If the Iliad is about Greek victory over the Trojans and the supposed "hero" is Achilles...

Oh come on, you're just being facitious. I can easily make the argument that Achilles is a punk bitch for sulking in his tent for most of the story.

Fact of the matter is Homer and the Greeks thought quite highly of the Trojan prince, the tamer of horses. Achilles was an edgy demigod; ferocious in battle and certainly a legend but it doesn't diminish Hector's status as a warrior and man. His only real flaw was covering his bitch-boy brother, but blood is thicker than water. Without Hector, the Trojans would have lost long ago. He fought every engagement and rallied to the defense of his people; qualities that are universally respected in any culture.

>Why did Homer make Hector so much more heroic than an actual Greek figure?

HOMEROS DID NOT "MAKE HIM" LIKE THAT; HE MERELY TOLD A STORY REGARDING ACTUAL EVENTS, AND ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS.

>TFW Reading how his son's head was bashed against the walls of Troy in "The Trojan Women"
>TFW Reading the part where Hector returns home, and recieves the prophetic vision of his kingdom inevitably losing, yet he keeps fighting

It's a testament to the work that after 2000 years it still manages to affect even cynical asses like me

>Oh come on, you're just being facitious. I can easily make the argument that Achilles is a punk bitch for sulking in his tent for most of the story.

I am, but I'm covering a serious point in humor. If you think that the Iliad is about the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans and it comes down to the Big Fight between Hektor and Achilles, you have quite literally missed the point, and should be slapped with a rolled up copy of the work until you get it.

The Iliad is about the quarrel between Achilles, the leader by talent, and Agammemnon, the leader by right of birth. And ultimately, Achilles loses that quarrel, but manages to swallow his pride, a pretty unique feat for Greek heroes (See, the entire Odyssey) and rises to something approaching a moral heroship in the modern sense of the word. Because he CAN beat Agammemnon in the javelin toss, but chooses not to compete for that kind of fleeting, meaningless glory. He CAN call out against the foul in the chariot race, but really, what will that accomplish? And most of all, he can take pity on poor, broken Priam, who utters just about the worst possible plea that he could possibly think of to someone like Achilles, who knows damn well he is going to die in a foreign land and his father indeed won't have a body to bury, and that the two of them have counted that cost and paid it already. By all 'rights', Achilles should have laughed in his face and speared him right beside his son, and the Achilles of the beginning of the epic almost certainly would have done so.

None of this, of course touches upon Hektor directly. And yes, he is admirable. But he's admirable precisely because he's removed from the crux of the real drama, the innocent man who gets caught up in things much too big for him. But if you're sitting around comparing which hero is the bigger badass, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the Iliad as a work.

I'm well aware of all those points you've made. I thought you were trolling earlier by bashing on Hector. I don't give a fuck about whose the greater hero either and understand the cosmic drama between the gods and men in this story. And how fate was inevitable and what progresion you make throughout the course of the war.

That's one of the reasons why the Iliad is one of the greatest works of literature ever created. It does not take sides, nor does it set up perfect characters who are beyond flaw. All the humans in the story are recognizably human and flawed, just some have superhuman fighting skills. They are biased, they get scared, they get angry at stupid shit. The war is presented as being horrible and pointless, not heroic or glamorous. The narrative's brutal refusal to glamorize war and warriors is almost beyond even that of modern-day works.

P.S. Fagles translation for the win.

Did you even read the Iliad? Neither side is really portrayed as "bad guys" or "good guys"

Wasn't it Hector's decision to stay at camp rather than retreat back to the city? After a god messed with his wits of course

>It does not take sides, nor does it set up perfect characters who are beyond flaw.

This works with the Gods too, most of them are pretty human even if they are immortal.

Reminder that Turks are descendants of Troy

Basically, it goes

>Achilles takes to the field, leads the Achaeans to rout the entire Trojan army
>Hektor tries to stop the rout, but does so by taking the rear-guard (and getting a bit of help from Apollo), is outside the walls when everyone else withdraws.
>Decides to face Achilles
>However, at the moment of cusp, when Achilles is charging towards him, his nerve breaks, and he runs around the city several times.
>Athena appears to him as one of his buddies, blanking on which, and suggests they take Achilles together.
>Hektor agrees, but the trickster goddess vanishes when it's too alte to run
>Achilles mops the floor with Hektor.

