Trojan vs. Greek Sympathies

[Vladimir777]

I just finished the Iliad, and I was wondering if more people sympathized with the Greeks or the Trojans when they read this. Sure, the poem was written by a Greek (or I guess an Ionian, but I presume he considers himself the descendant of the Achaians described in the poem), but the Greeks have almost no scenes of tenderness or compassion. Troy is described as a former idyllic paradise forever ruined by the Greek siege. Priam is a wise, compassionate ruler, always kind even to Helen, whereas Agamemnon is an overly arrogant tyrant who only reluctantly gives up the daughter of the priest of Apollo, nearly ruining the Greeks' chances at something they've put almost a decade of sweat and blood into. Hector, although not the fighter than Achilles is, seems like a truly noble man. He believes in the good of Troy, at what his people are fighting to save, and even though he can be overconfident and egotistical like Achilles, he seems to care more about his homeland (Achilles actually prays so that his people--granted, the Greeks didn't seem like the particularly organized and unified state that they would become in the coming centuries, so I guess it's a stretch to say that they have a national identity--will be defeated in battle by the Trojans to prove Achilles's point that they need him) than his rival does. I can't see Hector wishing defeat on his people.

To me what makes the Iliad so tragic is not Achilles and Patroklos (because I didn't feel that their friendship was particularly well-established before the latter's defeat at Hector's hands), but the fate of the Trojans. A war fought over Paris's womanizing is so below Priam and Hector's sensibilities, yet they feel compelled to defend their homeland against invasion, even as they condemn their vain son/brother. It is their human connections that makes the story so tragic, their humane characteristics. Priam and Hector's kind treatment of Helen even as the other Trojans reject her; especially the mourning of Andromache and her heartbreaking lines about her son growing up without a father. God, that was rough stuff. To me this was the real tragedy of the Iliad, and I found it interesting how Homer devoted so much attention to the positive qualities of the Trojans, because the Greeks usually come off as bickering and overly macho (although perhaps these qualities were more important back then than the close family connections of the Trojans?). It seems unlikely, although I'm not really sure.

[JBI]

You aren't supposed to sympathize with the Trojans, that is an anachronism - it's a holy war, the Trojans committed a sin by insulting the Greek's hospitality and, given the conventions, it is only fair that Troy must burn as consequence - the laws of marriage and of hospitality were ignored, and therefore Troy must pay the price as fits the conventions of religion at the time.

Homer is singing of the glory of the Greek's victory, not of the tragedy of the Trojan defeat - I think it is important to remember that when reading the text. It's Virgil who really invents the idea of the tragic Trojan.

[Vladimir777]

Yeah, I know I'm not supposed to. There are several references throughout about the Trojans being bad "guests," so to speak, because Paris went off with Menelaos's possessions, but I can't help but feel that Homer invested some tragedy into his portrayals of the Trojans. It is interesting that Virgil came up with (did he come up with this idea--wasn't Rome supposedly created by Romulus and his brother?) the idea that the Romans were descended from the Trojans instead of the Greeks, considering how much of the Greek's culture the Romans borrowed. I wonder why this was. But regardless of whether I was supposed to feel sympathy for the Trojans or not, I most definitely did. But yeah, I'm aware that the Trojans were supposed to burn because of their lack of hospitality--he points out in several places how ideally there should be a relationship of respect between a host and his guests (Achilles hosting the "entreating party" in book IX, etc.). I suppose the final book, where Achilles is warm towards Priam inside his house is the ultimate example of being a polite host, but I cannot help but feel there is some sympathy towards Priam in this conclusion too. Eh, maybe I'm wrong, but somebody else had to feel this way I'd think. I definitely wish there was more discussion about this on here, most of the topics seem pretty dead. Thanks for the quick reply, JBI.

[bluevictim]

I found it interesting how Homer devoted so much attention to the positive qualities of the TrojansI think you're on the right track, and this is an important insight for understanding the Iliad. It is clear that you are supposed to feel sympathy for the Trojans. From details like the mini-biographies at the deaths of minor characters (of Iphidamas, the newly-wed, for example) to important episodes like Hector's last visit with Andromache, to significant structural elements like concluding the poem with Hector's funeral, great pains are taken in the poem to make the Trojans human and invite the audience to identify with them. To insist that you shouldn't feel sympathy for them would require an impressive lack of sensitivity.

The point, however, is not to take sides with the Trojans against the Greeks, as your original post seems to suggest. The audience already knows that the Greeks will conquer the Trojans (and, of course, the poem presents plenty of opportunity for the audience to sympathize with the Greeks). The Iliad is not about the Trojan War; it is about the wrath of Achilles. The Trojan War is the setting. An important role of the Trojans is to show what the Achaeans could not in this setting -- life at home with family and friends. Recall that the first appearance of the Trojans in the narrative is accompanied by Helen reminiscing about life with the Greeks at home. I think this role is crucial for the development of the main themes of the Iliad, and it would be ineffective if the audience doesn't feel the tragedy of the Trojans' experience.

It is true that the Trojans have offended the gods by abducting Helen (among other offenses), but the Greeks offend the gods, too, in various ways. The overall justice of the Greek cause does not mean that the audience should feel no sympathy for the individual Trojans caught up in the consequences. The Iliad is not a fable or fairy tale for children; ancient Greeks were capable of discerning shades of gray and understanding that life is more complex than us versus them.

As for whether or not it is anachronistic to sympathize with the Trojans, I am not aware of any convincing evidence that the original audience regarded the poem with a strict black-and-white Greeks-versus-Trojans attitude. Later Greeks often did associate the Trojans with the alien East, but that can easily be attributed to the influence of the Persian invasions (and it probably says more about how they used their mythology than about how they experienced the Iliad itself).



It is interesting that Virgil came up with (did he come up with this idea--wasn't Rome supposedly created by Romulus and his brother?) the idea that the Romans were descended from the Trojans instead of the Greeks, considering how much of the Greek's culture the Romans borrowed.The story that Romans were descendants of Trojans was traditional, and not original to Virgil.

[prendrelemick]

I would say that our sympathies are with men, playthings of the Gods.

[Vladimir777]

bluevictim, you make some good points. Perhaps the title of my thread is a bit simplistic. I don't necessarily sympathize with the Trojans over the Greeks--I just found it interesting that Homer provides so many character sketches, etc. to lend this amount of pathos to their plight. Simply because of the situation, their side seems more tragic. Their homeland is being invaded, instead of them attacking the Greek cities. I suppose this says something about the tragic nature of war itself. It's ultimately about the destruction of family and friendships at the expense of pride and honor, and the situation could easily be reversed (I suppose it was when the Persians invaded the Greeks, who had to fight to defend their own families).

