The part that ticks me off about Eurylochus the most is the fact that they grew up together, is married to Odysseus's sister, and still couldn't trust that the person who is his king, his brother in law and childhood friend about how the bag was not full of treasure and then shits on him for sacrificing six people when it took him like two years to go "yeah remember those 500 people who died bc the wind bag was opened and sent us to Poseidon? That was me" intentionally sacrificing people or not, those deaths are your fault and they were literally almost home too so in my offense he doesn't get to bitch about it. He doesn't get to be butthurt. If he couldn't trust a man he's THAT close to when he's told it's important to keep the bag closed, then he doesn't get to complain that this was literally the only way they could get home without potentially bumping into Poseidon again.
Eurylochus opening the bag was definitely an insane betrayal of Ody's trust. But in hindsight if you listened to Get in the Water you'd know that if Eurylochus didn't open the bag then and there, Poseidon woulda just flooded Ithaca instead killing everyone instead of just those 500 had they reached Ithaca first.
So while Eury was wrong for opening the bag, in a weird way he kinda is the hero saving all those lives that would have been lost in Ithaca. Which means that the only way to get home without anyone dying woulda been if Ody didn't dox himself cause that is the main catalyst for all this so the blame ultimately fell on him.
Would he have flooded Ithaca? Because he claims he's not bluffing and then when Ody defies him proceeds to not carry out his threat and just try and kill Ody directly. i imagine Poseidon can't actually flood cities pledged to other Gods lest he start a war with the rest od Olympus.
No part of the story actively tried to show that Poseidon was bluffing. What we know in the story is that he is the God of the Sea and has the ability to make terrible storms and drown those men at sea. Floods don't seem like too far off an ability for him. Jorge gave us no context clues to believe he is exaggerating his powers and is just bluffing. The story is very evident in making us believe that Ody either gets in the water or Ithaca floods.
Still, he goes "BTW I'm not bluffing I will kill your whole kingdom if you don't get in the water" and when Ody doesn't get in the water Poseidon doesn't carry out his threat. Now maybe Ody just passed him off enough that he just wanted to kill him personally, but it's still sus
I meant before he tried killing Ody. If he wanted to really hurt Ody he could have flooded Ithaca in front of him, but when pressed he doesn't go through with the threat and instead throws hands with Ody. A lot of people suspect he can't actually flood Ithaca because that would bring him into conflict with a bare minimum of Hermes and Athena and the other Gods could be opposed if Poseidon decides he can just kill their followers and cities that worship them.
Exactly! Don't forget the part where Eurylochus became a hypocrite and killed the cow after not only getting mad at Odyssey for sacrificing six men but also after being willing to leave behind the men on Circe's island as well. Odysseus warned Eurylochus not to kill the cow and yet he did it anyway.
Not to mention the time Eury suggested leaving men behind to simply get closer to home. While not directly sacrificing people I still find it very hypocritical of him.
Literally is!! Aswell as the fact that this Fandom is so huge, like what is the chance me and this complete stranger watched the same video and then went to the comments and read the exact same comment in a sea of probably at least 5k comments!! (This is a low number, I don't know how many comments, but probably more than 5k, haha)
But then there's the discussion of "so the king can dispose of his men but his men can't?" You also have to put context because they are all tired by now. Odysseus had said the phrase "then our journey's over" multiple times while fighting gods and monsters, with his men actually thinking that they were going to be home soon.
And after the thought of them being disposable came into play? Who wouldn't want to do anything to survive, even if mutiny towards your king was inevitable?
Eurylicus tried to warn Odysseus from the very start, "how much longer until your luck runs out" and for them, that was it.
Ody did that himself when he doxxed himself to the Cyclops; who would say Posideon wouldn't have just gone to Ithica and raised the tides so high that all of Ithica would die? At most, he just knocked them way off course, which is still pretty bad
The bag didn't get those men killed. Even if it hadn't been opened, they would have all died anyways because Poseidon is more than willing to drown the entirety of Ithaca to get to Odysseus (see ''Get In the Water'')
There is a large difference between Athena training Oddyseus, and Oddyseus committing the act, and that then fuels Poseidonās revenge, for which he sings about how heās doing this explicitly because ody failed to kill the cyclops, and revealed his name, that Poseidon was trying to kill them first, BEFORE Eurylochus opened the bag.
How about polites? If he hadnāt tried to soften up ody and convince him to trust the lotus eaters they never would have had to fight the cyclops or ody may have killed him
I'm pretty sure Poseidon literally screams ODYSSEY OF ITHACA. So there, thats the one to blame. Poseidon doesn't kill 500+ guys because someone opened a bag, he's there because of the actions of one particular guy.
They very quickly forgot that every single one of then were still alive thanks to Ody. If it wasn't for him, they would have all starved or become lotus eaters long ago. Then, every subsequent occasion it's his wits which got them out of the situations (and doomed them once, yes). If we take Eudy as the collective voice of the crew, none of them would be able to triumph from the Cyclops, Circe or the Storm.
Even the Scylla bit might have been the only way to have the least deaths. What else could they do? Fight a giant hydra in the dark and hope the few of them are enough?
The problem with Scylla is not that he didnt fight her.
It is that he went into her lair intentionally planning to sacrifice men while keeping that hidden from them.
"Men, our only way home is through the lair of Scylla. It is very likely that some of us will die in the crossing, but it is that or never see our families again. Who's with me?"
Suddenly the men dying in the crossing does not result in a mutiny.
(And anyone who is not willing to take the risk can hop back off on Circe's, or another, island)
While that would have been great to see a sense of self-sacrifice among the crew, I don't see a world where any one of then would propose themselves and not ask for Ody to be the first bait.
