# Reading > General Literature >  The Quest For The Greatest Hero Ever: Beginnings-476 AD

## Lord Macbeth

I love literature.
We all do.

And I love the heroes and heroines, tragic or triumphant.
We all do.

So here now is the quest, the quest for The Greatest Hero of All-Time.

The heroes will be set against each other by time period, and then the winner of each time period will go on to The Final Poll.

What makes "The Greatest Hero?" In order:

1. Influence on further literature/literary heroes
2A. If a triumphant hero, the actions he/she takes and his/her feats
2B. If a tragic hero, the qualities of the character, and the nature of the fall
3. Individual Taste

The time periods (this is rough, up for reshuffling):

-Antiquity: Beginnings to 476 AD (end of Rome, classic end to the Antiquity)
-Dark Ages: 477 to 1200 (Mostly lore and legends there)
-Medevial Times: 1201 to 1500 (Crusades to the cusp of the Renaissance)
-Renaissance: 1501 to 1700 (Italian Renaissance to Age of Kings)
-Jacobean: 1567 to 1625 (Reign of King James VI, includes Elizabethan Age)
-Enlightenment: 1625 to 1800 (From the first modern philosophers to 1800s)
-Romantic: 1750 to 1880 (From cusp of Enlightenment to 1880s Existentialism)
-Victorian: 1837 to 1901 (Reign of Queen Victoria, Golden age of Euro-Empires)
-Modern: 1901 to present (20th century and beyond)
Post-Modern: 1945 to present (Post-WWII, often nihilistic, existential, etc.)

So explainations about those time periods, and why they are arranged as such:

-Antiquity's pretty obvious...

-To lump everything from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance would likely leave out some great choices, and after the Crusades the nature of the Medevial Period changes, anyway, often there's a split between the "Dark Ages" and the "Higher Middle Ages," that's simply called the "Medevial Period" here for simplicity's sake.

-I made the Jacobean Period a specific time period of its own with the intention that the great theatrical works of that time--the works of Kyd, Dekker, Middleton, Moliere, Marlowe, Shakespeare, etc.--both not be overlooked and not force out other great characters from the Renaissance...characters from just Marlowe and Shakespeare alone could fill a "Hero" category, or even just all Marlovian or all Shakespearean heroes...but that'd leave out the other great figures of the Renaissance, and if THEY were focused on properly, some of Shakespeare's and Marlowe's best heroes might be left out, so we have the split with the understanding that Hamlet will stay on his side of the literary divide of Don Quixote stays on his

-The Enlightenment starts a bit earlier than it is generally placed, mostly so that there's no gap between it's more traditional start and the Renaisssance and Jacobean Periods...that'd lose a few decades otherwise, so it's a tad longer than usual, but not too bad...

-The Romantic Period is pretty self-evident, I think...

-Same with the Victorian Period, that's her reign, gives us both more room and a way of properly distinguishing between the great literary works of the 19th century--some are definitely more Romantic than Victorian, and vice versa--and takes us right up to the Modern Era, so I think that's a good distinction.

-Modernism at 1901 to present shouldn't cause too many waves, I think...

-Post-Modernism is always tricky to define and classify, and here it's no different...some sources would place it around the 1960s, and I've heard as early as the mid-19th cenutry...well, the latter seems far too early, and the former far too late and leaving out some of the best material, so I've given it the relatively-conservative timeframe of post-WWII to the present, and that allows for the likes of Samuel Beckett to give a good example of what I'd interpret as Post-Modernism.



Doubtless those distinctions will not please all, and so that's definitely open for discussion, but for now, let's start off with the ten nominees for the era that kicks us off and can generally be agreed upon time-wise.

One final caveat before we start--no religious heroes or texts, in my experience mixing the religious with the literary in these sorts of competitions is a bad idea, someone says "X wasn't that great of a hero, Y was far better," and someone gets offended by that, so let's just leave them be, plenty of great heroes besides them...heroes can be driven by religious fervor, of course, King Arthur and his Knights are driven by that to a great extent in some of their adventures, but let's keep the Bible/Torah/Koran figures out of this, eh?

The nominees for Greatest Hero of Antiquity:

-Gilgamesh, from _The Epic of Gilgamesh_ by The Sumerians: Ironically, arguably our oldest hero is also one of the most recently rediscovered...Gilgamesh dates back to the Sumerians and nearly five thousand years or so, a demigod, king of the city of Ur, he fights for glory and iommortality with his friend Ekidu the Wildman at his side.

-Achilles, from _The Iliad_ by Homer: The wrath and sheer might of Achilles is a focus of quite a bit of Homer's work, and so are his pride, arrogance, and ultimate fall from grace. Achilles and Hector face off in one of the most iconic one-on-one duels in all of literature, and walks away victorious in battle, but the loser in the eyes of many morally, as he desecrates his foe's body and goes on a rampage, eventually killed by Prince Paris by an arrow shot right at Achilles' heel (get it?)

-Oedipus, from "The Oedipus Cycle," and most prominently from _Oedipus Rex_, all of which is by Sophocles: He's abandoned as a baby, he's adopted, he solves a riddle, he becomes king, he kills his father, he marries and sleeps with his mother, he finds out, he gouges out his eyes, he dies. That's Oedipus' tragic tale in a nutshell...and what a tragic tale it is. Oedpius is established from the start as a relatively benevolent king, a man of the people, and so to see him fall and lose not only that great status but his good name, eyesight, and life is a saddening thing for the audience. One of the first great titans of literature, Oedipus' mark has carried through to modern day, as he's found a place in psychology--The Oedipus Complex--and continues to live on as the tragic King of Thebes.

-Antigone, from "The Oedipus Cycle," most prominently from _Antigone_: Antigone is a character so powerful for her time that some have gone so far as to proclaim her the first truly feminist character in history. That's up for debate, but what isn't is that she's one of the strongest female characters in Greek literature, with her efforts ranging from attempting to help her disgraced father Oedipus to attempting to go against the State and King Creon and bury her dead brother to a romance that's star-crossed enough to make Romeo, Juliet, Lancelot, Guinevere, Tristan, and Isolde all sit up and take notice.

-Odysseus, from _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_ by Homer: "Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story of that man skilled in all ways of contending, the wanderer, harried for years on end..." So begins one of the greatest works in world literature, and one of the most memorable character introductions of all time. Odysseus was a player on the Greek side of things in The Trojan War, and the Trojan Horse is partially attributed to him, but it's his exploits in the years that follow that have kept Odysseus immortal in literature: battling Polyphemus the Cyclops, tying himself to the mast of his ship to avoid falling prey to the Sirens' Song, his stay with the sorceress Circe, making it home to his kingdom of Ithica and defeating the hundreds of suitors that came to try and claim his ever-faithful wife Penelope for themselves...the stories themselves are legendary, and together they weave one of the most influential pieces in literary history, as nearly every character since who goes on a long journey may be said to be "embarking upon an odyssey," and all owe a bit of tribute to Odysseus and Homer.

-Hercules, from Greek Mythology: We know who he is. We know he's the son of Zeus, incredibly strong, generally has a good heart (unless driven insane by his stepmother in order to kill his wife) and that there was that fun-for-kids-but-nearly-completely-wrong Disney film about hiom in 1997.  :Wink:  Really, Hercules (or Heracles, if we want to use the Greek name) doesn't need much of an introduction--he slew the Nemean Lion and Hydra, he retrieved the Golden Apples, cleaned the Aegean Stables in one day--quite possibly the most, erm, "interesting" heroic feat of all-time--and so on. He's Hercules, the Greek Superman--or perhaps Superman is the American Hercules. Either way, you know him, and, really, for a character that needs no indroduction, he certainly got a long one--and one well-deserved.

-Aeneas, from _The Aeneid_ by Virgil: Only fair to give the Trojan side (and the Roman authors) a bit of representation here, with the great survivor, Aeneas. With the world around him...he survived, really, that's what may be attributed to Aeneas, most certainly--he's a survivor, someoen who just refuses to say die or quit and, from a literary point of view, he gives some good resolution as to what happened to the Trojans after the War and does show that in an era dominated by the Greek heroes, the Romans had their heroes and poets as well, as Virgil completes onf of the first--and perhaps the best--trilogies in history with a bang.

-Medea, from _Medea_ by Euripides: Medea appears here and there in many bits and pieces of Greek mythology, but it's her place in this play, as the "witch-wife" in this story that cracks the list. Jason and the Argonauts go a-questing for The Golden Fleece, and Medea helps...but in doing so commits a rather heinous action--dicing up the son of one of the pursuing kings and throwing the body parts into the ocean--that brings shame upon Jason forever. As a result, Jason neglects and allows her bad name to go on, ruining her life and her children's lives, moving them to Greece, where they're looked upon as barbarians. Medea does her children a favor, after so much wrong has occured and Jason has had an affair, by making sure they don't grow up in a poisoned household...by dicing THEM to pieces and gives as a "gift" to Jason's new wife-to-be a crown...that sets her body ablaze in a horrible, agonizing death. Medea is THE anti-hero of the Ancient World, and yet she does all of this after her good name is ruined, her life ruined, the prospects of her children's lives are ruined...an anti-hero, but a TRAGIC figure nonetheless.