The Trojans lived in what is today western Turkey, correct? Does anyone know what kind of ethnicity they were (or were supposed to be)? Were they closer to the inhabitants of the Greek mainland or closer to the Persians (or the people who would become the Persians--I'm not sure if their empire had developed around the time the story was set, which is supposedly 1200 BCE)? I know the Trojan War is only based on the dimmest recollection of history and is mostly mythical, but I find its basis in fact fascinating.

And thanks for pointing out that the Trojan-descended Roman story preceded Virgil. Does this somehow clash with the idea that Romulus and Remus (I think that is both of them) founded Rome? It seems to, because Aineas and those two are definitely completely different. I still wonder why the Romans chose to claim their lineage was from the Trojan side instead of the Greeks, especially considering that the Greeks eventually decimated the Trojans, minus Aineas (and his son and father, I think--I haven't read the Aeneid yet, but I probably should get on that). Maybe they too liked the Trojans in this story, so it wasn't just me! No, but I understand that it isn't as simplistic as being black-and-white "you're either with me or against me" in terms of which side you sympathize with. I sympathize with both, although because of the situation (as I described above) it's easier to sympathize with the side whose families are about to be sold in slavery. But I am aware that is just how life was back then, and because of this Homer's story is ultimately about the terrible waste of life that is war. Glad we got some people in here to discuss it. Man, the more I talk about this, the more I love the poem.

[Virgil]

You aren't supposed to sympathize with the Trojans, that is an anachronism - it's a holy war, the Trojans committed a sin by insulting the Greek's hospitality and, given the conventions, it is only fair that Troy must burn as consequence - the laws of marriage and of hospitality were ignored, and therefore Troy must pay the price as fits the conventions of religion at the time.

I will have to disagree and completely agree with Bluevictum below. The only real heoric character throughout is Hector and our sympathies are with Priam. It is critical to the story line that we have sympathy for the Trojans, otherwise that climatic scene between Achilles and Priam would not be poignant at all. Priam and the trojan people have suffered, paid dearly for whatever sin they may have committed. And who really on the Trojan side is anywhere as sympathetic as Hector or Priam or really any of Priam's sons other than Paris? I don't think there is any. And certainly the culture of the Trojans is charcterized as superior to the Greeks.

Now I had never thought of this as a religious war, and though it's not religious on the part of the Trojans (does it take both sides to be fighting for a religious cause to be a religious war?) there may be something to it. However, Meneleaus and Agamenmon are hardly fighting in religious ferver. In fact none of the Greeks are; they're fighting for glory and booty. However religion is integrated into the story line, especially that plague Apollo sends out in the openning book for offense to his priest.


Homer is singing of the glory of the Greek's victory, not of the tragedy of the Trojan defeat - I think it is important to remember that when reading the text. It's Virgil who really invents the idea of the tragic Trojan.
The Greeks do not win the war in The Illiad. That is external to Homer's story and was probably already part of the story line before Homer. Homer was not the only teller of tales. Actually, the fact that Homer does not end with the Greek victory adds some credence to a Trojan bias.


I think you're on the right track, and this is an important insight for understanding the Iliad. It is clear that you are supposed to feel sympathy for the Trojans. From details like the mini-biographies at the deaths of minor characters (of Iphidamas, the newly-wed, for example) to important episodes like Hector's last visit with Andromache, to significant structural elements like concluding the poem with Hector's funeral, great pains are taken in the poem to make the Trojans human and invite the audience to identify with them. To insist that you shouldn't feel sympathy for them would require an impressive lack of sensitivity.

The point, however, is not to take sides with the Trojans against the Greeks, as your original post seems to suggest. The audience already knows that the Greeks will conquer the Trojans (and, of course, the poem presents plenty of opportunity for the audience to sympathize with the Greeks). The Iliad is not about the Trojan War; it is about the wrath of Achilles. The Trojan War is the setting. An important role of the Trojans is to show what the Achaeans could not in this setting -- life at home with family and friends. Recall that the first appearance of the Trojans in the narrative is accompanied by Helen reminiscing about life with the Greeks at home. I think this role is crucial for the development of the main themes of the Iliad, and it would be ineffective if the audience doesn't feel the tragedy of the Trojans' experience.

It is true that the Trojans have offended the gods by abducting Helen (among other offenses), but the Greeks offend the gods, too, in various ways. The overall justice of the Greek cause does not mean that the audience should feel no sympathy for the individual Trojans caught up in the consequences. The Iliad is not a fable or fairy tale for children; ancient Greeks were capable of discerning shades of gray and understanding that life is more complex than us versus them.

As for whether or not it is anachronistic to sympathize with the Trojans, I am not aware of any convincing evidence that the original audience regarded the poem with a strict black-and-white Greeks-versus-Trojans attitude. Later Greeks often did associate the Trojans with the alien East, but that can easily be attributed to the influence of the Persian invasions (and it probably says more about how they used their mythology than about how they experienced the Iliad itself).


The story that Romans were descendants of Trojans was traditional, and not original to Virgil.

Excellent post Blue. Your knowledge of classical literature has always impressed me. :)

[JBI]

I think you are anachronistically viewing Hector as heroic based on a crossing of Greek thought with other thought years after Homer's time - the reading that sympathizes the Trojans is not part of Homer - just look at, for instance, how later writers treat the "barbarians", notably Herodotus, and Aeschylus.

I did not suggest that Hector, or other heroes of Troy were not imbued with Arete, I just feel the text isn't supposed to be read in that light, if we are trying to understand the text from a contemporary perspective. Agamemnon is a great hero, rather than a tyrant, and Achilles little fits are part of his heroism. What we value about Hector is probably not what a Greek would have valued - his sense of family, his sense of duty to his country - rather, it is the standards of Arete that we judge him on - his prowess as a general, warrior, and tactician - his presence on the battlefield.

Homer doesn't deny the Trojans a sense of heroism - after all, you're looking at a giant war, and if only one side was heroic and possessing a heroic power then the story would be quite dull, but I think one is meant to cheer when Achilles triumphs over Hector.

Of course, the final bits of the story, that is, the actual fall of Troy and its destruction are left out, and that is really what we are discussing - that part of the heroic cycle was either never penned by Homer, or else lost. What we do have though I think suggests that the Greeks are in the right, or at least not in the wrong. Later, Virgil, and subsequent Christian readers of Virgil have made the Trojans out to be tragic victims to Greek savagery. The burning of Troy though was considered a praiseworthy victory in Homer's time - think of it as a bard singing a song about the greatest battle that ever took place, and the world's greatest victory - that's how I think Homer envisioned it.

Just look at, for instance, the emphasis put onto possession - the cataloging of the ships, for instance, is there to show the power and strength of an Achaean launch - The emphasis put on Armor, notably Achilles' armor shows us a sense of warlikeness being honored.

This is all coming from a warrior culture, which sings of the valor of murderers - a giant rape and pillage was not thought of then as disgusting, or brutal, but rather heroic, justified, and praise-worthy.