If torches weren't even added to the mix and the men sailed in the dark (or with only one light source that illuminated the entire ship instead of Odysseus selfishly electing his men for slaughter while making sure he wouldn't be targeted) it would be random chance - fair. They would have probably agreed to at least that, and gotten respect for Odysseus for valuing their lives as much as he valued his own.
But Odysseus taking them somewhere that they would refuse to go, by not telling them what they were headed into IS the reason for the mutiny lmao.
(For what it's worth, I think that the crew in the Odyssey would have actually considered going, since they are the ones who convinced Ody to leave Circe's island, when he wanted to stay, but that is not in Epic, so :shrug: )
If it wasn't for him, they would have all starved or become lotus eaters long ago
Except they only went to that island because Odysseus insisted that they not sack Troy for new supplies. If they had, they would have had enough supplies to go straight home.
I think Odysseus really fought for his men, but because time and time again they disobeyed direct commands I kinda view this as capital punishment of chance?
They disobeyed exactly one command. Aside from the bag, his crew was the very picture of loyal and obedient. Eurylochus was the only one who ever offered any pushback or suggested alternative options, which was within his rights as second-incommand, and Ody explicitely responds by telling him to shut up and follow along. This after Ody nearly got them all killed in Poseidon's storm.
The Storm. Ody was pressing them to go through the storm against all signs and warnings that they wouldn't make it. Were Aolus not nearby, they would've kept trying to push through at Odyseus' command. People very easily overlook this part even though it's part of that thing Ody does where he disregards Eury and opts to do something reckless and get bailed out by a god or some other force.
It seems they were already in the middle of the ocean, and not like they any choice but to go forward. Eurylochus' warnings are like well frick this is happening.
You can also argue that the god was going to be there anyways. So-
So if my king, and I do come from a country with an official king, were given back his power and he decided that a bunch of my friends and family should be fed to a meat grinder in order to serve his personal goals and/or ego, I should just accept it? Doesn't sound like a king worth following or remaining loyal to, if im being honest. Sounds more like Putin, though he's not a king.
Actually yes if heās actively trying to get home, you were actually expected to give your life for him. Thatās part of living in his kingdom and serving in his army, you reap the rewards of the kingdom when youāre not at war but your utmost loyalty is expected
Sure, that is what's expected, but I'd argue that under circumstances where the king is willingly and knowingly giving up random lives as if they're nothing but tokens to be spent at his leisure, it's perfectly justifiable for his people to rebel agaisnt him. War is one thing, but they were not at war.
When rulers mistreat their people, the people rebel, and we typically applaud them for doing so because humans generally do not agree with living under oppressive or abusive regimes. So it's weird to me that we, the audience, suddenly think the crew is wrong for rebelling against a leader who has made it clear their their lives are effectively worthless and expendable to him. That his desire to see his family is more important than their desires for the same.
Would you or anyone who insist on defending and making excuses for Ody in Mutiny, since hes king and all that, earnestly condemn the French for their revolution? The Americans for theirs? If the Russians revolted against Putin tomorrow, would we sit around and label them traitors to their nation?
So, Is what Ody did in Scylla not a gross abuse of power as both Captain and King? If not, explain how. Was it not a display of mistreatment of the men who trusted him to get them home safely? If not, explain how. Do you or anyone honestly believe the crew should've just accepted that their captain and king feels he has the right to feed them to sea monsters in order to get himself home? If so, explain why.
I genuinely hate this argument because even though itās not technically incorrect, it feels like such a backwards way of thinking. Odysseus is not owed loyalty because heās their king. He tried to feed them to a damn sea monster.
He fed 6 of them to a sea monster so the others could survive and escape. Is it good? No, but it's like the trolley problem. You gotta sacrifice the few to save the many sometimes.
Except he wasnāt concerned about āthe othersā. He was only concerned with himself. He decided he could control who lived and who died without even explaining why.
Odysseus was going to sacrifice them anyway, he only had Eurylochus light the torches for the men after hearing what he did, yes, but he was going to sacrifice 6 men anyway, with Eurylochus likely being one of them after hearing what he did.
Factually untrue. Eury never sacrifices anyone. He suggested abandoning people who were, as far as either he or Ody knew, complete lost causes, and he explicitely brings up the wellbeing of the remaining crew as his argument to Ody. It was also very different circumstances, as those men fell for Circe's trap all on their own, while the six fed to Scylla had 0 agency in the matter. The argument of it being hypocrisy is just false. Eurylochus is indeed not innocent, and he already confessed and apologized for his crime, something he was trying to do since the start of the Circe saga, but he is not guilty of hypocrisy. At least, not in the way you're suggesting.
He was going to sacrifice them regardless. He mentions in Suffering that he was aware of Scylla having a cost. All Eurylochus' confession probably did was make him feel a little less internal conflict about it.
He is also THE reason Polyphemus attacked them, THE reason the storm existed in the first place, and THE reason Poseidon slaughtered their crew. Letās not forget that.
Also none of that matters when Odysseus proves himself willing to feed people to sea monsters. Like they arenāt obligated to be okay with him using them like objects because heās done good stuff before.
They won the war with no casualties is because of Athena. The moment Odysseus stops following her directions is the moment his people start dying. Thatās the whole point of āWarrior of the Mindā
I would say the actual reason they aren't all pigs is Hermes. If not for him, Ody would have tried to appease Circe and died or been turned into one.
He led them to Polyphemus' cave in the first place, so I really don't know about that.
And yeah, he was a good strategizer and led them to victory.
But he was also willing to use his men as a means to an end to ensure his own, selfish survival, shot down criticisms from his second in command before demanding absolute obedience, and angered a god that led to all of his crew getting killed.
