Socrates, “Apology”
399 B.C.; Athens
Socrates is perhaps the greatest teacher in the history of the Western world. He wandered around Athens engaging in dialogues with his fellow citizens that focused on discovering the truth of all things. He taught his pupils that the “unexamined life is not worth living.”
The Athenians saw Socrates as a threat, especially to the Athenian youth. Socrates acquired quite a following among the young men of Athens. He taught these impressionable minds to question everything, even Athenian authority. Eventually, Socrates was arrested and put on trial for corrupting the youth, not believing the gods, and creating new deities.
The “Apology” is Socrates’ defense to these charges. Instead of crying and pleading for mercy, Socrates accepts his charges and attempts to persuade the jury with reason. He argued that it was his calling from the gods to seek knowledge and that it was through his questions he uncovered truth. To not fulfill his calling would be blasphemy. In the end, Socrates lost and was sentenced to death by hemlock. Socrates accepted this fate willingly and without grudge against his condemners, thus dying as a martyr for free thinking.
Worthy Excerpt:
Some one will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me.
George Washington, “Resignation Speech”
December 23, 1784; Annapolis, Maryland
As the Revolutionary War drew to a close, there was much speculation that George Washington, then Major General and Commander-in-Chief, would follow in the footsteps of former world leaders by making a grab for supreme power. Some even wished he would do so, hoping he would become the king of a new nation. Yet Washington knew that such a move would wither the fragile beginnings of the new republic. Looking to the Roman general Cincinnatus an exemplar, Washington rejected the temptations of power and resigned his position as Commander-in-Chief. Choosing the right is almost never easy, and as Washington read his speech in front of the Continental Congress, the great statesman trembled so much that he had to hold the parchment with two hands to keep it steady. “The spectators all wept, and there was hardly a member of Congress who did not drop tears. His voice faltered and sunk, and the whole house felt his agitations.” When finished, Washington bolted from the door of the Annapolis State House, mounted his horse, and galloped away into the sunset.
Worthy Excerpt:
While I repeat my obligations
to the Army in general, I should do injustice to my own feelings not to acknowledge in this place the peculiar Services and distinguished merits of the Gentlemen who have been attached to my person during the War. It was impossible the choice of confidential Officers to compose my family should have been more fortunate. Permit me Sir, to recommend in particular those, who have continued in Service to the present moment, as worthy of the favorable notice and patronage of Congress.
I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.
Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.
Read the full text here.
Mahatma Gandhi, “Quit India”
August 8, 1942; India
While the battle for freedom and democracy raged across the world, the people of India were engaged in their own fight for liberty. For almost a century, India had been under the direct rule of the British crown, and many Indians had had enough. Mahatma Gandhi and the National Indian Congress pushed for a completely non-violent movement aimed at forcing Britain to “Quit India.” Gandhi, pioneer of the tactics of non-violent civil disobedience, called for their use on August 8, 1942 with the passing of the Quit India Resolution demanding complete independence from British rule.
Worthy Excerpt:
I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours. I read Carlyle’s French Resolution while I was in prison, and Pandit Jawaharlal has told me something about the Russian revolution. But it is my conviction that inasmuch as these struggles were fought with the weapon of violence they failed to realize the democratic ideal. In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence, there will be equal freedom for all. Everybody will be his own master. It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I invite you today. Once you realize this you will forget the differences between the Hindus and Muslims, and think of yourselves as Indians only, engaged in the common struggle for independence.
Read full text of speech here.
Winston Churchill, “Their Finest Hour”
June 18, 1940; House of Commons, London
On May 10, 1940, the Germans began their invasion of France. On June 14 Paris fell. In a matter of days, France would surrender and England would stand as Europe’s lone bulwark against the twin evils of Fascism and Nazism. At this critical moment, Churchill gave his third and final speech during the Battle of France, once again imparting words meant to bring hope in this dark hour.
Worthy Excerpt:
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.
Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’
Read full text of speech here.
