#this started out as me opining in the tags but it quickly spiraled out of control lmao

[darlingpoppet]

Something that’s been on my mind for a while: I think it’s really important for anyone who wants to understand how Achilles is depicted in the Iliad to read/listen to the ENTIRE poem from beginning to end—and NOT just the scenes he’s in. Because all those scenes without him (books 2-15, excepting book 9 and some bits of book 11) paint a more complete picture… not just in how his absence is felt as things get more dire for the Greeks, but because it’s also littered with the characters describing all these mini episodes about Achilles, which Jo already alluded to above: such as Andromache in book 6 describing how Achilles buried her king father in his armor (rather than looting his body and leaving him to rot in the dirt, as the looting of enemies’ armor vs recovering allies’ bodies for proper burial is an oft emphasized honor struggle for both sides in the war); and then also ransoming Andromache’s mother back to them. In a small way it’s even implied to be fairly unusual compared to the other kings, or at least Agamemnon—because there’s another episode in the same book 6 where a Trojan begs Menelaus for mercy and to ransom him rather than kill him. So at first Menelaus agrees and starts to take him back to the ship, but Agamemnon sees him doing this and convinces him to show no mercy and kills the Trojan. imo showing that contrast was intentional, even if the poem doesn’t necessarily try to sway you one way or the other whose methods you should “agree” with, just that Achilles and Agamemnon undoubtedly think differently from one another.

To me these small bits add up because once Achilles is back on the battlefield you have all this broader context about him—not only his indispensable prowess, but also his personal beliefs & values are there in the back of your mind, which ends up enhancing the tragedy when he goes on his raging rampage because now that Patroclus is dead, and Achilles himself has entirely lost his will to live, he shows NO MERCY, HE IS GOING TO KILL EVERYONE HE GETS HIS HANDS ON, NO EXCEPTIONS… it hits so fucking hard!

There is the episode of him encountering Lycaon in book 21, who they explain is a prince, another one of Priam’s sons who Achilles (and Patroclus, who brokered the deal) opted to sell rather than kill, and after years Lycaon eventually got back his freedom and managed to return home, only to end up back in the hands of Achilles just few days after his homecoming. When begging for his life, Lycaon even appeals to Achilles by invoking Patroclus’ kindness (it’s what Patroclus would have wanted!!!) But Achilles’ answer is basically, Patroclus is dead, I’m gonna be dead soon, you’re not special, why should you of all people get to live? It’s just SO HEARTBREAKING like, THIS was the guy who spared lives, who buried an “enemy” with honors? And I put enemy in quotations because that’s another element to the whole thing—in TSOA there was that refrain of “Hector’s done nothing to me” which is an adaption of Achilles’ line in Iliad book 1 when he says that the Trojans had done nothing to him—he did not see these people as his enemies, he held no ill will toward them and wasn’t bound to the oath that the other kings were to fight in this war, so when he slaughters them all indiscriminately and desecrates Hector’s body with hate in his heart? Man, fuck war, fuck the cycle of violence, fuck it :/

So then of course that’s why book 24 & the meeting with Priam is such a catharsis moment (and the resolution to the story) because we get a glimpse of that Achilles that had been alluded to before—the real Achilles that had been cast away and obfuscated by all the events of the poem.

So anyway yeah in conclusion I totally agree with Jo that Achilles’ TSOA characterization is pretty faithful & consistent with the Homeric version of the character… they said he was a bit calmer in TSOA and I nodded along to that like, MM didn’t even really get to explore that element of just how much of a maverick Achilles was in contrast to the other kings, doing things his own way—to the degree that it was implied he often got into arguments over how things ought to be done and how they all ought to conduct themselves… because again, Achilles and Agamemnon DO NOT see eye to eye on these sorts of things… and let’s face it, humans is the same even now and most of those in society holding up the status quo see these young idealists as FUCKING OBNOXIOUS so I’m sure he had then and would have plenty of haters even in modern times lmao… and that part of the tragedy is him completely throwing away everything he personally ever stood for and believed in, because the depth of his grief and hopelessness led him to believe that if the person you love most, if your entire will to live is gone, then what’s the point? What’s the point of honor, of mercy, of kindness, of empathy, of peace? (AAAAAAHHH!!!)

i’d be super curious to hear your thoughts of the characterisation of achilles in the iliad! because while he is considered honourable and respected by the standards of the culture, surely by modern day standards he wouldn’t be so much? which is why i think that MM did such a great job, because she basically modernised him so that we would see him in the same ways that the greeks did re: his nobility versus his arrogance, but i thought the general consensus on achilles is that he’s an ancient greek hero which equals Not A Good Guy by our standards (but my formal education in classics is limited, i mostly partake as a hobby, so i’m always looking to expand my understandings and opinions and you’re obviously a very intelligent and considered person)

