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

by Caroline Alexander

The dramatic events of the Trojan War are legend—but Homer’s epic poem, Iliad, is devoted entirely to a few mundane weeks at the end of a debilitating, waning ten-year campaign. The story’s focus is not on drama but on a bitter truth: both armies want nothing more than to stop fighting and go home. Achilles—the electrifying hero who is Homer’s brilliant creation—quarrels with his commander, Agamemnon, but eventually returns to the field to avenge a comrade’s death. Few warriors, in life or literature, have challenged their commanding officer and the rationale of the war they fought as fiercely as did Homer’s Achilles.

Homer’s Iliad addresses the central questions defining the war experience of every age. Is a warrior ever justified in challenging his commander? Must he sacrifice his life for someone else’s cause? Giving his life for his country, does a man betray his family? Can death ever be compensated by glory? How is a catastrophic war ever allowed to start—and why, if all parties wish it over, can it not be ended?

As she did in The Endurance and The Bounty, Caroline Alexander has taken apart a story we think we know and put it back together in a way that reveals what Homer really meant us to glean from his masterpiece. Written with the authority of a scholar and the vigor of a bestselling narrative historian, The War That Killed Achilles is a superb and utterly timely presentation of one of the timeless stories of our civilization.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Mythology, Classics, Ancient History, War, Greece

Audio CD

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Caroline Alexander has written for The New Yorker, Granta, Condé Nast Traveler, Smithsonian, Outside, and National Geographic. She is the curator of "Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Expedition," an exhibition that opened at the American Museum of Natural History in March 1999. She lives on a farm in New Hampshire.

Reviews

[Trish · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is so startling about the Iliad is its immediacy, its emotion. Real, recognizable feelings and behaviors are so evident that the fact they happened in a time before Christ just falls away. We find ourselves rooting for these men and women even as we see the plotting of the gods and they obvious way they place a thumb on the scales of justice.

Once one has gone even a little way into the Iliad, one’s curiosity blooms: how can this story have survived? what is its history? are there more stories? how did people learn this story? One wants to talk with someone else about the book, someone knowledgeable, a teacher perhaps. Alexander obliges, but she is interesting not just for first-time readers. She has her own translation of the Iliad, and has a vast understanding of the other works from this time, as well as the culture.

The stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey may never really leave one after an encounter with them. There are darn few pieces of literature in history that have that kind of impact. It is endlessly interesting to read new translations and go through the whole thing again every couple of years, listening to debates about who does it best. This has gone on since they were first delivered orally. Alexander’s book indulges that curiosity, leading a discussion of points we raced past in the midst of discovery.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this in conjunction with this latest reading: this time I listened to Stephen Mitchell’s version, read Peter Green’s, and consulted all the earlier versions. I really loved the new translations but think I may prefer Fagles above the others. It is just so easy to get stuck into poetically, and the edition, I have to admit, is so luxurious and pleasing with its deckled edges and parchment-colored paper (as opposed to white). It is easier to turn the pages, which is something which frankly never occurred to me before. It is lightweight. In a book of this size, that is something.

If you notice that the spelling of character’s names in my various reviews of this book are all over the place, just understand that practically every translation of this book has a different set of spelling concerns. Today one can guess which edition others are reading by the way they spell characters’ names. I happen to love this diversity. It adds to the awe-struck understanding that this work has been translated endless times by endless people and makes one wonder: how has it changed over time after being touched so much?

The sumptuous funeral accorded Patroklos accords with heroic burials in different cultures from different ages, allowing for the input from cultures who enjoyed the Iliad after its initial introduction. The detail of the burial is consistent with the pattern of archeological evidence. Alexander shares a discovery in 1980 on the Greek island of Euboia of an Iron Age burial site the owner wanted for a vacation home. It was the site of a heroic burial dating approximately to 1000 B.C. which contained the bones of a 30 to 45-year-old male wrapped in a fine linen robe buried alongside a woman adorned in gold. This is close to Homeric times and provides evidence that heroic burials as described in the Iliad happened at least from the Iron Age.

Alexander is able to bring many of the questions we have together in one place while referencing scholars who have tried to answer. She acknowledges the Iliad has been called the “poetry of combat” but she says it is not merely “impersonal slugging matches” but personalized heroic deaths, giving life to men at the moment of their death. It makes me weep to think of it.

And yet, Alexander points out that the Iliad insistently humanizes the enemy, despite recording endless pathetic deaths: three times as many Trojans die as do Achaeans. We have sympathy for the Trojans. This is the way the book is written.

Alexander writes beautifully here:

“Priam and Achilles meet in the very twilight of their lives. Their extinction is certain and there will be no reward for behaving well, and yet, in the face of implacable fate and an indifferent universe, they mutually assert the highest ideals of their humanity.”

