Legacy

The story of Achilles in the Iliad is well known. Essentially he chooses between life and legacy. Thankfully, as the story could not have been crafted if he selected life, Achilles chooses to be remembered as the greatest warrior in the history of time. This story of his legacy is crucial to the seminal value of the Iliad.
It is incredible to me how parallel the story of the Iliad has been to Homer's writing. He has left behind an incredible legacy of epic creation to remembered for eternity. The story of the Iliad, as Sam and I portrayed in through our presentation, has been documented and expanded upon since it was created thousands of years ago. From the story, books, movies, paintings, sculptures, strategies, and even condoms have taken Homer's story and in some form or fashion made it their own.
I think these actions are paramount in displaying education. We often sit around in classrooms discussing a certain topic or idea. We debate, agree, depict our unique thoughts, and sometimes we argue and attempt to pursuade others that our belief is superior. Most times, we each portray our own idea and in turn collaborate and form a big conclusion. To me, these offsprings of the Iliad do just that. They portray many different angles and motifs Homer attempts to express in his epic poems. For example, there are various pieces of art ranging from theater to sculptures that attempt to answer the open ended question Homer leaves about Achilles' relationship with Patroclus. These collaborative pieces about this debatable subject attempt to forge an argument that best fits the reality of their relationship. Even further, when in the classroom we are still unable to form a final conclusion, it becomes evident to me that we are simply missing the bigger picture. In this case, Homer's writings create points of argument that actually lead to bigger and more important arguments. But most of all, Homer left behind the very phenomenon he expresses through his main character and Hero: the importance of Legacy.

The Armour and Shield

What we wear plays a huge role in the way people perceive us. This should not surprise anyone. My best and most relateable comparison to the Iliad is the meaning of "appearance" in football. Often times, the best player on the field simply looks the best. Bulging muscles, unbelievably tight-to-the-pads jerseys, and a unique use of accessories such as facemask visors, long sleeves, half sleeves, etc all contribute to a superstar's appearance. Sure, there are a few exceptions where a team has a player who looks a lot better than he plays, but for the most part, the players that look good can play well. While the armour and shield of Achilles supports this simple claim, it delves deeper and provides great examples of what this impressive outwear actually represents.

In the Iliad, Achilles' armour is everything. Sure, like on a football field, it can be an indicator of how strong a warrior may be, but here the analogy must be separated. In battle, at least in the Iliad, you simply did not have impressive armour if you did not demand respect. Achilles, the greatest warrior alive, has this venerable armour and shield. It defines him. When Patroclus goes out in battle with Achilles' armour, the inevitable happens: Patroclus is killed. This death shows the importance of the armour as it belongs to its owner. When the Armour, or status represented by it, is compromised, unfavorable outcomes are the result. The death of Patroclus shows the power the armour and shield have. By not being worthy of wearing the armour, Patroclus shows disrespect, and pays the extreme consequences and is killed. In this story, Armour is more than just the protection from the death, it is an indicator of the quality of fighting a warrior posesses, and when a man wrongfully attempts to achieve more respect than he deserves, like Patroclus he pays the price.

The Ultimate Irony

In our first few classes we discussed the different reasons for war. The reason that was most compelling to me was the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. We encounter odd ironies every day. Not to dampen the mood, but just today my mother called me telling me she had been in a bad car accident. She told me where she was and immediately I was off to the races. I was going a good 20 miles over the speed limit, which ironically is the very act that causes car accidents. Again, we experience ironic situations every day, but no situation, no action is more ironic than the claim that to make peace, we must wage war. Not surprisingly, I have a difficult time finding the moral logic in this. From a strictly strategic point, this makes perfect sense. If a country or group of people with conflicting ideas becomes threatening enough to disturb peace, we must kill them. But from a moral and human standpoint, is there really a legitimate chance that these people can harm me. Is it necessary to kill the people who are opposing us, and even more, is it necessary to kill innocent people who have no control over the situation into which they have been thrusted. Thus the question arises, and I think we got to it in class, where do we draw the line?