Did the Greeks have a positive view of Achilles?

[Dick Cheney.]

Sing, Goddess, Achilles’ rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades’ dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For dogs and birds, as Zeus’ will was done.
-Homer, Iliad, Book I




What was the Greek perception of the warrior Achilles? Was he truly a hero for the Geeks, worthy of emulation and ever lasting praise? Or is Achilles and the cultural story of the Iliad a warning against anger, vanity, lust, and excessive pride?

And by "hero," I do unapologetically use the modern term; a person who is "admired for achievement and noble qualities" and not just someone of divine origin endowed with superhuman strength or ability.

Put more simply, was Achilles (focusing mostly on cultural perception) ever an idolized icon for the Ancient Greeks? Was he ever a role-model for Greek virtues & excellence, and did he receive hero-worship?

Some facts and arguments we should consider;

1.) Achilles was considered to have existed, along with the Trojan War. There was also a hero's cult of Achilles (which if proven to be extensive would settle this debate) along with a gravesite reportedly visited by Alexander.

2.) Achilles is also featured extensively in Greek poetry and art. Though this is not enough to prove a positive perception, it does prove renown and cultural significance.

3.) Hero-worship to the Greeks largely meant being invoked in sacrifices and rituals, where Pausanias does lend support (in his descriptions of 2nd century Greece) that Achilles was invoked in prayer by Elis women prior to the start of the Olympic Games. Achilles is also mentioned as a sanctuary hero for the cities of Pythia (Achilles's home city), Sparta, and several island cities along the coasts of Asia Minor and The Black Sea. Achilles again (according to descriptions like Pausanias), is mostly honored in these cities for athletic achievement.

4.) Hero cults in Ancient Greece (prior to Alexander) can best be characterized as a highly evolved transformation of the worship of ancestors, within the social context of the polis. This is an extremely important point. Most Greek heroes and gods were not celebrated in the same light beyond their patron cities, and it was a rare occurrence for a Greek hero then to have the same celebrity status in Sparta as he would in Athens.

Rare exceptions include:
-Oracle at Delphi
-Myth of the Trojan War
-Olympic Games
-The Odyssey and Iliad.
- The Greek Pantheon (12 original Olympians).

5.) Homer -it can be argued- takes a decidedly negative view of Achilles in the Iliad & Odyssey, along with the warrior class. The biggest strikes against Achilles of course are the rejections of Arete and Kleos (warrior virtue, trophies & fame) that Homer seems to suggest through the consequences of Achilles’s rage; leading to the deaths of Hector & Patroclus along with many Greeks at Troy. More so however, Achilles is described as vindictive, sadistic, cruel, and temperamental, a man of divine background, superhuman ability, with loyalties to no one but himself. To Greek honor codes that valued collective participation and relatableness to others, Achilles is markedly alone.

6.) Homer, interestingly enough, also takes on a negative view of Ares, the God of War. This is important because rather than praise the warrior class and warrior virtue (the supposed cultural embodiment of Ares & Achilles), Homer’s view of Ares (as Zeus’s least favorite son) sends an anti-war message.

7.) Homer -along many Greek writers- have traditionally not described a happy ending to the Trojan War, or a glorious aftermath for its survivors (such as Odysseus). And rather then reach the Elysian Fields (Greek version of Heaven), Homer implies that Achilles soul actually resides in Hades.

8.) Achilles -from what I’ve gathered- is not praised by Athenian philosophers, such as Plato. In Plato’s Republic, Plato criticizes Achilles attachment to Patroclus and overreaction to his death. He also criticizes Achilles for insubordination, impiety, and putting pride before the collective good.

9.) In Plato's Symposium, Socrates is described in a mirror as the reflection to Achilles. Rather than an identical reflection, Socrates represents a reverse of the original.

10.) Achilles was invoked in the opening lines of Simonides' elegy at Plataea. While this does prove Panhellenic appeal, it is unclear if Achilles was mentioned more to highlight Panhellenic virtues in battle or simply the contributions from Sparta (a warrior state).

11.) Neoptolemus was perhaps even more ruthless than Achilles. And despite being the son of the great warrior, he is killed after denouncing Apollo. Achilles, likewise, was also killed through acts of Apollo. Neither were perhaps favored by the Gods, but it is through Neoptolemus lineage that Alexander claimed ancestry to Achilles, and of course, political legitimacy in Greece.

Conclusions:
Achilles, as a traditional Greek Hero (demigod/superhero) had significant and rare Panhellenic appeal throughout all of Greece. His legacy is forever tied to the Trojan War and Homer’s Iliad, two of the most important cultural myths in Greek history (not to mention Western History). However, the appeal of Achilles as a paragon of Greek virtue and excellence, was limited to areas that valued a warrior class and bravery in battle (Thessaly & Sparta). To other Greek states and writers however, Achilles is more of a tragedy, or a warning against war and the ways individual glory and honor can do damage to the rest of society. This view of Achilles however, changes a little bit with the conquests of Alexander and the subsequent rise of military dictatorship.

[Cyclops]

....

5.) Homer -it can be argued- takes a decidedly negative view of Achilles in the Iliad & Odyssey, along with the warrior class. The biggest strikes against Achilles of course are the rejections of Arete and Kleos (warrior virtue, trophies & fame) that Homer seems to suggest through the consequences of Achilles’s rage; leading to the deaths of Hector & Patroclus along with many Greeks at Troy. More so however, Achilles is described as vindictive, sadistic, cruel, and temperamental, a man of divine background, superhuman ability, with loyalties to no one but himself. To Greek honor codes that valued collective participation and relatableness to others, Achilles is markedly alone. ...

I think the Iliad glorifies Achilles and his actions above all others in Hellenic art. Achilles is portrayed as a war winning weapon, but with dramatic irony (the Hellenes love this trope) he leads to more slaughter because "the Gods". Most of the players are descended from Gods, Helen from Aphrodite etc etc so Achilles divinity does not elevate him, his martial valour does. IIRC in Homer Achilles is nowhere described as invulnerable: the bit about his heel being the one weak spot is developed later. He was so popular the Hellenes heaped myth on myth about him. he was so popular Homer wrote him into Odyssey as well even though he was dead.

....6.) Homer, interestingly enough, also takes on a negative view of Ares, the God of War. This is important because rather than praise the warrior class and warrior virtue (the supposed cultural embodiment of Ares & Achilles), Homer’s view of Ares (as Zeus’s least favorite son) sends an anti-war message....

Ares was War God and "hater of men", chiefly popular in Sparta. its no surprise an Ionian poet would glorify Athena over the frightening Doric bugbear.

....7.) Homer -along many Greek writers- have traditionally not described a happy ending to the Trojan War, or a glorious aftermath for its survivors (such as Odysseus). And rather then reach the Elysian Fields (Greek version of Heaven), Homer implies that Achilles soul actually resides in Hades....

The Hellenic afterlife was not an agreed upon idea. Hesiod's cosmology is very different to Homer's, and he has Achilles in the Isle of the blessed. In the Odyssey Achilles shade is in Hades, but happy with the way he died.

....8.) Achilles -from what I’ve gathered- is not praised by Athenian philosophers, such as Plato. In Plato’s Republic, Plato criticizes Achilles attachment to Patroclus and overreaction to his death. He also criticizes Achilles for insubordination, impiety, and putting pride before the collective good...

The Socratic circle were alt-right edgelords pwning teh Libs by knocking the phalluses off Herms (protective pillars or statues sporting erect members) because it was just superstition and the Democrats were such plebs (well hoi polloi). Critiquing the hero of the jocks is part of the same patter, as was slaughtering lists of opponents once members of this cabal seized power with Spartan help..

....9.) In Plato's Symposium, Socrates is described in a mirror as the reflection to Achilles. Rather than an identical reflection, Socrates represents a reverse of the original....

Yes Plato was the worst sort of toady.

....10.) Achilles was invoked in the opening lines of Simonides' elegy at Plataea. While this does prove Panhellenic appeal, it is unclear if Achilles was mentioned more to highlight Panhellenic virtues in battle or simply the contributions from Sparta (a warrior state)....