In addition to this, there is enough evidence, I think, to suggest that Ancient Greek mentality viewed non-Greeks as somehow inferior Barbarians - whereas a culture like the Ancient Chinese viewed non-Chinese people as "not Chinese yet" so to speak, Greeks seem to have seen non-Greeks as subhuman - there is enough evidence to support this in classical texts.

How then, can we justify a Trojan envoy, who break custom, offend the gods, get what is coming to them, and lose to the mighty, honorable as being viewed as tragic victims, or sympathy-worthy within the Ancient Greek frame? Look at, for instance, the later years, with the emergence of Alexander the Great - I don't see the Persians, or any other culture conquered being held in that light within that period - likewise, to an extent, we can say that dates leading all the way to contemporary times, the most noticeable being the defeat of Japan in the Second World War as "victorious heroes" rather than savage invaders, or Nuclear tyrants (this isn't to say I do not agree with the invasion of Japan, or suggest Japan was an innocent victim, I merely am trying to show perspectives).

The emergence of the tragic Greek then, comes from the fact that Virgil thought of Rome as somehow superior to the Greeks whose classics they were studying - Rome had beaten Greece, so how then could they sing of their military power and heroism? That's where the sympathetic Trojan starts from - not from contemporary times, I would argue.


As time progressed though, Roman ideals collided with what would solidify as Christian ones - the Christian teachings of Jesus then, reshaped the reading of the classics once they were rediscovered - it is then, that we see the emergence of the tragic Trojan in the sense that we see him today - I would wager an ancient Greek would cheer as the Trojan women were rightfully carried away as sex slaves.

[bluevictim]

I just found it interesting that Homer provides so many character sketches, etc. to lend this amount of pathos to their plight.I agree, and I believe the pathos that Homer invests in their plight is not just an interesting touch, but a crucial part of how the Iliad develops its main themes.


...Homer's story is ultimately about the terrible waste of life that is war.You are certainly right that the ravages of war figure prominently in the poem, but I believe all the pathos and death serve to build up a deeper theme, more fundamental to the poem: coming to grips with our mortality. The Trojan War is a perfect choice of setting to develop this theme, as it provides an abundance of death, but I don't think the poem is primarily about the nature of war. The mini-biographies of slain minor characters (both Greek and Trojan), the touching scene between Hector and Andromache, the death of Achilles' companion -- these all poignantly illustrate the shortness of life. Most of our dreams will forever remain unfulfilled, and for the few desires we do obtain, the joy from them is short-lived. In the Iliad the vast majority of death and misfortune are a result of war, but my impression is that the poem just takes war for granted. It is one of the many ways in which the inevitable comes. Sarpedon puts it well in his famous speech in book 12:

"If by escaping this war we would be forever ageless and immortal, neither I myself would fight in the front ranks, nor would I bid you into man-exalting battle. But in reality, innumerable dooms of death stand over us in any case, which are impossible for a mortal to flee or escape, so let's go -- either we'll give someone else triumph or someone will give it to us."


The Trojans lived in what is today western Turkey, correct? Does anyone know what kind of ethnicity they were (or were supposed to be)? Were they closer to the inhabitants of the Greek mainland or closer to the Persians (or the people who would become the Persians--I'm not sure if their empire had developed around the time the story was set, which is supposedly 1200 BCE)?Yes, Troy is presumed to be in western Turkey next to the Aegean Sea. As described in the Iliad, in all the relevant categories (religion, language, political/social structures, kinship systems, funeral customs, etc.) the Trojans were ethnically identical to the Greeks. Later on Greeks began to represent Trojans as alien and foreign.

[bluevictim]

The only real heoric character throughout is Hector and our sympathies are with Priam. It is critical to the story line that we have sympathy for the Trojans, otherwise that climatic scene between Achilles and Priam would not be poignant at all. Priam and the trojan people have suffered, paid dearly for whatever sin they may have committed. And who really on the Trojan side is anywhere as sympathetic as Hector or Priam or really any of Priam's sons other than Paris? I don't think there is any. And certainly the culture of the Trojans is charcterized as superior to the Greeks.I remember you've posted before about your esteem of Hector over any of the Greek warriors. I'm afraid I feel your heart might have gotten the better of you, though :) , and you go a little too far; I think Achilles is the clear protagonist of the Iliad, and I think he is (or, at least, he becomes) truly heroic, and I think there are many sympathetic characters on the Greek side. I wonder what you mean by the culture of the Trojans being superior to the Greeks? As far as I know, the Trojans in the Iliad are essentially culturally identical to the Greeks.



Now I had never thought of this as a religious war, and though it's not religious on the part of the Trojans (does it take both sides to be fighting for a religious cause to be a religious war?) there may be something to it. However, Meneleaus and Agamenmon are hardly fighting in religious ferver. In fact none of the Greeks are; they're fighting for glory and booty. However religion is integrated into the story line, especially that plague Apollo sends out in the openning book for offense to his priest.In my opinion, claiming that the war was a religious war is somewhat hollow. It seems religious justification has been offered for pretty much every war that mankind has ever fought.


Excellent post Blue. Your knowledge of classical literature has always impressed me. :)Thanks for the compliment!

[bluevictim]

I think you are anachronistically viewing Hector as heroic based on a crossing of Greek thought with other thought years after Homer's time - the reading that sympathizes the Trojans is not part of Homer - just look at, for instance, how later writers treat the "barbarians", notably Herodotus, and Aeschylus.I'm a little puzzled by the evidence you cite. Both Herodotus and Aeschylus are 5th century sources. Why are their views conclusive for evaluating the response of the original audience of Homer's Iliad? It is true that there is evidence that Greeks from the classical period on believed themselves to be superior to non-Greeks. But the Iliad was not from the classical period, and it does not present the Trojans as alien. Even among 5th century and later sources, the Greeks were capable of sympathizing with non-Greeks as tragic figures. Consider the Persians of Aeschylus. Aeschylus also wrote a tragedy about Memnon, who fought for the Trojans. We have tragedies from Euripides about the Trojans as well.

[Virgil]

I remember you've posted before about your esteem of Hector over any of the Greek warriors. I'm afraid I feel your heart might have gotten the better of you, though :) , and you go a little too far; I think Achilles is the clear protagonist of the Iliad, and I think he is (or, at least, he becomes) truly heroic, and I think there are many sympathetic characters on the Greek side. I wonder what you mean by the culture of the Trojans being superior to the Greeks? As far as I know, the Trojans in the Iliad are essentially culturally identical to the Greeks.


You are right that Achilles is the clear protangonist. But Achilles is a character in transition, a childish brat who needs to learn the lessons of humanity and true manhood. Hector is that secondary character who represents that ideal in the flesh.

I believe the Greeks are protrayed as cruder, less sophisticated, without cultural refiniements. Compare Agonmenon and Priam. Compare Menelaus and Paris. Even Priam's gifts to Achilles suggest a cultural sophistication. It's the same culture, but it's like New York versus the back woods. (That's an exaggeration of course, but I'm just trying to get a point across.)