And this, dear friends, is how we know man is not merely a greedy sod out to “win” what they cannot ever truly win, for time erases glory made of gold. I really enjoyed this very worthwhile accompaniment to the great Iliad. Thank you, Caroline Alexander and Viking Press for this truly interesting and inspiring work of scholarship.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Everything is more beautiful because we are doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”
― Homer, The Iliad



I KNOW that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate
Those that I guard I do not love;
― W.B. Yeats, An Irish Airman foresees his Death

This was a nice look into the details of war using Homer's epic as a glass to explore. It is one of those books that is difficult to shelve. It isn't a history of the Trojan War. It isn't exactly an examination of the Iliad. It was like examining the corpse of a classic to better understand what killed the poem. I've read the Iliad a couple times now, but Alexander's skill is showing the reader just how modern this ancient epic was. Homer wasn't satisfied in providing another heroic epic tale. He subverted this form a bit. His hero wasn't interested in fighting, killing, or war (although there was probably none better at all of these things). Achilles wanted life, home, and family. This book moves through this tragic epic and allows Homer's words room to bang and bite. It wasn't a perfect book, but it was interesting and rather novel in its approach.

Having family that fought and returned different from war, it is valuable for me to read anything that will give me a glimpse or hint at the motives and nuances of those who fight, those who die, and those who return from battle. When I see politicians pimp war, I think of King Agamemnon. When I think of men broken, numbed by the loss of comrades, changed by the face of battle, I think of Achilles. And that is probably the biggest fault of this book. Alexander is clumsy in her modern war parallels. She tries to link Homer's take on the Trojan War and tragedy of Achilles to the Great War, Vietnam, and Iraq. These links and passages are clumsy and unnecessary. Any reader who is mildly aware of Iraq and Afghanistan will find their own links to Homer's great work.

There are certain classics that well deserve their place in the pantheon of great books and written art. Homer's poetry certainly belongs among the noble books written by both gods and men. Alexander's book is a worthy exploration of that great epic poem.

[Antigone · Rating 5 out of 5]

Folklore heroes, it has been said, "tend to stand out as lonely wanderers, as folk from far away or from nowhere." The aloofness of Achilles from the rest of the Achaeans, his essential isolation, is another attribute of his parents' legacy. But most poignantly, and most useful to Homer's vision, the hero of this war epic, is not, in his essence, a military figure. Famously vulnerable and unnaturally defined by his mortality, raised to know the arts of healing, a figure not of men but of the wild beasts of the mountains, Achilles does not belong in the warrior company at Troy. He did not cross the wine-dark sea for the common cause, nor did he come for the glory. Achilles came to Troy because he was tricked into doing so.

I did not think, upon finishing The Iliad, that a scholarly study would be of use to me. I've read my share of mythology and I've done so because mythology is a uniquely intimate exploration of what lies inside a human being's belief system. Read anything - Pandora, Medusa, Narcissus, Prometheus - and you are set on a collision course with what you deeply believe about life, about civilization, about love, about death...and Achilles is war; he's the war element of the mythological equation, more than Apollo, more than Ares, more than Athena. Because Achilles is a man, or actually a demigod, which grants him that half-and-half status so necessary to make sense of the critical conflict, at least on a symbolic plane. He's going to make this both human and divine for me. Scholarship isn't going to help me digest Homer's masterpiece. What I needed was someone to clarify the feelings I had about what I'd just read.

Caroline Alexander did just that.

She's passionate about this story. Curious. Invested. Brave, too, as she ventured the translation of Hector's climactic end - which she knew how to do and included. This is a person I was glad to encounter as I struggled to understand why the hell I felt so much despair for this walking, talking, killing machine. Because I did. And there she was, page after page, saying in her hushed whisper of a tone, "Isn't this simply marvelous?" And it was.

Perfect choice for the afterburn. Left me wanting to read the story again.

[Terence · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a section in Mark Edmundson’s Why Read? where the author discusses the difference between “literature” – those works of prose and verse that are read and discussed for generations – and what isn’t – those works that may be well written and engaging but don’t have the power or impact that survives the ages. Two of the authors he chooses to illustrate this are Homer and Stephen King. The distinction, Edmundson writes, is that Homer (and “literature” in general) challenges the reader. He makes the epic genre do things it usually doesn’t, and forces you to ask questions about the assumptions you make about life, morality, religion, war, etc. Stephen King is a good author but ultimately he doesn’t challenge you to move beyond a certain comfortable zone of limited expectations:

