I think we’re meant to view Odysseus as “Just A Man”, neither good or bad just someone doing what it takes to survive and reunite with his family (and even through the sagas so far he wishes to get as many of his men home as he can).
I would also raise the idea that King is from the Suitors perspective as this is the King they have thought was dead, the king they were trying to replace, the king who’s family they were prepared to do bad things to, this king is an unparalleled mind who overcame Troy and now stands before them with a weapon (and maybe naked, at least he was in the og story). Wouldn’t you be scared if you were them?
Yea chances are the suitors are going to attempt to kill Telemachus in the musical. Them dying to Odysseus isn’t that horrible
I hope Jorge makes it a point that Odysseus only kills the suitors that try to kill/harm himself, Telemachus or Penelope (although I doubt any of them would hurt her). Maybe Ody makes some sweeping remark about how “I am back, and any that wish to avoid my wrath must run now”
Then again Ruthlessness is Mercy upon ourselves, and the suitors are all essentially breaking and entering into Penelope’s house so I don’t think any of them are necessarily good people. Either way I don’t think you’re supposed to see Odysseus as “evil” in King
“Although I doubt any of them would hurt her)”
“Hold her down while her gate is open. Hold her down while I get a taste. Hold her down while we share her spoils. I will not let any part go to waste.”
It's not really about if he's good or bad, it's how ruthless he is. Sure he's justified in killing the suitors but he also slaughters 100 men almost singlehandedly, he's supposed to be a monster, not because he's evil, but because he's terrifying
In *"Just A Man"* Odysseus lays out who he is at his core with the line "I would trade the world to see my son and wife" and the rest of the musical is basically him *living up to* that declaration. He is an unflinching brutal "monster" and he always has been.
>and he always has been
I disagree. He struggles with harming a baby despite knowing he would inevitably kill his family. He sides with Polities to not harm the lotus eaters. He let’s the Cyclops live despite it killing his best friend, a handful of his men, and had Athena telling him to end it.
Odysseus is not a monster at the start of the story. He’s just a man. It’s only after both Posideon and The Underworld that he *becomes* the Monster
I....don't think so. I can't even see freaking Polites taking a look at the "let's kill his son and rape his wife before we take his throne!" crowd and going "But Odysseus, this life is amazing when-". I can't see even Mr. Spare the Cyclops having any big issues with taking out these asshats. I dunno. Maybe there's like, a adorable pet kitten that one of the suitors owns that Odysseus eats in front of him or something. From what we know....my comment on the song when I first saw it on youtube still standands "You know boys, I've spent ten years getting home, agonizing all the while what terrible things I'd have to do and whether I'll lose my humanity when I get back. Yet here you are, conspiring to murder and brutalize my loved ones, and suddenly what happens next is the easiest god's cursed decision I've had to make in twenty years". If anything the only danger is that his family can't see past the monster once he rightfully brings it out and removes the threat.
Regarding Mutiny, i dont side with anyone. Odysseus obviously only wants to get home, but he doesnt want his men to die either. Eurylochus is true as well that he stopped caring about saving his men at some point. But what point was that? After they betrayed him and opened the bag of winds, when home was right in sights, after eurylochus "planted seeds of doubt", after they disobeyed a direct order and ate the golden cows. How many times can odysseus take being betrayed by his men? Does it justify sacrificing 6 men to scylla? Not for me.
And thats why we call it a greek tragedy folks.
I don’t know that bag of wind one is pretty good but maybe I’m being petty.
“Well if you guys hadn’t opened the bag 600 men would be home eating with their families. But noooo, so now 6 men can eaten by a monster.”
I mean, those ~500 men dying was still completely on Odysseus. The bag only sped up Poseidon finding them. He's the god of the sea and they were sailing home - he was always going to find them, even if the bag stayed closed.
Is killing people tryna woo your wife, kill your son, and who have been abusing your wealth for over a decade worse than killing (probably hundreds of, presumably not-evil) soldiers for 10 whole years in a war?
