Human Griffith is the MOST caring character in the story.
I’ve come to realise that the assertion that human Griffith is somehow uniquely sociopathic and uncaring compared to other characters in the BotH is absolutely insane.
First of all, I want to lay out the moral equivalence between the Hawks and Griffith in fighting on the battlefield. A lot of people bring up the fact that Griffith was willing to kill people and use people as tools in pursuit of his own selfish goal, without realising that the Hawks did the EXACT SAME THING.
They were willing to kill innocent soldiers on the battlefield in pursuit of their own selfish rise to power (to become lords and nobles). That is NO DIFFERENT to Griffith.
A lot of people say that the distinction between the Hawks dying in the Eclipse and dying on the battlefield is that the Hawks CONSENTED to fight in battle but did NOT consent to be sacrificed, but this is silly.
The entire point of the Eclipse is that it highlights the hypocrisy of the Hawks and the coercive nature of medieval warfare.
While the Hawks did CHOOSE to fight in battle, the enemy soldiers they killed most certainly did not. The foot soldiers of the armies of Midland and Tudor were FORCED to fight in battle through coercive feudal contracts. They were EXPECTED to fight for their feudal lords with punishment if they didn’t.
The Hawks knew of this, but DIDN’T CARE. They have NEVER cared about any kind of contractual agreement or mutual understanding between different sides of the battlefield. The enemy did not consent and they still thought it was fine to murder them, innocent people, for their own superfluous greed in wanting power and glory.
To not care about and never mention this fact about the Hawks and then whine about the unfair nature of the Eclipse is ABSURDLY hypocritical.
You might make the argument about MATERIAL NECESSITY. This has some merit, as Judeau stated that some of the Hawks were originally street urchins with nowhere else to go, but this is in the minority. He states that most of the Hawks are blacksmith’s sons, second sons of rich aristocrats or people who were merely entranced by Griffith’s charisma and wanted glory on the battlefield.
This is not material necessity. It’s superfluous greed. If you can defend an aristocrat’s son for killing innocent people on the battlefield then you can defend a suicidal emaciated man in a hallucinogenic state doing the same thing out of GREATER necessity in the Eclipse, but sacrificing more evil people who deserve it.
What’s more, if you make this argument then you MUST also defend Griffith, who was also a dirt poor street urchin in the slums of Wyndham, who joined as a CHILD.
There’s also the argument about betrayal and loyalty and trust, because the Hawks were his “friends” and they put their faith in him, and that is why he is morally reprehensible.
This argument makes me sick, akin to the morons who try to argue that mobsters are somehow morally upstanding people because they follow the arbitrary code of “la cosa nostra” that they use to pretend they have the slightest modicum of humanity, a code of etticut which provides these evil groups with the mechanism for more success in killing.
Griffith understands this ridiculous creed for what it is, and the God Hand play into this. They explain to him that in turn, his soldiers piled up many more corpses on his behalf, for their own selfish dreams. They are making a moral EQUIVALENCE between Griffith sacrificing his men and his men killing people on the battlefield. There’s NO difference.
Why are they making this equivalence? Because Griffith cares about ALL people, and gives them equal moral worth. Unlike the Hawks, who are only loyal to people so long as they serve some mutual self-interest to each other in strengthening their efficiency to murder and pillage, Griffith actually cares about the people he affects, even strangers.
Guts admits it himself while having a breakdown during his sex with Casca, that he never felt a shred of remorse towards anyone he killed, only Gambino. The Hawks CHOOSE to dehumanise the enemy in their minds as justification for their killing. They CHOOSE to make it impersonal. Griffith REFUSES to do this.
He feels OVERWHELMING guilt towards the tens of thousands of people that died because of him. He goes so far as to whore himself out to Gannon, sacrificing his pride, dignity and mental wellbeing, to ensure that no more of his soldiers have to unnecessarily die in battle. He solemnly laments the “wasted deaths” of the enemy dead while looking over them after a battle, acknowledging that they were forced to be there by their lords and that he had killed them.
Not only that, but Griffith actually wants to END the coercive nature of feudal warfare by creating a meritocratic society.
Griffith is FAR more caring and human than ANY of the Hawks, and the God Hand play on this empathetic guilt in convincing him to sacrifice his men, to ensure that none of them died for nothing and so their souls could rest in peace.
Finally, he DOES act on the consent of the Hawks cos Slan lied to him that she could read their minds and knew that they’d “forgive” him for being sacrificed in Heaven.
jacobvanloon
janainaart
yousharknotpass
jbbartram-illu
2087
tangentwithtanner
areudirty