Achilles was from Phthia IIRC, in Thessaly. I don't think he was identified as Doric, his antiquity is attested by his name appearing in Linear B documents. He was possibly an oceanic deity originally, but in historical times he was the most heroic of all Hellenic heroes, with the possible exception of the arriviste Herakles (so popular with Peloponnesian kings).

....11.) Neoptolemus was perhaps even more ruthless than Achilles. And despite being the son of the great warrior, he is killed after denouncing Apollo. Achilles, likewise, was also killed through acts of Apollo. Neither were perhaps favored by the Gods, but it is through Neoptolemus lineage that Alexander claimed ancestry to Achilles, and of course, political legitimacy in Greece...

Achilles was granted according to the Odyssey "a happy life and a happy death". Alexander shared the common aristocratic ideal of dying young and famous. Achilles was extremely popular among people who had money to create art and be remembered, certainly among the aristoi Achilles was viewed as a very popular hero.

[paleologos]

They liked Achilles and wanted to emulate him in martial prowess, just not walk on his heels.

[AnthoniusII]

@Cyclops
1st You must realise that Iliad (the campaign on Helion aka Troy) was a Greek Civil war.
In Hellenic Mythology Helion mentioned as the last destination of Darnanos and his followers after the campaign of the 7.
Also in mythology is mentioned the Hercules made a campaign in Hekion , and established his own followers there.
Historicaly the Hellenic domination of Helion and its region descibed in the Ceramic Diplomatic plates over the King of Hittites and the Governor of Mellitus "...as our agreement over the region of Helion was arranged between our side and the King of Acheans..."
So...The consept of a Hero for Greeks is TOTALY different of the consept of the rest european ones.
The Hero is actually a dramatic figure with flaws ...He sunjects him self in pain (both psychological and physical) and often crosses the thin red line of virtue and comes his Nemmesis.
Achiles was no exeption to that rule. Hellenes (Greeks) put ALL humans under the Gods , they respect and honor heros but they do not worship them as Gods.
We CAN NOT SEE Achiles alone in this campaign.
Achiles exists as long as Hector exists and vice versa. The one fights for the honor of his pride and the DUTY that comes from the obidience of the Human law (king) and so the other fights to the death to SAVE his country (for the sacred duty to defend what is SACRED).
Achiles crosses his red line of virtue when dishonor the dead Hector. The respect to the dead is SACRED and the punishment in that crime by the Gods (Nemesis) is ALWAYS death.
Achiles though represents the companioship in every war men create among them when the sufair side by side. The death of a companion makes every Human actually a BEAST. That beast stops to act like a human with principals even in a war time. The sucifice of his life over the revenge to his companion's death was what Greeks honored for Achiles. Achiles knew what would happen when he would avenge his companion's death but he made that choice to show that "fighting side by side" is the ULTIMATE HONOR among two men and worth any punishment if that companion will die.
Remember that Alexander worshiped Achiles for that side of his character (he would avenge his friends in war no matter the cost for him).
Ironicaly though while Achiles crosses the moral line disrespecting the dead, Hellenes (Greeks) honor Hector for his total commitment defending his mother land (ΕΙΣ ΟΙΩΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΜΥΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΤΡΗΣ) the Ultimate honor is to defend the home land. That motto follow the Greeks since Hector's death to Leonidas, to Sallamis, to Constantine XI ..to 1940 AD ...


So...what actually Achiles is (not who). He is the one side of the heroic figure , the counter measure of Hector that is the other side. No coin has only one side. So heroism, humanity etc all have their dark and bright side that change rapidly in the same persons over and over again.
For the record Achiles city in Thessaly was named HELLAS.

[Cyclops]

@Cyclops
1st You must realise that Iliad (the campaign on Helion aka Troy) was a Greek Civil war.
In Hellenic Mythology Helion mentioned as the last destination of Darnanos and his followers after the campaign of the 7.
Also in mythology is mentioned the Hercules made a campaign in Hekion , and established his own followers there.
Historicaly the Hellenic domination of Helion and its region descibed in the Ceramic Diplomatic plates over the King of Hittites and the Governor of Mellitus "...as our agreement over the region of Helion was arranged between our side and the King of Acheans..."

I can't exactly agree. Homer mentions no Greeks or Hellenes. He mentions Argives, Danaans and Achaeans in the invasion force, and Dardanians and Trojan on the other. They are presented as sharing elite culture, worshipping the same gods etc. so ethnicity is not shared so much as not cared about. In that sense its not a war against foreign culture, but its definitely not a civil war in the sense that its a conflivct fro control of a state.

The Trojan war, like the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, is aristoi quarrelling over women, and men dying for it.

So...The consept of a Hero for Greeks is TOTALY different of the consept of the rest european ones.
The Hero is actually a dramatic figure with flaws ...He sunjects him self in pain (both psychological and physical) and often crosses the thin red line of virtue and comes his Nemmesis.

In Homer Achilles is a complex dramatic figure I agree, but Hellenic hero cults don't seem different to other Mediterranean ones to my limited knowledge. People sought supernatural aid from deities, demigods and heroes (literally "protectors") as well as appealing to their relations with these figures for status, political advantage etc.

Achiles was no exeption to that rule. Hellenes (Greeks) put ALL humans under the Gods , they respect and honor heros but they do not worship them as Gods.

Achilles has along life as a supernatural figure before and after Homer. In the linear B documents he's mentioned in a religious context and may have been revered as a God. The process by which Gods can dwindle into mere heroes in mythic traditions is well attested (for example in Ireland with numerous myth cycles overlapping and many figures dwindling quite sadly, as well as some treatments of Odin), as well as famous men being made heroes and latterly Gods.

We CAN NOT SEE Achiles alone in this campaign. Achiles exists as long as Hector exists and vice versa. The one fights for the honor of his pride and the DUTY that comes from the obidience of the Human law (king) and so the other fights to the death to SAVE his country (for the sacred duty to defend what is SACRED).
Achiles crosses his red line of virtue when dishonor the dead Hector. The respect to the dead is SACRED and the punishment in that crime by the Gods (Nemesis) is ALWAYS death.

Homer does create an amazing duality between the hungry Achilles and noble Hektor, and appeals to a fairly grim warrior code.

[QUOTE=AnthoniusII;15698922] Achiles though represents the companioship in every war men create among them when the sufair side by side. The death of a companion makes every Human actually a BEAST. That beast stops to act like a human with principals even in a war time. The sucifice of his life over the revenge to his companion's death was what Greeks honored for Achiles. Achiles knew what would happen when he would avenge his companion's death but he made that choice to show that "fighting side by side" is the ULTIMATE HONOR among two men and worth any punishment if that companion will die.
Remember that Alexander worshiped Achiles for that side of his character (he would avenge his friends in war no matter the cost for him).

Ironicaly though while Achiles crosses the moral line disrespecting the dead, Hellenes (Greeks) honor Hector for his total commitment defending his mother land (ΕΙΣ ΟΙΩΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΜΥΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΤΡΗΣ) the Ultimate honor is to defend the home land. That motto follow the Greeks since Hector's death to Leonidas, to Sallamis, to Constantine XI ..to 1940 AD ...

The "Hektor Paradox" is not unique to Homer, and the theme is present in for example the Mahabharata (another epic of warring aristoi full of Gods as helpers and ancestors). The desire to create a great warrior means creating a great opponent, and the praise of the opponent can build them into a more noble figure than the original hero.

The original audience for epic poetry in Hellas was probably warlike aristoi who would love a murderous uncompromising savage hero. Such a red-handed man of violence is well represented in many traditions, from Sigurd/Siegfried (like Achilles sometimes represented as being almost invulnerable but still admirable) to Cuchulain (who slays armies singlehanded) and these figures are often now considered national heroes so great was the positive sentiment for killers.