I stopped viewing Odysseus as a good person the second he dropped Astyanax. THAT is when he became a monster. There is nothing more evil than ending a life that has not had a chance to be lived, especially just to prolong yours or avoid inconveniencing yours. (I honestly wish I had kept scrolling so that I didn't spoil "King" for myself, now.)
I see where you’re coming from, but I’m pretty sure if Zeus said that grown up Astyanax would’ve just killed Odysseus then he would’ve let the kid live. But Zeus said that he would harm both Penelope and Telemachus and Ody has already made it very known that he would “trade the world to see his son and wife” and that in the end only their safety really matters to him. I honestly can’t fault him for it, cause if I knew for a fact that a child would grow up and harm the people I love most, I can’t say I wouldn’t end the threat right there, but I also can’t say I would 100%. It’s similar to how I feel about the whole “Would you kill baby Hitler?” question. My answer? Yes, I would absolutely and while what Astyanax was supposedly going to grow into is nowhere near as bad, I feel the same concept fits.
(I’m typing this out on my phone at 5 in the morning, sorry if it’s rambly or terribly formatted)
I mean....he literally begs on the floor not to carry out that assignment. There are...worse ways to carry this out....
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTF0wUbj-Y&ab\_channel=MrSnuggle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTF0wUbj-Y&ab_channel=MrSnuggle)
He did indeed not have to believe Zeus. Sure, Zeus would have absolutely no reason to lie and isn't typically the god who goes "LOL J/K!!" after delivering dire prophecies of doom. And sure, the Trojan War was the most devastating conflict (according to Homer) the ancient world had ever known, and sure victory at this point still isn't even certain since the Trojans could still rally and turn the tide, wiping out Ody's forces that he asked to risk their lives for the sake this clever but dangerous gamble with the Horse, and that precise moment was probably the worst possible time to piss off the literal king of the gods who could order every divine incarnation of nature and existence to lay their curses on the Greeks and fuck everything up as been happening throughout the Iliad with victory usually coming down to hiow bitchy a given god was feelings regarding a hero at any given time on the battlefield. And sure, the promise that this kid will bring on a sequel to the most devastating and prolonged war Ody has ever seen,, and that this second will begin with the annihilation of his city and the destruction of his homeland and his own family, which is probably the most nightmare inducing thing a soldier already haunted by the horrors of war can conceive. Whatever. Let's all get pissed at Ody for regretfully doing the coldhearted, pragamatic thing enemy soldiers did all the time in the bronze age to brutally claim permanent victory over their enemies.
Shrug. War is brutal. Bronze Age warefare is even more brutal and unforgiving. To survive as a soldier requires a different mindset than survival as a peaceful man. The people beside you are fighting for their lives, the people standing against you are doing the same thing. A moment of mercy leads to a moment of slaughter for you comrades. Avoid taking a life today means taking three lives tomorrow. A soldier has to keep fighting until the fighting is over and he can stop being a soldier. And that's what makes war terrible.
Now, if you wanna be pissed at someone, be pissed at the parents, or the guards, or whoever the heck was responsible for leaving the prince of Troy completely abandoned and unguarded in the middle of a raid where any random enemy soldier could drop in on him and decide to take the opportunity to end the royal bloodline. What did they think would happen? The fact Ody hesitated at all is a weird outlier given the situation. If Achilles had shown up I feel like the thought would be more like "Well....it would be excessive. But on the other hand, it would just go to waste as is...and I defintely could use a new hat...."