True that

I love how Zeus basically just trolled everyone during the Trojan War. Dude didn't really give a shit and just threw lightning bolts at both sides for shits n giggles and only acted like he cared when the goddesses were being a real headache and nagging him about it.

Just as petty and murderous as the Old Testament god, but without having ever been whitewashed by later religious traditions that tried to make him into a humanist.

Not directly relevant but the full quote is " blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb".

Basically blood is thicker than water originally meant the opposite of what it is typically used as today.

and Zeus got to bang goddesses all the time.

OT God only got thousands of years of having to babysit the Israelites. At least He got a good laugh out of fucking with Abraham.

(You)

Nah, I've got no interest in crafting b8. It just interests me how many modern followers of the Abrahamic traditions like to project a humanist God onto original texts that don't really support such a reading very easily.

True. The OT's depiction of God as lacking any interest in sexuality except for the purposes of human reproduction is a rather fundamental difference from the Greek myths. The OT God is a sort of proto-eugenicist who is interested in crafting the history of particular bloodlines, but has no or almost no interest in sexuality for its own sake.

>the iliad only has one thematic
end yourself

>And thus they buried Hector breaker of horses

Yeah, Zeus is a dick in general. When he's not throwing bolts of lighting or fucking Ganymede's boypussy he's turning into a swan and impregnating bitches. He was also the God of Law.

The hero is not only Achilles, the heroes are all the strong good looking guys like Achilles and Hector too, not the Greek ones.

Itisn't a patriotic poem at all, there was no Greek nation in the early iron age when this was written down, there's some speculation about a unified Greek kingdom (Danaju/Ahhywanaland) in the late bronze age, because Egyptians and Hittities refer to the Greeks as if they were aprt ofone kingdom, but that's still speculation and a large kingdom still isn't a nation.

Surely in the EIA when this was written down there were just warring city states that had just either formed or re-flourished after the BA collpase, so whoever wrote this shit down didn't think as Achilles as a heroe because of his Greek heritage or as Hector as a villain because ofhis Trojan ethnicity

If only we had more sultans like Mehmed than Ataturk wouldn't be needed.

Didn't Odysseus leave his bow back home?

>Fight for your country, that is the best, and only omen.
got a wee boner with that one.

The Trojans had a ton of demigods too, including Aeneas, Memnon and Sarpedon who was the son of fucking Zeus.

>While the Greeks admired [Odysseus's] cunning and deceit, these qualities did not recommend themselves to the Romans, who possessed a rigid sense of honour.
>His attempts to avoid his sacred oath to defend Menelaus and Helen offended Roman notions of duty; the many stratagems and tricks that he employed to get his way offended Roman notions of honour.
Why were Romans so fucking lame? No appretiation for interesting character personalities whatsoever. It's no wonder they didn't have even remotely exciting literature for centuries.

thoughts on the Aeneid then?

the point of Achilles is that he represents the ideal of the soldier taken to its extreme

He KNOWS that if he goes to Troy he will die, but he will get eternal glory for it so he goes instead of being a coward and being able to live.

a couple years ago I remember seeing a post here where someone talked about how in a classical literature class at uni he read Trojan Women and a few gender studies students were arguing that it was about Euripides calling for a sexual revolution in Athens, and the teacher called them retarded.

>16 feet long spear
>hoplite
What?

>that Greek boxer who was worshiped as a Hero after he killed a bunch of kids and hid in a box

Derivative and hackey. The Force Awakens of the classical world.

He took all the conventions of epic myth and somehow found a way to make it boring.

>Fact of the matter is Homer and the Greeks thought quite highly of the Trojan prince, the tamer of horses.

Alexander the Great wants a fucking word with you.

Literally, Alexander idolised Achilles, and his idolisation was encouraged by everyone around him including Aristotle.

