Achilles VS Batman [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Coidzor

2011-04-27, 08:00 PM

Achilles struggled a bit in his arrogance to take out Paris. Batman, who's at least more intelligent and better equipped than Paris, should be able to take him out easy.

Wait. Achilles had to struggle to kill Paris? Are you sure you're not confusing him with his brother, Hector (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hector)?

The ONLY relevant question in any Batman vs thread is does he have time to plan?

Does Batman need time to plan against someone he already knows about and whose weakness is famous?

Achilles struggled a bit in his arrogance to take out Paris. Batman, who's at least more intelligent and better equipped than Paris, should be able to take him out easy.

Wait. Achilles had to struggle to kill Paris? Are you sure you're not confusing him with his brother, Hector (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hector)?

Which version of Achilles? In some, he's a demi-god. Divine favor is a handy thing.

I imagine the one that could only be harmed when hit in that one spot his mum was holding him by when dipping him into the River Styx. Otherwise there'd be no question, now would there? Hadn't heard of any other versions of him from Greek Mythology though.

As it is, the main question is, would Batman kill Achilles or find some way of taking him out without killing him or if he can actually just be harmed through his heel rather than straight up killed.

warty goblin

2011-04-27, 09:43 PM

Tazar

2011-04-27, 09:47 PM

I thought Illiad Achilles was indeed invulnerable? I'm hardly an expert, though, so if you have knowledge in the field I defer to you.

In any case, Batman is pretty dead as he won't use lethal force and that's pretty much all that's going to work against Achilles.

As Warty Goblin points out, Achilles wiped out whole armies single-handedly. Batman's not going to be able to knock him unconscious, stun him, gas him, tase him, or anything like that.

No way you're putting down a mythic hero of Achilles' caliber with knockout gas.

The Glyphstone

2011-04-27, 09:51 PM

So, am I the only person who was hoping for this to be Batman vs. the psychopathic mastermind Achilles from the Ender's Game universe?

Dienekes

2011-04-27, 09:57 PM

No way you're putting down a mythic hero of Achilles' caliber with knockout gas.

Why not? He's not invulnerable to knock out gas, since such a thing didn't exist then and his lungs still need to breathe. He's also a strictly melee and spear fighter used to facing men on the battle field. Batman doesn't do fair fights (at least if he can help it) and has all sorts of interesting gizmos on his side.

Achilles has taken down armies before, that's fine, Batman has taken on gods and fought to a standstill. They're both utterly ridiculous in their accomplishments. Ultimately barring them both being put into a pit and told to fight I don't see how Batman will allow himself to get in reach of Achilles. And ultimately that is Achilles downfall, it's not a better warrior it's an arrow. Batman has plenty of tools to pull the same effect.

And yes Batman vs Enderverse Achilles would have been fun.

SamBurke

2011-04-27, 09:57 PM

Warty Goblin is indeed correct, Achilles was not quiiite invincible in the Illiad, thus forming two versions: the near invincible one (with the famous heel) or the absolutely and totally and epically and god-defyingly invicible one who could rout entire armies within a matter of an hour.

Lemme say this: Batman is in for a toooooughhhh fight. What incarnation of Batman are we talking, what weapons, etc, etc?

Again, I must echo: mankind is weaker and not as smart as we used to be. Don't make me prove this.

druid91

2011-04-27, 10:05 PM

So, am I the only person who was hoping for this to be Batman vs. the psychopathic mastermind Achilles from the Ender's Game universe?

No, I too was hoping for Enderverse Achilles.

As for Achilles being superguy?

Bat. Jet.

Achilles can't fly.

Eldrys

2011-04-27, 10:12 PM

Tazar

2011-04-28, 12:10 AM

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 12:43 AM

Batman doesn't kill. That's a huge handicap here.

You bring anything less than three hundred percent of your game against Achilles and you're dead meat in a second.

Or you drop a net on him and drag him so that his ankle doesn't get scuffed up and since he's invincible he's not gonna get hurt by it, but he certainly will eventually get bored or disoriented. Failing that, I think it's possible to make him drunk and pass out and get tied to a rocket that goes into outer space forever.

And if it's the right one he has a teleporter to a space station base he could just shunt him out of an airlock of. Doesn't violate his no killing clause since Achilles can't die of depressurization.

Sinfonian

2011-04-28, 01:09 AM

Unless I'm getting my timelines mixed up, the Achilles heel is, I think, usually considered a later, Roman, invention. The Achilles of the Iliad is pretty clearly not invulnerable, since he needed Thetis to get Hephaistos to forge him new armor after Hektor stripped Patroklus of his old gear. Somebody who cannot be harmed probably wouldn't be worrying about a missing harness and shield.

Veering off-topic:
While it is true that the invulnerability of Achilles came about rather later, around the 1st century AD, even an invincible Achilles would have cared about his armor. As the exemplar of the Greek man in wartime, Achilles would have really cared about how he was armed and armored. He simply wouldn't have been a true warrior if he didn't have the proper gear, serving as not only a point of pride, but an announcement of who he was and where he was from (similar to, but not quite the same as, medieval heraldry). One example of this is that Odysseus is described as having a boar tusk helmet, unique to him and an identifying feature on the battlefield. A soldier like Achilles would want everyone to know that it was him from the moment he stepped out of his tent.

More on-topic:
This is one of the times where I don't really think that Batman needs preparation time. He's likely a skilled enough fighter to at least hold Achilles to a draw (even if he couldn't pull out a win directly), while he would probably quickly find out that Achilles is fairly easy to manipulate on an emotional level. He would goad Achilles into making rash decisions, impeding his ability to perform to his best. Also, given that Batman's repertoire is chiefly non-lethal to begin with, which invulnerability of the body would likely not protect from, that really tips the battle fully to Batman.

Back off-topic, short Batman rant:
I don't particularly like the depiction of Batman, even in the comics, as someone who can do ANYTHING given enough time. It seems to me that its something that came up over the years as a way for Batman to be able to hang around with Superman, Green Lantern, etc. without being overshadowed. I can see why writers and fans would look to something like that to explain Batman's place in the DC universe, but I don't particularly care for it.

Mando Knight

2011-04-28, 01:16 AM

Wait. Achilles had to struggle to kill Paris? Are you sure you're not confusing him with his brother, Hector (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hector)?
Wait. Achilles had to struggle to kill Paris? Are you sure you're not confusing him with his brother, Hector (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hector)?
I think I got it the first time. It's been a while since I've read/watched anything about the Trojan war...

Tazar

2011-04-28, 01:20 AM

Or you drop a net on him and drag him so that his ankle doesn't get scuffed up and since he's invincible he's not gonna get hurt by it, but he certainly will eventually get bored or disoriented. Failing that, I think it's possible to make him drunk and pass out and get tied to a rocket that goes into outer space forever.

And if it's the right one he has a teleporter to a space station base he could just shunt him out of an airlock of. Doesn't violate his no killing clause since Achilles can't die of depressurization.

I'm pretty sure Achilles would die of depressurization, as Scamander nearly drowns him during his vengeful offensive against the Trojans after Patroclus is slain.

I would also submit that a net is unlikely to hold Achilles, particularly when he has a sword, and that assuming Batman is of equal fighting skill to Achilles is manifestly unwise. Achilles has divine heritage and comes from a period where men were bigger, stronger, faster, and better. He spent all of his time doing nothing but preparing for war. Batman spends a lot of time on activities other than training 24/7.

Batman's really good, but he's not that good.

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 01:24 AM

I'm pretty sure Achilles would die of depressurization, as Scamander nearly drowns him during his vengeful offensive against the Trojans after Patroclus is slain.

I would also submit that a net is unlikely to hold Achilles, particularly when he has a sword, and that assuming Batman is of equal fighting skill to Achilles is manifestly unwise. Achilles has divine heritage and comes from a period where men were bigger, stronger, faster, and better.

Batman's really good, but he's not that good.

You know what the solution to a sword is against someone who is invulnerable?

SCIENCE! Specifically hydrofluoric acid. Bye-bye bronze sword. Or, y'know, Bat Disarming device No. 424.

Or a net that's made out of something that something made out of bronze can't break. Hell, IIRC, certain Batmen could have the net made out of diamonds.

Also, the bit where men were bigger, stronger, faster, and better is propaganda on the part of the writers of the tales and irrelevant to him getting out of even steel cable bindings. The semi-divine on the other hand, is a point, but Achilles was no Herakles.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 01:28 AM

Also, the bit where men were bigger, stronger, faster, and better is propaganda on the part of the writers of the tales and irrelevant to him getting out of even steel cable bindings. The semi-divine on the other hand, is a point, but Achilles was no Herakles.

Actually, it's not propaganda; Greek mythology specifically dictates that with the passage of time, or "ages", men grew weaker, both physically and morally. Seeing as the Trojan War represents one of the earliest Ancient Greek myths, yeah, Achilles would be much stronger than any modern-day human.

Given that Achilles wields arms forged by Hephaestus himself, I think you may be overestimating the chances modern science has against his equipment. :smallwink:

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 01:36 AM

Actually, it's not propaganda; Greek mythology specifically dictates that with the passage of time, or "ages", men grew weaker, both physically and morally. Seeing as the Trojan War represents one of the earliest Ancient Greek myths, yeah, Achilles would be much stronger than any modern-day human.

Given that Achilles wields arms forged by Hephaestus himself, I think you may be overestimating the chances modern science has against his equipment. :smallwink:

Given that you're jamming the two together, I'd say you're giving the appearance of wholly underselling the paragons of modern humanity in a setting full of metahumans that isn't our world or the world of greek mythology and thus not bound by that particular "rule" and saying that an ordinary man from back then had super strength which is a ridiculous position.

Besides, you stated it as if you believed it to be the case for us here in the real world rather than as a condition for the scenario itself.

WalkingTarget

2011-04-28, 01:43 AM

Even if he's talking about the nigh invincible Roman Achilles, batman uses explosives. My understanding of Achilles is that basically, if he gets hit on his heel, he's dead. Explosives aren't to picky about what they hit and if Batty manages to get anywhere near Achilles, somethings going to get to his heal

The versions of Achilles death that I'm familiar with that deal with the heel (Roman-era as WG pointed out) specifically mention Paris using a poisoned arrow. It's not that it's a self-destruct point, it's just the only place where he can be wounded. It's like Baldur with mistletoe - it's not like it's inherently harmful to him, it's just the only thing that can harm him, like if you make an arrow out of it.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 01:45 AM

Given that you're jamming the two together, I'd say you're giving the appearance of wholly underselling the paragons of modern humanity in a setting full of metahumans that isn't our world or the world of greek mythology and thus not bound by that particular "rule" and saying that an ordinary man from back then had super strength which is a ridiculous position.