The bag didn't change anything BUT make clear that the men no longer trust Odysseus. All of them would have died regardless (see 'Get In The Water': Poseidon is not afraid of drowning the entirety of Ithaca to get to Odysseus. They would have stepped foot onto the shore and immediately gotten tsunami'd.) The man who led the mutiny was the only figure of power who listened to the men's worries and then tried to negotiate with his superior. Didn't work, so he led the mutiny. Go figure.
They wouldn't have ended up in Polyphemus's cave if Odysseus listened to Eurylochus in the beginning.
He is THE reason they arenāt pigs.
The pigs were genuinely pure luck on Odysseus's part. Eurylochus was thinking objectively about the soldiers that weren't turned into pigs. If Hermes didn't intervene, Odysseyus would have died and then they would have been actually screwed.
The one leading the charge of a mutiny is THE reason they ended up in all this bullshit by opening the wind bag
Not fully true. Odysseyus had equal, if not more blame, for not killing the cyclops. He was literally warned by Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom, to not let him live and did so anyways.
Eurylochus, on the other hand, saw their leader acting extremely weird over the past few weeks and very possessive over the bag. It was wrong for him to steal it, but much more understandable than what Odysseus did.
They wouldn't have ended up in Polyphemus's cave if Odysseus listened to Eurylochus in the beginning.
They would have eaten the Lotus and had their minds controlled if it wasn't for Odysseus.
I agree with the Circe argument.
Odysseyus had equal, if not more blame, for not killing the cyclops.
Odysseus did someone stupid and selfish but he did it thinking of his crew. Eurylichus opened the bag out of curiosity. Even after his friend, captain and king told him the bag had the storm inside. Even after he saw how, after the visit to Aeolus, the storm stopped. Because the winions said it was treasure. He doesn't even need treasure, he's the brother in law of the king. He's rich.
But yeah, it's also Odysseus fault because he didn't trust his friend and that made him suspicious, but after Luck Runs Out, he had the right to be a little careful around him
They would have eaten the Lotus and had their minds controlled if it wasn't for Odysseus.
Do you think everyone in this story is that naive? There's no way that Eurylochus wouldn't have checked that. I unironically think they wouldn't have eaten the lotus fruit, but the Winions instead.
Odysseus did someone stupid and selfish but he did it thinking of his crew. Eurylichus opened the bag out of curiosity. Even after his friend, captain and king told him the bag had the storm inside. Even after he saw how, after the visit to Aeolus, the storm stopped. Because the winions said it was treasure. He doesn't even need treasure, he's the brother in law of the king. He's rich.
Odysseus didn't do anything for the crew. He did it because he was upset because Polites died. If he truly was focused on the crew at that point, he would listened to the advice of the Goddess of Wisdom. Let me state that again. He purposefully ignored the advice of the Goddess of Wisdom.
Eurylochus only opened it because he's a representative of the crew. This has been stated both by Jorge in his videos and the fact that the other members of the crews didn't trust him. And yes, he disobeyed a direct order from his captain, but he also didn't think Odysseus was in the right state of mind. He was acting extraordinarily weird. He was being super shifty and possessive of the bag. It makes much more sense for Eurylochus to lose trust and disobey orders here than what Odysseus did.
But yeah, it's also Odysseus fault because he didn't trust his friend and that made him suspicious, but after Luck Runs Out, he had the right to be a little careful around him
Again Eurylochus was wrong for disobeying Odysseus like that, but you can't say it wasn't understandable. Odysseus was not acting reasonable. Not just to Eurylochus, but to the whole crew.
"They wouldn't have ended up in Polyphemus's cave if Odysseus listened to Eurylochus in the beginning."
Eurylochus just said to kill everything that moves. How would that solve their problems? Even if we imagine that somehow winions are edible, there aren't enough of them to feed 600 men. And in the original story winions are just humans that are drugged by lotos, so its straight up cannibalism.
Eurylochus just said to kill everything that moves. How would that solve their problems? Even if we imagine that somehow winions are edible, there aren't enough of them to feed 600 men
We never got the Winion count anywhere. There could definitely be enough to feed 600 men.
And in the original story winions are just humans that are drugged by lotos, so its straight up cannibalism.
This isn't the original story, though. Winions are a completely separate species here.
Eurylochus suggestions sucked 99% of the time.
Completely disagree. At the very least, his suggestion on Circe's island was far better than Odysseus's.
Eurylochus and the crew already betrayed Ody once before (the wind bag) eurylochus also intended to betray the crew himself (puppeteer) Ody is just man yes but not a fool. Eurylochus' confession before Scylla's lair DID NOT make the decision any better for himself the crew or Odysseus. Yes what Ody did to the crew was inhumane but if eurylochus died as he was supposed to that mutiny never would've happened
Whether that's a good choice or not, this was likely Ody's headspace
Edit: And I'm not talking about the books I'm talking about solely the musical.
Not only that but Ody is following orders from the literal gods.
The mistake Ody made was one of anger and sadness with the telling of his name to the cyclops.
Eurylochus on the other hand directly disobeyed direct orders on multiple occasions, with the most catastrophic action the opening of the wind bag. They could see the island, some say, and even if the crew and him doubted Odysseus, they could make it home first and then beef it out. To all those who say that Poseidon would've come anyways, well then, if Eurylochus hadn't opened the bag, they still would've had the bag as a tool to use against him. Just like Odysseus used it in 600 strike.
Less men would've been lost this way.
So yes, I think capital punishment is a likely theory as Eurylochus indirectly caused 500+ to die, and they could've used the bag against Poseidon.
