BKII and historical clout

[simon]

Does anybody ever actaully make it though BKII of the Iliad, or is it standard skipping material for everyone? I certianly never read it, only read many articles about it. It is surmised that it was written before the rest of the Iliad. So it could have actually been of some historical reliability, meaning an actual list of ships chartered in various warfare endeavors. What do any of you Greek Scholars think about Homer as a historical source? It seems an outdated technique of looking at Greek and Roman life, but there are similarities with artifacts found in Greece, like the figure eight shields, the boar tusk helmets, and Nestor's cup, that are accurately described by Homer.

[mono]

I have heard similar evidence that Homer may have written Book II of The Iliad before the remains, which makes me, additionally, wonder if, since both The Iliad and The Odyssey scholars think existed long before Homer (he only documented them in print), perhaps the preceding of Book II Homer thought of himself, independentally. Like any reader, I question the historical 'facts' written by Homer, and all of the epic writers, for that matter, especially that much of the rhetoric originated mostly by mythology.
Yes, I have read the entirety of The Iliad and its derived articles and summaries, and its 'sequel,' Virgil's The Æneid, both of which I have found enlightening. Truly, Book I may not seem as important to read as Book II, and its proceedings, so I find it not essential, but helpful as a kind of prologue to its followings.