Of course it's "ridiculous"; it's mythology. Most things in mythology are ridiculous, in case you haven't noticed.

That doesn't change the fact that it's explicitly stated (as mentioned earlier by warty goblin) that contemporary Ancient Greek men are decidedly inferior compared to their mythic brethren.

Achilles is much, much stronger than Batman, an advantage which is only enhanced by his having been born in a much earlier era. There's really no room for debate on this one.

Zaydos

2011-04-28, 01:57 AM

So we have Achilles. In the Illiad he is wounded (by a river god technically) and wears super-armor because he's not invincible (the myths with his weakness, and source of invulnerability, are not in the Illiad itself and Greek mythology is not without its contradictions). Giving him all the stops, though, Hephaestus forged armor, the strength to lift boulders that I believe it was 8 strong men couldn't lift (that might have been the Greater Ajax, who wasn't as strong as Achilles but was the 2nd strongest), and only one weak spot (strangely not guarded by his armor).

On the other hand we have Batman.

I'd give this to Batman. Achilles's strength is meaningless if Batman knows about his Achilles Heel and Achilles lacks the speed needed to so thoroughly surpass batman. Also the versions with his invulnerability state that he couldn't wear anything over his heel without crippling pain.

Also Batman could and would manipulate Achilles's other Achilles Heel. I'd actually say Batman could probably win this without actually managing to harm Achilles physically but by pushing him to exhaustion/self-destruction through manipulation of his pride.

Also as for his death there are four versions I know of:
Paris just shot him (I think Apollo guided him).
Paris shot him with a poisoned arrow.
Apollo took Paris's appearance and shot him.
Apollo took Paris's appearance and shot him with a poisoned arrow.*

*This is a little redundant since all of Apollo's arrows were supposed to be poisonous.

I know in the most comprehensive one I had it mentioned all of those and listed the first as the earliest, followed by the later ones as an attempt to explain how someone as pathetic as Paris could kill Achilles.

chiasaur11

2011-04-28, 02:24 AM

Another thing to remember?

Batman is a master of more or less every martial art. Many of which are designed to redirect superior force.

In other words, divine strength is a major benefit. Less so when your godlike strength is hitting you in the face.

Wayne is used to being outgunned in brute force. Achilles is not used to dealing with Batman.

ThePhantasm

2011-04-28, 02:34 AM

Achilles is an emotional basketcase. Batman has learned to control his emotion and use it to his advantage. Batman will find weak points not only on Achilles' heel, but his heart. He'll get Achilles angry, unfocused.

By the way, Batman always wins.

Asta Kask

2011-04-28, 05:07 AM

The second greatest hero of the Greeks, Diomedes, beat Ares. Achilles was better.

Sinfonian

2011-04-28, 06:03 AM

The second greatest hero of the Greeks, Diomedes, beat Ares. Achilles was better.
To be fair, Ares was a whiny punk. I don't really think beating him is saying much.

Asta Kask

2011-04-28, 06:11 AM

He was the God of War; even if he was a whiny punk, he was still a brutally skilled warrior. Zeus himself had to heal Ares from Diomedes' wounds. And like I said, Achilles was better.

Actually, Achilles is a bit of a whiny punk as well. I can have respect for someone like Hector, who fought valiantly to defend his city. But someone who lets thousands of people die because of a tiff with the commander? Still, my vote is for Achilles.

lobablob

2011-04-28, 06:16 AM

Of course it's "ridiculous"; it's mythology. Most things in mythology are ridiculous, in case you haven't noticed.

That doesn't change the fact that it's explicitly stated (as mentioned earlier by warty goblin) that contemporary Ancient Greek men are decidedly inferior compared to their mythic brethren.

Achilles is much, much stronger than Batman, an advantage which is only enhanced by his having been born in a much earlier era. There's really no room for debate on this one.

Both sides are from two different settings, both of which have different rules and myths and so there has to be some kind of compromise. Older = Better may apply in the myths Achilles comes from, but it is clearly the case that the same does not apply in Batman's world, so I don't think that alone can be an argument for Achilles.

Asta Kask

2011-04-28, 06:30 AM

Brother Oni

2011-04-28, 06:51 AM

Batman is a master of more or less every martial art. Many of which are designed to redirect superior force.

In other words, divine strength is a major benefit. Less so when your godlike strength is hitting you in the face.

I always chuckle when I see this assumption wheeled out.

Yes, many martial arts are designed to help you overcome a stronger and more powerful opponent. There's still a limit that skill can compensate for, it's not a magic mirror of strength reflection.

You can be vastly superior in skill terms to an opponent, but if simply blocking a hit from them results in a broken limb, it's not going to help.
It's why we have weight classes in competitive contact sports - you really think a flyweight boxer (49-51kg) is going to do anything to a heavyweight (>91kg)?

Armed martial arts are a different case, but in unarmed combat the bigger and heavier man is more likely to win.

Moglorosh

2011-04-28, 07:45 AM

Don't bring fists to a sword-fight. In a fight between to skilled opponents, the person with a weapon is usually going to win. That's why we use weapons - even if it's only a knife it gives a huge advantage.

You have that backwards my friend. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverBringAKnifeToAFistFight)

Eric Tolle

2011-04-28, 09:03 AM

Remember that on the Timm-verse at least, Bats managed to go a round or two with Darkseid, who is a full on god at the level off Zeus at least. That indicates to me he should be able to coercive long enough to form a plan. At the least he'll day something sneaky and Achilles will go brood in his tent.

An important factor will be the location of the fight. Batman is unusually, weaker on his own turf of Gotham than he is elsewhere (especially in other comics), and that weakness applies to other heroes and villains as well. So both Batman's and Achilles' power will depend on whether Achilles finds himself on the mean streets of Gothsm, or if Batgod suddenly finds himself before the gates of Troy.

WalkingTarget

2011-04-28, 09:48 AM

an attempt to explain how someone as pathetic as Paris could kill Achilles.

Here's my take on that:

1. Achilles is fated to die at Troy and he's not quite badass enough to get around that (but he's close).
2. He is too badass to be defeated in a stand up fight, though (for the purposes of the myths here).
3. That leaves the option of having him die due to a ranged attack, from a safe position, where there's no chance of Achilles' reprisal ('cause dude would be pissed if you screw up and don't kill him outright).
4. They (the hypothetical originators of the story) don't want to sully anybody else's good name with such a "cowardly" act, so they give the job to Paris since he's already a useless twit. Even then, he's explicitly got Apollo coaching him when he takes the shot.

warty goblin

2011-04-28, 10:14 AM

Actually, Achilles is a bit of a whiny punk as well. I can have respect for someone like Hector, who fought valiantly to defend his city. But someone who lets thousands of people die because of a tiff with the commander? Still, my vote is for Achilles.

I thought this the first time or two I read the Iliad as well. On reflection, multiple rereads, and going through a reasonable amount of commentary, I think as a view it couldn't be farther from the truth.

The heroes of Homer exist in a sort of competitive meritocracy. Each seeks to be regarded as the 'best of the Achaeans' or at least above their current status. The main form of this competition is, of course, skill at arms, although things like speech-making, athletics, or really any test of skill also contributes.

There are several ways in which this manifests itself. The first is in feats of arms themselves - in killing enemy heroes and boasting about it, sacking cities, and so forth. The other key way is in the material rewards for these deeds. Kill an enemy and his armor is yours if you can strip it. Sack a city, you get a lot of the loot. Since the system is in theory merit based, your stuff isn't just a sign of your honor and glory, it is your honor and glory. It is thus what you have been brought up from birth to covet and strive for.

Agamemnon doesn't really fit well into this system. He's a skilled warrior certainly, but certainly not in the top ten. Yet as high king, he's above all others in some respect. Thus his cut needs to be large, even though according to the system he doesn't really earn it in the same way Achilles or the other heroes do.

Most of the heroes probably aren't really happy about that, but for Achilles it has gotta be pretty infuriating. He's the best of the Achaeans, thus his material rewards should be the greatest, but instead this weaker man gets stuff he hasn't earned. It'd be like if you had a coworker who, despite being a worse employee in every respect, kept getting all the bonuses and promotions. After ten years of this, most people would be seriously pissed off. Given the way he's instantly at loggerheads with Agamemnon, it's pretty clear this is an issue he's been fuming over for a long time.

Agamemnon, for his part, needs to hang onto all that stuff he gets. He might be high king, but he's not got the martial chops to back that up. He's got to appear to be honored at least as well as the best of the Achaeans (aka Achilles) or else he'd lose all authority. When he is forced to return Chryseis, it's arguable he needs to take somebody else's slave woman in order to hold onto his ability to command.

It's not hard to see the loss of Briseis as the final straw for Achilles. As long as he was receiving at least equal rewards to Agamemnon, the situation was bearable. Now he's taking what amounts to a paycut and a demotion, so the an utterly replaceable schmuck can hold onto a position of preeminence he didn't even earn.

Achilles has, in short, very good reason to be furious. And he's got no reason to keep fighting at that point. Remember there's no idea of loyalty to a state or nation yet (and Achilles is heir to his own thrown as well), or really any other ideological reason to fight for Agamemnon. He, like just about every other Achaean, is there for one reason and one reason only: glory. With that taken away, why fight? More particularly, why die? Remember Achilles knows he will die under Troy's walls should he continue to fight. With the loss of Briseis his glory is taken, without glory, what's there worth dying for?

If you look at it in the context of the time, his decisions are far from those of a sulky, spoiled prima-dona, and much more in line with those of somebody who's tired of getting an undeservedly short end of the stick and subordinating himself to a man in every way his inferior. I'd argue it's a far more psychologically stable action than developing an obsession with flying rodents and turning into a vigilante because one's parents got killed.

WalkingTarget

2011-04-28, 10:28 AM

[TRUTH!]

Well said.

People who think Achilles is just throwing a tantrum are falling into the same trap of thinking that Odysseus is a sleazy, underhanded jerk - not recognizing that the kind of crafty cunning he displays was laudable to the Greeks (Athena was the goddess of this concept - metis - not the more common "wisdom" that we think about these days - sophia).

Tazar

2011-04-28, 11:54 AM

Both sides are from two different settings, both of which have different rules and myths and so there has to be some kind of compromise. Older = Better may apply in the myths Achilles comes from, but it is clearly the case that the same does not apply in Batman's world, so I don't think that alone can be an argument for Achilles.

I disagree entirely.

If you're saying that "well, it doesn't happen in Batman's world, so it shouldn't be the case for Achilles" then by the same coin Achilles should not have his divine birth or his god-forged weaponry, because those gods don't exist in Batman's universe.

