In essence, these two poems are drastically different works of art. "Dulce et Decorum est" is a more graphical and relational work compared to the latter, as you go on a journey as a soldier who gets to experience traumatic and graphic events, it begins to alter what you think about war and conflict. As you read on, it gives you graphical wording to prove that the saying "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" is a misrepresentation of actual war. After reading, the underlying message becomes apparent, it wants you to alter your current perceptions about war and how pointless they really are. In contrast, "The Things that Make a Soldier Great" aims to clear up what soldiers really go to war for, they are not there for "The pomp and pride of kings" but only when you "Endanger but that humble street whereon his children run—You make a soldier of the man who never bore a gun.", soldiers fight to protect their homes, not their kings. The poem aims to glorify soldiers and certain aspects of war, it goes on to prove that in reality there really isn 't good vs bad on the battlefield, it 's just a man who "sees his children smile at him, he hears the bugle call, And only death can stop him now—he 's fighting for them all.", and this is our hidden meaning. …show more content…
There is no doubt that both of these poems are fantastic at representing both sides of the argument, with "Dulce et Decorum est" tries to negatively change how you view wars and "The Things that Make a Soldier Great" trying to clear up any misunderstanding regarding