Talk:Hercules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hercules as hemigod 2 Hercules as historical person 3 Hercules elsewhere 4 Merge? 5 Split? 6 Straying from the texts 7 Deletion 7.1 Questions about the Video Games section on the article page 8 Pop Culture Herc 9 Character? 10 Labors 11 Disney's Great, But Not Historical

[edit] Hercules as hemigod

Hercules is a demigod not a god. According to what you have said i'm afraid your teacher or adviser is completely wrong. Hercules is a Roman name and has the same meaning as Heracles in greek. Correction for the first person who editedd this page.i am sorry what you have said is completely wrong. Gosh wish i was there to beat you up. destroying this wonderful myth.

To what are you referring? AFAICT, this article does not describe Hercules as a god or demi-god. It only calls him a "hero".

Tuf-Kat 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that Heracles (greek name) is a demigod (half god half mortal) and that he is also a "hero" for many things. User:Po132 08:02, 29 April 2006

He was also a hero in the very specific Greek sense, of course.--Wetman 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hercules as historical person

Hercules (or Heracles, Ηρακλής) was a prince of Royal House of Perseids, a dynasty of Achaean Empire, in Argos, Tiryns and Mycenae, in 2nd millenium BC. He headed some campaigns against adversaries of Achaean Empire in Peloponesos (Elis, Laconia), Middle Greece (Aetolia, Boeotia), Thessalia, Epirus etc. Later, every success of Acheans are ascribed to him.

--IonnKorr 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hercules elsewhere

Eqivalent or like figures include Ger Starkadr & Hindu Sisupala. Trekphiler 04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Is there really value in having separate articles at Heracles and Hercules? Should the two be merged? And if so, which name should prevail — the more ancient Heracles or the more common Hercules? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Hercules of Roman myth, the Renaissance and Saturday television with the Greek Heracles, any more than you'd confuse Minerva with Athene. --Wetman 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a merge. "Greco-Roman" gods fall into two categories.

First, there are native Roman gods who were at one point or another more-or-less arbitrarily associated with Greek gods. Your example of Athena and Minerva is a good case of that. In these cases, I advocate separate articles, with the Roman one focusing on cult practices - i.e. those traits which were not the result of borrowing.

But second, there are Greek gods that had no native Roman equivalent, and were simply imported. Apollo is the best example. But Hercules is one too. With Minerva, poetic descriptions take on Greek clothing, but the powers and rites keep on going on as if there'd been no Athena. With Hercules, it's a Greek borrowing and in constant dialogue with the Greek cult right from the start. I say merge. Bacchiad

The idea that Roman Hercules is in dialogue with Greek Herakles means that there's differences between the two, which is a good argument for having two articles. Less redundancy would be good, though--the section "The Greek Legend" can be eliminated from the Hercules article. Instead, we can have stuff about Hercules' links with Italy and the western Mediterranean--his fight with Geryon and all the little events that happen on his way back from that labor figure in a lot of local legends in western areas colonized by Greeks, and this seems to be a big factor in his popularity with the Romans. Akhilleus 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being sophistic. Minerva was a Roman goddess from way back in the mists of time. The Romans said, "hey, she's kinda like Athena". Minerva and Athena should be two separate articles. Hercules never existed until the Romans came in contact with the Greeks. They took him direct, only they happened to mispronounce his name.

If this does not sway you, however, consider that if we keep Heracles and Hercules separate, we should also have separate articles on Apollo and Apollon, Ulixes and Odysseus, Aeneas and Aineias, Oedipus and Oidipous. Bacchiad

If Ulixes had as many temples as Hercules, and was as different from Odysseus as Hercules is from Herakles, then, sure, they'd warrant separate articles. Instead of the standard you're proposing for whether there should be separate articles, try this one: how much is there to write about the different Greek and Roman figures? Would the section on the Roman version compare in length and interest to the Greek version? Then it's worth considering separate articles.

