Archaeology of The Iliad An Analysis of

Alexander Mallin Anomalies in the Iliad Page 1 of 52
Archaeology of the Iliad: An Analysis of the

Anomalies in Homer’s Iliad
Author:
Alexander Mallin
Supervisor:
Karen Ni-Mheallaigh
Academic Year 2011-2012
Submitted in Support of the Degree of:
Classics, BA
Abstract
This dissertation examines the anomalies in Homer’s Iliad and attempts to

determine whether there are any common trends present. In my first chapter, I
analyse the anomalies concerning warfare and technology, which I believe can be
demonstrated to highlight Homer’s focus on the archaic Heroic age. In my second
chapter, I evaluate anomalies found within the narrative, such as evidence of
allusions, suppressions and paradigms, which are very often related to Homer’s
theme of the relationship between mortality and glory. More importantly, the
trends behind these anomalies are often only detectable by the poet’s audience
rather than his characters, which sometimes leads to events of dramatic irony.
Overall, I believe it can be demonstrated that ‘anomalies’ in the Iliad are
deliberate choices made by the poet in order to improve the story.
Contents Page
Title Page ................................................................................................................ 1

Abstract................................................................................................................... 2
Contents .................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Warfare and Technology ................................................................... 9
Archaic Technology ........................................................................................ 9
Chariotry ........................................................................................................ 11
Flow of Battle ................................................................................................. 17
Duels ............................................................................................................... 20
Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 22
Chapter 2: Anomalies in the Narrative.............................................................. 23
Death of Patroclus ......................................................................................... 23
Other Anachronies ......................................................................................... 27
Suppressions ................................................................................................... 29
Paradigms ....................................................................................................... 32
Paradigms of Meleager ................................................................................... 34
Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 35
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 37
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 39
Appendix 1: Images ....................................................................................... 39
Appendix 2: Analysis of Language ................................................................ 41
Appendix 3: Oral Tradition ............................................................................ 45

Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 48
Acknowledgements
First of all, I have to thank my supervisor Karen Ni-Mheallaigh, who has been
very helpful all the way through. Especially considering I only decided to change
my dissertation topic at the start of the second term, I think I would have struggled
to get it done to my satisfaction without her encouragement!
I’d also like to thank the other members of the Classics department who’ve
helped me write this. Sharon Marshall’s Latin 5 lessons in particular have been
great for helping the transition from Second Year to Third Year standard essays. I
should thank John Dillon as well, who was the supervisor of my original
dissertation title, and whose advice regarding that I also tried to follow here.
Likewise, I’m very grateful to my fellow Classics students, who at times have
had the misfortune of being forced to my ideas! Our chats bemoaning how much
further we had to go were similarly heartening, as there’s nothing like knowing
everyone else is as snowed under with work as you are. Sam Hayes and Charli
Wood have been especially helpful, and amusing, in this regard.
Finally, I definitely need to thank my housemates and parents, who’ve been
remarkably patient when listening to me discuss my dissertation without even
being able to fully understand what I’m talking about! Particular credit must go to
my father, who actually volunteered to read this, with no urging at all.
Introduction
The Iliad, the first creation of Western literature, is often considered among the
greatest works ever produced, but studying it is not without its problems. The
issue I am attempting to address in my dissertation is that of the seeming
‘anomalies’ within the text. Anything more than a casual read will highlight how
parts of the story apparently contradict others, how some entries appear to have
very little relevance to the main story and how even the battle scenes can
sometimes be very illogical.
Of course, the problem with studying the Iliad is the Homeric Question; neither
‘Homer’ nor his Trojan War may ever have existed at all. Unitarians would argue
for the existence of a master poet who created almost all the Iliad, but analysts
would argue there was only a redactor who edited together the work of other
poets. I am in favour of Oral Theory, which has provided the convenient answer
that ‘Homer’ was heavily influenced by earlier oral works but wrote the Iliad
himself, with the aid of the introduction of writing to the Greek world. Thus, here
is a quick summary of the foundations upon which this dissertation rests: 
Firstly, that the Siege of Troy was a genuine war, which took place sometime in
the late 13th Century BC.1 This war took place between the Mycenaean ‘Empire’
and the Trojan people along with their allies, somewhere around the site of
Hisarlik.2 Secondly, that there was an oral tradition of poetry being passed down
in and added to by generations of bards who performed to audiences, which
provided a vast wealth of raw material on the Trojan Cycle and the rest of Greek
mythology.3 The poets obviously did not record the events of the war in accurate
detail, but used it as a base and magnified it into a legendary conflict of heroes.
Thirdly, this poetry, being of oral composition and thus extremely taxing to the
memory, relied heavily upon formulaic elements but it was very possible for a
bard to adapt the material to suit his wishes.4 Fourthly, that ‘Homer’ was a bard
who used this material to create the Iliad, more or less as we have it, although
1
Latacz 2004: p.119.
2
Ibid. pp.283-287.
3
Alden 2000: pp.7-11.
4
Schein 1984: pp.1-13.
probably not the Odyssey,5 Fifthly, unlike the view of some analysts, Homer was
not “that diabolus ex machina whom early analysts invoked to explain every
blemish that seemed to mar the faultless perfection of the ‘genuine’ Homeric
poetry”,6 but a masterfully talented bard who “skilfully manipulates the wealth of
material available to him to shape and influence responses to his main narrative”.7
Finally, that ‘Homer’ probably dictated to a scribe,8 living somewhere in Ionia
and sometime around the late 8th Century BC, with a nominal date of 725BC. He
may not have existed at that time exactly, he may not have been named Homer
and it is unlikely that he actually wrote the poem himself, but it is convenient to
label him as such and to freely use possibly inaccurate phrases such as ‘Homer
wrote’, as long as we keep in mind they are only short forms for much more
complicated answers. After all, the poet has been called Homer for almost three
thousand years and it seems churlish to me to deny him that name now simply
because we do not know it for certain.9
With this in mind then, I can now turn to the subject matter of my dissertation
itself. Although Homer did a fine job in smoothing out many blemishes, it is
immediately obvious to any serious reader that the Iliad does have many
anomalies within it. Thus it is possible to perform a metaphorical ‘archaeology’ of
these anomalies, looking at both where they might have come from and to what
purpose they are included. Unfortunately, a comprehensive study of all of them
would the work of a book, if not several books, so I am limited by necessity to
only looking at some types of these anomalies, and even then only at a few
examples. Although this may initially seem an ineffectual analysis, I am hoping
that the common trends I believe are found within my chosen subjects will be
enlightening on a broader level.
Anomaly of course is a generalising term when describing narratives and my
methodology in choosing them must be explained. From a narratological
approach, anomalies can be noticed as anachronies, such as the Teichoskopia, or
as shifts in focalization, such as the stories told by Nestor which do not initially
seem connected to the main storyline. A Neoanalytical approach would notice
5
West 2011: pp.7-8.
6
Dodds 1954: p.2. Note that all bolded emphasis will be mine in this dissertation.
7
Alden 2000: p.10.
8
Lord 1953: pp.69-78, makes a very convincing case that Homer would have dictated to a scribe,
using the new invention of writing to its maximum benefit.
9
For example, West 2011 decides to call the poet P, giving his reasons pp.8-10.
scenes, among them the Death of Patroclus, which appear to allude to other works
in the Epic Cycle. A historical approach will certainly examine anachronistic
technology, like Meriones’ helmet, or inconsistencies in the depiction of warfare,
such as unrealistic representations of chariots or impossible tactics between battle
lines. A mythological approach might study how Homer has adapted the legends
present in other works. I would argue all of these approaches are valid ways of
examining anomalies, and at times a combination of them will yield the best
results.
In my first chapter, I intend to look at the problem of anomalies in the warfare
and technology described by Homer, which I have broken down into four
sections. Firstly, I address the use of archaisms in terms of technology in the Iliad,
showing how Homer deliberately emphasises the age of his conflict. Secondly, I
address how chariots, another important aspect of technology, are used in the
Iliad, which seems to be poorly understood by Homer but possibly demonstrate
how his heroes fight in the front ranks, spear to spear, rather than shooting arrows
from a distance. Thirdly, I address the extremely complicated flow of battle,
which is certainly full of contradictions, but I believe can be proved to be clever
misdirection by the poet in order to emphasise the danger of the battlefield but
simultaneously allow for individual heroics. Finally, I address duels, the use of
which on the battlefield might baffle modern soldiers, but excellently
demonstrates the heroic nature of war in the Iliad. The principal conclusion of my
first chapter is that it can be showed fairly conclusively that very often the
seeming anomalies in the text concerning warfare may have had good reasons for
being there. The main reason is that Homer is concerned mainly with his heroes
and their deeds, rather than focusing on the massed armies, and thus manipulates
the action to emphasise them.
In my second chapter, I move on to examine anomalies in the actual story. In
strict terms, the Iliad is the description of the quarrel between Achilles and
Agamemnon and its consequences, therefore narratives unconnected to this can be
seen as anomalies. However, many of these narratives allude to other episodes in
the Epic Cycle, and their inclusion helps to explain elements of the main
narrative. In particular, I believe they demonstrate one of the main focuses in the
Iliad, that of the relationship between glory and mortality. I first address the Death
of Patroclus, which can be shown to be full of references to Achilles’ death in the
Aethiopis. Secondly, I address other allusions, for example the Catalogue of

Ships, to events related to the Trojan War, some of which can initially seem quite
problematic but can be shown to serve explicit purposes within the poem. Thirdly,
I address how Homer suppresses fantastic elements in his narrative, which is very
closely linked to the emphasis on mortality. Finally I address the paradigms in the
poem which again demonstrate Homer’s focus on mortality. In particular, it is
important to note that Homer can be very free with the idea of truth, and happily
reimagines events to better suit his immediate purpose.
Chapter 1 – Warfare and Technology
Perhaps the easiest place to spot anomalies is when looking at the actual action
of the Iliad. As I discussed in my Introduction, we will assume that the Iliad,
roughly in its present form, was written down somewhere around the 8th century
BC, but is describing action which is believed to be from around the 13th century
BC. Moreover, it is narrating a conflict between two mighty peoples in a foreign
country. Thus it is entirely understandable if our poet fails to fully understand
precisely how this ancient style of warfare was carried out. However, I believe it
is unfair to believe that Homer was a fool incapable of altering what he had
received via the oral tradition, and instead will be attempting to see if there is a
pattern to where the strict accurate narrative of warfare breaks down. In this
chapter, I intend to examine some of the equipment in the Iliad, the use of
chariots, interpret several examples of the flow and order of the battlefield, and
finally address the problem of duels.
I believe it can be showed fairly conclusively that very often these seeming
anomalies in the text concerning warfare may have had good reasons for being
there. Principally, Bowra10 argued very persuasively at great length to prove that
the heroic age is not exclusive to the Greeks, but was common to many peoples
across many time periods. The characters of the heroic age are often given
superhuman aspects by later poets, but the core idea that when a people undergoes
a dramatic change, such as conquest or migration, they “looked back with
nostalgic admiration to a past when they could cherish vast designs and enjoy an
appropriate splendour in their external circumstances”.11 Thus my main focus will
be on whether Homer’s anomalies can actually be seen to be emphasising both the
age and the heroic nature of his characters.
Archaic Technology
First, I will address one of the most obvious anachronisms in the Iliad;
Meriones’ helmet, given to Odysseus for the night raid.12 The Boar-Tusk helmet
was a specific type of helmet, made of ivory from boars’ tusks, found in
10
Bowra 1957: pp.22-47.
11
Ibid. p.37.
12
Hom. Il.: 10.260-270.
Mycenaean Greece between the 17th to the 10th century BC (cf. Appendix 1.1 and
1.2 for images of the helmet). However, examples found or reconstructed have
been shown actually to be weaker than bronze helmets made at the same time, and
certainly would have been weaker than iron helmets available by Homer’s time.
Considering this, and the obvious amounts of effort, time and resources needed to
create such a piece, “they must therefore have been prized possessions of men of
eminence’.13
In the Iliad itself, the helmet belongs to the Cretan hero Meriones, “θεράπων” of
Idomeneus and a powerful warrior in his own right. This particular piece is given
its history and is described in great detail, which obviously would highlight it as
of more importance than the rest of the equipment given to Odysseus and
Diomedes. Notably, the information given about the helmet’s construction is very
accurate, as is illustrated by examples of the helmets that have actually been found
today. The problem is that by the 8th Century BC, these helmets had fallen out of
use, being replaced by the significantly stronger iron helmets. As Lorimer puts it,
we have “an accurate description in the poems of an object which, first found in
the Shaft-graves, ceased to exist after 1100 B.C. or thereabouts”.14 Thus we are
left with two options; either a relic of this older time has survived, which Homer
has deliberately used in his poem, fully aware that it was an anachronism, or else
the poet has simply inherited the piece describing helmet, which is part of an older
composition layer in his poem (Cf. Appendix 2.1, where I demonstrate the latter
option is more persuasive). In either case we must recognise it is extremely
unlikely that Homer would have seen it actually used on the battlefield,
considering how much better contemporary helmets would have been.
The obvious conclusion then is that Homer is deliberately using this archaic
helmet in order to emphasise the heroic and ancient nature of this war, thus
evoking a sense of nostalgia and admiration for his characters. Nor is the boar-
tusk helmet the only place that he does this, even within the specific case of actual
war-gear. Obviously, armaments in Homer are of bronze, not the iron of the 8th
Century BC Greece and this anachronism stresses their age,15 and even the very
size and weight of the armaments highlight the heroic aspect. For example, Hector
13
Luce 1975: p.104.
14
Lorimer 1929: p.146.
15
Murray 1911: pp.181-182.
is described using a spear “ἑνδεκάπηχυ”, or approximately 5.03m long. Anderson