-Electra, from "The Oresteia Trilogy" by Aeschylus, _Electra_ by Sophocles, and _Electra_ by Euripides: With arguably the three greatest playwrights in Ancient Greece telling her tale, it's pretty safe to say Electra's an electric character (get it?) and a pretty enduring one at that. With the murder of her father Agamenon and the apparent death of her brother Orestes, Electra seeks revenge against the apparent murderer, her own mother. With the King dead and the Princess vowing to avenge the death and usurpation of the throne (that sounds vaguely familiar...hmmm...) Electra sets out on her path, finds Orestes to be, in fact, alive, and the two join to slay their mother and avenge their father's foul and unnatural murder (wait...), but naturally this vengeance can't go unpunished. Oedipus has the Oedipus Complex and The Oedipus Cylce, and Electra has The Electra Complex and The Orestia Trilogy--not to mention one of the most enduring outings for a female hero in the ancient world.

-Other (Name and give a description)

So, go on and vote for your choice, and as soon as the winner is declared, the next Period's heroes will be voted upon (you can suggest some for for those outings as well, just below here.)

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Oh, neat, didn't notice that...

The poll will close Halloween Night, around 8:30pm Pacific Time...

For a lot of these figures, Halloween is all-too-appropriate!  :Wink:

----------


## Roptat Lenz

I elect Odysseus for the greatest hero of antiquity. He is by far the most prolific, and he is not only a very human character, but his quest is the epitome of the hero's journey. 

I would also like to suggest, for the Dark Age period, that you include Robin Longstride, also known as Robin of the Hood, or simply Robin Hood.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> I elect Odysseus for the greatest hero of antiquity. He is by far the most prolific, and he is not only a very human character, but his quest is the epitome of the hero's journey. 
> 
> I would also like to suggest, for the Dark Age period, that you include Robin Longstride, also known as Robin of the Hood, or simply Robin Hood.


*Use the poll...select him...from the poll...*

 :Tongue:

----------


## wessexgirl

Nice idea, but why would Medea be there? Apologies if you have said, but I am in a bit of a rush and didn't read the whole post. I can feel sympathy for her, but I don't see a child murderer as a heroine.

----------


## JBI

Genji is probably the greatest hero in my eyes. Certainly the most interesting.

----------


## mortalterror

I couldn't help but notice that all but one of your options are Ancient Greek. I'd like to nominate Marduk from the Enuma Elish:




> He constructed a bow, marked it as his weapon,
> Attached thereto the arrow, fixed its bow-cord.
> He raised the mace, made his right hand grasp it;
> Bow and quiver he hung at his side.
> In front of him he set the lightning,
> With a blazing flame he filled his body. (40)
> 
> He then made a net to enfold Tiamat therein.
> The four winds he stationed that nothing of her might escape,
> ...


Erra from the Epic of Erra, in this awesome passage he conscripts seven warriors to help him in battle:




> When Anu, the king of the gods, sowed his seed in the earth, She bore him seven gods, he called them the Seven. They stood before him, that he ordain their destinies, He summoned the first to give his instructions,
> 
> "Wherever you go and spread terror, have no equal."
> He said to the second, "Burn like fire, scorch like flame".
> He commanded the third, "Look like a lion, let him who sees you be paralyzed with fear".
> He said to the fourth, "Let a mountain collapse when you present your fierce arms".
> He said to the fifth, "Blast like the wind, scan the circumference of the earth".
> He said to the sixth. "Go out everywhere (like the deluge) and spare no one".
> The seventh he charged with viperous venom," Slay whatever lives".


Besides, I think you are making a mistake not including religious figures, since most of the literature of the time was religious. Case in point Samson from Judges:



> And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.
> 
> And he found a new jawbone of an ***, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
> 
> And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ***, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an *** have I slain a thousand men.
> 
> And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand, and called that place Ramathlehi.


Besides Samson there's David, Judith, Moses, and Jesus in the Bible. Then I've always thought of Socrates as a sort of hero too. From the Sanskrit of the time comes Rama, Krishna, and Arjuna. Also, you left out some pretty important Greeks: Theseus, Perseus, Jason, Prometheus. 

When you come to the medieval period be sure to include Roland, Cu Chulainn, Sigurd the Volsung, Odin, Aladdin, Rostam, Finn McCool, Beowulf, Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Lancelot.

From the Late Middle Ages to the Early Renaissance I'd like to suggest Sun Wukong the Monkey King, Genji, Zhuge Liang, and Song Jiang. 

In modern times, I'd like to nominate Batman and Superman.

----------


## Roptat Lenz

> *Use the poll...select him...from the poll...*


There was no poll when I posted that. Apologies.

----------


## B. Laumness

> The time periods (this is rough, up for reshuffling):
> 
> -Antiquity: Beginnings to 476 AD (end of Rome, classic end to the Antiquity)
> -Dark Ages: 477 to 1200 (Mostly lore and legends there)
> -Medevial Times: 1201 to 1500 (Crusades to the cusp of the Renaissance)
> -Renaissance: 1501 to 1700 (Italian Renaissance to Age of Kings)
> -Jacobean: 1567 to 1625 (Reign of King James VI, includes Elizabethan Age)
> -Enlightenment: 1625 to 1800 (From the first modern philosophers to 1800s)
> -Romantic: 1750 to 1880 (From cusp of Enlightenment to 1880s Existentialism)
> ...



This historical segmentation is problematic.

The Medieval Times or Higher Middle Ages began rather in the 12th century, which is even called by historians a beginning of Renaissance with courtly love. 

Renaissance really began in Italy in the 14th century – otherwise how do you place Dante and Petrarch? This notion is hard to define. Some consider that its real beginning is the invention of book printing, others the fall of the oriental empire, others again the discovery of America. Its ending is also hard to precise, since we still live on its fundaments (culture of Antiquity in favor, scientific reading of fundamental texts, new ways of information, representations of a moving world). Why do you end it in 1700 with this “Age of Kings”? In fact, in 1700, the kings begin to be less firm on their throne, despite the reinforcement of the State. Enlightenment promotes new politic ideas, which are not always monarchic. 

Please, don’t count Molière in this Jacobean period just because he’s a playwriter. Molière, like Corneille and Racine, are seen in France as classical writers, authors of the movement called classicism, marked in this country by the long reign of Louis XIV.

Enlightenment: let’s say till American Revolution and French Revolution, when philosophy became a reality with politic and social changes in depth. 

Romantic period: it can’t end with the beginning of existentialism – one may even think that this latter prolonged in a way romanticism, whose one of the characteristics is subjectivism. The reaction toward romanticism is rather realism. In 1850 romanticism is not anymore the strongest movement in Europe, and in 1880 existentialism neither.

Victorian period: again a British concept… Can we call the period otherwise? For instance the 19th, because in this century a very writer may be seen as romantic and meanwhile realist (Stendhal), romantic and symbolist (Baudelaire), etc.

Post-modern means nothing. We don’t live in the future, we always live the present times, in the modern times.

So, I suggest this segmentation:
-	Antiquity
-	Medieval Times (till the 14th or 15th, depending on the countries)
-	Renaissance, Baroque and Classic eras
-	Enlightenment
-	19th 
-	20th

----------


## dfloyd

Bat Man.

----------


## Lokasenna

Hmm... I'm not much of a classicist. Medea appeals, if only because she wouldn't be out of place in a saga, but I don't really think she's hero material.

I've gone for Gilgamesh, if only because of the interest his story, and its great antiquity, excite the narratologist in me.

----------


## prendrelemick

I've gone for Hercules, more than a match for all the others put together.

----------


## Virgil

I went with Achilles. Oddysseus is held in higher prestige in contemporary times, but from the ancient world to the modern, Achilles and The Illiad was more respected and admired. In fact for most of history Oddyseus was looked down on as a hero.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> This historical segmentation is problematic.
> 
> The Medieval Times or Higher Middle Ages began rather in the 12th century, which is even called by historians a beginning of Renaissance with courtly love. 
> 
> Renaissance really began in Italy in the 14th century  otherwise how do you place Dante and Petrarch? This notion is hard to define. Some consider that its real beginning is the invention of book printing, others the fall of the oriental empire, others again the discovery of America. Its ending is also hard to precise, since we still live on its fundaments (culture of Antiquity in favor, scientific reading of fundamental texts, new ways of information, representations of a moving world). Why do you end it in 1700 with this Age of Kings? In fact, in 1700, the kings begin to be less firm on their throne, despite the reinforcement of the State. Enlightenment promotes new politic ideas, which are not always monarchic. 
> 
> Please, dont count Molière in this Jacobean period just because hes a playwriter. Molière, like Corneille and Racine, are seen in France as classical writers, authors of the movement called classicism, marked in this country by the long reign of Louis XIV.
> 
> Enlightenment: lets say till American Revolution and French Revolution, when philosophy became a reality with politic and social changes in depth. 
> ...


