Comparing Martin Luther King And Winston Churchill's Speech

772 Words2 Pages

What is it that makes a speech so powerful? Is it fancy wording, a pleasurable accent, or the message and reason for the speech in the first place? Take a look at a couple of speeches considered great from not-so-distant history. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech to over 200,000 people in Washington D.C. that was a massive push for equal and civil rights. Winston Churchill gave a speech to the House of Commons, urging others to yearn for victory as he did. But what makes these speeches so great? At the time when each was given—a time stemming social and political unrest—each speech was given to and well received by audience that those speeches concerned. Similarly as Martin Luther King Jr. and Winston Churchill gave speeches that gained …show more content…

This split between the Pope and Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire in the East solidified the already-present tension between the Papacy and the Emperor. It is known that the Emperor resented the growing power the Roman Catholic Church. However, despite the dislike Emperor Alexius had for the Pope, he was not ignorant enough to ignore the fact his empire was on the brink of subjugation by the Seljuq Turks. With persistent invasions and their capitol only 100 miles from Constantinople, Alexius—swallowing his pride—wised up and wrote a letter to Urban II asking for a force to help eradicate the invaders. Upon receiving this letter, Urban II saw the magnificent opportunity he had. As tensions had grown and the split between the East and the West had become ever-present, this was the Pope’s first opportunity to create a standing army and bring the East, the Holy Land, and all of Christendom under his control. It is then where he gave a very compelling speech aimed at driving out the Turks and conquering the …show more content…

But why was his message so well received? As the sole head of the Church in the West, everything the Pope said held enormous weight with Christians—he was the direct representative of Christ. This massively important position allowed him to paint a picture not only for those who would participate in the crusades but Christendom as a whole. With incentives such as all sins being wiped away if one participated, it is no wonder why so many people were quick to jump on board. Surly the Pope, as Bishop of the Catholic Church, was certainly a great speaker, he incited participation by calling on Christians to use the “strength of their righteousness … to destroy the vile race from the lands of our friends.” Also, if he did not already have the support of the majority on this matter, he states that “Christ commands it.” How then could any person who claimed to be Christian not answer the call of the Pope, or better yet Christ? To persuade those who would still be against killing others, the Pope stated that Christ was misquoted—stating that it was okay to kill others that stood against Christianity, as long as they were not Christian. By asserting that that it was noble to fight the Turks, and that Christians could earn their place in heaved by fighting the infidels, no wonder there was a mass of people ready to go to war. Because of the risk-free benefits

Open Document