Did the Greeks have a positive view of Achilles?

[Abdülmecid I]

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.

Firstly, the correct form of the verb is ἑταιρέω.Secondly, I prudently provided a source (Liddell-Scott being the most reputable dictionary for ancient Greek), but you continuously fail to do for your own wild claims. As I said, after many warnings, I consider your inability to support your arguments, by citing either ancient passages or modern scientific papers, as a clear sign of conceding defeat. Your ''Christian'' deflection is irrational, does disprove your earlier claim, as you now admitted that ἑταιρέω does not necessarily mean homosexuality and is of course directly contradicted by Liddell-Scott, which brings up many extracts that were not written in Christian environment and where ἑταιρέω obviously means prostitute oneself. Also, there are male prostitutes, popularly called as gigolos. Why are you so adamant that there was nothing homosexual in the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, that you are ready to endorse the propaganda of homophobic and nationalist blogs, at the expense of methodologically acceptable evidence?

The mistake of non Greeks is to try to understand Greek with their own kind of view/prospective.

Sorry, but I don't believe in magic. I doubt that the comprehension of history is a biological trait that is miraculously transmitted to anyone imagining himself as belonging to the same tribe that continues to exists for millennia. Simply put, historical research only requires two essential principles: Firstly and most importantly, a genuine desire to explore the historical past, in order to catch a glimpse of the truth. Unfortunately, our world today is filled with self-proclaimed fans of history, whose only concern is how to distort it, in order to glorify xenophobia and justify their chauvinistic drivel. Secondly, a solid reliance on primary sources and peer-reviewed secondary bibliography is also necessary. Buying a ticket, taking the bus, visiting the nearby university's library and immersing oneself into academically praised monographs and prestigious journals is much more productive and enjoyable than blindly adopting hateful manifesto spammed by fascist bloggers and militaristic websites. In any case, if you still insist on only Greeks being capable of understanding homosexuality, here are several passages from three pretty Greek authors:

An orator, a tragedian and a poet walk into a bar...

πύκτας δ᾽ ἐν Ὀλυμπιάδι νικῶν Ἴλᾳ φερέτω χάριν Ἁγησίδαμος ὡς Ἀχιλεῖ Πάτροκλος. παῖδ᾽ ἐρατὸν δ᾽ Ἀρχεστράτου αἴνησα, τὸν εἶδον κρατέοντα χερὸς ἀλκᾷ βωμὸν παρ᾽ Ὀλύμπιον, κεῖνον κατὰ χρόνον ἰδέᾳ τε καλὸν ὥρᾳ τε κεκραμένον, ἅ ποτε ἀναιδέα Γανυμήδει μόρον ἄλαλκε σὺν Κυπρογενεῖ. In a few words, Pindar connects Achilles and Patroclus to a couple of athletes, which later compares to the love between Zeus and Ganymede. λέξω δὲ πρῶτον μὲν περὶ Ὁμήρου, ὃν ἐν τοῖς πρεσβυτάτοις καὶ σοφωτάτοις τῶν ποιητῶν εἶναι τάττομεν. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πολλαχοῦ μεμνημένος περὶ Πατρόκλου καὶ Ἀχιλλέως, τὸν μὲν ἔρωτα καὶ τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν αὐτῶν τῆς φιλίας ἀποκρύπτεται, ἡγούμενος τὰς τῆς εὐνοίας ὑπερβολὰς καταφανεῖς εἶναι τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις τῶν ἀκροατῶν. Aeschines argues that Homer is intentionally secretive of the details of Patroclus-Achilles relationship, because it was of sexual nature. σέβας δέ μηρῶν ἀγνόν οὐκ ἐπηιδέσω ὧ δυσχάριστε τῶν πυκνῶν φιλημάτων μηρῶν τε τῶν σῶν εὐσεβής ὁμιλία Achilles complains over his companion's body about Patroclus not appreciating his kisses and his admiration for his... thighs (thighs are a classical motif of homosexual love and is also used to demonstrate Alexander's love for Hephaestion).