Well, the point was to have 10 periods, hence the 10 poll choices (9 named and then the write-in option) so that we can have a Final Poll...

I can definitely move the times a bit, though, you're right in that the Renaissance has to be at the 14th Century...

How about one maybe more loose and based on movements:

-Antiquity
-Dark Ages: 476-1100
-High Middle Ages: 1101-1300
-Renaissance: 1301-1650
-Jacobean: 1567-1625
-Enlightenment: 1650-1800
-Romanticism: 1700-1900
-Victorian (as just a name for the 19th, as it fits perfectly): 1837-1901
-Modern: 1901-present
-Post-Modern: 1945-present (again, I prefer the post-WWII timeframe for it)

I think maybe that's a bit better...Victorian is really just another name for the 19th Century, and does go right up to the 20th Centruy...my issue with "Baroque" is that is generally opposed in style to Shakespearean/Marlovian/etc. Tragedy and Comedy, and that's the purpose of the Jacobean Era...pluss it seems squeezed/covered by the combination of the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romantic Perids.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

So far it's Odysseus with the early lead at 5, and Achilles and Aeneas the other two with multiple votes, 3 and 2 respectively...

Medea's there as sort of an anit-hero and a tragic hero, in the same way we might consider Macbeth or Titus Andronicus tragic heroes despite their bloody deeds.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

And as a matter of interest, would everyone prefer the polls go up one a day, or wait until one has had it's 5 days up before the enxt one starts?

(Also--nominations for the next one, likely the Dark Ages, in some timeframe, likely 476 to around 1100?)

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I like Medea. Damn, now I'm going to be humming "witchy woman" all night.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Haha, +1 JuniperWoolf...

As of right now Odysseus and Achilles are tied at 5...hmmm...getting within two days of the close of this era's poll...who WILL it be?  :Smile:

----------


## Silas Thorne

Due to my Eurocentric upbringing and my predeliction for cunning heroes who blind one-eyed giants in caves and take a very very long time to get home after long sea journeys, I also vote for 'Odysseus the Wily'!

----------


## Sine_lege

Antigone. The symbol of feminism

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Am I the only one surprised OEDIPUS, the tragic hero of one our first and still one of our best works of literature EVER, has no votes?

Though aside from he and Electra everyone's gotten at least one, so I suppose overall that's some pretty good representation...

----------


## mortalterror

> Am I the only one surprised OEDIPUS, the tragic hero of one our first and still one of our best works of literature EVER, has no votes?
> 
> Though aside from he and Electra everyone's gotten at least one, so I suppose overall that's some pretty good representation...


Yeah, why aren't child killers, matricides, and incestuous self-mutilators more beloved? Seriously, your poll sucks.

----------


## Virgil

> Am I the only one surprised OEDIPUS, the tragic hero of one our first and still one of our best works of literature EVER, has no votes?
> 
> Though aside from he and Electra everyone's gotten at least one, so I suppose overall that's some pretty good representation...


What was particularly heroic about him? He was a tragic figure, not a national hero. In fact he comes out of a play, not an epic. A great hero has large proportions from a work that rises to epic status.

----------


## Wilde woman

I voted for Odysseus, though I was really torn between him, Oedipus, and Medea. Though I really admire Medea, I wouldn't really consider her a heroine, because I just cannot condone killing one's children. And then it was a coin toss between Oedipus and Odysseus, and Odysseus won.

----------


## JBI

> What was particularly heroic about him? He was a tragic figure, not a national hero. In fact he comes out of a play, not an epic. A great hero has large proportions from a work that rises to epic status.


He nonetheless was also viewed as a heroic character, in the sense that Agamemnon was also a hero. His feat against he sphinx rendered him a "fallen" hero who was nonetheless venerated as a hero.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Yeah, why aren't child killers, matricides, and incestuous self-mutilators more beloved? Seriously, your poll sucks.


Because I specified at the start that both triumphant AND tragic heroes were involved in the polling, and that literary significance was one of--arguably the foremost--considerations for those chosen, and Oedipus most definitely was an influential and tragic hero in the ancient world, hence his place in the poll.

And for a literary person you'd think you could be more elegant, if you can't be more polite, with your language than telling my my poll "sucks."

----------


## mortalterror

You are right. I was unnecessarily harsh. My apologies.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

No worries.  :Smile:

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Yay, Oedipus got at least a token vote!  :Wink: 

Well, with just a few hours left for polling, it looks like, barring a huge rally by Achilles, Odysseus will ahve won the title of The Greatest Hero of Antiquity and be on the ballot for the Greatest Hero Ever ballot when we get doen with all the others.

Speaking of, does anyone have any nominations for the next round, The Greatest Hero of the Dark Ages, 476 to about 1100?

If you do, please give the person and the work/legend they are from.

My nominees so far:

Beowulf
One of the characters from the Arabian Nights Legend for a bit of a world view, Arabic Literature deserve at least one nominee...suggestions?)
Sir Gawain
King Arthur

A note: Sir Lancelot really didn't come into the Arthur Legend until the High Middle Ages with the French influence, so he'll be on the NEXT ballot so as to place him more where the bulk of his stories were written and so as to make sure he and Gawain don't slit each other's throats in the voting--they can save that for the end...of both the ballot and the Legend.  :Wink:

----------


## mortalterror

> Speaking of, does anyone have any nominations for the next round, The Greatest Hero of the Dark Ages, 476 to about 1100?
> 
> If you do, please give the person and the work/legend they are from.
> 
> My nominees so far:
> 
> Beowulf
> One of the characters from the Arabian Nights Legend for a bit of a world view, Arabic Literature deserve at least one nominee...suggestions?)
> Sir Gawain
> King Arthur


Roland is easily the greatest hero of that time. Starting with The Song of Roland, his legend gets built up all through the Renaissance with major epics like Jerusalem Delivered, Orlando Furioso, Morgante. The nephew of Charlemagne is impervious as Achilles except on the soles of his feet. He wears magical armor, though he really doesn't need it, rides a magical horse which is more like a tank that never tires and rides through a wall without noticing, is super strong, and a greater swordsman than Lancelot. He's sort of a mix of all the Greek heroes rolled into one, from Perseus, to Hercules, with a neverending stream of adventures.

Cu Chulainn from the Tain Bo Cuailnge or Irish epic is a lot like Beowulf.

Finn McCool is an Irish Giant, who is known for his cunning like Odysseus. He has all the knowledge of the world do to ingesting the salmon of knowledge as a child. His stories are likely from the same Celtic origins as the King Arthur tales. He belongs to the Fenian Cycle the way Cu Chulainn belongs to the Ulster Cycle. He features prominently in the 18th century retelling by James Macpherson: The Ossian Cycle. Ossian himself is something of a myth like Homer and reputedly Finn McCool's son, a legendary poet. Goethe and much of Europe admired the tale.

Sigurd the Volsung, the Norse Hero from the Volsunga Saga, also known as Siegfried from the Nibelungenlied. The later literary influence on Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle and other German's can hardly be overstated.

Rostam, the greatest hero of Persian Literature, from the greatest epic of Persian literature: Firdawsi's Shahnamah. He lives for centuries serving Kings, fighting demons, dragons, monsters, and other heroes. He's sort of like a cross between Achilles and Hercules. Hercules killed a snake as a child, Rostam slays a crazed Elephant, then tames an unstoppable horse, then captures an impregnable fort when he's barely out of the cradle. He routinely subdues entire nations and drags the rebel monarchs before his Shah in chains.

Aladdin, trickster thief from the Arabian Nights.

Robin Hood, the only British myth as great as the Arthurian legends.

----------


## stlukesguild

And lest we forget... Moses, Abraham, and Jesus.

----------


## Virgil

> And lest we forget... Moses, Abraham, and Jesus.


I hadn't thought of them. I would say Moses would qualify as a traditional hero. Jesus is a bit nontraditional and might even be thought of as an anti -hero, possibly the first ever. There just isn't enough story line for Abraham to rank in here, but I would say King David would.

----------


## Dark Muse

This was quite tough, but I had to give it to Gilgamesh in the end. 

For the next round I support a nomination for Cu Chulainn. 

