The War that Killed Achilles

Achilles’ heel, a Muse, a Nestor, a Trojan Horse: just some expressions we have borrowed from the Iliad and Odyssey, the great poems of the legendary Greek bard Homer. Their contents used to be common knowledge, at least among people with a higher education, but it possible that this type of literacy is now in decline. For example, I often see a car in my street, apparently owned by a travel agency called Odysseus, after the Homeric hero who witnessed the death of every single one of those who accompanied him on his voyage.

For those who want to know more about Homer, classicist Caroline Alexander published The War that Killed Achilles. She guides us through the Iliad, from the moment on which Achilles decides to abandon the fight until the burial of his enemy Hector, which means that both the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy have become inevitable. Alexander offers a well-written and detailed summary of that most classic of all classics, and makes this part of the Greek legacy accessible again.

Often, she interrupts her story to insert quotes: sometimes one line only, but in one instance several pages. The reader of The War that Killed Achilles will not only understand the plot and significance of the Iliad, but will also have a taste of the poem’s tone and vocabulary. Alexander also explains various aspects, like the nature of the gods, the eastern predecessors of Homeric poetry, or the biography of this or that hero. However, you never have to wait long until she returns to the Iliad.

To stress that Homer deals with universal themes, Alexander offers many parallels with other civilizations, especially those of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. So, Achilles drags the body of Hector behind his chariot like Somalians drag dead Americans behind their cars through the streets of Mogadishu, the gods appear to warriors like “the angel of Mons” appeared to British soldiers during the First World War, and Achilles’ mother Thetis searches for a panoply like the parents of American soldiers buy ballistic vests for their sons in Iraq.

If Alexander tries to introduce the Iliad to a new audience, she has succeeded. However, I must add that I am prejudiced: as an ancient historian, I share many of her assumptions. Not everyone else will be convinced. In the first place: if she wants to prove that Homer’s themes are universal, she has to define what universality means, because otherwise her parallels are just intriguing without being convincing. In the second place, it is necessary to indicate why – or at least in which aspect – she believes the primitive Homeric society can be compared to our own, complex society. In other words, what justifies the comparandum if two dissimilar types of society are compared? Because she ignores these problems, The War that Killed Achilles is only convincing for those who are already convinced that the aristocratic Iliad has a message for people in an egalitarian, postindustrial world.

Another remarkable shortcoming is that Alexander almost ignores non-English scholarly publications. She quotes German books and articles in translation only and references to French scholarship are conspicuous by absence. As I already indicated, I find this unacceptable. Furthermore, in a book with so many comparisons to modern warfare, the absence of any reference to the often very good internet archives strikes me as rather odd. Nor is this an innocent omission: now that about a quarter of the people are skeptical about the results of science and scholarship, it is more important than ever that scholars present arguments without visible holes.

Alexander writes for those who are already convinced about the Iliad’s importance. As it happens, I belong to that group and that is why I read this book with pleasure, in spite of the sad subject. I think most of the readers of this little blog belong to the same group and will appreciate the book as well. However, another group of readers will think that a discipline has become irrelevant if its scholars do not explain their comparisons, ignore foreign literature, and are unaware of modern media. Although my sympathies are with the first group, I agree with the second,


4 Responses to The War that Killed Achilles

  1. hirundine608 says:

    Thanks for your review. Given the positive start to it, I might just give Ms. Alexander’s book a read? You make it sound like worth reading, for someone like myself? The negative part of your review, I would bear in mind and upon conclusion of a read; could better judge for myself? Now that I understand its perceived shortcomings. ……. That the author is an “Alexander”, gives it another small twist? …. Cheers Jamie!

  2. I think you will like it. It is certainly not a bad book.

  3. Sean Manning says:

    I wonder if the bibliography has to do with it being a popular book for an Anglo audience. Most North Americans with a university degree cannot read French, German, or Italian, and many can read none of those. Adding footnotes with the original language of a quote would only be interesting to a small number of readers, and so would citing works in other languages.

    I don’t understand your comments about comparisons. It seems to me that arguments “X is similar to Y, therefore if X did something one way Y probably did it similarly” need to justify that the right things about X and Y are similar, but simply pointing out analogies, or comparing two societies, doesn’t need to be justified. Could you explain?

  4. It seems to me that arguments “X is similar to Y, therefore if X did something one way Y probably did it similarly” need to justify that the right things about X and Y are similar, but simply pointing out analogies, or comparing two societies, doesn’t need to be justified. Could you explain?

    To some extent, every comparison is acceptable. There is always some kind of result. However, it would be nice if scholars use the comparisons that offer the most result. Example: we can compare ancient Italian agriculture to both medieval practices, as described in a rabbinical treatise that happens to survive, and to practices attested in the Kingdom of Naples. We would like a scholar to chose the one that offers most results, because otherwise, he’s inefficient.

    Therefore, social scientists (e.g., Fried and Service; applied in the “new archaeology” and so on) have tried to establish which types of society were of the same type and offered the most fruitful comparisons.

    Personally, I think it is better to compare Homeric heroes to the champions of West-African society in the nineteenth century, than to WW1-soldiers.

    Besides (and mentioning a different aspect of the book), it is not illuminating to compare the epiphanies on the Homeric battlefield to the Angel of Mons, because the Iliad and Odyssey contain peaceful epiphanies as well. Comparing Homeric scenes (battle + peace) to twentieth century epiphanies (battle only) just does not cover the whole explanandum.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: