The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War

Alexander, who has written well received popular histories of Shackleton's antarctic expedition (The Endurance) and the ill-fated mutiny on Capt. Bligh's ship (The Bounty), earned her doctorate in the classics, writing on the Iliad, at Columbia University. In this book, which lies closer to popular history than to the strictly academic product, she retells the story of the Iliad while pointing to its salient features, many of which are not at first apparent to a lay reader like me. This means a great deal of telling of the story, with copious quotation followed by commentary on the passages cited. It all points to a mildly, though not exceptionally, different interpretation of the poem's message and biases than I have seen presented before. With the exception of Alexander's translation of Book XIX (the death of Hektor), passages are all from Lattimore's translation. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know, but its one of the major modern translations of the poem, and to quibble with her choice of it seems petty.Alexander's thesis is that the Iliad is sui generis in its approach to war. Homer humanizes the victims more than is common in other epics, making their death in battle less acceptable than it if only fame and glory were the warriors' preoccupations or the poet's focus of attention. Achilles, no less than Hektor, just wants to go home. He disdains the Achaians' own leader, the Mycenaean king Agamemnon, who has shown little capacity for military leadership before the walls of Troy. By taking from Achilles his bounty, the beautiful slave woman Briseis, the king has fatally insulted him so Achilles retires from battle, leaving the Achaians to their own measures to fight off the reinvigorated TrojansAlexander argues that Achilles' response to Agamemnon has echoes in the reactions of modern day warriors to their own war experience: wars carried on for no or flimsy reason, incompetent and self-serving leaders, appalling loss. So far, so good. When she tries to build a case for Achilles' qualities as a military leader, though, she is on much shakier ground. Achilles is too much of a wild animal to make a good leader, no mater how charismatic he can be or how respected he is as a warrior. No sane subordinate would follow him for long, given his tendency to fall into rage or sulk. He just doesn't behave the way a good leader does.Alexander relies heavily on the work of her illustrious predecessors. This isn't a failing: an intelligent writer should do that, indeed often has to do it. I wasn't put off by the copious citation in the body of the text. It didn't bother me to move slowly through the poem, stopping time and again to examine points. Over all, the book helped me understand the Iliad. I thought what she wrote was lively, sensible and insightful.

I bought this book based on a positive review I had seen. It exceeded my expectations. The author did an excellent job and devoted significant time to explaining the context of the story as well as some of the theories about who wrote it and when. She also pointed out many of the stories geographical references and explained whether these were real places or fictions added by the story teller(s). Originally I thought I would just read the background material and that the saga itself would be tedious for me. But I ended up reading the whole thing. There are repetitions, as we were warned, but I thoroughly enjoyed following the complete story. I think it helped, that the author of this book made sure we understood that we were reading about another time and another culture. So instead of getting hung up and a "god" acting a certain way, or having certain motives, I learned to accept that this was the way that the original story-tellers interpreted their world, and I was able to come to grips with that. Highly recommended for students of history (in all it's aspects) and people fascinated with Mediterranean life.

