Greek and Sumerian (Mesopotamian) cultures can demonstrate two completely different ideologies as they existed and thrived in two different time periods. However, because it existed in two different time periods, it does not mean that it cannot give the readers an idea of what they regarded their virtues at the highest standard. Whether it discusses the stories of great men, evil tyrannical lords, hypocritical gods, or the contradiction of how they viewed women, both stories discussed some of the most important aspects of what they viewed that made individuals great and in some ways, looked up too. For example, by analyzing the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad, the characteristics of both kings mentioned in the story defined what the people
…show more content…
Gilgamesh, if anything, can be defined as an example of what a ruler should be. Although he started the epic as an immature ruler, he did metamorphized to become an excellent ruler as he was able to realize and take pride of his own work to benefit his/her subjects. He did not feel compelled at the end of the epic to invade other lands to have his name spread out far and wide. However, Agamemnon did feel the necessity to be aggressive and can be classified as a spineless coward as he threw commands from the rear of the battle than leading his troops. At the end, his actions throughout the Iliad do not change for the benefit of his people unlike Gilgamesh who does become a better leader. When comparing Priam and Gilgamesh, Priam was not a horrible leader but neither was he the greatest unlike Gilgamesh. Priam’s compassion and actions allowed an entire civilization to be wiped out after losing the Greek-Trojan war unlike Gilgamesh who took pride of his outstanding achievement of building his wall to protect his citizens. Gilgamesh was also aggressive enough to protect his people and resolve the problem when needed, even if he was the cause of that destruction. With that being said; the people of Mesopotamia described a ruler who was fit to be king unlike the Greek people. That literature alone, proves and demonstrates why the Epic of Gilgamesh was able to survive and be the oldest piece of literature in the
Gilgamesh, if anything, can be defined as an example of what a ruler should be. Although he started the epic as an immature ruler, he did metamorphized to become an excellent ruler as he was able to realize and take pride of his own work to benefit his/her subjects. He did not feel compelled at the end of the epic to invade other lands to have his name spread out far and wide. However, Agamemnon did feel the necessity to be aggressive and can be classified as a spineless coward as he threw commands from the rear of the battle than leading his troops. At the end, his actions throughout the Iliad do not change for the benefit of his people unlike Gilgamesh who does become a better leader. When comparing Priam and Gilgamesh, Priam was not a horrible leader but neither was he the greatest unlike Gilgamesh. Priam’s compassion and actions allowed an entire civilization to be wiped out after losing the Greek-Trojan war unlike Gilgamesh who took pride of his outstanding achievement of building his wall to protect his citizens. Gilgamesh was also aggressive enough to protect his people and resolve the problem when needed, even if he was the cause of that destruction. With that being said; the people of Mesopotamia described a ruler who was fit to be king unlike the Greek people. That literature alone, proves and demonstrates why the Epic of Gilgamesh was able to survive and be the oldest piece of literature in the