It is only as Hellas becomes more pacific (as Herodotus notes it is only a recent development that people can go about their daily business unarmed) that a more subtle reflection on the decent father Hektor and the savage wolf Achilles is possible. Homer presented his reworking of the old story of troy at a time when civic life was beginning to be established in Hellas, and new ways of thinking about old stories were possible.

So...what actually Achiles is (not who). He is the one side of the heroic figure , the counter measure of Hector that is the other side. No coin has only one side. So heroism, humanity etc all have their dark and bright side that change rapidly in the same persons over and over again.

Indeed, Homer is a superb poet and I have read its worthwhile learning ancient Hellenic for the privilege of reading his great works. Robin Lane Fox comments that not only are the Iliad and the Odyssey the first examples of great literature, but they are also the best. Certainly no work of literature as such has had wider impact: not Shakespeare, not Racine, not Goethe, not Tolstoy. Only religious works (the Bible and the Q'ran) have had more impact.

For the record Achiles city in Thessaly was named HELLAS.

Not in the Iliad though: I think Hellas is a later name for the territory around Phthia, and later still for the Greek speaking world (Thucydides mentions the Peloponnesian war as involving "all Hellas" which includes Sicily and Cyprus).

The etymology (as usual) is confused, Herodotus (as usual) giving a more prosaic explanation (with Hellen as the eponymous leader of the tribe in that region) whereas Hesiod cooks up some fantastical genealogy with Hellas, Xuthus, and eponymous heroes founding the four major dialect groups. However the Iliad mentions no Hellas and no Hellenes. Achilles was Achaean to the extent the son of a nymph can have an ethnicity.

[Morifea]

Was there ever a heroic cult for Hector? If I remember correctly (time to read the Ilias again, fourth time), he had not a single flaw.

@Dick Cheney: Again a very interesting thread, have some rep.

[AnthoniusII]

My friend Cyclops i would sugest to read the Greek Geneology in the Greek Mythology more carefully.
Hellen,Achaios,Darnanos,Danaos, Dorieus and Makednos are Sons of Pelasgos ...Each figure represent a sub culture of what we call Hellenism and Hellenic civilisation despite the sub tribes of the Greek race leaque.
In the the Geneology Darnanos was forced to migrade from Central Thessaly 1st in the lands of his brother Makednos but he desided that he wanted a land of his own. So him and his folowers passed through the Thracian lands and occupied Helion forcing the natives to leave the land. Now if we combine the myth of Hercules' invasion in Troy and establish a city of his own , mythology meats history.
Far before the major Greek colonisation Myceaneans united almost all Greek sub races 1st by uniting Pelloponisos and then by their succefull invasion in Attica. The opposite seat of power was Theves but with the "return" of the exiles by force having the suport of Mycenes (campaign of the 7 to Theves) ,Mykene united the majority of Hellenic subtribes under it banner. Ofcourse some remote -in that era - kingdoms remained relatively indipended. If you read closely Hilliad you will nottice that Myceneans campaign lasted 10 years but the battle for Troy lasted 53 days. Why is that? After the unifcation of the main land , Myceneans campaigned in Crete and Aegean making those GRECO-PELLASGIAN tribes client states. The next step was the colonisation of Meletos (far before the 9th century BC as the hittite clay diplomatic letters prove) and securing the Hellispond straight with another colonisation (Helion=here comes the myth of the Dardanos migration) to control gold , amber and grain supply of the greek main land (here comes the point by the Hittites that a war that ended with a negosiation about the area of Hellion was in act before the Troy campaign). That pact included borders and political refugees return to their former masters. To point that Troy war was pure Hellenic is the FACT the the Greek GODS also take the side of both opponets. Greek Gods NEVER took the side of any "barbarians".
As Pedro Holalla mentions in his video "many civilisations created myths but no other civilisation created Oresteia" ...
The Greek myths are partialy historical events with a suit of mystery under a cloak of myth. They remain those historical events.
But every Greek Myth does not simply describe epic achievements. It places moral questions that 1st Greeks put "on the table" and trouble human thought since then.
Hector is Greek (greek as youy non greeks understand the meaning) but Greeks just like other human races (Guals, Germans, Slavs) had a huge variety of sub tribes , So do not get confused by names like Hellenes, Makednoi, Achaeoi, Minoes, Ionians, Pellasgians, Dorians, Illirians, Mollosians, Danaoi etc). All those names describe Greek/Hellenic subtribes like Angles, Allamanoi, Saxons, Franks are all Germans!
Every myth in Greek civilisation puts moral delimas and the Hilliad was one of the 1st that did so with huge accuracy and effect.
Is the campaign to Troy justified ? Was the sin of the discrase of hospitallity enough for it? (Stealling the Queen by Paris was not the major crime, the crime was that Paris was a quest of honor and he should respect the hospitallity that was given to him. That crime remained punishable through out the Greek history under the Xenios Zeus judgment and later under the Christ Him Self).
Who had more legal justification in the quarell between Achiles and Agamemnon? Was the obidience to the Anax sacred or not or the stealing of property was under punishment by the Devine laws?
Why Achiles that offer so much to restore Paris' sin under justice has to die? Was the sin of disrespect the dead a cross of the Devine law of respecting the dead? Was his avenge to his companion (human feelings) enough to justify that line?
Achile's legacy follows Greeks in the entire history under one rule. The war companion and the sacred bond (fellowship) is warrior's ultimate feeling and duty . That was what Aristoteles tought to Alexander the Great.
Who is above all the Human law of the devine one? The same question comes again in Antigony that prefairs to follow the devine law of respecting the dead (in that case her brother) and define the human law that leads to her death.
You mentioned many names but Homer destinquishes Hellens from their "barbarian" allies quite accuratly.
The ultimate delima. ARE we willing to defend our homeland even when there is no hope of victory or we surrender and compromise?
Here come HECTOR the ultimate example of what EACH hellen/Greek of ANY subtribe must do through out his history:

ΕΙΣ ΟΙΩΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΜΥΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΤΡΗΣ = The is no more sacred duty to defend the homeland

= Hector

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ = Come and get them (their weapons)

= Leonidas

ΠΑΝΤΕΣ ΑΥΤΟΠΡΟΑΙΡΕΤΩΣ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΟΥΜΕΝ, ΟΥ ΦΕΙΣΟΜΕΘΑ ΤΗΣ ΖΩΗΣ ΗΜΩΝ = We all each one by him self desided to die. We are not afraid tolose our lives.

=Constantine XI Palaeologos /The Ultimus Romanorum

There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.

= Ioannes Metaxas when Italy asked the Greek surrender in 28th of Octomber 1940.

As you can see despite the huge admiration of Achiles that his lack of fear in the battle made him the perfect Greek Warrior it was Hector that became the synonim of sucrifice for the homeland.
Have you ever notticed that Greeks do not celebrate the END of WW2 but its begining of it for them?
The sucrifice for the homeland is the ULTIMATE virtue for Greeks, how the war will end has minimum value.
H ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ the spartan mothers said to their sons that were leaving for a war despite the fact that their sons were away from them since their age of 6 (return with it or on it /ment the shield).
Here how the same bond continued in 20th century by the same race that carries Hector's legacy:


Greeks have a huge burden on their sholders. Sometimes they fail to carry it succefully but they can not brake the bond with it.
I would sugest you to watch this video in order to understand Greeks better. Maybe through that spanish eyes you will understand Hilliad better as well. Don't forget to activate the english subs.

[Abdülmecid I]

There is no serious doubt that neither the 13th century Trojans nor the Minoans nor the inhabitants of Milawata spoke Greek. In what concerns the latter, the Milawata letter, which Anthony already mentioned, proves that the settlement already existed and prospered in 1240 B.C., several centuries before the Ionian colonisation of western Anatolia. If Milawata and Miletus, whose name has no apparent etymological connection to Greek, are indeed the same place, then we can conclude that the early, probably Luvian, town was conquered by the newcomers, to whose culture it gradually assimilated, in a similar pattern to several places of the Mediterranean Sea, from Cyprus to Sicily. Linear A, the Minoan writing system, has not yet been deciphered, but the people of Ilion or Wilusa should probably be viewed as Luvians. A 13th century tablet in Luvian has been discovered in Troy, while even the name of Priam, presumably mentioned in the city's correspondence with the Hittites is apparently Luvian.