This is a scholar's analysis of the Iliad, specifically one aspect of the Iliad: Achilles' position as a hero outside his time for an epic that doesn't fit with the pursuit of glory that defines/defined heroic epic heretofore. For what it is, it's fine. It's a more novice reader-friendly summary than I am capable of, and I teach lower level (introductory) courses in Greek and Roman Civilization, mostly Myths of Greece and Rome.The book is a disappointment because I had hoped (assumed - I picked up the kindle edition on a whim) it would be something more encompassing than a reading of the Iliad. I should also note, that I read the author's translation of the Iliad and found it to be good, and that also encouraged me to checkout this text.Anyway, other than disappointment because I didn't realize that this book was a narrowly focused analysis of an aspect of the Iliad (to be fair, other than the title, it makes no claims to be otherwise), I find some of the analysis to be a bit of a stretch. Probably the most significant way in which Alexander "rewrites" the Iliad, however, can be encapsulated in her description of the scene in Book 1 where Achilles begins to unsheathe his sword as he is about to slay Agamemnon. In the Iliad, Athena descends from Olympus to stay Achilles' hand. There's no ambiguity here. The omniscient narrator tells you Athena does this, and then she proceeds to have a conversation with Achilles, telling him not to slay Agamemnon and then how to proceed. Alexander's analysis shrugs this conversation off as though it maybe sort of didn't happen and suggests it could all be a delusional fantasy on the part of Achilles. That's a stretch. No. Really. That's a big time stretch, all in service to separating divine agency from human agency in the Iliad because that enhances her analysis of the relationship between Agamemnon and Achilles.It happens again in an analysis of the embassy to Achilles in Iliad 9, but here I'm not so sure that I simply disagree on her characterization of Achilles rather than stretching the bounds of credulity (as above).And to be honest, it's an unnecessary move. She presents plenty enough evidence to give credence to her narrow (as opposed to all encompassing) analysis of the Iliad. For example, she writes brilliantly on the relationship of reciprocity of honor: "By taking back a prize of war, [Agamemnon] has broken the rules that, had he been wise enough to perceive them, both afforded him his status and were all that kept Achilles' terrible strength in check." Again, "That Agamemnon is threatened by Achilles is manifest from his first reactions in their confrontation. What the king does not know, however, is that the usurpation he fears has in effect already taken place: Achilles controls the army's fate and will continue to do so, present or absent, as Achilles controls the epic."This is all truly great stuff that feeds into her analysis without asking readers to break away from a fairly obvious supposition that the gods exist and actively engage - directly - with humans in the epic. So there are a few moments like that in the first couple chapters that distract from the thesis of Alexander's work rather than serve it, and they create skepticism unnecessarily.Lastly, this book isn't really aimed at unlocking ideas from past civilizations so much as forwarding a modern world view about modern problems. This isn't a bad thing. It happens all the time with literature. It's not really my cup of tea, however. It feels like there's too much effort here to make an 8th century BCE poem fit into a 21st century CE world view than be a 21st century CE scholar figure out the 8th century BCE world view. This determined reanalysis of Achilles feels like a hard pull to the left when it ought to be more of a gentle course correction. As I said, it's not a *bad* thing. It's just not my interest, per se.

In this magisterial consideration of the Iliad Ms. Alexander offers a number of fresh and unexpected perspectives to help us find meaning and enjoyment of the poem beyond what most lovers of Homer have usually been able to find. Following the text as is rendered in the Richard Lattimore translation, and in one chapter anticipating what was going to be her own, very successful, translation published a few years after this book, she effectively conveys the solemnity and the humanity of this unique epic, grasping both, its monumental character which defines more than any other work the term classic as well as its actuality and relevance for all times, past, present and future

The media could not be loaded.  Have not read. Just opened package and immediately noticed a few minor defects. Get what u pay for? Not sure , just started reading books again so unsure on typical delivery standards.If this is a great read I will likely update it to five stars.

考古学に興味があり、そんな関係で買った本ですが、内容はイリアッドとかオデッセイの解釈が主でして自分的には間違った購入でした。そんな訳で本の善し悪しは判定できません。それに私は女性の著者が苦手でして、日本語ならすぐ判ったかもしれませんが、キャロライン・アレクサンダーが女性だなんて考えは及びもつかなかった。女性の作者の何が嫌いかというと、同じ話が形を変えて何度も出てこられると、話が堂々巡りをしているようで短気な性分だから苛ついてしまう。話も具体的と言うよりは観念的であり、初めから結論のでないと判る話に付き合わされると読んでいて情けなくなる。何が悲しくて、書いている本人も話しの行方が判らない話に付き合わなければならないのだろうと、何度も苦しみました。草食系の男子なら苦にならないのでしょうが、私は白旗を揚げて降参します。

