Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The

Iliad by Homer.
Round 1
CON
Hector and Achilles, the proud leaders of the Greeks and the Trojans dominate the
battle field throughout The Iliad. Hector wins people's hearts, he is brave, strong, he
cares for his family, he protects his people, he leads his soldiers into battle! Achilles,
on the other hand, is a cry baby, he stays in a corner when Agamemnon steals his
slave girl and causes countless deaths on the Greek side.
How can one argue that Achilles is a better leader when he acts so childish? To
provide a base to my argument i will bring in some examples: Caesar: he conquered
much of Gaul and Alexander the Great: he defeated the mighty Persian empire.
What do each of these leaders have in common? They won. A good leader will win,
because at the end, winning is all that matters.
""You will wander the underworld blind, deaf, and dumb, and all the dead will know,
"This is Hector, the fool who thought he killed Achilles.""
As can be seen, Hector, the Trojans greatest hero, lost and brought only loss to the
Trojans in the end. A great leader is one that is not idealized by people who care too
much about 'kindness' and 'honour,' but the one who 'brings home the bread'
PRO
Military leadership - the art of direct and indirect influence and the skill of creating
the conditions for organizational success to accomplish missions effectively.[1]
Achilles possesses none of these traits. Indeed, as my opponent rightly points out,
"[Achilles] is a cry baby, he stays in a corner when Agamemnon steals his slave girl
and causes countless deaths on the Greek side." I add that Achilles refused to fight
Hector when he issued a direct challenge to any Greek warrior who would accept;
he was still nursing his hurt feelings *sniffle.* It was Ajax who ultimately accepted.
Hector, by contrast, fits this description perfectly: "[He] wins people's hearts, he is
brave, strong, he cares for his family, he protects his people, he leads his soldiers
into battle." All of these attributes contribute to his superior skill in leading his
troops.
My opponent uses a poor definition of leadership. The victor is not necessarily the
better leader. Any number of factors which the leader has no control over ultimately
affect the outcome of battle, such as terrain, equipment, size of force, weather, and
simple luck.

Moreover, Achilles was not in fact the leader of the Greeks. If anyone is to be
compared with Hector, it is Agamemnon. The fact that Achilles killed Hector does
not make him a better *leader,* but merely a better *warrior.*
Finally, Achilles, did not *win* the war. What ultimately secured Greek victory was
Odysseus' brilliant plan to infiltrate the city via the wooden horse. At this point, both
Hector and Achilles were already dead.
Round 2
CON
There is one point that I would like to negate here at the beginning, ONLY the Iliad
may be cited. Odysseus' plan is never mentioned, in fact, the book ends with
Hector's death. Because of this, your last point is moot.
Second, sorry to be a semantic, but I never said "military leadership." Hector trumps
Achilles in military leadership but not as a leader. Leader:
"leader: noun
1 the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country : the leader
of a protest group."
In the end, all that matters to the person leading is that they did better for their
country. If we use your train of thought, then Hitler is one of the best leaders ever.
He gained so much through cunning, and political stratagems. However, what did
he do for Germany in the end? Almost nil. Achilles turned the tide of war when the
Greeks were on the verge of defeat (see book: Battle on the ramparts) and from
there led the Greeks to victory.
Agamemnon was not the leader in the sense that he was the coward who constantly
wished to turn tail and flee, Diomedes, the two Ajaxs and Achilles were the real
leaders because they actually fought.
Let me reiterate my points in case they were muddled:
1. Your point about Odysseus is not in the Iliad, in fact Zeus says in book 15 that
Patrokles would die, then Achilles would be able to kill Hector and because of that
the Greeks would capture Ilion.
2. A leader is only the figure head, and the best figure head will do what is best for
his/her country, win, which Achilles did, and Hector did not.
3. Agamemnon was not the leader, in all but one of the books he shows himself to
be a coward, the other heroes take up the mantel (such as in book 2 when
Diomedes claims that if Agamemnon leaves he will fight with all who remain, this
convinces Agamemnon to stay)
Finally I want to say that you should not have accepted this debate. Not only have
you demonstrated that you have not read the Iliad, but you have no direct
references or quotes.