There are more relevant passages made about Achilles' bisexual orientation, but these three suffice, I hope. The implicitly racist fallacy of only foreigners being "ignorant" enough to perceive Achilles and Patroclus' "friendship" as sexual is evidently false.

For whoever is honestly interested in the subject, Achilles in Greek Tragedy (from p. 41 and written by a Greek Professor, Mr. Michelakis, by the way) provides an informative summary of all the authors that denied or recognized the homosexual relationship between the two legendary warriors. Again, to repeat, there is nothing morally reprehensible about it. Homosexuality between soldiers is a rather widespread literary pattern (Xenophon in his Cyropedia describes it nicely), which is easily explained by the strong bonds between men fighting for their survival and the worrying absence of available women. Ironically, nowadays homosexuality is considered too effeminate to match the ideal image of an alpha male, which is the reason why nationalism attempts so hysterically to falsify the historical record, with the intention of not disrupting the carefully built supremacist narrative of the tribe always being masculine, tough, heroic and etc.
Quite tragicomic, in my opinion.

[Cyclops]

The mistake of non Greeks is to try to understand Greek with their own kind of view/prospective....

Its impossible to take your post seriously when you open with this chauvinist crap. You don't own Achilles, and what weak arguments you present are often factually incorrect, weirdly biased and framed in sarcastic, emotional and garbled language: it seems you don't really know that much about the subject. I haven't found anything useful in your posts ITT.

[Morifea]

Firstly, the correct form of the verb is ἑταιρέω.Secondly, I prudently provided a source (Liddell-Scott being the most reputable dictionary for ancient Greek), but you continuously fail to do for your own wild claims..

How could Liddell-Scott know, they don`t sound very Greek to me
Great Post as always, have some rep.

@AnthoniusII: Interesting approach, but I think Abdülmecid I and Cyclops have the better arguments.

[neoptolemos]

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

touché

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.

http://eranistis.net/wordpress/wp-co...E%94%CE%91.pdf
I know it's in Greek but this monumental translation has been made by Kazantzakis and Kakridis, read it if you like, both are great demoticists hence the translation is in plain demotic greek (in a period which demotic was not the official language).

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.

I reackon that both Acheans and Dorians were warrior driven societies. In both societies the warlord/king/ first in combat companion, is leading a team of warrior cast/professional warriors in conquering battles. That goes along the emergence of petty Achean kingdoms in Greece and the spread of Myceneans, first by war and then by trade in the Eastern Meditterenean and later with the conquest/migration of the Dorians in Southern Greece.
Athenians on the other hand, being more "indigenous" than Dorians, had their own heroes and specifically the hero-kings like Erecthus, Aegeas, Theseas etc. In my view this is a striking difference. Macedonians, Epirotans, Dorians and Thessalians may have had an Achille's cult but not the Athenians (Ionians).
The interesting thing is that the Ionians in Black sea had indeed a strong affiliation with Achiles which IMHO is not copied from the mainland Greek pattern of the heroe's warrior atributes. This could be an indication of the perhaps a merging of Achiles with a local deity/hero (or he was a downgrade water deity)? That would be an interesting query.

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.

Precisely!!!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trojan heroes were contemporaries of these guys




while Homeric poems were started to formulate when these guys were around
Late Acheeans and a Dorian trading 1100 BC



Cretan Warlord and his following 9th-8th cent

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.

Well if Brad Pitt counts for something

@ Abdulmecid
According the dιctionary. "εταίρω" and "εταιρίζω" have different meanings as "εταίρα" has from "εταίρος".
http://myria.math.aegean.gr/lds/data...df/pg_0342.pdf
http://myria.math.aegean.gr/lds/data...df/pg_0343.pdf

[AnthoniusII]

"εταίρος". = companion Like the Phillip II's ones or his infantry "πεζ-εταίρος".
Also there was an other similar tern : Επαιτης (today means the buger) but in Mycenean society meant the military aristocracy that followed Anax (King) to battle.
A middle ages version of that term is ιπποτης (the noble that owns/uses a horse to fight on it) that in barbaric german sub-languages translates to knight!
I repost HellenicArmors sub section of Mycenean armors based of what Homer, potery and texts describe.
Click on the link it wont bite you. There you will be able to see and read linear B/greek and english translations of some basics.
EDIT:

Its impossible to take your post seriously when you open with this chauvinist crap. You don't own Achilles, and what weak arguments you present are often factually incorrect, weirdly biased and framed in sarcastic, emotional and garbled language: it seems you don't really know that much about the subject. I haven't found anything useful in your posts ITT.