In her preface, Caroline Alexander writes that, "Now, as at any time, Homer's masterpiece is an epic for our time." The desire to reflect the events of the `Iliad' into contemporary times - whether they be Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or the trenches of the First World War - is not new of course, and each generation will use its take on Homer's epic to suit its present agenda. Alexander is no exception, with apposite remarks on these later conflicts being made where appropriate, but these are couched within what seems to me to be the book's primary objective, namely to retell the story of the `Iliad' and be a guide to the new reader of Homer or to the less than knowledgeable reader. (I came to Homer via Michael Wood's book and TV series on the Trojan War of the 1980s, and it is good to see his book listed in the recommendations for further reading.)That's not to say that Alexander does not have a valid argument beyond this primary task of being a companion to the reader of the `Iliad'. Again in her preface, she traces concisely the history of the epic's translation down the ages, noting how "the perception of the `Iliad''s central hero, Achilles, shifted, and so accordingly did the perceived meaning of the epic ... Thus, while the `Iliad''s poetry and tragic vision were much extolled, the epic's blunter message [she believes] tended to be overlooked." An example of her less war-as-heroism approach is to remark how Homer treats the deaths of Trojans and Greeks equally, humanising the enemy. And, in an interesting exploration of Achilles's unique background and place in the narrative, she argues that, "the ancient story of the Trojan War would not culminate as an epic extolling martial glory but as a dark portrayal of the cost of war." Alexander's interpretation of Achilles's embassy speech is that "Life is more precious than glory; this is the unheroic truth disclosed by the greatest warrior at Troy."The author opens her companion to the `Iliad' by reciting what we know of Troy, of the war and its context, as well as of Homer and his. She hints that the `Iliad' itself was only part of a wider cycle of epic poems on the war. In ten chapters, whose titles have a contemporary meaning for the modern patriot in the study of war - `Chain of Command', `Terms of Engagement', `Land of My Fathers', et al, - Alexander takes us through the epic, stage by stage, and comments on the events and the contexts in which they occur.But the book's usefulness lies also in revealing odd facts through interesting digressions, such as traditions regarding relationships between gods and mortals, or such as the epic's only reference to writing, or that recent DNA evidence shows the Etruscans did indeed come from Asia Minor, thus supporting the traditions of Virgil's `Aeneid'. And, in a long endnote, she (alas!) puts paid to any homosexual hint in the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. These endnotes are often long and of great insight; it would have been better to have had them as footnotes to reduce the hassle of constant page-work. It's a pity too that there are no colour plates of items described, such as the shield found in the eastern Mediterranean ascribed to the period of the war.Through these digressions on and expansions of points raised in the `Iliad', we learn so much about the latest thoughts on a wide range of academic issues: about art and archaeology, about literature and religion, and about other comparative cultures in both the eastern Mediterranean and the wider Indo-European world. But, come the book's end, Alexander's essential point concerning what the `Iliad' is about returns centre-stage and is made more cogent by her analysis of the death of Hector, and with the epic's end focussing on King Priam's request for his son's body to be released by Achilles. But even more than this, Alexander concludes that Achilles did not die for glory, but for Patroclus. She concludes that, "after the roll of centuries, this same `Iliad', whose message had been so clearly grasped by ancient poets and historians, came to be perceived as a martial epic glorifying war is one of the great ironies of literary history." This is made all the more poignant by the presence of "the serried headstones" at Gallipoli just across the waters of the Dardanelles. They not only bare the words, `Their names liveth for evermore', but also, `Their glory shall not be blotted out".

Having read The Iliad (Lattimore's translation) once through, I then read this book. It also uses Lattimore's translation, and intersperses parts of the Iliad into a narrative which describes, as it analyses, the action in the epic poem. The author clearly has a love of the Iliad and of Greek heroic poetry, and uses her knowledge and skill to weave a story that, read together with the Iliad, offers the reader a fuller understanding and context of the whole tragedy that was Ilion.This is a great book; it can be read alone, or used as I did with Lattimore's translation of the Iliad to assist the reader in really getting `under the skin' of the story; this way the reader really gains more from the story as a whole, understanding some of the Greek heroic traditions, the epic poetry traditions, the myths and Gods of ancient Greek and Troy. Homer's wonderful poem is a gem that will outlast us all; this book serves to underline its greatness, and gives it an extra layer of shine to enhance its beauty for the reader. I'm now off to read Lattimore's Iliad again.

Being interested in the classics for some decades, I thought I knew what to expect when purchasing this book; I didn't. Achilles emerges as a film noire hero, morally defective but in the end a descent chap. This book answers one important question and raises a new one. On the one hand, it explains what educated elites could see through the centuries into the narrative of Iliad; on the other, it makes one wonder about the psyche of that initial audience that allowed the early "Iliad" song to survive. Were they troubled aristocratic souls feeling trapped in the role cast upon them by a declining heroic era? Were their feasts around the big clay hearth of Nestor's palace excavated in Pylos melancholic, soul-searching, affairs where the sad music of Homer filled the air? This book indices you in many hours of fruitful speculation once you have finished reading it.