The Greeks viewed the Iliad very differently than we, in a post Christian/Superhero world to.

Hektor may be tragic, but Achilles was the fucking hero!

Hero cults were everywhere in hellenic world. Dozens upon dozens of people are known to have hero cults. Hadrian or Trajan started a cult for his drowned boy toy.

so what are some essential Roman works to read? I havent read the Aeneid but at face value it looks like just a greekaboo fanfic.

>Implying heroes are 'good' or 'bad' guys
>Implying anyone thinks Agamemnon is a good guy

Roman culture is Greek culture after a certain point, there's no such thing as a Roman Greekaboo, only Roman colonial overlords of Greeks.

What's really interesting to me is that during the Iliad the other greeks are looking down at Odysseus. While the other heroes are on the front lines fighting man to man Odysseus is kind of sneaking around the battlefield backstabbing people going "hehehe i got one" after slitting someone's throat. The other greek heroes are kind of looking him like why did this guy have to be on our side.

But then in the Odyssey he's the hero.

Orestes maybe

>What's really interesting to me is that during the Iliad the other greeks are looking down at Odysseus.

Wut? No they aren't. Go re-read Book 10, about half of it is sucking Odysseus's dick.

Achilleus is the protagonist, not the hero. Hektor is not portrayed as the undeniable good guy, but he is a good guy. The struggle between two fundamentally human guys is one of the major themes of the poem.

You have to get rid of this image you have of the Iliad as a Good Guys vs. Bad Guys Greek propaganda piece. They're both bad, and both good. There's a reason the "victorious" Greeks all suffer horrible fates when they get home. The whole thing is a tragedy.

Yeah, Orestes, totally capable of being objective w/r/t his father, considering everything

OT God is a schizophrenic mastermind of infinite wrath and infinite caprice.

Zeus is just some lazy faggot who really really likes this guy (his son btw) but, oh, he doesn't really want to cause an argument with the gods so I guess he has to die. He's just a mortal, after all.

Agamemnon maybe

Yeah, Agamemnon, totally capable of being objective w/r/t himself, considering everything

>"good"
>"guy"
>"objective"
where's spock

Best translation?

>The struggle between two fundamentally human guys is one of the major themes of the poem.

Not him, but it really isn't. Homer does everything he can to undercut the struggle between the two. It doesn't even happen except for an accident of fate, and he sets it up that this is no titanic duel, Hektor doesn't stand a chance and EVERYONE, Hektor included, knows it. That's why he can't even beat the two lesser Achaean leaders, Diomedes and Ajax. That's why he flees immediately upon confrontation.

The main antagonist of the Iliad isn't Hektor, it's Agammemnon, and what's more, he essentially wins his struggle against Achilles..

The film Troy really did fuck up a lot of people's perspective of the Iliad - and indeed of heroic/epic literature in general.

All such literature all the way from Gilgamesh to the Iliad to the Mahabharata to the Shahnamesh is primarily concerned (there are other themes but this takes precedence) with the relationship between kings and heroes, angle by extension between man and God(s). Gilgamesh/Enkidu; Achilles/Agamemnon; Rostam/Kay Kavus. It goes on.

But all of a sudden Troy and Brad Pitt and the Hulk come along and it's all about le epic sword fight.

> insulting father of gods and men

L A T T I M O R E

But the physical editions are so shit. For the Iliad it's at least acceptable, but the Odyssey is printed on literal toilet paper.
You're as wrong as it's humanly possible to be. Achilleus' and Agamemnon's "struggle" is not the focus. The effects, yes -- for example, the Atreides figuring out just how the fuck they're going to survive without Achilleus. As for their "struggle" -- it soon turns into Achilleus' own struggle with himself, and his destiny, and glory.

And then the whole thing ends when it becomes apparent to Achilleus that it was meaningless in the face of his friendship with Patroklos, which now is finished.

I don't know how you'd read the Iliad without noticing the whole "these two people are driven by ~fate~ to fight each other" thing. Read the last stand-off between Achilleus and Hektor, and tell me Hektor's speech isn't the culmination of much of the novel.