William Faulkner, “Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech”
December 10, 1950; Stockholm, Sweden
A true master of the written word, William Faulkner did not often make public his gift for the spoken variety. So there was some interest as to what he would say when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his “powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel.” The year was 1950, the Soviet Union had tapped the potential of the atomic bomb, and the atmosphere in the the United States crackled with the fear of them using it. Faulkner challenged poets, authors, and all mankind to think beyond the questions of “When will I be blown up?” and instead continue to “create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before.”
Worthy Excerpt:
I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.
Read full text of speech here.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Farewell Address”
January 17, 1961; Washington, D.C.
The 1950’s were a time of ever increasing military spending, as the United States sought to fight communism abroad and prevent it at home. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office, more than half of the federal budget was allocated for defense purposes. Eisenhower, former General of the Army, was certainly not opposed to the use of military power to keep the peace. Still, he saw fit to use his “Farewell Address” to warn the nation of the dangers posed by the “military-industrial complex,” referring to the relationship between the armed forces, the government, and the suppliers of war materials. Eisenhower was wary of the large role defense spending played in the economy, and understood the political and corporate corruption that could result if the public was not vigilant in checking it.
Worthy Excerpt:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Read full text of speech here.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, “The First Oration Against Catiline”
63 BC; Rome
Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline to his friends) was a very jealous man. Having once run against Cicero for the position of consul and lost, he became determined to win the next election by any devious method necessary. Plan A was to bribe people to vote for him, and when that didn’t work, he decided to go for bust and simply knock Cicero off on election day. This plan was ferreted out by the ever vigilant Cicero, the election was postponed, and the Senate established marital law. When the election finally was held, the murderer-cum-candidate was surprisingly trounced at the polls. Now it was time for Catiline’s Plan C: raise an army of co-conspirators, create insurrection throughout Italy, overthrow the government, and slice and dice as many Senators as they could get their coo-ky hands on. But Cicero was again one step ahead and discovered the plan. He called the Senate together for a meeting at the Temple of Jupiter in the Capitol, an orifice only used in times of great crisis. Catiline, who seriously didn’t know when he was not welcome, decided to crash the party. With his archenemy in attendance, Cicero began his Catiline Orations, a series of speeches covering how he saved Rome from rebellion, the guilt of Catiline, and the need to whack he and his cronies.
Worthy Excerpt:
I wish, O conscript fathers, to be merciful; I wish not to appear negligent amid such danger to the state; but I do now accuse myself of remissness and culpable inactivity. A camp is pitched in Italy, at the entrance of Etruria, in hostility to the republic; the number of the enemy increases every day; and yet the general of that camp, the leader of those enemies, we see within the walls-aye, and even in the senate-planning every day some internal injury to the republic. If, O Catiline, I should now order you to be arrested, to be put to death, I should, I suppose, have to fear lest all good men should say that I had acted tardily, rather than that any one should affirm that I acted cruelly. But yet this, which ought to have been done long since, I have good reason for not doing as yet; I will put you to death, then, when there shall be not one person possible to be found so wicked, so abandoned, so like yourself, as not to allow that it has been rightly done. As long as one person exists who can dare to defend you, you shall live; but you shall live as you do now, surrounded by my many and trusty guards, so that you shall not be able to stir one finger against the republic; many eyes and ears shall still observe and watch you, as they have hitherto done, tho you shall not perceive them.
Read full text of speech here.
Ronald Reagan, “Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate”
June 12, 1987; Brandenburg Gate, Berlin
Since the end of World War II, Germany had been a divided country, the West free and democratic, the East under authoritarian communist control. When President Reagan took office, he was committed not only to uniting that country, but to bringing down the entire “Evil Empire.” While the importance of Reagan’s role in successfully doing so is endlessly debated, it beyond dispute that he exerted some influence in bringing the Cold War to an end. There is no more memorable and symbolic moment of this influence then when Reagan stood at the Berlin wall, the most visible symbol of the “Iron Curtain,” and challenged Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”
Worthy Excerpt:
We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Read full text of speech here.
Pericles, “Funeral Oration”
431 BC; Athens
Pericles, master statesman, orator, and general, was truly, as Thuciydies dubbed him, “the first citizen of Athens.” Pericles was a product of the Sophists and had been personally tutored by the great philosopher Anaxagoras. His study with the Sophists made Pericles a highly persuasive orator. Through his speeches, he galvanized Athenians to undertake an enormous public works project that created hundreds of temples, including the Pantheon.
