Trojan vs. Greek Sympathies

[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. 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. 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 The only option was to win if you wanted to go home, so maybe Odysseus was the Oppenheimer of antiquity 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.