Should Eurylochus Have Killed The Cattle In The Odyssey

443 Words2 Pages
In Homer’s Odyssey Eurylochus shouldn't have killed Helios’s cattle because of the warning, the promise the men made, and the food they already had. First, Eurylochus shouldn't have killed the cattle because of the warning. Odysseus was warned that if his men touched the cattle that they would die. Eurylochus should have known something was going to happen if him and the other men killed the cattle because of the promise they made to Odysseus. Eurylochus said, “But if he flares up over his heifers lost, wishing our ship destroyed…” (Homer), so he guessed that Helios would punish them, but he did the deed anyways. Next, Eurylochus shouldn't have killed the cattle because of the promise. Eurylochus and the men promised before…show more content…
So they had to fish and find other animals besides the cattle and sheep. Eurylochus and the men was tired of the fish and other animals,but they should have kept eating it because they would eventually left the island. Odysseus even urged his men to bypass the island, but they wanted to land and eat the cow even though they had food from the sea. However, Eurylochus should have killed the cattle because of the men and him being tired of the other food they ate. Odysseus gave them barley and wine,but they ate it all. Eurylochus and the men started to fish and eat the other small animals besides the cattle. Eventually, they got tired of the smaller animals and decided to kill and feast on a cow. Helios should have let Eurylochus and the men eat a cow and they wouldn't have killed one. In conclusion, Eurylochus shouldn't have killed Helios’s cattle. In conclusion, Eurylochus shouldn't have killed Helios’s cattle because of the warning, the promise, and because they had enough food already. Even though Helios should have let Eurylochus and the men have a cow because they needed another type of food to eat. In the end, Eurylochus and the other men shouldn't have killed and feasted the
Open Document