PRO
My opponent owes me an apology for his ad hominem. I have indeed read The Iliad
(prose, translated by E.V. Rieu, paperback, Penguin Classics Edition, 1950) as well
as The Odyssey, The Aeneid, and Metamorphoses. I did not require a great deal of
citations since my opponent provided me with the majority of the evidence I need.
The conclusion involving the Trojan Horse IS found in certain versions of the Iliad,
which, in any case, is irrelevant. If a good leader is the one who ultimately wins,
then it cannot be said that either Hector or Achilles "won" since the war never
concluded. Thus my opponent's argument, stemming from his definition, is moot.
I am glad CON has decided to define leader, however, Achilles still fails to meet this
since he does not command a group, organization or country. Even if, as CON
claims, Agamemnon is not the "true" leader of the Greeks, it is not Achilles but the
other, more dutiful heroes.
CON gives two conflicting criteria for what constitutes a *good* leader. In his first
round he states "a good leader will win, because...winning is all that matters," yet in
round two, he claims "all that matters to the person leading is that they did better
for their country." This demonstrates his failure to fulfill his prima facie burden as
the instigator of the debate.[1] His Hitler comparison is also fallacious.[2]
CON claims that Achilles turned the tide of war when the Greeks were on the verge
of defeat, ignoring the fact that it was a combination of Achilles' childish behavior
and Hector's heroic leadership that put them in this position to begin with.
Conclusion: CON gives conflicting definitions of what constitutes a great leader. He
takes issue with my definition of leader, yet fails to meet even his own. CON's
answers to my contentions ultimately undermine his own case.
Round 3
CON
First I would question your truthfulness concerning your supposed knowledge of the
Iliad. I have taken ancient Greek and have translated much of the Iliad. In the
Homeric The Iliad (which was supposed to be the only source of evidence, which
you have not used even once) there is no reference to the horse, meaning that any
point that you may have made based upon it is not viable, and brings to question
whether you read the book that we are discussing.
Additionally, I do not know what point you were trying to make when you said "[I
have read] The Odyssey, The Aeneid, and Metamorphoses" so have I, but it doesn't
make me know the Iliad more in any significant way. Any one can say they read a
book.
Next you said that the war was never concluded, but as I said and you chose to
ignore, in book 15 Zeus lays out what will happen in the war and states that the
Greeks will win because Achilles came back into the war.
Next, I do not know how doing what is best for the country and winning are
contradictory, I was trying to imply that winning is doing the best for your country.

Hector lost and brought ruin to Troy (Troy was fated to fall only after Hector is killed)
while Achilles brought victory (I will say it again because you ignored it in my
second argument, Troy fell because Achilles killed Hector) (see book 15!)
Next, what you said with Hitler was clever, but ignored what I was saying. If you
listened to my argument I said Hitler gained allot (like Hector when he almost
defeats the Greeks) but loses it all in the end, making him the worse leader in the
end (again like Hector).
Finally, Achilles is a leader, as you would have known if you read the Iliad. (I'm sorry,
but based upon your arguments you have given me no choice but to believe that
you are lying) First of all he is known as the leader of the Myrmidons. Additionally,
as can be seen in both book 22 and 23, he LEADS the Greeks to the very gates of
Troy where he kills Hector
PRO
Even assuming Hector's death was a *necessary* condition for Greek victory, it is
not a *sufficient* one[1]. To compare it to a basketball game, suppose the captain of
one team scores 30 points and makes numerous assists, but they still lose by 1. The
captain of the second team, by contrast, sat out most of the game because of a
personal feud with the coach and only scored 7 points. The second captain did,
however, make the game winning shot. His game winner was *necessary* for
victory, but it was not sufficient. Every point leading up to that shot was equally
important. Moreover, even if we grant that the second captain is a better *player,*
the first captain has done a great deal more for his team, though they ultimately
lose.
This comparison is not merely hypothetical. Indeed, CON has even conceded that
Hector was the better "military" leader! What other area of leadership can we
possibly be discussing given the context of the debate? Is Achilles a better choir
leader? A better Boy Scout leader? If it is moral leadership, than clearly Hector
excels. Achilles is vain, vindictive, and unforgiving. Prior to the battle on the
ramparts, in Book I, Achilles asks Zeus to help Hector defeat his fellow Greeks![2]
Any good he ultimately does for the Greek cause is motivated purely by his personal
anger at the death of Patroclus.
CON's schizophrenic criteria for a "good" leader ARE in conflict. Returning to the
basketball analogy, a children's team coached by Larry Bird would still be crushed
by an NBA team coached by Larry Flynt. It would be an absurd conclusion that the
paraplegic publisher of Hustler was the better coach, yet it is the one we reach
following my opponent's logic: the better leader is the one who wins.
The resolution is strongly affirmed. Vote PRO.