Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29449
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It's actually not an issue because "history is written by the victors", who often use their dominance to codify the evil of the vanquished. The vanquished _may_ have been evil, but evil is a relative concept based on social mores, (despite what deolators would assert), and so, even engaging in acts that would be considered evil, it's a safe bet that most of the actors did not consider such actions evil.

But the depiction of the vanquished as evil is in no way universal. Certainly this was not the case in the Iliad of Homer.

In the Iliad, the Trojans are not presented as evil. Conversely, they are depicted as noble adversaries, with the subversive element that their dignity is greater than that of the Greeks, certainly Agamemnon, Menelaus and Odysseus. It's not insignificant that the epic ends with the line "And thus was the funeral of Hector, breaker of horses." Hector unquestionably possessed the greatest dignity of all of the heroes of the epic, Greek or Trojan. He neither instigated the war nor desired it, but must fight in it regardless. He is blameless and esteemed, and makes the greatest sacrifice for his country.

I'd say that books where the bad guys are evil is a type of shorthand, a technique that allows the author not to have fully explicate their point of view in simplistic narrative.

Another way to contextualize this is per the advice of skilled actors in portraying villains, and may be condensed into:

> Everyone is the hero of their own story

Actors who don't use this technique generally deliver one-dimensional performances.

* * *

I'd also use postmodernism in presenting the conflict. The Trojan war is generally held to be a result of the "abduction" of Helen by Paris. The reality is that Troy held an incredibly powerful strategic position, and dominated trade between the Euxine (Black) Sea and the Aegean. If the Trojan war actually occurred, it was almost certainly about economic control of the region.

Even the pretext of Helen is illuminating. [WWI has been cast by respected historians as a war fought for no real reason, other than Europe has become a power keg in the wake of the success of Fredrick of Prussia's regimental system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Warfare). _(Critiques of Keegan rely on a romanticized view of warfare as an "extension of politics by other means", but should more properly be cast as an "extension of economic and political hegemony by other means.")_

WWI can be viewed as an unfortunate outcome of inciting event in which actors in the war were obligated by treaty to take part.

Original score: 9