King is an entertainment. King is a diversion. But when you try to take him as a guide to life, he won’t work. The circles he draws on the deep are weak and irresolute. And this is so in part because King, for all his supposedly shocking scare tactics, is a sentimental writer. In his universe, the children…are good, right, just, and true…. Just about all adults who are not in some manner childlike are corrupt, depraved, lying, and self-seeking. This can be a pleasant fantasy for young people and childish adults…. But bring this way of seeing the world out into experience and you’ll pretty quickly pay for it. Your relation to large quadrants of experience…will likely be paranoid and fated to fail. (Why Read, pp. 133-34)

I’m reminded of this in Caroline Alexander’s The War that Killed Achilles, where she argues for a similar conclusion when she attempts to explain why The Iliad is still read and discussed three millennia after its creation. While she doesn’t cite Edmundson (nor King, oddly enough :-), she wants us to see that The Iliad is not a glorification of war and the warrior (as some parts can be interpreted or misconstrued). Neither is it its opposite – an anti-war manifesto (as other parts can be understood). If is, rather, an unflinchingly honest story about why men fight and the price they and their families and comrades pay. It remains a story about Achilles’ rage and the choice he must make – glory and a short, long-remembered life or mediocrity and a long but quickly forgotten life – but the poet demands a deeper exploration of the choice than the typical epic cycle, where there’s rarely even the pretense of a choice and the worth of glorious battle and defeating one’s enemies is taken for granted.

An example: All know why Achilles abandons the war in its final year. Agamemnon, the Greek high king, seizes Briseis, a captured Trojan woman, when his own prize, Chryseis, is ransomed by her father. Achilles stalks off to sulk in his tent, and the Achaeans come near to losing everything as the Trojans take advantage of the Phthian’s absence. The hero abandoning, for a time, the “cause,” is a common trope in ancient literature, but Alexander argues that Homer uses it as an opportunity to raise questions about why we fight and under what conditions must you obey a leader who is manifestly incompetent and wrong.

As an example of the first contention, the author points to Achilles’ reply to the embassy sent to try and convince him to return to the fray. Alexander writes, “Achilles, moreover, not only rejects the Embassy but…goes further, challenging the very premise of the heroic way of life” (p. 87):

I hate his gifts. I hold him light as a strip of a splinter….

…For not
worth the value of my life are all the possessions they fable were won for Ilion, that strong-founded citadel, in the old days when there was peace, before the coming of the sons of the Achaeans….

Of possessions
cattle and fat sheep are things to be had for the lifting, and the tripods can be won, and the tawny high heads of horses, but a man’s life cannot come back again, it cannot be lifted nor captured again by force, once it has crossed the teeth’s barrier. For my mother Thetis the goddess of the silver feet tells me I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death. Either, if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting; but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers, the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life left for me, and my end in death will not come to me quickly. And this would be my counsel to others also, to sail back home again, since no longer shall you find any term set on the sheer city of Ilion, since Zeus of the wide brows has strongly held his own hand over it, and its people are made bold.

Do you go back therefore to the great men of the Achaeans, and take them this message, since such is the privilege of the princes:
that they think out in their minds some other scheme that is better, which might rescue their ships, and the people of the Achaeans who man the hollow ships, since this plan will not work for them which they thought of by reason of my anger. Let Phoinix remain here with us and sleep here, so that tomorrow he may come with us in our ships to the beloved land of our fathers, if he will; but I will never use force to hold him.

So he spoke, and all of them stayed stricken to silence in amazement at his words. (pp. 97-8)

The infamous Thersites articulates the second contention in his confrontation with Agamemnon, who has foolishly decided to test the Achaeans’ resolve by advocating that they go home:

It is not right for you, their leader, to lead in sorrow the sons of the Achaeans. My good fools, poor abuses, you women, not men, of Achaea, let us go back home in our ships, and leave this man here by himself in Troy to mull his prizes of honour that he may find out whether or not we others are helping him. And now he has dishonoured Achilles, a man much better than he is. He has taken his prize by force and keeps her. (p. 34)

A strength of the book is that it made me – once again – reconsider the character of Achilles and appreciate him as a human being far more than ever before. He does find a reason to return to the war – the death of Patroklos – and Alexander suggests a parallel between Achilles’ reaction and that of modern-day soldiers who lose comrades, “[c]ombat trauma undoes character” (p. 169):

So the glorious son of Priam addressed him, speaking in supplication, but heard in turn the voice without pity: Poor fool, no longer speak to me of ransom, nor argue it. In the time before Patroklos came to the day of his destiny than it was the way of my heart’s choice to be sparing of the Trojans, and many I took alive and disposed of them. Now there is not one who can escape death, if the gods send him against my hands in front of Ilion, not one of all the Trojans and beyond others the children of Priam. So, friend, you die also. (pp. 167-68)

