The Iliad by Homer has much to say about war as it is fought today. It tells the story that war is both the bringer of glory to its young fighters and the destroyer of their lives. It tells the story of fighters obliged to serve under incompetent superiors. It tells the story of war as an attempt to preserve a treasured way of life. It tells the story, too, of the incalculable gulf between civilian life and the front lines; of atrocities and frivolous slaughter; of war’s mercilessness to women and children; of friendships and empathy across the battle lines. It tells the story of love and comradery. Most of all, however, it tells the story about the harrowing losses of war: of a soldier losing his closest compatriot, of a parent losing his …show more content…
More than that though, it epitomizes an essential part of the metaphysical order of the universe, the divine arrangements according to which things behave the way they do. This insight is first suggested within the opening invocation:
These oft quoted lines represent the ironic heart of the poem; at the beginning, Homer explicitly states the focus of the story on anger, a destructive rage condemning noble men to agony and death, reducing them to nothing but the flesh of their former self. The lesser-cited second half, however, brings to light a perhaps second focus (add?)
To start, it may be worth noting that the so-called heroes have not embraced war unequivocally. Many, as is supposedly built within the collective unconscious, express a wish for a world without warfare or, rather, a different arrangement preventing the need for the killing and deaths on the battlefield. Alas, however, there is no safe haven, and thus, must accept final death as inevitable, for warfare, as defined, has been established by a divine will;
Even in the examination of perhaps the most famous evocation of a warrior’s faith, that being the speech Sarpedon, makes the ever-convincing point that the glory of a hero is by no means worth the detriments should human beings have a way of escaping
Simone Weil’s essay “The Iliad: or Poem of Force” places importance on human interaction, the grounding, empathic, human relations which are rare, fleeting, and necessary. She claims Force to be a governing factor in all human interaction, and the ‘thingness’, which force prescribes to humans, as a dangerous, uncontrollable factor of human existence. In order to overcome force, one must direct all their attention towards recognizing others suffering. In her other essay, “Attention and Will,” Weil discusses religious attention as the most important. She claims that one must practice a passive attention to God in order to reach a divinity beyond reality itself which holds truth.
The Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger once said “Perjor est bello timor ipse belli”, which translates to: “the dread of war is worse than war itself”. With this quote, Seneca identifies that war has both its physical and mental tolls on its participants. The psychological and emotional scars of war do much more damage to a solider than the actual physical battles. Tim O’ Brien repeats this idea many years later in his novel “The Things They Carried”, by describing how emotional burdens outweigh the physical loads that those in war must endure. What keeps them alive is the hope that they may one day return home to their loved ones. Yet, the weight of these intangible “items” such as “grief, terror, love, longing” overshadow the physical load they must endure since they are not easily cast away.
As can be seen, Paul Boyer, Tim O’Brien, and Kenneth W. Bagby, convey the notion that war affects the one’s self the most. Through the use of literary devices: tone, mood, pathos, and imagery, these 3 authors portray that war affects a person’s self most of all. War is not only a battle between two opposing sides, but it can also be a mental conflict created within a person. Although war is able to have an effect on physical relationships between family, friends, or even society, conflict within oneself is the most inevitable battle one must face during war times.
The subject of Homer’s epic poem, the Iliad, is very clearly stated--it is “the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles.” The reader remains continually aware of the extent of Achilles’ rage, yet is never told the reason why Achilles remains angry and unreconciled. There is no definitive answer to this question. Achilles is not a static character. He is constantly changing; thus the question of why he remains angry solicits different answers at various stages throughout the poem. To find an answer, the reader must carefully examine Achilles’ ever-changing dilemma involving the concepts of mortality and honor. At its simplest, Achilles’ dilemma is that if he goes to war, he will die. But he will die with glory.
“Then the screaming and shouts of triumph rose up together, of men killing and men killed, and the ground ran blood.” From first examination the Iliad seems to be an epic founded on an idealized form of glory, the kind that young boys think about when they want to join the army. A place full of heroism and manliness where glory can be achieved with a few strokes of a sword and then you go home and everything is just lovely. Many people view the Iliad this way, based on it’s many vivid battle descriptions and apparent lack of remorse for the deaths that occur. This, however, is not how war is presented in the Iliad. Homer presents a very practical outlook on war countering the attainment of the glory with the reality of its price and the destruction it causes. He successfully does this by showing the value of the lives of each person that dies and, in a sense, mourning their passing, describing the terror and ugliness of war, and, through the characters of Achilleus and Hector, displaying the high price of glory.