Pericles’ gift of oration was put to the test during the epic battles of the Peloponnesian War, a civil war between Athens and Sparta. His speeches inspired Athenians to fight to become the number one power in Greece. In February of 431 B.C., Athens had their annual public funeral to honor all those who died in war. Pericles was asked to give the traditional funeral oration. Rather than focus his speech on enumerating the conquests of Athens’ fallen heroes, Pericles instead used his funeral oration to laud the glory of Athens itself and inspire the living to make sure the soldiers had not died in vain.
Over 2,000 years later, Pericles’ funeral oration inspired Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” Like Pericles, Lincoln was a leader during a time of civil war. Like Pericles, Lincoln focused on exhorting the living to live their lives in a way that would make the sacrifice of fallen warriors worthwhile.
Worthy Excerpt:
So died these men as became Athenians. You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue. And not contented with ideas derived only from words of the advantages which are bound up with the defense of your country, though these would furnish a valuable text to a speaker even before an audience so alive to them as the present, you must yourselves realize the power of Athens, and feed your eyes upon her from day to day, till love of her fills your hearts; and then, when all her greatness shall break upon you, you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honor in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valor, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer.
Read the full text here.
General Douglas MacArthur, “Farewell Address to Congress”
April 19, 1951, Washington; D.C.
During the Korean War, General MacArthur and President Truman clashed over the threat posed by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and their incursion into Korea. MacArthur continually pressed Truman for permission to bomb bases in Manchuria, believing the war needed to be extended in area and scope. Truman refused the General’s requests, arguing that directly drawing China into the war would arouse the Soviet Union to action. MacArthur continued to press his case, and Truman, accusing the General of insubordination, made the decision to relieve MacArthur of his command. After serving for 52 years and in three wars, the General’s military career was over. MacArthur returned to the United States and gave this farewell address to Congress.
Worthy Excerpt:
I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”
And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.
Good Bye.
Read full text of speech here.
Theodore Roosevelt, “Strength and Decency”
Roosevelt was an advocate of having many children and making sure the next generation would continue to uphold the great virtues of civilization. He was always concerned that young men not be coddled or cowardly, and grow up to live rugged, strenuous, and thoroughly manly lives. But he also strongly believed that being ruggedly manly and being refined in mind and spirit were not incompatible and should in fact go hand and hand. In this speech, he exhorts young men to pursue virtuous manliness. Amen, brother, amen.
Worthy Excerpt:
It is peculiarly incumbent upon you who have strength to set a right example to others. I ask you to remember that you cannot retain your self-respect if you are loose and foul of tongue, that a man who is to lead a clean and honorable life must inevitably suffer if his speech likewise is not clean and honorable. Every man here knows the temptations that beset all of us in this world. At times any man will slip. I do not expect perfection, but I do expect genuine and sincere effort toward being decent and cleanly in thought, in word, and in deed. As I said at the outset, I hail the work of this society as typifying one of those forces which tend to the betterment and uplifting of our social system. Our whole effort should be toward securing a combination of the strong qualities with those qualities which we term virtues. I expect you to be strong. I would not respect you if you were not. I do not want to see Christianity professed only by weaklings; I want to see it a moving spirit among men of strength. I do not expect you to lose one particle of your strength or courage by being decent. On the contrary, I should hope to see each man who is a member of this society, from his membership in it become all the fitter to do the rough work of the world; all the fitter to work in time of peace; and if, which may Heaven forfend, war should come, all the fitter to fight in time of war. I desire to see in this country the decent men strong and the strong men decent, and until we get that combination in pretty good shape we are not going to be by any means as successful as we should be. There is always a tendency among very young men and among boys who are not quite young men as yet to think that to be wicked is rather smart; to think it shows that they are men. Oh, how often you see some young fellow who boasts that he is going to “see life,” meaning by that that he is going to see that part of life which it is a thousandfold better should remain unseen!
Read full text of speech here.