For Hercules, you can write a lengthy, informative, and interesting article that doesn't overlap much with Herakles, because Hercules was fairly important to Roman religion and literature. Ulixes, not so much, so that material should be covered in a section in the Odysseus article. Apollo doesn't seem to have many distinctive Roman features. Aineias is not very important in Greek culture, central in Roman, so one article.

It's worth noting that the Oxford Classical Dictionary has separate articles on Herakles and Hercules, on Athena and Minerva, but only one article for Aeneas, Odysseus, and Oedipus. There are definitely worse models than the OCD. Akhilleus 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on Ulixes; what about Apollo/Apollon? And how, specifically, is Hercules so radically different from Heracles? The article at present doesn't say; adding some well-argued text about that would be the best case against merging.

But you point to the real nut of this question, which is the overabundance of Her**les' popularity from the Greek Dark Ages up until today. The OCD has to deal with the Her**les of myth and the Her**les of cult in Greece and Rome. They take the sensible route of separating myth and Greek cult into one compartment and Roman cult into another. Also, the OCD - since it is a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia - has an editorial preference for short articles over long.

We have an extra wrinkle: beyond Greece and Rome, we have the Hercules of post-Roman culture and Saturday morning TV. I do not believe that having one article on the twelve labors and Greek temples and one on the Ara Maxima in the Forum Boarium and saturday morning cartoons makes much sense. First, the division lacks proportion. Second, those readers who come looking for the historical background on the pop-culture character are going to be better served by the material in the Greek article. The OCD entry on "Heracles" has the stuff that the average uninformed reader is going to want to find first. OCD's "Hercules" is specialist stuff. It makes sense for them, but I'd suggest not for us.

Since our subject is threefold rather than twofold, and since we do not have the same space restrictions as the OCD, I still say that a single article would be the best way to put all of the disjecta membra in proper context and proportion.

Let me be clear, however, that I do not want to establish a general precedent of merging Roman and Greek mythology articles together. I believe we've argued ourselves to a standstill here. Perhaps we should seek outside opinion? Bacchiad

You make good points. I agree that we need to structure the articles so that the general reader can find the information they need/are interested in. And, I agree that having one article on Greek Herakles and another on Roman Hercules + pop culture Hercules isn't the most logical way to divide things. So, I don't oppose a merge.

However, I do think that the potential length of a combined article may warrant *some* kind of division. Furthermore, the existing Heracles article could use more material--for instance, I think it would be useful to have separate sections on Herakles in tragedy, comedy, and philosophy, because each genre has a strikingly different idea of who "Herakles" is. Such an expansion would make Heracles pretty long, and merging in the Roman and later material might make an excessively lengthy article. I'm not sure if there's a consensus about how long is too long, though--the 32kb size seems like a guideline rather than a firm rule.

If we maintain separate articles, it should be easy to direct readers between the two with appropriate cross-references--that way we can ensure that users find the information they need. And I'll point out that edits are continuing on both articles, so there doesn't appear to be popular demand for a merge. I'll just leave it up to other contributors... Akhilleus 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-references are in the opening paragraphs of each article, so we certainly aren't discussing possible confusion on the part of the Wikipedfia reader here. --Wetman 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The pages have been merged by Bacchiad, an action that I feel to be without consensus. Please comment, and notice the comments from Talk:Heracles below (this posted by Nihiltres 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)):

What?!?!? I appreciate the work that Bacchiad put in to merge this with Hercules, but I thought that most people contributing to the talk were in favor of keeping the two separate. Others, please comment. Did I miss some major decision? What does the merge of this with Hercules mean for other mythological articles. If a merge of Hercules and Heracles is insisted upon, then I think the community should follow suit by merging the names of all of the articles on gods, heroes, and characters who have different names in both Greek and Roman mythology. Abhorsen327 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Hercules and Heracles are a special case. See this section below pasted in from the Hercules talk page. Bacchiad 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Bacchiad, there is no general consensus in favour of a merge, either on the Hercules page nor the Heracles page. Please revert your merge so that proper consensus can be reached.Nihiltres 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy there, Nihiltres. There has been a merge notice up there for weeks. Only two anti-merge advocates posted in that time, and one of them seemed willing to give the merge the benefit of the doubt. Since you and Abhorsen didn't speak up until after the merge, I couldn't really take your opinions into account now, could I?