Compare that to a modern soldier’s reflection:

I just went crazy. I pulled him out into the paddy and carved him up with my knife. When I was done with him, he looked like a rag doll that a dog had been playing with…. I lost all my mercy. I felt a drastic change after that…. I couldn’t do enough damage…. For every one that I killed I felt better. Made some of the hurt went [sic] away. Every time you lost a friend it seemed like a part of you was gone. Get one of them to compensate what they had done to me. I got very hard, cold, merciless. I lost all my mercy. (p. 169)

There is much more to Alexander’s arguments than the few points I’ve raised here, all equally fascinating and equally well presented by the author. E.g., she points out that Homer plays with readers’ expectations by describing visions of marching armies with scenes of life (pp. 39ff). Elsewhere, she argues that Hera’s extortion from Zeus of a promise to let Fate take its course reflects Homer’s recognition of the mutually destructive nature of war – no one can win, all are destroyed (pp. 60ff). Another observation I found interesting was the probable origin of “Achilles”: He was not a hero from the epic tradition but a figure of folktales. A late addition to the cycle that made him someone Homer could use to comment on the war (pp. 83ff).

While classicists and those obsessed with ancient Greek literature may find The War that Killed Achilles thin fare, the general reader will find it a valuable commentary on The Iliad and I would recommend it.

[Dax · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very useful for anyone who is thinking about revisiting 'The Iliad'. This could serve as a refresher, something that might help you determine if you are really interested in diving back into the world of Homer. I've seen a few comment about the misleading title. To clarify, this is not a narrative about the true Trojan War. This is an analysis of Homer's 'Iliad'. The "true story" that Alexander includes in her title is a reference to her analysis of what 'The Iliad' is really about. What was Homer's main intent with the story of Hektor and Achilles? This is the truth that Alexander is interested in studying.

It has been two decades since I read 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey'. Earlier this year I was considering taking them on once again. Rather, I chose to read Alexander's analysis first. Her book confirmed that I want to get back to those two important works, but not quite yet. Alexander's work is really good, but I think it is better served to have read the original texts first. High three stars.

[Tamara Agha-Jaffar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caroline Alexander's The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War is more than an exploration of Homer's Iliad. Alexander's interpretation of characters and events in the epic arrive at conclusions about the experience of war in general--conclusions that are applicable to all wars at all times and in all places.

Alexander encourages the drawing of parallels. She cites examples from 20th Century wars that echo sentiments expressed in the Iliad. Achilles' confrontation with Agamemnon, for example, leads her to ponder questions about the efficacy of challenging an inept, incompetent leader. Achilles' withdrawal from the war leads to an exploration of whether a warrior should be willing to sacrifice his life for someone else's cause. Achilles' return to the war after the death of Patroklos illustrates the brutal and dehumanizing impact the death of a comrade can have on a warrior.

Alexander highlights the reluctance of both sides to participate in the war. The Greeks just want to go home; the Trojans are willing to surrender Helen and her possessions in order to have them leave. But circumstances, in the form of the meddling and scheming gods who have allied themselves with one side or the other, intervene to prevent an end to a war that no one believes in and no one wants to fight. And yet the war proceeds to its inexorable conclusion.

Included in the work are over 40 pages of notes and an extensive bibliography. The breadth and depth of Alexander's scholarship is vigorous and impressive. Her ability to make connections within the poem, to interpret details, and to zero in on subtleties and nuances that a casual reader of the epic may miss is inspiring. But perhaps one of the most impressive qualities of her work lies in its character analysis.

Agamemnon emerges as an incompetent, self-absorbed leader with an inflated ego and abysmal leadership skills. Paris emerges as frivolous fop, resented by Trojans and Greeks alike for leading them into an unpopular war. Hektor is a family man with little taste for fighting. However, it is in her analysis of the character of Achilles that Alexander shines.

Achilles emerges as a complex character plagued with internal and external conflicts. A reluctant participant in the war, his skill in warfare is unsurpassed on the battlefield. Although he expresses a longing to return home to his father, he never leaves Troy. He initially demonstrates compassion for his enemies as when, for example, we read he spared the life of Lykaon, a son of Priam, during their first encounter. But he turns into a brutal killing machine after the death of Patroklos. He is the most heroic and bravest of warriors and, yet, he gives distinctly unheroic advice to the delegation of Greeks who have come to reconcile his feud with Agamemnon. He tells them to abandon the war and sail home since a peaceful life at home is more precious than glory on the battlefield. And, finally, he rejoins the war to avenge the death of Patroklos while knowing that his choice will lead to his own death on the battlefield.