Mythology is not history and cherry-picking certain myths is not historiography, but partisanship. Nationalism and its various reactionary offshoots are a cute invention of the 19th century and applying them to interpret the Antiquity is an unacceptably anachronistic approach that only leads to the severe distortion of the historical record. In every mythic genealogy, heroes and various ethnicity share a common glorious ancestor, but nobody takes these claims seriously. Just like Europeans and Africans do not come from Japheth and Ham respectively, the Argive Perseus was not the Patriarch of the Persians. I suspect the possibility of Xerxes' invasion being nothing but a civil war between Greek tribes is not as the wishful thinking of a Greek Troy. Even in the Iliad, which, let's not forget, was completed in its current form approximately 400 years of the events it allegedly narrates, the use of many diverse and incomprehensible languages by the Trojans and their allies is underlined.

Anyway, even if the Achaeans and the Trojans belonged to the same nation, spoke the same language, worshiped the same gods, shaved in an identical manner and enjoyed their same sports, the war described in Homer's epic cannot be defined as a civil war. Because of a common misconception, for whose propagation chauvinism is mainly responsible, it is often believed that the civil war is a struggle between the members of the same ethnicity. That's wrong, however, because the civil war is referring to an armed struggle between the people of the same country. Therefore, treating the Peloponnesian War as a civil war is absurd and a clear example of how tribalism undermines the scientific field of historiography. On the other hand, the clash between the Thirty Tyrants and Thrasybulus could indeed be treated as a civil war. To summarize, Achilles is a typically heroic figure with tragic undertones. The last is not a Greek particularity, but a very common motif in literature. Gilgamesh' futile quest for immortality makes Achilles' grudge over Briseis look like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram. Nuance is absolutely essential for every author that desires his masterpiece to become unpopular, because without it, the characters become annoyingly one-dimensional and the plot devolves into predictable boredom. Still, Achilles was adored as the epitome of masculine qualities, from supernatural strength to manly egoism and thirst for fight. Even his homosexual relationship with Patroclus, totally inappropriate for today's standards of a successful male, was compared, by Alexander and Hephaestion, among others, as a great example of affectionate camaraderie between noble warriors.

[AnthoniusII]

@Abdulmecid
I sugest you read Hilliad in its original language. Homer SPESIFICALY mentions that the people of Troy spoke the EXACT same language and worshiped the EXACT SAME GODS with those that besieged them. That is why a "civil" war among the Gods of Olympus took place with almost half of them taking the side of the defenders. What we call today a "myth" DOES not necesaraly is one. Troy is the most famous example...Mycene its self is another plus Massalia, Emporium and all the rest Minoan trade posts that became Greek collonies not by conquest but by evolution. Evidence about the Myceneans as Acheans give the Egyptina Pharaos with the detailed hierogliphic plates recording the Mycenean mercenaries in their armies replacing the Minoan ones easy because they spoke the same language. Linear A may not have yet translated but its a writting never the less and what it may describe is not a myth simply because we can not understand it.
Linear B though has been fully translated and proves the continuity of the "hellenic" heritage and transformation of the early Metriarch communities of Pellasgians to the Patriarch communities of the Myceneans.
Homosexuality among war companions is a myth. HOMER never calls Patroclos lover of Achiles...The "love" among warriors described as philia (filos =friend but in linear B means companion).
The myth of the homosexual Sacred Band of Thevans and the Spartans has been active despite the fact that homosexuallity was punished with execusion in Sparta and Theva because the "pair" was a danger to the entire "chain" of the phalanx formation.
So we have two options.
We may call Homer a lier when he says that Greeks fought each other in Helion and mentioned them separatly from their barbarian allies and the 2nd option is to believe someone 4000 years later that calls a language with a name of his choice.
It reminds me the early Turkish nationalism that claimed that Trojans were Turks and the Anatolian civilisations were Turkish as well untill the momment they faced the world wide mocking and accepting their Altaic /steppe/Mongoloid heritage just like the Hungarians that for centuries refused to see their steppe origins.
Personaly and by my abillity to read and understand the original text of Hilliad i prefer Homer's version of the truth.
I also believe the Egyptian Pharaos when they allowed Myceneans to establish the 1st trade city in the Nile's delta that later became known as HELLIOUPOLIS .
I am not a conspiracy fan inorder to believe that Egyptian Pharaos and Homer created a plot to convince us that Trojans were Greeks in origin.
For the record 80% of the linear B mycenean words are still in use in the Hellenic language but many of those changed meaning durring the pass of time.
So the next time you will visit your cardiologist and say to you that you have to make a triplex to your artery vein of your heart then he speaks mycenean but he doesn't know it.
So i sugest you 1st to learn antiquity Greek language to proceed to Mycenean early version of it inorder to understand Linear B and ONLY THEN you can have an accurate opinion of the Trojian war and Homer's work.
Untill then ...allow me to know better.
EDIT: To allow our friends to know the linear B/mycenean language better here are some armors that constructed as Homer described them in Hilliad.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=hellenicarmors
Take a tour in the armors , read the original linear B text , the archaic greek and the translations. Enjoy. Fpr the record the creator has been under http://www.hellenicarmors.gr/%ce%bc%...earch-library/ , suprvision about his Middle Ages Roman armors and his work has been awarded worldwide.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, the truth is I can understand ancient Greek, so your fallacious appeal to authority is irrelevant. Of course, I can't understand Linear B, because it's a vastly different dialect and neither can I completely understand Homer's text. For reference, Linear A =/= Linear B and Linear B=/=Homeric language. Homer lived sometime around the 8th and 7th century B.C., not 4.000 years ago. Anyway, ancient authors and philosophers, like Plato and Aeschylus took Achilles' sexual relationship with Patroclus for granted. Your assumption about Homer is based on a rather sloppy reading of ancient Greek, which you apparently confuse with its modern version. This is why I am skeptical about your alleged proficiency in Homeric Greek and Linear B. In ancient Greek, φιλία can mean both friendship and love. In my personal opinion, the larger context makes it clear that Achilles was romantically involved with his friend, an emotion which was perfectly normal and acceptable, according to the moral ethos of an aristocratic warrior, despite the unwelcome indignation of ancient and modern puritans. I provided numerous literary passages and material evidence, which attest of the non-Greek and probably Luvian origins of Troy, the Minoan civilization and Milawata. Consequently, if you have any sources and scholarly articles pointing towards the opposite conclusion, don't hesitate to share them with us. More specifically, I need a citation about Egyptians claiming that Minoans and Mycenaeans spoke a similar language, that Massilia and Emporium were Minoan trade posts and that Heliopolis, in the middle of the Nile, was a Mycenaean colony. Frankly, I don't want to sound sarcastic, but especially the latter claim sounds similar to suspecting that the Persians are reptilians and that the Hellenes descend from the Elohim.

By the way, how do you translate the following passages of Homeric Greek?

Ἕκτορ σοὶ δὲ μάλιστ᾽ ἐπιτέλλομαι, ὧδε δὲ ῥέξαι:
πολλοὶ γὰρ κατὰ ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμου ἐπίκουροι,
ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γλῶσσα πολυσπερέων ἀνθρώπων:
τοῖσιν ἕκαστος ἀνὴρ σημαινέτω οἷσί περ ἄρχει,
τῶν δ᾽ ἐξηγείσθω κοσμησάμενος πολιήτας.

Τρῶες δ᾽, ὥς τ᾽ ὄϊες πολυπάμονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν αὐλῇ
μυρίαι ἑστήκασιν ἀμελγόμεναι γάλα λευκὸν
ἀζηχὲς μεμακυῖαι ἀκούουσαι ὄπα ἀρνῶν,
ὣς Τρώων ἀλαλητὸς ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρὺν ὀρώρει:
οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἦεν ὁμὸς θρόος οὐδ᾽ ἴα γῆρυς,
ἀλλὰ γλῶσσα μέμικτο, πολύκλητοι δ᾽ ἔσαν ἄνδρες.