As for Robin Hood, that is a personal favorite of mine, though I am not sure if the legend of Robin Hood would fit into this time bracket. The earliest known literary references to Robin Hood occur in 1377 and the earliest known written tales about him appear in the 1400's yet his legend through the oral tradition was likely already known prior to the appearances in literary form.

----------


## mortalterror

> And lest we forget... Moses, Abraham, and Jesus.


Might I refer you to page one of this thread?



> Besides, I think you are making a mistake not including religious figures, since most of the literature of the time was religious. Case in point Samson from Judges...
> 
> Besides Samson there's David, Judith, Moses, and Jesus in the Bible. Then I've always thought of Socrates as a sort of hero too. From the Sanskrit of the time comes Rama, Krishna, and Arjuna. Also, you left out some pretty important Greeks: Theseus, Perseus, Jason, Prometheus.

----------


## Virgil

:FRlol:  Sorry Mortalterror, we all forget posts after a few days.

----------


## JCamilo

How come Jesus is an anti-hero of any kind?

Mortal:

Alladin can not be in dark ages. His origem is not confirmed, but he is certainly added on 1001 Nights by Gallant in the XVIII century. His tale could even be written by him (and Ali Baba) and even Simbad (with registers of previous arabic traditions) to his version. Also, the 1001 is today believed to be late middle ages at best. I would suggest the king Haroon Al-Rachid is the greatest Hero of the tales. 

I will second any mention to Roland and remember that Charles Magne was as famous and relevant as Artur until the french started to chop off crowned heads. And also Finn McCool is so relevant that Ossian came from his stories, he is probally more original than Bewoulf, considering how much the Celtic myths are strong those days...

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Right, so Odysseus officially wins his Era. Cool.  :Smile: 

So, The Dark Ages, 476-1066 (why not, the Saxons into Britian does suher in a new era of literature, and it's a cleaner time period distinction, and that leaves 1067-1300 for the High Middle Ages.)
The Roland suggestion doesn't seem to work for this time period, as _Orlando Furioso_ was completed in the 1500s, far past the time...but he might be a good choice for the Renaissance, when we get that far.

Cu Chulainn...hmmm, I actually am not familiar with him, a quick Wikipedia check turned him up, though, and he did seem pretty interesting and in line with the whole Dark Ages/English-Scottish-Irish folklore feel we have going on here...

My only question is the date of his texts, since I'm not familiar with him--would he fit that 476-1066 time frame (or it could extend to 1100 or 1150, I guess, just as long as it stops short of 1200); if so then we can add him to the list, if not then keep him in mind and he and Roland will likely get on the High Middle Ages or Renaissance ballot.

Robin Hood's tricky...most of his established works DID come later, in the High Middle Ages and then into the Renaissance and definitely in the Romantic movement...but the first stories were likely told in the Dark Ages...though doesn't his story refer to Richard I? That'd be right at the edge of our time frame if we extend it into the 1100s...so I don't know, where shall we place Robin--on this ballot, the High Middle Ages, or the Renaissance?

----------


## Dark Muse

Cu Chulainn is tricky to date, the myth of Cu Chulainn appears in what is known as The Ulster Cycles, which were manuscripts that were written from the 12th-15th centuries, but some of the stories date back to the 7th or 8th century, I am not sure just what the date is upon the Cu Chulainn story specifically.

----------


## JCamilo

Rolando as not medieval is like saying Dom Quixote is modern because Borges wrote Pierre Menard in the XX century...

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Rolando as not medieval is like saying Dom Quixote is modern because Borges wrote Pierre Menard in the XX century...


I'm just saying the sources I saw for him were after the time period for the DARK AGES...maybe he meets "High Medevial," I dunno, I just saw _Orlando Furioso_ dated far too late for the Dark Ages.

----------


## JCamilo

That mostly because documents with all of those characters are latter high medieval time. He was a real person, lived with Charles Magne, which gives him as medieval as one can get. It is good to point, Ariosto Orlando is a reflex of his popularity, not the cause of it. There is even some irony on the text, already presenting the end of chivalirty literature. And even so, Tennyson Arturian poems are from XIX century, would this make Artur a victorian hero and not medieval?

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> That mostly because documents with all of those characters are latter high medieval time. He was a real person, lived with Charles Magne, which gives him as medieval as one can get. It is good to point, Ariosto Orlando is a reflex of his popularity, not the cause of it. There is even some irony on the text, already presenting the end of chivalirty literature. And even so, Tennyson Arturian poems are from XIX century, would this make Artur a victorian hero and not medieval?


First, Arthur has a TON of material from the Dark Ages, High Middle Ages, Renaissance, and...well, and in every time period since, his legend is EASILY one of if not the most famous and influential--and perhaps even inspirational--in all the West. So yes, Tennyson has his material, but Arthur's first material--and much of the best--is well within that Dark Ages/High Middle Ages period, so your analogy doesn't seem to hold.

Second...is this Roland person a "real" person or "legendary," that is, was he a real figure who then entered literature, or is he a legendary figure who MIGHT have been real but, for all intents and purposes, is a literary figure? Because this is a poll for liteary heroes, so if he's real...



Again, I don't know about Roland all that much, so I'm not attacking your position, just asking honest questions, as it doesn't seem as if he fits the time period in a literary-sense in the same way that a work written today about a brand-new Roman hero would be no more Ancient Roman than Caesar's Palace...so maybe I'm just reading the wrong articles or misunderstood, but from what I've read he sounds like a character SET in the Dark Ages but WRITTEN in the Renaissance.

----------


## JCamilo

> First, Arthur has a TON of material from the Dark Ages, High Middle Ages, Renaissance, and...well, and in every time period since, his legend is EASILY one of if not the most famous and influential--and perhaps even inspirational--in all the West. So yes, Tennyson has his material, but Arthur's first material--and much of the best--is well within that Dark Ages/High Middle Ages period, so your analogy doesn't seem to hold.


You certainly have a problem with the principle: the period of a latter work on a character does not make him to belong to that period and no longer from another, does not matter how influential they are. If Your argument is chronological, the analogy stands. 
And You have no idea: Charles Magne circle is as much popular as King Artur having produced as much material as Artur. Roland Song is much more influential than Death of Artur and Ariosto Roland is easily the top epic about knights of all time. And their circles are produced side by side, it was even a form of rivalirity. There is not logical form to place characters from one and the other in different periods. 




> Second...is this Roland person a "real" person or "legendary," that is, was he a real figure who then entered literature, or is he a legendary figure who MIGHT have been real but, for all intents and purposes, is a literary figure? Because this is a poll for liteary heroes, so if he's real...


Roland is real, but certainly this new criteria you try to apply is just ridiculous (Artur may be real too, so you better eliminate him from your list) and certainly not understood by anyone else, after all Moses, Jesus, etc are more likely real too. And for literature it does not matter. A history of literature without Roland is too flawed to admit existence. 






> Again, I don't know about Roland all that much, so I'm not attacking your position, just asking honest questions, as it doesn't seem as if he fits the time period in a literary-sense in the same way that a work written today about a brand-new Roman hero would be no more Ancient Roman than Caesar's Palace...so maybe I'm just reading the wrong articles or misunderstood, but from what I've read he sounds like a character SET in the Dark Ages but WRITTEN in the Renaissance.


Again, until high medieval age, very few texts are recorded. After X century they start to appear. There is no doubt the tales about Charles Magnes and his peers are medieval, the textual registers were latter. But the same is true for both Eddas (13th century), King Artur (12th century, same as Roland Song), and a few others. Obviously, all of them were mentioned in medieval ,texts too as the battle of Roncenvalles when Roland died is a famous event. But he is clearly medieval, heck, medieval poetry trait is basically the king of poetry which have him as main character. Ariosto poem is more a swan song, marking the real end of all epics with knights. He is generating latter works, just like Artur did. They do belong to the same period, to the same frame, even similar style. Putting them apart is not correct all.

----------


## B. Laumness

> So, The Dark Ages, 476-1066 (why not, the Saxons into Britian does suher in a new era of literature, and it's a cleaner time period distinction, and that leaves 1067-1300 for the High Middle Ages.)
> The Roland suggestion doesn't seem to work for this time period, as _Orlando Furioso_ was completed in the 1500s, far past the time...but he might be a good choice for the Renaissance, when we get that far.


The _Song Of Roland_ is one of the oldest works of French literature, probably written in the late 11th century. Roland doesn't appear only in _Orlando Furioso_.

----------


## Lokasenna

Cu Chulainn and Arthur both need to be in a medieval poll.

From the Old English corpus, you need at least Beowulf, Byrhtnoth and the Old English conception of Alexander the Great.

From the Old Norse corpus, well there are loads, but you need at least to have Sigurðr the Völsung (aka Siegfried), Egill Skallagrímsson and (if we're allowed non-humans) the god Thór.

