The main focus of
The Iliad
is the anger of the Greek warrior Achilleus and the revenge he seeks against those who wrong him. Is Achilleus's anger towards Agamemnon justified? How about his anger towards Hektor? Support your claim with at least one quotation from the text.
18 comments:
Achilleus's feelings towards Hektor is semi justified. He feels better after he drags Hektor behind his chariot, but he does not like the fact that Apollo protected Hektor's body. He feels he does not deserve the Gods help. Achilleus says, "No, you gods; your desire is to help this cursed Achilleus within his breast there are no feelings of justice."
Judging by my standards, Achilleus's anger towards Agamemnon is justified. Agamemnon is the leader of the Achaians, after all, and Achilleus is his subordinate. "O wrapped in shamelessness," Achilleus derides, "with your mind forever on profit, how shall any one of the Achaians readily obey you...?" [book 1, lines 145 - 146]. Achilleus has a valid point that Agamemnon is responsible for his men and their well being. As a ruler, Agamemnon is also accountable for justice or lack thereof under his rule. When Achilleus challenges Agamemnon-- a query on a valid point-- Agamemnon responds completely out - of- line, allowing pettiness and immaturity to interfere with his leadership of the war.
Hektor is another matter. Achilleus is not at all reasonable in his vengeance against Hektor. There is a WAR at the time, and Hektor is at odds with Achilleus. So really, nobody is at fault for trying to kill each other impersonally. Achilleus was the person whom got personal about it, trying to kill Hektor for vengeance without compromise to salve his own wounded ego. Hektor is impersonal, and while he is consciously trying to kill Achilleus, his motives are strategic, with aims to demoralize his enemy. Achilleus is rigid, uncompromising, and altogether too emotional about the entire affair.
I would agree with Circe in that Achilleus’s anger toward Hektor is unreasonable. As she mentioned, Hektor did not kill Patroklos because he was angry or upset with him. Patroklos was an invader of Troy, and Hektor was only trying to protect himself and his people. I believe that Achilleus blamed Hektor completely because he did not want to come to terms with the fact that his good friend’s death was partly his fault also. As the Iliad states, “As some great bearded lion when some man, a deer hunter, has stolen his cubs away from his out of the close wood; the lion comes back too late, and is anguished” Homer compares Achilleus to the lion and Patroklos as the cub. The lion should have protected his cubs, just as Achilleus should have tried to prevent the death of Patroklos. It was Achilleus who gave him the armor to wear when battling the Trojans. He should have known that wearing the armor would make Patroklos a target for the enemy to strike down, which was exactly what Hektor did to prevent a strong warrior from conquering his people. Achilleus had fought before, and understood the way battle worked. The enemy is not slain for personal reasons, but to defend one’s people, honor, and life.
I agree with Circe also. Achilleus' anger with Agamenmnon is justified, since Agamenmnon hurt Achilleus' pride by taking from him his "prize" and Agamenmnon looking only to himself. Achilleus' said to Agamenmnon, "O wrapped in shamelessness, with your mind forver on profit." The anger anger against Hector, however, is not justified, since he let Patroklos out to fight instead of himself, and he insulted all of Troy when he dragged Hector's body around the city.
The Wrath of Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilleus)
You people are missing the point. It asks if it is justified not is it justifiable. The question means did he get revenge?
Achilleus's anger is not justified towards Agamemmnon, but was justified towards Hektor.
Achilleus's anger towards Agamemmnon was not justified. He never got his revenge. The Greeks won, Troy was sacked, and the "Great" Hektor was slain. Achilleus never got Briseis back. He also lost his best friend and cousin Patroklos to the clutches of Death. Patroklos died fighting for Agamemmnon. Achilleus's anger towards Agamemmnon was never justified.
Achilleus's anger towards Hektor was justified however. Achilleus got his revenge. He killed Hektor in combat. Not only that but he tied the corpse to his chariot and paraded around Troy for nine days, the body dragging in the dirt behind him. The body of Hektor was disgraced, just as the body of Patroklos's was. "The next theing that Achilleus did was to subject the fallen prince to shameful outrafe."