In my opinion, claiming that the war was a religious war is somewhat hollow. It seems religious justification has been offered for pretty much every war that mankind has ever fought.
Yes that's true, but I thought it was an interesting and different angle.

[Vladimir777]

bluevictim, I will agree that mortality plays a prominent role in the story. Mortality and fate really become quite prominent in the later books. Achilles comes to term with his own death after he faces the dilemma, Do I go home and live for many years in anonymity or do I do great things here but die young? I suppose this is the warrior ideal of being heroic: doing great things but dying on the battlefield. And yes, you're right, there are moments of pathos for almost all of the otherwise faceless soldiers who die on the battlefield. Homer often mentions that their parents won't be able to greet them with joy when they come home, and I remember one warrior hadn't even consummated his marriage yet, leaving his wife widowed. I hadn't really thought of this as being an overall portrayal of the fleeting nature of life, but I suppose you are right. Some of the best similes in the poem (perhaps the best actually) compare humanity to leaves: they wilt and fall off in the autumn, soon to be replaced by new ones. Beautiful stuff.

[Vladimir777]

I read this somewhere--perhaps in my commentary book on the Iliad?--that the Trojans were considered culturally superior to the Greeks, which were more of a warrior-like culture versus the more civilized nature of the Trojans (although they are described as being a conglomeration of a bunch of different groups, many of which do not speak the same language). I'm not sure of the truth to this. I also remember reading that the Trojans were supposed to represent part of a misty past even in Homer's age, the Mycenean Age, which apparently had writing which was lost in the "Greek Dark Age" (of which Homer came on the tail end--I suppose he was the beginning of the Archaic Age?). I forget where I read this, too--perhaps it was the introduction to Lattimore's Iliad? For some reason, I like the idea of a Greek Dark Age, like a mini-version of the Middle Ages.

[Virgil]

I think you are anachronistically viewing Hector as heroic based on a crossing of Greek thought with other thought years after Homer's time - the reading that sympathizes the Trojans is not part of Homer - just look at, for instance, how later writers treat the "barbarians", notably Herodotus, and Aeschylus.

If that's addressed to me, I'm not thinking of anything other than what's in the Illiad itself.


I did not suggest that Hector, or other heroes of Troy were not imbued with Arete, I just feel the text isn't supposed to be read in that light, if we are trying to understand the text from a contemporary perspective. Agamemnon is a great hero, rather than a tyrant, and Achilles little fits are part of his heroism. What we value about Hector is probably not what a Greek would have valued - his sense of family, his sense of duty to his country - rather, it is the standards of Arete that we judge him on - his prowess as a general, warrior, and tactician - his presence on the battlefield.
While it's true that we have to be careful in projecting contemporary values into the work, there is no other way to read Agamemnon as piggish and stubborn to the point of a poor leader. I think Homer actually says that. Achilles is spoiled and childish and disrespectful. Hector is given the aura as protector of the homeland. I don't think that's projecting our contemporary values into them.


Of course, the final bits of the story, that is, the actual fall of Troy and its destruction are left out, and that is really what we are discussing - that part of the heroic cycle was either never penned by Homer, or else lost.
We are? Homer composed a carefully constructed story around the nature of mortality (as Blue outlines elsewhere here) and valor and humilty. The fall of Troy is purposely left out. Homer didn't create the outline of the trojan/greek tales. He selectively picked what he wanted to tell his story.


What we do have though I think suggests that the Greeks are in the right, or at least not in the wrong. Later, Virgil, and subsequent Christian readers of Virgil have made the Trojans out to be tragic victims to Greek savagery.
Well, it was way before the Christians came into power in Rome. Idealizing the Trojans for the Romans goes back at least to the Roman general Scipio Africanus, the general of the third Punic war (146 BC) who was supposed to have slept with a copy of The Illiad under his pillow.

[prendrelemick]

This really is an excellent discussion. I don't feel qualified to join it, but I can clear something up. Romulus the founder of Rome was decended from Aeneas through his mother Rhea sillvia.

[Vladimir777]

This really is an excellent discussion. I don't feel qualified to join it, but I can clear something up. Romulus the founder of Rome was decended from Aeneas through his mother Rhea sillvia.

Thanks for the interesting info. And why don't you feel qualified to join in? The other people are indeed pretty well-versed here, but this is the first time I've ever read the Iliad, and I can assure you I'm a complete amateur when it comes to classic literature of any sort. Hopefully I can catch up to the people on here one day, but I'm not the fastest reader so it might take me a while (for example, it took me a month [!] to finish the Iliad).

Was there any other divine blood in the family betwen Aeneas and Romulus? Aeneas is the son of a god/goddess, although at the moment I forget which one. At least I'm pretty sure he is.

Another thing that is impressive about Hector is that he is probably the most powerful warrior in the story not to be the product of a divinity. Achilles is pretty righteous and is on another level from Hector, but he is also the son of Thetis. Odysseus is the son of Zeus. Hector, I'm pretty sure, is the greatest warrior not to be descended from a god in the story. Aias/Ajax...I forget if he is or not. But he seems to be at about Hector's level in terms of warrior skills.

[Virgil]

Was there any other divine blood in the family betwen Aeneas and Romulus? Aeneas is the son of a god/goddess, although at the moment I forget which one. At least I'm pretty sure he is.

I believe Romulus was in genetic line from Aeneas. Aeneas' mother was Venus/Aphrodite.


Another thing that is impressive about Hector is that he is probably the most powerful warrior in the story not to be the product of a divinity. Achilles is pretty righteous and is on another level from Hector, but he is also the son of Thetis. Odysseus is the son of Zeus. Hector, I'm pretty sure, is the greatest warrior not to be descended from a god in the story. Aias/Ajax...I forget if he is or not. But he seems to be at about Hector's level in terms of warrior skills.
Yes, Hector was the product of only human parents, but his father Priam traces his roots to Zeus, however distant. Ajax the greater was also a product of human parents. I had to look that one up. :)

[JBI]

Romulus and Remus were fathered by Mars/Ares.

[Virgil]

Romulus and Remus were fathered by Mars/Ares.

Yes, but I think through their mother's line they trace back to Aeneas.

[JBI]

Yes, but I think through their mother's line they trace back to Aeneas.

Yes, you are right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneus - scroll down, it has the whole genealogy. Of course though, that also implies direct descent from Zeus himself, as well as the line of Troy, which, I think is used to construct a closer tie by Virgil, as a means of showing that the Trojans were sympathetic, and out of their ashes sprung the Roman greatness, to finally conquer the Greeks. The text itself is a moderate form of political propaganda, I would argue, and is certainly rooted in portraying the Roman as somehow, both ethnically and culturally, superior to the non-Roman. In that sense, he destroys the idea of the cultured Greek, by making them out to be savages, and defaming Greek heroes by portraying them as selfish killers, and praising Roman ones as honorable, communal, organized killers.

