Laches And Nicias: A Literary Analysis

In the Laches, Socrates discusses ideas of courage with two distinguished war generals, Laches and Nicias. From these discussions, arose three different definitions of what the two generals concluded that it meant for a person to be courageous. Although between the two men, there were seemingly three correct claims of the true definition of courage, the men, collectively were unable to come to a full consensus on what it truly means to be courageous. Thus, the men believe there is no complete definition to describe someone who is courageous. I will argue that the two men made very prominent points in each of their definitions; however, they tried to oversimplify the definition of courage and that caused them to override their full judgment.
The first general, Laches, proposed two separate definitions of courage. His first account stated, “that anyone who’s prepared not to break rank, but to resist the enemy without turning to flight, is a brave man” (Waterfield 52). Within this definition, I feel like it is important “not to break rank,” this is important because a person should stand their ground when someone questions their abilities or beliefs. Additionally to not break rank applies that, “courage appears not only on the battlefield but also in the perils at sea, disease, poverty, affairs of state, etc” (Yonezawa). This means that courage can be found in many places and not just in what is viewed as courageous situations. However, this definition doesn’t display courage on the account “but to resist the enemy without turning to flight,” I think it is important to realize that to fully display courage one must understand when it is time to turn away from an
His claim stated a person must have “knowledge of what’s threatening and reassuring in warfare and in all other situations” (Waterfield 58). In any situation that requires a person to break from their comfort zone; it is important to understand the aspects in which a situation could be menacing as well as rewarding; however, merely focusing on these aspects could cause a person to not act in the moment. When acting courageously, it is impossible for a person to know everything that could and could not happen in a situation. This uncertainty leads to the fact that in a given situation it is possible for a person to know what they should do, but they still might not act on it. This leads me to conclude that although it is important to understand the good and the bad in a situation; it is more important to not let these aspects stop a person from acting courageously. Furthermore, I feel Nicias also believed a person must act regardless of their fears; this means that although a person may know something is harmful they continue to go through with what they had planned. Although I mostly agree with this statement, I don’t believe that every courageous act has to have fear involved. Sometimes being courageous is simply coming out of a person’s comfort zone or doing something that others believe is questionable. If Nicias would have included a part that stated to act while understanding the threats along with