describes later hoplite spears as “generally rather longer than the height of the
bearer”, and gives a rough figure of 2.4m,16 so by comparison Hector’s spear
would have been impractically enormous. Immediately, we can see that the heroes
are given larger-than-life properties, and we can see this also in the occasional
references to feats of strength impossible for contemporary men to achieve, as in: 
“…ὃ δὲ χερμάδιον λάβε χειρὶ

Τυδεΐδης μέγα ἔργον ὃ οὐ δύο γ᾽ ἄνδρε φέροιεν,
οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσ᾽…”17
Even the sheer number of men involved in the war emphasises the glory of this
past age. Gaertner points out that the Catalogue of Ships lists at least 60,000 men,
compared to Alexander the Great’s Asian expedition with 50,000 men.
Considering Homer lived in the Iron Age, these numbers would have been totally
infeasible to him and “Ancient readers of these lines must have been struck with
awe and must have been overwhelmed by the greatness of this early heroic age.”18
Chariotry
I will now address the use of chariots in the Iliad. As is immediately obvious
when reading the Iliad, the armies are composed of chariots and infantry, but their
engagements can be difficult to follow. There can be no doubt that chariots are of
importance in the Iliad, but, as Anderson says, “the true manner of [chariot] use
had been quite forgotten by the poet and by his audience”.19 However Homer
seems confused about the practicalities of the use of chariots in warfare – often
they appear to be nothing more than taxis to the battle-front for the nobility, but at
other times warriors appear to actually fight directly from the chariot. This gets
even more confusing when we try to envisage the actual realities of the battle-
lines described in the action. Homer’s chariots seem to be universally of a fast and
16
Anderson 1991: p.22.
17
Hom. Il.: 5.302-304.
18
Gaertner 2001: p.302.
19
Anderson 1965: p.349.
light construction20 which, where infantry are concerned, are best suited to
harassing infantry with long range missile attacks or pursuing broken foes. But in
the Iliad, when acting as taxis, they very often seem to be right in the middle of
the confusing melee, as I will discuss later. However I believe that despite
Homer’s misunderstandings, the use of chariots in the Iliad contrasted to historical
or realistic uses will again prove his focus on his heroic warriors from a distant
past. Most importantly, we must remember that Homer is composing for the
nobility, who fight in the front ranks, rather than pelting the enemy with missiles
from a distance.
Firstly, we must establish what the actual uses of chariots were in the warfare of
the time, since the historical use of chariots in battle seems to be rather
complicated. Perhaps contrary to expectation, “riding has nowhere been shown to
precede the driving of horses in antiquity”,21 and this can be seen to an extent in
warfare too. Shenfield argues that “even hunting in chariots, affording a steadier
platform for archery, may in some regions have been preferred at an early stage to
chasing prey on horseback”.22 Whilst a modern reader may first imagine the
scythed chariot, as used by the Persian armies and made famous in films such as
Gladiator (2000), this is in fact an extremely impractical use for the vehicle. Fast
chariots have an intricate and complicated design, requiring the use of spoked
wheels and multiple carefully crafted pieces, and must be pulled by trained horses,
bred for the role, and driven by skilled charioteers. Indeed, this is actually
represented in the Iliad when Pandarus tells Aeneas he didn’t bring his chariot to
Troy for fear of his horses suffering.23 The expensive construction and
maintenance of such vehicles is a strong counter-argument to the view that they
might have been used for such aggressive purposes as driving alone straight at
infantry, especially when one considers that these light chariots have no protection
for either horses or men. Indeed, in the Iliad, with a few important exceptions,
most warriors who remain in their chariot to fight tend to suffer as a result of it.
For example, Hector drives straight at Patroclus, who promptly dismounts and
20
Shenfield 2001: pp.92-97, reconstructs the various types of chariots available in Mycenaean
Greece, and concludes that Homer’s chariots were likely to the ‘Rail Chariot’ or its close
descendent the ‘High-Front Chariot’, both of which were built for speed and not heavily armoured
at all. On p.340 he notes the same chariots in the Iliad used for war were used for racing.
21
Clark 1941: pp.53-57.
22
Shenfield 2001: p.64.
23
Hom. Il.: 5.191ff.
kills Hector’s charioteer Cebriones.24 Notably, Hector earlier lost his first
charioteers, Eniopeus to Diomedes’ spear25 and Archeptolemus to Teucer’s
arrow,26 and one might argue that Hector, as a great hero destined to fall to
Achilles, can survive these near-death experiences which would kill normal men.
Contrary to direct approaches, the major use of chariots in history appears to
have been as a platform for archers, as in Egypt2728 like the army of Ramesses II
which heavily relied upon them (cf. Appendix 1.3, showing Ramesses II at the
Battle of adesh .29 Of this entirely practical use, allowing maximum use of both
the chariot’s speed and stable platform whilst minimising its flaws, we see a
remarkable lack in the Iliad (cf. Appendix 1.4, which clearly demonstrate the
Mycenaeans did know chariot archery). Most obviously of all, when riding in
Aeneas’ chariot, the famous archer Pandarus neglects to use his bow against
Diomedes, even after having been specifically urged to do so by Aeneas! Then
once again we see the charioteer bested by the man on foot, as Diomedes hurls his
spear to kill Pandarus.30 One cannot help but think that if the Trojans had been at
long range, using the bow, Pandarus might have avoided his fate. In this regard
then, at least, it appears that Homer is misunderstanding one actual use of chariots
in warfare.
The other main use of chariots in the Mycenaean world would have been the
Hittite chariots, on which Shenfield says “the Hittite light chariot crew of three,
equipped mainly with the spear, a short-range weapon, were a striking force
transported swiftly forward as a ‘mounted infantry unit’ qualified for hand-to-
hand fighting at the end of the charge”.3132 I believe we see this type of chariot
warfare on two major occasions in the Iliad, both with their own problems. The
simpler of these is found when Diomedes attacks Ares with the help of Athena.33
Here, at the urging of the goddess, Diomedes drives straight at Ares and stabs
him, after Athena deflects Ares’ own attack. This is problematical, as Ares clearly
24
Hom. Il.: 16.727ff.
25
Ibid. 8.118-124.
26
Ibid. 8.309.
27
Longman 1895: p.50.
28
Luce 1975: p.111.
29
Healy 1993: p.32.
30
Hom. Il.: 5.170-296.
31
32
Cf. Goetze 1963: pp.125-126.
33
Hom. Il.: 5.829-863.
lunges at him directly over the actual horses, as in “…Ἄρης ὠρέξαθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ζυγὸν
ἡνία θ᾽ ἵππων / ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ…”,34 and presumably Diomedes does likewise.
Even assuming they are actually stabbing each other as Diomedes passes in his
chariot, as otherwise he would be running Ares over, this still requires a lone
chariot to be charging at full tilt into infantry, which would have suicidal for the
driver. However, this anomaly may be explained both by the fragmentary nature
of Homeric battle lines, as discussed later, and partly by the literal deus ex
machina of having Athena riding in the chariot! As is made clear time and time
again in the Iliad, anything can be overcome with the help of a god. This is
obviously clearly linked to the idea of the Heroic Age, as we can again see
warriors performing deeds impossible for normal men.
A more serious problem can be found in Nestor’s advice to his charioteers in
lines 4.293-309. Here Nestor appears to be commanding his chariots to ride, in
front of his infantry, in a single line into the enemy’s chariots (cf. Appendix 1.5
for my representation of this , and importantly “ὃς δέ κ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ ὧν ὀχέων ἕτερ᾽
ἅρμαθ᾽ ἵκηται / ἔγχει ὀρεξάσθω…”.35 Here Shenfield36 attempts to argue that we
may translate “ἔγχει ὀρεξάσθω” not as “let him thrust with the lance” but as
“throw his spear”, and this also requires “ἵκηται” to mean simply “come into
range”, rather than “reach”. This would allow a meaning of throwing javelins,
which is obviously more understandable from a chariot, but I feel that this is very
tenuous, especially considering ἔγχος is far more usual as a thrusting spear; for
example Athena’s ἔγχος is described as “βριθὺ μέγα στιβαρόν”,37 which is clearly
wrong for a javelin. It is possible to argue that Nestor was talking about mentality
in this speech, rather than actual tactics, or that he’s simply ordering his warriors
to fight from the chariot rather than dismounting, but both of these avoid simpler
conclusion; Nestor is here envisaging a clash of chariots which meets before the
infantry. Indeed, I actually believe this could be an example of the Hittite style of
warfare, which the Trojans at one stage may have used. As Goetze notes,38 Hittite
chariots were used in “massed assault” against infantry. In large squadrons,
chariots were able to directly charge infantry, but individual chariots, as in the
34
Hom. Il.: 5.851-852.
35
Ibid. 4.306-307.
36
37
Hom. Il.: 8.390.
38
Goetze 1963: pp.125-126.
Iliad, would certainly not have been able to do so safely. In this case, Nestor, who
is of course noted for being very old himself, could be being quite literal when he
says “ὧδε καὶ οἱ πρότεροι πόλεας καὶ τείχε᾽ ἐπόρθεον”.39 Thus I believe this is
another example of Homer stressing the ancient nature of his subject as a contrast
to the contemporary age. This is perhaps backed up by the fact that, despite
Nestor’s advice, we do not actually see any of these tactics actually enacted on the
battlefield. Thus we must either assume that Homer is mixing layers of
composition which do not make consistent sense with each other, or that he is
including Nestor’s advice specifically because it evokes that sense of ancient,
glorious warfare, despite the fact it is unique and not followed.
We can now turn to the main use of chariots in the Iliad, that of battle ‘taxis’,
where we see the most confusion as to their role. Let us first consider Patroclus’
reason for taking Automedon as his charioteer, in “τὸν μετ᾽ Ἀχιλλῆα ῥηξήνορα τῖε
μάλιστα, / πιστότατος δέ οἱ ἔσκε μάχῃ ἔνι μεῖναι ὁμοκλήν”.40 This strongly implies
that the reason for Automedon’s trustworthiness in battle is specifically that he
could be relied to keep close, as we must remember that a shout in the chaos of
battle might not reach very far at all. Thus we must ask why Patroclus would want
his chariot to be kept near, since he does not actually intend to fight from it? I
believe there are two answers to this: rescue and pursuit.
Firstly, several times in the Iliad, dismounted heroes will get back into a chariot
in order to flee overwhelming force, as can be seen when Diomedes rescues
Nestor, saying: 
“ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐμῶν ὀχέων ἐπιβήσεο, ὄφρα ἴδηαι