[AnthoniusII]

Well, the truth is I can understand ancient Greek, so your fallacious appeal to authority is irrelevant. Of course, I can't understand Linear B, because it's a vastly different dialect and neither can I completely understand Homer's text. For reference, Linear A =/= Linear B and Linear B=/=Homeric language. Homer lived sometime around the 8th and 7th century B.C., not 4.000 years ago. Anyway, ancient authors and philosophers, like Plato and Aeschylus took Achilles' sexual relationship with Patroclus for granted. Your assumption about Homer is based on a rather sloppy reading of ancient Greek, which you apparently confuse with its modern version. This is why I am skeptical about your alleged proficiency in Homeric Greek and Linear B. In ancient Greek, φιλία can mean both friendship and love. In my personal opinion, the larger context makes it clear that Achilles was romantically involved with his friend, an emotion which was perfectly normal and acceptable, according to the moral ethos of an aristocratic warrior, despite the unwelcome indignation of ancient and modern puritans. I provided numerous literary passages and material evidence, which attest of the non-Greek and probably Luvian origins of Troy, the Minoan civilization and Milawata. Consequently, if you have any sources and scholarly articles pointing towards the opposite conclusion, don't hesitate to share them with us. More specifically, I need a citation about Egyptians claiming that Minoans and Mycenaeans spoke a similar language, that Massilia and Emporium were Minoan trade posts and that Heliopolis, in the middle of the Nile, was a Mycenaean colony. Frankly, I don't want to sound sarcastic, but especially the latter claim sounds similar to suspecting that the Persians are reptilians and that the Hellenes descend from the Elohim.

By the way, how do you translate the following passages of Homeric Greek?

Nice quotes but it seams you forgot to read a bit more in the text where Homer explains why Trojans spoke many languages and has different origin people in their city...
You miss some important words in the quotes you post...Lets say i can not translate the text , can you translate for us the word " ἐπίκουροι " ?
That would explain -again under the conclusion that you missed the part were Homer describes the multi national army "ἀλλὰ γλῶσσα μέμικτο, πολύκλητοι δ᾽ ἔσαν ἄνδρες" assemplied by Trojians from the surrounding kingdoms. Damn i will wait you full translation to see where i am wrong. It seams in your Hilliad copy the allies of the Trojians have disapeared. Pity...
EDIT: Again about the issue of hommosexual relations and how spread they were in the Greek armies. For centuries that myth followed Spartans as well until plates with the laws that punished with execution everyone had such relationship in the unit he belonged in to , crashed it.

[Cyclops]

Look its getting off topic, its turning into a Balkan nationalist thread unfortunately.

My friend Cyclops i would sugest to read the Greek Geneology in the Greek Mythology more carefully.

I have read something about both the major genealogical systems, plus the efflorescence of local variations. Homer gives different genealogies to Hesiod, and numerous writers freely alter or contradict both these major sources at will. There is no single authoritative Hellenic mythic genealogy, it varies from writer to writer and AFAIK from place to place.

Adding to this that other great genius Herodotus gives less fanciful versions of events (eg Europa is abducted by some Kretan randoms, not Zeus). The subject is highly complex and not reducible to simplistic statements or rhetorical questions.

Hellen,Achaios,Darnanos,Danaos, Dorieus and Makednos are Sons of Pelasgos ...Each figure represent a sub culture of what we call Hellenism and Hellenic civilisation despite the sub tribes of the Greek race leaque...

This is one of several muddled attempts to create eponymous ancestors for perceived groups. In one version Perseus is named eponymous ancestor of the Persians (and he identifies their gods with Hellenic ones), that does not make them Hellenes.

Homer created a masterpiece by cobbling together memories of famous raids into Wilusa and adding a catalogue of heroes (some of which were most likely re-purposed from other stories) like some epic Marvel ensemble movie (except not crap). They all become "Hellenes" in the eyes of later writers but are not Hellenes in the Illiad, they are Argives, Achaeans and Danaans.

I suspect the term "Argive" is their political affiliation (the allies of the rulers of Argos, as Hellenes were later named for being the allies of the sons of Hellen): an interesting point as Agamemnon is King of Mykenae: I think the story shows signs of being re-written multiple times here) Achaeans (an ethonym for the body of people who made up the bulk of what would become the Hellenes later) and I think Danaans are related to the Dardanoi: its a very ancient ethonym in Europe, found in Ireland and India as well.

However Homer does not use them to make points about the mutability of ethnic or political identity. The terms meet the needs of the metrical form of his stunning epic verse each having a different stress pattern, so the three terms come to be used interchangeably. They are used because they meet the needs of poetry not truth.

But that's all off topic rubbish. The Hellenic Republic does not "own" Achilles, or control the meaning of the Iliad. We all have Achilles' heels, and narrow minded nationalism seems to be the Hellenes at the moment. A sturdy unflinching Turk dying in defence of the Dardanelles against terrifying assaults evokes Hektor in soul and action. A Persian poet singing of Alexander (and by so doing unwittingly evoking Achilles) is a true heir of Homer, and a nitpicking Australian typing about the multiple versions of Hellenic myths is a pale and remote shadow of Herodotus' careful contemplation of the scattered shards of myth and history intermingled.

Every myth in Greek civilisation puts moral delimas and the Hilliad was one of the 1st that did so with huge accuracy and effect.

I think you burden Hellenic muthoi with to much meaning. Homer creates great art by cobbling myth into epic poetry.

Not all myths carry such a burden of greatness, some are broken shards whose context is lost or has been remade over and over. For example the myth of Callisto, who is either raped or seduced by Zeus (either as a man or as a woman) and is turned into a bear by Artemis (or turns herself into a bear) and is hunted and killed by her son, or Artemis, or is saved by Zeus at the last moment and turned into either one star or a constellation. Adding to this complexity there was a festival in classical Athens where prepubescent girls took to the streets dressed as bears (because Artemis had a pet bear, possibly Callisto, although that might be another name for Artemis herself, and it was hunted, possibly by Callisto's son, so a plague was sent to punish Athens).

If you can make sense of that mess I honour you as a greater genius than Homer. The majority of Hellenic myths have multiple and usually conflicting forms.

Do you have anything to say about Achilles cult among ancient Hellenes? Try not to mention Metaxas, he wasn't there.

My own feeling (stated above ) is that anceint Hellenes honoured Achilles as an ideal aristoi, the perfect warrior and someone to be imitated. He is especially invoked by Hellenes in the context of fighting easterners (Dick Cheney mentions Simonides after Plataea, and of course Alexander). Its clear that Alexander and the victors of Plataea did not share your view of the Trojans as Hellenes, but rather as foreigners to be fought by Hellenes. To these two examples I would add Herodotus, historian of the Persian War, who explicitly lists the Trojans as an example of Easterner that Hellenes battled against.

Surely you agree with Simonides, Alexander and Herodotus?

[AnthoniusII]

@Cyclops
Have you see the video of Pedro Olalla "Porque Grecia" that its link i posted before or we post simply to gather post numbers?
I believe that "moral delimas" on "Heros" are strange in the north european barbarian subculture but that does not mean that prospective did not exist in high inteligent civilisations espesialy in those that gave humanity permanent philosophical prints.
@ Abdulmecid I
I have a quote for you because you seam to know ancient Greek language well.
You emphasided the homosexuality of Greeks as the main basis of a companionship in Greece of antiquity and earlier.
Lets see what Solon Laws about "homosexuals to Athenians, that in westerners and those that create "myths" about Greeks incist they were in amjority, had to say.