You take the individuals based entirely on their capabilities within their respective universes, not how they would perform if they came from the universe of the other. That's the whole point of a versus matchup.

By the way, Batman always wins.

Achilles always wins, too. Your point?

I'd be willing to wager that Batman has lost far more fights than Achilles.

grimbold

2011-04-28, 12:37 PM

The ONLY relevant question in any Batman vs thread is does he have time to plan?

agreed
one of the few unifying aspects of all batman is that batman is not at his best when surprised

kpenguin

2011-04-28, 01:03 PM

If you're saying that "well, it doesn't happen in Batman's world, so it shouldn't be the case for Achilles" then by the same coin Achilles should not have his divine birth or his god-forged weaponry, because those gods don't exist in Batman's universe.

...except those gods do exist in Batman's universe. Wonder Woman's bracelets are made from the pieces of the Athena's Aegis and her lasso is a weapon explicitly forged by Hephaestus.

Anyway, I believe the point he's trying to make is that though Achilles is quite stronger than his fellow mythic Achaeans and these mythic Achaeans are said to be explicitly stronger than the modern man of Homer's time, this necessarily does not mean that Achilles is necessarily a ridiculous degree stronger than a man of a different universe simply because this man was born of a later date in said different universe.

The rules of Homeric myth do not apply to Batman just the same as you say that the rules of Batman's universe do not apply to Achilles.

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 01:12 PM

Don't bring fists to a sword-fight. In a fight between to skilled opponents, the person with a weapon is usually going to win. That's why we use weapons - even if it's only a knife it gives a huge advantage.

Don't bring a sword to a fight where your opponent has several devices which can disarm you of it from range and several more which can incapacitate you.

And failing that, he's got a freaking jet that he can attach Achilles to and drag him with.

...except those gods do exist in Batman's universe. Wonder Woman's bracelets are made from the pieces of the Athena's Aegis and her lasso is a weapon explicitly forged by Hephaestus.

Except they're not the same because they're from different settings.

kpenguin

2011-04-28, 01:15 PM

Except they're not the same because they're from different settings.

If one goes down this path, nothing is the same in either setting right down to the atoms and Achilles and Batman can't possibly fight because they exist in different universes...

Except Achilles is a public domain character! DC could just make a comic book where Achilles is in the DC universe and establish what Achilles' capabilities would be in the context of a fight with Batman.

And then make that fight happen!

Clearly, being a public domain character solves everything

chiasaur11

2011-04-28, 01:26 PM

I always chuckle when I see this assumption wheeled out.

Yes, many martial arts are designed to help you overcome a stronger and more powerful opponent. There's still a limit that skill can compensate for, it's not a magic mirror of strength reflection.

You can be vastly superior in skill terms to an opponent, but if simply blocking a hit from them results in a broken limb, it's not going to help.
It's why we have weight classes in competitive contact sports - you really think a flyweight boxer (49-51kg) is going to do anything to a heavyweight (>91kg)?

Armed martial arts are a different case, but in unarmed combat the bigger and heavier man is more likely to win.

Perhaps I should clarify.

He's a master of comic book martial arts.

You know, the ones that let Karate Kid (No superpowers) karate throw Superboy despite the later being nigh-omnipotent?

Those martial arts.

warty goblin

2011-04-28, 01:32 PM

Perhaps I should clarify.

He's a master of comic book martial arts.

You know, the ones that let Karate Kid (No superpowers) karate throw Superboy despite the later being nigh-omnipotent?

Those martial arts.

Meh, I'll take the martial art of chopping people's arms off and driving spears through their faces. You know, the martial one.

kpenguin

2011-04-28, 01:33 PM

Perhaps I should clarify.

He's a master of comic book martial arts.

You know, the ones that let Karate Kid (No superpowers) karate throw Superboy despite the later being nigh-omnipotent?

Those martial arts.

Or allow Batman to beat up an extinction level meteor. And breathe in space.

Oh, Batman: The Brave and the Bold. You so Silver Age.

druid91

2011-04-28, 01:36 PM

Achilles always wins, too. Your point?

I'd be willing to wager that Batman has lost far more fights than Achilles.

I was under the impression, that while he won at troy... it was a pyrrhic victory.

Meaning he won but he lost.

Batman just wins.

warty goblin

2011-04-28, 01:43 PM

I was under the impression, that while he won at troy... it was a pyrrhic victory.

Meaning he won but he lost.

Batman just wins.

He got everything he sought from fighting at Troy. People still speak of the glory of Achilles thirty-one centuries later.

druid91

2011-04-28, 01:43 PM

He got everything he sought from fighting at Troy. People still speak of the glory of Achilles thirty-one centuries later.

Except his best friend being slaughtered.

The Glyphstone

2011-04-28, 01:44 PM

Achilles always wins, too. Your point?

I'd be willing to wager that Batman has lost far more fights than Achilles.

Isn't that kinda because his story ended with him dying?:smallbiggrin: Bats does (usually) walk away from his losses.

chiasaur11

2011-04-28, 02:16 PM

Isn't that kinda because his story ended with him dying?:smallbiggrin: Bats does (usually) walk away from his losses.

And generally wins the rematch.

Oh, and Batman has died in battle too. Only, because he isn't a sissy, he kept fighting crime anyway, and then undied.

In that order.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 03:12 PM

Isn't that kinda because his story ended with him dying?:smallbiggrin: Bats does (usually) walk away from his losses.

Yup, doesn't change the fact that Achilles was never defeated before his death at the hands of a god, though. :smalltongue:

As far as wins and losses go, his record is much more impressive than Bats'.

Curious

2011-04-28, 03:19 PM

Which Achilles is this, exactly? Can I use the Achilles from Iliad and Olympos? If so, he wins instantly in a roflstomp.

lobablob

2011-04-28, 03:55 PM

If you're saying that "well, it doesn't happen in Batman's world, so it shouldn't be the case for Achilles" then by the same coin Achilles should not have his divine birth or his god-forged weaponry, because those gods don't exist in Batman's universe.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both settings work on different rules, and some reasonable kind of compromise should be reached in terms of how they apply. Some rules can easily be imported - it doesn't take much to just say that for the purpose of the fight, both character's equipment and abilities apply as they would in their respective settings. However, a rule like Older = Better is a rule of the setting that can't really be imported - all it means is that in Achilles world, no better characters can come later, but it clearly can't be applied to characters from another setting that weren't designed for that in mind, otherwise you'd actually have to be modifying the character. If I made a versus thread between a real life soldier and a wizard, it would be no argument to say that the wizard can't exist in real life, since we are trying to determine their capabilities compared to each other without regard for the fact that one is impossible in the other's setting.

Achilles always wins, too. Your point?

This kind of illustrates my point, a rule that would guarantee one sides victory without consideration of their respective strengths can't be considered, because it would be absurd. Older = Better can't be considered, neither can Batman always wins, otherwise both parties have to win, regardless of which is stronger.

Mando Knight

2011-04-28, 03:56 PM

Oh, and Batman has died in battle too. Only, because he isn't a sissy, he kept fighting crime anyway, and then undied.

In that order.
He was sent back to the beginning of time, and fought his way back to the present.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 06:21 PM

This kind of illustrates my point, a rule that would guarantee one sides victory without consideration of their respective strengths can't be considered, because it would be absurd. Older = Better can't be considered, neither can Batman always wins, otherwise both parties have to win, regardless of which is stronger.

I beg to differ. "Batman always wins" isn't an inherent law of the setting of Batman comics, just something stated by a fan. He does lose sometimes.

On the other hand, Achilles being stronger than a modern-day human is something explicitly laid down by Greek mythology as being the case.

I really don't see how that's irreconcilable with the Batman setting. All it means is that Achilles is substantially stronger than Batman.

Anteros

2011-04-28, 06:41 PM

I'm pretty sure Achilles would die of depressurization, as Scamander nearly drowns him during his vengeful offensive against the Trojans after Patroclus is slain.

I would also submit that a net is unlikely to hold Achilles, particularly when he has a sword, and that assuming Batman is of equal fighting skill to Achilles is manifestly unwise. Achilles has divine heritage and comes from a period where men were bigger, stronger, faster, and better. He spent all of his time doing nothing but preparing for war. Batman spends a lot of time on activities other than training 24/7.

Batman's really good, but he's not that good.

Are you joking here? Bats has gone toe to toe with almost every super human being in both DC and Marvel, including heavy hitters like Superman/Hulk or speedsters like Flash. Yet he always comes out ahead. Arguing that he is physically inferior is ridiculous and laughable.

They're fighting, not engaging in a weight lifting contest.

Fan

2011-04-28, 06:55 PM

But.. Batman never wins by outspeeding, or outstrengthing.

And beings like Bane HAVE beaten him.. namely by snapping his spine.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 07:00 PM

Dienekes

2011-04-28, 07:02 PM

Both characters are ridiculously overpowered in what they set out to accomplish. If put in a ring with Batman, Achilles will tear him a new hole. However, if Batman has time to plan he creates power armor or identifies weaknesses, and does a million other things to make sure he wins.

Achilles has faced down armies before, so has Batman. Achilles has fought gods, so has Batman.

This is why the environment needs to be decided upon. Does Batman have time to plan and research and set up an environment for himself to win. Because if both parties are allowed that time, Achilles would spend it getting drunk and screwing slave girls while Batman would be setting traps. In that scenario I'd easily give it to Batman simply because he would never really have to go fight Achiles hand to hand to win, and even if he did he'd be the aforementioned power armor where Achilles couldn't do squat to him.

So you're suggesting that Batman has strength equivalent to that of Superman or Hulk, then?

He's beaten Superman, quite a few times actually. It's not all about strength with the Bat.

chiasaur11

2011-04-28, 07:13 PM

Are you joking here? Bats has gone toe to toe with almost every super human being in both DC and Marvel, including heavy hitters like Superman/Hulk or speedsters like Flash. Yet he always comes out ahead. Arguing that he is physically inferior is ridiculous and laughable.

They're fighting, not engaging in a weight lifting contest.

No, you see, since Superman is modern, he's weaker than anyone in the Trojan war. Same with Darkseid. Also,

It's a rule.

We're ignoring that the rule was they're better than anyone in Plato's time, and the possibility that it was just a temporary slump even in myth is poppycock.

Although, if we're going there, Batman first fought crime as a caveman. He ruled at it. Cavemen are older than Achilles.

Check.

Anteros

2011-04-28, 07:28 PM

So you're suggesting that Batman has strength equivalent to that of Superman or Hulk, then?

I'm suggesting that Achilles may very well be physically superior to Bats. However, he will still lose due to the enormous difference in mental faculties and technology.

