarks, “I have neither the writ... nor the power of speech to stir men’s blood; I only speak right on” (3:2:222-224). Here he is able to convince the people at the forum that he is only a common man like every other and that he is only telling the truth. This unites them and allows Antony to manipulate them against his enemies. However, when the crowd is beginning to riot, he insists, “let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny” (3:2:211-212). He is able to gain even more respect and attention when he asks them to not riot. In context, it was a passive aggressive action because he later told them how the conspirators had “honorable intentions”. These examples illustrate Antony’s profound ability of oration and show that he would have easily been able to take power and manipulate the mobs of people without them knowing any better. The outcome of the Arab spring revolutions would have been immensely different and would have changed the world if Mark Antony had been
11/21/14
Period 1
A 21st Century Roman The crowd begins to loot and destroy the market. Plans for mutiny are made and houses are set fire. Anarchy takes root as riots spread throughout the city while Antony orates passive aggressively at the forum. All of the conspirators are forced to flee the city, and Antony emerges victorious. Shakespeare was able to depict a marvelous leader who transcends time in Mark Antony within his play Julius Caesar. He is a character whose leadership qualities should always be able to unite nations. If Mark Antony was a world leader today, he would have handled 9/11 and the war in Iraq, the Arab Spring, and the Ukraine Crisis in his own ways using his incredible rhetoric. If Mark Antony were the President of the United States in 2001, he would have …show more content…
First, when he is speaking after Caesar’s death, he remarks, “I have neither the writ... nor the power of speech to stir men’s blood; I only speak right on” (3:2:222-224). Here he is able to convince the people at the forum that he is only a common man like every other and that he is only telling the truth. This unites them and allows Antony to manipulate them against his enemies. However, when the crowd is beginning to riot, he insists, “let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny” (3:2:211-212). He is able to gain even more respect and attention when he asks them to not riot. In context, it was a passive aggressive action because he later told them how the conspirators had “honorable intentions”. These examples illustrate Antony’s profound ability of oration and show that he would have easily been able to take power and manipulate the mobs of people without them knowing any better. The outcome of the Arab spring revolutions would have been immensely different and would have changed the world if Mark Antony had been