As in, a heroic death in service of a glorious cause, a la Leonidas and the 300?

It certainly exists now. A glorious death is one in service to a cause of similar adjective, or accomplishing something worthy of song. In ancient times that may have been 300 Spartans dying to hold of the Persian army, and in more modern times its the soldier who dives on a grenade to save his squadmates. In terms of diplomacy... I don't think it does.

I would say there is no longer one in politics. There are too many occasions when a minister resigns his post and makes some emotive statement about how he opposes a certain issue, then a few years later quietly returns.
Diplomacy: Personally I don't think so, but I could understand how one could argue there is. If you're a very minor nation and you support the resistance rather than the leader and it kills you that would surely count.

I don't think that a small nation siding against a larger is a glorious death, it's just good strategy. In politics, well, if someone makes a stand and then is voted out of office because his opinion is unpopular, even if it's true. That happens all too often.

so it being common makes it less glorious essentially?

osama bin laden and his crew persuade dozens of men every year that a "glorious death" is the right choice for them.

he might not still be alive, but yes it is a sacrifice they make for a cause they believe is glorious. there really is no glory, at least for the person dying, it's not as if they get to look back and reflect with a smile on their death or anything. the glory only exists for those that follow in their wake.

Yeah but... even forgetting talk of an afterlife (which I preemptively diffuse. This is NOT a debate about the existence of afterlife lol), in the few moments, even seconds, or longer perhaps, that a person realizes he is about to die a glorious death, is that sort of fulfillment not something you can find nowhere else?

Jesus said, "There is no greater love than this: that a man would lay down his life for him friends,"

and I think that's basically true. The profundity of dying in the name of a worthy cause... that's hard to beat, even if you only get to bask in it for a few moments. To the extent that, if you feel fulfilled and feel like you mattered at the VERY end of your life, that this makes your life goal accomplished, accomplished the meaning of life, then a glorious death IS the meaning of life, no?

I don't know. It means a lot less than it did in ancient times, Timur is truly right about that.

But I think it still exists. And I think it is still worth it. I don't have too many deep-seated emotions about these kinds of morals and things, but it is rather hard for me to believe that if I died, say, protecting a bunch of orphans from some murderers, that I wouldn't be looking at some kind of reward for this selflessness. I think it is the very fact that the people who die a glorious death are not sure of what will become of them as a result, but do it anyway, that makes their death glorious.

Another quote, from Thucydides this time ;)

"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."

And I mean the historical Thucydides... I didn't make that up lol.

From a literary perspective there is no better end to a heroic life than a glorious death. Especially from the Upper Germanic traditions. Beowulf would serve as a good example. Once he had established himself, through his bravery, and been granted the crown. He ruled well. When in Beowulf's old age, the dragon came, he gave up his life in defense of his people. Killing the dragon, but losing his life.

I think the basic nature of warfare has changed little since ancient times. In that it is still two (or more) groups of people trying to kill one another and take their stuff. So someone dying a glorious death in defense of comrades or non-combatants is still every bit as worthy. Surely it's less desireable than continuing to live and still meeting the same goal, but it's certainly praiseworthy.

"If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, -
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori."
- Wilfed Owen

I think that the idea of a glorious death probably works better in the ancient mode of combat. Modern warfare is pretty anonymous. A modern warrior might not see his enemy clearly, or at all, when he kills him. In the "good old days", the weapons put you within arm's reach of your enemy. It's one thing to meet your end in single combat, or going down with your enemy's blood on the blade of your sword. It's another to go down when a mortar shell explodes next to you, or with a sniper's bullet through your eye. There might not be any difference in the courage of the soldiers who die, or the value of the sacrifice that they make, but it's the way that they die, I think, that makes death "glorious" to the observer.

And, in one of those strange paradoxes of life, I don't think that there is actually a "glorious" way to die. Dead is dead. It's how you live that counts.

So, how do people define a glorious death?
A glorious death is one where a person dies having known that they are going to die, can avoid this, yet choose not to for a noble reason, often so that another may live.

"And, in one of those strange paradoxes of life, I don't think that there is actually a "glorious" way to die. Dead is dead. It's how you live that counts."

Amen.

figlesquidge laid it out in laymens terms
can be for all sorts of causes not just to save a life
for a noble idea of value and ethics

(That was just my view of what it means, I'd be interested if anyone else has a different one)

Yeah... I feel it definitely has to do with being self-sacrificial. Willing put yourself in harm's way for someone else. That is a glorious death, should you die. If a parent distracts some kidnappers coming for their kids long enough for the kids to get away, but dies as a result, he or she has died gloriously, if you ask me. And as he/she lays there dying, or about to die, then they may have achieved one of highest feelings of fulfillment. Not that I can speak from experience, but I think that just might be the case.