«Αν τις Αθηναίος εταιρήση, με έξεστω αυτω των εννέα αρχόντων γενέσθαι,
μηδέ ιερωσύνην ιερώσασθαι,
μηδέ συνδικήσαι τω δήμω,
μηδέ αρχήν αρχέτω μηδεμιάν,
μήτε ενδημον, μήτε υπερόριον,
μήτε κληρωτήν,
μήτε χειροτονητήν,
μηδέ επικυρήκειαν αποστελλέσθω,
μηδέ γνώμην λεγέτω, μηδέ εις τα δημοτελή ιερά εισίτω,
μηδέ εν ταις κοιναίς σταφονοφορίες σταφανούσθω, μηδέ εντός των της αγοράς περιρραντηριων πορευέσθω.
Εάν δε ταύτα τις ποιή, καταγνωσθέντως αυτού εταιρείν, θανάτω ζημιούσθω».

Because of my knowlege in Ancient Greek is limited can you please translate that Law of Solon to us all to enlight us?
PLEASE?

[Abdülmecid I]

You miss some important words in the quotes you post...Lets say i can not translate the text , can you translate for us the word " ἐπίκουροι " ?
That would explain -again under the conclusion that you missed the part were Homer describes the multi national army "ἀλλὰ γλῶσσα μέμικτο, πολύκλητοι δ᾽ ἔσαν ἄνδρες" assemplied by Trojians from the surrounding kingdoms. Damn i will wait you full translation to see where i am wrong. It seams in your Hilliad copy the allies of the Trojians have disapeared. Pity...

There is no need to become ironic, especially when you missed my point. In my first comment, I had made it perfectly clear that Homer was referring to Trojans and their allies:

Even in the Iliad, which, let's not forget, was completed in its current form approximately 400 years of the events it allegedly narrates, the use of many diverse and incomprehensible languages by the Trojans and their allies is underlined.

However, you failed to provide any evidence for your wild claims and to address all the other points of mine about why Bronze Age Troy was not a Greek settlement, but, most probably, a Luvian one. Not even the Greeks treated the Trojans as being one of them, as Cyclops had showed to you (e.g. Herodotus referring to the events of the Iliad as the first instance of a conflict between Europe and Asia), although you unfortunately chose to ignore his argument. When you manage to appropriately respond to our questions and arguments, then I'd be glad to continue the debate. Otherwise, I will consider your silence and deflections as a proof that your rhetoric is scientifically baseless and relies on conspiracy theories and illusions about the supremacy and exceptionalism of the Greeks.

Because of my knowlege in Ancient Greek is limited can you please translate that Law of Solon to us all to enlight us?

Of course. Solon explains that whoever prostitutes himself is deprived of the rights entailed in his citizenship. The verb εταιρέω means prostitute oneself, not sodomize.

ἑταιρ-εύομαι, Pass., prostitute oneself, D.S.12.21, Theopomp. Hist.217c.
ἑταιρ-έω, keep company with, Aeschin.1.13, Phoenicid.4.2; τινι with a man, And.1.100, etc.; φιλία ἑταιροῦσα meretricious friendship, Plu. 2.62d; οἱ πολλοὶ αὐτῶν ἡταιρήκασιν Lys. 14.41; οὐκέτι φαίνεται μόνον ἡταιρηκώς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πεπορνευμένος Aeschines 1.52. II. Med., = ἑταιρεύομαι, of men, Theopompus Hist.217b; of women, Plu. Ant.18.

Coincidentally enough, this passage is used by far-right blogs to deny the prominent position of homosexuality in ancient Greece. Personally, I find really funny how desperately nationalists of every creed and tribe try to distort history, when it contradicts their xenophobic dogmas. For my standards, there is nothing morally reprehensible in homosexuality or in the "intimate friendship" between Achilles and Patroclus, but modern chauvinists unsurprisingly get quite upset, when their idols indulge in such "decadent vices". To clarify, even if Solon was personally against homosexuality, that would still mean nothing about the importance of homosexuality between aristocratic warriors in ancient Greece. Despite nationalist wishful thinking, Greek culture is not homogeneous, so arbitrary generalizations should be dismissed as amateurish and inaccurate. Anthony, if you personally feel frustrated about the prospect of Achilles and his buddy being lovers, I suggest taking your grievances at Aeschylus and Plato, who seemed to be capable of recognizing this possibility without many qualms.

[Cyclops]

@Cyclops
Have you see the video of Pedro Olalla "Porque Grecia" that its link i posted before or we post simply to gather post numbers?

No, youtube videos are a little lightwieght for a serious conversation.

I gather since you are not posting for numbers that by not addressing my other points you concede all of them?

I believe that "moral delimas" on "Heros" are strange in the north european barbarian subculture but that does not mean that prospective did not exist in high inteligent civilisations espesialy in those that gave humanity permanent philosophical prints.

I don't really see Achilles moral dilemma, he does not fight when he does not want too, and does fight when he does want to. He literally does whatever the hell he wants, almost without reflection. He's very human in his heroism. he's admirable to a Hellene from the Aristoi who enjoys sex with his cousin and killing people: zero moral dilemmas given.

However if you look at Northern European epics we do find some moral dilemmas. there are questions over legitimate Kingship in the Cuchulain cycle (is it better to have a bad legitimate king or a good illegitimate one?), and some very interesting moral questions in the Nibelunglied which develops from a simple "Epic wingman subdues magic chick for his mate to bang" to the complex consequences of Siegfrieds deception of Brunhild, and Kriemhilds' revenge springing from Siegfried's murder. In particular the figure of Hagen embodies moral ambiguity, he is loyal friend and dishonourable foe, and defies even the doom of the Gods (unsuccesfully). Etzel, a fictionalised Attila, is transformed by a process very like Hektor's paradox from the vile warlord and destroyer of the Burgundian royal family into a just a suitable instrument of Nemesis.

As Abdulmecid mentions there are very striking moments of moral ambiguity, extraordinary dilemmas and human passion in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which likely influenced Homer. Hellenes in Homer's day were very open to foreign influence and often admired non-Hellenes. A very Hellenic thing of course.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Nibelungenlied is THE german epic, as Cyclops already pointed out, with Hagen von Tronje as the ambigous hero. He is devious on the one hand, but brave and loyal to his king's family on the other hand. Kriemhild develops in the epic from the poor victim' s wife to a vengeful, bloodthirsty Furia. Dietrich von Bern, a mighty german hero refuses to fight against the Burgundians becauses he felt bounded by his word, then fight against the last two survivors of the Burgundians after the nephew Wolfhart of his educator Hildebrand is killed.

Gernot, one brother of the Gunther the burgundian King, and his father in law Rüdiger, who is a Vasall of Etzel, kill each other.

The whole epic is full of moral dilemmas and germanic mythological figures like dwarfs, giants, nymphs and dragons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied

Another german epic with Dietrich von Bern, which contains moral dilemma.

The Eckenlied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Eckenlied

[neoptolemos]

I have read something about both the major genealogical systems, plus the efflorescence of local variations. Homer gives different genealogies to Hesiod, and numerous writers freely alter or contradict both these major sources at will. There is no single authoritative Hellenic mythic genealogy, it varies from writer to writer and AFAIK from place to place.

......This is one of several muddled attempts to create eponymous ancestors for perceived groups. In one version Perseus is named eponymous ancestor of the Persians (and he identifies their gods with Hellenic ones), that does not make them Hellenes.

Indeed because the concept of "heroes" was evolving as new "hero" concepts and deities were introduced in Greece or other areas. Add uppon that the geneological justification of political leadership in some places and you can see how "flexible" this could be. A practice familiar in many different people and eras (Roman family ancestry and politcal status, Christian saints and patrons and kingship etc)

Adding to this that other great genius Herodotus gives less fanciful versions of events (eg Europa is abducted by some Kretan randoms, not Zeus). The subject is highly complex and not reducible to simplistic statements or rhetorical questions.

Well ancient gossip went a bit too far as it seems

Homer created a masterpiece by cobbling together memories of famous raids into Wilusa and adding a catalogue of heroes (some of which were most likely re-purposed from other stories) like some epic Marvel ensemble movie (except not crap). They all become "Hellenes" in the eyes of later writers but are not Hellenes in the Illiad, they are Argives, Achaeans and Danaans...................