In her reflections on and interpretation of Homer's Iliad, Caroline Alexander encourages a meditation on war--its justifications; its mutually destructive nature on all sides of the conflict; its impact on family; its brutalizing influence on those fighting in the front lines; and its interruption of the peaceful, civilizing scenes of daily life. Her reading of Homer's Iliad strips war of its glory and grandeur and exposes its reality with unflinching honesty.

A fascinating read that provides valuable commentary on the Iliad. Highly recommended.

[Daniel Chaikin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was work. It was informative and left me with lots of stuff I could follow up on if I wanted to, but I had to force my way through. The best chapter was Alexander's translation of the death of Hektor - which just goes to show I probably don't need to read about Homer just now, and instead just read Homer - I'm starting on Friday.

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

So I have a somewhat guilty secret. I sorta, kinda, like the movie Troy, at least up to the part where Hector gets killed. I know it has its problems, least of all Orlando Bloom as Paris (really, him?), but I still enjoy it.

I've always had a thing for the Trojan War. The first "grown up" program I was allowed to watch was Michael Wood's In Search of the Trojan War. I couldn't stay up to watch it, but I was allowed to watch the next day (god bless the VCR, may it rest in peace). I always tended to root for the Greeks. I guess I felt they got a bad rap or something. After all, it was all Paris' fault.

Or else I just really liked Diomedes.

Anyway, Alexander's book is a good companion, though I would suggest that the new reader to the Trojan War read the texts (be it the actual poems or glosses) before reading this book.

Alexander agrues that Homer was trying to present a "new" take on the epic form, that he was experimenting. She does this be exploring the character of Achilles. She raises several good points; I'm not sure if I whole heartedly agree with her. Alexander's thesis is that the poem examines the cost of war and is not foces on Achilles' hubris that some critics claim.

What is especially fasinating about this idea is how it can be applied to the matter of Troy that was influenced by Homer. Take for example, Shakespeare. Troilus and Cressida is consider one of Shakespeare's problem plays. Yet if viewed in light of some of the points that Alexander raises than Shakespeare's problem play looks less like a problem. Could Shakespeare have been thinking the same way? It's an interesting question.

I do wish, however, that Alexander had good into more depth about one idea. She raises the idea that perhaps Homer's view was influenced by the changing politic times. I wish she would ahve gone more into this connection.

[Alexander Theofanidis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Συμπαθής ανάλυση της Ιλιάδας, χωρίς να είναι κάτι το εξαιρετικό. Δεν είναι τυχαίο που οι διθυραμβικές κριτικές είναι από μη έλληνόφωνους που δεν έχουν πρόσβαση σε Μαρωνίτη και Κακριδή. Θυμίζει περισσότερο σχολικό εγχειρίδιο γυμνασίου, δημιουργεί κάποιους προβληματισμούς, αλλά γενικώς είναι "ρηχή η λίμνη".

Σίγουρα βοηθάει να δει κανείς τον Αχιλλέα μέσα από ένα νέο πρίσμα (ο μέσος αναγνώστης είναι με τον Έκτορα, προφανώς, και ενστικτωδώς σχεδόν δε συμπαθεί τη φονική μηχανή που γέννησε η Θέτιδα), αλλά μέχρις εκεί. Άλλωστε, ένα μεγάλο κομμάτι είναι παράθεση του ομηρικού έργου, η δε μονομαχία Έκτορα Αχιλλέα χώρεσε ολόκληρη.

Αν είναι η πρώτη σας επαφή με ανάλυση επί Ομηρικών επών ίσως να σας αρέσει περισσότερο. Αν έχετε ήδη ξεκινήσει και εμβαθύνει, θα το βρείτε μάλλον "λίγο" και απογοητευτικό.

Ανέβηκε από τα δύο στα τρία αστεράκια, γιατί επιτέλους κάποιος είπε το αυτονόητο για τον Αίαντα: ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟΣΟ ΚΑΛΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ Ο ΜΟΝΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΑΕΙ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΘΕΪΚΗ ΒΟΗΘΕΙΑ (χώρια, που πολύ συχνά έχει "κόντρα σφυρίγματα" από τα κακομαθημένα του Ολύμπου).

[James Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book to read in conjunction with your latest rereading of Homer's Iliad, which is just what I have recently done. Caroline Alexander manages to emphasize the relevance of the Iliad for today by exploring references to other literature and deepening the meanings found within the Iliad by the reader. While Homer's epic stands alone for the serious reader, the addition of these resources widens the breadth of possibilities of understanding for the reader and, in my case, assisted in our discussion of the original text among our study group. What Ms. Alexander has not done is produce a traditional work of Homeric scholarship with commentary on linguistic expressions or the oral tradition. Rather this is more of an extended meditation on war and its meaning as beautifully expressed by Homer through Achilles and his other characters. The result is a successful addition to your reading and enjoyment of Homer but not a replacement for it.

