What Could Have Been....

I really had nothing else to write about, so I couldn't help thinking how the Iliad might have ended if Patroclus did not die. We can all agree that Patroclus's death was a turning point in the story, and was actually instrumental in the Achean's victory. To me, the death of Patroclus symbolized the complete downfall of the Trojans.

From the moment Patroclus died, Achilles became a great warrior who finally had control over his rage, and Hector was filled with hubris. So as we closed our discussions about the Iliad, I thought that the war would have gone completely in the Trojans favor had they not killed Hector. Let's go back to the moment when Patroclus died: Achilles, the Achean's best warrior, was pouting in his tent as a result from a feud with Agamemnon. Hector, the Trojan's best warrior, was leading the Trojans in a calm manner and making a strong case for being the "hero" of the poem. Had Patroclus not entered the battle and been killed, there is no reason to expect the war not to follow this early trend. Achilles would have stayed in his tent for the remainder of the battle, and Hector would have grown stronger (while remaining a solid leader). Achilles's selfishness would have eventually completely imploded the Achean army, and the Trojans would roll to an easy victory. I know that this is not the most pertinent blog post that I've had, but it was on my mind.
Paul Stanley

War in Simpler Terms

When I study something complex and multidimensional, like war, I find it helpful to put it in simpler terms.  As we did in class one day, Mr. Crotty used the analogy of athletes with big egos and whether or not the benefits of a having a talented player outweighs the negative effect of that player's ego.  In the Iliad, the Achean army faces this same dilemma.  Although Achilles is the most skilled fighter in the war, his ego prevents him from seeing the battlefield for much of the war.  My opinion on this subject is that whenever there is a skilled warrior or athlete who will put himself before the team, there needs to be another skilled person who can keep the other down to earth.  I have seen this scenario most often in football (sorry Tess).  Like Achilles is as a warrior, Randy Moss of the New England Patriots is one of the most talented players on his team.  Unlike many other ego-maniacs, Randy Moss is able to be kept in check by Tom Brady.  Brady is a superstar on his team, but without the superstar mentality.  The reason that the Patriots had a historical season a year ago is because Tom Brady was able to get the most out of Randy Moss, while keeping Moss's ego in check.  Brady was able to utilize Randy Moss's extraordinary talents, but did not let his ego become a distraction as it did in the past.  Had the Acheans had a better leader, I am confident that their army would be unstoppable.  However, Agamemnon was just like Achilles, so their egos clashed and nothing got resolved.  Although the Agamemnon/Achilles conflict is extremely complex and never ending, thinking about it terms of something that I do understand helps me out a lot.

  Like in most real life instances, when there is internal disunity, such as the conflict within the Acheans, tragedies can often times trigger a group to come together.  Again, to put things in simpler terms, I thought about September 11th when reading the Iliad.  Following the attacks in 2001, America was more unified than it perhaps had ever been.  Crime was at an all time low, and the patriotism that followed the tragic attacks was incredible.  While I of course think that the terrorist attacks were horrible, the nature of how external conflict can cause internal unity and thus good things resonated with me as Patroclus died.  While Patroclus's death was very sad, like September 11th, it definitely had some positive outcomes (I am in no way saying September 11th was good, nor was it even on the same scale as the death of Patroclus).  It made Achilles put away his problems and fight for the betterment of his country and avenge his fallen friend.

Paul Stanley

The Basics about War

In studying war, I believe that it is important to have a clear idea of what exactly war is.  Although everyone has a general sense of what war is, most people have a different understanding of the details of war.  To me, war is a military conflict between two or more countries (or civil war) over a clear issue.  Last trimester, I took Understanding September 11th, in which towards the end of the trimester, we were able to analyze in depth America's response to the September 11th attacks.  We were able to then formulate our idea of war based on America's responsive actions in the Middle East.  After Bush ordered the American military to invade Iraq, he coined this conflict the "War on Terror."  In order to understand this phrase, you must then identify the enemy of Bush's "War of Terror."  In class, we identified the enemy, Terror, as being a group linked to an individual (not a nation) who imposes terror.  Because I feel the war is between countries, not organizations, I  did not classify the current situation in Iraq as a war.  

Secondly, it is important to know why we stud war.  Learning about battles and skirmishes in world history is completely meaningless unless you know why these wars happened and how they have shaped society today.  To me, the most important reasons to study war are to learn from past mistakes and, further to learn how to "wage peace."  It has been often said that history repeats itself.  With that being said, if history does repeat itself, studying wars is the only way to learn how to avoid them.  Not only can wars be avoided, but if we study war, we can learn how to do the direct opposite of waging war.  Understanding how and why wars are started gives countries the opportunity to see what has worked and what has not, which should help create not only a war-free environment, but also a genuinely peaceful world.

Thanks for reading, and you stay classy Greenhill.

Paul Stanley