I suspect the term "Argive" is their political affiliation (the allies of the rulers of Argos, as Hellenes were later named for being the allies of the sons of Hellen): an interesting point as Agamemnon is King of Mykenae: I think the story shows signs of being re-written multiple times here) Achaeans (an ethonym for the body of people who made up the bulk of what would become the Hellenes later) and I think Danaans are related to the Dardanoi: its a very ancient ethonym in Europe, found in Ireland and India as well.

"Hellenes" is indeed a later develepment. First of all Argives and Danaans are Pelopenesian names (Argives is synonym with Danaans and denotes the people of Argolis around Argos where Myceneae is also located-Danaus is the mythical king of Argos who originated from Libya) and Achaeans could be a more broader term, still though it is used as a synonym of Argives/Danaans. IMHO this is indicative of a process of creating an early "nation" of the people who had created the Mycenean kingdom-states. Thus Hellenes, a name originated from Epirus, strikes as a later development of this process, as many northern Greek groups were not incorporated in the Argives/Danaans/Acheans.

However Homer does not use them to make points about the mutability of ethnic or political identity. The terms meet the needs of the metrical form of his stunning epic verse each having a different stress pattern, so the three terms come to be used interchangeably. They are used because they meet the needs of poetry not truth.

But that's all off topic rubbish. The Hellenic Republic does not "own" Achilles, or control the meaning of the Iliad. We all have Achilles' heels, and narrow minded nationalism seems to be the Hellenes at the moment. A sturdy unflinching Turk dying in defence of the Dardanelles against terrifying assaults evokes Hektor in soul and action. A Persian poet singing of Alexander (and by so doing unwittingly evoking Achilles) is a true heir of Homer, and a nitpicking Australian typing about the multiple versions of Hellenic myths is a pale and remote shadow of Herodotus' careful contemplation of the scattered shards of myth and history intermingled.

How could modern Hellenic Republic own a myth? Are there copyrights? We should sue Hollywood for not paying fees!!!!!
The ony thing you can say is that some people living in Hellenic Republic are demonstrating a more strong "bond" with these stories as they sound as it could make them be related with an epic, romantic past and that's all.
Now of course there are some narrow minded nationalists who could not see further than their noses in this but every herd has its bad sheep Cyclops, don't be "one-eyed" at this

My own feeling (stated above ) is that anceint Hellenes honoured Achilles as an ideal aristoi, the perfect warrior and someone to be imitated. He is especially invoked by Hellenes in the context of fighting easterners (Dick Cheney mentions Simonides after Plataea, and of course Alexander). Its clear that Alexander and the victors of Plataea did not share your view of the Trojans as Hellenes, but rather as foreigners to be fought by Hellenes. To these two examples I would add Herodotus, historian of the Persian War, who explicitly lists the Trojans as an example of Easterner that Hellenes battled against.

They surely did see Trojans as others indeed. No matter what was the origin of Trojans, it seems that for the Achaens they were something short of "enemy who unites and defines us". IMHO the lack of historical sources regarding Greek history of the post Mycenean era are an obstacle putting Homer's works in their contemporary prespective. IMHO if there were a shifting of political powers and population movements in the Greek mainland then revoking the "epic" past could act as a justification very much in line with my previous argument

cheers

[AnthoniusII]

There is no need to become ironic, especially when you missed my point. In my first comment, I had made it perfectly clear that Homer was referring to Trojans and their allies:

However, you failed to provide any evidence for your wild claims and to address all the other points of mine about why Bronze Age Troy was not a Greek settlement, but, most probably, a Luvian one. Not even the Greeks treated the Trojans as being one of them, as Cyclops had showed to you (e.g. Herodotus referring to the events of the Iliad as the first instance of a conflict between Europe and Asia), although you unfortunately chose to ignore his argument. When you manage to appropriately respond to our questions and arguments, then I'd be glad to continue the debate. Otherwise, I will consider your silence and deflections as a proof that your rhetoric is scientifically baseless and relies on conspiracy theories and illusions about the supremacy and exceptionalism of the Greeks.

Of course. Solon explains that whoever prostitutes himself is deprived of the rights entailed in his citizenship. The verb εταιρέω means prostitute oneself, not sodomize.

Coincidentally enough, this passage is used by far-right blogs to deny the prominent position of homosexuality in ancient Greece. Personally, I find really funny how desperately nationalists of every creed and tribe try to distort history, when it contradicts their xenophobic dogmas. For my standards, there is nothing morally reprehensible in homosexuality or in the "intimate friendship" between Achilles and Patroclus, but modern chauvinists unsurprisingly get quite upset, when their idols indulge in such "decadent vices". To clarify, even if Solon was personally against homosexuality, that would still mean nothing about the importance of homosexuality between aristocratic warriors in ancient Greece. Despite nationalist wishful thinking, Greek culture is not homogeneous, so arbitrary generalizations should be dismissed as amateurish and inaccurate. Anthony, if you personally feel frustrated about the prospect of Achilles and his buddy being lovers, I suggest taking your grievances at Aeschylus and Plato, who seemed to be capable of recognizing this possibility without many qualms.

My friend Abdülmecid I , I realy enjoy the times you post something you have no abillity to understand and go to wikipedia to find your solution.
The verb αιταιρω means ANY KIND of relasionship out of marriage.
Later in the christian times that hommosexuality was hidden the verb did recieve the meaning of prostitution because the ONLY relationships out of marriage were those with women that sold their bodies for leaving.
But I am greatly disapointed by your inteligent -unless your goal is to mis-info the readers that read your posts- when in my Law example and by your statement that know Ancient Greek you missed the entire quote exept that verb.
So either learn better Greek, either deside to provide accurate info to your readers or change glasses because the ENTIRE quote describes RANKS AND TITLES AND OFFICES an Athenian CITIZEN could have and we all know that CITIZENS OF ATHENS WERE ONLY MEN. Unless you want to change that historica fact too we have a list of Offices that a MAN (citizen) could not have with ANY (hommosexual or other) out of his marriage.
So I advice you AGAIN to fresh your Antiquity Greek language (i would sugest the medieval Greco-Roman too but that would be to hard for you that miss to understand the basics) or be honest and provide accurate historical info to the people that read your posts. You won them that much don't you think?

[Cyclops]

...
How could modern Hellenic Republic own a myth? Are there copyrights? We should sue Hollywood for not paying fees!!!!!
The ony thing you can say is that some people living in Hellenic Republic are demonstrating a more strong "bond" with these stories as they sound as it could make them be related with an epic, romantic past and that's all.
Now of course there are some narrow minded nationalists who could not see further than their noses in this but every herd has its bad sheep Cyclops, don't be "one-eyed" at this ...

If I show poor eyesight in this matter blame Οὖτις . I have trouble trusting Hellenes since the day I got blind drunk...

I agree it is surely an honour and a great point of pride for Hellenes that their tongue is the closest relative to that of the greatest poet, and greatest story teller, who ever lived. Its sad to see his works so horribly misconstrued but as you say one bad poster does not a whole ethnos dishonour.

Homer speaks to noble Hellenes most clearly in my view. In his works Achilles is the rash and courageous hero: someone the aristoi could admire without questioning. Achilles star status is made clear in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and reinforced by the presence of his name in Linear B tablets (a very ancient name in Hellas, older than Herakles AFAIK) and a large number of hero shrines in Dorian, Aeolian and Ionian cities and colonies. IIRC the Black Sea colonies had a concentration of hero shines from an early period, hence the suggestion he is a downgraded oceanic deity.

Achilles was seen as a powerful and admirable figure by Archaic and classical Hellenes, at least in the classes that could afford to build and maintain hero shrines and pay poets to create epics. Homer's version allows a critical view to the modern reader, but was in my view intended to portray him in his guise as the most admirable warrior.