[Virgil]

No question the romans identified with the trojans. But that doesn't mean that Homer didn't present the trojans in a positive light. I don't think he painted in black and white, Greeks good, trojans bad, or vice versa.

[JBI]

No question the romans identified with the trojans. But that doesn't mean that Homer didn't present the trojans in a positive light. I don't think he painted in black and white, Greeks good, trojans bad, or vice versa.

Oh, he didn't paint in black and white, of course - Hector is heroic, and honorable - after all, it is supposed to be the greatest battle of all time, right, so you cannot possibly have one side mediocre.

But I think Homer makes it clear that the burning and raping of Troy is justified - I don't think he is trying to make it tragic, or make us empathize with the defeated Trojans, in perhaps the way Euripides later will - I think he is writing an Epic about the greatest war, and the greatest victory of all time. As such, the actual good and bad is defined by different terms than the way we do now.

Agamemnon, Good, Achilles, Good, Odysseus, good - we generally see all these characters as somewhat bad in there own ways - Agamemnon we see, I think as a terrible tyrant, rather than the way Homer describes him - just look at the epithets he's given - things like "God like", "Lord of men", "brilliant", and "shepherd of the people".

Even someone like Menelaus is portrayed as super-human and heroic - terms partaining to prowess in warfare are all of the highest compliment, I would wager.

The epithets used to portray the Acheans in general are all positive - things like Bronze-armored, and wide-famed. We get though less about the Trojans, the biggest one being Horse-taming, which is good, but there is no real catalogue of the Trojan ships, is there.

Our judgment on the heroic qualities of certain characters I think are anachronistic - I don't think Agamemnon is a villain, but rather a hero in the text. I don't think Achilles is in transition - I think he remains the same narcissist he is at the beginning of the book.

The whole poem to me reads more like a discussion on various forms of "arete", and the confrontation that occurs when two people so possessing of this quality collide. Agamemnon cannot submit to Achilles without losing face, whereas Achilles will not, and cannot submit to his general, without admitting that he as a warrior is subject to the control of Agamemnon, and not his own will.

Achilles is there for the glory of being the best, whereas most of the other heroes are there because of a commitment made before the war started, to defend the chosen husband of Helen, Menelaus. This then puts Achilles as a character in a rather strange place - he is only there for his own glory, and the war for him is not fought on political grounds, but rather as a vehicle for his own ego.

The war only gets personal when Patroklus gets taken out. That's the big moment of change - not that he grows up, but rather that he gets personally involved.



Troy burning, I think, is something which is celebrated, rather than lamented. Ultimately, I think of it as akin to Beowulf slaying the Dragon - it's a tale of the greatest warriors, and their defeat of their enemies - the Trojans are worse than the Greeks, are not as favored by the Gods, and therefore, Troy burns for their sacrilege.


I think we have enough to suggest, for instance, that the Trojan Horse is thought of by Homer, if we take the Odyssey as being from the same "person" or line of thought, as a great move, and something praiseworthy - the victory is considered the greatest achievement of mankind, I would argue, by Homer. This doesn't seem a culture who pities their victims, but rather celebrates their victory by massacring the men and raping the women, before composing Bardic tales of their valor and heroism on the battlefield.

[bluevictim]

I believe the Greeks are protrayed as cruder, less sophisticated, without cultural refiniements. Compare Agonmenon and Priam. Compare Menelaus and Paris. Even Priam's gifts to Achilles suggest a cultural sophistication. It's the same culture, but it's like New York versus the back woods. (That's an exaggeration of course, but I'm just trying to get a point across.)I wonder if you'd care to be a little more specific. Troy was certainly portrayed as in possession of great wealth (especially Priam, but keep in mind that Menelaus was also in possession of great wealth in the Odyssey), but I don't think the Greeks were portrayed as cruder than the Trojans. Of course it was also emphasized that the Greeks were camped far from home, so naturally they would seem less civilized than the Trojans at home in their city, but I don't think there was any indication that the Greeks were inherently less sophisticated. I agree that Priam comes off as older and wiser than Agamemnon, but Priam really should be compared to the fathers of the Greeks at home than to the warriors in the field. Paris does seem more effeminate than Menelaus, but I don't think that really makes a trend. There isn't really any difference in terms of cultural sophistication between Hector, Poulydamas, Agamemnon, and Achilles. As for the gifts from Priam for ransoming Hector's body, they don't seem to be any more sophisticated than Achilles' prizes for the funeral games of Patroclus.


I read this somewhere--perhaps in my commentary book on the Iliad?--that the Trojans were considered culturally superior to the Greeks, which were more of a warrior-like culture versus the more civilized nature of the Trojans (although they are described as being a conglomeration of a bunch of different groups, many of which do not speak the same language).I wonder if you can figure out exactly what the commentator said? As I noted before, later Greeks did portray the Trojans as Eastern aliens (who were seen as more effeminate), but I don't believe the Iliad itself does.


I also remember reading that the Trojans were supposed to represent part of a misty past even in Homer's age, the Mycenean Age, which apparently had writing which was lost in the "Greek Dark Age" (of which Homer came on the tail end--I suppose he was the beginning of the Archaic Age?).Your general outline of pre-classical Greece is largely correct. There are some correspondences between the culture that Homer describes and the Mycenaeans, and there are some features that would be hard to explain if they didn't come down from the Mycenaeans, but of course there are also many discrepancies between Homer's world and the Mycenaeans. The Mycenaeans had a system of writing, but they were suddenly wiped out, and a "Dark Age" ensued, during which no literary evidence was left until the eighth century BC; the culture depicted in the Homeric poems correspond more to this period. By the eighth century, the Greeks had adopted the Phoenician alphabet and a "renaissance" had started which led to the archaic age.

[bluevictim]

Oh, he didn't paint in black and white, of course - Hector is heroic, and honorable - after all, it is supposed to be the greatest battle of all time, right, so you cannot possibly have one side mediocre.I agree that the Iliad would probably not be nearly as compelling if there was no Hector for Achilles to face, but I think the role of the Trojans was much more than merely to be a sufficiently formidable foe. From their introduction with Helen in book 3 to the glimpse of Hector's family in book 6 to the anguish of Zeus over Sarpedon's death in book 16, to the conclusion of the poem with Hector's funeral rites, the Iliad is clearly interested in making the audience sympathize with the Trojans.


But I think Homer makes it clear that the burning and raping of Troy is justifiedYou seem to be insisting that it is impossible for the Greeks to empathize with the Trojans while at the same time identifying with their Achaean ancestors. I don't see why that should be the case. For Homer's audience, the events of the Iliad were in the far distant past. They were certainly well enough removed to think critically about stories set in the Trojan War, just as we're able to think critically about the injustice that Native Americans faced while at the same time appreciative of the westward expansion (and those events didn't take place very long ago at all). Indeed, we find criticism of Greek actions in the epic cycle, as well. The rape of Cassandra by Locrian Ajax is described in Iliou Persis, for example. In the Iliad itself, it is made clear that the gods were offended by Achilles' treatment of Hector's corpse.