If you haven't found anything usefull in the links i provided (i doupt if you ever visit the sites or watched the video) then you make my point that you can not understand Greeks under GREEK prospective.
Its not a matter of abillity (i pointed out that Greeks can not fully understand Chinese or Hindu myths or culture) but its a matter of how a human races sculptures its own historical and cultural path on this planet.
An example more: Press the link in my sig "The Greek secret" that tries to translate the word Filotimo that as a complex term that ONLY Greeks can fully feel does not exist in any other cultures. Ofcourse almost all cultures have their own prospective of Honor and how they base their existance arround it (See Japanese people) but none of it can be translated as Filotimo.

One more easier example. The germanic nations that replaced Guals in western europe use the word fammily. The entity that starts to exist from the woman (mother).
In greek (from linear B to modern Greek of today the word is oikogenneia gr: οικογεννεια = the entity that starts with the house , the primitive source of individula rulerships EACH CITIZEN must have inorder to participate in gatherings with other similar to him house owners. A citizen is the ruler of his house and the total number of rulers of houses that accept to plave themselvs under common law called citizens.
I post that exemple because durring the Greek financial crissis German newspapers called Greeks rich because 90% own a house how small that was.
They could not understand that "the house" is the cell of Democracy. 80% of Germans rent their houses from other owners and that is a left over of their feudal heritage.
Do those tiny examples help you understand the huge diferences in westerners (european nations by Herodotus are the Greek tribes) and Greek prospective in varius things? If you fail to understand those EASY examples how do you expect to understand more complicated Greek meanings ? That is why i sugest (not force) you try to start putting your self in the place of a Greek to start understand how he sees things arround him (his univerce). Please see that video by Mr Ollala (he is a spanish not a greek) that will help you understand how complicated the Greek thinking is. Also see the video in my sig about filotimo and see Hellenic Armos site that will help you imagine Hilliad and how those warriors were alike.

[paleologos]

"εταίρος". = companion Like the Phillip II's ones or his infantry "πεζ-εταίρος".
Also there was an other similar tern : Επαιτης (today means the buger) but in Mycenean society meant the military aristocracy that followed Anax (King) to battle.
A middle ages version of that term is ιπποτης (the noble that owns/uses a horse to fight on it) that in barbaric german sub-languages translates to knight!
I repost HellenicArmors sub section of Mycenean armors based of what Homer, potery and texts describe.
Click on the link it wont bite you. There you will be able to see and read linear B/greek and english translations of some basics.

By "buger" you mean "beggar".

Also "knight" is derived from "knecht" (a lad in his teens), the Greek equivalent of which is "παλλαξ" (pallax) also meaning, a lad in his teens.

Similarly we get the germanic landsknecht and the Byzantine "pallikaria".

My hypothesis of how knecht came to evolve into meaning the mounted knight is that the kings of the time were joined in battle by their companion-captains who also brought along their sons and squires.

[AnthoniusII]

My previus post edited...

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

By "buger" you mean "beggar".

Also "knight" is derived from "knecht" (a lad in his teens), the Greek equivalent of which is "παλλαξ" (pallax) also meaning, a lad in his teens.

Similarly we get the germanic landsknecht and the Byzantine "pallikaria".

My hypothesis of how knecht came to evolve into meaning the mounted knight is that the kings of the time were joined in battle by their companion-captains who also brought along their sons and squires.

Knecht means "unfree servant" in german.

