by Sari Krosinsky
Daily Lobo Columnist
'Tis the season -- to write papers. Yes, that dreaded time of year when concern for the great issues of the day falls prey to that ever greater concern: getting all the work due three weeks ago and all the work due within the next two weeks done before the grades are submitted.
Fortunately, even while the greater issues of today are temporarily forgotten, the great issues of yesterday provide ample fodder for a column.
I was working on a paper comparing the military ethics of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, as portrayed in "The Odyssey" and "The Aeneid" -- epics of the respective cultures. I got to wondering just which set of ethics present day America more closely reflects.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Odysseus -- though portrayed with the typical flaw of hubris -- embodies the ancient Greek standard for military conduct. He is called "the man of many wiles," and this is his principal virtue. He's the guy who came up with that whole Trojan horse idea.
He's also the guy who, though knowing Cyclops to be not particularly nice people, decided to wait in one of their homes for the Cyclops to return and made twelve of his men wait with him. In this way, he afforded himself the opportunity to prove his intelligence by getting the Cyclops drunk, poking his eye out, and telling him that his -- Odysseus' -- name was "No-one," so that when the Cyclops called for help and said "No-one is using treachery," his fellow Cyclops thought him rather foolish and went away. Of course, six of Odysseus' men were crushed and eaten before he came up with this witty idea. But he's a clever fellow, isn't he?
Aeneus, the hero of the Roman epic, is a different sort. He might even be considered dull, when compared with wily Odysseus. His principle virtue involves no feat of strength or wit. It involves nothing more than comitatis -- he takes care of his men.
When he arrives on the shore of the Cyclops' island, he finds a survivor of Odysseus' crew, who tells them just exactly where they've landed, begs for passage or even death at human hands, and advises Aeneus and his crew to scram.
What an opportunity! Aeneus could stay and prove himself just as clever as his epic predecessor. But no, he took his crew and the Greek and left before so much as meeting a Cyclops. He left without glory, without any better excuse than to keep his men alive and out of unnecessary danger.
Odysseus' behavior might make for a more adventurous tale, but if I were a soldier, Aeneus is the guy I'd want at my shoulder.
Which brings us back around to the earlier question: which of these ethics guides our military? Perhaps the veterans and current military members in the area can give a clearer picture, but I'll piece together what I can from what I've been told by people who have been in the military.
Comitatis, the perception of the military as a sort of brotherhood, still exists. There are still people who consider those under their command as being also under their care. One of my friends told me about someone he knew in the army who went so far as to see his troops as his children. That doesn't mean he coddles them or treats them like kids; it means he feels responsible toward them.
On the other hand, there are those in military command who bear a greater resemblance to Odysseus. I've also heard tales of commanders who would send troops into needlessly dangerous situations that looked good on paper, because such missions could secure their rise in the ranks. Their ambition, their desire to prove themselves exceeded their concern for the people whose lives they were responsible for.
And in one way, they exceed even wily Odysseus' carelessness. At least Odysseus was willing to risk the Cyclops' maw alongside his men.
So I guess we have a little bit of both ancient Greece and the Roman Republic in us. The question is, for the sake of our troops and ourselves, which ideal do we really want to call our own?
Excuses for procrastination may be sent to Sari Krosinsky at michal_kro@hotmail.com.