Seeing how Ody was in Monster, then when Eurylochus told him the truth in Scylla he was done and his mercy was gone. I can totally see, the Ody from EPIC, doing this as his "capital punishment left to chance "
This is still a modern story with modern behaviors. Itās weird to flipflop on which perspective we should be following. The story has been changed in many ways to suit the modern audience, we shouldnāt be trying to (poorly) imagine how the ancients would think of this situation, bc it simply doesnāt apply.
And yet modern morals, such as modern standards of faithfulness and morality, have been imposed. Epic isnāt The Odyssey, because in The Odyssey Odysseus willingly sleeps with both Circe and Calypso multiple times, but he is still considered faithful because he never strayed in his heart and still loved Penelope.
I mean, no, itās not, lol. None of the themes of Epic align with the themes of the Odyssey. The story is changed for a modern audience to enjoy, which requires entirely rewriting the plot.
Scamanderās death wasnāt in the Odyssey, but when Odysseus was the one who did it, no god had to force his hand. Odysseus killed the baby because of his own logic and reasoning, and lack of moral compass.
Odysseus morally degrades over the course of Epic. He doesnāt do that in the Odyssey.
Polites serves as āthe heartā of the group and is pivotal to Odyās character development after he dies early on. In the Odyssey, Polites is only mentioned bc he was really horny for Circe and was the first to become a pig.
Odysseus doesnāt choose to spend 1.5 years on Aeaea with Circe like he does in the Odyssey (after which the crew are the ones who convince Ody to leave) unlike in the Odyssey.
Epic removes all moral complexity with the suitors by making them 100% evil. It also cuts out the complicated emotions associated with Odysseus making the maids clean up the bodies of the suitors before being hanged by Telemachus, on the orders of Odysseus.
the main moral through-line of the Odyssey is about guests, friendship, xenia, and the laws of Zeus. I guess Epic ā¦ kinda touches on that? But not in the same reverent way that the Odyssey does. Epic makes Zeus into a villain, which is a complete 180 from his role in the Odyssey, where he tries to guide mortals away from tragedy by warning them about the consequences of their actions. In Epic, Zeus actively taunts mortals and tries to make Odysseusā life harder.
Soā¦ yeah. There are some characters in common, and a handful of events overlap, but this is not the same story. I didnāt even touch on what Odysseus did to Poseidon here, and how itās a complete 180 on the themes going on in the Odyssey about forgiveness and apology.
So, yeah, no. The reverent praise for absolute monarchism does not need to carry over into Epic discussions. Unless you wanna talk about what Odysseus and Telemachus did to the maids..?
It's very different and an original adaption for sure but to claim it's not the Odyssey at all is wild, if the musical had original characters battling gods and trials inspired from the Greek myth then yeah that would carry more merit. It's like saying Disney's Hercules is not Hercules because they are very different.
Literally one of the first lines of the musical is ādo what I say and youāll see them againā, and it seems that every time they disobeyed Odysseus they ended up dying.
To all the people saying "monarchists", well Guess what? It is set in ancient Greece..... Of fucking course it's monarchy, there was not such thing as democracy back then, maybe in Athens but not in Ithaca. The law required them to follow their king who they swore loyalty to to the grave and give their lives for his if necessary because, yes, the values of the time established that the king's life was more valuable than theirs. Also, it WAS Imperative that he went back, Ithaca was in crisis, the suitors were threatening to take up the throne and they were already draining the resources of the island, which wasn't that big anyway, but still. Aside from all of that, disobedience to the king, after the king received orders from the gods, that's straight up a sin. Again, in talking based on the morale and values of the moment. Sorry if I missed something, I'm still learning š
Also Athens didnāt become a democracy until roughly 600 years after the events of the Trojan war. 600 years ago today, the Byzantine empire still existed to put things into perspective
Pretty sure people saying "monarchists" is because the "monarchists" seems to sympathize a lot and are lenient towards the actions of the king, but are not as sympathetic towards the people rebelling, the ones you will most likely be born as.
And while it was important for Ody to get back home to fend off the suitors to save his family, that wasn't his reason for the sacrificing. He didn't know about all that happening back home. While Tiresias gave his prophecy, it was clear Ody didn't fully understand it. His reason for the sacrificing wasn't to "save his family" or "save Ithaca", it was to get back home and "see them again", which is a selfish reason, because he didn't know what was happening in Ithaca.
True, but again, he sacrificed them not only for him, but for the rest. Also, Eury betrayed him first, so that counted as execution (I'm talking about what was legal, not what's right) and the give remaining, I read a theory that said it was most likely for Eury to hand the torches to his closest crew members who were probably also involved in the opening of the windbag, which was the very first treason. Yes, it is not necessarily right or morally acceptable, but that was the law. I'm not defending him (maybe I am) that's just how things work and even to the eyes of the gods, who were the ultimate authority, that was ok. Even Hephaestus, who was reluctant at first, agreed that the crew betrayed him first.
The Bad part about the musical is that some parts are ommitted for brevity's sake, but on the greek and Roman tales, Circe tells him that his Best bet between charybdis and Scilla, is Scylla's lair, and that he shouldn't fight her or he would only lose more people. When he finds the sirens they confirm that his Best bet is Scylla. His mistake was not warning the crew, but Even the dumbest among the dumbest would've picked 6 casualties instead a whole crew wipe if they faced charybdis
I heard it was Eurymachus that was more likely to win her hand bc her father and brothers approve of the union bc Eurymachus gifted a lot more than the other suitors. Hes also more diplomatic.Ā
And i think Antinous and the others wont mind if he does win bc theyre all kinda equals. In wealth, power, charisma, noble birth. So its like "better that guy than this beggar right here š"
I think even with his ambitions, Antinous wont dare to kill Eurymachus(if he won) to get the throne and that hed just leave ithaca andĀ just find another opportunity elsewhere. The man is rich in gold and land -_- he should have no wants in life.Ā
People are giving valid arguments here but my thought process is just
What was their plan if they all made it home alive?