Facebook
{ 28 trackbacks }
{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
A good read.
Most are American, but US was the most influential nation of last century so I think that’s justified.
@Brett
Kudos. A very ambitious and worthy undertaking this is. I will indeed be working my way through these speeches as the days pass.
In reading the above arguments and cacophony of “offended” dissension, my meager two-cents worth is that when someone runs a website, it’s their prerogative to voice their opinion. I disagree with several entries (It’s often a Teddy Roosevelt love fest here) but I feel that the ART of one’s Manliness is to gather the comments and not post angry retorts but concise examples as rebuttal. So that we can all look, as I have, at the suggestions and learn from each of us. I don’t mind clever arguments, but the whole “my orator is better than your orator” should be left to the debate club geeks. This forum should reinforce manliness/gentlemanliness and have proper point/counterpoint.
Missing in my opinion: Jesus/Confucius (same thing), MLK, Henry V, maybe Knute Rockne.
@Kaiseroze-
I appreciate your comments. As you said, what is lacking in many of the angry comments above are concrete examples of what we missed. I don’t mind dissension, but it needs to be backed up.
And I appreciate your suggestions, but please note that Jesus and MLK can both be found on page 3.
BTW,
@ those who ridicule American education:
Correct me if I’m wrong but, when it comes to our “government” education, don’t be surprised when all of us miss out on something that wasn’t in the “curriculum”. Government Education is opportunistic in relation to it’s cause. That goes for Social Europeans as well. Granted, our system isn’t spectacular, but overall this country allows us to find answers and confront the incorrect ones freely and openly, maybe a little more than others. Don’t knock it too much.
Sure, you put the list together, so you can call it anything you want. As long as you and I and the rest of the readers know the truth. While it is a nice littlle exercise to collect these speeches, it is frankly naive to give them the title of the greatest ever. You must have known that when you put the list together ad if you did not, I would then question your credentials and knowledge on the topic.
Correction:
Kennedy’s speech exhorting America to go to the moon was not delivered in Washington, D.C. It was delivered in Rice Stadium at Rice University, Houston, TX. You can clearly see this behind Kennedy in the picture.
That list is pure and brilliant.
Martin Luther King Jr and Winston Churchill I’ve always known, but these others are good to add.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is ironic, I think, in that it really is more remembered than the battle…
Good day!
It is very informative and has a very good quality in it.
I like it…
http://www.Squidoo.com/MPI
mliragana.blogspot.com
Thank you very much for your time.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/lastsermon.html
Delivered in the year 632 CE.
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action.”
One speech that I’m surprised is not here is David Lange’s speech as the Prime Minister of New Zealand, announcing that New Zealand was breaking a long-standing defense treaty with the United States over the issue of nuclear weapons. Entitled, “Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible”, he laid out the arguments of the title, and why therefore New Zealand must no longer be party to their relationship with the US and other powers. Here’s a powerful excerpt:
“The great strength of the West, in fact, lies not in the force of arms – although some would seek under the cover of a benign democracy to argue that it is in fact the force of arms – but it lies in its free and democratic systems of government.
That is why, in spite of all the difficulties and disagreements which we have amongst friends and allies, I am not disheartened. I came to Great Britain by way of the United States, where I put my case to the American people through the news media without any kind of hindrance from the United States Administration.
Members of Her Majesty’s Government have made it plain to me that they do not hold with the views I am committed to. I in fact have heard those before. The other night I heard them from Washington. They were compelling. They were a restatement of the United Kingdom position, and they were said with such candour and frankness that they seemed to persist even after the volume had been turned off. They were done with a strength and a purpose and a vigour.
I want to say that notwithstanding that difference, I have felt welcome here. I have been freely able to express my views. I can say freely whatever I please. Just as any member of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be welcome in New Zealand to expound any line of argument in any forum she cared to use. That is the true strength of the West.
And that is a strength which is threatened, not defended, by nuclear weapons. The appalling character of those weapons has robbed us of our right to determine our destiny and subordinates our humanity to their manic logic. They have subordinated reason to irrationality and placed our very will to live in hostage. Rejecting the logic of nuclear weapons does not mean surrendering to evil; evil must still be guarded against. Rejecting nuclear weapons is to assert what is human over the evil nature of the weapon; it is to restore to humanity the power of the decision; it is to allow a moral force to reign supreme. It stops the macho lurch into mutual madness.