From the mish-mash of European Romance that crosses most borders, Arthur should be joined by Gawain, Lancelot and Percival, and no list would be complete without the universal figure of Tristan.

----------


## mortalterror

JCamillo, you are right. Aladdin was probably written by a later European translator of the fables. But since that's never been exactly proven, and the only other medieval Arabian hero I could think of was Antarah ibn Shaddad from the Mu'allaqat, I went with Aladdin. Hard dates and places for even the most famous of events or character origins are notoriously hard to pin down from this era, as Mark Twain was wont to point out.




> Frankfort is one of the sixteen cities which have the distinction of being the place where the following incident occurred. Charlemagne, while chasing the Saxons (as HE said), or being chased by them (as THEY said), arrived at the bank of the river at dawn, in a fog. The enemy were either before him or behind him; but in any case he wanted to get across, very badly. He would have given anything for a guide, but none was to be had. Presently he saw a deer, followed by her young, approach the water. He watched her, judging that she would seek a ford, and he was right. She waded over, and the army followed. So a great Frankish victory or defeat was gained or avoided; and in order to commemorate the episode, Charlemagne commanded a city to be built there, which he named Frankfort—the ford of the Franks. None of the other cities where this event happened were named for it. This is good evidence that Frankfort was the first place it occurred at. -A Tramp Abroad


This whole time period is a really gray area. The characters were often based on real people who lived in the time period described, and there were oral traditions surrounding their legacies, but many of the best stories are either lost or were not written down until later periods. Was Robin Hood a real person? Was King Arthur? Is Roland a more popular figure in Renaissance literature than in Medieval and if so which category does he rightly belong in? Zhuge Liang was most certainly a real person, but the great book that recounts his deeds doesn't get written until the fourteenth century. Food for thought.

----------


## JCamilo

Yes, it is one of the ironies of 1001 Nights. The translator of the book to portuguese also defends that the 1001 is a later product than we usually give credit to. He also points that to arabians 1001 is a book europeans invented, not a book for them. 
I would suggest Harooun Al-Rachid, the wise wandering king (a real character as well) and Simbad who is after all Odysseus. Since the definition of hero is rather broad, it is rather obvious that Scherazade is a heroine on her own and so is the king Sharyar. 

Anyways, It is rather illogical to use european ages to include world wide characters. They do not follow any logical and it impossible to think Islam raised without creating notable characters on their stories. Also, Budism was non stop and it was about this time that Budah legend came to europe (It would be hard to mention that a few of greatest heroes of Medieval Europe were found in the Saints Legends? St.George is from that time for example). I am sure someone more aware of chinese and japanese medieval legends call fill the void of their heroes names too.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> You certainly have a problem with the principle: the period of a latter work on a character does not make him to belong to that period and no longer from another, does not matter how influential they are. If Your argument is chronological, the analogy stands. 
> And You have no idea: Charles Magne circle is as much popular as King Artur having produced as much material as Artur. Roland Song is much more influential than Death of Artur and Ariosto Roland is easily the top epic about knights of all time. And their circles are produced side by side, it was even a form of rivalirity. There is not logical form to place characters from one and the other in different periods. 
> 
> 
> 
> Roland is real, but certainly this new criteria you try to apply is just ridiculous (Artur may be real too, so you better eliminate him from your list) and certainly not understood by anyone else, after all Moses, Jesus, etc are more likely real too. And for literature it does not matter. A history of literature without Roland is too flawed to admit existence. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I STRONGLY disagree that Roland--or, really, any Medevial legend, or at the very least the chivalric/English Isles legends of that time--are better, more remembered, and more influential than King Arthur's...

EVERYONE knows who arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, and Guinevere are, and I'd say a good amount of people would at least be somewhat familiar with Gawain, Galahad, Tristan and Isolde...maybe Bedivere and Bors...Morgan le Fey...

But this is a debate for the Dark Ages Poll, so let's table the debate until we have it officially up, and then I'll be more than happy to discuss it again (just to be clear, not dismissing you or anything, but let's get the discussion in the right thread, ie, the Poll, and for that we need the characters.)



OK, so I guess we'll put Roland in--why not, we have spots open, and if you have that strong of a case for him than you should have your voice heard--and also allow in that Cu Chulainn, as he seems to be on the border and we'll have plenty for the High Middle Ages and Renaissance already.

So, that makes our lineup so far:

King Arthur
Sir Gawain
Roland
Beowulf
Cu Chulainn 
Aladdin or another character from the Arabian Nights Legend

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> EVERYONE knows who arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, and Guinevere are, and I'd say a good amount of people would at least be somewhat familiar with Gawain, Galahad, Tristan and Isolde...maybe Bedivere and Bors...Morgan le Fey...


I trust you mean among educated people? 

Anyways, I'm disappointed I missed this poll, but it doesn't matter, my vote would've gone to the clear winner. 

When's the next one?

----------


## mortalterror

Sigurd and Rostam need to be in any medieval heroes poll to represent the Norse and Middle Eastern traditions.

----------


## Virgil

> How come Jesus is an anti-hero of any kind?


Counter-cultural to his society. A poor outsider who is persecuted. A "King" in an ironic non material way.




> In fiction, an antihero[1] (sometimes antiheroine as feminine) is generally considered to be a protagonist whose character is at least in some regards conspicuously contrary to that of the archetypal hero, and is in some instances its antithesis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero

Jesus is not the perfect anti-hero, but I can't think of a similar hero in ancient literature. He is certainly no Achilles or Oddyseus.

----------


## JCamilo

But he is not contrary to Moses (Against his own society, persecuted) or Prometheus (outsider as he is not an olympian,etc), Oedipus... 

I also argue that he is counter-cultural (he actually matches many view os jewish sects, he is not exactly an reformist)...

I do not think you have an anti-hero until Romantic interpretation does it, but Prometheus is a model much closer than anything (He is the model of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, which is the model for romantic anti-hero)

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> I trust you mean among educated people? 
> 
> Anyways, I'm disappointed I missed this poll, but it doesn't matter, my vote would've gone to the clear winner. 
> 
> When's the next one?


Well, when I say "anyone," I MEAN anyone when it comes to King Arthur, Queen Guinevere, Merlin, and Sir Lancelot...those are house-hold names and have been for centuries.

I'd venture most people have at least heard of a few of the others, and then amongst English Majors and Community, yes, I maintain the above names would be known by all or near-all.

And as soon as we set the roster for the next one (Dark Ages, 476-1100) we'll begin with that one straightaway, with the same 5-day duration this one had...we're about halfway there selecting, so I'd say probably tomorrow or early in the day after the next poll will begin.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Lord Macbeth

And I like the idea of a Norse hero or two in there, good idea...mightn't we include Ragnar as well as Sigurd?

Heroes so far:

King Arthur
Sir Gawain
Roland
Beowulf
Cu Chulainn 
Aladdin
Rostam
Sigurd

Eight chosen, two spots left...who else? I propose Ragnar, as I think Sir Lancelot, other Knights of the Round Table, and Robin Hood are best left to the High Middle Ages bracket.

----------


## JCamilo

Well, absolute assumptions are often wrong. Like this one. I do know people who do not know Artur and English Majors are such minority in this world. I would rather say that every french baker knew Charles. 

As their relevance, it is very possible that the idea of round table for Artur was originated from Charles peers and Mallory or Troyes are nowhere as influential as Ariosto is. Charles's story basically founded the style you say Artur domain. 

The chronological accident that makes Artur be more popular now is just an accident. At several momments of story he was not. To the point the british myth of Artur was not relevant to Shakespeare, Its Ariosto the main influence of Cervantes, not artur, and Charles and not Artur is mentioned by Dante. The influence of Charles is even more considerable, since he is the most important emperor of european story after rome fell.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Again, Jcamillo--I'll debate you on this in the actual pol, just hold those thoughts...  :Wink: 



And by the way, WAY off topic, but it just sort of occured to me, thinking about all these mythic figures...

Do you think any of the figures in American popular culture--Superman, Batman, Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk and the Enterprise Crew--will survive on and be remembered in the centuries to come, maybe folks will look back on THEM as examples of an American Mythological Hero?

For my part, I'd really like to see Superman and Batman survive for that, I don't read comics, but those characters are so integral and DO stand for so much--Superman's the unrelenting optimism and power of The American Dream, bigger and better, just how strong we might be, and yet still retaining a sense of "small-town values" so many of us would value, while Batman is a perfect example of a person rising out of the ashes to serve as the sort of rogue that America's always had a love affair with, the valiant underdog and rebel, after all, we DID start our existence as a nation by rebelling against a standing empire--and I personally would like people a thousand years later to say "Superman and Batman, those are two examples of the kind of heroes and values Americans valued."