[Jimmy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to admit to being very disappointed.

The subtitle of the book is "The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War." It is not that. I should have known better since I watched the BBC series on Troy. Not much is known about the "true story."

This book was tons of quotations from the Iliad. Long stretches of them and then more within paragraphs. Why not just reread the Iliad?

Here is a better book on the topic which may have given the author the idea:

by Jonathan Shay

[Mieczyslaw Kasprzyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a superb book, not just an analysis (if that's the right word) of the Iliad but placing that work within the context of war as a constant experience; all wars are encompassed here, all soldiers have experienced the same feelings. We see the Trojan War in the light of disillusion, of betrayal, blind anger, pointless death and of inept leadership... we spy glimpses of Vietnam and Gallipoli and the Christmas Truce of 1914. All wars are the same... and Homer puts that plainly, but it is Caroline Alexander who makes us aware of it.
I thought it would be dry, or too academic... it's nothing like that. "The War That Killed Achilles" is a fascinating read.

[Jamie Newman · Rating 3 out of 5]

0 stars for writing- some very convoluted sentences in here.
1 star for premise
1 star for research
0 stars for impact
.5 stars for liking it: overall not a bad companion to the Iliad. Its a little too much rehashing for my taste. Homer did it better.

[Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Caroline Alexander says in her Preface to The War That Killed Achilles that "this book is about what the Iliad is about; this book is about what the Iliad says of war."

I loved this book! It is extraordinarily well-written, and to the point at 225 pages in length (plus another nearly 50 pages of end-notes). While scholarly, it reads very well. Alexander takes us through the Trojan War's cast of characters in chapters that cover topics like "Chain of Command", the "Terms of Engagement", "In God We Trust", "Man Down", "No Hostages", "The Death of Hektor", and the last chapter "Everlasting Glory". Alexander's book hones in on the seven or eight months that are covered in Homer's Iliad, and while it speaks to the historical context of Troy, Mycenaean Greece, and the Trojan War itself, I think the real message of her book is the psychology of the War and the psychology of the humans involved in it.

It is perhaps easy to come to the conclusion that the Iliad is really the story of the "rage" of Achilles. I don't know if it is that simple though, and I don't think Alexander does either. She spends a lot of the book discussing why Achilles is 'angry' with Agamemnon, and it is much more complicated than Agamemnon having relieved Achilles of his concubine, Briseis. She postulates that Achilles reaches the conclusion that Agamemnon is an inept and incompetent military commander, that this is really an unjust war, and that he--Achilles--really 'doesn't have an axe to grind' in this fight. All of this was very thought-provoking for me, and caused me to carefully reread the Iliad and rethink my feelings about Achilles' actions (or, inaction, as the case may be).

Alexander makes a strong case too, that both sides in this nasty little war were just worn out. The Greeks and the Trojans had been fighting for nearly ten years, with little in the way of tangible results other than seeing hundreds of their comrades killed or maimed. That can't be good for your overall mental health. The psychological toll of losing friends in combat must have been huge, and anger and guilt (i.e., 'survivor's guilt'), and post-traumatic stress disorder must have, by this time, affected all of the combatants. When Achilles' best-loved friend Patroclus is killed by Hektor, one can begin to understand how Achilles could have 'snapped' and just gone berserk. Particularly as one knows from Homer that Achilles, in essence, facilitated Patroclus' death at the hands of Hektor. Combat is violent, combat is horrific--whether it is in the Bronze Age on the Plain of Troy, or in 2011 in the Korangal River Valley in Afghanistan--and the human cost is always incalculably high.

Finally, Alexander finishes her book with a discussion about Achilles coming to terms with his own role in the Trojan War, and acceptance of his destiny and what Fate had in store for him, and the choices involved. Could Achilles have really packed up his 2,500 Myrmidon warriors and sailed back home in his 50 'black-hulled' ships to a peaceful and quiet obscurity? Could he have left without avenging the death of his beloved friend, Patroclus? Alexander is compelling as she lays out the case that Achilles was able to, as Homer alludes to in the poem, sort through the pros and cons of what faced him, and was able to 'make peace' with himself. Alexander, I think, believes that it was through Achilles reaching a resolution to these issues that freed him to fully embrace the warrior ethos of his time and meet his destiny and fate with honor and integrity--on the battlefield, or late at night in the parley with the Trojan king, Priam. Maybe the great Lycian warrior, Sarpedon, a Trojan ally said it best in describing the warrior's code when he tells his friend, Glaukos--

"Man, supposing you and I, escaping this battle,
would be able to live on forever, ageless, immortal,
so neither would I myself go on fighting in the foremost
nor would I urge you into fighting where men win glory.
But now, seeing that the spirits of death stand close about us
in their thousands, no man can turn aside nor escape them,
let us go on and win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others."