So I think the most important thing anyone needs to do when engaging with ancient greek works (and indeed any sort of work, especially those created millennia ago) is to keep an open mind. Importing modern moral judgement is anachronistic when it comes to the Iliad; hubris, as we understand it now, simply does not exist in the Iliad, there are no Good Guys vs Bad Guys, there are no Heroes or Villains. Those notions came much later and are very much a Christian thing. A hero in the Homeric world has no moral implication; he is simply a warrior. A dude that does things, and not necessarily admirable things. So it would be pointless to try to view Achilles or Hector or Agamemnon (or even the gods in the Iliad who do some pretty fucked up shit) as good or bad guys, because such a thing is irrelevant in the Iliad.

That being said, I feel like Achilles is portrayed generally positively both in the Iliad and also in other ancient Greek works. He is noble, that is, he is of noble/divine lineage, he is well-spoken, well-educated, generally reasonable and polite with pretty much everyone, except for Agamemnon in that opening scene in the Iliad (who was a dick to him as well). He is also honourable and with a very rigid moral code: in the Iliad it is stated many times that he prefers to ransom back captives instead of kill them, and he even lets the body of one of the Trojans he slew be burned with his armour on as a sign of respect, even though it is a thing of great importance in the Iliad to claim the armour of the people one slew. He is not greedy and doesn't flaunt his wealth, he is generous with his Myrmidons and is generally rather well-liked. Until Patroclus is killed and he goes on his rampage, he is a pretty chill dude; and then after Hector is killed, he organises the funeral games for Patroclus where he is shown to be very diplomatic and reasonable, even with Agamemnon; and then when Priam goes to ask him for Hector's body back, Achilles treats him with respect and the two men bond over their grief. So like, idk about you but those don't seem like the actions of someone crazed or extremely arrogant or bad, even by modern standards.

I think what is most telling about how a character like Achilles was perceived in the culture that created him, is that his portrayal in later ancient greek works, mainly the theatrical and philosophical works of around the 5th cent BC, is generally positive. Some playwrights depicted him as a bit of a hothead or a little boisterous and full of himself, but that isn't really framed as a bad thing. Achilles in those works is a famous and powerful hero who knows how good he is and how much the army needs him, but he isn't needlessly flashy, he always keeps his word, he is brave and heroic even by modern standards: in Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis, Achilles goes to great lengths to protect Clytemnestra and Iphigenia from the mob, and it is pointed out many times how averse he is to trickery and lies and that Chiron brought him up to be honourable, steadfast, to keep true to his values and to stay away from wickedness (which is what Agamemnon did, essentially). So I think it's really clear that for the ancient Greeks Achilles has many admirable traits.

You mentioned MM and how she modernised Achilles and made him sympathetic to a modern reader's eyes, and I simply don't think that's true. I think MM's portrayal of Achilles is pretty close both to the Iliad and how other ancient Greeks imagined him; perhaps the only way she differs is by portraying him a bit calmer in places lol. She simply took away all those layers of nonsense that had been piled on top of him through centuries of literary criticism that took all the later Roman works that depicted him as a sadistic monster a little too seriously or only focused on how awful he was compared to Noble Hector (no hate on Hector but those classicists really need to find a new blorbo *smh*)

I also think that maybe MM went a little too hard on the arrogance thing and on his obsession with glory without explaining it enough, but that's just my personal opinion. Achilles is very concerned with his glory in the Iliad as well, but we have to keep in mind his position here: Achilles gave up everything for that glory. He knew about the prophecy and knew that he would die in Troy, and made the choice to fight in the war because glory is just that important within the context of the Iliad. I think that many of the heroes we see in the Iliad would have chosen the same, if given a dilemma like that. So Achilles gave up the life he could have had, his kingdom, his family, just for his name to live on through the ages, and then Agamemnon royally fucked that up by disrespecting and insulting him publicly in the vilest of ways. Achilles then made up his mind to abstain from the war and to go back to Phthia and thus giving up his claim to glory because he was so over the war, and he probably would have done that had Patroclus not died. And then there was nothing else for him to do other than to die as well. So like.... idk. His actions make sense to me. He is a passionate character who is swept away by his emotions, he has flaws, he isn't perfect (if such a thing even exists) but I think he's all the more compelling for it.

I hope this answered your question, anon! Thank you for giving me the chance to ramble about my favourite fictional man <3