οἷοι Τρώϊοι ἵπποι ἐπιστάμενοι πεδίοιο
κραιπνὰ μάλ᾽ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα διωκέμεν ἠδὲ φέβεσθαι,”41
Here we specifically see Diomedes rescuing Nestor, who was being threatened by
Hector’s advance,42 by inviting him into his chariot. Aeneas too says a very
similar thing to Pandarus,43 exactly repeating the above lines. Moreover, he
39
Hom. Il.: 4.308.
40
Ibid. 16.146-147.
41
Ibid. 8.105-107.
42
Ibid. 8.80-91.
43
Ibid. 5.218-228.
actually says “ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἵππων ἀποβήσομαι ὄφρα μάχωμαι”,44 obviously implying

that you do not fight from the chariot. Secondly, as mentioned above, a hero may
want his chariot in order to pursue the fleeing enemy, for example when Patroclus
pursues the fleeing Trojans “…ὑπὸ δ᾽ ἄξοσι φῶτες ἔπιπτον / πρηνέες ἐξ ὀχέων,
δίφροι δ᾽ ἀνακυμβαλίαζον”.45 Interestingly, this was one of the main realistic uses
of cavalry throughout warfare, to pursue broken and fragmented infantry. Thus
this could easily be a case of real Mycenaean chariot warfare or simply Homer
logically working out a practical use for chariots. Shenfield46 argues that the ‘taxi’
chariots may have been the only real use of war-chariots left in the Greek world,
as Cyrene may have been using chariots as troop transports as late as the 4th
century BC, and in Boeotia and Athens some chariot races were held in which the
charioteer was accompanied by an armed ἀποβατης who leapt down to race on
foot to the finish. Finally, similar to the role of archer chariots, sometimes
warriors would advance into medium range and hurl their javelins, again making
use of the chariot’s speed to advance and retreat safely. This practical use of
warfare is partially seen in the Iliad, since warriors like Pandarus do indeed
advance on chariots to hurl their javelins,47 but then very often fail to retreat into
safety and are caught by the enemy, who themselves are often on foot. The very
fact that they are caught by infantry, even those using ranged weapons, is an
obvious indication that this is not the proper historical use of chariots.
The obvious conclusion then to this analysis of chariot warfare is that Homer did
not actually know how chariots were really used in Mycenaean warfare,48 but that
he was very aware that they did exist. Indeed, Greenhalgh argues that the chariot
in the Iliad was an intentional archaism for which Homer used knowledge of the
44
Hom. Il.: 5.227.
45
Ibid. 16.378-379
46
Shenfield 2001: pp.330-331
47
Hom. Il.: 5.275-285.
48
Although not everyone holds this view. Conter 2003: pp.25-46, argues that the Mycenaeans
were genuinely different to the Near Easterners and Egyptians in how they used their chariots, and
that Homer is actually being surprisingly accurate. Personally, I would argue against this view
since it makes little sense for the Mycenaeans to neglect the obviously successful styles of chariot
warfare of the other races, especially considering evidence such as the Tawagalawas letter which
would indicate close relationships between them. Conter mostly defends her viewpoint on account
of there being very little evidence of the archer chariots in Mycenaean remains (Although again,
Cf. Appendix 1.4), but this is ignoring the fact that we have so little evidence at all. The official
records in Pylos and Knossos obviously indicate very large numbers of chariots, and for them to
be relegated to troop transports seems very doubtful to me.
racing chariots in his own day.49 It is also entirely possible that somewhere along
the oral tradition, the tendency may have been to understate the hit-and-run
aspects of chariot warfare. After all, no matter how effective it is, it is hardly
proper behaviour for a hero to be seen running away to a safe distance to pelt the
enemy with arrows. Perhaps something of this disdain for ranged warfare can be
seen in Idomeneus’ words “οὐ γὰρ ὀΐω / ἀνδρῶν δυσμενέων ἑκὰς ἱστάμενος
πολεμίζειν”.5051 Thus Homer is again emphasising the courage of his heroes who
only fight in the front ranks and, even when riding chariots, prefer to engage their
enemy face to face.
Flow of Battle
Next, I am going to address the flow of the battle. As I mentioned briefly
before, the battlefield of Troy seems to have been very confused and “most
engagements lack discipline, clarity and ordered purpose”.52 Homer does a
brilliant job of making the various sections naturally flow from one to the other,
but upon closer look it appears that methods of fighting vary wildly even within
short periods of time which would otherwise seem to the same. One could argue
that this is a narrative technique in order to lessen the monotony, which is so often
criticised by new readers of the Iliad who are not used to the catalogues and
repetitive stock phrases. However, I would argue strongly against this point of
view, since Homer very clearly does make deliberate changes to the pace of the
battlefields, and these are all well signposted. For example in the early part of the
second day of fighting,53 we change from balanced, close-up battle-lines to a siege
on the Greek walls, then again to the Trojans attacking the Greeks in a defensive
formation. Thus even within only a short period of the actual combat, we can see
three different styles of warfare, all clearly contrasted from each other. These are
clearly narrative techniques to vary the pace and are easily contrasted to confusing
scenes as described below, which apparently see chariots driving through friendly
ranked men and other such serious issues.
49
Greenhalgh 1973: pp.28-29.
50
Hom. Il.: 13.262-263. Cf. Ibid.: 11.385-390.
51
Although contrast Ibid. 4.197: “τῷ μὲν κλέος” describing Pandarus’ shot at Menelaus, despite
the truce.
52
Luce 1975: p.108.
53
Hom. Il.: 11.1-13.837.
I will address duels later, but first we must examine the progression of warfare
between the armies. As a poet, Homer is of course not obligated to depict a
realistic representation of warfare, but instead appears to suggest mutually
exclusive tactics simultaneously. Appendix 2.2 covers in depth the fighting in
Book 4, which demonstrates how Homer suggests close-up fighting whilst at the
same time ‘cheating’ by allowing freedom of movement for his heroes. This is
quite a clever mechanism by Homer, as it allows him to depict an extremely
dangerous fight, but also to have his brave heroes performing exceptional deeds,
literally outside of the general mass. In other words, we are seeing Homer
manipulating the story of the conflict for artistic reasons, instead of sticking
strictly to a realistic representation of warfare.
By comparison, Book 5 is an almost incomprehensible mess of fighting, as
introduced by Homer himself when Athena thrusts Diomedes into “μέσσον ὅθι
πλεῖστοι κλονέοντο”.54 Despite being apparently the most crowded area of the
battlefield, we immediately see the two sons of Dares “ώ οἱ ἀποκρινθέντε ἐναντίω
ὁρμηθήτην” and drive against Diomedes: “τὼ μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἵπποιιν, ὃ δ᾽ ἀπὸ χθονὸς
ὄρνυτο πεζός”.55 Even if we ignore the problem of Diomedes apparently charging
alone against a chariot on foot, a suicidal gesture normally (cf. Appendix 1.6.
Although this actually shows Ares being charged by Diomedes, you can clearly
still see that a lone infantryman would be in serious trouble of being run over), by
attributing it to his heroic nature, this still implies several concerning problems.
The first problem is that the chariot must be close to the front lines, in order to
actually charge. We could imagine a chariot standing more or less motionless at
the very front, but considering the lack of defences for chariots and heavily
emphasised aspects of speed and ranged weapons, this seems completely counter-
intuitive. So the chariot must have been slightly behind at least. But this brings yet
another problem; the front ranks had to be close together in order to support each
other.56 But this means we have to imagine that same chariot apparently passing
through the front lines, which means there could not possibly have been close-set
ranks of men, or even a wilder melee. This hardly agrees with the initial
description of where Diomedes is! We cannot even suggest the chariot is coming
54
Hom. Il.: 5.8.
55
Ibid. 5.12-13.
56
Murray 1980: pp.121-122.
in from the flank, since we are specifically in the middle of the fighting. Finally
then, there is the problem of there being enough room between the armies for the
chariot to actually build up speed in its charge, which again is strongly against
line 5.8. I believe there are only a few possible interpretations. One is that Homer
is using multiple parts of the tradition which do not quite agree with each other
and is unable to alter them to fit, which runs completely against what I set out in
my introduction. Another is that he is envisaging a considerably more spaced
battlefield, with neither side formed up for fighting and is simply exaggerating the
danger of the battlefield, but this is hardly suitable for epic warfare. I would
instead argue that he has decided to completely ignore the issue in favour of the
story. Considering that we just saw how Homer was adding in archaic equipment
and methods of warfare in order to emphasise the heroic nature of the war, I think
we are seeing a similar approach here. By subtly combining both the concentrated
ranked combat and the open battlefield, he simultaneously manages to suggest
extremely dangerous and furious fighting as well as allowing for the great deeds
of his heroes.
The differences between the individual champions with their companions, as
separate units of the battlefield, and the later rigid phalanxes of Classical Greece
have often been noted.
There, battles were decided “between phalanxes of heavily armed infantry”,57
where men had to fight in strict formation and that the breaking of your formation
usually meant defeat. Murray58 says that “by the late eighth century the economic
base for the manufacture of weapons… was strong enough to sustain a military
breakthrough, the creation of new mass armies of heavy-armed troops, who
replaced the individual champions of the earlier period…”, and perhaps we see
something of this in the Iliad in: 
“…οἳ γὰρ ἄριστοι

κρινθέντες Τρῶάς τε καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἔμιμνον,
φράξαντες δόρυ δουρί, σάκος σάκεϊ προθελύμνῳ: 
ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾽ ἀνήρ: 
ψαῦον δ᾽ ἱππόκομοι κόρυθες λαμπροῖσι φάλοισι
57
Hanson 1991: p.3.
58
Murray 1980: p.125.
νευόντων, ὡς πυκνοὶ ἐφέστασαν ἀλλήλοισιν: 

ἔγχεα δ᾽ ἐπτύσσοντο θρασειάων ἀπὸ χειρῶν
σειόμεν᾽: οἳ δ᾽ ἰθὺς φρόνεον, μέμασαν δὲ μάχεσθαι.”59
Here we can clearly see, as opposed to the chaotic melee which I described
earlier, organised ranks of men who are close enough that their shields are
touching and, presumably, use their overlapping spears to make a wall of spikes,
which promptly stops Hector cold. In particular, the fact that these are the ἄριστοι
is interesting, as this suggests that the cowards and weaklings are likely to have
fallen back rather than face such constrained and deadly warfare, which is
precisely what did happen in Classical Greek battles. However, almost
immediately after this scene of phalanx-like warfare, Meriones appears to freely
leave the formation after breaking his spear,60 an impossible act in conventional
hoplite tactics, which rely completely upon an unbroken formation. Scenes of the
slaughter resulting from the breaking of a formation can be found in the Iliad too,
as when Apollo scatters the Greek ranks with the aegis,61 so Homer is clearly not
entirely ignorant of what would happen when a formation broke, but here
completely ignores it. Thus even when Homer may actually be describing a type
of warfare which is not just contemporary, but actually new, and which the
Mycenaeans almost certainly would not have engaged in, he still feels free to take
great artistic license to focus on the individual characters. Notably, after Meriones
leaves, we then receive descriptions of how Ajax, Teucer and Hector proceed to
kill their opponents, instead of how the greater mass of men fought,62 which is
again evidence of Homer emphasising the heroic nature of his characters over
historical accuracy.
Duels
Finally, I feel I should briefly address the issue of duels in the Iliad, as they too
are somewhat counter-intuitive. The three true ‘duels’, in the sense of two
warriors fighting each other, with some pre-arrangement and without outside help,
are actually entirely unproblematic. The fights between Paris and Menelaus, Ajax
59
Hom. Il.: 13.128-135.
60
Ibid. 13.159-168.
61
Ibid. 15.313-342.
62
Ibid. 13.169-205.
and Hector, and Hector and Achilles all work beautifully to emphasise the heroic
nature of their combatants whilst still being, if not always historically realistic as
such, perfectly in line with epic warfare according to poetry. Despite the obvious
interferences of the gods, the actual mortal armies back off to let the heroes fight.
Indeed, the very nature of the duels demonstrate in the clearest way how different
Homer’s warfare is to the later phalanx warfare of Classical Greece, as discussed
above, which focused on the army as a whole instead of individual warriors.63
This focus on the individual can also be seen in the speeches between warriors,
apparently conducted in the middle of battle. It is possible to conceive opponents
swapping quick insults, as between Aeneas and Meriones,64 but how easily could
Glaucus and Diomedes have a full conversation65 with each other, even
exchanging their armour? I agree with de Jong66 here, that we very obviously see
here Homer ignoring the greater battle in order to focus on his key characters,
ignoring realism and accuracy.
Moreover, if we consider when Sarpedon fights Patroclus,67 it seems that their
fight becomes an informal duel similar to the pre-arranged ones of above.
Patroclus kills Sarpedon’s attendant, which obviously takes him out of the fight,
but, although Automedon is clearly there,68 he does not make any efforts to help
Patroclus. Once again, I would argue this is proof of Homer’s focus on individual
deeds, since it is far more heroic to overcome a great enemy by yourself than to
drag him down by numbers. Interestingly, it is possible that Homer was being
historically accurate here, as there is some suggestion that champions were keenly
concerned with their κλεος; fights between champions were recognised affairs of
honour. In particular, Sarpedon’s own speech to Glaucus69 recognises this drive
for honour that makes warriors “μέτα πρώτοισι μάχονται”.70 As Wheeler71 says,
“the chieftains of war bands investing Troy in the Iliad espoused a code of
honour, whereby each strove to prove himself the best (aristos) in a display of
martial excellence (arete .” In this case, especially as this idea of heroic
63
Wheeler 1991: pp.122-123.
64
Hom. Il.: 16.616-625.
65
Ibid. 6.119-236.
66
de Jong 2005: pp.18-19.
67
Hom. Il.: 16.462-507.
68
Ibid. 16.472.
69
Ibid. 12.310-328
70
Ibid. 12.321.
71
Wheeler 1991: p.122.
champions concerned with individual glory can be so sharply contrasted to the