Kings or other nobles took warriors in their service, equipped them with some land to maintain a horse, armour and weapons. First with the death of the armoured warrior the land fall back to the master ("Mannfall"), later it fall to the war fit son of the armoured warrior and became hereditary.

The unfree "Knecht" became the noble, free "knight" (english) or "Ritter" (german).

[Abdülmecid I]

Alright, Anthony, I doubt I am going to convince you, but your last comment is a great indication of why Facebook groups, far-right parties' pamphlets, militaristic blogs and videos made by chauvinist members of the diaspora should be held in utter contempt. I don't even know from where to begin. From the obviously fake quote of Thales or from the fact that ἑπαίτης does not even exist in Mycenaean? You may check this introductory glossary of Linear B to understand the general structure of Mycenaean vocabulary. As I previously explained, the author of the Iliad (and not Hiliad, there is no rough breathing in the ι, so the h is not necessary in the transliteration to the Latin alphabet) lived around the 8th and 7th centuries B.C., so his writings reflect the vocabulary and social structure of the Greek "Dark Ages" (or to put it in a more politically correct manner the "Geometric Period"). Moreover, your arguments about family and οικογένεια are completely baseless. Firstly, family is of Latin, not Germanic roots, and originates from the word which used to describe domestic servants. Secondly, οικογένεια is only used in modern (and perhaps Medieval) Greek, together with the inappropriately barbarian σόι, and originates from the ancient οἰκογενής, which also meant the domestic servant.

Consequently and rather ironically, the example you brought up to preach for racial supremacy and exceptionalism actually demonstrates that linguistic evolution is a remarkably similar process. To conclude, I will repeat my earlier advice, which is sincere, so please don't take it as a hostile action. Everyone honestly interested in historical research and not feeling the need to confirm his stereotypes and bias, should ditch all these stupid YOUTUBE channels and Internet historians and start to read serious secondary sources, preferably written and edited by trustworthy professors. For instance, your "Greek Secret" video is comically misleading. Either its creator was totally clueless about basic etymological facts or he's just a charlatan selling tribalism. The meaning of φιλότιμον was initially quite ambiguous and was referring to both ambition and vanity (loving honours). Especially the latter is an adjective of undeniably negative connotations, so the rosy delirium of the shady OXI Foundation is scientifically preposterous. A rudimentary comprehension of the myth and role of Achilles can only be acquired by consulting academic publications and not by watching the visual propaganda of professional scoundrels, like Andy Manatos and Co.

@ Abdulmecid
According the dιctionary. "εταίρω" and "εταιρίζω" have different meanings as "εταίρα" has from "εταίρος".
http://myria.math.aegean.gr/lds/data...df/pg_0342.pdf
http://myria.math.aegean.gr/lds/data...df/pg_0343.pdf

I don't disagree, but how is this relevant to the debate? Solon was using the first verb and even if he wasn't, his law and the definition of ἑταῖρα, ἑταιρίζω and ἑταῖρος do not somehow discredit the hypothesis of a sexual relationship between the two heroes of the Iliad. At least, I hope (the last points are not addressed to Neoptolemus), although I am not certain, because of the unexpected silence, that the quotes from three Greek authors have settled the debate over whether Achilles' homosexuality is nothing but a product of the fantasies of non-Greeks.

[Diocle]

I don't disagree, but how is this relevant to the debate? Solon was using the first verb and even if he wasn't, his law and the definition of ἑταῖρα, ἑταιρίζω and ἑταῖρος do not somehow discredit the hypothesis of a sexual relationship between the two heroes of the Iliad. At least, I hope (the last points are not addressed to Neoptolemus), although I am not certain, because of the unexpected silence, that the quotes from three Greek authors have settled the debate over whether Achilles' homosexuality is nothing but a product of the fantasies of non-Greeks.