I'm not talking about some titanic duel you dongle. This isn't some superhero movie where both guys have to have a fighting chance. The fact they both must struggle at all is what I'm talking about.
Gilgamesh is pretty occupied with death and friendship. Yes, kingship is a big part, but it's only a part. It certainly doesn't take precedence.

In the ancient world you didn't have to unambiguously and unilaterally demonize the antagonist in order for the plebic to sympathize with the hero, like (((Hollywood))) and ((("""history"""))) related to WW2.

so what are some essential Roman works to check out?

There is no such thing.

The myth of Tarquinius Superbus disproves that claim. He was unambigiously a bad guy.

Also, fuck off, .

Actually, I take that back. The Bible.

I think you've put the cart before the horse re: Gilgamesh.

Friendship, what it means to live, and what it means to die are huge parts of Gilgamesh. However all this flows forth from the relationship between man and God.

Gilgamesh is favoured because of the gods.
Gilgamesh falls out of favour and the gods send Enkidu.
Enkidu thus learns what it is to be live and be civilised through sex with Shamhat.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu fight because of the gods.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu become friends because of the gods.
Enkidu dies because of the gods.
Gilgamesh searches for the cure to death because of the gods.

See what I mean? Also, before he was king, Gilgamesh was a hero. Before Enkidu was a man, he was an animal, running with the deers. The hero/king dichotomy is a microcosm of the wider theme of man and the divine.

>Achilleus' and Agamemnon's "struggle" is not the focus.

Go look up what is literally the fucking first line of the poem. Any translation you care to use.

>The effects, yes -- for example, the Atreides figuring out just how the fuck they're going to survive without Achilleus. As for their "struggle" -- it soon turns into Achilleus' own struggle with himself, and his destiny, and glory.

And why he should be listening to someone like Agammemnon, and eventaully coming to full circle and realizing he should, even though he's the better warrior and better war leader. Did you miss the javelin toss episode of the funeral games?

>And then the whole thing ends when it becomes apparent to Achilleus that it was meaningless in the face of his friendship with Patroklos, which now is finished.

No, it ends with him swallowing his pride and letting Priam have the body back, because he realizes that it's actually not all about him, and he should step up and take some damn social responsibility.

>. Read the last stand-off between Achilleus and Hektor, and tell me Hektor's speech isn't the culmination of much of the novel.

It isn't, because Achilles doesn't actually listen to a damn thing he says. It's only afterwards, when he realizes that glory is in the minds of others, not his own, and that he needs to play the social game, instead of doing whatever the hell he wants, that it penetrates. It's not a culmination, it's a tightening of tension, a chance for Achilles to learn, and his failure to do so, foreshadowing the events in the next book.

>The fact they both must struggle at all is what I'm talking about.

And again, the struggle between the two doesn't actually resolve anything; it doesn't end the war one way or the other, and it doesn't actually resolve Achilles's internal conflicts. It is thematically undercut as early as book 7, when Ajax ekes out a narrow win against the guy, albeit a non-fatal one, and all the Achaeans are crowing that Troy is finished.

>Livius, Seneca, Terentius, Virgilius

Romans didn't concern themselves with the realm of epics and poetry and plays all that much.

The ideal Roman was the citizen-soldier-farmer; not a playwright or philosopher (Marcus Aurelius is debatable but I would argue stoicism is the very opposite of philopsophy).

All great Roman literature is either rhetorical or historical in nature.

Go read Cicero, Julius Caesar, and Marcus Aurelius.

Just because it flows from this, does not mean it is less important. A great deal more time is spent on Gilgamesh's mourning/search for immortality than on, say, the proper ordering of the city.
>Go look up what is literally the fucking first line of the poem
Yeah it really deals with all that Patroklos buggery doesn't it?

It's not telling you the point of the poem. It's an argument.

>and he should step up and take some damn social responsibility
No it's about his realisation that War Kills People, and so does glory.

>because Achilles doesn't actually listen to a damn thing he says
How is that relevant. Or is the reader Achilleus?

