lowed him to take everything that Bruts said and twist it, tear it apart and over analyse until he has disproved everything Brutus said. Antony placed pauses in just the right places. He would ask a rhetorical question, then pause, giving the crowd a chance to think and discuss amongst themselves. The pauses also emphasized the friendship he had had with Caesar and how he was hurting from his death. Antony, besides the will, used Ceasars body as a prop. His position around the body and also the position he asked the crowd to form, helped the Romans feel a sense of unity. They formed a circle around Caesar, with Antony. He came down off his pulpit, which was a great move on his part, for it let the townfolk see that he doesnt think he is higher or better than them. Antony showed the people each and every wound, telling them about the people that did it to him. This also links together with pathos, the emotional connection and the sense of sypathy they feel towards Caesar. Another thing that Antony did that Brutus didnt was that since he understood how fickle the crowd was, he made sure that they were really listening to him and really going to be his followers. Two times Antony called the people back from running away in anger and said another thing to deepen the seed he had planted in them. Although both gentlemen used the same three persuasive appeals in their speeches, one was obviously more effective. Antony did a more sufficient job of getting his point across. He understood what he would have to od to win the crowd. He used the three appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos, to his advantage and evn though Brutus also used the same three appeals, his speech did not impact the Roman countrymen nearly as much as Antony. Both speeches had the same structure and used the same rhetorcial devices but Antonys speech was much more influencial and because of that, he help build the great history that is Rome....
