Brutus and mark antony speak to the same crowd about the same man and the same event with very different outcomes in mind. how could the same audience be convinced to view caesar’s death one way and then take the opposite point of view after the second man has spoken?

Brutus' oration shows that he has sincerely acted on the behalf of Rome, and speaks plainly and to the point. He states his case as to why Caesar had to die, appealing to the crowd's reason, and convinces them of his honest intentions to do what he thought was best for Rome. In contrast, Mark Antony appeals to the crowd's emotion -- stating how Caesar had had the Roman welfare near and dear to his heart, ("When the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept!" ) and what civic improvements he was to make for the Rome's benefit, as examples. He states that he and Caesar were friends, and dramatically reveals the stabbed, bloody corpse as a final persuasion that he was wrongfully murdered, and incites the crowd to punish Brutus and company for their wrongdoing

The answer is zilch nawm sayn