My dear Abdul, seen that Achilles' rage was due to the beautiful slave Brisēís stolen him by his boss, seen that Achilles had even a horrid child named Pyrros (really one of the worst human beings I've met in Greek mytology), son Achilles and the princess Deidamia, seen that during many centuries of classical culture the relationship between Achilles and Patroklos was never explicitly considered an omosexual relationship of love, if you are smart enough and if you follow my suggestion, you should move back towards the next trench to retreat there and save your ass (in some danger, I'd say), in my opinion the trench should be this one:

"Achilles was not omosexual but probably he was just slightly bisexual, because as many warriors belonging to warriors brotherhoods (like Samurai or Germanic Comitati of kings and dukes) the relationship between the leader and the young followers was very close and intimate, based on a form of absolute respect, shared values and cult of personality, forged in the fierce harshness of the battlefield; this ancient kind of warrior relationship is still present in the medieval relationship between Milites and Pueri (knights and pages) on which is built great part of feudal European Middle Ages; so, in my opinion, no, Achilles was not victim of any form of modern idiotic gender ideology, he was just an ancient warrior and a powerful king with a personal "comitaus" of followers and comrades in arms who loved him, respected him and venerated him, so much that for him they were ready to sacrifice everything, even their life.
This is not omosexuality, this is heroic camaraderie even going far beyond death."

[Cyclops]

My dear Abdul, seen that Achilles' rage was due to the beautiful slave Brisēís stolen him by his boss, seen that Achilles had even a horrid child named Pyrros (really one of the worst human beings I've met in Greek mytology), son Achilles and the princess Deidamia, seen that during many centuries of classical culture the relationship between Achilles and Patroklos was never explicitly considered an omosexual relationship of love, if you are smart enough and if you follow my suggestion, you should move back towards the next trench to retreat there and save your ass (in some danger, I'd say), in my opinion the trench should be this one:

"Achilles was not omosexual but probably he was just slightly bisexual, because as many warriors belonging to warriors brotherhoods (like Samurai or Germanic Comitati of kings and dukes) the relationship between the leader and the young followers was very close and intimate, based on a form of absolute respect, shared values and cult of personality, forged in the fierce harshness of the battlefield; this ancient kind of warrior relationship is still present in the medieval relationship between Milites and Pueri (knights and pages) on which is built great part of feudal European Middle Ages; so, in my opinion, no, Achilles was not victim of any form of modern idiotic gender ideology, he was just an ancient warrior and a powerful king with a personal "comitaus" of followers and comrades in arms who loved him, respected him and venerated him, so much that for him they were ready to sacrifice everything, even their life.
This is not omosexuality, this is heroic camaraderie even going far beyond death."

Just two dudes going for ride. Holding each other's lances.

I don't think Abdulmecid is portraying Achilles as a homosexual (that's a modern term Homer and Solon were unaware of), rather stating the bleeding obvious that Achilles' relationship with Patroclus was assumed uncontroversially by many (probably a comfortable majority) the classical period to be sexual. Given the Achilles of the Iliad is a work of fiction we need to ask Homer if he was intending Achilles as Patroclus' lover. Given he has gone all coy and silent its up to us to decide.

You're right its not omosexuality, its always been normal for warriors to find their sexual comfort where they could,even within our complicated western tradition. In WWI a large number of British soldiers suffered terrible infections from unsafe sex practices because Her Majesties forces did not provide brothels for their entertainment (unlike the sanguine German and French armies with their carefully administered services complete with health checks, prophylactics etc etc). Did the Italian forces in WWI or WWII provide military brothels?

When men are imprisoned together they find sexual comfort (or release by force) among their own gender and there is a hierarchy for example "the one on top is not gay": not all men who have sex with men feel themselves to be homosexual.

Alexander fits perfectly with this model of manly love; his contemporaries felt he had sex with Hephaiston (and Bagoas), but did not doubt his manly valour for doing so. This is consistent with the sexual preferences of Samurai, New Guinean warriors etc etc.

My own opinion is Alexander was pretty weird and its just possible he did not have sex with anyone except himself, but its pretty far fetched and most likely he enjoyed a varied sexual diet like his contemporaries.

