Achilles' actions make sense as part of a soldier ethic-- I'm not sure how 'southern' that is-- could you elaborate on that?
From the point of view of a soldier, the goals are 'do your duty', 'gain glory' (a sign you've executed your duty skillfully and well) and 'protect your friends'-- and, the friends are killed (in battle, by the enemy) then 'avenge your fallen friend(s)'.
This last part of the ethic is problematic when transferred to civilian life, as in the revenge movie-- 'I couldn't protect you, but I'll avenge you' --what's the use of that? Be competant before the loved ones are killed, not aftwerwards when it's too late. Imagine if a mother thought that way : 'I could not be bothered to prevent you from burning your fingers on the hot stove, but by Crom I'll rip this oven apart burner from burner! AIGHGH!'
The revenge ethic makes a lot of sense for a soldier, and even more for a general. For a soldier, the other parts of the ethic require allowing friends to risk harm, and for a general, while presumably they hate losing soldiers, losing some while firing the survivors with feelings of hate and vengeance can advance the cause of the war and increase the chances of winning and ending it.
Revenge is useful locally (soldier) since complete protection of ones friends is not an option within the war and globally (general) for motivating the survivors to greater efforts. In civilian life, revenge is useless locally (civilian) but may be useful globally if a predator is removed or safety procedures made better (society).
Hector is much more accessible because his ethic is compatible with that of a civilian: his family's being attacked and he must protect them. If Hector fails, his wife will be enslaved and his little son will be killed so he can't grow up and seek revenge; that is indeed what happens.
Achilles succeeds in avenging his friend, but the main effect is giving victory to his treacherous general-- and Achilles himself is killed in the end. I can see Achilles' withdrawal as an attempt to break out of that box-- the soldier-ethic being so much more rewarding for the generals and the society deploying both than for the soldiers themselves.
Earendil displays a civilian ethic which is focused on the goal: 'protect family and people, get help!' In that sense, he's more like Hector, except Hector had no one to turn to, his own Gods being immersed in internal negotiation.
The one way that Earendil might resemble Achilles is, strangely enough in Achilles' withdrawal to sulk on the beach. Both were attempting to break out of a box: assumptions about what could be done as a soldier or as an elf/man of Middle Earth. Achilles wanted a way out of serving as a soldier, used and used up by treacherous leaders. Earendil wanted a way out of the previous pattern: the free peoples of Middle Earth gallantly march against Morgoth and are crushed; the free peoples of Middle earth wage canny guerilla actions against Morgoth and annoy, then are crushed; the free peoples lock themselves away in strongholds, endure for a time, then are crushed. Reasonably enough, both felt they needed to a better plan, a way out of the rules as they understood them. Achilles failed to find his way out; Earendil succeeded.
|