But.. Batman never wins by outspeeding, or outstrengthing.

And beings like Bane HAVE beaten him.. namely by snapping his spine.

He's lost in the short term before...but he always wins the long game, which is what really matters.

Tazar

2011-04-28, 07:46 PM

I'm suggesting that Achilles may very well be physically superior to Bats. However, he will still lose due to the enormous difference in mental faculties and technology.

See, that I can respect. But it's not what you said. :smalltongue:

Arguing that he is physically inferior is ridiculous and laughable.

Achilles' physical superiority doesn't guarantee a victory, but it is there.

Anteros

2011-04-28, 08:10 PM

See, that I can respect. But it's not what you said. :smalltongue:

Achilles' physical superiority doesn't guarantee a victory, but it is there.

Right. I assumed that the implication there was obvious. Apologies if I was unclear.

SDF

2011-04-28, 09:07 PM

The planning joke persists in most any other Batman vs thread on the internet where if he has time to plan he is nearly omnicient. There are also multiple iterations of Batman by many different artists, but the main continuity DC Batman has taken on and beaten Superman on multiple occasions. Superheros are America's mythological legends in a very real sense. And while Achilles was a pretty cool legend in his own right, modern heroes are given greater power and greater responsibility. To paraphrase uncle Ben.

Traab

2011-04-28, 09:54 PM

The main issue with the greek theory of future generations suck compared to past heroes is that in dc/marvel comic land, its the opposite. Evolution brings about metahumans. Aside for that, we have aliens who fall well outside the inherently inferior school of thought, since they dont come from earth. That being said, batman isnt a superhuman. Achilles is. Therefore in physical might, achilles wins. That being said, as has been pointed out before, Batman is CONSTANTLY fighting people stronger and/or faster than he is and winning, so its hardly an insurmountable barrier.

The next argument is that achilles was born and bred for war. He is the ultimate warrior, slayer of a thousand foes, and it took a god guided poisoned arrow to kill him. The meaning here is that in open combat, of course achilles would win. The counters to this argument are that batman has made it his lifes work to learn dozens of ways to kick your butt in a fight. Achilles was heavily trained with sword shield and spear. I dont think he learned jujitsu, akido, krav maga, or any of these other hand to hand combat styles, and batman HAS been trained in using melee weaponry. Staves and such for example. Plus there is the near certainty that at some point batman WILL disarm achilles, disarming his opponent is a fairly standard tactic for batman, and he is good at it. (Only way to survive facing an army of gun toting thugs really)

All that aside, batman isnt going to meet achilles in an open field while the justice league watches on one side, and achilles army watches from the other. Barring an instant death sneak attack from achilles, batman will hide, evade, distract, and attack. He is more assassin than warrior when it comes to this kind of fight where he is physically outmatched. So all of achilles vast experience at killing enemy soldiers in straight up fights army versus army wont be of much help.

Relative gear levels. Achilles has god forged gear, but its bronze age isnt it? Batman has 21st century COMIC BOOK level tech. Its honestly a tossup as to whether god forged bronze could cut through batmans kevlar or other body armor outfits, or if they could stand up to acid, or not shatter when hitting heavily armored battlesuits. But lets say yes to both just for fairness. They are god blessed so they can cut anything and dont break. He still has a disadvantage due to batmans sheer volume of choices. Not too mention range advantage. Achilles has his spear, he can chuck that I guess. Might even catch batman off guard when it penetrates a brick building he is hiding behind and stabs him in the ass. Batman though just has way too many options available to him when he ISNT prepared for a specific fight.

"Achilles is invulnerable!" meh, as has been said before, heel or not, invulnerability doesnt mean instant victory. He can be restrained just as one example. Get his sword and spear away from him, lock him in restraints meant to hold the juggernaut or something and blammo, he is defeated. If the heel weakness exists its even easier. Taser him in the heel, inject him with a sleep agent, whatever.

Bottom line, barring an instant ko from out of nowehere at the start of the fight, batman will likely win in the end.

warty goblin

2011-04-28, 11:12 PM

The next argument is that achilles was born and bred for war. He is the ultimate warrior, slayer of a thousand foes, and it took a god guided poisoned arrow to kill him. The meaning here is that in open combat, of course achilles would win. The counters to this argument are that batman has made it his lifes work to learn dozens of ways to kick your butt in a fight. Achilles was heavily trained with sword shield and spear. I dont think he learned jujitsu, akido, krav maga, or any of these other hand to hand combat styles, and batman HAS been trained in using melee weaponry. Staves and such for example. Plus there is the near certainty that at some point batman WILL disarm achilles, disarming his opponent is a fairly standard tactic for batman, and he is good at it. (Only way to survive facing an army of gun toting thugs really)
It's a fair certainty that Achilles is also going to be pretty good at the whole unarmed combat thing; we already know he's extremely adept with sword and spear and most armed techniques are actually based in wrestling. We obviously don't know this for sure about Mycenean combat techniques since nobody was kind enough to write that sort of thing down. Given the well documented use of combat wrestling and unarmed techniques in later Greek culture however it's hardly unlikely that their ancestors of the late bronze age were familiar with the same ideas.

Then there's the whole armor and shield bit, and shields are absolutely devastating weapons. The sort of large rounded type Achilles is described as using can close two or more lines of attack, provide visual cover to conceal the user's intent, and deliver an absolute hammerblow when employed offensively. The armor is pretty much icing on the cake, anything designed to weather blows from spear and sword is going to render kicks and punches pretty ineffective - and throwing a kick at somebody who's hiding a two foot long meat cleaver behind his shield is an invitation to losing a leg. Grappling techniques such as hyper-extension of joints and such would of course still work, but as I've already mentioned Achilles is also going to know that sort of thing. The difference being he's physically stronger, and his techniques will be designed to kill.

All that aside, batman isnt going to meet achilles in an open field while the justice league watches on one side, and achilles army watches from the other. Barring an instant death sneak attack from achilles, batman will hide, evade, distract, and attack. He is more assassin than warrior when it comes to this kind of fight where he is physically outmatched. So all of achilles vast experience at killing enemy soldiers in straight up fights army versus army wont be of much help.
I don't see why Batman would get to dictate terms of engagement. If he can't take Achilles straight up, Achilles is free to do as he pleases. That would, of course, probably include such favorite pastimes as raping, pillaging, enslaving, and burning. When your enemy's entire purpose in life is defending population centers, it's pretty easy to take the initiative.

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 11:19 PM

Yup, doesn't change the fact that Achilles was never defeated before his death at the hands of a god, though. :smalltongue:

As far as wins and losses go, his record is much more impressive than Bats'.

Not really. He's got, what, Hector and Hector alone, who he had to get the fight rigged by a god in order to win, from the Illiad who was worth mentioning? Who did he kill that wasn't a faceless mook other than Hector?

warty goblin

2011-04-28, 11:25 PM

Not really. He's got, what, Hector and Hector alone, who he had to get the fight rigged by a god in order to win, from the Illiad who was worth mentioning? Who did he kill that wasn't a faceless mook other than Hector?

All that Athena did was return Achilles' spear, everything after that was all him. Besides which, the gods only intervene on your behalf if you're already brilliant.

Coidzor

2011-04-28, 11:33 PM

All that Athena did was return Achilles' spear, everything after that was all him. Besides which, the gods only intervene on your behalf if you're already brilliant.

Which cheapened the fight by making it cease to be a fight, thus the bit about rigging it.

And Paris was brilliant? You're really going to go with that argument?

warty goblin

2011-04-29, 12:22 AM

Which cheapened the fight by making it cease to be a fight, thus the bit about rigging it.

And Paris was brilliant? You're really going to go with that argument?

Only taken out of context. Within the framework of the Iliad, divine favor is another reward for excellence - the gods only help their favorites, and their favorites are those with great skill in an area close to the god's heart. The assistance of the gods is something won through action, just like the prize in a footrace, or the armor stripped from a slain enemy; albeit rather more fickle and potent. Athene helps Achilles not because he needs, but weirdly because he basically doesn't; but the fight isn't any less fair than Achilles' greater skill and better armor already make it; the divine aid is a result of those qualities already existing.

And Paris is exceptional at the two things he's helped with; attracting women and archery. Thus Aphrodite aids him in seducing and retaining Helen, and Apollo with shooting arrows.

(Viewed broadly, the Iliad is really about two things: treating one's guests with respect - Paris' breech of xenia of course causes the whole thing - and winning glory and success through excelling at something. The latter is of course why everybody is there, to the extent that it's about reclaiming Helen it's about not letting the Trojans have her, since that would honor them and not the Achaeans. As I said before, it's a meritocracy, but a very savage one where sometimes the reward for preeminence is having a god on your side.)

stcfg

2011-04-29, 01:37 AM

I don't see why Batman would get to dictate terms of engagement. If he can't take Achilles straight up, Achilles is free to do as he pleases. That would, of course, probably include such favorite pastimes as raping, pillaging, enslaving, and burning. When your enemy's entire purpose in life is defending population centers, it's pretty easy to take the initiative.

Batman gets to dictate the terms of the engagement because that's what he is good at. He once beat Deadshot by deducing his secret identity and then replacing his bullets with blanks.

Achilles does not know anything about Batman, so he won't know how to provoke him into a fight on his terms.

Conversely Achilles is famous for his temper, thus much more prone to provocation.

Achilles as a tactician just doesn't measure up when compared to Batman.

lobablob

2011-04-29, 04:55 AM

So you're suggesting that Batman has strength equivalent to that of Superman or Hulk, then?

Actually, if we were to apply the Older = Better rule like you suggest, we would have to say that Achilles is stronger than superman. Or even omnipotent gods from a later setting. That's kind of the problem, characters from other settings could well be stronger than Achilles because they weren't designed with that rule in mind, but if we applied that rule, we'd have to pretend they weren't, and what would be the point of having a versus thread then?

Asta Kask

2011-04-29, 05:19 AM

If you look at it in the context of the time, his decisions are far from those of a sulky, spoiled prima-dona, and much more in line with those of somebody who's tired of getting an undeservedly short end of the stick and subordinating himself to a man in every way his inferior. I'd argue it's a far more psychologically stable action than developing an obsession with flying rodents and turning into a vigilante because one's parents got killed.

Oh, I'm definitely guilty of presentism and unashamedly so. And yeah, Batman isn't exactly the most stable of DC's heroes. And Achilles' treatment of Priam at the end does a lot to reconcile me to him.

I say we need more context to determine who'd win. Now, if it was Gilgamesh rather than Achilles...

KnightDisciple

2011-04-29, 07:12 AM

But.. Batman never wins by outspeeding, or outstrengthing.

