The best speaker in history.

[privatehudson]

I've always had a soft spot for Gladstone as he comes from Liverpool, albeit from Scottish parents, hence why he keeps cropping up in places like the Hall of Heroes in the Wallace Monument in Stirling. I wasn't at all suprised to see that they kept quiet about him being born south of the border...

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, where on earth is the evidence that (say) Jesus was a better speaker than (say) Cicero? I'd say there's evidence that Jesus and Muhammad, at least, were decent speakers; they certainly had a dramatic effect upon their audiences. But I don't see any evidence for saying that Confucius and Buddha were. In fact I don't think that either of them was noted for giving speeches to large audiences at all. Confucius, after all, wasn't very successful as a politician, which doesn't seem good evidence for his having been a notably impressive speaker.

The Christian preachers generally considered the best speakers include Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Wesley, and (perhaps above all) George Whitefield, who was said to have driven fifteen people mad with one of his early sermons. Savonarola should probably make the list too.

Perhaps you don't see any evidence for saying that the Buddha was an effective speaker because you haven't looked for it. If you do so, you will no doubt find that he gave many lectures and sermons, both to his disciples in small gatherings and to the wider public in larger gatherings. This was all done very much in the spirit of Jesus' teachings; with a blend of parables, aphorisms and more straight forward lectures. The impact of his wisdom on his audiences, imparted through these orations, is clear to see even today and is evident in many accounts of and by the people who sat and listened to him.

 

[soul_warrior]

Obviously the answer is Jesus Christ.

you mean moses, right?

*churchill is my favorite speech writer. right alongside the fuhrer.
** all those listed here are great.

i dont think we can annoint a "greatest speaker"
it all depends on the eloquence, vocabulary, subject and setting.

i define a speech great, when i am moved by it.
feeling that tingling feeling at the base of your spine, that tear of emotion, that surge of desire to do something....

 

[Rambuchan]

I had no idea your girlfriend was such a great orator soul_warrior.

 

[soul_warrior]

I had no idea your girlfriend was such a great orator soul_warrior.

quite

lucky i have just deposed her.
in the latter days of empire it felt like
tingling spine, not unlike being electrocuted.
tear of emotion, as in helplessness. knowing that if i bury her in the yard she'll just rise again to haunt me.
desire to do something, such as multiple homicide. jail surely isnt that bad, is it?

 

[Rambuchan]

*takes his foot out of it*

 

[soul_warrior]

*takes his foot out of it*

just as long as you leave the hooves out of it, im ok.

it really did wonders for me.
moved to a seafront flat, been going for quick dips 3 times a day lately
as a matter of fact, i have found myself, last night, 2.30 in the AM, splashing happily in the waves.
i never knew freedom was such sweet emotion

but back on topic, who would you consider top orator from the living?
i know who will NOT get this title
but blair seems very good, as does Al Gore - his An Inconvenient Truth is riveting (though not a classic speaech)

 

[GinandTonic]

Even from those we have recordings of it is hard to draw comparisons. King and Churchill seem way ahead of the pack, but they had great emotions to work with.

 

[CartesianFart]

I wonder if stenographers of ancient times record public speech accurately?

I am surprised to see no mention of Tony Blair. Kinda odd to me that was never omitted.

 

[RedRalph]

I am surprised to see no mention of Tony Blair. Kinda odd to me that was never omitted.

??? Is this

a) serious

and

b) gramatically what you wanted to say?


Pains me to say it, but probably Hitler. Honourable mentions: Castro, Lenin, MLK

 

[CartesianFart]

??? Is this

a) serious

Sorry to disappoint you of me being serious.

and

b) gramatically what you wanted to say?

What is it in my sentence that gave you the impression that I might have had made a grammatical error?

Pains me to say it, but probably Hitler. Honourable mentions: Castro, Lenin, MLK

It is probably your hemorroids that cause you to mention these lists.

 

[soul_warrior]

not to be a spoil sport, but i did mention blair.

 

[Plotinus]

Perhaps you don't see any evidence for saying that the Buddha was an effective speaker because you haven't looked for it. If you do so, you will no doubt find that he gave many lectures and sermons, both to his disciples in small gatherings and to the wider public in larger gatherings. This was all done very much in the spirit of Jesus' teachings; with a blend of parables, aphorisms and more straight forward lectures. The impact of his wisdom on his audiences, imparted through these orations, is clear to see even today and is evident in many accounts of and by the people who sat and listened to him.