emerging mass-produced warfare, Homer is surely even more deliberately
stressing how glorious the past was, as compared to the wretched present.
Chapter Conclusion
In conclusion, I feel there is very persuasive evidence that Homer, if we assume
him not to be the problematical redactor simply combining multiple layers, but to
be a skilled bard himself, made deliberate choices about his representation of war
in the Iliad. There are clearly many anomalies, where a close analysis of the text
does indeed show how realism, historical accuracy and tight cohesive sense have
been ignored, but in general they are surprisingly unnoticeable for the casual
reader. Instead, by ignoring elements that would have restricted his opportunities
for story-telling, Homer is free to emphasise the ancient and heroic nature of his
battlefield in order to contrast them with the present day.72 It is possible to
imagine a bard in Greek Ionia crafting his masterwork to deliberately remind
people of their days of former glory back on the mainland, which would have
been a very popular topic, as in a similar way to how we see Virgil romanticising
the heroic past of the Roman people in the Aeneid.
72
Once again, I feel I must reference here Bowra 1957 for his excellent work on the Heroic Age
across civilisations, which conclusively proves both its existence and its deliberate inclusion in
Homer.
Chapter 2 – Allusions and Suppressions
From my first chapter then, I believe we can demonstrate how some details,
which may initially be considered mistakes or inaccuracies, can actually be
considered deliberate choices to emphasise Homer’s focus. The next issue I wish
to address then is anomalies in the actual narrative, where we see very curious
events and allusions that seem unconnected to the greater story. In particular, the
ones that stand out to me as interesting are the para-narratives, possible references
to the Epic Cycle, and ‘suppressed’ narratives. I believe that many of these
‘unconnected’ narratives can actually be demonstrated to provide explanations or
supplemental detail to the main story. Most importantly, we should keep in mind
what Homer’s actual focus is on; In my last chapter, I demonstrated how he
wishes to emphasise the Heroic Age, but I believe another one of his main focuses
is on the relationship between glory and mortality. In this way, I think we can see
deliberate tendencies by Homer to both acknowledge his predecessors’ works, but
also to manipulate the legends in order to emphasise his theme.
Death of Patroclus
When discussing how Homer may be alluding to earlier episodes in the Epic
Cycle, there are various ways to do this. The relatively new theory of Neoanalysis,
to quote Burgess, “assumes the influence of pre-Homeric material on Homeric
poetry and attempts to discover indications of this influence…”,7374 and certainly
has some merit, although it is still rather flawed in parts.75 In particular though, let
us look at the theory76 about the “putative Memnonis”77 which “served as a model
for much of the last third of the Iliad”.78 I am here going to concentrate on the
idea that Patroclus’s rampage and death is taken from the Memnonis. An easily
understood example is the lamentation of the Nereids for Patroclus. Such a
dramatic scene seems incongruous for only Achilles’ friend, but if instead we
imagine it as what would have happened when Achilles himself died, it makes
73
Burgess 2006: p.150.
74
For a detailed review, cf. Clark 1986.
75
Cf. Burgess 1997, attacking some of the more tenuous extrapolations.
76
Cf. West 2003a: p.5 for a summary.
77
Ibid. p.6.
78
Ibid. p.5.
more sense. In particular, the image of Thetis, who “κωκύσασα κάρη λάβε παιδὸς
ἑοῖο”,79 whilst her son lies in the dust, has struck Neoanalysts as a clear allusion to
cradling her dead son’s body. Schein80 also argues that Homer uses this
symbolism directly in the Iliad to represent Achilles as metaphorically dying; that
he is now freed from mortal concerns such as hunger or wealth. It is also easy to
imagine Patroclus’ rampage, which forces back the entire Trojan army, as
originally describing Achilles, which is obviously more appropriate for the greater
warrior.
I find the Death of Patroclus especially interesting, since again it initially seems
bizarre to the reader but to an informed audience would be an instantly
recognisable case of an allusion foreshadowing Achilles’ death. As I introduced
earlier, I believe one of Homer’s main focuses is on the mortality of his heroes,
but one of the problems of the Iliad is that the greatest hero, Achilles, doesn’t
actually die. However, by the frequent allusions and prophecies relating to his
future death, Homer manages to effectively suggest it all the way through. Indeed,
this has the end effect of making us more sure of his mortality than a sudden death
would have, and actually allows some level of empathy, or even forgiveness, of
Achilles’ brutality.
On Patroclus’ death, the most important facts are these: Paris chased the Trojans
back to the Scaean Gates, where Apollo strips him of his armour, Euphorbus stabs
him in the back, and finally Hector finishes him off. If we first consult Hector’s
prophecy to Achilles, “Πάρις καὶ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων / … ὀλέσωσιν ἐνὶ Σκαιῇσι
πύλῃσιν”,81 we can immediately see in both cases it is a god and a mortal killing
the warrior under the Scaean Gates. Moreover, Euphorbus has actually been
suggested as a mirror of Paris:  Euphorbus was a Dardanian, and both his very
name and location may allude to the pastoral upbringing of Paris on Mount Ida.
He was a noble and skilled at “ἔγχεΐ θ᾽ ἱπποσύνῃ τε πόδεσσί τε καρπαλίμοισι”,82
which may refer to Paris’ revealing at the games in Troy, although Nickel has
attempted to disprove that these factors were known to be part of the myths
concerning Paris.83 Harder to disprove though is the fact that Euphorbus is
79
Hom. Il.: 18.71.
80
Schein 1984: pp.129-1140.
81
Hom. Il.: 22.359-360.
82
Ibid. 16.809.
83
Nickel 2002: pp.216-221.
immediately killed by Menelaus, and that “αἵματί οἱ δεύοντο κόμαι Χαρίτεσσιν

ὁμοῖαι / πλοχμοί θ᾽, οἳ χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἐσφήκωντο”.84 The reference to his
good looks and in particular to his lovely hair can easily be compared to Paris’, in
“οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίσμῃ κίθαρις τά τε δῶρ᾽ Ἀφροδίτης / ἥ τε κόμη τό τε εἶδος ὅτ᾽ ἐν
κονίῃσι μιγείης”,85 especially when we consider the close relationship of
Aphrodite and the Graces. We might see another reference in the simile of Paris,
as a horse which is let out of the stables: 
“ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη ἔχει, ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται

ὤμοις ἀΐσσονται: ὃ δ᾽ ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθὼς
ῥίμφά ἑ γοῦνα φέρει μετά τ᾽ ἤθεα καὶ νομὸν ἵππων”.86
Here we can see references to Paris’ speed, his hair and possibly even to his
horsemanship, and one might note we see Paris next “ταχέες δὲ πόδες φέρον: 
αἶψα δ᾽ ἔπειτα / Ἕκτορα δῖον ἔτετμεν”.87 Further, despite Nickel’s protestations
that Paris is renowned for the bow, he uses the spear when he fights Menelaus.
Even more obviously, both Euphorbus’ and Paris’ spear throw are described in
exactly the same way: 
“…οὔτησε κατ᾽ ἀσπίδα πάντοσ᾽ ἐΐσην: 

οὐδ᾽ ἔρρηξεν χαλκός, ἀνεγνάμφθη δέ οἱ αἰχμὴ
ἀσπίδ᾽ ἐνὶ κρατερῇ…”88
Nickel’s argument that because Menelaus actually succeeds in killing Euphorbus

the character fails as mirror strikes me as particularly pedantic, especially
considering how much help Paris had to survive. Indeed, if Euphorbus does serve
as a Paris-mirror, Homer is effectively commenting, that without divine
assistance, Menelaus would indeed have slain Paris.
I would argue then that we are seeing an obvious Achilles-mirror being ‘slain’
by Apollo and a Paris-mirror. Even the method in which Euphorbus attacks is
84
Hom. Il.: 17.51-52.
85
Ibid. 3.54-55.
86
Ibid. 6.509-511.
87
Ibid. 6.514-515.
88
Ibid. 3.347-349 and Ibid. 17.43-45.
remarkable, as he stabs Patroclus in the back, rather than attacking honourably,