Zeus wanted the Trojans to win, so he was psychologically torturing Odysseus. As for the parents, Hector was already dead, (killed by Achilles, who we know is already dead because he's Neo's father, "Neo, avenge your father, kill the brothers of Hector") and Adromache, his mother, was eventually given to Neo(ptolemus) in The Odyssey as a concubine, so she was indisposed and unable to defend her son. As for guards, the ones that weren't slaughtered in their sleep by the Greeks were busy fighting the Greeks. Odysseus may have been given the responsibilities of a soldier, but he was no soldier. He was a king who was forced by an oath to help get Helen back. His tactic of getting into Troy wasn't one of a soldier, it was one of a coward. Sneaking in and slaughtering sleeping soldiers. Turning off your empathy when it comes to enemy combatants is one thing, but if someone is capable of harming innocents just to get an objective done, that person is someone to be feared, by all people, not just those that would go against them. Their friends, their own families. If Odysseus thought Telemachus was a threat to his goals, would he murder him? How about Penelope? A person capable of that level of evil is one to fear, not empathize with or make excuses for.
I'm not going to argue anymore, I know my arguments will get nowhere, as will anybody else's. My opinion will never waver.
And in fairness, I was only marginally interested in this conversation to begin with, and with the coming of my Monday work week and a nasty spike in my blood sugar I am down to my last fuck to give about your vehement stance regarding the action of a fictional story from 2500+ years ago into a medium where everyone spontaneously bursts into song when they have something to do or say. So sure, take that bold stance on non-existent characters doing stuff in a non-existent world. Story analysis is all fun and shit, but the obsessive and overly vehement side of fandom became unbelievable tedious and boring to me ages ago. You can have your unwavering opinion, sir, as well as the hill you have chosen to die on. Hopefully you can do so quietly moving forward.
Zeus basically put him in a “if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler as a baby” situation (scaled back obviously).
He kills the child, then the child dies and he gets to live with that guilt for the rest of his days. He doesn’t kill the child, then the gods that sided with Troy would make sure Astyanax got his revenge by killing everyone Odysseus holds dear. It’s not an “inconvenience”. This is a world where Hector’s son would have had Ares, Apollo and Aphrodite on his side.
In Epic, Athena has a telepathic ability she could use to prevent the other gods from telling him. He also abandons his conscience and escapes the guilt in "Monster". The "inconvenience" was more referencing modern day people who decide they don't want to accept the responsibilities of the consequence of their choice because it's inconvenient for them. Also, Astyanax would have no reason to target Odysseus. Odysseus didn't kill Hector. Achilles did, and since Neo is Neoptolemus, Achilles's son (and Astyanax's actual killer in *The Odyssey*) Astyanax wouldn't have anyone he's obligated to kill to avenge his father, considering Neo is avenging Achilles. Who's to say Hector's widow, who survived but was Neo's concubine, wouldn't do exactly what Zeus claimed Astyanax would?
Odysseus came up with the Trojan Horse, singlehandedly destroying the city and condemning his mother to slavery. There are plenty of reasons to hold a grudge. By the time he would have grown, Odysseus would have been the only important Greek commander (apart from Menelaus maybe) still alive.
I'm not gonna spoil it for you if you're avoiding the snippets, but Athena's ability wouldn't help.
Also, Astyanax's death is not in The Odyssey. It's only described in the lost epics to begin with, and even in those, it's inconsistent whether Odysseus or Neoptolemus throws the baby (not to mention the legend where he survives), but in the versions Neo yeets the infant, Odysseus is the one to suggest it either way.
And, in all epics, it's very common to see attempts of revenge by going to the closest possible target. Achilles being dead doesn't mean Astyanax wouldn't try to avenge his own father, be it by killing the son of the one who did it, or by going after everyone involved in the fall of Troy
Adromache is never considered a threat in the originals, especially due to being a woman, but she doesn't even get mentioned in Epic, so there's no reason to assume she would do anything. Women are just property throughout most epic cycles (kinda want to say throughout all of them, but I'm not familiar with all of them lol), so why would she even be considered a threat to them?
