In political matters, different leaders use different methods and skills to convince other people to support their point of view. The leader that uses the best method wins the crowd. In Act 3 Scene 2, Brutus and Antony both used different methods to persuade the people of Rome that assassinating Caesar was the right choice. Antony used a more creative way than Brutus, and that was why he won the crowd's support in the end.
Brutus had an advantage over Antony because he was well loved by the people of Rome. He had a good reputation of honesty and honour. Also, he was very smart because he used his friendship to Caesar as a reason for explaining the death of Caesar. Then, he skillfully appealed to the citizen's fear of being ruled under Caesar's tyranny and their citizenship. He used a method that was very effective: he tried to gain trust by appealing to their equality. He knew what the Romans were thinking so he talked about the rights and freedom. At the end of his speech, he started to "play" with the citizen's emotions. First, he compared his love to the ones who loved Caesar the most so that the peoples" anger would be diffused. Then, he discredits Caesar to pressure the crowd for an angry and emotional response. Finally, he succeeded. He had the crowd on his side.
Mark Antony had a disadvantage: Brutus had already gained the crowd's trust and support. This was very obvious because at first the crowd didn't even want to listen to him. So Antony must have excellent skills if he wants to change the crowd's side to his. First, he caught the crowd's attention by being unemotional. He didn't reveal if he was sad or happy about Caesar's death. Then he started to identify the peoples" anger and their loyalty to Brutus. This made the crowd feel comfortable. Also, he didn't discredit Caesar like Brutus. Instead, he talked about all the good qualities that Caesar had. When he was talking, he only spoke what he knew, not to deny Brutus.