The deliberate mistranslation of ancient texts to conform with modern prejudices is abhorrent. Pretending only one ethnos can understand a word is a canard, and admission of intellectual failure akin to the believer who says "my holy book holds the only truth,you unbelievers are unable to understand". It goes further than the insistent claim of Arabists in Islam that the Q'ran is only true in Arabic.

I could claim that as an Australian (from the antipodes (an Hellenic word btw, proving we are the real Hellenes), so you see we see all you Europeans feet, and up your togas!) that ONLY WE truly understand you shallow Northerners sexual feelings: "we know you are all gay and secretly ashamed because you wear little girls' dresses like Achilles did but its OK, we see the truth so be quiet!". I would never stoop to such a weak argument, I'm disappointed a very thoughtful thread has been derailed into idiot Balkan nationalism.

[MaximiIian]

@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.

Homer was writing eight hundred years after the historical events that inspired the Trojan War story. He was not writing a history, and it's likely impossible for anyone to have. History passes into legend and then into oral mythology. His poem was based on an earlier tradition of oral stories, and was made for an audience of Ionian Greeks during the dawn of the Archaic Period. His characterizations, word choice, and narrative was colored by, and colored in turn, distinctly contemporaneous cultural norms and self-concepts.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Well, as the trench warfare with its heavy losses by gas and daylong drum fire led to heavy impacts on the moral of the soldiers, its only normal, that french and german High Command searched for ways to improve troop moral. I think, its a matter of anglosaxon protestant prudery, that giving every soldier a bible will improve greatly moral.

And as in WW 1 and WW II millions of young men in their prime of their life were conscripted and occupied foreign countries, its normal, that love affairs with the young females of those countries happened.

How those women were treated by the revenge mob of their countries is a story for another thread.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ii-friendships

[AnthoniusII]

Homer was writing eight hundred years after the historical events that inspired the Trojan War story. He was not writing a history, and it's likely impossible for anyone to have. History passes into legend and then into oral mythology. His poem was based on an earlier tradition of oral stories, and was made for an audience of Ionian Greeks during the dawn of the Archaic Period. His characterizations, word choice, and narrative was colored by, and colored in turn, distinctly contemporaneous cultural norms and self-concepts.

Are you sure? Hilliad (because the stix inofront of the letter I is daseia) coppy of Homer's indeed created 500 years or 600 later than the war Homer describes.
But recent historical findings such armors and weapons prove that HOMER (at least the real one that originaly described the war its self) despite "Blind" (Homer =blind) described armors, weapons and tactics in 100% accuracy . That leads us to the conclusion that Homer (who ever this man was) was an eye witness of that war. Maybe he got blinded by a blunt hit on his head and then narrated the Hilliad to someone that continued to tell his story untill finally got writen by someone else.
Today we can search internet and see photos of WW1 soldiers, weapons etc...and we can describe them quite accurate. Unfortunatly back then in order to describe weapons and armors that were no longer in use 500-600 years ago you had to be an eye witness. Unless that the writer was a time traveler!!! Conclusion: All historians today agree that an eye witness of that war told the story that ellements -like the Gods interventions- were added later by those that continue to tell that story for centuries, untill someone desided to writed down. That someone could not be HOMER (Homer described as a blind man that narrates the story) because he was blind.
We can still find such narrators of Islandar's (Alexander The Great's) tales in IRAN! The tales are not accurate but Hilliad has been 100% accurate thanks to the armor/weapos findings of the last centuries!
Only that war veteran could describe the scenes , armors and weapons in such detail.

[Cyclops]