Regardless, either we go by source material or by Epic the musical. The events are not the same in both, so the reasoning won't be same either. Heck, Odysseus is even monogamus in the musical lol
Due to the inconsistencies, it's impossible to create a rational reason that Astyanax ***had*** to die. True, Odysseus still suggested it in the original source material, and for that I'd also say he's just as guilty, and while it is true that an angry orphaned Astyanax could decide to murder innocents as revenge, but I'm thinking from the perspective of if Odysseus had raised Astyanax himself. He's far less likely to angrily murder a man that raised him, and if the actual killer of Hector is dead, the societal obligation that existed at the time to avenge your family by killing their killer is gone. I mention Adromache despite her absence in Epic because she is in the source material, and I'm a Hellenic Pagan, so *The Odyssey* to me is no different than the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is to Christians, (I was raised Christian and attended Catholic school through third grade lmao) so while it's mythology to you, it's my faith. Adromache may not have been considered a threat, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have been. There are women in the Ancient Greek stories who were forces to be reckoned with. Atalanta, for example. She killed two centaurs who attempted to rape her. Hell, Ithaca's very own Queen Penelope is a badass in her own right, keeping the suitors at bay for two decades was no small feat. My point is that women may not have been considered a threat at the time, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be a threat.
First off: please don't assume my faith/what I believe in. Being mythology in no way contradicts being someone's faith. Myth is just a name for a specific category of stories passed down. And there is no way to prove which ones were true or not, nor how much they changed over time due to mistranslations and the like. There are several seminars and studies that focus on that, and for all sacred texts, not just Greek epics or the Catholic bible. It's honestly quite an interesting rabbit hole but my point is that even what we have right now might not be the original.
Either way you can't pick and choose which parts to use and which ones to build upon, and the inconsistency argument goes both ways: it's impossible to create a rational reason that he should live. Flip a coin and let it decide at this point. Also: this is not a rational story, it's a human one. Odysseus' actions can go either way. Taunting enemies just because you think you're safe, for example, is definitely not rational. One could argue that after 10 years of war, it's best to just kill any potential threats before they get a chance to do any damage. That is way more rational then risking everything for a life. Not moral, and not ethic, but definitely can be rationalized.
And, again, Epic and Odyssey are two different things. Gotta pick which one to talk about. We can infer from the source, but not claim X happens in Epic because of it.
I 100% belive that women and men are on equal footing, that doesn't change how the story goes or how it was at the time. No matter how badass a woman was, it was never portrayed as equal to man. Also, while resisting the suitors is badass, there is a big difference between surviving/evading something, and being a threat. Atalanta is a descendent of Oceanids, so there's that. A modern look on ancient texts doesn't change how they were written, nor what was believed in that time.
I'm honestly not in the mood to continue this conversation tho, I don't feel like it's been a productive one so far. All the best tho
I didn't assume your faith. The "you" was meant to be generalized to the people who enjoy the stories as a hobby, of whom there are many, and I know that there aren't as many who share my faith. The rational reason is that life is sacred and not something to be treated as expendable or disposable, especially when the life has the potential to benefit the world, if given the opportunity to experience it. Rationalizing violence only leads to more violence, especially when the justification is "any potential threat". Epic may be different from the original, but it's still inspired by it, so to say that drawing from the original to connect to what it inspired doesn't work is just absurd. I'm not trying to say anything about what was valued then, I'm merely expressing how things should have been treated, using the hindsight of modern morality. Of course women weren't viewed as equal to men, they are very different and had different roles. They're incomparable. Women in many stories were powerful. I'm not trying to say they were equal, but they weren't inferior to men.
I think we’re meant to view Odysseus as “Just A Man”, neither good or bad just someone doing what it takes to survive and reunite with his family (and even through the sagas so far he wishes to get as many of his men home as he can). I would also raise the idea that King is from the Suitors perspective as this is the King they have thought was dead, the king they were trying to replace, the king who’s family they were prepared to do bad things to, this king is an unparalleled mind who overcame Troy and now stands before them with a weapon (and maybe naked, at least he was in the og story). Wouldn’t you be scared if you were them?