I'd hope Captain Kirk and Crew could be remembered in a slight way as well, maybe in the sort of fragmented, know-thecharacter-archetypes-but-not-the-whole-narrative way that most people know Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

And while I'm not a big Star Wars fan (Trekker!) I would hope Luke would survive a bit as well...

Just my thoughts--yours?

----------


## JBI

> Again, Jcamillo--I'll debate you on this in the actual pol, just hold those thoughts... 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, WAY off topic, but it just sort of occured to me, thinking about all these mythic figures...
> 
> Do you think any of the figures in American popular culture--Superman, Batman, Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk and the Enterprise Crew--will survive on and be remembered in the centuries to come, maybe folks will look back on THEM as examples of an American Mythological Hero?
> 
> For my part, I'd really like to see Superman and Batman survive for that, I don't read comics, but those characters are so integral and DO stand for so much--Superman's the unrelenting optimism and power of The American Dream, bigger and better, just how strong we might be, and yet still retaining a sense of "small-town values" so many of us would value, while Batman is a perfect example of a person rising out of the ashes to serve as the sort of rogue that America's always had a love affair with, the valiant underdog and rebel, after all, we DID start our existence as a nation by rebelling against a standing empire--and I personally would like people a thousand years later to say "Superman and Batman, those are two examples of the kind of heroes and values Americans valued."
> ...


Meh, seems to put too much emphasis on the American mythology of the time. to me, though I guess important to us, I cannot see that as being so integral and interesting to people ages to come.

----------


## Wilde woman

Where are you getting this division between Dark Ages and Medieval from? I've never heard of it before. Usually, we just lump everything from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance under the heading of "medieval" and leave it at that.

I'm following your classifying of the Arthurian heroes with interest, since that's my academic specialty. If you're leaving Lancelot for next round, you also must include Perceval and Tristan, though I would leave out Galahad. In all the Arthuriana I've read, he's more of a foil to contrast Lancelot than any fully developed character. 

Back to the debate: a big name that I think you're missing is Alexander. There were several medieval romances written about him. Charlemagne, too, but you touch on him a bit with Roland. Other names that pop to mind: Piers Plowman (shudder) and Everyman. 

I don't know if I agree with you leaving Robin Hood out now. Even if the texts date later, it means the oral tradition was probably quite robust in this earlier time period.

Now for the big question: Why are you not including saints or religious figures amongst your heroes? Saints' lives make up a huge portion of medieval texts. Saint Gregory comes to mind for me, but only because I'm currently transcribing one of his legends. 

Also, another thought: there are no women represented in this category yet. How about adding someone like Joan of Arc?

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Meh, seems to put too much emphasis on the American mythology of the time. to me, though I guess important to us, I cannot see that as being so integral and interesting to people ages to come.


Why not? What's Hercules but Superman 2,000 years ago for the Greeks?

To an extent the same may be said of Gilgamesh and the Sumerians.

I'd say if anything age might help them appreciate in value...after all, a chipped vase today is trash.

Find a vase that's just as chipped but has been buried in the ruins of an old Greek settlement, and suddenly it's an archaelogical find.

----------


## B. Laumness

> Where are you getting this division between Dark Ages and Medieval from? I've never heard of it before. Usually, we just lump everything from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance under the heading of "medieval" and leave it at that.


Indeed. What are Medieval Times? The constitution of the kingdoms in Europe after the Fall of Roman Empire, the age of kings, the age of chivalry, dominated by Christianity, in conflict with the Muslims and also under their influence. You can't make a division between Charlemagne, Roland, Arthur, Lancelot, Perceval and Joan of Arc, for they have in common the same values.

----------


## JBI

> Why not? What's Hercules but Superman 2,000 years ago for the Greeks?
> 
> To an extent the same may be said of Gilgamesh and the Sumerians.
> 
> I'd say if anything age might help them appreciate in value...after all, a chipped vase today is trash.
> 
> Find a vase that's just as chipped but has been buried in the ruins of an old Greek settlement, and suddenly it's an archaelogical find.


The difference is the excellence of the art surrounding Hercules. But it does not matter, Hercules stands for more, whereas Superman is a mediocre hero, in that he lacks the dramatic dimension of Hercules - he is perfect, with nothing really above him, unlike Hercules, who has Gods above him, and a sense of guilt and shame clouding his life.

Batman would be a better hero, because of the dynamic struggle of identity and right and wrong he must go through. But he too is subject to a period, and a limited vision - comics are not statues, and Batman statues tend to look bad.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Where are you getting this division between Dark Ages and Medieval from? I've never heard of it before. Usually, we just lump everything from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance under the heading of "medieval" and leave it at that.
> 
> I'm following your classifying of the Arthurian heroes with interest, since that's my academic specialty. If you're leaving Lancelot for next round, you also must include Perceval and Tristan, though I would leave out Galahad. In all the Arthuriana I've read, he's more of a foil to contrast Lancelot than any fully developed character. 
> 
> Back to the debate: a big name that I think you're missing is Alexander. There were several medieval romances written about him. Charlemagne, too, but you touch on him a bit with Roland. Other names that pop to mind: Piers Plowman (shudder) and Everyman. 
> 
> I don't know if I agree with you leaving Robin Hood out now. Even if the texts date later, it means the oral tradition was probably quite robust in this earlier time period.
> 
> Now for the big question: Why are you not including saints or religious figures amongst your heroes? Saints' lives make up a huge portion of medieval texts. Saint Gregory comes to mind for me, but only because I'm currently transcribing one of his legends. 
> ...


Adressing these bit by bit:

-The split is for two main reasons--at that 1100-1200 mark we see more surviving texts and as such, in some areas, a slightly different flavor, and the otehr reason being that to lump all the heroes from the Fall of Rome to the Italian Renaissance seems to be a bit too broad a stroke, not to mention the fact that some might then easily get left out (for instance, perhaps sopme of Arthur's Knights or otehr such heroes get left out) and we're going for an even ten time/artistic periods so as to correspond to a a Final Poll with ten choices, the winner of each time period.

-I would most definitely agree with Tristan, and likely Percival too, if there's room, you'll have no debate from me there; Galahad, like you say, is really a foil to Lancelot and, to some extent, all the other, somewhat-flawed knights, so I again agree with your ideas on him.

-This is a poll for literary characters, not historical ones, hence my not really wishing to include Alexander the Great or Charlemegne.

-Along those same lines, I said at the outset that in order to keep this purely literary and not carry religious overtones--and have the potential danger of having some offense at the criticism of a Moses or a Jesus--that religious figures wouldn't be in this...maybe it's a bit sketchy, as you could definitely argue that'd give our Greek heroes some trouble, but as no one is likely to be offended by our criticism of them and the fact we have plenty of heroes to choose from over the millenia without them, I jsut figured Moses and Co. could watch this one from the stands.  :Wink: 

-Everyman's an interesting idea, though I'm only familiar with his play--is he in many other works? The other I have no knowledge of.

-I was going back and forth on the Robin Hood issue, but since it DOES look like we'll have enough for the Dark Ages without Robin, and he'll perhaps ahve a better chance in the High Middle Ages (and his stories mention Richard I, which would seem to place him there, at least in those stories...though it must be admitted that Robin Hood's tales ae rather episodic and all over the place a broad overstory with a ton of individual stories) I'll likely just leave him until the High Middle Ages, unless everyone else would be up in arms over that decision.

-Joan of Arc, again, is historical, so she'd be exempt for the same reason I'd exempt Charlemegne...a female hero for this time period is a bit trickier, as this is at the height of serfdom and the pits as far as feminism goes...not a lot of female heroes or, perhaps more accurately, not a great deal that were emphasized by themselves and/ore more than/just as much as the male heroes--this is very much a "Damsel in Distress" era...we did have Antigone, Medea, and Electra on the ballot for Antiquity, so 3 out of the 9 set choices is pretty good, it's not as if we're exempting them.

----------


## B. Laumness

And when we arrive at the 19th century, will you not include Napoleon as a romantic hero?

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> The difference is the excellence of the art surrounding Hercules. But it does not matter, Hercules stands for more, whereas Superman is a mediocre hero, in that he lacks the dramatic dimension of Hercules - he is perfect, with nothing really above him, unlike Hercules, who has Gods above him, and a sense of guilt and shame clouding his life.
> 
> Batman would be a better hero, because of the dynamic struggle of identity and right and wrong he must go through. But he too is subject to a period, and a limited vision - comics are not statues, and Batman statues tend to look bad.


While I don't read comics, I disagree that Superman has no real dramatic tension--actually, I think he's a pretty great embodiment of the individual against the masses. Really, his most famous arch-enemy is a multi-billionaire who keeps trying to take over this and that with his wealth essentially ruling over people, adn it's Superman, the individual, one man, who's able to stand up for the common mana nd stop the elite.