That's powerful stuff, and this is a very powerful book that Caroline Alexander has written. She's right too. This book is about "...what the Iliad is about; this book is about what the Iliad says of war."

[James Murphy · Rating 2 out of 5]

The subtitle's claim as the "true story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War" is misleading. There isn't much history or fact here.

Alexander writes that she intended to focus on the Iliad's depiction of war. Her chapters carry titles of military reference--"Terms of Engagement", "Body Count"--leading me to think she tried to link that raid on the Anatolian coast to modern warfare, as if it could be found similar to Russia's incursion into Ukraine, to cite an example. It's just one of the awkwardnesses of the book.

Essentially it's a synopsis of the story the Iliad tells rather than a critical study of the poem or an interpretation of the history as we know it. Because she provided neither criticism or history, the book disappointed.

I began the book with reservations, anyway. I remember when it was published in 2009 I read a review stating she's made it so dense with quotations from Richmond Lattimore's great translation that one might as well read it rather than Alexander. That's why I'd not read the book until now. In my focus on the Iliad and Homer this fall, though, I had trouble laying my hands on books about Homer with the substantial insight I thought I was after. I gave Alexander a try. I found it's true I could have done as well by reading Lattimore. The book did show me that I prefer Lattimore's translation over that of Peter Green's I'm reading in conjunction with the other books.

Remember taking finals in school how you'd pad an essay answer with unnecessary and irrelevant detail in the hope that a barrage of words spiced with a little eloquence might help to cover the insecurity of your answer? "Trace the history of Germany from 1648 to the present" is one I remember. Alexander does the same thing. It's whitewash.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's no secret that the Iliad is important to me; in what was once referred to as "the most pretentious tramp stamp ever," I've got the first three words (menin aeide thea, the beginnings of the invocation of the Muse) tattooed at the base of my spine. It's a fitting place for these founding words of Western poetry, at the root of the spinal cord, the walled-in fortress of the nervous system (and, to switch traditions, the location of the kundalini chakra). In many ways, the Iliad is Western culture, violent and tender, pulled in opposite directions by the forces of war and domesticity.

Caroline Alexander's The War That Killed Achilles is a lovely, well-written exegesis of the Iliad's chronicle of the devastation and pity of war--a peculiarly human notion, but rarely so well put. For me, as for millennia of readers, the characters of Homer's epic are immediate and familiar, such that I still tear up when I read about Hektor taking leave of Andromache and Astyanax--still more so when Alexander points out that in light of this scene, where Hektor's infant son is terrified by his imposing helmet (whereupon the warrior laughs and takes it off, de-heroizing himself for the sake of his doomed posterity), Hektor's common epithet "of the shimmering helm" is less honorific than poignant detail of his martial duties' cutting him off from his family.

One still encounters people who claim the Iliad glorifies war. I can only surmise they haven't read it. The Iliad begins with rage and ends with two funerals; even Achilles would give up his glory to die quietly in old age, at home.

[Noel Cisneros · Rating 5 out of 5]

Con una erudición apabullante del mundo griego (y anatolio) de la Edad del Bronce y del Hierro, en la que tanto la mitología (su configuración) como la de la poesía (su desarrollo) Alexander hace esta lectura de la Ilíada y de las motivaciones de Homero para escribirla. Sin negar la participación grupal en la configuración del poema épico -ella señala muchas de las adiciones que es evidente fueron incertadas al poema a posteriori- Alexander ofrece los argumentos del porqué Homero lo compuso y para ello se salió no sólo de los modelos épicos, sino que llegó a contravenirlos. Para esta autora la Ilíada fue compuesta no para cantar a la guerra sino para poner en evidencia sus consecuencias, la devastación que implicaba. Después de leer este libro no podré leer del mismo modo la Ilíada y mi consideración para con Homero ha cambiado radicalmente.

[MikeFromQueens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent in-depth interpretation with references to recent events and referrals to recent history. I had not thought of the rationale why the other Argives' kings would firmly back Agammemnon for ten years, but C. Alexander presents a Greek rationale that all were at one time suitors of Helen, and I can agree with that conjecture. Hektor is all the more my favorite mortal in this epic as Alexander paints his portrait of a man with a family.

[andi]

o épicos depresivos

[Pe]

"La vida es incluso más valiosa que la gloria. Aquiles nunca vacila en este juicio. No es por la gloria, al final y al cabo, por lo que sacrifica su vida, sino por Patroclo."

A bitch is tired from work pero a bitch también ha leído estas líneas y ha dicho gracias señores griegos por darme tanto.