>he needs to play the social game
holy fucking shit how do you misread the Iliad this badly

You know when he's giving shit away? In the games? That's because he no longer cares. He's done; he's found vengeance, he's learnt the value of friendship, he knows material goods like Bryseis don't matter and petty conflicts about honour also don't matter. Hence his shutting up those two guys who make bets about the chariot race, or his neat handling of the chariot race's prize-giving.

Its lack of resolution is the point of it you utter mongoose.

>It is thematically undercut as early as book 7, when Ajax ekes out a narrow win against the guy, albeit a non-fatal one, and all the Achaeans are crowing that Troy is finished.
Do you literally read for the plot?

I hate Ajax.

Raping Priamos youngest daughter, the poor Cassandra, who was holding my favourite goddess Athena's statue in Athena's own temple... I was shaking with anger, reading of that.
KUYASHII.

The Greeks deserved everything that happened to them on their way back. Also, what's the term again for the totality of all stories about returning from the Trojan War?

>Troy did nothing wrong!!!
>my favourite goddess, Athena
what

Violating xenia is much less of a transgression than all the sacrileges that the Greeks committed in Troy, and even worshipping the same goddess wouldn't immunize you from someone's criticism.

>It's not telling you the point of the poem. It's an argument.

An invocation of the Muse as to what he wants to be inspired about isn't telling you the point of the poem. That's certainly an interesting interpetation.

>No it's about his realisation that War Kills People, and so does glory.

He knew that already. He's actually quite good at killing people.

>How is that relevant. Or is the reader Achilleus?

You do know what a "protagonist" is, yes? And how the primary focus of the work is Achilles, even when he's not there, and you have all these long passages wondering what Achilles would do if he was, or how to use whatever just happened to get Achilles over?

>You know when he's giving shit away? In the games? That's because he no longer cares.

Of course he cares. Someone who doesn't care isn't going to sit there and play referee among squabbling petty kings. And giving shit away is part and parcel of the social responsibility of a Greek warrior king. When Menelaus and Agammemnon keep giving expensive gifts to people, you think they're also not caring about life and giving up? That's how you greased the wheels back then.

> He's done; he's found vengeance, he's learnt the value of friendship, he knows material goods like Bryseis don't matter and petty conflicts about honour also don't matter.

I suggest you re-read the actual climax of the work, Priam's speech to Achilles. If honor and petty conflicts and material success don't matter, Achilles would just walk away from the battle. He can, you know. It's not like anyone could stop him. But he doesn't. He goes on to fulfill his destiny, even though he knows it will kill him.

1/2

2/2

>Hence his shutting up those two guys who make bets about the chariot race, or his neat handling of the chariot race's prize-giving

What the hell? Achilles isn't mad at Ajax and Idomeneus for betting, but for their conduct, of shouting and quarreling at what is supposed to be something in honor of the dead. And I completely fail to see how his playing politics among whining Greek chiefs counts as him giving up on personal glory. It's him going for a less direct sort of leadership other than something won from the might of his spear.

>Its lack of resolution is the point of it you utter mongoose.

But you have a resolution. That's what happened in the final book. Achilles learns his lesson. He swallows his pride. He gives the body back, he acts "normally", even though it will lead to his death.

>Do you literally read for the plot?

You do realize that the "plot" is the quarrel between Achilles and Agammemnon, right? And yes, I've read the Iliad. That's why I know, even as far back as book seven, that the struggle between Hector and Achilles is a sideshow. Hektor has no more of a chance than any of those poor bastards in books 20-21.

The primary significance of the duel with Hektor isn't even the duel itself, it's the reclamation of identity. Did you think that it's some accident that Patrokles takes on Achilles's social identity, leading the Myrmadons, even wearing his fucking armor? And that when Hektor kills him, he claims the armor for himself, wears it to the duel? Hektor needs to die, not because he's a trojan champion, but because he's trying to become the Achilles role, and there can only be one.

Have you read the book? Because it really seems like you've only skimmed it.]]

Why are you hitting the Enter key after each line? It hurts my fucking eyes.

>All great Roman literature is either rhetorical or historical in nature.
But Ovid's Metamorphoses are neither rhetorical, nor historical, and yet they are great Roman literature...?

