The Power of Mark Antony’s Speech in Julius Caesar and Winston Churchill’s Speech, Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat
782 Words4 Pages
Speeches are weapons; words that can be manipulated to attack a subject or person in a way that the author must decide. In the case of Mark Antony’s speech at Caesar’s funeral in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar and Winston Churchill’s speech at the start of World War II, “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat” are two speeches dealing with aggression towards a certain matter. Antony’s speech was created to gain the trust of the Plebeians and take sides with him concerning whether or not Caesar was killed for the good of Rome claimed by Brutus. Churchill’s speech created an attack against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in the fear that the Nazis would try to take over England. Both of the speeches had the power to lead their audience into the…show more content… Mark Antony indirectly credited Brutus with the murder of Caesar in his speech but while Churchill aimed to keep his country from troubles, Antony aimed to get revenge against the conspirators. Churchill’s goal was to persuade his country to be alongside of him by saying, “nothing more to offer but, blood, toil, tears, and sweat” (Churchill). He logically explained the situation of the war to the House speaking in a sophisticated language in order to gain their full attention and basically sound like he is knowledgeable on the situation. The House agreed with Churchill and were alongside him and the United Kingdom was victorious in the end.
Mark Antony was very biased unlike Churchill who logically presented the manner to the House. Antony was very upset over Caesar’s death and looked to get revenge against the conspirators. He uses components of Logos with factual events in his speech to remind the Plebeians that Caesar is not ambitious, despite what the conspirators claim is true. Brutus, known as the head of the conspirators, said that the reason for killing Caesar was for the good of Rome. Antony disagreed. The conspirators believed that Caesar was too ambitious and would cause Rome destruction. Antony uses the example of the crown, “a kingly crown, in which he did thrice refuse” (III.ii.105-106) to show that Caesar’s goal was not to become king and gain too much power.