Violence and Heroism in the Bhagavad Gita and Song of Roland
This essay compares the treatment of violence and heroism in two ancient epics: the Bhagavad Gita and the Song of Roland. Analyzing the central figures of Arjuna and Roland, the paper explores how each text frames violence not as gratuitous or shameful, but as a necessary fulfillment of duty within a structured social and moral order. The essay examines how Hindu concepts of dharma and karma shape Arjuna's reluctant warrior role, while feudal and Christian obligations define Roland's fearless, pride-driven combat. Together, the two works illuminate how ancient societies contained and moralized violence through ideology, and how those frameworks compare to modern attitudes toward heroism and warfare.
- Introduction: Violence in Ancient Epic Traditions: Ancient societies accepted violence as heroic duty
- Arjuna's Dilemma: Duty, Dharma, and Detachment in the Bhagavad Gita: Arjuna's reluctant warrior role and dharmic obligation
- Roland's Pride and the Feudal Code in the Song of Roland: Roland's feudal duty, pride, and heavenly reward
- Contrasting the Two Warriors: Emotion, Humanity, and Moral Framing: Emotional differences between Arjuna and Roland
- Violence, Necessity, and Morality Across Cultures: How necessity and ideology shaped ancient moral frameworks
- Conclusion: Heroism Then and Now: Ancient heroism compared to modern cultural attitudes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper sets up a clear comparative framework from the outset, identifying a shared theme — the moral justification of violence — and tracing it through two distinct cultural and literary traditions without forcing artificial equivalence.
- It uses textual evidence and direct quotation to ground the analysis, particularly in its treatment of Arjuna's dilemma and the ideological function of dharma.
- The conclusion broadens the argument meaningfully, connecting ancient attitudes toward heroism to modern cultural representations, giving the essay contemporary relevance without overreaching.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis: it juxtaposes two canonical works from different traditions to identify structural parallels (hierarchical duty, moralized violence, the reluctant or prideful hero) while also noting significant differences in emotional depth and treatment of the enemy. This approach shows how cross-cultural literary comparison can illuminate ideological patterns that transcend individual texts.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by situating both works within a broader argument about ancient versus modern attitudes toward violence. It then devotes focused attention to each text in turn — first the Bhagavad Gita, then the Song of Roland — before a direct comparative section that contrasts Arjuna and Roland's emotional responses. The final sections synthesize the argument, connecting necessity, morality, and ideology, and close with a reflection on how these ancient heroic ideals persist in modern culture.
Introduction: Violence in Ancient Epic Traditions
In contrast to current conceptions of violence as problematic, in ancient societies violence was an accepted part of daily life, and acting violently was even seen as a heroic attribute. The Bhagavad Gita and the Song of Roland both emerge from cultures in which the capacity for violence was inseparable from social duty, moral order, and even spiritual fulfillment. Examining how each text frames its warrior-hero's relationship to violence reveals how necessity and ideology worked together to moralize combat in two very different ancient traditions.
Arjuna's Dilemma: Duty, Dharma, and Detachment in the Bhagavad Gita
In the Bhagavad Gita, the struggles of the central protagonist Arjuna with Krishna are portrayed as a dialogue between Man and God. Arjuna despairs at his fate, having to kill his relatives during a time of war. It is the man Arjuna who is reticent about the violence, while Krishna urges him on to fulfill his dharma — his purpose in life. "This is precisely Arjuna's dilemma: to conform to his inherent duty as a warrior and fight, and by doing so slaughter his enemies that are also his kinsmen, or to lay down his arms and disrupt the natural and social order" (xiv). The text clearly supports the idea that Arjuna should go forth and fight: Krishna tells Arjuna to act without attachment to the fruits of his decision, thus experiencing the spiritual benefits of renunciation without shirking his duty (xiv).
This concept illustrates that the social framework of Indian society did not renounce violence as a precondition for spirituality, but rather recognized reacting violently as a necessary part of the living conditions of the era. Violence is not celebrated as glorious, but shirking one's duty was not commendable either. Arjuna's dilemma also reflects the Hindu caste system, whereby certain individuals were given higher class status and assumed to have a duty to perform religious practices that others did not — the Brahmans — while those of the warrior class were not expected to mimic the customs or assume the obligations of the Brahmans, any more than members of the trades would be expected to fight like warriors.
What is permanent about the self cannot kill or be killed, and thus detaching from the action means that one is not subjected to the negative consequences of the action. Instead of thinking "I am a violent person" or "I am a great warrior because I kill," Arjuna must simply perform the actions he must perform in a cool and dispassionate manner.
Roland's Pride and the Feudal Code in the Song of Roland
The Song of Roland similarly depicts a hierarchical society structured upon mutual obligations — in this instance, between lords and vassals in feudal Europe. Roland owes a feudal obligation to Charlemagne, and Charlemagne owes an obligation to God. Roland is portrayed as a great warrior, even though he ultimately commits a fatal sin of pride by refusing to blow the Oliphant and ask for help from the rest of the Frankish army when ambushed. This results in the smaller Frankish forces being overcome by the Saracens. Yet despite this, Roland — after he does indeed finally blow the Oliphant — is taken straight to heaven upon his death. His folly of pride does not cancel out his greatness as a warrior.
Conclusion: Heroism Then and Now
Both heroes are capable of killing other men, and even acting foolishly or selfishly — as in the case of Roland — while fighting. Yet their actions in response to difficult circumstances are still celebrated. Heroes are seen as committing acts of violence out of necessity or simply because of the personality required to be a warrior. Someone who is retiring, who thinks before acting and asks questions rather than strikes first, will not survive on the battlefield.
Today, most people in the modern world are more removed from warfare. Heroes who fight for freedom are celebrated, but there is a greater cultural acknowledgement — particularly in the media — that war can be hellish. Still, the idea that one can be heroic and have killed other human beings in warfare remains part of our own modern ideology, as seen in cinematic depictions of warfare spanning from wartime pictures to superhero films. Senseless violence has rarely been celebrated in mainstream culture, but violence with a moral cast to it has — even though the morality used to justify that violence may vary cross-culturally.
Works Cited
The Bhagavad Gita. Translated by W. J. Johnson. Oxford University Press, 2009.
The Song of Roland. Translated by Robert Harrison. Penguin, 2012.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.