It's the start of a new week, the perfect time to introduce a new story packed with discussion topics. Luckily for me, the Iliad is a monster of troubling questions. One question in particular struck an interest in me and is the inspiration for this blog post. Today, I would like to delve deeper into the idea of "Some people start wars, some people fight wars."
This phrase was pitched to us by our teacher in an effort to spark debate, but I feel that the discussion did not go deep enough. Obviously, this phrase is hostile towards those in power. It is one that would fit subordinate soldiers who are angry at the difference in sacrifice between themselves and their non-participating leaders. What I see here is the glorification of the subordinate, an ascription to the idea that "we're better than you because we sacrifice more." I fairly agree with this statement, but the interesting thing to take from it is the disregard of any sacrifices that the people in power may have made.
I will argue that the people who "start wars" do sacrifice quite a bit. Especially during the time period of the Greeks, starting a war had inherent risks. First of all, the people in power could end up on the losing side of the war, ending in their inevitable execution or enslavement by the opposition. War could also result in the ruin of public reputation, possibly due to repeated failures in leadership, which would ultimately lead to them being replaced or much, much worse. Due to the disregard of these sacrifices, I feel that this phrase lacks sympathy.
In conclusion, I hope those who read this blog post will take a step back and refrain from vilifying the people in power too soon. They have much to lose as well.
It is easy to get caught up in the soldiers side of this argument since their sacrifices are so much clearer then those of the leaders, but I agree it is important to see both sides of the coin. In times of the Greek the leader would be killed off if the war was lost, and not by one person seen by only one. No the leader would be publicly killed most likely, which would amount to the leader once held in praise now being remembered for the gruesome death incurred upon him after his defeat. So in a way should the war be lost yes the leader has it "worse" then the soldiers since his name will forever be tainted. It is when the war is won that brings people to this argument since after a victorious war the leader only gains more praise while those lost in battle are at most given a soldiers burial. Couple that with the fact that Greek men who were able to fight had to fight it becomes easy to see why many people would despise a king so ready to enter into a war. No one wins in a war lost, but many still lose a war won and that is why I believe this argument is valid. This argument is much less prevalent now since our wars are mainly comprised of soldiers who signed up for it and not every male civilian over the age of 18 has to enter battle. Our remembrance of fallen soldiers is also much more prominent now to help ease the grieving families. It is because of these reasons that I would not bring up this argument nearly as much in today's time when compared to ancient Greece.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting too is that we are conditioned to see this kind of sacrifice as honorable (in reference to your "we're better than you because we sacrifice more"). I respect many forms of sacrifice, but, regardless of ranking, voluntarily entering a war is questionable. The entire notion of war is simply absurd.
ReplyDelete-Penelope
ReplyDelete