And beings like Bane HAVE beaten him.. namely by snapping his spine.Bane has beaten Batman exactly once. It was after something like a week or more of no sleep or rest for Batman as he tracked down and fought virtually every single member of his Rogue's gallery. So he's running on the fumes of fumes (as it were). If you recall that comic, Batman's so tired and beat up already he just can't match Bane. Which was, you know, Bane's plan all along.

Every match since then, when both opponents are relatively fresh? Batman's won, or at worst, forced a draw.

ThePhantasm

2011-04-29, 09:28 AM

warty goblin

2011-04-29, 09:40 AM

I don't understand the argument that Superman is weaker than Achilles. The only thing they have in common is invulnerability. Does Achilles have super strength? Can he fly? Can he shoot lasers out of his eyes? Does he have freeze breath?

No.

It's a commonly stated fact in Homer that modern men are weaker than the heroes of days past*. Since Superman, despite being human in appearance and moniker, is in fact an alien it probably doesn't apply. It certainly would apply to Batman, since he is human.

*This is also true within the heroic era; the men that fight at Troy is considered - at least by Nestor - to be less powerful than the previous generation.

Tazar

2011-04-29, 09:45 AM

Actually, if we were to apply the Older = Better rule like you suggest, we would have to say that Achilles is stronger than superman. Or even omnipotent gods from a later setting. That's kind of the problem, characters from other settings could well be stronger than Achilles because they weren't designed with that rule in mind, but if we applied that rule, we'd have to pretend they weren't, and what would be the point of having a versus thread then?

Not a valid comparison.

Achilles is only stronger than normal present-day men. Superman is an alien, so that doesn't apply, and someone with superhuman strength would naturally not be bound by this due to their superhuman strength.

However, Batman does not possess superhuman strength, and as such he is subject to the rule of "modern=weaker", because he's a normal man.

Mystic Muse

2011-04-29, 10:08 AM

However, Batman does not possess superhuman strength, and as such he is subject to the rule of "modern=weaker", because he's a normal man.

Whenever somebody says Batman is a normal human being I'm always reminded of what the joker says to Lex Luthor in the Batman Superman movie.

"There's nothing mere about that mortal."

And honestly, I agree with him. Just from the ludicrous number of things he's done, he doesn't seem to qualify as a normal human being.

Tazar

2011-04-29, 10:11 AM

Whenever somebody says Batman is a normal human being I'm always reminded of what the joker says to Lex Luthor in the Batman Superman movie.

"There's nothing mere about that mortal."

And honestly, I agree with him. Just from the ludicrous number of things he's done, he doesn't seem to qualify as a normal human being.

Although he is certainly an exemplary specimen, he is nonetheless a bog standard human being biologically, as far as I'm aware. :smalltongue:

Mystic Muse

2011-04-29, 10:14 AM

Although he is certainly an exemplary specimen, he is nonetheless a bog standard human being biologically, as far as I'm aware. :smalltongue:

Actually in one comic series he's a vampire. :smalltongue:Yes, I know it was an elseworlds comic and therefore probably doesn't count.

ThePhantasm

2011-04-29, 10:17 AM

"There's nothing mere about that mortal."

I love that quote too. Batman, like all superheroes, is meant to be larger than life.

lobablob

2011-04-29, 10:39 AM

However, Batman does not possess superhuman strength, and as such he is subject to the rule of "modern=weaker", because he's a normal man.

But why should he be subject to that rule? Achilles was written with it in mind, Batman wasn't. Using it as an argument allows you to say that one character is better than another without even considering their respective strengths as they are written, and I was under the impression that a versus thread was for comparing the respective strengths of two characters as they are written. My original point was, that two settings may have different rules and assumptions, some of which are incompatible, and so a compromise should be reached. If an argument can be used that would negate the whole point of having a versus thread (Like one that allows you to conclude that one character will win, without having to compare their respective strengths) then I don't think a compromise has been reached.

Not a valid comparison.

Achilles is only stronger than normal present-day men. Superman is an alien, so that doesn't apply, and someone with superhuman strength would naturally not be bound by this due to their superhuman strength.

Ok, perhaps a bad example, but I still think you can see what I was getting at. I'll make another example to demonstrate it more clearly. I'll make up a character. He's called Bob, he was born in 1985 and he is approximately 2x as strong as Achilles, through non supernatural means. Now, he has to fight Achilles in a versus thread. If we apply the Older = Better rule, we have to conclude that Achilles is stronger than someone who is stronger than him. This doesn't make sense, because Bob wasn't designed by someone with the assumption that Older = Better and so applying it would force us to conclude Achilles is stronger, regardless of what the character's strengths actually are.

Tazar

2011-04-29, 10:41 AM

But why should he be subject to that rule? Achilles was written with it in mind, Batman wasn't. Using it as an argument allows you to say that one character is better than another without even considering their respective strengths as they are written, and I was under the impression that a versus thread was for comparing the respective strengths of two characters as they are written. My original point was, that two settings may have different rules and assumptions, some of which are incompatible, and so a compromise should be reached. If an argument can be used that would negate the whole point of having a versus thread (Like one that allows you to conclude that one character will win, without having to compare their respective strengths) then I don't think a compromise has been reached.

How is deciding that Achilles is stronger than Batman because Homer said so "incompatible"?

It doesn't guarantee Achilles a victory, it just means he's stronger.

Nottt really seeing the sticking point here.

lobablob

2011-04-29, 10:56 AM

Suppose that we lost all knowledge that we had of these two characters, and that Achilles and Batman were just meaningless names to us. Then suppose we were told one thing about Achilles; that he comes from an older setting than Batman. Then suppose we were told one more thing, than the rule Older = Better applies. We could conclude from this that Achilles must win in a fight, despite knowing only one thing about one of the characters. If we then got our knowledge of each character back, bit by bit, it wouldn't make a difference, even if we were to find out that Achilles would struggle to lift a banana and that Batman could punch through a mountain, Achilles would still have to win because of Older = Better. Allowing that rule as an argument would remove the point of a versus thread, because we could conclude who would win without having to compare the characters, which is surely what a versus thread is about?

Tazar

2011-04-29, 11:07 AM

lobablob

2011-04-29, 11:12 AM

Tazar

2011-04-29, 11:39 AM

Older = Better isn't a trait of a Achilles, it's a belief held by his author. I don't see why Batman's author's should be bound by the beliefs on an earlier author. As I said before, applying Older = Better guarantees one side the win, regardless of what their actual strengths are, which means the is no need for a comparison which would negate the point of having a versus thread.

Au contraire. Achilles' physical superiority is based partly upon that principle; it's as much a part of him as his divine heritage, and is absolutely a trait of his.

Older=Better doesn't guarantee one side a win, that's absurd. It just means Achilles is physically much superior to Batman. Doesn't guarantee Achilles victory. I really don't see where you're getting that assumption from.

lobablob

2011-04-29, 11:54 AM

It just means Achilles is physically much superior to Batman.

Not necessarily. I don't know who would be stronger, I don't have an opinion on that, but Older = Better doesn't mean that Achilles would necessarily be stronger than Batman. It would mean he would be stronger than a character from his own setting who came later than him, but Batman isn't from his setting and isn't written by the same person, and so that restriction doesn't apply to him. Why should one writers belief affect the character of another writer? The Older = Better rule would mean Batman being stronger than Achilles is impossible within Achilles's setting, but versus threads are about taking characters from different settings and comparing them, regardless of whether each is impossible according to the rules of each other's setting.

Batman wasn't created according to that rule, and so applying it to him would be changing his character.

Doesn't guarantee Achilles victory. I really don't see where you're getting that assumption from.

Because while we've been talking about it mainly in terms of strength, Older = Better doesn't seem to be limited to strength and should make him better all round which would guarantee victory.

Tazar

2011-04-29, 11:56 AM

Older=Better applies to physical strength and capability, what else would it apply to?

lobablob

2011-04-29, 12:02 PM

Older=Better applies to physical strength and capability, what else would it apply to?

I don't know where to draw the line on what it would apply to, but I don't see why it would only apply to physical strength. Anyway, I don't think this is getting anywhere, I think I've made my point as clearly as possible, so I'm content to leave it at that. Although I would be interesting in what others think.

warty goblin

2011-04-29, 12:10 PM

This really comes down to a very basic principle of this sort of thread. Each character exists in their own setting, and their abilities and powers are dependent on that setting.

By doing the whole versus thing however, we are explicitly putting into the same setting. Now one could throw character A into setting B directly, but that's generally got a pretty large bias towards character B from the get-go. Usually some sort of amalgam of the two settings needs to be hammered out. At this point there are really only two choices:

1) Assume that the powers and features unique to one setting do not apply to characters from the other.

2) Assume that the powers and features of one setting do apply to characters from the other, unless there's an explicit reason to believe they do not.

Option 1 is an extremely poor assumption to choose, since it effectively rules out any sort of discussion. Using that it's just as reasonable to say that all of Batman's techy gadgets wouldn't work, because there's nothing past bronze age technology in the Iliad and most of them are impossible anyway, as it is to say that Achilles isn't stronger than Batman because he's from an older generation.

Both are facts that are absolutely setting dependent, but there's nothing in the other setting to directly contradict or cast doubt on their working, so the best course of action is to assume they are both true. Now if Batman was declared to be absolutely the strongest person ever to exist, we'd have a problem, but insofar as I'm aware this is not the case. Therefore there's no contradiction to the rules of the Batverse in ruling that Achilles is stronger based on the rules of the universe in he's based.

Tazar

2011-04-29, 12:36 PM

Option 1 is an extremely poor assumption to choose, since it effectively rules out any sort of discussion. Using that it's just as reasonable to say that all of Batman's techy gadgets wouldn't work, because there's nothing past bronze age technology in the Iliad and most of them are impossible anyway, as it is to say that Achilles isn't stronger than Batman because he's from an older generation.

Both are facts that are absolutely setting dependent, but there's nothing in the other setting to directly contradict or cast doubt on their working, so the best course of action is to assume they are both true. Now if Batman was declared to be absolutely the strongest person ever to exist, we'd have a problem, but insofar as I'm aware this is not the case. Therefore there's no contradiction to the rules of the Batverse in ruling that Achilles is stronger based on the rules of the universe in he's based.

Very well said.