That's a fair point: can it be a glorious death if the end objective isn't accomplished? ie what if the parents hold up the kidnappers but the children still get caught. Would that make it a "futile death"?

No, I'd say not, it would only be futile if the parent did not think the kids could get away. It makes the death tragic, to be sure, but not futile as you say. I mean, perhaps it would be futile in the strictest sense but it is still "glorious" in the sense that they have laid down their live in an expression of self-sacrifice.

Agreed with Thucydides. The "glorious death" doesn't occur in Diplomacy. IF one was to say there is, it would be compared to petty revenge. Glorious? Far from it.

A glorious death-dying for convictions, loved ones, or for the greater good of society.

You know, most soldiers in the Wehrmacht who fought and died on the Eastern Front in WWII thought they were saving the world from Communist barbarism.

Did they, too, die gloriously?

Yeah.

I don't think so though. I would have said those deaths were futile. Maybe it is a case on whether the person knew they were going to die: Those attacking may well have found death as a (very) unfortunate side-effect, rather than going expecting to die?

there is no glory in death, just the cold hands or eternal darkness.

That's coming from the mouth of an atheist.

that's coming from the mouth of a prophet of truths, zaza. lol. keep living your happy, god-filled illusion, eventually you'll wake up

@ ottovanbis So does that mean fighting and dieing for the sake of the world, one's nation, one's family, and etc is pointless? If so than is altruism a evolutionary dead end? I think not. Other wise it would not be so common in social animals. Besides living to be old and full of regret does not sound a very pleasent life. Dieing in glory would be better than watching those you love being destroyed while you watch and say "If I only had".

Isn't that quite a self centred view? I'm not saying I would die for others. I hope I would, but who knows until they reach that sort of situation.
However, even if just thinking on a solitary view, suppose you *didn't* save the others. If you knew you could, it is reasonable to argue that you would actually feel worse, because your decision had lead to their death.

@ Tolstoy

I do not think I necessarily have to agree with an adversary to think that his life or death has meaning. To be glorious, one would have to embrace the idea that their death is inevitable and make a choice to have it happen for a worthy cause (either in their own estimation or that of the observer). There are those who's deaths are commendable, in that they purposely took the burden of death to spare others. Is there glory in such kindness? I think so.

"I do not think I necessarily have to agree with an adversary to think that his life or death has meaning." - Definitely not. I do not agree with the bombers of 9/11, but their death's have certainly had meaning, and indeed have shaped the decade.

Who were the bombers of 9/11?

I thought it was planes, not bombs?

True, sorry wrong word, hijackers.
I don't know, but it is still meaningful.

However, not glorious, as they endeavored to kill, not to save. Spectacular? Perhaps.

I was referencing and commenting on CAs text.
But this leads to another interesting question based on the earlier example. What does that mean the parents actions were in the eyes of the kidnappers?

Does a glorious death depend on which side of the issue you are. I think that whilst only those in agreement with the cause will find a death glorious, to be so each side should find it courageous?

(wow, this is quite a morbid conversation, I've only just really noticed)

I don't believe it is the death in and of itself that is glorious, merely the reason behind it. The same action but without the death would still be glorious, the death only highlights the will to sacrifice oneself for the cause.

Glory is all about perspective, you guys have to realize this. For the bombers (whether it be the demo team or hijackers we may never know). If Moslem extremists bombed the towers then they thought they were doing it for a worthy cause. Their REALITY permitted their actions to be perceived as for a worthy cause regardless of what you guys think.

The truly glorious deaths, I think, are those that can be acknowledged by both sides as glorious.

I mean, think of Thermopylae. Did not those Persian soldiers, by the last day, not truly admire their foes courage and valor? I'm sure they did. That's why their deaths are perhaps the most indisputably glorious ever. Lol.

Glorious or foolish?

Glorious, Foolish, or Necessary?

Interesting. I think necessity would remove the gloriousness from something. To be glorious a death has to be a clear choice: if there is no alternative then it requires no courage to do so.

In thier own minds-the hijackers of 9/11 had a glorious death. Misguided, yes. But still glorious.

glori•ous - deserving or bringing great fame and success

No question that 9/11 brought great fame and was a stunning success from some points of view.

I believe that definition isn't accurately expressing the connotation of the word glorious. The "great fame" part isn't glorious.

That's a bad definition if you ask me.

My Mac says:

"having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration"

Admiration would be the key then. If no one would admire what you did, it's not glorious.

@Thucydides
That definition is from the Oxford dictionary.