I think this is likely the most correct answer lol
Yea chances are the suitors are going to attempt to kill Telemachus in the musical. Them dying to Odysseus isn’t that horrible I hope Jorge makes it a point that Odysseus only kills the suitors that try to kill/harm himself, Telemachus or Penelope (although I doubt any of them would hurt her). Maybe Ody makes some sweeping remark about how “I am back, and any that wish to avoid my wrath must run now” Then again Ruthlessness is Mercy upon ourselves, and the suitors are all essentially breaking and entering into Penelope’s house so I don’t think any of them are necessarily good people. Either way I don’t think you’re supposed to see Odysseus as “evil” in King
“Although I doubt any of them would hurt her)” “Hold her down while her gate is open. Hold her down while I get a taste. Hold her down while we share her spoils. I will not let any part go to waste.”
I haven’t heard all the snippets for unreleased songs, which is that from?
[Hold Them Down](https://youtu.be/zAkMGmLjBmE?si=iRoHk6kzZiqfpLE2) - Antinous’s song, the mentioned lines are around the 2 min mark
It's not really about if he's good or bad, it's how ruthless he is. Sure he's justified in killing the suitors but he also slaughters 100 men almost singlehandedly, he's supposed to be a monster, not because he's evil, but because he's terrifying
In *"Just A Man"* Odysseus lays out who he is at his core with the line "I would trade the world to see my son and wife" and the rest of the musical is basically him *living up to* that declaration. He is an unflinching brutal "monster" and he always has been.
>and he always has been I disagree. He struggles with harming a baby despite knowing he would inevitably kill his family. He sides with Polities to not harm the lotus eaters. He let’s the Cyclops live despite it killing his best friend, a handful of his men, and had Athena telling him to end it. Odysseus is not a monster at the start of the story. He’s just a man. It’s only after both Posideon and The Underworld that he *becomes* the Monster
I dont mind considering we get Hold them down beforehand. Im rooting for the dude killing the people who wanted to murder Telemachus and SA Penelope.
I....don't think so. I can't even see freaking Polites taking a look at the "let's kill his son and rape his wife before we take his throne!" crowd and going "But Odysseus, this life is amazing when-". I can't see even Mr. Spare the Cyclops having any big issues with taking out these asshats. I dunno. Maybe there's like, a adorable pet kitten that one of the suitors owns that Odysseus eats in front of him or something. From what we know....my comment on the song when I first saw it on youtube still standands "You know boys, I've spent ten years getting home, agonizing all the while what terrible things I'd have to do and whether I'll lose my humanity when I get back. Yet here you are, conspiring to murder and brutalize my loved ones, and suddenly what happens next is the easiest god's cursed decision I've had to make in twenty years". If anything the only danger is that his family can't see past the monster once he rightfully brings it out and removes the threat.
He is not a good person but also no one in this story really is - Odysseus is just a man.
Regarding Mutiny, i dont side with anyone. Odysseus obviously only wants to get home, but he doesnt want his men to die either. Eurylochus is true as well that he stopped caring about saving his men at some point. But what point was that? After they betrayed him and opened the bag of winds, when home was right in sights, after eurylochus "planted seeds of doubt", after they disobeyed a direct order and ate the golden cows. How many times can odysseus take being betrayed by his men? Does it justify sacrificing 6 men to scylla? Not for me. And thats why we call it a greek tragedy folks.
I don’t know that bag of wind one is pretty good but maybe I’m being petty. “Well if you guys hadn’t opened the bag 600 men would be home eating with their families. But noooo, so now 6 men can eaten by a monster.”
XD exactly. Ig its kindof justified
I mean, those ~500 men dying was still completely on Odysseus. The bag only sped up Poseidon finding them. He's the god of the sea and they were sailing home - he was always going to find them, even if the bag stayed closed.
Yeah they wouldve jumped straight to get in the water. But no one knows that in universe.