>The film Troy really did fuck up a lot of people's perspective of the Iliad - and indeed of heroic/epic literature in general.
I fucking hate what they did to Ajax the Greater. He and Hektor fought to a draw twice. They even had dinner together and exchanged gifts after the 1st duel; the belt that Achilles tied Hektor to his chariot was Ajax's present.

To be fair, there's no way you can properly condense and depict the Iliad effectively. Especially with the gods and goddesses fucking around.

Shit we didn't even get Achilles vs Memnon which was the best opponent the Trojans could field against the Greeks. Memnon was their ringer and his battle with Achilles eclipsed Hektor's final stand in every way possible.

90% of people on Veeky Forums are retarded, just ignore him. He probably doesn't even realize that medieval literature owes an enormous debt to the Latin works of antiquity and doesn't think that the Vulgate is relevant.

I'm referring to the fact that Athene spends all her time either fucking over the Trojans or sulking because she's not allowed to fuck over the Trojans.
>That's certainly an interesting interpetation
Not really but okay.

Unless you think the Odyssey is literally all about eating those cows?

>he knew that already
Clearly not.

>You do know what a "protagonist" is, yes?
Yeah. It's not the reader. We're talking about the reader. You know, the person reading the poem. You. Me.

>Someone who doesn't care isn't going to sit there and play referee among squabbling petty kings
Why not?

>He goes on to fulfill his destiny, even though he knows it will kill him.
Exactly. And it's not because of something as plebby as "social responsibility". This isn't some great moralising work. Achilleus realises the futility of what he's done, the horror that he's partaken in (and the inevitability of it all...maybe), and the true reason for it all. This is not some Aesop's fable.

Achilleus just realises that their questioning of each others' honour (reread the passage, and see what it's about) is unimportant, and needn't end the same way his did.

I still can't believe you think after all he goes through, Achilleus decides to become some Grey Eminence manipulator.

Achilleus already swallowed his pride, the moment he learned of Patroklos' death. This is simply his realisation that he's only brought more death upon anothers' house, and that he was driven to do so, and probably will do so again. And there's nothing he can do. Hence his anger when Priam tells him to have a nice life after the war.

>You do realize that the "plot" is the quarrel between Achilles and Agammemnon, right?
No, it isn't, and no, that's not what I asked.

>the struggle between Hector and Achilles is a sideshow
This is not an interesting interpretation. It would be good if it were interesting, but it isn't. It's just shit.

You don't need to have even combatants for a struggle to be the focus.

Ovid's Metamorphoses are also a pile of perfumed shit. Probably with nice twinkly bells piled on.

That's because the Romans were butthurt that the perfidious Greeks destroyed Troy. Aeneas is the ancestor to Romulus and Remus so no surprise they favor the Trojans over the sneaky bastard whose idea overthrew Troy.

Sean Bean made this movie for me. I didn't care for Pitt, Bana, Bloom, or even O'Toole. Bean as Odysseus was awesome and it's one of the few films that he didn't die in. Plus as a Game of Thrones fan, we saw 2 future castmembers like James Cosmo as Lord Commander Mormont and Julian Glover as Pycelle.

I wish they had made an Odyssey film with Bean. He's too old now, but fuck he was perfect in 2004.

Hmm, this seems like a scholarly opinion, supported by people who know what they're talking about, that I should take into account...I'm not joking lol
>Fuck Caesar and fuck white people

Are you implying the Romans were white?

Are you implying the Romans were people?

FUCK CAESAR AND FUCK MEDITERRANEAN 'PEOPLE'

Hello >

I dont know where you fuckers get this "bow is a cowards weapon" shit, you were judged as a warrior partly by how well you could shoot

The symbol of Apollo was a bow
Demeter was depicted with a bow
Heracles used the bow in many of his labors (and was noted as being a good bowman

There is nothing cowardly about marksmanship.

>Unless you think the Odyssey is literally all about eating those cows?
No, it's about "the man of many devices", and his wandering in his homecoming after the sack of Troy. Where the hell do cows come into it? That's certainly not mentioned in the invocation in the Odyssey either.