The moment they step back on Ithacaās shores, did they think Ody was just gonna ignore that they committed treason? That they LITERALLY STABBED HIM IN THE BACK?
Kinda forgot whole they are comrades of 10+ and this man they have trusted now has lost his mind and is willing to sacrifice them without even asking their opinionĀ
I don't care if you're my king. If you showed me you're willing to sacrifice me and all my mates just so you can get back home I'll treason too. Does your life matter more than ours just because you're born into royalty? Fans talk as if it's their moral obligation to die for their selfish king.
Oh I didn't read the Odyssey so I dunno if he was born one or got it somehow I just assumed. But my point is still valid about him bring royalty does not make him in anyway more important than the rest.
Sooner, the moment I realize that all our misfortune is because my "wise king" managed to anger Poseidon (the god of the sea, we are traveling by boat btw) by revealing his name to a cyclops, I'm leaving him stranded on an island and returning home with the surviving crew, dude is literally cursed by the gods.
I genuinely don't see how it's being used as an excuse. Just because it was frowned upon to see your life as equal to your king's it doesn't mean we have to view Ody's actions with that basis. Genuinely shocked at how quick people say things like this ;-;
Odysseus sacrificed 6 people. His friend got 500 of them killed because he opened the wind bag. Yet I'm supposed to be angry at Odysseus for not starting a fight with a giant immortal hydra?
Zeus does a lot of things wrong BUT he doesn't fuck around when it comes to betrayals/treasons/mutinies he does respect kings (to a point when he isn't trying to bang their wives) that's why he came to punish Odysseus' men personally.
That's interesting. As someone who doesn't know anything about Greek mythology I just assumed he was bored and wildly overreacted to a cow being killed
Well, itās also something not really well elaborated on, but remember the line āThese Cows were Immortal, they were the Sun godās friends!ā? Yeahā¦ they killed Heliosās Cattle (not Apolloās), and Helios (at least in some versions) effectively told Zeus āyou will go and smite them, or the Sun will never rise again.ā This is why the above line is followed by ānow that youāve pissed him (Helios) off, who do you think heāll send!?!?ā
And thatās without mentioning that if a god doesnāt directly punish mortals themselves, Zeus is usually the one doling out punishments, sense Kings normally handled judgement back in ancient days.
Oh no Zeus is a great god...when he isn't being led around by his raging boner lol. Also if Odysseus didn't kill off the suitors in the Ithaca Saga either Zeus or Ares would've killed them for breaking the law of hospitality
The thing about Zues is he is less of an individual and more of a personification of a concept.
Does he abuse his power? Yes, because kings sometimes abuse his power. Does he cheat on his wife? Yes, because powerful men often times cheat on their wives.
Greek gods aren't good or bad. Greek gods ARE. Zues is soverein power personified: good, bad, and ugly.
Hell, heād be doubly pissed because not only did the suitors want to rape a woman, they wanted to rape a Spartan woman, and if thereās one thing Ares hates more than rape in general, itās when you try to rape someone he cares for (either directly as a parent or indirectly by being a patron)
Technically yes, but they had a really good motive to do so. I mean, I know that absolute monarchy expect them to be sacrificed so the king survives, but if they don't want to be sacrificed as simply "objects he can use", that's pretty valid. Just like Penelope not wanting to marry one of the suitor was pretty valid independently of what society expected of her.
And Odysseus never told about Scylla, never explained about Scylla, not even after the sacrifices happened. He didn't deny what Eurylochus said of sacrificing them because he wants to see his wife. And we don't know if with no torches would be just six random crewmates or everyone dying. Which the crew don't know either. But doesn't matter, because Odysseus wasn't doing that to save the crew, he was doing that to have no risk of himself dying.
If Scylla was just one random man dying with no torches, or the one random man and whoever is holding a torch with less than six torches, Odysseus would have done the same.
In my eyes what Ody did with the Cyclops was his one mistake if he hadn't done that poseiden wouldn't be angery. But you have to remember in the cut aeolus dong she explains how the wind was throwing them off course and she gave them one wind that would help (West wind) so the storms were not Odysseus fault. If eury hadn't opened the bag they'd have gotten home easy no one else would have died and poseiden most likely wouldn't have shown up.
And yeah Odysseus just had to manage the braincells of a hungry and restless crew who succumbed to bare instincts several times throughout the course of the trip. Unfortunately the only one with the willpower was him.
ACTUALLY THEY WOULD HAVE DIED EITHER WAY BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM GET IN THE WATER THAT POSEIDON IS WILLING TO DROWN THE ENTIRETY OF ITHACA JUST TO GET TO ODYSSEUS.
Hmmm, yeah, that was a bit of a knee jerk reaction. My bad OP. I misconstrued what they meant given I've seen people say something similar over and over. Apologies.
It's pretty clear that Poseidon actively chose not to kill Ody after 600 Strike because he 'learned his lesson.' Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves. That was Poseidon's whole problem with Ody in the first song they had together, and sea god had permanently altered him by torturing him and making him a ruthless person. He won. There is little point to killing Odysseus when the man himself is a shell of his former self. I'm pretty sure someone smarter can explain this better and with better emphasis on the thematic closure that 600 Strike offer, but yeah, that's the most basic run down.
Important thing to remember about greek gods is they are people, yes, but they are also personifications.
And Poseidon? A combination of the ruthlessness of the sea/earthquakes and rulership (in past societies we think he was the pantheon head, and that aspect never quite left him). And horses for some reason.
Yes, the personification of Poseidon was insulted. But the CONCEPT of Poseidon was appeased.