which is obviously similar lacking in courage to shooting him from a distance.
But despite the overwhelming advantage of attacking an already wounded and
dazed opponent from behind, Euphorbus, almost incomprehensibly, does not press
his advantage but runs away with no reason given. The obvious cause is that,
despite serving as a clear allusion to the future death of Achilles in the manner of
his death, Patroclus still has to actually die to Hector. Thus Euphorbus retreats,
and clears the way for Hector, whom Patroclus mocks by saying “σὺ δέ με τρίτος
ἐξεναρίζεις”,89 even highlighting how Hector is only there to strip his arms rather
than actually kill him by his choice of verb.
Indeed, I believe that Homer is clearly evoking the image of Achilles’ own
death through Patroclus’ death so as to draw even more attention to the central
theme of the work, the Wrath of Achilles and all its consequences, which of
course includes the death of Achilles. This is repeatedly brought up throughout
the poem, and Thetis even directly tells it to her son: “ὠκύμορος δή μοι τέκος
ἔσσεαι, οἷ᾽ ἀγορεύεις / αὐτίκα γάρ τοι ἔπειτα μεθ᾽ Ἕκτορα πότμος ἑτοῖμος”.90 All
this foreshadowing is done for a beautiful effect: Achilles, despite knowing his
fate if he does it, still fights to avenge his friend. Indeed because of this Phaedrus,
much later in Plato’s Symposium, lauds him as the ultimate example of one dying
for their lover, since he knowingly died in addition to him, as opposed to others
who died instead of.91 I would disagree with Burgess92 that Patroclus cannot
perform two roles at once, being both Antilochus and Achilles from the
Memnonis, since although it does create a few problems like the aforementioned
inexplicable retreat by Euphorbus, it is hardly impossible for one character to be
two allusions simultaneously.
However as mentioned, the problem with the above effect is that Achilles
doesn’t actually die. Gorman93 makes the interesting point that Homer neatly
avoids the problem of having his greatest warrior die in an inglorious fashion, but
it still seems very odd for such a foreshadowed event not to come to pass.
Moreover, the Aethiopis has the difficulty of having to ‘create’ the circumstances
89
Hom. Il.: 16.850.
90
Ibid. 18.95-96.
91
Plat. Sym.: 179e-180b.
92
Burgess 1997: pp.15-16.
93
Gorman 2001: p.265.
appropriate for Achilles to die. It would hardly be fitting to start the epic by
killing him off, and thus significant enough deeds need to be found before he can
be killed under the Scaean Gates, hence the intrusion of Memnon. West94 has a
fascinating theory that originally the Wrath of Achilles story did have the
character dying after killing Hector. He argues that, instead of having both armies
retreat before Hector and Achilles duel, they found each other in the middle of the
battle. Achilles kills Hector, still in revenge for Patroclus, but when the Trojans
retreat after their leader is killed, as they do when Sarpedon/Memnon95 is killed,
Achilles immediately pursues. Achilles leads the Greeks up to the Scaean Gates,
and is thus in danger of taking Troy “ὑπὲρ μόρον”,96 until Apollo and Paris kill
him. However, the story was later changed, perhaps to allow for a greater
emphasis on Achilles nursing his rage, his rampage and the pathetic scene with
Priam. At this stage the Memnonis was composed to deal with the problem of
Achilles’ death, and, somewhat amusingly, the Iliad itself alludes to that story,
which was later expanded into the full Aethiopis. This frankly rather beautiful
theory solves all the above problems in one go, although of course it is impossible
to prove, since it relies upon proto-stories in the Oral Tradition.
Other Anachronies
I believe there are several other instances of these anachronies concerning other
stories in the Epic Cycle throughout the Iliad, many of which appear to have
similar effects of foreshadowing (Cf. Appendix 3.1 for an extended examination
of the relationship of the Iliad to the Epic Cycle). For example, Nickel97 suggests
Diomedes as a mirror for Achilles when he is wounded in the foot.98 He argues
that no one else is wounded in the foot, especially by a bowshot from Paris, and
that Diomedes, who appeared to be taking the place of Achilles as foremost
warrior in Books 5-6, metaphorically ‘dies’ after this wounding, as he ceases to
have any active roles in the fighting.
94
West 2003a: pp.7-11.
95
Cf. Ibid. p.5, where the argument is made that Sarpedon as the exotic ally is a mirror for
Memnon.
96
Hom. Il.: 21.517.
97
Nickel 2002: pp.224-225.
98
Hom. Il.: 11.369-400.
Next, Currie99 makes a convincing case that Andromache’s tears100 are a strong
allusion to the Little Iliad, where Neoptolemus killed Astyanax: “παῖδα δ’ ἑλών ἐκ
κόλπου ἐυπλοκάμοιο τιθήνης ῥῖψε ποδὸς τεταγών ἀπό πύργου”.101 In particular, he
points out that Hector “superficially is indistinguishable from a hostile Greek
warrior – Neoptolemus, say (little wonder that the baby Astyanax recoils from
him in fright)”.102 In these cases, the scene works by itself in Homer, but is
enhanced by the allusion to other sources which presumably Homer’s own
audience would understand, as they would have heard these other stories too.
Thus I believe we can explain the reasoning behind some of the anomalies as
deliberate prolepses foreshadowing future events. Further, de Jong argues
“internal prolepses in the simple narrator-text reach the [primary-audience] only
and the characters remain ignorant of what lies ahead of them. Internal prolepses,
therefore… create dramatic irony”.103 This dramatic irony is of course a stock
component of tragedy, such as the Oedipus cycle, and is entirely appropriate in an
epic about mortality.
However, there are also other anachronies, such as the analepses to other parts of
the Epic Cycle. The most obvious of these is the Catalogue of Ships, which is
important for the poem as a whole for its sense of scale, as I mentioned in Chapter
1, but surely does not belong in a description of the tenth year. Proclus even says
that at the end of the Cypria was a “κατάλογος τῶν τοῖς Τρωσι
σθμμαχησάντων”,104 which is obviously repeated to some extent in the Iliad.105 At
first glance, the Teichoskopia seems to be another of these events which are
clearly out of temporal sequence, since it seems bizarre to have Helen pointing out
the leaders of an army which had been there for almost a decade. Clearly related
to this is the duel between Paris and Menelaus, which would also make more
sense to be early in the war. However Tsagarakis106 argues that it is possible that
the latter two events genuinely could have happened in the tenth year. The
withdrawal of Achilles due to his feud with Agamemnon completely changed the
99
Currie 2008: p.26.
100
Hom. Il.: 6.399-502.
101
Little Iliad: frag.29.
102
Currie 2008: p.26.
103
de Jong 1987: p.86.
104
Proclus Chrestomathy: Cypria.1.
105
Hom. Il.: 2.816-877.
106
Tsagarakis: 1892.
dynamic of the war, thus for the first time the Trojans are free to actually go on
the offensive. This can of course be seen in the Iliad directly by the construction
of the wall by the Greeks, which was only made necessary by Achilles’
disappearance. For the first time, Priam feels free to watch the battle, since he
knows he will not be watching the massacre of his sons by Achilles, and, more
importantly, the Greeks feel threatened enough to accept the terms of the duel.
Interestingly, Proclus relates that originally the Greeks “...διαπρεσβεύονται πρός
τους Τρῶας, τήν λένην και τα χρήματα ἀπαιτοῦντες. ὡς δε [Tρώιοι] οὐκ
ὑπήκουσαν…”,107 so there’s a certain symmetry in now the Trojans offering the
same terms. If this is the case, then the Teichoskopia is no anomaly at all, but a
well reasoned introduction to his characters. If however it is only Homer taking an
event out of its proper sequence, he is ignoring the constraints of ‘history’, in the
sense of a strict chronological representation of facts, in order to make his poetry
better by properly introducing and glorifying his main characters.
Suppressions
Outside of the allusions which are mainly to foreshadow or to introduce
characters, I believe we see allusions which primarily do one, or both, of two
things: They either suppress the magical and fantastic, or they provide a paradigm
for the characters. Further, even in the allusions where neither of these are the
explicit purpose, we can still see these happening throughout. For example, when
Apollo attacks Patroclus, as I discussed above, he did not just simply strike him
dazed to be more easily overcome by Euphorbus, but struck off his “τρυφάλεια”,
broke his “ἔγχος” and removed his “ἀσπὶς” and “θώρηκα”.108 This seems rather
excessive, but the obvious reason is that originally Achilles’ armour was
impenetrable (Cf. Appendix 3.2 which examines the influence of Indo-European
poetry on the Iliad). This also explains Patroclus’ comment that Zeus and Apollo
beat him: “αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ὤμων τεύχε᾽ ἕλοντο”.109 It is for this same reason that
when Achilles fights Hector, "τοῦ δὲ καὶ ἄλλο τόσον μὲν ἔχε χρόα χάλκεα τεύχεα /
καλά”,110 he has to use his knowledge of his own armour to strike “φαίνετο δ᾽ ᾗ
107
108
Hom. Il.: 16.795,803,801,804.
109
Ibid. 16.846.
110
Ibid. 22.322-323.
κληῗδες ἀπ᾽ ὤμων αὐχέν᾽ ἔχουσι / λαυκανίην”,111 but Homer conceals this original
reason for such a specific strike. One cannot even argue that Achilles needed to
attack an area uncovered by armour, since he seemed easily enough to penetrate
Demoleon’s helmet and Polydorus’ armour.112 Homer takes this suppression of
the invulnerable further, since even truly divine armaments, such as the Shield of
Achilles, are only “οὐ ῥηΐδι᾽”113 to break, and Aeneas’ spear throw actually
pierces two of the five layers.114 Nor do we see any heroes themselves being
invulnerable, as Asteropaeus hits Achilles’ arm with a spear and “σύτο δ᾽ αἷμα
κελαινεφές”.115 This can obviously be contrasted to the Cypria’s Cycnus, who was
invulnerable to spear and sword, and had to be strangled to death by Achilles.116
This suppression of magical invulnerability is, I believe, a special type of the
suppression of magic.117 The Iliad is not just a catalogue of the slain, but it deeply
examines the relationship between glory, vengeance and death. Thus we have
Achilles’ incredible speech to Odysseus, culminating: 
“ληϊστοὶ μὲν γάρ τε βόες καὶ ἴφια μῆλα,

κτητοὶ δὲ τρίποδές τε καὶ ἵππων ξανθὰ κάρηνα,
ἀνδρὸς δὲ ψυχὴ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν οὔτε λεϊστὴ
οὔθ᾽ ἑλετή ἐπεὶ ἄρ κεν ἀμείψεται ἕρκος ὀδόντων.”118
Schein119 makes the argument that, after Patroclus has died, Achilles simply no
longer cares about anything, not glory, not wealth, not even life: He becomes a
figure outside of humanity: “Described as dead, he is less than mortal; described
as daemonic, he is far greater”.120 In this Iliad, so deeply concerned with the
mortal relationship with death which is clearly contrasted to the ease and power of
111
Hom. Il.: 22.324-325.
112
Ibid. 20.395-418.
113
Ibid. 20.265.
114
Ibid. 20.269-272.
115
Ibid. 21.167.
116
Graves 1955: pp.218-219.
117
Cf. Griffin 1977: p.40.
118
Hom. Il.: 9.406-409.
119
Schein 1984: pp.128-167.
120
Ibid. p.138.
the immortals, it would be impossible to have invulnerable heroes without

questioning its entire framework.121
Griffin122 addresses many of the fantastic things present in the Epic Cycle, as
opposed to Homer in the Iliad (and Odyssey, to a lesser extent), and concludes the
Homeric poems are better for excluding the fantastic and the romantic in order to
concentrate on men. For example, Paris and Helen have no children in the Iliad.
By contrast, the Cypria has Helen give him a son Aganus,123 distorting how “the
virtue of Hector and the devotion of Andromache contrast with Paris' frivolity and
Helen's contempt”.124 To define fantastic is course a difficult task, since a reader
might consider the ever-present gods in the Iliad fairly magical themselves.
Kakridis argues that “the epic poets exclude magic and worship of the Earth, as
they consider them incompatible with their faith in the bright Olympian gods”,125
implying the gods are separate to the fantastic. However I would add Griffin’s
argument to this,126 that the gods exist in Homer as a counterpart to men; that they
represent the ever-lasting youth and immortality which men cannot have. In this
way, “[the gods’] passionate concern and personal participation…marks heroic
events as possessing significance”127 but they also to highlight the close
relationship of glory to death. The inclusion of truly magical elements such as
spells and monsters would weaken this contrast.
For example, Alden128 discusses how when Dione talks to Aphrodite about the
fate of those who fight the gods, she is telling Aphrodite not to worry about
Diomedes,129 for “οὐ δηναιὸς ὃς ἀθανάτοισι μάχηται”.130 There may also be a
subtle allusion to the Nostos of Diomedes here when Dione specifically mentions
Diomedes’ wife Aegialea, who Aphrodite will later cause to betray him.131 This
again would emphasise the difference between men and the gods, by highlighting
how even someone as glorious as Diomedes cannot surpass the gods: “The heroes
121
Schein 1984: pp.153-154 argues how this Iliad must have continued on to Priam’s ransoming,
otherwise Achilles would be left still as an inhuman monster, not as the tragic hero he deserves to
be.
122
Griffin 1977.
123
Cypria: Frag.9.
124
Griffin 1977: p.43.
125
Kakridis 1949: p.16.
126
Griffin 1977: pp.42-43.
127
128
Alden 2000: pp.123-128.
129
Hom. Il.: 5.405-415.
130
Ibid. 5.407.
131
Mimnermus: Frag.22.
who are ‘god-like’ are subject to death, and we see them die”.132 We can also see
this in the case of the Dioscuri.133 This is actually a rather sad moment in the
poem, where Helen does not yet know that her brothers are already dead and
buried in Laecedaemonia. But this can be instantly contrasted to the Cypria,
where Zeus “ἀυτοῖς ἑτερήμερον νέμει τήν ἀθανασίαν”.134 In this way we yet again
see Homer’s focus on mortality remove any possibility of such a flexible death. In
the Iliad, the dead are gone, or as Patroclus says “οὐ γὰρ ἔτ᾽ αὖτις / νίσομαι ἐξ
Ἀΐδαο”.135
Paradigms
Another interesting type of narratives ‘unconnected’ to the main story is the
paradigm. Alden136 discusses at length how many of the stories within the Iliad
can actually be directly compared to the present circumstances, and that they are
meant as examples either to the characters or to the audience itself. They can be
used in various ways, either as positive examples that should be followed, or as
negative examples to avoid, and can be drawn from personal experience, from the
experience of others, or may be in the form of an αἰνός.137 For instance, the above
example of Dione discussing the fates of those who “ἀθανάτοισι μάχονται”138
serves as a paradigm to Aphrodite, but also explains to the audience the danger of
what Diomedes is doing. Alden makes the convincing argument that there is a
series of paradigms related to Diomedes with the specific external purpose of
discussing the desirability of divine favour:139 The νεικος of Agamemnon,
Sthenelus’ counter-argument, Athena’s νεικος, Dione’s αἰνός, Diomedes’
explanation of why he will not fight via the paradigm of Lycurgus and Glaucus’
genealogy, which can be viewed as an αἰνός.140 This series of events, the entirety
of which is only available to the audience, has the end effect of showing us that
“divine assistance is ultimately of dubious value to the mortals who enjoy it, since
it is either withdrawn without warning, as in the case of Diomede, or brings
132
133
Hom. Il.: 3.236-245.
134
135
Hom. Il.: 23.75-76.
136
Alden 2000.
137
Ibid. pp.26-38.
138
Hom. Il.: 5.380.
139
Alden 2000: pp.112-152.
140
Ibid. p.113.
unlooked-for and tragic developments, as in the case of Achilles”.141 In other

