Rhetorical Analysis Of King Agamemnon

In the Iliad is a very interesting epic with features two main central characters that are similar in some ways but totally different in other ways. In this epic you will be introduced to Hector and Achilles. Two men from each side in the great Trojan-Greek war. They were both heroes to their people despite their clearly different contrast in their personalities. In this paper I will highlight the life of both of these two leaders of the Greek and Trojans in this epic the Iliad. Also a little will be shed of how Homer portrays the characters deeper then an average thought. I will attempt to show the complexity of his thought process in forming the climax of these two characters coming to battle.

The first book of the Iliad begins with the beginning of Achilles’ rage, the rage that will eventually cause his own people so much grief and is also the force for Homer’s version of the story of the Trojan War. Whereas the taking of Helen is the focus of the larger, traditional story, the feud between Agamemnon and the hero Achilles over a kidnapped girl defines the Iliad. Both feature a conflict over a woman, Helen and Chryses’ daughter, and a need for resolution as well as a breach of social contract: Paris steals the wife of Agamemnon, ruining the bonds of the guest relationship, while Agamemnon denies Chryse his right to ransom and invokes the wrath of the gods in the form of a plague. In both cases, however, it becomes clear that the conflict will not be resolved quickly, but will continue through the very heart of the story. By “singing of Achilles’ rage” from the first line, the narrator is clearly showing the audience that this Trojan war is not the war of Hector or Paris or Helen, but of the proud Achilles and his hero-sized enemy.

In the Aftermath of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta, Pericles, Athens’ general and statesmen, delivered a powerfully comforting eulogy to the polis of Athens, assuring the people that their city state is in good hands, and easing the pain of all the families and relatives of the deceased. He uses several rhetorical devices throughout his speech to gain a positive emotional appeal by his audience and makes assertions in the attempt to enhance and transform the perception of him by the audience.

While Henry’s speech was not particularly long, it packed quite the proverbial punch through its efficacious use of rhetoric and symbolism, and is looked to even today as an example of persuasive oratory. Throughout this paper, Henry’s rhetoric will be analyzed via an Aristotelian method of rhetorical analysis called the “rhetorical triangle.” According to an article on Study.com, written by Diedra Taylor, almost every form of rhetorical device can be categorized as one of the three points on this triangle: “Ethos,” “logos,” and “pathos.” While Aristotle, himself, did not originally postulate a triangular method of examination, he was the first influential intellectual to write about the three points previously mentioned, and because of this, the theory is credited to him. Taylor uses the analogy of a nacho chip to represent a particular piece of rhetoric, and toppings of guacamole, meat, and cheese to represent ethos, logos, and pathos, respectively. While a chip with only one or two of the toppings is still good, it is most delicious with all three in conjunction. The same is true of rhetoric; it is most persuasive when it contains a variety of the three types of devices, all working in concurrence with one another. In addition to this, it is very possible for some rhetorical anecdotes and devices to fall under the umbrella of more than one point on the triangle, but for the purposes of this paper, they will be examined one at a

Plato once wrote that, “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” Rhetoric is the foundation of any solid argument, and any good speaker must learn to use it effectively. Creating a strong argument is a difficult task for any speaker, but Mark Antony’s eulogy for Caesar shows us that it can be done with the use of rhetorical strategies and arguments. Antony argues that Caesar was killed unfairly, and wants tells rome to revolt. He accomplishes this argument by using a combination of appeals to the audience's emotions, logic and facts, as well as reasoning and humility.

The most predominate and important aspect In the play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare are the speeches given to the Roman citizens by Brutus and Antony, the two main charaters, following the death of Caesar. Brutus and Antony both spoke to the crowd,using the same rhetorical devices to express their thoughts. Both speakers used the three classical appeals employed in the speeches: ethos, which is an appeal to credibility; pathos, which is an appeal to the emotion of the audience; and logos, which is an appeal to the content and arrangement of the argument itself. Even though both speeches have the same structure Antony’s speech is significantly more effective than Brutus’s.