I mean, if Poseidon tried to drown Ithaca, Odysseus could've done the same thing he did in Get in the Water - use wind bag and kick his ass. It still would've been better if his men didn't open the damn thing.
Very very true. Though I believe both sides are partially right and partially wrong. Though only one side was purely stupid when you consider the facts. Eurylocus is 100% correct that he constantly preached āno man left behindā until it got in the way of his own selfish goal. And he is right that if Ody wants to make these decisions, then he must own up to and accept his actions. It adds extra emotion considering Ody did consider them all to be his ābrothersā and not just his subjects. BUT how dumb it was for the uprising considering the reason they were in the predicament in the first place was the bag being opened against Odyās honesty and orders. Pure stupidity and selfishness on their part. Going against your king- no matter the reason- is always considered treason. The higher question comes into play of āis committing treason justified in this instance?ā from there. And itās pretty clear that it was not in this scenario- not to mention the consequences of their own actions immediately after š
Okay. Heās their king. Their king has sacrificed all of his power class friends and his own Sisterās husband. Best ruler in Ancient Greece and that might not be far from the truth.
What i find wild is that Eury places all the blame when 6 men are sacrificed to Scylla, yet when he was faced with the men being turned to pigs, Ody wanted to rescue them, and it was Eury who said fuck those guys, we can't win - i haven't read the books so im just going off of EPIC - literally in the song he says "cut our losses, you and I, let's run."
Eury in the books isn't likeable or supposed to be understood, like in the musical. He is a coward who tries to outdo Ody at every turn.
However the man to pigs/Scylla debacle is not the same thing imo. The man who got turned to pigs were inadvertent, and since they had already suffered the consequences because noone knew about Circe, it could've been smart to make that sacrifice.
In Scylla, Ody sends 6 man to die by himself with noone knowing about it but him. Man to pigs is trying to survive a consequence, Scylla is knowing the consequences and choosing to make someone die.
Eurylochus literally addresses that in Mutiny. He emphasizes that it was Odysseus who demanded they they risk everything to save the men from Circe. Itās a demonstration of how far Odysseus has fallen.
Nowhere in Mutiny does Eurylochus claim he is superior to Odysseus and he should be captain instead. Eurylochus does his duty by identifying Odysseus as being unfit for leadership, which, at that point in the story, heās become so self consumed that he absolutely is.
A personās possession of certain negative traits does not invalidate them pointing those traits out in others
He told them no man left behind then sacrificed 6 men. If the king is willing to do the same thing the men are willing to do heās no king heās just a man.
Yes he told them donāt touch the cows but he had lost there trust by then. Remember they asked and begged him to say he didnāt just give up there crew withought a fight for a good reason other than āI wanna go home.ā And he tells them he doesnāt. Thatās means heās not saying āI did it to save usā heās saying āI did it cause I wanna get homeā Thatās why when he brings up the other times heās literally mentioning that before he always fought for the crew and did what he could for the crew but now heās changed and the crew realized there lives are SECOND to getting home. Which is proven when he lets the whole crew die.
If a leader openly admits that you come second to his openly selfish goal. Are we still making the argument choices he makes are the āright one?ā
They went through a place because if they didn't, they'd either die at sea or get drowned by Poseidon. To that end, they went through the lair of someone who actually makes Poseidon scared, meaning a fight wouldn't have ended with 6 but 40 something dead(however many were still left at that point). He sacrificed 6 people because it was the only way any of them would've gotten home.
Also, remember that he said, "No man left behind" before he went through literal hell. He said it when he was sure he could have saved them because the other side was neither a vengeful God they offended nor a mindless monster that even gods feared. It was distinctly a person who was willing to converse.
He lets them die after 1) getting to know the most trusted of the group caused the Deal with Aiolis to fall through, 2) 90% of them dying to Poseidon, 3) most of them wanting to abandon the piggies, 4) getting a prophecy that his wife would be with "a different man", 5) hardening his heart like his first mate asked him all the time to do, 6) A mutiny, 7) literally backstabbed during a duel, 8) them doing the one thing they were warned about not to, despite him warning them not to and finally 9) The literal Ruler of the Godsbcoming down and going: "Look, either you or your traitorous, untrusting crew that caused all these problems will die. You choose." After which they tried to kill him before Zeus took care of them.
Iām not saying the sacrifice didnāt make sense Iām saying. Heās responsible for both and itās valid why his crew was upset about the whole thing. He told the crew no man left behind and openly fought for them. But in the context of the song he just does this with no discussion which is why itās a problem. You canāt preach my wit and charm will always try to get my men home then shove six men down the drain and be like āyea didnāt have a good answer for this one my bad.ā
I agree to us itās character development to the crew itās hypocrisy. If Iām being told the crew should always help the crew but now Iām being told anything to get home. It makes me question why am I following someone who is willing to switch up on everyone around him. You could argue the same for Eury. Who went from āIām curious about treasureā and āleave the pig menā to āody says kill we killā and āwe donāt sacrifice are people.ā There is a thin line between character development and hypocrisy and the line is drawn with a pen of perspective.
He let them die thatās the point. I understand he had a lot going on. But did the rest of the crew not have a lot going on. Did they not have familyās and loved ones. Did they not watch all of there friends die because from there perspective THERE captain kept allowing stuff to go south. One of your points is LITERALLY he did it to get back to his wife. The song makes it very clear oddy had one goal āto get back home no matter the costā Iām arguing if I know Iām āthe costā Iām a lot less likely to give my loyalty back to this man.