Huh--that actually sounds almost MARXIST..."Truth Justice, and the American Way," and Superman could be seen as having Marxist overtones...anyone else find that a bit ironic?  :Wink: 



I think Superman and Batman complement each other perfectly for the image of America and American heroes...I do prefer The Dark Knight to The Man of Steel, but both are iconic American figures, you think of America and at a cultural level they DO factor is...



Besides, in terms of Superman not having someone "above him," again, I think that in and of itself is not only thematic, but importantly so, and gives a great deal of insight into the American mindset. 

After all, if we accept there's no one above him power-wise, that'd make Superman...

God-like?

And don't we like the idea of a forgiving God or, more importantly to our culture, a protecting God?




Batman is more human, but Superman isn't written to be human (he IS an alien, after all,) he's written to be that sort of vicarious dream-protector we wish we could have, he's the embodiment of everything America WISHES it could be like, where as Batman and his world shows a great deal more of what America and its depths actually IS like.

Heck, it was a national event when Superman "died" in 1992 (and then he came back from the dead...so he's more powerful than anyone else, is seen as a protecting figure, virtuous, and came back from the dead...now WHO does THAT remind you of...?)  :Wink: 




> And when we arrive at the 19th century, will you not include Napoleon as a romantic hero?


As he's a real person, not fictional, and there are a TON of heroes in that century in both the Romantic and Victorian Eras and Polls...

No...?

----------


## JCamilo

> The difference is the excellence of the art surrounding Hercules. But it does not matter, Hercules stands for more, whereas Superman is a mediocre hero, in that he lacks the dramatic dimension of Hercules - he is perfect, with nothing really above him, unlike Hercules, who has Gods above him, and a sense of guilt and shame clouding his life.
> 
> Batman would be a better hero, because of the dynamic struggle of identity and right and wrong he must go through. But he too is subject to a period, and a limited vision - comics are not statues, and Batman statues tend to look bad.


Okay, I do not think the reason is the quality of artwork surrounding them. It is more the representative quality of the character who could survive his dairly modification on the the oral storytelling and also absord similar heroes and stories for himself. In a way, Superman and Batman (by the way, Superman is not as bad as people point, in the hands of the best artists he is as much interesting as Batman) do it. 

A similar, but artificial process happens, Batman and Superman are more know for a couple of "canonical" stories, but the constant change of writers modify the "official" version. While in the traditional ways, this was because the heroes are free and people would take possession of him everyday, now is more a market oriented exaustion of the concept. 

The problem is in my opinion is that before becoming legendary, people had to forgot Artur a while, until his stories are recorded in memory only. It seems quite hard to forgot the mass industry icons and the system of recording is too perfect to allow this. And there is no mystical (albeit fanboism is a form of cult) relation with those heroes. But well, Santa Claus got himself mixed in a mythological aspects of Xtmas, Sherlock Holmes is clearly moving there, Dracula is something quite different and obviously - Superman and Batman are more representative than just american and not all americans produced with their pop culture is a waste. So, I can image both surviving for longer, the best works (there is good works with them, not just trash) being remembered, etc.

----------


## JBI

I am not going to quote, as to keep the post length down Lord Macbeth, but I would point out the nature of superman as you stated.

Arch enemy is the villains of the world, and he alone, with superhuman strength flies in to save the day. Where have we heard that one recently?

Now, if we are going to take that as mythology, does that idea exhaust itself? Does this view of American mythology get boring?

To me, it seems better suited to the 1960s, but we did get some of it recently, and we may well yet, but I will put it into my terms:

I am a Canadian, and as a Canadian, I have an inherited an identity that struggles to define itself against a leviathan that seeks to swoop in and save the day, with all its commercial garbage and whatnot it brings with it.

I do not believe in this divine calling or mythology, and to be honest, I find it kind of rude. Nor do I find the art form very interesting either, as the stories themselves are rather static, and, shall we say, unable to bend due to copyright.

In this age of print, such a form as superman has become associated with a written tradition, rather than an oral one. Since that is so, the only way for a mythology around him, or a cultural cult to exist, is if people continuously find something close to them to talk to.

It is then up to interpreters to create that vision - Homer did not invent the story of the Iliad, any more than Sophocles did Oedipus - but it is in art that tells that these mythologies are handed down.

I do not see that in Superman. I find the idea rather meh, the characterization boring, and the idea exhausted. The concept of American purpose is to me more dangerous than noble, and Superman, as a mythology, is merely repackaging Emerson, Walt Whitman, the Munroe Doctrine, and everything in between. It is not particularly constructive in our world, and I think people are getting sick of it.

----------


## mortalterror

Superman isn't as benevolent as all that http://superdickery.com/index.php?It...y&limitstart=8 . Nor is he a Marxist http://superdickery.com/index.php?It...y&limitstart=9 . He's actually been a lot of things over the years. Besides, what are you complaining about JBI? You've got Wolverine.

I do think there is something to comparing the nature of the top comic book heroes to the Homeric legends. They both pass through hundreds of different hands over the coarse of decades, which help to refine the legends. Then somebody uber talented comes along to reset the most popular myths in some magnificent and definitive song: 

"Bat and the Man I sing! who, forc'd by fate, 
And haughty Joker's unrelenting hate, 
Orphan'd and forlorn, kept the Gothic moor"

----------


## JCamilo

Well, you know JBI, to him the best thing of USA is Cananda, so  :Biggrin: 
But I would dismiss the notion that Superman is only representative for American Culture. Well, first off he was a symbol of World War Patriotism, which seems to have worked well for Europe. Second, there is enough versions of himelsewhere, with of course less sucess, but england had Miracleman which is a second hand copy (being a copy of Captain Marvel)... And basically because superhero creations is about arquetipe use, exactly like oral traditional heroes were build. So, he does something else than represents the moral change of USA (and since when typical heroes do not represent the moral of their nation? Artur is not english, fought saxons, was the there before normans and yet, represents all England now. El Cid and Quixote represent spain, but i doubt Catalans find him so interesting, Sirgurd was used by Germans but he was not exactly it and Romans used classical greek heroes, but their moral judgement of some of them was quite clear, and frankly, can you find someone more specific than Jesus?). You just can not demand from characters with less than 100 years the same metamorphosis of characters that lived 1000 years, which does not mean they no pontential for such.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> The difference is the excellence of the art surrounding Hercules. But it does not matter, Hercules stands for more, whereas Superman is a mediocre hero, in that he lacks the dramatic dimension of Hercules - he is perfect, with nothing really above him, unlike Hercules, who has Gods above him, and a sense of guilt and shame clouding his life.
> 
> Batman would be a better hero, because of the dynamic struggle of identity and right and wrong he must go through. But he too is subject to a period, and a limited vision - comics are not statues, and Batman statues tend to look bad.


Superman isn't perfect (kryptonite). He also struggles with his identity as much as Batman. He is an alien among humans, with no true peers. He also deals with his identity, in that his real disguise is Clark Kent. He also has his father above him, and the unbelievable expectation humanity places on him. He has the weight of his entire dead race on his shoulders. There are many portrayals of Superman, and many do show a conflicted and confused as to his place in this world. 

I agree Hercules will be a more important/impactful hero through time, but I think you cut Superman a bit short.

----------


## freudianslip

Well I see the poll is closed, but my vote would have been for Antigone. For the record, I am a guy, not that it should make a difference. Antigone is a character who first struck me when I saw the play as a HS sophomore many years ago.

----------


## Wilde woman

> This is a poll for literary characters, not historical ones, hence my not really wishing to include Alexander the Great or Charlemegne.


Perhaps, but the lines between historical and literary are really blurred when you're so far in the past. Roland, Arthur, and Robin Hood are arguably historical, but they managed to accrue so much mythology around them that their literary identities managed to subsume their historical ones, at least in modern eyes. I could argue the same for these two named above, a number of the saints, and Joan of Arc. 




> Everyman's an interesting idea, though I'm only familiar with his play--is he in many other works?


No, just the one. But I think he's quite influential. I believe he was the source for Christian in _Pilgrim's Progress_.




> a female hero for this time period is a bit trickier, as this is at the height of serfdom and the pits as far as feminism goes...not a lot of female heroes or, perhaps more accurately, not a great deal that were emphasized by themselves and/ore more than/just as much as the male heroes--this is very much a "Damsel in Distress" era...


Agreed, though there are a number of romances about female knights. And gender wasn't as cut and dry a topic as one would think. There were quite a few instances of cross-dressing in medieval literature (obviously Joan of Arc is the most famous one). Sadly, it's easier to think of female villains for this period (Morgan la Fay, Grendel's mother) than heroines. Perhaps for the next cycle, we could include Beatrice?