... just look at the epithets he's given - things like "God like", "Lord of men", "brilliant", and "shepherd of the people".
...
The epithets used to portray the Acheans in general are all positive - things like Bronze-armored, and wide-famed. We get though less about the Trojans, the biggest one being Horse-taming,This is not true. Trojans are also given positive epithets like "god-like" and "brilliant".


which is good, but there is no real catalogue of the Trojan ships, is there.It would certainly be odd for there to be a catalog of Trojan ships when they are being sieged in their own city. There is a catalog of Trojan forces in book 2.

[prendrelemick]

Bluevictim- You have touched on another factor to consider, that is editorial intent (as opposed to authorial intent.) Taking the tradition that the Illiad was composed in the oral by Homer, and copied down in a standardised form at the behest of Pisistratus, first tryrant of Athens. ( Some people credit the reintroduction of written Greek, on the desire to write down the Illiad.) It may be that Pisistratus' motives were entirley altruistic, but looking at his career I doubt it. He knew the value of the traditions and legends of former Greek glory, and how to use them.
The obvious message of Greeks overcoming a powerful, sophisticated enemy when they are united behind their leader , and being soundly beaten when divided, is the kind of 'spin' we still hear today from polititical leaders.

[Virgil]

I wonder if you'd care to be a little more specific. Troy was certainly portrayed as in possession of great wealth (especially Priam, but keep in mind that Menelaus was also in possession of great wealth in the Odyssey), but I don't think the Greeks were portrayed as cruder than the Trojans. Of course it was also emphasized that the Greeks were camped far from home, so naturally they would seem less civilized than the Trojans at home in their city, but I don't think there was any indication that the Greeks were inherently less sophisticated. I agree that Priam comes off as older and wiser than Agamemnon, but Priam really should be compared to the fathers of the Greeks at home than to the warriors in the field. Paris does seem more effeminate than Menelaus, but I don't think that really makes a trend. There isn't really any difference in terms of cultural sophistication between Hector, Poulydamas, Agamemnon, and Achilles. As for the gifts from Priam for ransoming Hector's body, they don't seem to be any more sophisticated than Achilles' prizes for the funeral games of Patroclus.


Without the text on my finger tips that will not be easy. It is my impression that the Trojans come across as more sophisticated. They are associated with Apollo and he sends a terrible plague in the very first book after a huge religious infraction by the rough and uncouth Greeks. The trojans seem to honor the gods, have priests, reflect on their children and wives. But I leave you with a passage from Tennyson's "Ulysses" to illustrate he thinks along the same lines. Ullyses has returned home after his twenty year travails of war and journey. Here are the openning lines:

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
After such a journey and meeting all sorts of people, including the Trojans, he charactrerizes his own Ithacains as a "savage race". And later,

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the scepter and the isle—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
And that the job of his kingship is "to make mild a rugged people." I think Tennyson read it the same.

[bluevictim]

Bluevictim- You have touched on another factor to consider, that is editorial intent (as opposed to authorial intent.) Taking the tradition that the Illiad was composed in the oral by Homer, and copied down in a standardised form at the behest of Pisistratus, first tryrant of Athens. ( Some people credit the reintroduction of written Greek, on the desire to write down the Illiad.) It may be that Pisistratus' motives were entirley altruistic, but looking at his career I doubt it. He knew the value of the traditions and legends of former Greek glory, and how to use them.
The obvious message of Greeks overcoming a powerful, sophisticated enemy when they are united behind their leader , and being soundly beaten when divided, is the kind of 'spin' we still hear today from polititical leaders.It's an interesting suggestion, that Peisistratus chose to make definitive versions of the Homeric poems for their value as pro-tyrant propaganda, or perhaps even redacted or revised the poems to increase their value as pro-tyrant propaganda.

I don't find the hypothesis very compelling, though. The Iliad would be very problematic as a pro-tyrant work. It's hero defies the leader of the Greeks, and the leader is often represented as a bungler that easily loses heart. The Greeks do not overcome the Trojans by uniting behind their leader, but by supporting the cause of a warrior rebelling against the leader. There is very little evidence about the nature of the Peisistratid recension and its relation to the origins of a fixed Homeric text. It seems unsound to rely on speculation about the nature of the Peisistratid recension to make conclusions about interpretation of the Homeric poems.

I agree that there is no reason to believe Peisistratus' support of the arts was purely altruistic, but editorial interference is not necessary to strengthen national unity by promoting the arts.

[prendrelemick]

I agree that my post was mainly speculation. But when I see a political leader as highly regarded by posterity as Pisistratus, I cynically jump to the conclusion that he controlled the media.

But back to the thread subject. I too can't help feeling strong sympathy towards the Trojans. As well as being the only character to come up to the modern idea of a hero, Hector is the only one who displays what I understand to be arete:- that is all round personal excellence subordinated to the good of his people.
Would these qualities have counted for anything in Homers time? Or is it later, in the time of democracy, that the concept of Arete was formed?

[Vladimir777]

bluevictim, I will try to find where that quote is about the Trojans being more "civilized." It might take me a bit to find it, but I'll look.

[Virgil]

bluevictim, I will try to find where that quote is about the Trojans being more "civilized." It might take me a bit to find it, but I'll look.

I would like to see that too Vlad. I'm convinced Homer intends to characterize them that way.

[bluevictim]

As well as being the only character to come up to the modern idea of a hero, Hector is the only one who displays what I understand to be arete:- that is all round personal excellence subordinated to the good of his people.
Would these qualities have counted for anything in Homers time? Or is it later, in the time of democracy, that the concept of Arete was formed?In Homer, the word "arete" was used for public excellence; it referred to qualities by which the value to society of a man (or a woman or a thing) could be measured. I think today we might use the term "marketable quality" to express the basic idea.

The word "arete" does not refer to personal excellence. Virtues like personal integrity or being an affectionate husband are not meant by "arete". In Homer, "arete" referred most often to a man's prowess at fighting and social status. Nor was "arete" subordinated to the good of the people. The wicked suitors in the Odyssey, for example, were also said to possess "arete".

However, it is not the case that personal virtues were counted for nothing just because they weren't referred to by the word "arete". It is clear from Achilles' reply to Odysseus in book 9 that personal integrity and honesty was valued. It is clear from Briseis' lament over Patroclus in book 19 and Helen's lament over Hector in book 24 that kindness was valued. It is clear from Andromache's lament over Hector in book 24 that being an affectionate husband was valued.



bluevictim, I will try to find where that quote is about the Trojans being more "civilized." It might take me a bit to find it, but I'll look.That would be greatly appreciated!