Again, i agree with circe. Achilleus's actions toward Agamemnon were definatly justified. In a time of war, a leader of an army should not and can not worry about his spoils of war. That child like behavouir leads to bad decisions and unhappy troops. Achilleus, who knew this, had every right to try to prevent stop the king's behavouir.
As for Achilleus's actions toward Hektor,that was just a personal fight for him. He was not thinking about how this man was from thee enemy army or of his own army. Achilleus was thinking about vengence, and nothing else. Not even the death of Hektor satisfied him, he had to also desecrate his body. That was just ruthless.
I forgot to add a part to my blog.
I agree with Circe in that Achilleus anger towards Agamemnon is justified. After all, Achilleus killed Agamemnon's son! Achilleus is furious at Hektor for killing his best friend, but Hektor was only trying to protect himself. If Achilleus went into Hektor's shoes he would have done the same thing. I think Achilleus has to come to grips with that Patrokolus died on his own hand.
In today's standards, Achilleus's acts towards Hektor are more explained than his towards Agamemnon. Hektor has killed Achilleus's best friend, and many more of his people. As Achilleus states: "I wish only that my spirit and fury would drive me to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that you have done to me" [Book XXII line 249-251]. In the ancient Greek world, the worst death for a warrior was a humiliated death. Hektor wanted to be burned and celebrated, but Achilleus wants to not even leave him for the dogs, but eat the flesh himself! And in those days, Achilleus felt he had the right.
Agamemnon's dispute could be seen as equal in ancient Greek eyes, back when women were more property, and taking a woman was thieving. Nowadays, women are given much more choice over who they date, marry, ect., and two men can't fight for one's girl leaving him for the other. At least, they shouldn't fight. Agamemnon would not give back his prized female, Chryseis, daughter of Apollo's priest, Chryse, even though Achilleus and the prophet Kalchas told him that only evil will come from holding the girl, Achilleus even venturing to call Agamemnon the "...greediest for gain of all men..." [Book I line 118]. Agamemnon does not listen and continues to be a "thief." Therefore, Achilleus should have the right to distance himself from the lord.
If your enemy killed your best friend and stole your armor to wear it is not unexplainable or out of the ordinary that you would be very angry with them. Of course Achilleus was going to be angry at Hektor. Even though his anger is justifiable, I believe Achilleus’s reaction was not. He went far enough to kill Hektor for what he had done, but it was not necessary for Achilleus to drag his foe’s corpse through the dirt.
I think that Achilleus's anger towards Hektor is justified. I feel like Achilleus has a reason to dislike Hektor because after all, he killed Achilleus's friend, Patroklos. But the same time, Achilleus should also take some of the blame for the death. He is the one who put his friend out on the battle field to begin with. I feel that although Achilleus does have a right to get mad at Hektor, I do not think he had to go as far as dragging Hektor's body throughout the town. Achilleus states, "I wish only that my spirit and fury would drive me to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that you have done to me. So there is no one who can hold the dogs off from your head." Although Achilleus has a right to be mad, he took it a step too far.
Although I can absolutely identify with what both Circe and Hephaestus, I can also understand Achilleus rage and revenge when taking on Hektor. I can understand how Circe feels that Achilleus’ vengeance is not justified and is only trying to “slave his wounded ego” but I disagree that Hektor’s death is not partially based on personal reasons. When reading, I understood Achilleus’ guilt and sorrow-it should have been him wearing that armor instead of Patroklos, and Achilleus should have been the one that died. Mixed with the guilt of his best friend’s death at his fault, Achilleus has the immense shame of letting down his Achains and not fighting with them as the hero they once knew. “Meanwhile the Archains mourned all night in lamentation over Patroklos. Peleus’ son led the thronging chant of their lamentation and laid his manslaughtering hands over the chest of his dear old friend which outbursts of incessant grief.” (Book XVIII, lines 61-64). Patroklos’ death reminded Achilleus of how much he was being a coward lately, how he let down his best friend, and how he was letting down his army. With that one last spark of Patroklos’ death, an explosion erupts inside Achilleus and he must avenge his people and his companion. I can recognize how this can be seen as an act of getting his glory back, but I felt of it more as a craving to destroy the man who brought forth so much pain to himself, his people, and his best friend. Therefore, I believe his rage and passion for revenge is defensible, in his situation, because of my sympathy for him based on his internal suffering.