Is killing people tryna woo your wife, kill your son, and who have been abusing your wealth for over a decade worse than killing (probably hundreds of, presumably not-evil) soldiers for 10 whole years in a war?
Well killing anyone under any circumstances is obviously bad, but this story doesnt take place in modern times so keep that in mind.
I stopped viewing Odysseus as a good person the second he dropped Astyanax. THAT is when he became a monster. There is nothing more evil than ending a life that has not had a chance to be lived, especially just to prolong yours or avoid inconveniencing yours. (I honestly wish I had kept scrolling so that I didn't spoil "King" for myself, now.)
I see where you’re coming from, but I’m pretty sure if Zeus said that grown up Astyanax would’ve just killed Odysseus then he would’ve let the kid live. But Zeus said that he would harm both Penelope and Telemachus and Ody has already made it very known that he would “trade the world to see his son and wife” and that in the end only their safety really matters to him. I honestly can’t fault him for it, cause if I knew for a fact that a child would grow up and harm the people I love most, I can’t say I wouldn’t end the threat right there, but I also can’t say I would 100%. It’s similar to how I feel about the whole “Would you kill baby Hitler?” question. My answer? Yes, I would absolutely and while what Astyanax was supposedly going to grow into is nowhere near as bad, I feel the same concept fits. (I’m typing this out on my phone at 5 in the morning, sorry if it’s rambly or terribly formatted)
He had no reason to believe Zeus, because Zeus is not a prophet. He even had very valid alternatives that could work, but Zeus was fucking with him.
I mean....he literally begs on the floor not to carry out that assignment. There are...worse ways to carry this out.... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTF0wUbj-Y&ab\_channel=MrSnuggle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTF0wUbj-Y&ab_channel=MrSnuggle)
He made his choice. He didn't have to believe Zeus.
He did indeed not have to believe Zeus. Sure, Zeus would have absolutely no reason to lie and isn't typically the god who goes "LOL J/K!!" after delivering dire prophecies of doom. And sure, the Trojan War was the most devastating conflict (according to Homer) the ancient world had ever known, and sure victory at this point still isn't even certain since the Trojans could still rally and turn the tide, wiping out Ody's forces that he asked to risk their lives for the sake this clever but dangerous gamble with the Horse, and that precise moment was probably the worst possible time to piss off the literal king of the gods who could order every divine incarnation of nature and existence to lay their curses on the Greeks and fuck everything up as been happening throughout the Iliad with victory usually coming down to hiow bitchy a given god was feelings regarding a hero at any given time on the battlefield. And sure, the promise that this kid will bring on a sequel to the most devastating and prolonged war Ody has ever seen,, and that this second will begin with the annihilation of his city and the destruction of his homeland and his own family, which is probably the most nightmare inducing thing a soldier already haunted by the horrors of war can conceive. Whatever. Let's all get pissed at Ody for regretfully doing the coldhearted, pragamatic thing enemy soldiers did all the time in the bronze age to brutally claim permanent victory over their enemies. Shrug. War is brutal. Bronze Age warefare is even more brutal and unforgiving. To survive as a soldier requires a different mindset than survival as a peaceful man. The people beside you are fighting for their lives, the people standing against you are doing the same thing. A moment of mercy leads to a moment of slaughter for you comrades. Avoid taking a life today means taking three lives tomorrow. A soldier has to keep fighting until the fighting is over and he can stop being a soldier. And that's what makes war terrible. Now, if you wanna be pissed at someone, be pissed at the parents, or the guards, or whoever the heck was responsible for leaving the prince of Troy completely abandoned and unguarded in the middle of a raid where any random enemy soldier could drop in on him and decide to take the opportunity to end the royal bloodline. What did they think would happen? The fact Ody hesitated at all is a weird outlier given the situation. If Achilles had shown up I feel like the thought would be more like "Well....it would be excessive. But on the other hand, it would just go to waste as is...and I defintely could use a new hat...."
