In the Iliad why is there no continuation of the duel between Paris and Menelaus?
I guess I will never understand the mentality of the Iliad but the whole war is started by a Paris vs Menelaus rivalry so to speak and an agreement to settle it as such. Why is there no call to just continue the duel?
The Trojan War is the continuation of that duel. The idea of a duel between individuals, with no collective consequences, reappears sometimes in history during times of rugged individualism: in the late chivalric Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, among Vikings, in the Wild West, etc. But apart from these exceptions, the feud, involving clan honor and clan vengeance, is dominant throughout history. To quote that article: "the blood feud, coupled with the practice of blood price, functioned as an effective form of social control for limiting and ending conflicts between individuals". The duel between Paris and Menelaos, being unresolved, devolves onto their clans; and these clans being royal and existing in a web of inter-clan alliances, the feud becomes a full-blown war. To quote historian Marc Bloch, The Feudal Society:
The solitary individual, however, could do but little. Moreover, it was most commonly a death that had to be avenged. In this case the family group went into action and the feud came into being ... No moral obligation seemed more sacred than this ... The whole kindred, therefore, placed as a rule under the command of a chieftain, took up arms to punish the murder of one of its members or merely a wrong that he had suffered.
Note that everyone in the Iliad is perfectly OK with this clan-honor rationale for a major war---it needs no additional justification. Nobody bothers to persuade allies through economic, political, or religious reasons; nobody much bothers to propagandize Troy as a looming military threat, a competitor, or a rich city to be looted, even though these reasons may have quietly influenced actual decisions. The official casus belli, accepted matter-of-factly by everyone involved, is a violation of clan honor by another clan, and never mind the fortunes and interests of the individual persons involved. The duel serves as introduction and pretext to the feud, and then it, Paris, and Menelaos cease to matter, swept up in the currents of war. That's the mentality of the Iliad for you; and it is hardly unusual, in the course of history.
Because Paris got his butt kicked. (Paris was only saved by the intervention of the gods.)
imho, they may even have been hoping for Paris to lose, so they could return Helen and end the war. But it was pre-ordained that Troy would fall, so no getting to avoid that fate over a single duel.
The opening lines of the Iliad explain:
Sing, O goddess, the rage of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and crows, for so was the will of Zeus fulfilled.
Iliad, line 1 ff.
The other is that these are honor/shame based warrior cultures. If Paris was honorable, he'd likely want to reprise the duel with Menelaus. But Paris isn't honorable--he was received in Argos by Menelaus as a guest-friend, enjoying his hospitality until Menelaus goes away, at which point Paris promptly steals his wife.
(This might be due to Paris' upbringing by a shepherd, after the failed infanticide due to exposure. Paris is sort of wild, raised on Mt. Ida, away from the royal court of Troy.)
One might then ask "Why don't the Trojans betray Paris give Helen back?" The answer is surely complicated, but involves family loyalty--Hector may not respect Paris but he won't betray his brother. Helen may also have asked Priam for protection. Lastly, to give back Helen would be to betray Aphrodite, who promised Paris the most beautiful woman in the world.
In some sense, the Fall of Troy is analogous to the fall of Hector. Troy was put in a situation with no way out, but honored it's commitments. Likewise, Hector may have fallen, but his honor was intact.
