The Iliad
question
Was Hector stupid for accepting Achilles's challenge?
Barkey
Jan 08, 2018 11:10AM
One of the commentaries I always see from modern people-especially people with an interest in military stuff (soldiers, history buffs, wargamers, etc)- is unanonymous criticism on Hector deciding to take Achilles in a 1-on-1 duel after Patroclus's death.
The universal agreement is that Hector should have known better than to risk himself- an important commander who was responsible for much of Troy's victories against the Greeks at that point- just for the sake of honor. Some of the experienced soldiers and hardcore wargamers even state Hector should have seen an opportunity to destroy one of the Greek's major weapons by sending his army to capture Achilles or have archers fire on Achilles during the famous duel, reasoning with Achilles's capture or death the Greeks both not only lose their best fighters and the leader of their best units, they also lose their biggest morale booster. They argue this would have been a big blow to Greek morale. At the bare minimal Hector should have avoided the duel since his ingenuity and leadership was so important in stopping the Greeks at that point in the story.
Instead as we all know Hector chose to duel and quoting many of these critics "died in vain", indirectly leading to the fall of Troy.
I am curious whats the reality of the situation if Hector decided to think like a modern military commander and get rid of Achilles on the spot? Was the decision to duel an objectively stupid one (as modern military analysis would criticize)? Or is there a deeper reason why Hector could not have simply avoided the duel by staying in his city?
I mean many military officers, wargamers, history buffs, and well modern audiences cannot understand why "stupid honor" was worth making such a risky decision that would potentially lead tot he downfall of your country! Experts on Greek mythology what is your input on this? Are we modern people- especially military enthusiasts- failing to understand something about the Greek psyche of this time period?
The universal agreement is that Hector should have known better than to risk himself- an important commander who was responsible for much of Troy's victories against the Greeks at that point- just for the sake of honor. Some of the experienced soldiers and hardcore wargamers even state Hector should have seen an opportunity to destroy one of the Greek's major weapons by sending his army to capture Achilles or have archers fire on Achilles during the famous duel, reasoning with Achilles's capture or death the Greeks both not only lose their best fighters and the leader of their best units, they also lose their biggest morale booster. They argue this would have been a big blow to Greek morale. At the bare minimal Hector should have avoided the duel since his ingenuity and leadership was so important in stopping the Greeks at that point in the story.
Instead as we all know Hector chose to duel and quoting many of these critics "died in vain", indirectly leading to the fall of Troy.
I am curious whats the reality of the situation if Hector decided to think like a modern military commander and get rid of Achilles on the spot? Was the decision to duel an objectively stupid one (as modern military analysis would criticize)? Or is there a deeper reason why Hector could not have simply avoided the duel by staying in his city?
I mean many military officers, wargamers, history buffs, and well modern audiences cannot understand why "stupid honor" was worth making such a risky decision that would potentially lead tot he downfall of your country! Experts on Greek mythology what is your input on this? Are we modern people- especially military enthusiasts- failing to understand something about the Greek psyche of this time period?
reply
flag
Barkey, I think it all hinges on the concept of Honour. For the ancient world, ideals were as real in this world as the gods who dirtied their hands with its daily affairs. A man always defended his honour, and fought for honour and glory. We so easily forget - this worldview was still alive, though diminishing, at the commencement of the Great War. How many promising young Englishmen of auspicious and shining promise were mowed down like blades of grass in that war... for Honour?
Nice comment Fergus, I was thinking the same. Hector may have even known he had no chance of surviving, but decided it was better to die a glorious death, than gain a dishonourable victory. It is said that the same motives the last tsar of Serbia at the battle of Kosovo: The Damned Balkans: A Refugee Road Trip.
Honor, in ancient Greece, is highly valued amongst soldiers and kings; Homer's "Iliad" shows both sides of valor on and off the battlefield. Odysseus for cunning and diplomacy; Menelaus for his strength and courage. Throughout the conflict, Hector lead's Troy's defense despite Andromache's plea for safety; as Priam's eldest son that responsibility falls upon him to protect his kingdom against the Achaeans (Greeks). Hubris dictated his own sense of reality, as a human, Hector's warrior instinct allowed an elevated ego to fester.
Yes, the god's safeguarded his life and brought honor among his own peers; yet, it came at a price. Achilles's vendetta will not be appeased until Hector cease to exist; demi-god's are closer to divine power than mortals. Therefore, the "challenge" is reduced to nothing; Achilles' rage clouds his judgment when Hector proposed all funeral rights to the loser. No, I believe he made the right decision despite his flaws.
Yes, the god's safeguarded his life and brought honor among his own peers; yet, it came at a price. Achilles's vendetta will not be appeased until Hector cease to exist; demi-god's are closer to divine power than mortals. Therefore, the "challenge" is reduced to nothing; Achilles' rage clouds his judgment when Hector proposed all funeral rights to the loser. No, I believe he made the right decision despite his flaws.
Hector and Achilles were aristocratic warriors not soldiers, they were bound by an honour culture, not purely to strategy and tactics.
A modern general would have been satisfied to sit back and frustrate Achilles' wrath until he was forced to turn it on his fellow Greeks, give him rope to hang himself. Not so ancient heroes for whom honour was everything.
HOWEVER, in Hector's defence, he did execute a tactical retreat - i.e., turn and sprint the other way - when he witnessed Achilles charging at him. This was probably the smartest move at that point. He only resolved to face Achilles after he was duped into thinking his brother had joined him on the field.
A modern general would have been satisfied to sit back and frustrate Achilles' wrath until he was forced to turn it on his fellow Greeks, give him rope to hang himself. Not so ancient heroes for whom honour was everything.
HOWEVER, in Hector's defence, he did execute a tactical retreat - i.e., turn and sprint the other way - when he witnessed Achilles charging at him. This was probably the smartest move at that point. He only resolved to face Achilles after he was duped into thinking his brother had joined him on the field.
Yes there is a concept of honor behind Hector's decision, also he was backed up by gods I feel it is normal he believed he had a chance. Following your reasoning, how about Achilles's decision to go to war while he knew 100% that he could lead a good quiet wealthy life... Again, honor and revenge.
I think so. But I think he really didn’t have a choice. Achilles was so angry about his cousins death he would have done anything to get revenge.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Iliad (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Damned Balkans: A Refugee Road Trip (other topics)The Iliad (other topics)