>Clearly not.
I'm pretty sure that Achilles knew that in war, people died, since he was prophetically informed that HE would die in this war.

>Yeah. It's not the reader. We're talking about the reader.
No we aren't. You asked how Achilles not listening to Hector's last hectoring was relevant. I answered that, and you spouted some nonsense because apparently the realizations of the protagonist in a work of literature are irrelevant for reasons that elude me.

>Why not?
He doesn't care. He's apparently giving away all of his shit and getting ready for his own death. But he will play politics.

>Exactly. And it's not because of something as plebby as "social responsibility". This isn't some great moralising work. Achilleus realises the futility of what he's done, the horror that he's partaken in (and the inevitability of it all...maybe), and the true reason for it all.
But that doesn't follow your own premise, because he can leave it all behind. Hell, the Odyssey, since we're bringing that up, has the ghost of Achilles say that even being the meanest farmer or crofter is better than being the most honored of all the dead. It IS a moralizing work, just moralizing from a Greek perspective. Achilles learns to Do the Right Thing, at least how someone like Homer would define the "Right Thing", even though it sucks for him, personally.

>Achilleus just realises that their questioning of each others' honour (reread the passage, and see what it's about) is unimportant, and needn't end the same way his did.
They don't question each other's honor, just judgment and eyesight. And he tells them both to sit down and shut up, not say, delivering any sort of his apparent realization.

>I still can't believe you think after all he goes through, Achilleus decides to become some Grey Eminence manipulator.
That's not what I said, but nice strawman. What he becomes is a "proper" Greek war-chief. He already had the valiant and clever in battle part, but now he becomes someone who can actually work with others insteado f dicking off to do his own thing, when he feels like it, and sulking in his tent when he doesn't.

>Achilleus already swallowed his pride, the moment he learned of Patroklos' death.
Then what is all that boasting and desecrating of Hektor's body about?

>This is simply his realisation that he's only brought more death upon anothers' house, and that he was driven to do so, and probably will do so again. And there's nothing he can do. Hence his anger when Priam tells him to have a nice life after the war.
What anger? He literally does what Priam wants him to. He "moves Achilles to tears", something, which by the way, is definitely new, and Achilles reproves Patrokles for giving into tears like a woman at the plight of the rest of their allies.

>No, it isn't, and no, that's not what I asked.
Yes, it is, and you can't separate the plot from the rest of the work.

>This is not an interesting interpretation. It would be good if it were interesting, but it isn't. It's just shit.
Funny, it's the interpretation you'd get at any decent classics course in any decent university. But I guess they're all shit!

>You don't need to have even combatants for a struggle to be the focus.
You do, however, need to have something at stake, and something resolved when the struggle ends. Neither happens with the struggle of Achilles vs Hektor. You also need to have, you know, FOCUS on the struggle, instead of undercutting it. The fight between Ajax and Hektor takes up more lines than the fight between Achilles and Hektor. What's not to say that the Ajax-Hektor struggle is the "focal" one? Why doesn't the work end on Book 22?

Ok, granted. I should've said most.

Most revered Roman literature until the Christian period is historical or rhetorical in nature.

Exactly. Is a javelin considered a coward's weapon too since it's a projectile as well? Or does it get a pass because you have to actually hurl it through your own body mechanics and not rely on tension from string?

A javelin requires much closer range to the enemy than a bow. And is normally followed by melee combat anyway.

But yes, the anti-bow sentiment is a meme. Like all things, bows are cowardly when they're used effectively against you, not when effectively used by you.

You idiot, there are no 'bad guys' in the Iliad. Hector is good, does that mean he should have lived?
Hoplite warfare didn't exist in the time the Iliad is set, you dope. ONE TO ONE COMBAT.
Stop trying to drag your fedora agenda into a literature thread.

It's still essential to missile warfare. The bow is for long-range sniping and showering enemy formations with arrows. The javelin is when they get closer, the spear when you both breathe the same air in the same space, and the sword when it's finally face-to-face.

Plebeian taste.