While I was thinking of this, it struck me that Psyche should've been put in the Classical heroes list. Her story has been hugely influential.

----------


## Virgil

> But he is not contrary to Moses (Against his own society, persecuted) or Prometheus (outsider as he is not an olympian,etc), Oedipus... 
> 
> I also argue that he is counter-cultural (he actually matches many view os jewish sects, he is not exactly an reformist)...
> 
> I do not think you have an anti-hero until Romantic interpretation does it, but Prometheus is a model much closer than anything (He is the model of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, which is the model for romantic anti-hero)


I said he wasn't a perfect anti-hero, but I think there are solid elements of it in Him.

----------


## mortalterror

> Agreed, though there are a number of romances about female knights. And gender wasn't as cut and dry a topic as one would think. There were quite a few instances of cross-dressing in medieval literature (obviously Joan of Arc is the most famous one). Sadly, it's easier to think of female villains for this period (Morgan la Fay, Grendel's mother) than heroines. Perhaps for the next cycle, we could include Beatrice?
> 
> While I was thinking of this, it struck me that Psyche should've been put in the Classical heroes list. Her story has been hugely influential.


When I think of female heroes I usually think of Penthesilia, the Amazon who fell in love with Achilles as they were fighting. Kleist wrote a play about her. Bradamante, from Ariosto's epic, was a female knight questing for her love Ruggiero who was off on his own journeys, and she acquits herself admirably. Then there's Clorinda, the female Saracen knight who falls in love with Tancred in Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered. Then there is also Chariclea from the Aethiopica. In modern times, I like Wonder Woman, though I'm sure others will argue for more down to earth type heroines.

----------


## JCamilo

There is Khremild or Brunilde too.And even Bodaceia during roman times, Hypolita, Atenas or Artemis, Morrigan Macha (the amazon myth is big enough for me to remember Finn McCoal fighting against the Queen of Greeks)...

As Jesus as Anti-hero, Virgil I can not disagree more. Jesus is all heroic in the old sense: he is all virtues, like any typical hero.

----------


## Virgil

> There is Khremild or Brunilde too.And even Bodaceia during roman times, Hypolita, Atenas or Artemis, Morrigan Macha (the amazon myth is big enough for me to remember Finn McCoal fighting against the Queen of Greeks)...
> 
> As Jesus as Anti-hero, Virgil I can not disagree more. Jesus is all heroic in the old sense: he is all virtues, like any typical hero.


But he's counter cultural and persecuted by his society at large. Those are the key things for an anti-hero. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  :Smile:

----------


## Lord Macbeth

LOL, we got WAY off track...though I DID start it...  :Wink: 

Anyway, let's pick these last two spots so we can start the next poll, so far for the Dark Ages (476-1100) we have eight spots taken, so two left, the eight:

King Arthur
Sir Gawain
Roland
Beowulf
Cu Chulainn 
Aladdin
Rostam
Sigurd

So let's get those other two in...ideas? (And I think we should keep Robin Hood for the next stage, 1101-1300, so besides HIM...?)

----------


## Lokasenna

Well, Tristan has to be on the list. During the Middle Ages the Tristan legend is as prevalent as Arthur. For the other slot, either the Old English Byrhtnoth or the Old Norse Egill Skallagrímsson.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Well, Tristan's story has a lot of texts in the High Middle ages, but he does also likely have his base just before that, so he's fit...

But would King Arthur, Sir Gawain, AND Tristan slit each others throats' voting-wise? Seems like three Arthurian figures might hurt all their chances and slant the poll...I was going to save him to go up against Lancelot in the High Middle Ages (the next one after the Dark Ages) poll.

What do you think?

The other two I'm not familiar with, but could probably at least fit the time period judging by the names and matter from which they come from.

----------


## Lokasenna

> Well, Tristan's story has a lot of texts in the High Middle ages, but he does also likely have his base just before that, so he's fit...
> 
> But would King Arthur, Sir Gawain, AND Tristan slit each others throats' voting-wise? Seems like three Arthurian figures might hurt all their chances and slant the poll...I was going to save him to go up against Lancelot in the High Middle Ages (the next one after the Dark Ages) poll.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> The other two I'm not familiar with, but could probably at least fit the time period judging by the names and matter from which they come from.



Tristan's story is ancient though... there's so much material on him from the Early Medieval period, he must have already been well established by the mid-thirteenth century. I would be more in favour of postponing Gawain's apprearance until the poll for the High Middle Ages, as his most famous text (The Green Knight) is late fourteenth century.

Byrhtnoth is the tragic hero of the Old English poem _The Battle of Maldon_, whose adherence to the heroic code leads to his death. Egill Skallagrímsson is THE Viking hero - a greedy, murderous, psychologically complex anti-hero who nonetheless has the soul of a poet. He's a really great character, and _Egils saga_ is one of the great masterpieces of medieval literature.

----------


## JCamilo

The truth is that we think many english (or anglo-saxon) tradition resumes to Artur, but they did not. Medieval texts are full with other characters and many of them (Like Tristan) were incorpored by later copists or their advetures transformed on advetures of arturian adventures. Finnish circle and Finn and his son Ossian are almost as relevant as any other medieval hero (the influence of Ossian on Romantic Age surpass some of the heroes mentioned) and some of Finn stories tell that he went to some slumber and will return to defend his people in time of need, just like it i said about Artur. 

And I repeat, Alladin is not medieval. Perhaps not even oriental, but european. If we are going to get heroes from 1001 nights, it is either the historical king Haroon Al-Rachid or the storyteller herself (Or people forgot she was risking her life daily - or nightly - to save several maidens from certain death?), Scherazade. She is at least mentioned in a early index of text from X century. 

And besides the knights, there was a very important bulk of medieval texts from the saints legends. St.George for example is a medieval figure. And europe was hidding their heads on the hole during middle ages, Islam, Huns, chinese, etc are all conquering and being conquered during the period. They certainly produced a considerable bulk of legendary heroes. For example, the girl who inspired Mulan is a medieval chinese legend and had an old poem with her story too. 





> But he's counter cultural and persecuted by his society at large. Those are the key things for an anti-hero. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Well, like I said, this is not an anti-hero. Prometheus is counter cultural and persecuted by his society, and is not anti-hero. Ahab is not counter cultural and not persecute and is a anti-hero. It is no wonder that Campbell selects Jesus as one of the heroes, he is obviously idealized as his virtues lead his actions (his fate is for a great cause, a superior one, just like Oedipus blindness is a matter of justice that also suffers but from his own righteouness).

----------


## Lord Macbeth

Alright, I'm in favor of leaving Gawain and Tristan until next time, which gives us three spots, and filling those with Byrhtnoth, Egill Skallagrímsson, and Scherazade (that gives us at least ONE woman...)

That'd give us, as a final roster for The Dark Ages Hero Lineup:

King Arthur
Roland
Beowulf
Cu Chulainn 
Aladdin
Rostam
Sigurd
Byrhtnoth
Egill Skallagrímsson
Scherazade

Is everyone happy with that lineup, at least moderately?

----------


## Lulim

> (...)
> Scherazade
> 
> Is everyone happy with that lineup, at least moderately?


Yes, but please spell it like this: Scheherazade  :Smile:

----------


## Lokasenna

Speaking as someone who is a professional medievalist, Tristan really does belong to the Early Medieval period, but for the sake of diplomacy I'm happy to let you get on with it as it is.

----------


## Virgil

If you had Jesus and Moses in the previous poll, you might want to include Mohammad in this one.

----------


## Wilde woman

> Speaking as someone who is a professional medievalist, Tristan really does belong to the Early Medieval period, but for the sake of diplomacy I'm happy to let you get on with it as it is.


Thank you, Lok! Totally agree.

----------


## JCamilo

> Yes, but please spell it like this: Scheherazade


Or Xerazade, or Cherry, all perfectly wrong, perfectly right.

----------


## Lord Macbeth

> Speaking as someone who is a professional medievalist, Tristan really does belong to the Early Medieval period, but for the sake of diplomacy I'm happy to let you get on with it as it is.


I don't wholly disagree, but at this point I just want to get the next poll going...Tristan, Gawain, AND Lancelot in the High Middle Ages, though...it'll be interesting, if they don't kill each other numbers-wise...




> If you had Jesus and Moses in the previous poll, you might want to include Mohammad in this one.


We DIDN'T have them in the poll, as we had the rule NO religious figures and texts (the Greeks and Sumerians not counting to that effect...no one's going to feel insulted if I attack Zeus or Gilgamesh...)

Where's all the Jesus/Moses talk coming from on this thread, anyway, it just sort of sprang up...how...?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Jesus never shot lasers out of his eyes, picked up a huge boulder with super strength, ripped the heart out of a dragon, or showed any sort of proficiency with a sword. He multiplied fish. Not enough.

----------