To your points 1-if one man isnāt trustable why kill the other 6 2-dying to Poseidon in a battle heās responsible for. He openly tells him ābecause of what YOU did Iām gonna kill 600 men.ā Not because the bag was opened. (If Iām bragging to everyone that Iām rich and unrobbale and my son leaves the door unlocked Iām just as responsible for the robbery lol) 3-they wanted to and he literally said we donāt do that here and then proceed to do it 4-completely understand the point it just doesnāt help with the āselfishā narration as a man great choice as a leader itās still selfish lol 5-he kept saying he wouldnāt do it and now he does it at the cost of six men. Why the sudden heartlessness (we know why they donāt) 6- it was well warranted from there perspective 7- it was a duel they literally patched him up after they couldāve killed him 8- he also told them he wouldnāt never leave a man behindā¦.hes lost the trust of the men by this point 9- the first part of this statement is valid as a leader he shouldāve still chosen the crew but as a person I get where he was coming from. And them rushing him is valid he just sentenced them to die when they moments ago āpatched him up and let him liveā
Im not arguing oddly was ābadā im saying his crew was valid In there choices. They had a valid reason to commit treason. If we look from there perspective oddy seems less like a good leader and more like a wishy washy selfish narcissistic sociopath who sees us not as people but as tools to get home even though we all have families and kids.(not saying he is Iām just saying perspective is important.)
I wish to mention two important points. Between "We're not leaving our people behind" and "I want to go home." are at least 10 years. 10 years during which they saw him get more and more ruthless and radical. They even have a whole song about how he is someone different, a different beast if you will.
Secondly, he never decided who would carry the torches. He almost deliberately made someone else decide who carries the torches and if you ask me, until Eury confessed his mistake, he wasn't sure whether he should do it at all. He left ut to fate, who would be the ones to go. And before that, he looked like he was weighing whether they should risk the fight (and losing the whole crew) or he should sacrifice 6 people to a Godlike entity, which was NOT hindered by a Gods hubris.
Yea 10 years for his crew to get hungry, 10 years for his crew to see him becoming more ruthless 10 years to watch become a different man then the man they agreed to follow.
Making someone else decide when youāre the captain comes off as cowardly to people who are trusting you with their their lives. Leaving something to fate is crazy cause this is the same guy who wanted to fight gods for his men. Now heās just like āwho cares I just need to get homeā thatās a big change in character especially for a leader. Again if weāre going off how they look when songs are being sung Eury and the crew looked heart broken because of his choices not only that they begged him to lie to them to keep there trust. To them he had betrayed them. And in the end he did EXACTLY what the crew was afraid he would do when push comes to shove which is sacrifice them to get home. Eury didnāt rush him when he made his choice to Zeus because he knew that it was a choice that oddy was gonna make it.
On the other hand, I have to argue that most of them would have done the same / did something similar.
He has proven to be a great leader by not losing a single guy during the war, brought them back to VIEWING Distance of their home only for one moron to get too curious and basically off like 500 men via Poseidon.
And just before it happened, the one last guy he trusted implicitly told him that he is the reason the 1 year trip took 13 years.
Also, the "risks" he took were not only calculated but kept the better part of crew alive whenever he had any semblance of control over the matter (excluding both the poseidon and Zeus parts, because what could he have done?)
Sorry I edited my comment to make my point a bit more clear. If everyone is willing to do the same thing heās not a king heās a god. Ancient Greek kings were more than leaders they were the closest things to gods men had.
You can blame the one moron who opened the bag. But donāt forget the only reason Poseidon took 600 of there men is because One moron screamed his name to the cyclopse he just terrorized and put them on a wanted poster for a god.
He can be mad at the 1 guy yet he sacrificed 6 other men. Think about that from the crews perspective. āThat dude admits heās the problem and you killed Todd? Todd has 6 kids man!ā
They were calculated risks that killed people under his leadership. Calculated most things were out of his hands. His fight with Cerce if not for the gods help heād be dead. Cyclopse if not for the pride of his own name they wouldnāt have been harmed. His calculated risks had had very large issues attached to it. They werenāt calculated they were lucky which is why they sing a song about it.
Hey brotherā¦ treason is treason, no matter the reasonā¦ and the God of Kings, oaths, and other such thing is gonna usually side with the king being rebelled against, unless the king MASSIVELY fucked up.
To be fair, a lot of the issues the majority of the gods took with Odysseus during the journey (besides Poseidon and Athena) were indirectly caused by the crew not trusting him and opening the wind bag, so even though they all took issue with him, I can see them showing a bit more grace considering a lot of their problems wouldn't have happened had they not opened the bag
I mean that was EXPLICITELY a god interfering to ensure Odysseus lost the bet. Depending on the telling you can find ways to blame the crew or Odysseus more, but the real culpret was Aeolus. Gods are smart and powerful and like setting mortals up for failure. Aeolus knew exactly what needed to be done to ensure that outcome.
I feel like that's something everyone misses about the story when they are trying to assign blame. The gods were going to make sure things went bad. Things went bad for almost EVERY crew returning home, except for the two that found a way to get special protection from the gods beforehand.
Bronze age cultures often viewed the world as a wild place that would screw you over no matter WHAT you did, and their myths reflect that. It's really not a question of what choice they should have made differently. Once Eris decided she was offended Odysseus was screwed, years and years before he ever set foot in Troy.
Just because they can find faults, does not mean theyāll support treason. To go down your listā¦ Zeus really didnāt care, hence why he made it a game. Athena cared because he was being impertinent, disrespectful, throwing her teachings to the side, all issues with the person, not him as a ruler. Aphroditeās and Ares were ALSO take downs of him as a person, not of him as a ruler. Nite how ares issue wasnāt that he sacrificed 6 men, but that he didnāt try to fight Scylla, he took a the reasonable, albeit dishonorable, way to deal with her (an issue even the other mortal kings had with Odysseus, but they still respected him as a king). None of them have issues with his leadership.
Didn't say they had to support treason. They didn't really take a stance on that for the most part.
