Gilgamesh And Oedipus Comparison

Words: 667
Pages: 3

The “epic of Gilgamesh” and “Oedipus the king” are two distinctive stories, both are mortal stories of great leaders who will be remembered for eternity. Gilgamesh and Oedipus both have the sense of pride as leaders in their age. Each one, in his own way, both are exceptionally brave, heroically tragic, and both show strengths and weaknesses. One is completely in charge of his own state and the other is strictly a victim of destiny. In my opinion, Gilgamesh wasn’t the best leader of them all; however, I don't think the epic was about him being a great leader, I think it was more about him learning to become one. On the other hand, Oedipus is a man swift in action and gifted with insight. From my point of view, there are vital qualities that should be enhanced in the effective leaders; two of which are to be mature and democratic.

Maturity is one of the essential
…show more content…
Democratic leadership is about sharing the decision making with people. According to the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh was a supreme ruler of the city. In fact, Gilgamesh’s tyranny is the driving plot force from the beginning of the epic; he demanded the privilege of sleeping with the brides before the husband was permitted and he also pushes his people into rebuilding Uruk’s walls. And then let the wall go unattended and decay. This shows an example of a bad leader with tyrannical behavior. In the opposite way, Oedipus had ruled Thebes for a long time. He led the country with success and prosperity because he was taught how to rule from childhood. He was taught how to be strong and authoritative which led his people to respect and admire him. In my opinion, Oedipus was democratic as he was close to his people. As a person, Oedipus may not be a perfect but as a leader, he does his job well. He cares about the land he rules and its inhabitants. Finally, democracy is the proper method to rule a country and gain respect as a