It seems to me that the effectiveness of this was more to do with the message than with the style of delivery. But I suspect there's no way to tell.

What is it in my sentence that gave you the impression that I might have had made a grammatical error?

Presumably the fact that you (a) said Blair hadn't been mentioned, and then (b) said he hadn't been omitted. And presumably you didn't intend to contradict yourself quite so obviously.

Blair certainly belongs up there as far as living people go - I think he's a remarkable speaker, and very versatile too.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

George W. Bush

 

[lovett]

First I'd say that we don't really have any way to tell the affect of orators speechs through recordings or written copies. Recordings hardly give the same direct experiance a spoken delivery had, as well as disaccociating us from the historical contest. As for written copies, since its an entirely different medium its pretty easy to see them for being useless.

Therefore, we can only look at the careers and pressures on the different orators. So, surely, by these parametres Cicero's got to be the best speaker.
Consider that ancient Rome was one of the most competive enviroment for public speakers in human history, rivaled perhaps only by Athens. In this enviroment, for almost all of his life Cicero was considered the best orator in the entire, fairly huge, city of Rome.

He was able to follow a near perfect senate career (every office obtained at the youngest legal age) on the strength of his eloquence alone. In a city where noble birth and heaps of money were a prequisite to political office it's surely amazing a man who lacks both was able to achieve such success.

Indeed, by the political fortune amassed through eloquence alone he was offered part of the political alliance (aka triumvirate) between Crassus, (richest man in known world, could support armies with his small change) Pompey (greatest general on the med) and Julius Caeser. Pretty good for a peniless 'new man'.

And btw.....First post, isn't it pretty

 

[Lotus49]

Pains me to say it, but probably Hitler.

That was just a mad man inspiring madness. And he would never be so effective outside of that dark period of history & particular setting/scenario he was in.

Lenin also, was just telling the people what they wanted to hear.

The reason I said Jesus, was because he was often telling the people what they DIDN'T want to to hear, yet the massive crowds kept following him everywhere he went, hanging his every word. The reason for this is because he spoke the Truth like no other.

A far cry from the others who merely lied (a famous Hitler quote comes to mind) or manipulated, taking advantage of the masses for political gain.

 

[Plotinus]

Did Jesus tell people what they didn't want to hear? His preaching wasn't so different from that of many Pharisaic teachers, who were also extremely popular. Messianic preaching was always enormously popular at that time (one figure known as "the Egyptian" was so effective he managed to raise a sort of army and get killed by the Romans). And even so, Jesus was apparently less popular and famous, in his day, than John the Baptist.

 

[Brighteye]

Churchill, Martin Luther King, Hitler,

and then I'm not sure. Cicero seems to have a good case.

Blair is not an impressive speaker. I've heard better here in Oxford, from Terry Pratchett, via Pervez Musharraf to Boris Johnson.

 

[LightSpectra]

Did Jesus tell people what they didn't want to hear?

Sell everything you own for the poor, to even look at a woman with sexual thought is adultery, the gate to Heaven is narrow and only a few will enter, it's better to cut off your hand if it makes you sin, you can only follow me if you hate your family, etc.

Most of these are hyperboles, but yeah, I would say they were difficult teachings.

 

[Plotinus]

But "difficult" is ambiguous. Teachings like that may be difficult to follow, but that doesn't mean that they are difficult to approve of. Often, people do want to hear "difficult" teachings, or at least rigorous ones like that. Don't assume that harsh moral teachings are necessarily less popular than laxer ones. For example, it was the harshness of their moral teachings that made the Montanists so popular, and the same can be said of many other sects too (Pelagians, Cathars, etc). In Jesus' own day, I don't think that those popular teachers who took a more rigorist line were less popular than those who took a laxer line. For example, the Pharisees usually interpreted the Old Testament Law in a very strict way, and they were extremely popular.

More generally, in a time when many people believe moral standards are slipping (which plenty of people believe all the time), such teachings will always find an audience willing to listen. Of course it doesn't follow that that audience will actually put them into practice - they're probably more keen for other people to do so - but they like to hear them said, which means that that kind of rigorous morality will always sound good in a speech.

That's quite apart from the fact that Jesus didn't necessarily actually say all those things that are attributed to him (I understand that the equating of lust with adultery is particularly unlikely to be authentic), though that's another matter.