Hey, can anyone please give me any feedback on this WOT essay I've written, I've tried to get in contact with my english teacher but she doesn't seem to be responding. Thank you 🙂

‘Euripides’ play shows that there are no winners in war.’ Discuss (2021 Exam)
In the haunting aftermath of the war, the audience is compelled to question whether any side can truly claim victory amid the smouldering ruins and anguished cries of the helpless women. It is a question that echoes through the annals of history repeatedly, as wars leave in their wake, a trail of irrevocable damages. Euripides, in his tragedy play, ‘The Women of Troy’ (415BC), challenges this conventional notion that war produces clear victors and vanquishes. He indicates that the concept of true winners in a war is far more elusive and complex than the simplistic understanding held by the Athenian audience. Through an exploration of the moral implications that war exacts upon the individuals involved, Euripides encourages his audience to question whether victory can be ethically justified if it demands the sacrifice of moral standards. Moreover, the profound human costs and suffering inflicted by war underline the notion that no side should claim victory when the pursuit thereof leaves visceral scars on individual’s lives and tarnishes entire societies. Nevertheless, beyond the moral decay and human anguish, Euripides ultimately imparts a timeless truth that there are no true victors in war or in the unpredictability of life, where the whims of fate and capricious gods hold sway.

Euripides challenges the traditional concept of 'victory' in war by probing the moral implications of triumph, raising the question of whether winning is justifiable when it necessitates the sacrifice of innocent lives and ethical principles. In the ‘Women of Troy,’ harmless victims such as the women and children, who have no direct contact in the war, are brutally tortured and endure suffering by the Greek soldiers. Euripides employs visceral language to juxtapose the “sweet” smell of Astyanax’s soft flesh with the appalling imagery of the “break” and “smash” to highlight his “[callous]” murder. In doing so, the playwright emphasises the barbaric nature of the Greeks as their moral compass is tainted to an extent of perceiving their pursuit to victory necessitating the killing of innocent children in fear of Astyanax growing up to seek revenge. Through this, Euripides condemns the Greeks victory as when moral principles such as protecting the vulnerable people like children are abandoned in the pursuit of victory, it sets a precedent that can influence future conflicts. He aims to relay a warning that if winning is equated with the abandonment of ethical standards, it can perpetuate cycles of violence and revenge. This can lead to a never-ending series of conflicts, with each side justifying its actions based on the perceived moral failings of the other. This is exemplified in the both the context of Euripides’ world with the siege of Melos as well as the Don Taylor’s world and the siege of Sarajevo as both authors relay that victors repeatedly let go of the basic moral standards to achieve their supposed victory but to no avail. Thus, they suggest the moral cost of their victory is not justified as the loss of morality is the price paid for it. Similarly, the effects of moral corruption to obtain victory are exemplified in Menelaus’ desire for revenge. Euripides utilises Cassandra as his mouthpiece to voice the war was initiated for Menelaus’ revenge and not some greater “reason” as “they weren’t being robbed” or “being invaded.” In doing so, he underscores the barrenness of Menelaus' motivation for victory and challenges the idea that there is a noble cause behind the war. His Athenian male audience is indoctrinated to believe from the time they are trained to become soldiers that dying fighting for their country is heroic. However, the playwright challenges this as it becomes evident that the pursuit of victory, in this case, is driven by a personal vendetta and a desire for vengeance. This moral ambiguity blurs the lines between victor and vanquished, as the Greeks' victory is tarnished by the absence of a justifiable cause. In essence, Euripides underscores the ethical toll exacted when innocent lives are sacrificed and when revenge, rather than a just cause, becomes the driving force behind victory. This critique resonates across different historical contexts, serving as a stark reminder to the audience of the dangers of abandoning moral principles in the pursuit of victory.

The playwright explores the notion that victory's justification falters when considering the profound human costs of war including the suffering of women and the widespread societal devastation that ensues. Euripides utilises animalistic imagery and epizeuxis of Hecuba’s and the Chorus’ “howl” which aids in the dramatist depiction of the Trojan women’s abject misery. Their suffering is emphasised by their comparison of self to animals to express their pain, conveying the depth of their despair. This highlights the unimaginable nature of the pain women, as characterised by the Chorus, are put through by the brutality of men. Euripides’ use of language here transcends the boundaries between the unimaginable and the imagined, furthering his condemnation of the frivolous and destructive nature of warfare and thus denouncing the Greeks’ victory. In a later passage described as the thematic crux of the play by many critics, Euripides uses Cassandra as a vessel to convey his inner beliefs on the futility of war and the transitory nature of victory. Through her funeral dirge performance, Euripides underscores the “cost [of] tens of thousands dead” which compels the audience to consider if the Greeks can truly claim victory if it cost them, not only to abandon their moral standards, but also lose fellow comrades and cause a whole society to fall. The war’s ramifications on Troy are evidently manifested in the play as the city is poignantly described as a “smoking ruin,” and the sacred temples, once “raised” to the gods, are now duplicitously razed. Thus, the Athenians, in their pursuit of victory, committed blasphemous atrocities that defied all their values which Euripides implies mitigates the honour behind their victory. Moreover, by keeping Hecuba onstage the entire play, the playwright does not allow his audience to escape being reminded of the cataclysmic suffering that the women had had to endure. He showcases society is torn apart and human lives are irrevocably altered, regardless of the victor or vanquished. Troy is left in ruins and its institutions dismantled, this destruction underlining the long-lasting impact of war on the functioning of society. Ultimately, the message intended to be relayed to his audience is that while victors may achieve their military objectives, the societal disintegration and intense suffering as a result challenges the idea of a true winner.

Ultimately, in underscoring that there are no enduring victors in war, Euripides illuminates the capricious nature of life and the unpredictable twists of fate that render any sense of security or triumph fleeting. Thus, the audience is encouraged to question whether true victory is ever attainable in the grand scheme of existence. While the Greeks have won the war, Euripides alludes that the Greeks voyage back home will be a “complete disaster” due to their hubris inspired by their military success. Hence, through this pyrrhic victory, Euripides signifies the unpredictability of the gods and the notion that all mortals are subject to the whim of fate and the divine. This underscores the idea of a victorious side as the “same destruction” that they inflict in war may “fall on [their] own head.” Similarly, Agamemnon’s supposed victory in claiming the consecrated Cassandra as his “concubine” is delusive as Euripides alludes to the eventual downfall she will cause to the House of Atreus to seek her vengeance. Thus, this exemplifies the idea that “any mortal that thinks himself [to be] prosperous and secure is a fool” because any victory in a given time is never secure. Thus, Euripides questions whether the Athenian’s are really victorious or if they are simply a cog in the machine of fate, watching their destiny unfold without any agency to act upon the unpredictability of it.

In conclusion, Euripides cautionary message extends beyond the Athenian context, resonating across different historical periods, as it warns against the dangers of abandoning moral principles in the pursuit of triumph. Furthermore, Euripides underscores the capriciousness of life and the unpredictability of fate, reminding us that no victory, whether in war or in life, is ever truly secure. The Athenian audience is prompted to reflect on the transience of success and the enduring consequences of their actions, suggesting that the price paid for victory, when measured in moral decay and human suffering, renders it a hollow achievement. This was an attempt by the playwright to make his audience reconsider their supposed ‘heroicness’ and to serve as an example for future societies to avoid facing the same fate. Ultimately, Euripides imparts to his audience a timeless truth: in the broader context of existence, war primarily results in the suffering of innocent individuals, and the elusive nature of victors underscores the futility of engaging in such conflicts.