words, Homer is continuing his focus on the mortality of man contrasted to the
ease and immortality of the gods.
Above, I mentioned Glaucus’ story of Bellerophon being a paradigm of how the
favour of the gods may be taken away with no warning, even from the most
blessed. However the mention of the “Χίμαιραν ἀμαιμακέτην”142 is fairly curious
itself. The Chimera legend is unequivocally an element of the fantastic, the
slaying of a chthonic monster, which seems at odds with Homer’s suppression
tactic. However, it is not quite as simple as that. Firstly, Alden143 argues that the
story of Pegasus would certainly have been known at that date, but we have no
mention of it here, only that Bellerophon succeeded by trusting the gods, as
opposed to being powerful enough to do it himself with Pegasus. Noticeably,
Sthenelus uses the same phrase “πειθόμενοι τεράεσσι θεῶν”144 when he discusses
the sack of Thebes by the Epigoni, as opposed to the “παραίσια σήματα”145 shown
to the Mycenaeans when the Seven asked for their help. Considering
Agamemnon’s original point was how much greater a soldier Tydeus was than his
son, perhaps Homer is emphasising again the power of the gods over mankind.
Regardless of the quality of the men, we are still nothing compared to the gods
and it is foolish to try to defy them. Moreover, as I mentioned briefly in my first
chapter, anything is possible with their help. Hence Tydeus “πάντα δ᾽ ἐνίκα /
ῥηϊδίως τοίη οἱ ἐπίρροθος ἦεν Ἀθήνη”.146 This of course makes Achilles’
metamorphosis into something more than human, into a being capable of fighting
a river-god, even more remarkable. Unlike Diomedes, who we know will suffer as
a result of his actions, Achilles is about to die and, thus freed of the normal
concerns of man, is happily violent towards the gods.
Secondly, it is worth noticing that this story describes the deeds of supermen,
well in the past. In this way it matches Nestor’s story of the Centaurs and
Lapiths147 very well. Here Nestor, who as I mentioned in my first chapter is
specifically renowned for being old, tells the story of how the mighty race of the
141
Alden 2000: p.114.
142
Hom. Il.: 6.179.
143
Alden 2000: pp.138-139.
144
Hom. Il.: 4.408.
145
Ibid. 4.381.
146
Ibid. 4.389-390.
147
Ibid. 1.259-274.
Lapiths listened to him when they fought the centaurs as a positive paradigm from
personal experience in order to try to persuade Agamemnon and Achilles to listen
to him. The choice of “κείνοισι δ᾽ ἂν οὔ τις / τῶν οἳ νῦν βροτοί εἰσιν ἐπιχθόνιοι
μαχέοιτο”148 is particularly interesting, as it demonstrates a continuation of the
principle I originally showed in my first chapter. Homer there was emphasising
the heroic nature of the age of the Trojan War, so it is far from impossible for him
here to be emphasising how the age before them was even mightier. Thirdly, and
perhaps most importantly, these fantastic tales are not given by the poet himself,
but are narrated by characters. In this way he does not vouch for their accuracy, in
the same way which he discusses the actions of the gods, and thus they do not
intrude upon his focus on mortality. One might also note how the same effect is
achieved in the Odyssey, where the truly extraordinary tales are related by the
notorious trickster Odysseus.149 Reece argues that the Cretan Lies, also told by
Odysseus, are far more realistic, and perhaps represented an older story of the
Nostos of Odysseus, where he adventured in Crete before returning home.150
Paradigm of Meleager
The influence of Meleager on the Iliad is more pervasive than might initially be
thought. Despite only technically appearing once in Phoenix’s speech to Achilles,
I would argue Homer actually alludes to his story repeatedly, although again only
the audience will be able to see these allusions. This not only demonstrates how
anomalies may be entirely deliberate, but I believe it also introduces an interesting
argument about the importance of reputation.
Firstly, there is Phoenix’s story of Meleager.151 Here again, Homer chooses to
suppress the more famous legend, the hunt of the Chthonic monster, the
Calydonian Boar, and instead focuses on Meleager himself, in order to provide a
negative paradigm for Achilles. As Kakridis says: “…Meleager’s case had to
made as closely parallel as possible to that of Achilles. For this reason Phoenix
had to transform the narrative of the Meleagris”.152 In this case, the point is that
Meleager places his reputation above material gains. Interestingly, at the time
148
Hom. Il.: 1.271-272.
149
Hom. Od.: 9.1-12.453.
150
Reece 1994: pp.157-171.
151
Hom. Il.: 9.524-605.
152
Kakridis 1949: p.41.
Achilles actually values his life higher than glory and riches, as a man only has
one life, but later acts similarly to Meleager by placing honour above all else. It is
worth noting too that Homer suppresses the more magical upbringing of Achilles
by Chiron in this speech, and instead puts Phoenix in that role: “σε τοσοῦτον
ἔθηκα θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῦ”.153
Much has been said of the confusion of Book 9 and its place within the poem,
but Scott154 makes a convincing argument that Phoenix had to be included in
Book 9 at the time of the main composition, instead of as a later interpolation. I
definitely believe it is amongst the more important parts, since as I mentioned
earlier, Achilles’ reply to Odysseus155 practically outlines everything I have
argued about Homer’s focus on complex relationship mortality and honour. This
reply, from the greatest warrior no less, famously questions the very validity of
glory, which notably the Odyssey also confirms when Achilles’ shade bemoans
his choice to Odysseus.156
Kakridis157 notes how the “ascending scale of affection”158 motif that is used of
the characters beseeching Meleager is also used for those beseeching Hector, in
this case to stay in the town rather than leave. He also argues the same scene of
requiring a hero’s help is used when Hector visits Paris,159 equating Troy with
Calydon to a certain extent. If true, this is particularly noteworthy since we’re still
in Book 6 here. In other words, we haven’t even heard the Meleager story yet, but
Homer is already alluding to it.
Chapter Conclusion
In conclusion, I would argue that Homer makes very careful use of his allusions
in order to emphasise his themes. Just as his characters use paradigms to instruct
or inspire others, one might see the Iliad itself as an αἰνός. That is of course an
oversimplification, and I think no one would seriously suggest the Iliad as a
didactic poem like Hesiod’s Work and Days, but it is remarkable to see such
common trends in how Homer treats his material. Indeed, if Homer is truly
153
Hom. Il.: 9.485.
154
Scott 1912.
155
Hom. Il.: 9.308-416.
156
Hom. Od.: 11.488-491.
157
Kakridis 1949: pp.21-25, 49-51.
158
Ibid. p.49.
159
Ibid. pp.47-48.
suppressing elements or choosing allusions directly to suit his focus, that is strong
evidence by itself that he is not a bumbling redactor only capable of connecting
the layers, but is actively manipulating the story for his own ends. The poet of the
Iliad did not wish for the fantastic to be in his poem, preferring to concentrate on
the mortality of his heroes, and thus made efforts to exclude or downplay it.
Further, excepting speeches placed in the mouths of characters, we actually see
very little of the fantastic outside of the gods. Presumably the Death of Patroclus
is so engrained into the poem that it would be difficult to remove the influence of
Apollo from it, but who knows how many other pieces originally relied much
more heavily upon magic, before being stripped down by Homer? Alden says it
well:
“The poet mentions what it suits him to mention, and, like Pindar, does not
mention everything he knows about a story simply because he is committed to
telling it. If it contains elements inconvenient to his purpose, he may suppress
them, but the audience may still be aware of the reverberations of material
omitted”.160
160
Alden 2000: p.139.
Conclusion
As I said in my introduction, anomalies in the Iliad are potentially a vast topic,

and are far too large to cover comprehensively in a single dissertation. However, I
believe I have made a fair effort towards proving that ‘anomalies’ in the Iliad,
whether they be realistic, historical or metaliterary, are deliberate ‘sleights of
hand’, to use the language of entertainers. It is perhaps obvious that Homer’s epic
is concerned with a past, heroic generation of men, but it is important to see that
he was creating this impression by more than just lists of the slain.161 Similarly,
understanding Homer’s focus on mortality helps us to understand why his
characters act the way they do. Virgil’s Aeneas is often criticised, since either his
behaviour or his personality seem somewhat lacking in humanity,162 but in many
ways Achilles goes far further without incurring that kind of criticism.
Slaughtering twelve boys to honour Patroclus’ funeral is barbaric, but somehow to
my mind Homer’s focus on mortality manages to exalt Achilles. As my opening
quote said, the poem is concerned primarily with the Wrath of Achilles and its
consequences, no matter how horrific they may be. No one would present Achilles
as perfect, but he is a Homeric ἥρως. “The Iliad, to be what it is, needs just such a
passionate Achilles as it contains”.163
Truly, I had not understood what some scholars meant when they said that the
Iliad showed such integrity that it had to have been composed by a single author. I
assumed they were talking about complicated analyses of the language involved
which showed common trends, or other technical differences which would be
difficult to understand, let alone to demonstrate to a reader. However, that is
simply not the case. Obviously, I started with the idea that the Iliad had been
composed by a single author and thus I am subject to some bias, but I think the
underlying principles are unmistakeably there. The Iliad shows such a continual
focus on recognisable goals that I believe it is impossible to think it a rough
conglomeration of other works. As I mentioned in my second chapter, we can see
common themes continuing throughout books, even across vastly different
161
Although Griffin 1980: pp.103-143 argues that actually, even those are carefully constructed to
“give status and significance to their subjects”.
162
Cf. Feeney 1983, Farron: 1980, Putnam: 1990, among others.
163
settings. We should notice, for example, Homer making a sly allusion to the
Meleager story in Book 6, well before Phoenix actually tells it. Moreover, this sort
of continuous theme would only be available to the audience, as it concerns the
main heroes on contrasting sides!
When dealing with the anomalies of the Iliad, an important idea to keep in mind
is that Homer is not bound by realism; he is a poet, and is thus free to rework the
world in whatever fashion he chooses. Some might see the inconsistency between
Lycaon’s ransom in Book 21, which was worth “ἑκατόμβοιον δέ τοι ἦλφον”,164
and his ransom in Book 23, a “ἀργύρεον κρητῆρα τετυγμένον”,165 as an indication
that the poem was not made by a single author, or that it was edited together by
someone of inferior skill. However, Alden argues that the actual price of the
ransom was unimportant; what is important is how much it is worth at that stage
of the poem. To Lycaon, about to be murdered by Achilles, it has to be worth
enough to save his life. But as a prize for a funeral contest, it does not need to be
so rich. “In other words, Lycaon’s ransom was whatever the context now requires
it to be. ‘Facts’ in the Homeric presentation are more fluid than we might think
them.”166
I suppose in the end, what I am actually arguing is that the ‘anomalies’ in the
Iliad are not anomalies at all. Homer may twist the story, he may ignore concerns
of realism or of history, he may deliberately manipulate the Epic Cycle and he
may even downright contradict himself, but it is all for a purpose. The Iliad would
not be the masterpiece that it is if he did not do so.
164
Hom. Il.: 21.79.
165
Ibid. 23.741.
166
Alden 2000: p.40.
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Images
1.1 1.2
Boar-tusk Helmet, Chamber tomb 515, Boar-tusk Helmet, dated to

