Fairness, loyalty, and protection are all qualities that a proper king would bestow upon his people. Such qualities are rarities amongst our recently read works, however these qualities are not always necessary for kings to be heroic. Gilgamesh, for example, takes advantage of his people’s brides on their wedding nights and is a foolish ruler. Oedipus, on the other hand, helps his people cope with their problems. Between the two, Oedipus is undoubtably the best guy for the job as far as kings and leaders are categorized. Despite the two’s opposites in ruling capabilities, Oedipus and Gilgamesh are very similar with their outstanding heroism.
The character of Gilgamesh evolves greatly throughout the story. His flaws as a leader are illustrated instantly in the story’s beginning. “His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warriors daughters nor the wife of the noble,” (13).
Gilgamesh takes advantage of his people by having his way with the virgin girls of his kingdom on their wedding nights. This total abuse of power and poor ruling is a direct reason why his heroism begins. His soon to be best friend, Enkidu, is sent to challenge him before he becomes involved with another man’s wife. After fighting, Gilgamesh starts his transition from untamable tyrant to heroic companion.
Gilgamesh, with out a doubt, got the short end of the stick as a leader. Before his meeting with Enkidu, elders question his leadership saying, “is this the king, the Shepard of his people?,” His people prayed for the creation of Enkidu so that he could meet his match. It seemed to me that his poor ruling was similar to an unchallenged playground bully. All that is necessary is companionship to cure his childish “because I can” attitude.
The Essay on Blindness In King Lear And Oedipus Rex
In Oedipus the King and King Lear, both main characters, as well as some minor characters, experience not only physical blindness, but mental blindness as well. King Lear, Gloucester, and Oedipus are "blind to the truth" in the beginning of the plays, and then experience some form of catharsis, the spiritual purging of emotions. In the end of the plays, all the blind characters gain the ability to ...
Gilgamesh has something to do now other than terrorize his people. He and Enkidu set out to kill Humbaba. No matter how worthless it was to kill Humbaba, the event is a direct reason why Gilgamesh’s heroism begins to expand. Enkidu dies from an injury that he sustained in the battle with the Bull of Heaven that was sent to punish the two for the killing. His death brings out a new side of Gilgamesh. It’s a side of love and sorrow that never existed before Enkidu. He says “I’ll weep for Enkidu, my friend, bitterly moaning like a woman mourning I weep for my brother.” (28)
Gilgamesh remains being a poor leader and set off to search for a way to overcome his newfound hindrance, death. Gilgamesh is heroic in his search because he gets his first taste of humility, which is something else he has never done. The one person that had ever defeated fate was Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh searched for him for enlightenment, gets tested, and fails miserably. This is the first obstacle that Gilgamesh could not overcome. He learns that he doesn’t have to overpower to be powerful. I believe by finding himself through companionship and humility, Gilgamesh became a true hero and perhaps a better kings.
Oedipus, although arrogant, appears to be a superb king to his people. He beings by pledging all of his abilities to help his people overcome a plague. He will do anything in his power to protect his people. “You can trust me. I am ready to help, I will do anything. I will be blind to misery not to pity my people kneeling at my feet.” (13-15) A king can’t be much more loyal to his people. Unlike Gilgamesh, Oedipus shows true companionship.
The Essay on Great King Gilgamesh People Bride
A Critique of Gilgamesh as a King in The Epic of Gilgamesh There are some characteristics that most great kings have. All of the great kings did not have all of these characteristics, but they had some of them. Gilgamesh did not have many of these traits. Although he was a powerful king, he was not a great king. He had some good traits, such as being a leader, and fighting evil powers. He ...
Oedipus, just as any character making a transition to becoming a hero, as a major character flaw. He is selfish about his quest for the truth. The flaw ends his days as a king, but indirectly proves his heroism. Oedipus’ flaw beings to reveal itself with Creon’s news about how the killer of king Lauis must be banished.
Oedipus works hard to find the killer. Since the people have no idea who did it he consults Tiresias, the profit. Oedipus shows his first weakness as a king when he loses control after he learns he is the killer. He doesn’t trust the information and becomes bias to Tiresias and Creon. The insecurities that arise from the prophecy began Oedipus’ quest for the truth that undoubtably turns him into a hero. Intelligence as a king is an extremely good quality. Oedipus is very smart and it made him a better leader. To become king of Thebes he solved the riddle that removed that removed a previous plague from the land. His good kingly quality however, is a cause of his downfall and the cause of his heroism in the same. Through his desperate search to find out if he was the killer of king Lauis, Oedipus discovers that his life is disgusting, to say the least. Oedipus understands that he is the problem in Thebes and, along with his extreme self pity, he holds up his promise to his people and banishes himself.
Oedipus goes from being a very compassionate ruler to a selfish man that wants the truth to be in his best interest and then to a real hero. Despite all the self pity and denial, Oedipus does what’s best for his people by swallowing his pride. Oedipus tells Creon to, “Drive me out of the land at once, far from sight where I can never here a human voice.” (1571-1573) Oedipus was not only a confident king, but he was also a heroic man.
Both Oedipus and Gilgamesh become heros through once specific choice that hey made as kings. Oedipus decided to do what was necessary for his kingdom and banish himself. Gilgamesh chose a companion instead of destroying the only man good enough to be his rival. These two choices made the difference in these kings becoming the heros they were destined to be.
No matter what kind of ruler or king the character might be, that character can be a good hero. Oedipus and Gilgamesh, who seems to be total opposites, turn out to be very similar heros. Oedipus is clearly the best leader of the two. He only showed weakness of denial in times of personal desperation, but in the end fulfilled his destiny to be a good kind and a good hero. Gilgamesh was a lousy king with no morals. After little humility and newfound companionship he too was an excellent of a hero. Two very different rulers can be equally great leaders.
The Essay on Who is the better Epic Hero: Sundiata v. Gilgamesh
Sundiata which practices the Malian culture is symbolic of a perfect epic hero because being generous and highly favored, protecting your kinship, being loved by all and earning your fortune is highly respected. However, in the Mesopotamian culture the highly respected personality traits of the Malian’s were not important because their epic hero Gilgamesh did not process any of these traits. ...