That being said, I'm open to a more scientific poll. If we can measure consensus in some more feasible way than talk-page discussions that move nowhere, I'll abide by the decision either way. As for undoing the merge: if you want to do so, I won't get into an edit war. I'm content to stand back until a better opinion-measuring process is proposed and completed.

Sorry for stepping on toes. Bacchiad 03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I just want consensus, and I prefer the status quo in the meantime. Sorry about the boldness - that was a bit zealous of me. As for Abhorsen327 and I not expressing our anti-merge opinions, I must express the irony of checking on Talk:Heracles and not Talk:Hercules.

In the meantime, a summary of the major points might be useful for a poll, although I won't be able to do that since I need sleep - it's around midnight where I am. Nihiltres 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My main frustration with this entire process is that nothing was posted on the Heracles page other than one comment under the proposed submission to Featured Article Candidates, which was replied to by two users, and was never discussed again on the Heracles talk page. If there is to be a consensus for the merge of two pages, I feel that there should be a consensus among the editors of each page. I had never posted on the Hercules article, and had neither that article nor its talk page on my watchlist. If I had been aware of the move to merge, I would have posted my opinion against the merge on the talk page. While I see the organizational advantages of a merge, I am opposed to the merge for these reasons:

• Size concerns, as per Akhilleus. If the Heracles article is expanded to Featured Article size, as Akhilleus plans, then I see the potential for the article to grow large, beyond easy loading or easy readability.
• The current standard on Wikipedia is to separate articles on similar Greek and Roman mythological figures, and I feel that Her...les fits into this category.
• The two different mythological traditions cover this character separately, and thus the two pages should be kept separate, as per Wetman.

I'm sure that we can find some way of keeping these separate, but referencing each to the other for easy reference by readers. Hopefully we can reopen this merge discussion, so that a consensus is reached on both pages as to whether the merge should be kept or not. Abhorsen327 03:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments that there is greater utility in having a separate entry for Hercules and his Roman manifestations and modern revival. Haiduc 11:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the consensus, now that all parties have had a chance to view their opinions. I'll consent to a de-merge, therefore. Let me add, for my friends who frequent the Heracles page but were not watching Hercules, that I'm sorry you all were left out of the initial discussion. Bacchiad 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you should merge, Hercules and Heracles are the same exact thing same as Minerva and Athena and Zeus and Jupiter/Juno.

User:Po132

Even a glance at Minerva and Athena, Zeus or Jupiter would take the bloom off User:Po132's pose of perfect ignorance. User:Po132 was pulling our leg here, but this was a perfectly serious matter. --Wetman 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

Since there has been, apparently, a consensus that Heracles and Hercules should be different pages, I would like to go through the two pages and make sure that there is as little overlapping information as possible in the two articles; that no information is omitted from one that is found in, but does not properly belong, to the other; and that where there is relevant information in Heracles that needs to be referenced in Hercules, it should be via link, and vice versa. However, I'd like to get some idea of what the reaction is going to be before attempting this. RandomCritic 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I went ahead with the separation. RandomCritic 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag was recently reapplied, after all: I removed it. The two articles need to remain complete: some overlap in text is a result of the very same cultural overlap we've been distracted by here.

[edit] Straying from the texts

When we report what we remember of what the nuns taught us and don't look back at the sources, we may stray into unexpected territory, thus: "Hercules later decided to elope with Iole, and realizing he was not dressed for the occasion, requested that his wife send him a coat." --- mm, was that the Chesterfield with the velvet collar or the midnight blue alpaca? --Wetman 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he actually elope with Iolaus instead? Haiduc 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I deleted the following because I can find no evidence that this film actually exists. If it's not a spoof, it needs a title and release date:

• A short film by Steven Spielberg depicting Hercules as a gay bartender living in 1940's Croatia.