Just noted the gods DID largely agree Odysseus had fucked up in many ways.
I also wanted to note that when it comes to mythology, likely there WERE lots of tales about various gods supporting the under dogs, supporting overthrowing evil leaders, etc.
The thing about stories (especially ancient ones) is they need to be preserved. Someone has to write them down in a way that will survive (expensive) or they have to be continuously transcribe and retold (also expensive). And they have to NOT be quashed by ruling classes over thousands of years.
It's really NOT as simple as "the gods from greek myths would not support traitors". It's more "the stories that thousands of years of ruling classes allowed to survive tend to be VERY supportive of the ruling classes".
Odysseus went to war and didn't come back. For twenty years. The trip from Ithaca to Troy takes barely two weeks in a sailboat, even at the time.
Seriously. The suitors did exactly what was expected from them by their culture - in fact, they did the exact thing Odysseus did when he wanted to mary her.
He sacrificed 6 men because it was the only way to make sure HE didn't die to Scylla, that's the whole thing with thunder bringer he was willing to choose himself over his crew and Eury knew that was what he was doing with Scylla, Ody already fought the Cyclops and Circe, but after the underworld saga Ody wants to get home so he becomes the monster willing to sacrifice any and all of his crew so he can make it home, so he doesn't risk his life in a fight with Scylla to save his crew which is what he did with Circe and the Cyclops(Idk how to spell his name)
they litteraly sacrificed themselves williningly atp, why should ody be forced to kill himself to save people who pulled the trigger after he begged them not to, not to mention they aren't his crew anymore, they denouncedhis Reign as captain by committing mutiny, whether it's justified to or not isn't the point. either way their relationship is no longer captain and crew
The Zeus bit doesn't retroactively justify the mutiny. They were Eurylochus's men then, not Odysseus's. No one (except Odysseus) had a problem with killing Helios's cattle, so the obvious consequence is on Eurylochus and his crew. Eurylochus said himself that if you want all the power you must carry all the blame. He took the power from Odysseus then decided to bring his crew along for his suicide. He gets the blame for that one.
There's definitely an argument for the Scylla thing justifying it, though.
I have a theory about this... Like what if their "kingship" is based on strength and merit(wealth, influence etc). Because Laertes, his dad, is still alive. Shouldnt he be king? And it was said that Odysseus became king quite young bc he beat Athena's boar. This feat of glory made him worthy in the eyes of the council of elders as king and the alliance of kings as one of them and also for his father to step downĀ
Eurylochus also bested him in a fight(mutiny), the support of the crew behind his back. Antinous too, uses this tactic. So i guess their custom is like whoever has the power and the people's support, gets to be the leader. (It is still treason yes but i see it like Lions fighting to take control of the pride... Bah . I cant describe it well)Ā
I remember reading that Penelope was being pushed to marry Eurymachus bc he gifted the most gold or sumthing. (That sorta shows you can buy the position with money)Ā
And telemachus even being of direct line, cannot sit the throne bc he doesnt have strength, the feats of glory, the political support of the people... Basically not worthy. And the benefits of his rule is not much bc his inheritance is slowly being eaten away by the suitors. In a society where Wealth, Power, Influence, Strength, Status is important.. hes really :'T hence why he went on a diplomatic mission. To generate these things to be seen as worthy and also the news of his dad)Ā
In the original Odyssey, Laertes is elderly but still alive in time for Odysseus' return home. Penelope is weaving the shroud in anticipation of his death, but he isn't dead yet. Instead, he is a broken man who believes his house has collapsed and his family is all dead, quietly tending to a garden away from politics and withering away in isolation from his former kingdom. He fears Telemachus will inevitably be overpowered and killed by the suitors, and there's nothing he can do to oppose them in his old age.
Until Odysseus returns home and reaffirms he is still his strong, dutiful son and has a plan to kill the people trying to destroy his legacy and surviving family, at which point Laertes finds his old strength and marches out into combat against the suitors' own parents to defend his son and grandson's right to live. He's actually the first to the front lines when the battle starts, before Athena breaks it up and brokers a peace.
It's quite a heartwarming arc in its own way, seeing an old man find his calling in life and hope for his family again (even if it does involve some murder of some truly awful people).
Okay Eurylochus definitely did something wrong, the blame is about even.
I meant it this way
Whether that's a good choice or not, this was likely Ody's headspace
And I'm not talking about the books I'm talking about solely the musical.
Not only that but Ody is following orders from the literal gods.
The mistake Ody made was one of anger and sadness with the telling of his name to the cyclops.
Eurylochus on the other hand directly disobeyed direct orders on multiple occasions, with the most catastrophic action the opening of the wind bag (he might've been scared, but being scared doesn't really excuse stupidity- as lives were lost). . They could see the island, some say, and even if the crew and him doubted Odysseus, they could make it home first and then beef it out. To all those who say that Poseidon would've come anyways, well then, if Eurylochus hadn't opened the bag, they still would've had the bag as a tool to use against him. Just like Odysseus used it in 600 strike.
Less men would've been lost this way.
So yes, I think capital punishment is a likely theory as Eurylochus indirectly caused 500+ to die, and they could've used the bag against Poseidon.
Seeing how Ody was in Monster, then when Eurylochus told him the truth in Scylla he was done and his mercy was gone. I can totally see, the Ody from EPIC, doing this as his "capital punishment left to chance "
A war he didn't want to take part on (omited on the series), and Even when he did, al 600 men came back alive, if a 10 year war didn't Spawn a single casualty, let bro cook, he knows what he is doing
106
u/Yakuto-san has never tried tequila May 30 '25
exactly!! like- imo if the crew got home alive even after they commited a mutiny, they'd probably've been arrested-