Achilleus’ anger towards Agamemnon is also reasonable. I agree with Circe that Agamemnon is a powerful leader and should always do the best for all of his people. By conflicting with Achilleus, Agamemnon puts his responsibilities as a Greek leader behind him to make room for his own dealings. It is wrong, and Achilleus has a right to be irritated.
Achilleus's anger toward Agamemnon is justified. He was standing up for what he thought was right and in result was being threatened by Agamemnon to steal away his girl. Agamemnon's arrogance created turmoil.This spite caused much devastation so Achilleu's anger is certainly justified.
In contrast Achilleus's anger was not justified towards Hektor. Like many have said, it was Hektor's job as a warrior to fight. It wasn't his fault He had to kill Patroklos who was an invader. Whoever ended up killing him Achilleus would have been mad at. Achilleus is probably more mad at himself for letting this happen and is just blaming Hektor. Achillleus's mind was not to be changed from blaming him though. Hektor even said: "I know you well as I look upon you, I know that I could not persuade you, since indeed in your breast is a heart of iron." (p.374 lines 259-260) Achilleus's bitter, mourning heart would not budge and he through all his feelings into avenging Patroklos.
Achilleus said,"Hektor argue me no agreements. I can not forgive you." Achilleus anger towards Hektor is very much justified. Although Their is a war going on, there are certain rules everyone must follow. Achilleus is not upset at Hektor because his best friend was killed, for there is a war going on and that was bound to happen. He is angry because his friend's corpse was greatly disrespected. What was done to Patroklos showed none of the respect that is supposed to be shown towards enemies and allies alike in times of war. Also, Hektor begs Achilleus to treat his body with respect after he is killed. Not only did the coward run away but when he was finally stopped he begged for respect from his enemy that he would never give. Therefore, I disagree with Circe What Achilleus did to Hektor was justified.
Achilleus, in my opinion, is a character that you hate to love. He is an almost entirely immortal man that is the fiercest and most capable warrior that there ever was in Greek history. He is a good character in the fact that he has emotions that are portrayed very well, and could be looked at positively or negatively.
Achilleus' anger towards Agamemnon is justifiable because of Agamemnon's lack of maturity and complexion while handling a war at hand.
Achilleus' anger and hostility was some what justifiable. Yes, Hektor may have killed Patroklos, but that doesn't mean that Achilleus not only has to kill Hektor, but disgrace his name and family too by dragging his body around behind his chariot for all to see. (Book XXII, lines 298-349) That sort of anger, twisted and cruel, is what makes Achilleus the character he is.
Achilleus's hatred towards Hektor is both justifiable and justified. Hektor killed Patroklos, whom Achilleus cared about heavily. He also took Achilleus's armor off of Patroklos, and wearing it for himself. This was a slap in the face for Achilleus. "All these reasons justify Achilleus hatred of Hektor. I know you well as I look upon you, I know that I could not persuade you, since indeed in your breast is a heart of iron."(Book XXII, lines 259-260) This quote shows that there was no way that Achilleus would not seek his revenge on Hektor.As we all know Achilleus killed Hektor, making Achilleus hatred justified.
Achilleus towards Agamemnon was justifiable but not justified. Achilleus's prize, Briseis, was taken by Agamemnon and Achilleus cousin, Patroklos, died fighting for Agamemnon. These reasons make Achilleus's hatred of Agamemnon justifible. However Achilleus never achieved revenge on Agamemnon, making his hatred of Agamemnon not justified.
Post a Comment