[CONAN] Conan Morality

[Supplement Four]

Conan is often portrayed as "good guy" in the comics and pastiches. Howard, to me, writes him more in the "grey', but not necessarily a "bad" guy.

What I'm curious about is how Conan copes during the times he's been the leader of a band of warriors--when he lead the Kozaki/Zuagir/Free Company/Red Brotherhood or even as the general of the host of some southern nation.

he kozaks, zuagir, and the Red Brotherhood, at least, were known for their maurading, pilliaging, and plundering. Isn't this type of activity synonymous with rape, theft, and murder? Weren't towns sacked and burned to the ground?

And Conan, as leader of these bands at different times in his life, condoned this activity, yes? He allowed his men to burn the houses of poor people? He allowed the murder of children? He allowed their mothers and sisters raped?

Or, are we to assume that the kozaks, zuagir, and Red Brotherhood (not to mention his Free Company and any army he's lead in his life) supported themselves in a "nice" way.

Thoughts?

 

[Cheomesh]

Well, he certainly falls into the "gray" category from what I've read. The Conan 'verse in general lacks an absolute good to aspire to, so it generally seems to fall into simply "What's good for me and those of mine". While Conan will keep his word unless double crossed and will help those he directly sees as helpless, he never seems to have anything against taking what he wants out of a situation. You can't remain the leader of a bunch of ravagers unless you give them loot. He was a hell of a ravager along the Black Coast, killing many essentially innocent sailors - again because a leader needs to incentivise his followers. He's less trying to right wrongs than he is trying to carve himself a piece of the world.

M.

 

[Supplement Four]

And so, my point...as Conan and his men are ravaging the Black Coast, he's allowing families to be displaced with their homes burned, women and children, murdered, women and children raped, and other despicable acts.

 

[Boneguard]

And so, my point...as Conan and his men are ravaging the Black Coast, he's allowing families to be displaced with their homes burned,

Here I would be incline to say: Yes he would. If this is how hecan get the loot form those people, sure he will do it, it doesn't go against his code of conduct.

women and children, murdered, women and children raped, and other despicable acts.

Now that on the other hand, harming women and children would go against his morale code of conduct and he would not allow it. In a few books he did kill people who were about to harm or mistreat a woman, so he would not allow that.

The Rest is really a matter of 'Might is Right' and 'A word Given is a word Kept'.

 

[Supplement Four]

Now that on the other hand, harming women and children would go against his morale code of conduct and he would not allow it.

I don't know about that. In Black Colossus, Conan notes that plunder is good for a mercenary company. So, taking everything someone has means that the people stolen from may starve or not be prepared for the winter. This is quite literally harming women and children.

In Red Nails, Conan tells Valeria, in so many words, that if she hangs out around a military camp, she can expect to get raped.

I think the more heroic Conan version comes from his portrayal in the comics and pastiche stories rather than from Howard himself.

 

[Cheomesh]

Indeed. He is little more than an abnormally strong and tough person carving himself a slice of the world. He does not put on airs, does not try to give us some kind of "black and white" hero. This is why he's interesting.

"Conan is the damnedest bastard there ever was." about sums him up.

M.

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

There's also the issue that you're putting his actions into a modern idea of morality. Our idea of what is acceptable doesn't really apply to the Hyborian age (nor to the actual medieval world it was based on), it actually doesn't even apply to the era in which the stories themselves were written.
We live in a world of, "people are people", we may like an individual, we may not; we may agree with them, or we may stand diametrically opposed to everything they believe; but, we will still offer them a certain level of respect and consideration just based on the fact that they are human beings.
In the Dark Ages, this concept of "human dignity" hadn't really been invented yet. People treated eachother based on rules of conduct that had much more to do with your circumstances at the moment.

Case in point.
You have a Norwegian village. One day, some members of this village pack up, board a boat and sail to England, where they travel the coast, burning village, raping, murdering and stealing supplies.
This is considered perfectly acceptable and normal behavior in their own society (and in the English too, they were on the giving end of that stick quite alot too), because you are on a raid/making war and the people you attacked, raped and robbed were the enemy.
Now, if they did this to their own people, or a neighboring village, or anyone on friendly terms to the tribe, they would be outlawed or executed because in that instance, the actions would be wrong.


Its important to understand that people in the past didn't see the world as we do. A man in the Hyborian age could go on a reaving mission, and rape women and murder children, then later, in a completely different circumstance be compelled to keep his word to/protect a woman, with no cognitive dissonance on his part. To him, they are simply not the same thing at all.

 

[kintire]

I think its always good to actually quote a bit of Howard to ground debates like this:

He cursed himself for his refusal of their offer, even while his stubborn manhood revolted at the thought, and he knew that were he taken forth and given another chance, his reply would be the same. He would not sell his subjects to the butcher. And yet it had been with no thought of anyone's gain but his own that he had seized the kingdom originally. Thus subtly does the instinct of sovereign responsibility enter even a red-handed plunderer sometimes.

The question of Conan's morality is not static. When in his career are you talking about? He develops over time. In particular when we first see him he is operating on bonds of kin and honour. As his career develops he widens his horizons, and by the time of Black Colossus he is an honourable warrior, in his own way. He never quite loses this but from Belit's influence and onwards he develops a serious cruel streak and becomes as Howard describes, a red handed plunderer. He reaches his nadir in the Black Kingdoms, at which point he is losing even his sense of honour.

The events of Vale of Lost Women cause him to look into the mirror and realise that he doesn't like the view, and from then on he is on an upward trajectory. On becoming king, his sense of responsibility to his subjects propels him into downright nobility, and by the end of his career he is thoroughly good.

 

[Cheomesh]

You know, that's a very good point.

M.