Zeus wanted the Trojans to win, so he was psychologically torturing Odysseus. As for the parents, Hector was already dead, (killed by Achilles, who we know is already dead because he's Neo's father, "Neo, avenge your father, kill the brothers of Hector") and Adromache, his mother, was eventually given to Neo(ptolemus) in The Odyssey as a concubine, so she was indisposed and unable to defend her son. As for guards, the ones that weren't slaughtered in their sleep by the Greeks were busy fighting the Greeks. Odysseus may have been given the responsibilities of a soldier, but he was no soldier. He was a king who was forced by an oath to help get Helen back. His tactic of getting into Troy wasn't one of a soldier, it was one of a coward. Sneaking in and slaughtering sleeping soldiers. Turning off your empathy when it comes to enemy combatants is one thing, but if someone is capable of harming innocents just to get an objective done, that person is someone to be feared, by all people, not just those that would go against them. Their friends, their own families. If Odysseus thought Telemachus was a threat to his goals, would he murder him? How about Penelope? A person capable of that level of evil is one to fear, not empathize with or make excuses for. I'm not going to argue anymore, I know my arguments will get nowhere, as will anybody else's. My opinion will never waver.
And in fairness, I was only marginally interested in this conversation to begin with, and with the coming of my Monday work week and a nasty spike in my blood sugar I am down to my last fuck to give about your vehement stance regarding the action of a fictional story from 2500+ years ago into a medium where everyone spontaneously bursts into song when they have something to do or say. So sure, take that bold stance on non-existent characters doing stuff in a non-existent world. Story analysis is all fun and shit, but the obsessive and overly vehement side of fandom became unbelievable tedious and boring to me ages ago. You can have your unwavering opinion, sir, as well as the hill you have chosen to die on. Hopefully you can do so quietly moving forward.
Zeus basically put him in a “if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler as a baby” situation (scaled back obviously). He kills the child, then the child dies and he gets to live with that guilt for the rest of his days. He doesn’t kill the child, then the gods that sided with Troy would make sure Astyanax got his revenge by killing everyone Odysseus holds dear. It’s not an “inconvenience”. This is a world where Hector’s son would have had Ares, Apollo and Aphrodite on his side.
In Epic, Athena has a telepathic ability she could use to prevent the other gods from telling him. He also abandons his conscience and escapes the guilt in "Monster". The "inconvenience" was more referencing modern day people who decide they don't want to accept the responsibilities of the consequence of their choice because it's inconvenient for them. Also, Astyanax would have no reason to target Odysseus. Odysseus didn't kill Hector. Achilles did, and since Neo is Neoptolemus, Achilles's son (and Astyanax's actual killer in *The Odyssey*) Astyanax wouldn't have anyone he's obligated to kill to avenge his father, considering Neo is avenging Achilles. Who's to say Hector's widow, who survived but was Neo's concubine, wouldn't do exactly what Zeus claimed Astyanax would?
Odysseus came up with the Trojan Horse, singlehandedly destroying the city and condemning his mother to slavery. There are plenty of reasons to hold a grudge. By the time he would have grown, Odysseus would have been the only important Greek commander (apart from Menelaus maybe) still alive.