He states, "The myth of war is essential to justify the horrible sacrifices required in war, the destruction and death of innocents. It can be formed only by denying the reality of war, by turning the lies, the manipulation, the inhumanness of war into the heroic ideal" (26). Chris Hedges tries to get the point across that in war nothing is as it seems.... ... middle of paper ...
Throughout the Iliad the warriors' dream of peace is projected over and over again in elaborate similes developed against a background of violence and death. Homer is able to balance the celebration of war's tragic, heroic values with scenes of battle and those creative values of civilized life that war destroys. The shield of Achilles symbolically represents the two poles of human condition, war and peace, with their corresponding aspects of human nature, the destructive and creative, which are implicit in every situation and statement of the poem and are put before us in something approaching abstract form; its emblem is an image of human life as a whole.
Through both of Stephen Crane's story "A Mystery of Heroism" and poem "War is Kind" he gives several different examples on how war was from this time and how it brought out the real person in any soldier whether they were scared or daring to be a hero for others. Them proving that they can be a hero themselves even if its from getting water for the rest of your team to comforting ones that have lost loved ones through war in the end of the grand scheme of things.
This epic poem by the ancient Greek poet Homer, recounts some of the significant events of the final weeks of the Trojan War and the Greek siege of the city of Troy. All of the places where Homer’s stories took place were in areas that had been significant in the Bronze Age of Ancient Greece. Excavations at Troy and Mycenae have revealed that affluent kingdoms did indeed exist there. The Iliad provides examples of the culture and traditions that took place in Ancient Greece. The warrior culture that is presented in The Iliad is based on honor and bravery, a good example of this is when Diomedes is trying to rally his fellow warriors in says, “I know only cowards depart from battle. A real warrior stands his ground. Whether he is hit or hits another.” This society was strongly against cowardice; bravery was the only option in these times. The Iliad preserves the Ancient Greek’s views on masculinity and what it meant to be a “real warrior” in their times. The evolution of what people consider honorable and brave is evident, for The Iliad has conserved past views that can be juxtaposed with more modern
...not theirs to fight. It is essential that the Tragic Hero accepts his necessary doom. It completes the hero. “I know my hour is come...Farewell to thee...I shall have glory by this losing day” (205).
The Iliad is an epic tale of war and hero’s within the Greek way of life. A
...y did not create a typical hero in his protagonist; one who wins a certain battle and is recognized as victorious. Instead, he created one who succeeds by being defeated, or by dying. However, because many people did not understand what he did, that he "died for life", it was not necessarily considered noble. He was defeated personally, but the reason he died was worth far more than his personal gain.
Homer drives home the bleakness and hopelessness of war with his final book. When thinking of a war, the first thought to pop into one's head is most likely death and suffering, not great triumph and glory. For a great majority of the Iliad, however, Homer writes about the winning of glory, and the pride taken in killing a foe. This gives war an entertainment value, and makes it seem that it is a good opportunity to be fighting in a war. This is not the case whatsoever. With the mourning over the prestigious Hektor, it makes the reader realize that no matter how much glory is attained through battle, the fact remains that you are fighting a war and your life expectancy sub sequentially drops dramatically. The sadness that war creates is neglected for much of the Iliad, but in book twenty-four, the point is emphasized thoroughly. Beginning with the speech of Kassandra to the Trojan people,...
The romanticism of war is separate and opposite of romanticism for life. They cannot exist at the same time. War stands for death and destruction and life is the opposite. There is a constant clash between the love of decency: courage and devotion to your fellow men, and the love of life free of the horrors of war. War, and all things that propel war, is inherently evil. Beliefs in heroism, honor, and dignity are all idealistic. To the soldier on the field of battler their sole purpose is self-preservation. The only way that soldiers can persevere through the God awful shitty mess of war is through the brotherhood between the soldiers. This bond does not negate the hypocrisy of war; instead, it allows the men to survive it. The brotherhood is love for the sake of self-preservation. At its core, war dehumanizes people and one cannot have love for life if they are less than human.
Throughout history, normal-everyday people rise to power, only to coerce or ruin a society and its morals. There are also some who rise and fight back. In stories and in real life, these “heroes” who fight back usually end up dead. Even today, a martyr’s sacrifice is essential in most of society’s changes.