Furthermore, not only are there weaknesses inherent in Raglan’s pattern but there are also things that I believe simply do not work with the current criteria. First, Lord Raglan omitted any criterion related to personality or character and as a result we end up with individuals that are considered heroic according to the scale yet are not people one should aspire to be. A hero is far more than the milestones he prevails and the qualities he possesses should be a significant factor in evaluating his heroism. For example, both Samson and Achilles are considered heroes in their cultures but they are by no means exemplary men. Samson is seen as an Israelite hero yet he is both impulsive and aggressive, he killed many people from a neighbouring tribe after not getting his way. On the other hand, Achilles was a model Greek warrior but he was …show more content…
Both individuals were not good men but they are bestowed with the title of hero. A hero is someone society looks up to and idolizes, someone we aspire to imitate and these men should not be role models for anyone. The fact that Raglan did not incorporate anything related to personality or character allows almost anyone, regardless of their moral incentive or qualities to be deemed heroic and I believe that this discredits the scale’s usefulness to a certain extent in assessing heroes accordingly.
However, the current Raglan criteria could be altered and added to in order to make it more useful and effective. As previously mentioned, the Raglan Hero Pattern does not include anything that relates to the qualities that a heroic individual should possess although some traits are simply implicit within certain criterions. For example, the scale states that a hero must ‘defeat a great foe’ and one could assume that a certain level of bravery and courage would be needed to do so and thus Raglan implicitly points out that heroes must demonstrate valor.