Dacia Brabant

2011-04-29, 01:32 PM

Achilles was the strongest hero of his age. According to Seth Benardete's interpretation of the Iliad, the fact that all the other Achaean heroes (with the important exception of Odysseus) are clumped together in the Catalogue of Ships, while Achilles is surrounded by a bunch of no-names, means that Achilles would be seen by the Greeks as the worth of Telamonian Ajax, Diomedes, Nestor, the Lesser Ajax, Menelaus and Agamemnon put together. In separate incidents of his rage, he had to be restrained by Zeus and Athena not only from destroying the Trojan army and sacking the city (reputedly the strongest defensive position of its time) all by himself, but also from killing Agamemnon and most likely the Achaean army with him for the insult to his honor by taking his battle prize.

In modern day terms, that all translates to being able to take out the U.S. Army and sacking Washington D.C. single-handedly, something only a supervillain could do, and being greater than or at least equal to the combined forces of his contemporaries means he should be regarded as a match for the Justice League. Just because he doesn't have comic book-style superpowers doesn't mean he isn't a whirlwind of destruction, at least when he's consumed with rage.

Still...if this were fought on Greek Myth terms, Batman would win. He has the higher-value talent of metis, as shown in both his technological expertise and his master detective skills capable of uncovering and thwarting the plans and exposing and exploiting the weaknesses of Gotham's enemies. He's shown himself capable to beating super-powered villains through his superior research, planning and execution, and has even bested Superman. In mythic terms, this places him at least on the same level as Odysseus, who actually did defeat Troy, and his cleverness would surely earn the favor of Athena in any conflict. Achilles' mēnis, his divine madness, and not his "Achilles' Heel" physical vulnerability, is his true weakness and Bats inevitably would exploit it in such a way that Achilles would end up beating himself. This holds true if fought on DC terms as well, though at some terrible cost to Gotham and to himself/his friends.

warty goblin

2011-04-29, 01:57 PM

Xondoure

2011-04-29, 02:00 PM

Achilles would also fight honorably, for how else is he to gain glory? Bats does not. That said if it was merely about the combat capabilities of the two Achilles would destroy him.

Also in regards to the older = better argument:
Don't think of Achilles as a human from the past. Think of him as a member of an "elder" race that was physically superior to humans who also happens to have divine heritage.
Now Bats is an exemplary human from our time but on a physical level he wouldn't be able to compete with Achilles. Which is fine because he doesn't need to, he's Batman.

Sinfonian

2011-04-29, 02:08 PM

I think much of the bone of contention is that lolabob (for one) has a problem with the Older = Better going beyond physical capabilities, which is what the proponents of that rule are chiefly suggesting (just physical, that is, not going beyond). Simply calling Achilles "Better" in a vague, all-encompassing manner would obviate the purpose of a versus thread, because whatever the opponent was or did, Achilles would be or do it better.

However, even the creators of these heroes didn't really think that all older generations were fully better than the subsequent ones, there was some improvement over time. As examples, the men of the Silver and Bronze Ages were undone by their impiety and excessive violence, respectively. These traits were thought to not be quite as present in the later ages of men, meaning that the Older = Better rule is not all-inclusive (except for the Golden Age).

I think what might help would be a quick rundown of traits relevant to this match-up.

Achilles:
Better physical specimen to divine heritage and standard of the day- Stronger, better endurance (this is where that rule ends, I should think)
Invulnerable to physical harm, aside from his heel (exact limits of this undetermined)
Exceptionally deadly in close quarters combat- sword, spear, shield, pankration (likely some precursor form, but close enough for jazz)
Divinely crafted arms and armor
Potentially may have guidance from the gods
Prefers to deal with foes through direct combat, killing as the first order solution
Biggest drawback: Able to manipulated by his emotions

Batman:
Body trained to the limits of that achievable by regular men
Highly skilled detective and martial artist
Exceptional intelligence, coupled with access to 21st century technology
Prefers to use stealth in dealing with opponents, taking them unawares quickly
Has defeated several foes much stronger than him in combat before
Generally requires time to come up with plans, time he may not have under direct attack from an imminently lethal foe
Biggest drawback: Refuses to kill

Things that are important to this match-up that should have been outlined in the original post:
What's the scenario for this fight? (At the very least the surroundings/terrain, open field? the streets of Gotham? rooftops?)
How much do these men know about each other?
Is there any kind of preparation time given from the time these men become aware of each other?
Most importantly, WHY are they fighting?

Once these things have been decided upon, we can probably come to a better understanding of what might happen.

I'd suggest this take place in an area that has some, but not excessive cover, allowing Bats to use stealthy tactics without giving him too much to work with. I might suggest a lightly wooded area, perhaps a park in Gotham.
I further would suggest that the initial confrontation would take place with no warning to either party, with no knowledge of their foe. If that proves indecisive, or if Batman retreats (Achilles is unlikely to do so), they then have time to prepare against one another. That said, if Achilles just up and kills Batman, there is no need for a second encounter.

Is that agreeable?

Edit: Hellfire and damnation, some of what I wanted to say was taken while I was typing this big honkin' post. Well said anyhow, Scylfing.

Edit2: Fixed some grammar and made some points clearer.

Coidzor

2011-04-29, 02:08 PM

Achilles would also fight honorably

Achilles? Honorable? Pfhaw. If the man gets angry at all, honor goes out the window for him. And he's going to get angry if he makes an enemy of Batman.

Geddoe

2011-04-29, 02:42 PM

... and has even bested Superman...

Yes, due to plot bs. Superman can move so much faster than Batman that any time where Superman legit wants to hurt Batman should end with Batman in a broken husk on the floor, if not dead. Superman moves fast enough to transport Batman hundreds of miles against his will between two words.

I remember a page from a comic. They were looking at a bomb together. Suddenly, it started to countdown. Conversation went something like this

Superman: It is active, I'm getting you out of here
Batman: No, you...
Batman is moved hundreds of miles and Superman is nowhere to be seen
Batman: aren't.

If somebody can do that to you, no plan you can come with for beating them should ever work except through plot bs power. The fight would be, you see each other then his fist is inserted in the back of your skull and he may react to the kryptonite you drop at that time because you are dead.

Luckily Achilles isn't Superman, and is a more reasonable opponent.

lobablob

2011-04-29, 02:58 PM

I know I said I'd leave it, but just for clarification -

I think much of the bone of contention is that lolabob (for one) has a problem with the Older = Better going beyond physical capabilities, which is what the proponents of that rule are chiefly suggesting (just physical, that is, not going beyond). Simply calling Achilles "Better" in a vague, all-encompassing manner would obviate the purpose of a versus thread, because whatever the opponent was or did, Achilles would be or do it better.

While this is so, my main problem is with using Older = Better as an argument on its own. If we are to conclude that Achilles is stronger, it should be through comparing the characters and what they actually do, not because of something the author or one of the characters believed.

Xondoure

2011-04-29, 03:06 PM

Achilles? Honorable? Pfhaw. If the man gets angry at all, honor goes out the window for him. And he's going to get angry if he makes an enemy of Batman.

Well, less honorably and more straightforward. He prefers to face his enemies while he smashes their faces in.

Dacia Brabant

2011-04-29, 03:13 PM

Interesting points which I may agree with. Although it has to be said that Athene has a thing for large angry men - there was that whole bit with Herekles after all. It's rather at odds with her later portfolio as the goddess of reasoned, defensive warfare, but she certainly does like her heroes with temper issues in the early myths.

That is true, but I think that's due to the transition from a warrior culture centered around kinship ties into an urban culture centered around craft and commerce. I think that the Iliad can be understood as memorializing the cultural heroes of the oikoi while the Odyssey anticipates the values of the poleis, so it makes sense for the Athene of earlier myths to favor bold, angry heroes and the later Athena to favor clever heroes better suited to a "civilized" age.

Sinfonian

2011-04-29, 03:24 PM

That is true, but I think that's due to the transition from a warrior culture centered around kinship ties into an urban culture centered around craft and commerce. I think that the Iliad can be understood as memorializing the cultural heroes of the oikoi while the Odyssey anticipates the values of the poleis, so it makes sense for the Athene of earlier myths to favor bold, angry heroes and the later Athena to favor clever heroes better suited to a "civilized" age.

I hadn't thought of this particular insight before, but it makes a lot of sense. Especially if you use Odysseus as a transitional character, who can embody many of the best traits of both. He is a great warrior, able to acquit himself very well in battle, but he often does so through judicious use of metis and generally keeps his wits about him, even (and especially) when those around him have lost theirs. In fact, his failings come about through hybris, more a part of his adherence to the older set of values rather than the new.

chiasaur11

2011-04-29, 04:26 PM

Tazar

2011-04-29, 04:41 PM

Are we forgetting that Batman was a Caveman?

Multiple times?

He wins on older equals better, as dumb as the rule is, because he has been older, and whipped everyone's kiester then.

The rule there? It don't apply to Batman.

Completely wrong, sorry.

No matter where he may have been displaced to, he was born in the modern day. It's the time of birth that's important.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-04-29, 04:54 PM

No matter where he may have been displaced to, he was born in the modern day. It's the time of birth that's important.

Doesn't matter. He lived in ancient times and was still able to kick butt. So the whole argument of older = stronger doesn't even stand in the universe this would take place in.

Revlid

2011-04-29, 05:05 PM

Doesn't matter. He lived in ancient times and was still able to kick butt. So the whole argument of older = stronger doesn't even stand in the universe this would take place in.Why does it have to take place in the DC universe?

Batman is so disgustingly overrated.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-29, 07:46 PM

Some points to consider, for those touting the physical strength and such of Achilles.

*Killer Croc (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Waylon_Jones_%28New_Earth%29)
*Clayface (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Clayface)
*Bane (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Bane_%28New_Earth%29)

Batman defeats all of these foes on a regular basis. He struggles, yes, but he still triumphs.

I'd wager Achilles and non-Venom Bane are close to physical equals, in terms of strength, endurance, and so on. And while Achilles has some deadly weaponry...so too do Clayface (any of them) and Killer Croc. Also consider Batman regularly takes on whole groups of opponents armed with all manner of weaponry. Said opponents include members of Ras Al Ghul's private army of assassins. Who sometimes use swords.

The point is, while Achilles would by no means be an easy fight, I see nothing about him that suggests he could actually do more than challenge Batman.

Tazar

2011-04-30, 02:48 AM

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 08:29 AM

Ah yes, Bane, the scum-of-the-earth criminal.

Somehow I think Achilles, divinely born warrior of unparalleled excellence in his time who fought in a full-scale war for ten years, is a bit more of a skilled fighter than Bane is.

Same goes for Croc and Clayface.Bane's wiki points out he knows several fighting arts.

Croc's not in here for finesse; he's in here because he's superhumanly tough and strong. Clayface(s) aren't just that, but are able to constantly shift how they're fighting (cause they made of clay).