Mycenae, 14th Century BC, N°P6568 the Second Palace and Post-
On display at the National Archaeological Palace Periods (1450 - 1300
Museum, Athens. BCE).
Source: On display at the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar's_tusk_h Archaeological Museum of
elmet Herakleion, Crete.
Source:
http://www.grisel.net/herakle
ion_museum.htm
1.3
Ramesses II at adesh
Relief from Abu Simbel.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
File:Ramses_II_at_Kadesh.jp
g
1.4
Gold signet ring from shaft
grave IV in Mycenae dated
LH II (about 1500 BC),
showing a bow-armed
warrior and his chariot-driver
are represented hunting from
a small box-chariot.
Source:
http://www.salimbeti.com/mi
cenei/chariots.htm
1.5
My (rough) representation of
the order of battle of Nestor’s
troops, as given in Hom. Il.
4. 293-309.
Source: Myself, using
Microsoft Paint.
Athena and Diomedes attacking Ares,

1.6 whilst Periphas lies dead on the floor.
Source:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythol
ogy/Periphas.html
Appendix 2 – Analysis of Language
2.1 Meriones’ Helmet
As I explain in my main text, regardless of whether the description of Meriones’

helmet is a surviving piece of an older composition or a new composition by
Homer, the same effect is achieved. In both cases, the helmet is specifically
renowned for being ancient, and helps to add to the sense of archaic warfare.
However, I believe that it is actually more likely that the description is ancient.
Firstly, oral tradition can more easily have preserved the older description than an
actual relic could have survived to be described, especially as most remaining
pieces have been found on Crete and the Greek mainland,167 far from where
Homer was composing. Luce goes so far as to say “It is very unlikely that any
Greek in the Dark Age would have had the materials or incentive to construct [the
helmet], and no specimen can have survived intact down to Homer’s day.” 168
Secondly, I believe a firm argument can be made that the actual language is
indicative of an older composition.
If consider the metrical constraints, several lines within this section seem at first
to be incorrect. For example, if we scan line 10.261, we get:
This is obviously incorrect, as the second foot is a trochee, generally unused in

epic hexameter. If however we restore the digamma in ϝοι to block the elision, we
get:
This is clearly what the original line must have been, before the digamma dropped
out of the Greek alphabet. Notably, almost the exact same line occurs in “καὶ
σάκος: ἀμφὶ δέ οἱ κυνέην κεφαλῆφιν ἔθηκε”,169 where we see the same need for a
167
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/helmets1.htm.
168
Luce 1975: p.104.
169
Hom. Il.: 10.257
digamma to block the elision. Moreover, this is not simply some stock phrase
which could have been placed in a newer section, which might trick one into
thinking it was older. This particular phrase, after appearing twice in less than ten
lines, does not occur again in the Iliad, despite the number of arming scenes
within the poem. For example, Hom. Il. 11.41 and 16.137 also describe the helmet
as “κυνέην” and use a part of the verb τιθημι, but otherwise are unalike. Markedly,
neither of those lines has any problems with scansion, and both even start the line
with “κρατι δ’επ’”, suggesting a common stock phrase start, as opposed to the
“ἀμφὶ… κεφαλῆφιν” here. We might also consider that unlike other arming scenes,
which very commonly have similes describing the armour, this helmet is bereft of
similes or any obvious neologisms. Overall then I would argue that it is very
likely this piece is unique, as can be demonstrated by the different language and
phrases, and is thus separate from many of the other arming scenes. This is backed
up by Shipp’s170 argument that it is within similes in particular we find evidence
of the newest pieces of the Iliad. Thus I believe there are several indications that,
if some parts of the Iliad were indeed composed earlier than the usual date of late
8th century BC, the description of Meriones’ helmet could be one of those parts.
2.2 Detailed Flow of Battle Analysis
As I mentioned in my main text, Homer’s description of the battle lines

repeatedly contradicts itself. Even if we only take a short section, covering the
fighting in book 4, we can very quickly see a strange evolution of the flow of
battle. Consider the following lines:
“οἳ δ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐς χῶρον ἕνα ξυνιόντες ἵκοντο,

σύν ῥ᾽ ἔβαλον ῥινούς, σὺν δ᾽ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶν
χαλκεοθωρήκων: ἀτὰρ ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι
ἔπληντ᾽ ἀλλήλῃσι, πολὺς δ᾽ ὀρυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει.”171
Here we can clearly see close combat; ranks of fully armed men against each
other. In particular the clash of shields on each other would indicate hand-to-hand
170
Shipp 1972: p.3ff.
171
Hom. Il.: 4.446-449.
fighting. This is followed by Antilochus killing Echepolus, who was “ἐνὶ

προμάχοισι”.172 Elephenor attempted to drag the body away, but was immediately
killed by Agenor who “οὔτησε ξυστῷ χαλκήρεϊ”,173 and this is appropriate for
close fighting. Whilst it might seem curious to us to attempt to drag away a body
in a melee, the warriors placed much stock on taking the armour of fallen men,
and of course in this case it was a very bad decision. This is then followed by
several instances of deaths by thrown spears, as when Odysseus “βέλος ἧκεν”.174
This seems incongruous at first, but it is not impossible to imagine someone in the
second or third rank taking this kind of opportunity. So far then, this is logically
consistent.
This is followed by “χώρησαν δ᾽ ὑπό τε πρόμαχοι καὶ φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ”,175
where clearly the front ranks are pulling back from the assault and the Achaeans
“ἐρύσαντο δὲ νεκρούς / ἴθυσαν δὲ πολὺ προτέρω”.176 In particular, the description
of dragging away the bodies indicates clearing the ground underfoot to charge
again, which would have been necessary for combat between ranked men, so as
not to disrupt the formation, but not for a wild melee. But instead we immediately
see Peiros hurling a stone at Diores to cripple him, then specifically “ἐπέδραμεν…
οὖτα δὲ δουρὶ”,177 which obviously suggests there is a distance between the armies
than Peiros had to cover by running. Further, despite their efforts to keep the ranks
level, the Greeks must have been disrupted enough for Peiros to be able to run up
to Diores to finish him off, as Thoas must “βάλε δουρὶ”178 at him, rather than
being close enough to defend Diores and stab Peiros as he comes near. Thoas in
turn is driven back into his own lines by the approach of the Thracians.179 Book 4
is finished by saying that men could not unaided pass through the combat
“ἄβλητος καὶ ἀνούτατος”.180
The overall effect of these descriptions seems at first to emphasize the danger of
the battlefield, which would be most extreme when men are fighting hand-to-
hand, or indeed shield-to-shield. In practice however, the style of warfare
172
Hom. Il.: 4.458.
173
Ibid. 4.469.
174
Ibid. 4.498.
175
Ibid. 4.505.
176
Ibid. 4.506-507.
177
Ibid. 4.524-525.
178
Ibid. 4.527.
179
Ibid. 4.532-535.
180
Ibid. 4.540.
described above only works when the battle lines are fragmented and at slight
distance from each other, which allows for heroes to run into no-man’s land to
attack the enemy before retreating back into their own ranks.
Appendix 3 – Oral Tradition
3.1 Cyclic Myth to Homeric Epic
Here I will expand upon my introduction with regards to the Epic Cycle. As I
said, I very strongly believe that Homer is using material that has existed in, and
been preserved and expanded by an Oral Tradition. Long before our ‘finalized’
versions of the stories, this material, perhaps originally folk tales, was extremely
flexible and was weaved in and out of very different stories. Thus we end up with
situations where material in the Odyssey is believed to be ‘originally’ from tales
about the Argonauts.181 But presumably as time went on, stories began to
convalesce around the central themes of Greek mythology: the Voyage of the
Argonauts, the Trojan War, the Labours of Hercules, the Titanomachy and all the
others. Whilst this material remained flexible and re-ordering would no doubt
have been common, the vast amorphous mass of legends was slowly becoming
recognizable in some semblance of order. Finally, from the late eighth century BC
onwards, each story was fairly firmly set into place. Of course, we have to allow
for later interpolations and editing, but the core was created. I am here strongly
taking the view of Burgess, who argues for the existence of three levels of
narrative, “A cyclic myth, B cyclic epic, and C Homeric epic”,182 as described
in the order I gave above.
To give an example of how these levels might interact, let us turn to the Iliad.
When the stories were still just cyclic myth, we might have a description of a
mighty hero besieging a great city. This could be attributed to Achilles at Troy, or
just as easily to Hercules at Troy or the Seven at Thebes, if a sufficiently talented
bard wished to alter the material. The cyclic epic may then have collected all the
events of the Trojan War, which could easily include the trip there, although the
Nostoi are more likely to have been separate stories. The Homeric epic may have
then separated out of the collection of myths established for the Trojan War in a
single central theme, for example the Wrath of Achilles in the case of the Iliad, or
the Sack of Troy in the Iliupersis. But one might easily make the case that
181
Cf. West 2005.
182
Burgess 2006: p.148.
Diomedes’ heroics in Books 5-6 originally formed part of a separate story

focusing on that character at Troy, or even at Thebes, and that story has been
included into the Iliad itself.183 Because the bards telling the stories are all
individuals, each may decide to tell a different tale, depending on their talent and
what they wish to achieve, hence it is difficult to talk about a ‘finalized’ version.
This sort of manipulation of the myths shows clear and deliberate choices by the
poets to create better poems, even if doing so creates slightly anomalous links
within the story.
3.2 Evidence of Indo-European Influences
As has been an important point all the way through my dissertation, I believe we
can easily demonstrate how Homer has used older stories from the Oral Tradition
in the creation of the Iliad. However, some of the influences on the Iliad go back
further than just the Oral Tradition of Greece and Crete, but can be demonstrated
to have strong links to older Indo-European poetry.
For example, I mentioned how the Iliad describes the Dioscuri as truly dead,
rather than having immortality on alternate days in my main text. However, we
can go further than this, and actually examine why they are not included in the
Trojan Cycle at all. West184 makes the argument that from an Indo-European
mythology point of view, the Divine Twins are usually the suitors of the Daughter
of the Sun, who is extremely beautiful and is courted by many men or gods. For
example, the Indic A hvins, the Divine Twins, win S ry , the daughter of the Sun,
by winning a chariot race between the divine suitors.185 In some cases, the Twins
must win back the Daughter from a kidnapper. Obviously, in Greek mythology
the Twins are the Dioscuri and the Daughter is Helen, but because they are
brothers and sister, their place must in the Iliad be taken by the Atreides, brothers
instead of twins. Greek mythology twists the legend further by introducing
Clytemnestra, the twin of Helen, in order to grant each brother a separate wife
instead of sharing the one Daughter. Thus, for the sake of narrative clarity, the
Dioscuri are removed completely. Interestingly, Helen was first captured by
183
Cf. Nagy 1979: pp.30-31, who argues Diomedes is very closely taking on Achilles’ persona.
184
West 2007: pp.227-232.
185
Ibid. p.227.
Theseus and won back by the Dioscuri in an earlier piece of the Trojan Cycle,186
so in some senses the Daughter is won back by the Twins twice.
Indo-European influence can also be noticed in divine participation. For
example, multiple times a mist is described as coming down and hiding
warriors,187 which is a rationalized method of explaining invisibility.188 This is
especially noticeable when Ajax prays to Zeus to disperse the mist so that they
can fight their opponents189 and when Apollo approaches Patroclus who “οὐκ
ἐνόησεν / ἠέρι γὰρ πολλῇ κεκαλυμμένος”.190 Indo-European influence can also
explain why Achilles’ armour, when worn by Patroclus, was invulnerable and
thus had to be stripped off; invulnerable armour, like invisibility and thrown
weapons which return to your hand, being traditional of Indo-European epic
poetry. West suggests “Divine intervention is sometimes allowed to provide the
ancient heroes with resources of kinds that real-life warriors must often have
wished for”.191 In this way many ‘anomalies’ can actually be explained as relics of
Indo-European poetry.
186
Diodorus Siculus: 4.63.1-3, Apollodorus Epitome:1.23.
187
Hom. Il.:3.381, 20.444, 21.6, 17.366-377.
188
West 2007 p.484.
189
Hom. Il.:17.643-650.
190
Ibid. 17.789-790.
191
West 2007: p.483.
Bibliography
Alden, M., 2000. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Allan, W., 2005. ‘Arms and the Man: Euphorbus, Hector, and the Death of
Patroclus’. The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 1, May, pp. 1-16.
Anderson, J.,K., 1975. ‘Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry’. American

Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 3 Jul., pp. 175-18.
Burgess, J.,S.:
---------- 1997. ‘Beyond Neo-Analysis: Problems with the Vengeance Theory’.
The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 118, No. 1, Spring, pp. 1-19.
---------- 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
---------- 2006. ‘Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of
Homeric Motif Transference’. Oral Tradition, 21.1, pp. 148-189. Available at:
http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/21i/Burgess.pdf [Accessed 2nd April,
2012].
Clark, M.,E., 1986, 'Neoanalysis: A Bibliographical Review'. Classical World,

79, pp. 379-394.
Conter, C.,N., 2003. ‘Chariot Usage in Dark Age Greece Warfare’. Thesis,
Florida State University. Available at: http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses_1/available/etd-
11152003-64515/unrestricted/CNConterthesis.pdf. [Accessed 25th March, 2012].
Currie, B., 2008. ‘Allusive tears in Homer’s Iliad’. Omnibus, Vol. 57, January, pp.
25-27.
Evelyn-White, H.,G., 1920. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica. London:
Heinemann, Loeb Classical Library.
Farron, S., 1980. ‘The Aeneas-Dido Episode as an Attack on Aeneas' Mission and
Rome’. Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 27, No. 1, April, pp. 34-47.
Feeney, D., 1983. ‘The Taciturnity of Aeneas’. The Classical Quarterly, New
Series, Vol. 33, No.1, pp. 204-219.
Gaertner, J.,F., 2001. ‘The Homeric Catalogues and Their Function in Epic
Narrative’. Hermes, 129. Bd., H. 3, pp. 298-305.
Gerber, D.,E., 1999. Greek Elegiac Poetry. London: Harvard Classical Press,
Loeb Classical Library.
Goetze, A., 1963. ‘Warfare in Asia Minor’. Iraq, Vol. 25, No. 2, Autumn, pp.
124-130.
Gorman, V.,B., 2001. ‘Lucan's Epic "Aristeia" and the Hero of the "Bellum
Civile"’. The Classical Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, Feb. - Mar., pp. 263-290.
Graves, R., 1955. ‘Greek Myths and Pseudo Myths’. The Hudson Review, Vol. 8,
No. 2, Summer, pp. 212-230.
Greenhalgh, P.,A.,L., 1973. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the
Homeric and Archaic Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, J.:
---------- 1977. ‘The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer’. The Journal of
Hellenic Studies, Vol. 97, pp. 39-53.
---------- 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
In: Hanson, V.,D., 1991. Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience.
London: Routledge.
 Anderson, J.,K. ‘Hoplite Weapons and Offensive Arms’. pp. 15-37.
 Hanson, V.,D. ‘The Ideology of Hoplite Battle, Ancient and Modern’. pp.
3-14.
 Wheeler, E.,L. ‘The General as Hoplite’. pp. 121-173.
Healy, M., 1993. Qadesh 1300 B.C, Clash of the Warrior Kings. Oxford: Osprey
Publishing.
de Jong, I.,J.,F.:
---------- 2004. Narrators and Focalizers. London: Bristol Classical Press.
---------- 2005. ‘Convention versus Realism in the Homeric Epics’. Mnemosyne,
Fourth Series, Vol. 58, Fasc. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kakridis, J.,T., 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund: Gleerup.
In: Kirk, G.,S., 1964. The Language and Background of Homer: Some Recent
Studies and Controversies. Cambridge: W. Heffer.
 Bowra, C.,M., 1957. ‘The Meaning of a Heroic Age’. pp. 22-47.
 Dodds, E.,R., 1954. ‘Homer’. pp. 1-21.
 Lord, A., B., 1953. ‘Homer’s originality: oral dictated texts’. Translated by
American Philological Association 84, pp. 68-78.
Latacz, J., 2004. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery.
Translated by Windle, K., and Ireland, R. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Longman, C.,J., 1895. ‘The Bows of the Ancient Assyrians and Egyptians’. The
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 24, pp.
49-57.
Lorimer, H.,L., 1929. ‘Homer’s Use of the Past’. The Journal of Hellenic Studies,
Vol. 49, Part 2, pp. 145-159.
Luce, J.,V., 1975. Homer and the Heroic Age. London: Thames and Hudson.
Murray, G., 1911. The Rise of the Greek Epic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Murray, O., 1980. Early Greece. Sussex: The Harvester Press Limited.
Nagy, G.:
---------- 1979. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek
Poetry. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
---------- 1996. Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Nickel, R., 2002. ‘Euphorbus and the Death of Achilles’. Phoenix, Vol. 56, No.
3/4, Autumn - Winter, pp. 215-233.
Putnam, M.,C.,J., 1990. ‘Anger, blindness and insight in Virgil's Aeneid’. A

Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, THE POETICS OF
THERAPY: Hellenistic Ethics in its Rhetorical and Literary Context, December,
pp. 7-40.
Rabel, R.,J., 1991. ‘Hippothous and the Death of Achilles’. The Classical Journal,
Vol. 86, No. 2, December - January, pp. 126-13.
Reece, S. ‘The Cretan Odyssey: A Lie Truer Than Truth’. The American Journal
of Philology. Vol. 115, No. 2 Summer, pp. 157-173.
Rieu, D.,C.,H.:
---------- 2003, editor of: Rieu, E.,V., 1946. ‘Homer: The Odyssey’. London:
Penguin Books.
 Jones, P., 1991. ‘Introduction’. pp. xi-xlv.
---------- 2003, editor of: Rieu, E.,V., 1950. ‘Homer: The Iliad.’ London: Penguin
Books.
 Jones, P., 2003. ‘Introduction’. pp. ix-xlvi.
Schein, S.,L., 1984. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad.

Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scott, J.,A.:
---------- 1912. ‘Phoenix in the Iliad’. The American Journal of Philology, Vol.
33, No. 1, pp. 68-77.
---------- 1913. ‘The Assumed Duration of the War of the Iliad’. Classical
Philology, Vol. 8, No. 4, Oct., pp. 445-456.
Shenfield, L.,W., 2001. Chariots in early Greek culture : myth vs. reality, from
the Bronze Age to the fourth century BC. Thesis, University of Exeter.
Shipp, G.,P., 1972. Studies in the Language of Homer; Second Edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singor, H.,W., 1991. ‘Nine against Troy. On Epic ΦΑΛΑΓΓΕΣ, ΠΡΟΜΑXΟΙ,

and an Old Structure in the Story of the "Iliad"’. Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol.
44, Fasc. 1/2, pp. 17-62.
Tsagarakis, O., 1982. ‘The Teichoskopia Cannot Belong in the Beginning of the
Trojan War’. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, New Series, Vol. 12 (1982),
pp. 61-72.
West, M.,L.:
---------- 2003a. ‘"Iliad" and "Aethiopis"’. The Classical Quarterly, New Series,
Vol. 53, No. 1, May, pp. 1-14.
---------- 2003b. ‘Greek Epic Fragments’. London: Harvard Classical Press, Loeb
Classical Library.
---------- 2005. ‘"Odyssey" and "Argonautica"’. The Classical Quarterly, New
Series, Vol. 55, No. 1, May, pp. 39-64.
---------- 2007. ‘Indo-European Poetry and Myth’. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
---------- 2011. ‘The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical
Commentary’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Archaeology of The Iliad An Analysis of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeology of The Iliad An Analysis of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander Mallin Anomalies in the Iliad Page 1 of 52

Archaeology of the Iliad: An Analysis of the

Academic Year 2011-2012

Submitted in Support of the Degree of:

This dissertation examines the anomalies in Homer’s Iliad and attempts to

Title Page ................................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1: Warfare and Technology ................................................................... 9

Archaic Technology ........................................................................................ 9

Flow of Battle ................................................................................................. 17

Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 22

Chapter 2: Anomalies in the Narrative.............................................................. 23

Death of Patroclus ......................................................................................... 23

Other Anachronies ......................................................................................... 27

Paradigms of Meleager ................................................................................... 34

Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................ 35

Appendix 1: Images ....................................................................................... 39

Appendix 2: Analysis of Language ................................................................ 41

Appendix 3: Oral Tradition ............................................................................ 45

Aethiopis. Secondly, I address other allusions, for example the Catalogue of

Chapter 1 – Warfare and Technology

is described using a spear “ἑνδεκάπηχυ”, or approximately 5.03m long. Anderson

“…ὃ δὲ χερμάδιον λάβε χειρὶ

“ἀλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐμῶν ὀχέων ἐπιβήσεο, ὄφρα ἴδηαι

actually says “ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἵππων ἀποβήσομαι ὄφρα μάχωμαι”,44 obviously implying

“…οἳ γὰρ ἄριστοι

νευόντων, ὡς πυκνοὶ ἐφέστασαν ἀλλήλοισιν:

champions concerned with individual glory can be so sharply contrasted to the

Chapter 2 – Allusions and Suppressions

immediately killed by Menelaus, and that “αἵματί οἱ δεύοντο κόμαι Χαρίτεσσιν

“ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη ἔχει, ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται

“…οὔτησε κατ᾽ ἀσπίδα πάντοσ᾽ ἐΐσην:

Nickel’s argument that because Menelaus actually succeeds in killing Euphorbus

remarkable, as he stabs Patroclus in the back, rather than attacking honourably,

“ληϊστοὶ μὲν γάρ τε βόες καὶ ἴφια μῆλα,

the immortals, it would be impossible to have invulnerable heroes without

unlooked-for and tragic developments, as in the case of Achilles”.141 In other

As I said in my introduction, anomalies in the Iliad are potentially a vast topic,

Boar-tusk Helmet, Chamber tomb 515, Boar-tusk Helmet, dated to

Athena and Diomedes attacking Ares,

Appendix 2 – Analysis of Language

2.1 Meriones’ Helmet

As I explain in my main text, regardless of whether the description of Meriones’

This is obviously incorrect, as the second foot is a trochee, generally unused in

2.2 Detailed Flow of Battle Analysis

As I mentioned in my main text, Homer’s description of the battle lines

“οἳ δ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐς χῶρον ἕνα ξυνιόντες ἵκοντο,

fighting. This is followed by Antilochus killing Echepolus, who was “ἐνὶ

Appendix 3 – Oral Tradition

3.1 Cyclic Myth to Homeric Epic

Diomedes’ heroics in Books 5-6 originally formed part of a separate story

3.2 Evidence of Indo-European Influences

Anderson, J.,K., 1975. ‘Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry’. American

Clark, M.,E., 1986, 'Neoanalysis: A Bibliographical Review'. Classical World,

Kakridis, J.,T., 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund: Gleerup.

Putnam, M.,C.,J., 1990. ‘Anger, blindness and insight in Virgil's Aeneid’. A

Schein, S.,L., 1984. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad.

Shipp, G.,P., 1972. Studies in the Language of Homer; Second Edition.

Singor, H.,W., 1991. ‘Nine against Troy. On Epic ΦΑΛΑΓΓΕΣ, ΠΡΟΜΑXΟΙ,

You might also like

νευόντων, ὡς πυκνοὶ ἐφέστασαν ἀλλήλοισιν: 

“…οὔτησε κατ᾽ ἀσπίδα πάντοσ᾽ ἐΐσην: 