Are you sure? Hilliad (because the stix inofront of the letter I is daseia) coppy of Homer's indeed created 500 years or 600 later than the war Homer describes.
But recent historical findings such armors and weapons prove that HOMER (at least the real one that originaly described the war its self) despite "Blind" (Homer =blind) described armors, weapons and tactics in 100% accuracy . That leads us to the conclusion that Homer (who ever this man was) was an eye witness of that war. Maybe he got blinded by a blunt hit on his head and then narrated the Hilliad to someone that continued to tell his story untill finally got writen by someone else.
Today we can search internet and see photos of WW1 soldiers, weapons etc...and we can describe them quite accurate. Unfortunatly back then in order to describe weapons and armors that were no longer in use 500-600 years ago you had to be an eye witness. Unless that the writer was a time traveler!!! Conclusion: All historians today agree that an eye witness of that war told the story that ellements -like the Gods interventions- were added later by those that continue to tell that story for centuries, untill someone desided to writed down. That someone could not be HOMER (Homer described as a blind man that narrates the story) because he was blind.
We can still find such narrators of Islandar's (Alexander The Great's) tales in IRAN! The tales are not accurate but Hilliad has been 100% accurate thanks to the armor/weapos findings of the last centuries!
Only that war veteran could describe the scenes , armors and weapons in such detail.

I have to say your arguments are bizarre to the point of being laughable. Only a war veteran can accurately describe armour and weapons? What a garbage claim. The Iliad recounts a real war and is the record of an eyewitness? Blithering nonsense.

[Morifea]

In regard of the relationsship between Archill and Patroklos one should remember that Patroklos was older than Archill.
If this Thread has one merit, than that I´ve getting the desire to reread the Iliad.

[neoptolemos]

I don't disagree, but how is this relevant to the debate? Solon was using the first verb and even if he wasn't, his law and the definition of ἑταῖρα, ἑταιρίζω and ἑταῖρος do not somehow discredit the hypothesis of a sexual relationship between the two heroes of the Iliad.

The nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus appears to reflect some socio-philosophical issues in classical Greece but it is irrelevant with Achille's cult and the thread TBH. I clearly see your point though.
The cult had a religious, ceremonial and ethical character expressed in conservative Greek societies not Athens per se hence the exploration of Achille's sexuality couldn't matter for the everyday contemporary Greek. However it would have been a great narrative tool and device for expression of Athenian writters to interpret and reflect current to them issues. Nevertheless here is a great article about the relation between Achilles and Patroclus in Greek literature.
http://explorations.ucdavis.edu/docs...K_CELSIANA.pdf

The deliberate mistranslation of ancient texts to conform with modern prejudices is abhorrent. Pretending only one ethnos can understand a word is a canard, and admission of intellectual failure akin to the believer who says "my holy book holds the only truth,you unbelievers are unable to understand". It goes further than the insistent claim of Arabists in Islam that the Q'ran is only true in Arabic.

Indeed....


@Anthonius Iliad has a "ψιλή" therefore in English doesn't have an H. Stick to the current orthography of English, it has hints of classical pronounciation and orthography.


The ancient city of Olbia in Balck sea seems to have been a great centre for the Achillean cult,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbia_...ological_site)
http://booksandjournals.brillonline....05703322114810

[Abdülmecid I]

As it has been mentioned before, the Iliad (Ἰλιάς) is written with the smooth (ψιλή) and not the rough breathing (δασεῖα). I suppose it is difficult to differentiate between the two, because the pronounciation of modern Greek has evolved and all these signs, like the grave accent or the circumflex, together with a couple of letters and diphthongs, are nowadays completely superfluous. Therefore, adding an extra h is not only unnecessary, but also incorrect. I would only add that the spelling of the Iliad in English derives from the old transliteration of Greek words and names to the Latin alphabet. This is why the mercenary Oenoe and Phocaea sound a bit like meowing.

The nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus appears to reflect some socio-philosophical issues in classical Greece but it is irrelevant with Achille's cult and the thread TBH. I clearly see your point though.

Firstly, great article and thanks for sharing it with us. Secondly, I think the conclusion Warwick's article answers to the opening post's question. Given that each author tried to describe the relationship in a way that confirmed his personal beliefs or the ethics of his society demonstrates that Achilles was generally viewed positively by the Greeks. The best-known example being Alexander identifying himself and Hephaestion with the mythical epitome of military prowess and his faithful companion respectively. Achilles was probably a very popular paradigm to imitate, as his adventures were particularly famous amidst the Greek society, mainly thanks to how widespread the lecture of the Iliad was, by Antiquity's standards. I believe it was compared, a bit anachronistically, of course, with the use of the Bible in the Medieval and Early modern schools of Europe.