I forget the technical term by which deities can dwindle into heroes or even local spirits (it happened in Irish mythology where mighty Keltic deities formerly worshipped by huge gatherings administered by Druidic orders with human sacrifices are reduced to fairies in old tombs getting bowls of milk so the cow stays healthy). This may be what happened to Achilles, he may have been a Mykenaean Ocean God who became a fiery noble warrior. Thanks to Homer he has not diminished into a shoe-repair goblin.

[AnthoniusII]

If I show poor eyesight in this matter blame Οὖτις . I have trouble trusting Hellenes since the day I got blind drunk...

I agree it is surely an honour and a great point of pride for Hellenes that their tongue is the closest relative to that of the greatest poet, and greatest story teller, who ever lived. Its sad to see his works so horribly misconstrued but as you say one bad poster does not a whole ethnos dishonour.

Homer speaks to noble Hellenes most clearly in my view. In his works Achilles is the rash and courageous hero: someone the aristoi could admire without questioning. Achilles star status is made clear in the Iliad and the Odyssey, and reinforced by the presence of his name in Linear B tablets (a very ancient name in Hellas, older than Herakles AFAIK) and a large number of hero shrines in Dorian, Aeolian and Ionian cities and colonies. IIRC the Black Sea colonies had a concentration of hero shines from an early period, hence the suggestion he is a downgraded oceanic deity.

Achilles was seen as a powerful and admirable figure by Archaic and classical Hellenes, at least in the classes that could afford to build and maintain hero shrines and pay poets to create epics. Homer's version allows a critical view to the modern reader, but was in my view intended to portray him in his guise as the most admirable warrior.

I forget the technical term by which deities can dwindle into heroes or even local spirits (it happened in Irish mythology where mighty Keltic deities formerly worshipped by huge gatherings administered by Druidic orders with human sacrifices are reduced to fairies in old tombs getting bowls of milk so the cow stays healthy). This may be what happened to Achilles, he may have been a Mykenaean Ocean God who became a fiery noble warrior. Thanks to Homer he has not diminished into a shoe-repair goblin.

The mistake of non Greeks is to try to understand Greek with their own kind of view/prospective.
Greeks can not understand Hindu of Chinese history or myth with their own prospective either.
The best way to start understanding foreign to your culture civilisations is to start thinking like they do.
Homer did not create a hymn to war. He created a tale based of what he heared or saw (basicaly heard but the accuracy of descibing weapons and armors are close to 100% if we judge of the archaeological findings so far).
His tale follows the basic Hellenic Tragedy (it was one of the 1st examples of that) and drama (action). He wants us to see war as an act that removes humanity from humans and turns themto beasts with no moral principals.
For an action and counter action required. For a hero and other hero must be placed to confront him.
Achiles was the raw model of the fearless warrior, the warrior that counts the bond and love (not forced obidience) of his BROTHERS IN ARMS above all other virtues. That bond can be found in the Leonidas's last stand and the fight of the last blind Spartan in that battle (he could not stand the idea that his brothers in arms died and he would remain alive even as blind). Hilliad describes war in its whole cruelty , not like a Rambo style hero that elliminates everyone in his path. That is why both sides have heroes that have UNIQUE qualities and flaws.
Achiles' "love and affection" for Patroclos has been mistranslated to homosexuallity under modern people prospective avoiding to see the whole picture of Greece in Antiquity.
But....in societies that everyone knew each other , friendships were stronger and so stronger was the sense of the duty to be worthy in your friend's eyes and by extend in the eyes of your society. Aeshylus brother grabed a persien ship in Marathon battle and when Persians cut off his both hands he tried to hold the ship with his teeth. The need to be worthy in the eyes (dead continued to watch out their beloved people as ancient Greeks thought) of his brothers in arms that fell to defeat Persians, to be worthy in Athenians eyes too forced him to do an action like this.
That SENSE of duty among brothers in arms was the ideal Achiles presented. The counter match of that ideal? The ideal of defending the homeland. Heroism does not fit to that ideal. Its what a human (a warrior man) was born to serve in his life. No other DUTY was above that.
When Solon visited Kroisos , that wealthy King asked Solon which human on earth was the happyiest one.
Solon's FIRST EXAMPLE was this:

«Ο πιο ευτυχισμένος άνθρωπος που γνώρισα ποτέ ήταν ένας Αθηναίος βασιλιάς που λεγόταν Τέλλος.
ο Τέλλος από τη μια είχε πατρίδα που ευτυχούσε και μέσα σ’ αυτήν απόχτησε γιους καλούς κι ενάρετους και είδε να κάνουν όλοι παιδιά και να ζουν όλα κι από την άλλη ενώ η ζωή του ήταν ευτυχισμένη, με τα ανθρώπινα μέτρα, τη σφράγισε ένας ένδοξος θάνατος σε μια μάχη δηλαδή των Αθηναίων στην Ελευσίνα με τους γείτονές τους πήρε μέρος κι εκείνος κι αφού έτρεψε σε φυγή τους εχθρούς, σκοτώθηκε ηρωικά οι Αθηναίοι τον έθαψαν με δημόσια δαπάνη στον τόπο που έπεσε και του έκαναν μεγάλες τιμές» .

Translations.

The happiest person I ever met was an Athenian king called Tellos.
Tellos, on the one hand, had a happy homeland, and in it he earned good and righteous sons and he saw all all of them having children too and all lived, but while his life was happy, within human measures, he sealed it with a glorious death in a battle of the Athenians in Elefsina with their neighbors that he took part and he and fled the enemies, heroically killed, the Athenians buried him publicly at the place where he fell and made him great honors.

Tellos may was not such a great warrior as Achiles but he followed Hector's virtue of honoring, defending and live to die for your homeland.
As you can see here Hector is the raw model of sucrifising ones life for the homeland.
The Hilliad put the bases in the Hellenic morality. That no matter how rich or glorius warrior you may become , there are devine morla lines you can not cross. Because the punishment is NEMESIS (Zeus punishment).
The entire hellenic civilisation and thought is an ever lasting strugle of which virtue must follow 1st and define an other , each time knowning what it may follow.
Achiles follows the call to arms by his King but when that King crosses the line of justice he stands before him defining his authority.
Achiles fighting all his life with his Myrmidones (his own personal army of friends , including Patroclos) puts above all other virtues and duties the evenge of a companion's death.
Patroclos here is just a name, the reality is that the Unit has its own code of honor and Achiles as in charge of it must give the example.
But when he has the "right" on his side he -just like ALL HUMANS- makes the fatal mistake to cross the moral line of respecting the dead.
That action (respecting the dead) is the Ultimate Rule given by Gods to humans that are in war.
If you read carefully ancient history you will nottice that after each battle there was a time that enemies co-existed in the battlefiled collecting their own dead to burry them.
Do you wish an other similar example?
In 1940 Italy invaded Greece. After every battle both sides collected their dead to burry them before start the fight again. In many cases there were enemy dead soldiers in the side of the "enemy". The ultimate honor to enemy was his burrial:


Returning to Achiles. Achiles is the 1st example of many in Hilliad that learn the hard way that no matter how glorius you may be there are lines you can not pass (an other famous such example is Odyseus).
Hilliad is not a tale to create undefeatable Heroes but to bring the cruelty of war in every people's mind and to remind him/her that no matter how a war can affect us as humans we can not allow ourselves to turn from humans to beasts.
That is Hilliad. A huge lesson. Achiles' example re-created in the 10th century AD in Middle Ages Roman Empire with the myth of Digenis Acritas. THE fearless warrior that can kill thousands of enemies and douzens of beasts in the extent the he starts to believe he is immortal. But he -as any man- has flaws that lead him to sin (he dishonor a princess while he is married), he kills unjustfully a couple of men and then he seaks for forgiveness.
Digenis combines Achiles and Hector together but in the end NEMESIS comes again. Charon visited him and he defines the fact that he is an other human and chalenging Charon to a duel.
Charon accepts and the fight seams endless but its then that God's Voice is heard and calls Charon to stop palying arround and finish his task. And Acritas like Achiles dies like all mortal men, dies with his bright and glorius achievments and his dark side of sin like all of us carry on our shoulders.
THAT IS HILLIAD.