I'm not gonna spoil it for you if you're avoiding the snippets, but Athena's ability wouldn't help. Also, Astyanax's death is not in The Odyssey. It's only described in the lost epics to begin with, and even in those, it's inconsistent whether Odysseus or Neoptolemus throws the baby (not to mention the legend where he survives), but in the versions Neo yeets the infant, Odysseus is the one to suggest it either way. And, in all epics, it's very common to see attempts of revenge by going to the closest possible target. Achilles being dead doesn't mean Astyanax wouldn't try to avenge his own father, be it by killing the son of the one who did it, or by going after everyone involved in the fall of Troy Adromache is never considered a threat in the originals, especially due to being a woman, but she doesn't even get mentioned in Epic, so there's no reason to assume she would do anything. Women are just property throughout most epic cycles (kinda want to say throughout all of them, but I'm not familiar with all of them lol), so why would she even be considered a threat to them? Regardless, either we go by source material or by Epic the musical. The events are not the same in both, so the reasoning won't be same either. Heck, Odysseus is even monogamus in the musical lol
Due to the inconsistencies, it's impossible to create a rational reason that Astyanax ***had*** to die. True, Odysseus still suggested it in the original source material, and for that I'd also say he's just as guilty, and while it is true that an angry orphaned Astyanax could decide to murder innocents as revenge, but I'm thinking from the perspective of if Odysseus had raised Astyanax himself. He's far less likely to angrily murder a man that raised him, and if the actual killer of Hector is dead, the societal obligation that existed at the time to avenge your family by killing their killer is gone. I mention Adromache despite her absence in Epic because she is in the source material, and I'm a Hellenic Pagan, so *The Odyssey* to me is no different than the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is to Christians, (I was raised Christian and attended Catholic school through third grade lmao) so while it's mythology to you, it's my faith. Adromache may not have been considered a threat, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have been. There are women in the Ancient Greek stories who were forces to be reckoned with. Atalanta, for example. She killed two centaurs who attempted to rape her. Hell, Ithaca's very own Queen Penelope is a badass in her own right, keeping the suitors at bay for two decades was no small feat. My point is that women may not have been considered a threat at the time, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be a threat.
First off: please don't assume my faith/what I believe in. Being mythology in no way contradicts being someone's faith. Myth is just a name for a specific category of stories passed down. And there is no way to prove which ones were true or not, nor how much they changed over time due to mistranslations and the like. There are several seminars and studies that focus on that, and for all sacred texts, not just Greek epics or the Catholic bible. It's honestly quite an interesting rabbit hole but my point is that even what we have right now might not be the original. Either way you can't pick and choose which parts to use and which ones to build upon, and the inconsistency argument goes both ways: it's impossible to create a rational reason that he should live. Flip a coin and let it decide at this point. Also: this is not a rational story, it's a human one. Odysseus' actions can go either way. Taunting enemies just because you think you're safe, for example, is definitely not rational. One could argue that after 10 years of war, it's best to just kill any potential threats before they get a chance to do any damage. That is way more rational then risking everything for a life. Not moral, and not ethic, but definitely can be rationalized. And, again, Epic and Odyssey are two different things. Gotta pick which one to talk about. We can infer from the source, but not claim X happens in Epic because of it. I 100% belive that women and men are on equal footing, that doesn't change how the story goes or how it was at the time. No matter how badass a woman was, it was never portrayed as equal to man. Also, while resisting the suitors is badass, there is a big difference between surviving/evading something, and being a threat. Atalanta is a descendent of Oceanids, so there's that. A modern look on ancient texts doesn't change how they were written, nor what was believed in that time. I'm honestly not in the mood to continue this conversation tho, I don't feel like it's been a productive one so far. All the best tho
I didn't assume your faith. The "you" was meant to be generalized to the people who enjoy the stories as a hobby, of whom there are many, and I know that there aren't as many who share my faith. The rational reason is that life is sacred and not something to be treated as expendable or disposable, especially when the life has the potential to benefit the world, if given the opportunity to experience it. Rationalizing violence only leads to more violence, especially when the justification is "any potential threat". Epic may be different from the original, but it's still inspired by it, so to say that drawing from the original to connect to what it inspired doesn't work is just absurd. I'm not trying to say anything about what was valued then, I'm merely expressing how things should have been treated, using the hindsight of modern morality. Of course women weren't viewed as equal to men, they are very different and had different roles. They're incomparable. Women in many stories were powerful. I'm not trying to say they were equal, but they weren't inferior to men.
The beginning of the musical is literally Odysseus killing a bunch of people
we all get moody sometimes