[JDKennedy]

I didn't find Hector to be especially heroic. He was certainly patriotic and loyal to his homeland, but he only advances on Patroclus once he is wounded by Euphorbus (who only manages to do so once Apollo has blinded Patroclus and shattered his spear). And although he asks Achilles later for proper burial, he has no thought for the corpse of Patroclus, which he wants "to behead with his sharp sword, drag off the trunk and give to the dogs of Troy," (EV Rieu's translation). And in the end, when faced with Achilles, he runs around the walls of Troy several times, only turning to fight when he is tricked into doing so by the gods.
(I've loved reading this thread and would like to see it continue :D)

[prendrelemick]

There was a thread on that very point somewhere on here, ie that Greek heroes were a load of wimps or something.

It all turns on the definition of Hero.

[Vladimir777]

Hey, guys, sorry I never found that quote about the Trojans being more civlized than the Greeks, but I know I read it somewhere! I know when reading the Iliad a year ago, I certainly sympathized with the Trojans more than the Greeks. I found it somewhat hard to feel for Achilles when he spent half (over half, actually) the book pouting while letting his fellow Greeks be slaughtered in his absence. Though he is clearly a tragic hero, I found Hector to be more tragic.

Anyways, I just finished the Odyssey, which I liked, although I did not find the writing as compelling as in the Iliad. It is true what I've read: that the Odyssey describes the marvelous realistically, and that the Iliad describes realistic things marvellously. I missed those high similes that were abundant in the first epic. I did like parts of the Odyssey, though, especially the Underworld scene (the pathos of Odysseus meeting Achilles, Aias, and especially his dead mother there was excellent) and of course the famous "wanderings" which he tells in story (others have raised good points that it is unclear how much of this is fabricated/exagerrated, since it is told all by the greatest liar of world literature). Unfortunately, a large part of the book was devoted to Odysseus at home in Ithaca, which was a very, very slow buildup to his slaughter of the suitors.

[Virgil]

Hey, guys, sorry I never found that quote about the Trojans being more civlized than the Greeks, but I know I read it somewhere! I know when reading the Iliad a year ago, I certainly sympathized with the Trojans more than the Greeks. I found it somewhat hard to feel for Achilles when he spent half (over half, actually) the book pouting while letting his fellow Greeks be slaughtered in his absence. Though he is clearly a tragic hero, I found Hector to be more tragic.

As in last year's discussion, I pretty much agree with you.



Anyways, I just finished the Odyssey, which I liked, although I did not find the writing as compelling as in the Iliad.
I too am one who feels The Illiad is a greater work. However, ever since Joyce based his novel Ulysses on The Odyssey, the esteem of Homer's second work has risen and possibly overtaken The Illiad. I'm not in that camp.


It is true what I've read: that the Odyssey describes the marvelous realistically, and that the Iliad describes realistic things marvellously.
I've never heard that before. That's a great way to look at it.

[Vladimir777]

It seems that after a year I've finally found the quote I was talking about that paints the Trojans as being more civilized than the Greeks. I'm pretty sure this was the one that set that notion in my head. Keep in mind this isn't a particularly academic source when it comes to Greek studies, but the book is The Joy of Reading by Charles Van Doren, and it basically is a collection of essays about world literature authors. He says, "Troy was the capital of an empire that encompassed much of what we now call the Middle East....Mainland Greece at this time was probably primitive by comparison with the civlized world that Paris had described to Helen when he wooed her away from her old home and carried her off to a new one." He calls Troy "perhaps the wealthiest city in the Mediterranean world."

What did you guys think about the recurring characters from the Iliad in the Odyssey? One of my favorite parts was when Odysseus encounters the fallen heroes of Troy in the Underworld.

[Virgil]

It seems that after a year I've finally found the quote I was talking about that paints the Trojans as being more civilized than the Greeks. I'm pretty sure this was the one that set that notion in my head. Keep in mind this isn't a particularly academic source when it comes to Greek studies, but the book is The Joy of Reading by Charles Van Doren, and it basically is a collection of essays about world literature authors. He says, "Troy was the capital of an empire that encompassed much of what we now call the Middle East....Mainland Greece at this time was probably primitive by comparison with the civlized world that Paris had described to Helen when he wooed her away from her old home and carried her off to a new one." He calls Troy "perhaps the wealthiest city in the Mediterranean world."

What did you guys think about the recurring characters from the Iliad in the Odyssey? One of my favorite parts was when Odysseus encounters the fallen heroes of Troy in the Underworld.

Not sure who's left from last year. I loved his trip down to the underworld myself. That could have been the best part of The Odyssesy.

[prendrelemick]

The Illiad is the better read (I think.) The odyssey, by being too sophisticated loses the passion and realism of the Illiad. Its more controlled and edited, less raw. Odysses travels beyond the real gritty world and encounters monsters and goddesses. Whereas in the Iliad it's blokes with big spears trying to kill each other.

[prendrelemick]

In fact, thats why I like the slaying of the suitors and the brief battle by his father's vinyard best. He has returned home from those surreal climes and got his feet back on the ground.

[Vladimir777]

The Illiad is the better read (I think.) The odyssey, by being too sophisticated loses the passion and realism of the Illiad. Its more controlled and edited, less raw. Odysses travels beyond the real gritty world and encounters monsters and goddesses. Whereas in the Iliad it's blokes with big spears trying to kill each other.

Yeah, sometimes I felt that all of the narrative complexity of the Odyssey took away from its strength. Especially if you consider that Odysseus's wanderings in books 9-12--easily one of the best parts of the epic, including the Underworld scene we were talking about--could have been largely fabricated or exagerrated by Odysseus, who is known for telling tall tales and sometimes outright lying (in fact quite often--even to his wife and father).

[prendrelemick]

Thats a good point, He receives rich gifts after he tells his story.

[Virgil]

Yeah, sometimes I felt that all of the narrative complexity of the Odyssey took away from its strength. Especially if you consider that Odysseus's wanderings in books 9-12--easily one of the best parts of the epic, including the Underworld scene we were talking about--could have been largely fabricated or exagerrated by Odysseus, who is known for telling tall tales and sometimes outright lying (in fact quite often--even to his wife and father).

I have to disagree here. The Odyssesy is a less complex narrative than The Illiad. The Odyssesy is essentially a picaresque tale while The Illiad is a story of various conflicts and psychological transition. I'm referring to Achilles's growth as a character.

[prendrelemick]

Yes, the Illiad has its intricacies, but its time line is mainly straightforward, whereas the Odyssey jumps about quite a bit. The story within a story device is also a sophistication, as is the flitting of scenes between Ithaca and Odysseus journeying home, and the rising tension it produces. I think the whole construction of the story is more polished than the Illiad.

But that does not make it a better book.