My dear Abdul, seen that Achilles' rage was due to the beautiful slave Brisēís stolen him by his boss, seen that Achilles had even a horrid child named Pyrros (really one of the worst human beings I've met in Greek mytology), son Achilles and the princess Deidamia, seen that during many centuries of classical culture the relationship between Achilles and Patroklos was never explicitly considered an omosexual relationship of love, if you are smart enough and if you follow my suggestion, you should move back towards the next trench to retreat there and save your ass (in some danger, I'd say), in my opinion the trench should be this one:

The post you quoted included several passages of ancient authors, who shamelessly treated the relationship between the two heroes as sexual, so your and Anthony's argument about Achilles's bisexual orientation being a modern invention is apparently wrong. Of course, Achilles was also interested in women, I doubt anybody is not OK such an observation, so I would call him as bisexual ("slightly bisexual" being as paradoxical as "a tad pregnant"). Therefore, I, as a passionate opponent of political correctness, wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph. The fact that the "friendship" between the two legendary figures was often interpreted in sexual terms is undeniable, which means that nobody should brutally distort the historical record for the sake of the fragile sensitivities of modern puritans and their bizarre gender theories.

[Diocle]

..
The post you quoted included several passages of ancient authors, who shamelessly treated the relationship between the two heroes as sexual, so your and Anthony's argument about Achilles's bisexual orientation being a modern invention is apparently wrong. Of course, Achilles was also interested in women, I doubt anybody is not OK such an observation, so I would call him as bisexual ("slightly bisexual" being as paradoxical as "a tad pregnant"). Therefore, I, as a passionate opponent of political correctness, wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph. The fact that the "friendship" between the two legendary figures was often interpreted in sexual terms is undeniable, which means that nobody should brutally distort the historical record for the sake of the fragile sensitivities of modern puritans and their bizarre gender theories.

OK mate, I see you've reached, no matter how, the back trench I was pointing out, that's fine with me, 'cause now you're safe!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Side note: apparently you might be right, "slightly bisexual" may seem at first a little hypocritical in terms of sexual orientattion , .. but actually I meant that if you are married with a nice woman, if you have a (horrid sadistic serial killer) child named Pyrrus and if you want back your beautiful female slave named Βρισηΐς, for whom you're ready to send to hell all your military duties and your own boss, well, this means that, even though occasionally you may have sex with your best comrades in arms, your interests are still 'female-centered' we may say, but consider that, at my age and with my peculiar * political views, I can't say I'm an expert in the modern obscene crap known as Gender Theory.


* Euphemism not to say 'slightly on the right of Adolf Hitler'.

[neoptolemos]

I would only add that the spelling of the Iliad in English derives from the old transliteration of Greek words and names to the Latin alphabet. This is why the mercenary Oenoe and Phocaea sound a bit like meowing.

well consider that this transliteration is consistent with the classical Greek pronounciation which was indeed Ο-ι-ν-ό-εε and Φ-οο-κ-α-ί-α. A lot of meowing was going on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_phonology

Firstly, great article and thanks for sharing it with us. Secondly, I think the conclusion Warwick's article answers to the opening post's question. Given that each author tried to describe the relationship in a way that confirmed his personal beliefs or the ethics of his society demonstrates that Achilles was generally viewed positively by the Greeks. The best-known example being Alexander identifying himself and Hephaestion with the mythical epitome of military prowess and his faithful companion respectively. Achilles was probably a very popular paradigm to imitate, as his adventures were particularly famous amidst the Greek society, mainly thanks to how widespread the lecture of the Iliad was, by Antiquity's standards. I believe it was compared, a bit anachronistically, of course, with the use of the Bible in the Medieval and Early modern schools of Europe.

Good points, I have the impression that Achilles seemed to be an interesting subject of debate between Athenians of the the 5th and 4th cent. The Athenian demos should have been familiar with the hero like as you say the people of the middle ages were with the biblical figures.