The poem in Book 1 lauds Achilles as the finest warrior of the Athenian army. Nonetheless, when his commanding general, Agamemnon refuses to return to return the captive Chryseis to her father, the priest of Apollo, and a plague ensues, Achilles becomes an insubordinate (disrespecting his commander) by demanding that he return

The Iliad opens in the predicament of the Greeks who have somehow incurred the wrath of the gods. It is here that Agamemnon, supreme commander of the Grecian army, demand that Achilles give up his “prize” (Briseis) to replace his own “prize” (Chrysies) which he has to give up to appease the gods. Agamemnon has to

In Homers Iliad, Achilles is made into a main protagonist who is followed throughout the book. Achilles is strongly insulted by Agamemnon when his slave woman is taken from him. This is the start of Achilles decision to not join in the fighting against the Trojans. While reading the Iliad, book 9 holds a strong message and understanding of the many situations presented in the entire book. Not only does this chapter reveal some reason to Achilles refusal of Agamemnon’s gift, but also his past and future decisions made in the Iliad.

Achilles had more influence and power than a typical soldier because he was an officer, but he still suffered the same repercussions of war. At times Achilles speech seems disorganized, but it is pathos driven and emotions can cloud logic and trigger anger to the point where a

Barry Strauss, professor of classics at Cornell University attempts to redefine a one of history’s biggest love affairs, the Trojan War. Strauss explains how certain events and characters from Homers “The Odyssey” might have actually existed, but also uses modern discoveries from the Bronze Age to compare Homers account to those of Egypt, the Middle East, and etc. While Homer’s epic should not be read as a historical document which recounts the Trojan War hundred percent accurately, it can still be seen as document which embodies some historical truth. The novel as a whole explains the customs, economic standing, fighting styles and beliefs of the Greeks. Strauss’s writing style allows for the book to be accessible to both students and historians. He argues that just like Franz Ferdinand was the spark which ignited World War 1, Helen on the other hand was just a spark which escalated an existing tension between the Greeks and Trojans. Strauss’s personal input on the war itself gives the novel a different outlook on the Trojan War because, it allows for readers to see beyond the facts and make connections with ideas that Strauss had made with recent discoveries and Homers epic.

The first set of major steps that Achilles undergoes is the call to adventure, the refusal to the call to action, and the meeting with the mentor. In Book 1 of the Iliad, Achilles is called to fight against the Trojan’s to reclaim Helen, Menelaus wife. Later in the war, Chryseis and Briseis are taken as prizes from a battle. They are the daughters of a priest of Apollo named Chryses. After Chryses begs for his daughters back, the Greeks decide to give Briseis to him and have Chryseis stay. Chryseis belonged to Achilles as his prize from the battle and Briseis belonged to Agamemnon, a political leader of the Greeks. Agamemnon then humiliate Achilles by taking Chryseis Achilles’s prize, for himself. This angered Achilles greatly and caused him to leave the Greek army, albeit temporary. This serves as Achilles refusal to the call of battle. Achilles’s anger is shown in Book 1 lines 188 to 192, these lines show how much Achilles’s pride affects his actions and how he responds to conflict. In this situation, his pride is hurt greatly, to the point where he almost kill Agamemnon, however Athena stops him. Achilles says

Throughout history is an endless list of great war leaders who have conquered great masses of land. So, it must take a great speaker to convince thousands of men to leave the comforts of their homes to risk their lives in war. In Homer's, The Iliad, two great nobleman Agamemnon and Odysseus are in the position to push exhausted soldiers back on to the battlefield. Each use different approaches to excite the men, however, it is Odysseus, not King Agamemnon, who succeeds. In order to persuade these drained men, Odysseus realizes what condition the army was in, and by using prophesies as support, status did not become an issue when it came to whom the men listened to.

Homer’s The Iliad describes majority of the war that went on between the Greek and Trojan, which included the warriors Achilles and Hector. Throughout the poem the similarities and the differences became evident between the main characters, Achilles and Hector. Although Achilles and Hector are considered two different types of heroes, they had their similarities as much as they had their differences. Both Achilles and Hector were the greatest warriors of their armies, and both are very stubborn when it comes to their honor. The differences between the two of them is that Hector is a family man, while Achilles never married nor had children, and the two are fighting for purely two different reasons, Achilles is fighting for his blood thirst and glory, while Hector fights to defend his people and family.

Act I, Scene III of Troilus and Cressida by Shakespeare features members from the Greek army. From lines 22 to 54, Nestor further applies a previous speech by Agamemnon. The condition of the Greek army is stressed, as the war is not going the way the Greeks would like. This is a dire situation in the Greek camp, and these speeches aim to rally the troops to fight back in this war with the Trojans. This excerpt is significant in that there is a good use of literary techniques to demonstrate the importance of the war, and key themes are portrayed in this passage. In Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare expresses the importance of themes of order and struggle through the use of literary devices such as metaphors, word choice, tone, and