All this fight over Helen without a single sandwich

So a big chunk of time in class was spent on talking about honor. And there was a lot of confusion to why Agamemnon was being such a "tool" as quoted by the Kaylie Ruff Concordance. Honor and reputation was and still are a huge part of people's behaviors. People seem to stay clear of things that would ruin their reputation if they can help it. Similarly, if one comes upon an opportunity to increase a good reputation they will act on it. Go back to the Ring of Gyges. The central theme was that if one knew that he could do whatever he wanted without any consequence of being caught, even the good would commit crime. I propose that in the same way, if one could do anything without consequences of their reputations and name being at stake, then they would act any way they wanted. And I honestly think that this has not changed since the days of the Iliad. Think of how society tends to promotes beauty. Many people today are obsessed with anything to make them beautiful. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll listen to Oprah. Oprah Magazine states that over $10 BILLION was spent by AMERICANS ALONE in  2010 on cosmetic surgery, and Oprah doesn't lie. We care so much about how people perceive us on the outside. In the same way, Agamemnon was trying to assert his authority and honor as leader by having a prize instead of going without. What would people think if he were the only one without a prize. I would think of him a pushover. Agamemnon was the leader of the Achaean army! He was their LEADER, and every one was supposed to have a prize except him? I don't think so. I think the way he handled it was perfectly fine, and I honestly don't blame him. The two fairest women were given to him and Achilles, the best warrior in the army. His prize was taken away so the best prize was given to Achilles.  The best prize was given to Achilles, the best warrior, while he, the leader, was left with nothing? Now naturally, I don't want him to keep Chryseis, because it was causing so many to die, but I don't blame him for wanting Achilles prize. Hypothetically, if you entered the national spelling bee where first place wins $5000,  second place wins $1000, and third wins $500, and upon winning find out they don't have the funds to pay the $5000, but do have the funds to pay for the second and third place, would you be expected to be satisfied with nothing? That would not be fair. Instead 1st place should get the $1000 and second should get the $500. Achilles was the one that was in the wrong. He was being a baby. It seems like if Agamemnon would have played it cool and given up his woman but allowed Achilles to keep his, the Achaeans would think Achilles greater than  Agamemnon. Forgive me of my scripture references, but I'm a theology major so I have privilege. ;)

It reminds me of 1 Samuel chapter 18, after David slew Goliath. It says:

"When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres.As they danced, they sang:

“Saul has slain his thousands,

    and David his tens of thousands.”

⁸ Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?” ⁹ And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David."

In the same way that Agamemnon was leader and Achilles was the best warrior, Saul was the Israelites leader and David the best warrior. Saul deduces in this verse that David has killed more men. He has attributed more to the Israelites. He has everything. The only thing left for him to take is the kingdom. I wonder if Agamemnon had a similar mindset? I may be completely overthinking it, but maybe he thought Achilles would attempt to take over as leader. Just opening it up for discussion. It's a possibility.

It's like what has been said so many times inside and outside of honors: The only thing to immortalize you once you're dead is your legacy. Agamemnon could have gone down as a pushover who let everyone else have their way, and be overshadowed by their glory. Or he could have been known as their leader who took what he wanted, and though he stepped on a few people toes, was a great leader nonetheless. 

commented on Susan Berner's "This is SO not fair"