It is important the draw a difference here between a mere understanding of your enemy, and keeping them close. Its significance was well put by Abraham Lincoln when he said: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” To illustrate: even if Odysseus did not fully understand Penelope’s suitors, he could still have taken the time to associate with more them, to build trust, and perhaps find those he could turn into allies. Sadly, however, we almost never see this demonstrated by Odysseus. While he did spend some time as a beggar among the suitors, it was not nearly enough to have them ‘close’ as they should have been. Rather, The Master Mariner ends them before ever having a chance to know who might have been a useful …show more content…
It is intuitive, to most people at least, that forming a consensus is far preferable to giving orders, but Odysseus, nonetheless, almost always does the latter. When Eurylochos with serene and unthreatening manner tries to stop the rest of the crew from traveling to Circe’s house, we don’t see Odysseus using gentle persuasion nor even remaining calm. What is it he does instead? In The Wanderer’s own words: “I thought for a moment that I would draw my sword and cut of his head… But the others held me back and did their best of soften me.” (Rouse 121) Contrary to a well-disciplined leader, Odysseus needs his men to stop his wildness, and rather than reaching a compromise with Eurylochos, as a good leader would, The Son of Laertes lashes out with unjustified rage. What is this if not bad leadership exemplified? For said events, there is no need to compare Odysseus to some great leader because any ordinary human being works. Would any sane person, after all, lash out towards a subordinate for mere disagreement? No—they would