Te lo puedes leer como quien se lee la revista del corazón. Que si dioses conspirando, que si héroes sublevándose a sus comandantes, que si una vez terminada la guerra habrán pasado tantos años que nadie se acordará ni de cómo volver a casa. Que si realmente la gloria vale más que la vida.

Achilles, you stupid little brat, you've never done anything wrong in your life. I know this and I love you.

[Bill P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed Alexander's Bounty book and picking up her analysis of the Illiad was a no brainer. I give high marks to her treatment and interpretation of the Illiad as well. The blurbs on the book jacket from other authors and generals were a bit of an exaggeration, but the background and interpretation of this most classic tale was well worth the investment of time and money. And unlike Hollywood, she didnt change the endings.

[Margaret · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting the difference a couple of years makes.

I tried reading this in 2012 and couldn't get into it. Read it again over the last weekend and found it quite absorbing.

The books is basically a commentary on The Iliad, with a number of odd little historical facts to whet the appetite.

Specialist reading though. You do need to be familiar with the source work to get anything out of it.

[Moony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting commentary.
Honestly, it made me consider a lot of aspects of the Iliad differently and a little more deeply, which I greatly appreciated.

[Mariana · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 🌟

A good, informative, almost academic work. A truly refreshing take on Achilles, and the amount of information on each hero and Achilles himself is outstanding!
However:
I really, really hate how every work of exposition or translation regarding the Iliad has this absolute necessity to negate "modern takes". This book is all written in a plain, objective speech. But the biggest note in the whole book, where subjective speech is present (sarcasm all over it), is a note regarding how the modern notion that Achilles and Patroclus are lovers is ridiculous, and worst, how the modern take that Achilles regarded Briseis as more of a prize of war than a woman/human is absolutely false! How obviously (LOL) Achilles loved her as a wife (LOL) - how dare people interpret things in such a feminist way!
The Author even refers, falsely, how this version that Achilles was a homosexual who hated Briseis is the main one that is taught at schools (please....), and discredits any take on how the women were so poorly written as a result of the men (Achilles included) seeing them as simple objects. It's immature, an "how dare you make my favourite hero gay!! He's in love with his slave!"

Saying all this, it is still a very interesting book :P

[Jonathon McKenney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this up thinking it would be a history of the actual Troy, or the historical evidence for the Trojan war. A little conspiratorial but good fun. What I got instead was a deep analysis about the Iliad and it’s structure, themes, and place in history. Incredibly well written, another example of a book where I actually read a lot of the footnotes.

If I had a quibble, it had a few too many quotes at times (the second to last chapter is her own translation of the death of hector… impressive but not exactly necessary IMO) and, at times, she drifted into a little summarising / chronological retelling. But minor, minor critiques and, if you hadn’t read the Iliad in a while, that may actually be very useful.

Highly recommend this book.

[Steph LaPlante · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you have any interest in the Trojan War I definitely recommend this book. The author breaks the story down and goes deeper. It truly discusses the lessons and meanings behind war. One of the most memorable being Achilles when he states he is fighting the Trojans for the sake of Helen but the Trojans have done nothing to him personally. It is sad to see his mindset go from this to outright anger and full of vengious when his best friend is cut down.

[Nacho · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don’t we all want someone to ride for us like how Achilles rides for Patroclus.

Loved the descriptions and analyses of the story . The emotion of the epic and the truth that both Trojans and myceans wanted nothing more to stop. Was a fun read , and if you’re academic you’ll love it but for it was a slog. Struggled to read more the 15 pages at a time , I just struggle with these types of books . So my review is a wee bit biased. Also the last lines in chapter 20 when the reference Odysseus visiting Achilles , absolute bars. 3.3/5

[Charlie Harrington · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subtitle made me think this book would be a historical investigation into the events of the Trojan War, but it was instead an in-depth literary analysis of The Iliad. I would not have predicted that I would have enjoyed it as much as I did and the idea that Homer’s main point is that life is worth far more than any glory gained in war completely flips my preconceived notions of the epic.

[Victoria · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si te da pereza (cosa que no debes) leerte la Ilíada, este libro te hace el trabajo por ti, además también te añade información adicional muuuuy interesante. Es literalmente un TFM. Aún así, leete la Ilíada.

[Gusta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wat een gaaf boek (eh wellicht alleen voor classici of andere zeer geïnteresseerden..) over de Ilias! Ik heb er van alles uit gekopieerd om in mijn lessen te gebruiken! In haar nawoord schrijft de auteur: ‘Ik behoor waarschijnlijk tot de kleine minderheid van promovendi die daadwerkelijk plezier hebben beleefd aan het schrijven van hun proefschrift, …’