In the epics, The Mahabharata and The Iliad, the warriors were ranked highly in society and received much respect. A warrior needed to be more than just a fighter or soldier. Many factors contributed to what makes a great warrior, such as courage, strength, power, goodness, and connection with the gods. The warriors’ successes and victories led to much praise and honor from the citizens of their communities. In fact, warriors received so much glory from the general public that warriors were often selected as kings to rule over the land. Although both epics included outstanding warriors and kings who endured strenuous journeys, the warriors in The Mahabharata worried less about the adoration and esteem that stemmed from their role as warriors than those in The Iliad.
The warriors fought over power, but the warriors in The Mahabharata, particularly the Pandavas, accepted their loss of power without too much complaint or grievance unlike the warriors in The Iliad. Over a game of dice, the Pandavas loss their kingship, which means the amount of adoration and praise they received would decrease. Although the Pandavas still had quite a following after their defeat, they eventually were left in exile alone. The brothers grieved, but Saunaka, one of the wise men, helped them understand the notion of ridding of materialistic desires, such as admiration from others. “He expounded a philosophy of acceptance and resignation, of getting beyond appearances to the core of reality, where one could understand the ephemeral nature of wealth, youth, beauty, and possessions” (72). They accepted their losses and turned their attention to kinship and family. On the other hand, in The Iliad, the Greek warriors quickly fought to regain their power after losing one of their most prized possessions, Helen. Paris, a Trojan warrior, stole Helen from Menelaus, a Greek warrior, because she was the most beautiful woman in the land. By stealing Helen, he attained power and praise, which revealed his value of materialism. However, Paris was not the only solder to value materialism greatly, because the Greeks immediately engaged in war to whisk Helen back to the Greek side. If Helen would return to the Greeks, the Achaeans would repossess and reclaim their ownership of her. In Book I, Akhilleus spoke of their value of materialism. “I had no quarrel with Troy…No, no we joined for you, you insolent boor, to please you, fighting for your brother’s sake and yours, to get revenge upon the Trojans. You overlook this…and now in the end you threaten to take my girl, a prize I sweated for, and soldiers gave me” (11). He described the girl as a “prize,” as opposed to a lover or woman. Their standards for acclaim and awards, through worldly possessions, did not waver throughout the epic, which ultimately caused a rift in their relationships.
The Greeks valued clanship less than the Pandavas, because the Greeks enjoyed the amount of respect they could receive from braving the dangers of war more than the honor they could receive from their fellow soldiers. Akhilles and Agamemnon obtained approbation after stealing Khryseis from the priest Khryses in order to seek revenge on the Trojans for the capture of Helen. But when Agamemnon decided to return Khryseis to her home, Akhilles disagreed and retreated from the war. He believed he would lose honor by returning the princess to her rightful home, and he sacrificed not only his relationship with Agamemnon, but also his relationship with the other Achaeans. In response to Akhilles departure from war, Agamemnon stated, “Desert, if that’s’ the way the wind blows. Will I beg you to stay on my account? I will not. Others will honor me, and Zeus who views the wide world most of all” (11). This quote showed that honor stood at the forefront of their motives. In The Mahabharata, there was a split in the family between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Although the Kauravas and Pandavas were cousins, there was a power struggle. However, The Pandavas did not allow their lust for acclamation to override their value of kinship. They possessed the ability to differentiate the difference between worldly and unworldly items. For example, Arjuna initially resisted fighting against the Kauravas in the war. “I cannot go on with this war. My grasp on Gandiva slips, my mind wanders; how can I slaughter my kith and kin? I do not want the kingdom; I do not want anything. Leave me alone. Let me go away…How can I direct my arrow at Bhishma or Drona, whom I ought to worship? I do not know of any kingdom is worth winning after so much bloodshed. What is that gain worth (147).” Arjuna could not bear to kill those he was related to. He wanted to rather remove himself from the war than to murder his own kind. With the above quote, Arjuna placed pride and praise to the side to honor his love for his family. Although Arjuna proceeded with the war after the gods’ explanation of karma, he still took a moment to express his devotion and adoration for a section of his family that disliked him with no desires for revenge.
The warriors in The Iliad sought revenge anytime their power was challenged to regain control, but the warriors in The Mahabharata allowed karma to take place without much interference. When Hektor murdered Akhilles’ friend, Patroklos, Akhilles pursued brutal revenge immediately. Patroklos was one of the only warriors who aided and supported Akhilles in his decision to retreat from the war, so when Akhilles reached Hektor, he mutilated his body. Although the murder of Hektor brought Akhilles back to the war, his act was done in selfish revenge. In The Mahabharata, when Dhrtarashtra attempted to murder the Pandavas in the House of Joy, the brothers did not seek revenge. They simply heeded to the warning about the upcoming house burning and fled. The gods explained to the Pandavas, “These men who stand before you are already slain through their own karma, you will be only an instrument of their destruction” (148). Instead of seeking revenge, they sought the advice of the gods and prospered.
The warriors in The Iliad valued short lives as opposed to long lives, unlike those in The Mahabharata, because it granted them honor. If one achieved a long life, it was assumed that one had not faced or encountered great danger. Without encountering great danger, there was no proof or record of a person’s power, importance, or triumph. When a person lived a short life, it was usually because they were killed during a war or journey. The warriors of The Iliad would much rather live short lives to prove their great strength and courage during battle, because it brought about honor and admiration. Warriors who did not die in battle were not celebrated but classified as wise men or sometimes looked down upon because he chose to live a safe, quiet life far from harms way. The theme of long lives versus short lives appeared with the death of Hektor. Hektor entered a battle with Achilles knowing that Achilles was furious with him for killing his beloved friend Patroklos. Hektor lost that battle, but he believed that it was better to die and live a short life as a warrior than to live long. Before Hektor died, stated, “…but now the appointed time’s upon me. Still, I would not die without delivering a stroke, or die ingloriously, but in some action memorable to men in days to come” (519). In Hektor’s last words, he yearned to be honored and remembered. The warriors in The Mahabharata seemed to be able to achieve both long lives and honor. They were able to defeat the Kauravas in battle and lived pretty lengthy life. It is not until thirty-six years after the war with the Kauravas that the Pandava brothers climb towards heaven. They were able to prove their status as great and powerful warriors and they also lived longer. It is clear that surviving a war proved that one had enough strength to overcome any battle or encounter.
In the epics, The Mahabharata and The Iliad, the qualities and characteristics of a great warrior were defined in the text. In addition to being a fighter or soldier, warriors also needed to posses the traits of courage, strength, power, goodness, and connection with the gods. Although The Mahabharata and The Iliad have much in common, the warriors in the epics value praise and honor differently. While the warriors of The Mahabharata cared less about acclaim, the warriors of The Iliad yearned for approval. By taking a closer look at both epics, it is clear that the warriors of The Mahabharata were humble, selfless beings. They cared not about impressing others or receiving rewards for their accomplishments, but cared more about unity, family, and prosperity. On the other hand, the warriors of The Iliad were more selfish and boastful and relied on their accomplishment to provide them with affluence. After examining the text, The Pandava brothers retained more estimable qualities that citizens of the present times would admire.
najjaparkerarchetypes 