But all three point out that Batman has fought beings with much higher strength levels (and honestly, I doubt Achilles is much stronger than a non-venomized Bane, which puts him at the level of a peak bodybuilder, or a bit over). As for skill? I point you to the Abilities section on his wiki (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_%28Bruce_Wayne%29#Abilities). Specifically "martial arts master", as well as "weapons master" (which his multiple fights with Ras, if nothing else, can point to; Ras has more time to build his skills, but Bats kept up with him).

In other words, Achilles might be a hard fight, but he's not going to blindside Batman with his awesome awesomeness. In Bruce's mind, he'll just be a low-grade methuman (assuming we're taking the "older=better" thing and saying Achilles is notably stronger than a modern human in the same physical condition would be). Likely one of his more skilled foes. But ultimately, he's not outside of Batman's "weight class". Batman intentionally carries a small arsenal of all sorts of useful things on his person, and I wouldn't be shocked if his gauntlets could be used for sword-blocking. All of which points towards a Bat-victory.

Talkkno

2011-04-30, 05:05 PM

and I wouldn't be shocked if his gauntlets could be used for sword-blocking. .

Prove this assertion.

Zaydos

2011-04-30, 05:09 PM

Not necessarily. I don't know who would be stronger, I don't have an opinion on that, but Older = Better doesn't mean that Achilles would necessarily be stronger than Batman. It would mean he would be stronger than a character from his own setting who came later than him, but Batman isn't from his setting and isn't written by the same person, and so that restriction doesn't apply to him. Why should one writers belief affect the character of another writer? The Older = Better rule would mean Batman being stronger than Achilles is impossible within Achilles's setting, but versus threads are about taking characters from different settings and comparing them, regardless of whether each is impossible according to the rules of each other's setting.

Batman wasn't created according to that rule, and so applying it to him would be changing his character.

Because while we've been talking about it mainly in terms of strength, Older = Better doesn't seem to be limited to strength and should make him better all round which would guarantee victory.

Bane's wiki points out he knows several fighting arts.

Croc's not in here for finesse; he's in here because he's superhumanly tough and strong. Clayface(s) aren't just that, but are able to constantly shift how they're fighting (cause they made of clay).

But all three point out that Batman has fought beings with much higher strength levels (and honestly, I doubt Achilles is much stronger than a non-venomized Bane, which puts him at the level of a peak bodybuilder, or a bit over). As for skill? I point you to the Abilities section on his wiki (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_%28Bruce_Wayne%29#Abilities). Specifically "martial arts master", as well as "weapons master" (which his multiple fights with Ras, if nothing else, can point to; Ras has more time to build his skills, but Bats kept up with him).

In other words, Achilles might be a hard fight, but he's not going to blindside Batman with his awesome awesomeness. In Bruce's mind, he'll just be a low-grade methuman (assuming we're taking the "older=better" thing and saying Achilles is notably stronger than a modern human in the same physical condition would be). Likely one of his more skilled foes. But ultimately, he's not outside of Batman's "weight class". Batman intentionally carries a small arsenal of all sorts of useful things on his person, and I wouldn't be shocked if his gauntlets could be used for sword-blocking. All of which points towards a Bat-victory.

Ajax lifted a boulder with one hand that four (or was it eight) strong men could not lift and he threw it. Achilles was stronger. I think this puts him far above weightlifter levels.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 05:21 PM

Prove this assertion.At the very least, his gloves are supposed to be "reinforced". And if you have seen Batman Begins, his vambraces are explicitly made of metal and designed to block (or even catch) sword blades. It's not unreasonable to expect similar capability out of his comic book costume.

Ajax lifted a boulder with one hand that four (or was it eight) strong men could not lift and he threw it. Achilles was stronger. I think this puts him far above weightlifter levels.Okay, so Achilles is probably in the strength range of Venom-ized Bane, or Killer Croc.

Again, both opponents have been beaten. Repeatedly. So it's not a strong argument for Achilles.

Talkkno

2011-04-30, 05:27 PM

At the very least, his gloves are supposed to be "reinforced". And if you have seen Batman Begins, his vambraces are explicitly made of metal and designed to block (or even catch) sword blades. It's not unreasonable to expect similar capability out of his comic book costume.

Regular blades sure, but these are divinely crafted arms.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 05:30 PM

Regular blades sure, but these are divinely crafted arms.Divinely craft bronze blades. Well made that they may be, they're still an inferior material to things like modern steel.

Even if they can just cut through, I doubt his first tactic would be "block it with my arm!". I'd wager he'd doge and redirect the arm and such, rather than trying to "tank" the blow. He fights people with all manner of weapons a lot, often in groups. Divine or no, the blade's not some instant-win button.

WalkingTarget

2011-04-30, 05:37 PM

Divinely craft bronze blades. Well made that they may be, they're still an inferior material to things like modern steel.

Even if they can just cut through, I doubt his first tactic would be "block it with my arm!". I'd wager he'd doge and redirect the arm and such, rather than trying to "tank" the blow. He fights people with all manner of weapons a lot, often in groups. Divine or no, the blade's not some instant-win button.

Citing precedent:

In (an acknowledged out-of-main-continuity story) Kingdom Come Wonder Woman is armed with a blade forged by Hephaestus that "can carve the electrons off an atom" and could cut Superman.

Just getting that out there.

Talkkno

2011-04-30, 05:38 PM

Divinely craft bronze blades. Well made that they may be, they're still an inferior material to things like modern steel.

Even if they can just cut through, I doubt his first tactic would be "block it with my arm!". I'd wager he'd doge and redirect the arm and such, rather than trying to "tank" the blow. He fights people with all manner of weapons a lot, often in groups. Divine or no, the blade's not some instant-win button.

It still has superhuman strength backing it up though, so even if his glove was proof against the weapon, the momentum alone would likely break his wrist.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 05:58 PM

Citing precedent:

In (an acknowledged out-of-main-continuity story) Kingdom Come Wonder Woman is armed with a blade forged by Hephaestus that "can carve the electrons off an atom" and could cut Superman.

Just getting that out there.Right, which is why I allowed for it to be super-sharp.

Though Supes is unprotected against magic, so he's not the perfect example (not vulnerable; he doesn't take more "damage", he just doesn't get any protection from it like he does bullets).

It still has superhuman strength backing it up though, so even if his glove was proof against the weapon, the momentum alone would likely break his wrist....Which is why I mentioned him doing things like dodging and redirecting blows, rather than "tanking" them.

Superhuman strenght isn't an out of context problem for Batman by any stretch.

Forum Explorer

2011-04-30, 06:11 PM

I would give this to Batman unless its a fight in a empty field. Batman would keep pulling out different tricks and gadgets until one managed to disable Achilles. Fighting people of Achilles strength has been proven to be within Bats capabilities and Batman would likely be able to come up with the stratagy of avoiding Achilles in hand to hand.

WalkingTarget

2011-04-30, 06:22 PM

Right, which is why I allowed for it to be super-sharp.

S'ok. I'm just bringing up an in-DC case of a divinely forged weapon (from the "same" god no less). I'd say that anything made by the god of the forge, even if "only" bronze, would still be better than modern, but mundane steel.

What I'm not advocating is that such a thing would automatically bypass armor altogether. Superlative isn't the same as infallible.

Xondoure

2011-04-30, 06:44 PM

While I do think Bats would take this its rather depressing how easily people go "batman wins because hes batman and nothing anyone does could ever possibly stop him." Yes it normally works that way in the comics, but then he's the main character. Achilles is equally unstoppable until fate, a god, a poison arrow, and a cowardly shot in a time when war was about glory all came together and put a stop to him.

Talkkno

2011-04-30, 07:41 PM

...Which is why I mentioned him doing things like dodging and redirecting blows, rather than "tanking" them.
.

That's all well and good, but would Batman be familiar with the style and era of fighting Achilles would use?

Achilles has much greater latitude for margin of error here, where if Batman messes up just once, he's pretty much a goner, plus he's on a time limit of sorts, since Achilles can outlast him on endurance if it comes down to it.

mootoall

2011-04-30, 08:13 PM

Batman would be familiar with Maecenian (sp?) fighting style, as, as said before, he's been sent back in time and made to fight his way back to the present.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 08:34 PM

He's also seen so many different fighting forms, and has a sharp enough mind, that what parts of it he didn't immediately know he'd likely be able to intuit. The whole point behind him having so many styles is that he can adapt and improvise on the fly. This is discounting any time-travel-based shenanigans.

leafman

2011-04-30, 08:47 PM

Unless Bats traveled to ancient Greece in some other story, the Return of Bruce Wayne (where he fight his way through time) has him jump from the late Paleolithic era straight to the 1600's and all of his time jumps are all in the Gotham area.

However, I think knowing Achilles exact fighting style isn't important. Batman wouldn't likely engage in melee until he knew more about Achilles' capabilities.

Also of important note is this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warkiller) who calls himself Achilles Warkiller.

Edit: Another note to consider is that the second "a" in Shazam stands for Achilles, Captain Marvel is granted the power of the Courage of Achilles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics)#Powers_and_abilities). Batman should definately know the legend of Achilles or at least be able to Google it.

Coidzor

2011-04-30, 11:46 PM

That's all well and good, but would Batman be familiar with the style and era of fighting Achilles would use?

Achilles has much greater latitude for margin of error here, where if Batman messes up just once, he's pretty much a goner, plus he's on a time limit of sorts, since Achilles can outlast him on endurance if it comes down to it.

Pretty sure, yeah. In several incarnations, he's run into what the Amazonians would use (both allied with and fighting against them) which is evolved from that same family of weapon-use and he's run into what other martial arts that have survived to the present from Greece.

Achilles would basically be a practitioner of very archaic forms of Greco-Roman wrestling and the forms of sword-play and spear-play that the amazonians use. Unless I'm misremembering the Themascurians' schtick.

Plus hasn't he studied all human forms of martial arts and several non-human in depth?

Talkkno

2011-04-30, 11:48 PM

Can he speak Ancient Greek? Otherwise the aforementioned goading will be far less effective.

chiasaur11

2011-05-01, 12:57 AM

Can he speak Ancient Greek? Otherwise the aforementioned goading will be far less effective.

He's Batman.

Of course he can speak archaic greek. Even aside from ancient Greek languages being one of those classical rich kid courses (and Wayne was rich enough that he got tutors), he spent months on alligator wrestling and pottery. He's pretty much played the entire field of human endeavor.

Forum Explorer

2011-05-01, 12:58 AM

Can he speak Ancient Greek? Otherwise the aforementioned goading will be far less effective.

Does batman really goad people with his words? He seems to stay silent more often then not in a fight.

kpenguin

2011-05-01, 12:58 AM

Plus its the native language of one of the more powerful of his JLA buddies.

