How True Is Achiles

[iskander_32]

Companions Hi I have often wondered about the Illiad and Troy,, Was the story nearly all fiction and Did Achiles and Petroculos actually exist.If not which I assume they didn't what were the origins of the shield and armour that Alexander was supposedly have taken?I doubt he actually took anything at at all and the story made up later.Im sure Alexander wanted the qualities and valour of Achilles but I just wonder how literally he took Achilles.I believe Alexander ultimate power was Zeus and tpo be honest call it meglamanic im sure in the end he thought he was divine.To win to rule and to cunquer so much without one defeat a person has to believe himself above all that is there.RegardsKenny

[marcus]

Hi kenny,I think we'd have to take the view that they *might* have existed, but there's certainly no proof. The whole basis of myth and legend is an interesting one, all to do with anthropological issues and collective memories. I'm not really qualified to provide a definitive answer, but the basic idea is that, in many myth-cycles, heroes and their deeds are built from collective memories of real heroes, or even groups of people. It is generally accepted that there might well have been a Trojan War of sorts, although it would have been very unlike that portrayed in myth (and certainly fought for economic reasons rather than over a woman). There might have been a warrior, or a group of warriors, who collectively 'grew' into the person of Achilles.The thing about Achilles' armour is that the myth-cycle was terribly important to the Greeks. At a place such as Troy, which even then was a bit of a tourist spot, it was important to be able to see symbols of their heritage - so it would have been natural to display the heroes' weapons. Most people probably knew that they weren't authentic, but that wasn't really the point. Alexander's taking the shield was important symbolically, and was no less potent even if everyone knew it couldn't possibly *really* be Achilles' shield. Therefore I have absolutely no doubt that Alexander took the shield. I do doubt that he, or most of his men, really thought it *was* Achilles'; but they did appreciate the symbolism of the act.All the bestMarcus

[jona]

About the historicity of the Trojan War, I think the book by Michael Wood is very good. (A lot better than his Alexander book.) The German "Troja - Traum und Wirklichkeit" is also good and beautifully illustrated.Jona

[marcus]

Thanks, Jona. I haven't read Wood's book, although I did see the TV series when it first came out.I imagine it's a bit old, now, though. There have been more excavations since, and I remember there was an interesting TV programme a few months ago which highlighted some new discoveries that I don't think had been made when Michael Wood was doing his stuff.That's not to say that Wood's book wouldn't be good to read, still. From what I remember of the series I'd definitely recommend it.All the bestMarcus

[jona]

Hi MarcusA recent edition of the Wood book on Troy has a postscipt in which he brings everything up to date again. For the most recent stuff, you've to read German because the excavators are German. Unfortunately the boring debate "archaeologist strikes, historian strikes back" still continues.Jona

[marcus]

Ah, thanks for that. I didn't know there was an updating PS.In which case it's *definitely* worth getting hold of it!Marcus

[xxx]

To pick up on Tim's post, think of Akilleus like we think of Jesus - where it's not the individual person that is the important thing, but the story that grew around them. Akilleus may well have existed, but that existence does not prove his legend is necessarily all fact. Hence the taking of King Akilleus' shield (King or Prince that's a study in and of itself)and the symbology it afforded Alexander. Very very important to have the trappings of myth as part of your own story as a King and make no mistake, to Macedonian King's to be the greatest and most famous was their aim.However, the stories that grew up around Alexander are less 'legend' than fact because there were so many to record them, and therefore not quite suited to a mythological treatment.Besides, Alexander has yet to find his Homer.For royalty in the ancient world to assert their social position over their 'subjects' it would be unthinkable for them not to have descended from the great men of their past - for Alexander, Herakles on his father's side and Akilleus on his mother's side.Whether or not Alexander thought himself divine is definitely up to debate.