[edit] Questions about the Video Games section on the article page

One part of this currently reads:

Is this supposed to read Heracles or is it a typo that should be corrected to Hercules? I am not familiar with either such game for the PS2, so I have no good way of verifying this. If Heracles was the intention, perhaps that tidbit should be moved over to the page dedicated to Heracles. Thanks. Santorummm 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture Herc

Would it be a good or bad idea to split off the "Hercules in popular culture" section into its own article -- something like Hercules (popular culture) or Hercules (film and comics)?RandomCritic 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When an articles gets long, it's common Wikipedia practice to make a new article (Hercules in popular culture), cut-and-pasting all relevant material but retaining a succinct condensed version of the material here at the trunk article, under the heading For the main aricle, see Hercules in popular culture. --Wetman 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character?

I'm not sure about you guys, but the section on his charachter looks a little wrong. I don't know anything about his charachter other than what I saw about him in the disney movie, but I'm sure that he wasn't reknowned for errotic adventeures with men. ~Rustyfence 02:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is true. The Disney movie was a rather faithful adaption of the Hercules story and I enjoyed it very much. The whole notion of any bit of homsexuality in Hercules's character is absurd. Whoever wrote that section has no idea what they're talking about. ~bluemangroupfan666 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labors

They weren't about him becoming a god, they were to cleanse/purify himself of his murders. Even though the Disney movie was good,it doesnt really matter Hercules is not what you think. He killed his wife and children.

[edit] Disney's Great, But Not Historical

I recently saw Disney's production of Hercules (yeah, I'm a little behind the times ;) ) for a project in Greek Mythology in a class I'm taking.

I loved the movie--it was EXTREMELY well done--and I like where they went with their own plot, but, in relation to an above comment, it is not factual whatsoever.

The Fates which Disney expressed as ugly creatures who share only one eyeball (Gorgons, actually, are known to share one eyeball), but, as far as I know, the Fates were beautiful, powerful (the gods had to go by what they said), and mysterious.

At the beginning of the movie, it shows Hera and Zeus as the happy parents of Zeus. This is half true. Hercules was, in fact, the son of Zeus, but his mother was a mortal named Alcmena. Because of this, there goes half of the movie. Since Hercules is only half god, Hades (not really a bad guy--he was just gloomy...you'd be too if you hung out with dead people your entire life) wouldn't have visited him on Mt. Olympus, and never gave him a potion, and never made him mortal. He was mortal from the begining (though he really did have extreme strength). Hades never had a reason to make Hercules mortal, or to get him dead. Hercules also didn't meet "Meg" when training with "Phil" because of the following slightly complicated...thingy:

Hercules, in the movie, wanted to be a hero so that he could regain his immorality and become a true god again and live with his real parents with them on Mt. O. Hercules, for real, though, was never a true god in the first place, thus never had a reason to go to Mt. O. He really married Meg (I'm not sure when) and had lots of children. However, since Zeus was cheating on Hera when he made Hercules, Hera has been out to get the mortal since his birth. She's constantly trying to kill him. Finally, she makes him temporarily crazy, and he kills his wife and all his children. Hera, afterwards, brings him back to his senses so that he realizes what he's done. He feels horrible, and for him everything's a mess--for he really loved his family. Zeus is trying to protect his son, and realizes that it wasn't his fault he went crazy and killed his family--it was put upon him by Hera. So in order to cleanse himself, Hercules must complete 12 labors.

He isn't, never was, and never will be immortal.

In short, there are a lot of messed of facts that Disney screwed up that I don't have near the time to cover--these were just a few main ones--(the did a great job on the movie, I won't deny, and it's pretty funny, too) so I thought I might just straighten that out. Thanks for reading, respond if you want.

--ElvenLady~HobbitGirl 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)ElvenLady~HobbitGirl

Typo? 'Hera and Zeus as the happy parents of Zeus' 71.168.113.85 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)