Tazar

2011-05-01, 03:34 AM

Batman would be familiar with Maecenian (sp?) fighting style, as, as said before, he's been sent back in time and made to fight his way back to the present.

Not necessarily; what part of the world was he sent back to?

If he got plopped in Africa, for example, he won't know the first thing about Greek fighting styles circa the Trojan War.

People also seem to be greatly overestimating the effect taunting will have on Achilles; he only "hulks out" in the Iliad due to his humiliation by Agamemnon, an inferior warrior, and the (from his perspective) murder of his closest friend by Hector.

Boasting about one's prowess and taunting one's opponent were pretty much par for the course in the Trojan War, so taunting really isn't likely to bother Achilles that much.

Asta Kask

2011-05-01, 06:46 AM

Lurkmoar

2011-05-01, 06:58 AM

A more interesting, and even fight, would be someone like Odysseus or Sisyphus against Batman. The Bat is smart, but is he smart enough to outwit Odysseus? How does he fare against someone who outwitted Death itself?

I dunno, every time something brings up Odysseus, I think about the story of Nobody... and how he just HAD to screw up in the end. Sure he made it home, but made the voyage that much harder on himself.

warty goblin

2011-05-01, 08:52 AM

Not necessarily; what part of the world was he sent back to?

If he got plopped in Africa, for example, he won't know the first thing about Greek fighting styles circa the Trojan War.

And given that Mycenaean equipment was very different than that of classical Greece, the combat techniques employed would almost certainly be different as well. The relevance of this of course depends on whether we interpret Achilles as a Mycenaean warrior of mythic proportion, or as he was viewed by the Greeks in antiquity.

People also seem to be greatly overestimating the effect taunting will have on Achilles; he only "hulks out" in the Iliad due to his humiliation by Agamemnon, an inferior warrior, and the (from his perspective) murder of his closest friend by Hector.

Boasting about one's prowess and taunting one's opponent were pretty much par for the course in the Trojan War, so taunting really isn't likely to bother Achilles that much.
A valid point. Also note that Achilles going into angry-mode is really not a good thing if you're fighting him, since it doesn't seem to make him stupider so much as pretty much unstoppable.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-05-01, 12:04 PM

WalkingTarget

2011-05-01, 12:41 PM

Odysseus may be smart (I disagree, but w/e), but he's far to proud to win against Batman.

Metis (Μῆτις) being skill, cunning, and/or craftiness rather than straight-up intelligence being the distinction there.

Odysseus was a lateral-thinking problem solver, not an academic or philosopher.

Geddoe

2011-05-01, 01:16 PM

A more interesting, and even fight, would be someone like Odysseus or Sisyphus against Batman. The Bat is smart, but is he smart enough to outwit Odysseus? How does he fare against someone who outwitted Death itself?

This is Batman, I am sure DC is planning a storyline where he has to go back in time and actually operates under the name Odysseus, replacing the original who died in his arms after being killed by a bandit or something and asks Batman to take Troy and return to Odysseus' wife with news of her husband. If he does the gods will send Batman back to his own time and restore his years lost to the journey.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-05-01, 01:51 PM

Metis (Μῆτις) being skill, cunning, and/or craftiness rather than straight-up intelligence being the distinction there.

Odysseus was a lateral-thinking problem solver, not an academic or philosopher.

He was also full of Hubris. Batman is smarter (in all sense), so he'd probably win.

Zaydos

2011-05-01, 01:55 PM

This is Batman, I am sure DC is planning a storyline where he has to go back in time and actually operates under the name Odysseus, replacing the original who died in his arms after being killed by a bandit or something and asks Batman to take Troy and return to Odysseus' wife with news of her husband. If he does the gods will send Batman back to his own time and restore his years lost to the journey.

I was just going to say Odysseus was Batman in a previous life. It makes sense enough.

Tazar

2011-05-01, 02:05 PM

He was also full of Hubris. Batman is smarter (in all sense), so he'd probably win.

I'd disagree; Batman's certainly possessed of a not inconsiderable amount of pride of his own.

Forum Explorer

2011-05-01, 02:32 PM

I dunno, every time something brings up Odysseus, I think about the story of Nobody... and how he just HAD to screw up in the end. Sure he made it home, but made the voyage that much harder on himself.

He didn't really screw that up. I mean it seemed like a pretty safe bet that the cyclops wouldn't be able to do anything about it (and he couldn't) its not like Odysseus could tell by looking that the cyclops was favoured by a god.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-05-01, 02:34 PM

I'd disagree; Batman's certainly possessed of a not inconsiderable amount of pride of his own.
Got any proof over there?

Dienekes

2011-05-01, 03:08 PM

He didn't really screw that up. I mean it seemed like a pretty safe bet that the cyclops wouldn't be able to do anything about it (and he couldn't) its not like Odysseus could tell by looking that the cyclops was favoured by a god.

I believe in some versions (could be wrong, been a long time since I read it), Odysseus couldn't help but taunt the cyclops as they were leaving causing it to throw stones at them and killing off a few of his men.

WalkingTarget

2011-05-01, 03:09 PM

He didn't really screw that up. I mean it seemed like a pretty safe bet that the cyclops wouldn't be able to do anything about it (and he couldn't) its not like Odysseus could tell by looking that the cyclops was favoured by a god.

Well, two things there.

First, the cyclops-taunting started before Odysseus gave out his name and resulted in the cyclops (while blind) throwing a massive boulder past their ship. He's shot-putting rocks capable of sinking them.

Second, the other cyclops mentioned that Poseidon was Polyphemus' father during the exchange just after he's been blinded.

Tragic heroes have to have a flaw, and hubris was definitely Odysseus' problem. That goes back to the glory thing that WG talked about earlier - what good is pulling a fast one on somebody if he doesn't know it was you?

Have you seen The Sting? The only way that Hooker, Robert Redford's character, can get revenge for the murder of his friend/mentor is to run a big con on the guy responsible (because he doesn't "know enough about killing to kill him"). Gondorff, Paul Newman's character, before agreeing to help arrange the con warns Hooker that "You have to keep this con even after you take his money. He can't know you took him."

That's a deal that Odysseus wouldn't be able to accept, and it would come back to haunt him because that's how heroic flaws work.

Forum Explorer

2011-05-01, 03:15 PM

WalkingTarget

2011-05-01, 03:47 PM

I don't remember the other cyclops mentioning that about Poseidon. But it has been a very long time since I read his story.

Still I don't think it was that big of a mistake. From one point of view he was going to be punished by Poseidon no matter what he did so he might as well get the credit for it.

Not my favorite translation, but my go-to reference (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0218:book=1:card=1) because it's free on the web (and the site also has the Greek text (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=1) with clickable vocabulary).

In the English version, go to Scroll 9, page 7 right near the top for the earlier mention of Poseidon as his father.

Also, I had things a little off on the later taunting - Odysseus waited until they were twice as far away than when the boulder almost hit them before yelling back his name. Still, pride ******* with him, though. Even better, the Cyclops had had a prophesy about who would blind him, and so already knew that somebody named Odysseus was the one destined to do it - not this Outis guy, whoever that is. Odysseus' taunt was unnecessary!

Forum Explorer

2011-05-01, 04:40 PM

Not my favorite translation, but my go-to reference (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0218:book=1:card=1) because it's free on the web (and the site also has the Greek text (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=1) with clickable vocabulary).

In the English version, go to Scroll 9, page 7 right near the top for the earlier mention of Poseidon as his father.

Also, I had things a little off on the later taunting - Odysseus waited until they were twice as far away than when the boulder almost hit them before yelling back his name. Still, pride ******* with him, though. Even better, the Cyclops had had a prophesy about who would blind him, and so already knew that somebody named Odysseus was the one destined to do it - not this Outis guy, whoever that is. Odysseus' taunt was unnecessary!

I suppose if he had politely refused the cyclops invitation he might not have been cursed by Posedion though I doubt that.

Tazar

2011-05-01, 06:46 PM

Got any proof over there?

The fact that he's made fighting crime a solo crusade of his on which he refuses to cooperate closely with legal authorities, insisting instead upon lurking around the streets at night on his own?

kpenguin

2011-05-01, 06:58 PM

KnightDisciple

2011-05-01, 07:20 PM

...its hardly a solo crusade. I mean, from Commissioner Gordon and the fine folks down at Gotham PD to the extended Bat Family to the Justice League to his own private team of Outsiders to god-knows-who-else... Batman hardly works solo.And now with Batman Incorporated, which is a publicly-known endeavor that has him working with crimefighters all over the globe.

kpenguin

2011-05-01, 07:24 PM

Don't forget Batman Inc's precursor, Batmen of All Nations.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-05-02, 07:07 PM

And even if he did really work alone, that's not being proud, that's being honorable. He's not doing anything because he's the only one who can, he's doing it so that others wont get hurt. That sir, is the opposite of pride. But yeah kpenguin's right, Bats hardly ever works alone, despite what he may want. I mean, just look at his current TV Show on CN.

Traab

2011-05-02, 07:31 PM

Achilles is really a one trick pony. Ill give him killer croc levels of strength or venom bane just for fairness. As far as raw skill in combat I have to call it a draw. Achilles is a heavily trained warrior, so is batman. Achilles fought in a 10 year long war and has battled thousands. Batman has been fighting a one man war in gotham against the scum of the earth, many with widely varied powers, for I dont know how many years, but I do know its a lot. Both are highly experienced, highly trained fighters. Achilles has the advantage in a straight up fight due to his god made weapons and armor and his general invulnerability.

That being said, unless he gets that first hit on bats before he learns any of this, and kills or cripples him right off the *snicker* bat, I dont think he would win in the end. Batman would see the massive damage and physical strength as he takes down a brick wall with his sword and know, "Ok, attempting to block = bad" he would then gain range, and start peppering him with a wide variety of weapons and other items. Quickly learning of his invulnerability as things like tasers dont effect him, (though I bet pepper spray would) If he determines that he cant beat achilles with what he has on hand, he will withdraw, and go back to his cave to resupply on what he thinks itll take to win then come back. Im guessing he would come up with a way to disarm achilles, then wrap him up in some insanely high tensile strength metal net and find a way to knock him unconscious. If he couldnt withdraw from battle for whatever reason, such as "Batman! If you leave this battle ill start killing these peasants!" then he would likely ring up alfred and have HIM bring what he needs. It wouldnt be the first time thats happened. Batman does need time to think to come up with a strategy, thats his weakness, but the thing is, he is good at making the time he needs. Wether it involves luring achilles to a construction site and burying him under a building to get some breathing room, or just playing keep away, he would make a plan and carry it out.