And for me, the position of my country is a genuine long-term affirmation of this proposition: that nuclear weapons are morally indefensible. And I support that proposition.”
Here’s a transcript, a recording, and some contextualizing notes:
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,1578.sm#post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Collins_(British_Army_officer)#Speech_excerpt
Speech given by Colonel Tim Collins of the First Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, on the eve of battle before they entered Kuwait in March 2003.
If it interests any one, check out his book Rules of Engagament, Life in Conflict.
Fantastic list, and while some were unknown to me, given the bona fides, I can’t argue with the selections.
As you’ve pointed out, simply arguing that the list is biased is intellectually lazy. If you think other orations are worthy, list them (as some have).
I’d have to include Patton’s speech. Also, I don’t put nearly as much stock in speeches which were written by others and merely delivered by the speaker. While I’m a Reagan supporter, I’d have to put him largely in that category. Speakers such as Churchill and Roosevelt penned their own words.
oration;science clubbing optimized;igniting and innovating
What? No Lincoln? The second inaugural address was amazing..
What? Hitler isn’t on here? I mean he was an awful man and all, but some of his speeches should at least be considered.
Mostly English speakers, and no African Americans–Where’s MLK, Malcom X, Obama…?
Please add Barack Obama’s victory speech and MLK’s “I Have A Dream”. Come on, if you’re going to list speeches, you should definitely have “I Have A Dream”
aaron you point is good
Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death” speech. This is one of the greatest speeches the world can boost of.
Personally, I thought it was a fantastic list. Of course there are speeches missing that maybe are obscure to English speakers or lost to time. However, this is a very good list. I wish people would actually look at all of them before they said certain ones were missing. As much as I love my favorite two presidents, a little too heavy on TR and the Gipper.
the selection is good.but without the LAST SERMON SPEECH OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD the list is indeed incomplete
Frankly this list is very amerocentric. Feels like half the speeches on the list are American presidential speeches. And what is up with including Jesus? You can’t seriously consider the bible to have a correct transcript of a speech held 2000 years ago. Even if you are Christian you should still know the bible is written poetically, right?
I’m surprised that only two people made mention of the most beautiful speech ever made, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
Wait which one is America? Is that the loud one? Or the one with a chip on its shoulder?
Great compilation! Obama’s 2004 speech, I thought, had a chance. But keep up the job man!
Very intresting collection,
but allow me to add one more.
The speech of the Greek Prime Minister, Xenophon Zolotas , 2nd October 1959
in Washington .
It has remain in history as a proof of the uniqueness of the Greek Language.
Kyrie,
It is Zeus’ anathema on our epoch and the heresy of our economic method and policies that we should agonize the Skylla of nomismatic plethora and the Charybdis of economic anaemia.
It is not my idiosyncracy to be ironic or sarcastic but my diagnosis would be that politicians are rather cryptoplethorists. Although they emphatically stigmatize nomismatic plethora, they energize it through their tactics and practices. Our policies should be based more on economic and less on political criteria. Our gnomon has to be a metron between economic strategic and philanthropic scopes.
In an epoch characterized by monopolies, oligopolies, monopolistic antagonism and polymorphous inelasticities, our policies have to be more orthological, but this should not be metamorphosed into plethorophobia, which is endemic among academic economists.
Nomismatic symmetry should not antagonize economic acme. A greater harmonization between the practices of the economic and nomismatic archons is basic.
Parallel to this we have to synchronize and harmonize more and more our economic and nomismatic policies panethnically. These scopes are more practicable now, when the prognostics of the political end economic barometer are halcyonic.
The history of our didimus organization on this sphere has been didactic and their gnostic practices will always be a tonic to the polyonymous and idiomorphous ethnical economies. The genesis of the programmed organization will dynamize these policies.
Therefore, I sympathize, although not without criticism one or two themes with the apostles and the hierarchy of our organs in their zeal to program orthodox economic and nomismatic policies.