[Virgil]

Yes, the Illiad has its intricacies, but its time line is mainly straightforward, whereas the Odyssey jumps about quite a bit. The story within a story device is also a sophistication, as is the flitting of scenes between Ithaca and Odysseus journeying home, and the rising tension it produces. I think the whole construction of the story is more polished than the Illiad.

But that does not make it a better book.

Those points are true. I never thought about them. Still, The Illiad just feels more complicated because of the intertwining conflicts. Funny, The Illiad feels more polished to me. :wink5:

[Vladimir777]

Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean it had a confusing story (it doesn't). I just meant that it jumps around in time so much, and so much of it is told through the frames of stories, that it took me out of the action in a way the Iliad never did. I would agree that the Iliad had more psychological complexity, especially with what we mentioned last year, that we sympathize so much with the Trojans in it.

However, this isn't to say that I didn't like the Odyssey. I read both in the Lattimore translation. I'm wondering if I read the Odyssey in another translation if I would have found it more engaging.

[Virgil]

However, this isn't to say that I didn't like the Odyssey. I read both in the Lattimore translation. I'm wondering if I read the Odyssey in another translation if I would have found it more engaging.

Read the Fagles or Fitzgerald translations. I think the Fagles is a little better.

[Hawkman]

I hope you don’t mind my butting in on this discussion but I am fond of both the Iliad and the Odyssey and read them both at least once a year. :D With regard to the discussion about the Trojan’s being civilized:

In his introduction to The Iliad, transated by Robert Fagles, (1990) Bernard Knox also comments on the civilized nature of the Trojans vs the Greeks. Interestingly, he describes the qualities we associate with civilization, as being the Trojan’s weakness.

“Unfortunately for Troy, the Trojans have the defects of their qualities: they are not so much at home in the grim business of war as their opponents.” (1990 p32).

Both the Iliad and Odyssey in my library are Fagles’ translations and I would agree that the Iliad is a far more compelling read, inevitably so in my opinion. The subject and scope is grander, more violent and concentrated into specifics of time, place and purpose. The Odyssey meanders like the journey of it’s hero, and is inter-cut with Penelope’s plight and Telemachus’ own wanderings in search of news of his father.

[Vladimir777]

I hope you don’t mind my butting in on this discussion but I am fond of both the Iliad and the Odyssey and read them both at least once a year. :D With regard to the discussion about the Trojan’s being civilized:

In his introduction to The Iliad, transated by Robert Fagles, (1990) Bernard Knox also comments on the civilized nature of the Trojans vs the Greeks. Interestingly, he describes the qualities we associate with civilization, as being the Trojan’s weakness.

“Unfortunately for Troy, the Trojans have the defects of their qualities: they are not so much at home in the grim business of war as their opponents.” (1990 p32).

Both the Iliad and Odyssey in my library are Fagles’ translations and I would agree that the Iliad is a far more compelling read, inevitably so in my opinion. The subject and scope is grander, more violent and concentrated into specifics of time, place and purpose. The Odyssey meanders like the journey of it’s hero, and is inter-cut with Penelope’s plight and Telemachus’ own wanderings in search of news of his father.

Virgil, yes I would like to read both of those translations eventually.

Hawkman, interesting quote there. I'm glad we found more evidence that backs up that the Trojans were more civilized, but I would also agree with your point that they did not have that same capacity for extended warfare like the Greeks did in the epic. There was lots of lamentation by Hector and Priam about the existential nature of warfare, but what could they do? Their city was under siege. On the other hand, the Greeks sailed all the way into unknown lands and stayed there for a whole decade just because Paris stole Menelaos's wife. It's not like they had as much at risk as the Trojans. Homer repeatedly points out that loss for the Trojans meant the death of all their men and the enslavement of their women and children. Loss for the Greeks just meant a blow to their pride. So yes, I would say the Greeks were a lot more bloodthirsty and almost savage. But I suppose that is the appeal of their heroic character.

[Hawkman]

I think it would depend on how one defines, "capacity for extended warfare". Certainly the Trojans were capable of fighting, they'd held the Greeks at bay for ten years. We are repeatedly told that Troy's walls had never been breached. The Trojan's capacity for war was perhaps more tied into morale. With the loss of Hector (who foresaw the inevitable consequence of his death) the Trojan's lost their most able general. The attitude of the Trojans was different from that of the Greeks. Certainly by the time of the events described in the Iliad, the Greeks had become much more ruthless. The Trojans maintained the concept of mercy. They would take prisoners and ransom them and vice versa, but by the time of books 20 and 21 mercy and quarter have gone out the window.

Lycaon, one of Priams sons, had been Achilles prisoner once and had been ransomed. Achilles in an attempt to get to Hector, after the death of Patroclus, is happily slaughtering his way across the battlefield and confronts Lycaon who expects to be given quarter and ransomed again. Achilles soon lets him know the score:

"Come friend, you too must die. Why moan about it so?
Even Patroclus died, a far far better man than you."

All going to show the change in the attitude of the Greeks at least, to more ruthless purpose. See Knox (1990, pp36/7).

[Vladimir777]

Yeah, good point. I agree that the Trojans were indeed good fighters. A ten-year siege seems unimaginable. The difference here seems to be that the Trojans don't like the warfare but view it as unavoidable (there are several speeches by Hector where he clearly despises all of the killing, and yet he is one of the greatest fighters in the war--perhaps second only to Achilles, although there are a lot of Greek heroes who could vie for this position). The Greeks seem to pride themselves on their fighting ability, and yes, they seem to enjoy it more.

Perhaps Odysseus is one of the Greeks who likes the fighting less. There are some passages in the Odyssey where one of the warriors--Agamemnon maybe--talks about how they had to drag Odysseus away from Ithaca to go fight. It seems like he always just wanted to be back with Penelope and Telemachos instead of over there fighting, but, like Hector, he knew what he had to do, and he made the best of the opportunity by being the best hero he could be. Wasn't the whole Trojan horse incident Odysseus's idea?

[Hawkman]

Yes, certainly Hector fought for the survival of his city. Achilles fought either for his own glory and honor or for revenge. Agamemnon fought for personal gain, influence and empire. Odysseus fought because politically he didn't really have a choice, and the average Greeks fought for Agamemnon and loot. Practacally piracy really. I suppose you could equate the trojan horse as the atom bomb of the age :D The only option was to win if you wanted to go home, so maybe Odysseus was the Oppenheimer of antiquity :D Odysseus had his tricks to work with.

I can't help but be reminded of the line in an episode of Red Dwarf, spoken by Dave Lister, when discussing the origin of the phrase, "Beware Greeks bearing gifts." As the Trojans had cooperatively taken the concealed assault force inside the horse through the gates and inside the walls of Troy, he said, "It would make more sense if the line was, beware of Trojans, 'cause they're complete smeg-heads."

[Virgil]

Welcome to the discussion Hawkman. Of course you can join in. I enjoyed your thoughts. :)

I pretty much agree with you guys on everything you've said.