Achilles Vs Beowulf

Words: 467
Pages: 2

Although heros in both Greek and Anglo-Saxon literature have superhuman strength, they use this strength vastly different. Achilles uses his superhuman strength to gain the honor that “Zeus was supposed to grant” (Homer. The Iliad. 368.). On the other hand, Beowulf uses his strength to protect the people, thus giving himself honor. Another quality, besides strength, that both Achilles and Beowulf share, but is still different from each other, is that they both keep whole or part of their victims. Achilles keeps Hector’s body so that the “dogs and birds will eat every last scrap” (Beowulf. 393.) of his body. Beowulf keeps “the whole of Grendel’s shoulder and arm” (834-835.) to display as a trophy. This shows their character in a barbaric way. …show more content…
Although Beowulf and Launcelot share many similar characteristics, they have many qualities that display the progression from barbaric to honorable. As discussed earlier, Beowulf may have had honorable intentions with his displays of strength, but he was nevertheless, barbaric. On the other hand, Launcelot displays his heroism in an ethical fashion. After Launcelot has wounded Gawain he admits that he “ ‘will never strike a knight who has fallen. God defend me from such dishonor’ ”(Sir Thomas Malory. Le Morte d’Arthur. 148.). This proves that Launcelot only fought when he saw the need to, not when he could win. He could have easily killed Gawain and ended the battle, but, instead, he spared his life because it was the honorable thing to do. Sir Gawain realizes this as he is dying. With his final strength, he writes a letter to Sir Launcelot that informs him that he “ ‘is content to die at the hands of the noblest knight living’ ”(228-229.). This confirms that Sir Launcelot has shown the progression from the barbaric ways of Achilles and Beowulf, to the nobility that he shows his enemies. This nobility is what separates Launcelot from heroes in Greek and Anglo-Saxon literature. Until this point in time, heroes were innately barbaric in battle, however, Launcelot is innately noble in battle. One can infer that Launcelot would never think about dishonoring himself by resorting to the barbaric ways of the past because of his refusal to “ ‘strike a knight who has fallen’ ” (228.). This portrays Launcelot’s ethics as a fashion to be