I apologize for having tyranized you with my Hellenic phraseology. In my epilogue I emphasize my eulogy to the philoxenous aytochtons of this cosmopolitan metropolis and my encomium to you Kyrie, the stenographers.
I have always wanted something like this, it is true there isn’t anything worthy on the internet on history’s great orators and speeches. I will definetely continue to read this, I can only ask to expand it and add more memorable speeches. I know people have argued that Obama as a great orator is to early to say, but it is undeniable that the man has it, his 2004 speech truly makes you appreciate the art of oration.
Greatest speeches? More like Greatest pseudo-patriotic demagoguery, amirite?
I can’t believe so many people are so blind to Christianity . A brilliant speech is suppose to speak to you in ways others speeches can’t. They are suppose to compell
I can’t believe so many people are so blind to Christianity . A brilliant speech is suppose to speak to you in ways others speeches can’t. They are suppose to compel a person to take stand, to really give them a reason to do better or listen. If you have read the word of the bible you would understand the feeling Jesus and is words bring upon you. And for your critique of proof the words in the bible not by Jesus were spoken through those people by Jesus and from primary account. Once you have experienced the savior you will understand. By the way i believe your list is very informative and has incredible quality.
What about the greatest acceptance speech ever, given by Joe Pesci after winning Best Supporting Oscar for “Goodfellas”? I’ll include the entire text here:
“Thanks!”
the most intrestin speeches in lates histry are from hugos chaves in 2006 in UNand barak obama
If you’re including the Sermon on the Mount, I think you have to include the St. Crispin’s Day speech.
I’m glad to see that Theodore Roosevelt, who I have long considered to be one of the best (and certainly most manly) presidents, has made the cut more than once on this list.
As far as presidential speeches go, however, I don’t think anything can top the way that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address just flows like a river. It’s a beautiful piece of oratory history.
Wow! I was beginning to wonder when I’d see Honest Abe. I hope these are in ascending order.
I’m not joking when I say that this list needs to be updated to include Stephen Colbert’s keynote address at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner.
He may be a comedian, but that speech was pivotal, and righteous.
I’ve read all the comments here, and it’s obvious that many of you did not flip to pages 2, 3, and 4 (I nearly made the same mistake). The Gettysburgh Address is on there people!! It’s a good list, and a great idea, but the webpage layout is not the greatest.
ALSO, I think the list is a bit American-centric. And a bit victor-centric (with the exception of Chief Joseph, which was a brilliant selection). Surely there must have been some great speeches by Chinese and Muslim leaders. One poster mentioned Hitler – sure he was a real jerk, but wasn’t he supposedly a great orator? What about the Ayatolla Khomeni? Was he a good speaker? I don’t know.
Brett & Kate, I challenge you both to dig a little deeper. This is a great endeavor, and I thank you. But I think it can be better. I’d like to learn some new stuff rather than have my opinions reaffirmed.
@Kurt
Thanks for the comment. Please allow me to respond to it.
I encourage you to dig a little deeper into the introduction to the post and the history of oratory in general. Under “How did we compile this list?” we listed 3 criteria for a speech’s inclusion. One of which was:
“Substance: A speech may be flowery and charismatically presented, and yet lack any true substance at all. Great oratory must center on a worthy theme; it must appeal to and inspire the audience’s finest values and ideals.”
This is the definition of oratory as the ancient Greeks defined it. I don’t believe that Hitler or the Ayatolla Khomeni meet this criteria. Do you?
The list is also victor-centric because of the above criteria and because the right side often came out on top. This is also why many entries in the list probably confirmed your already existing opinions. I don’t believe in adding diversity simply because going outside the box makes the list seem smarter and edgier. Sometimes the best stuff did come from America, and it’s okay to admit this. This is especially true as it concerns oratory because the tradition of oratory is largely a Western tradition-great speeches come out of democracies because of the right to free speech and the fact that citizens and politicians can use the form to persuade others to their point of view. For more information on oratory check out this post:
http://artofmanliness.com/2008/07/17/resurrecting-the-lost-art-of-oratory/
← Previous Comments