(The argument is, incidentally, repeated in the so-called 'Little Iliad', the author of which is unknown, but tells the story of the wooden horse)
(just to make it worse, the author of Aithiopis told the story of the Wooden Horse as well in the Ilioupersis (Sack of Illion), in what is generally considered to be the basic version, that this film most likely used)
(just to make it even worse, that's in the Aeneid as well)
Ajax was the son of Telamon. He was a Trojan War hero on the side of the Greeks. When Achilles was killed, his armor was to be awarded to the next greatest Greek hero. Ajax thought it should go to him. Ajax went mad and tried to kill his comrades when the armor was awarded to Odysseus, instead. Athena intervened by making Ajax think cattle were his former allies. When Ajax realized he had slaughtered the herd, he committed suicide as his only honorable end.
🤨 yeah alright then Ush! Im sure that happened 100 years after Trojan war.
Anyway...about the movie.
Kes, you've seen it, was
Spoiler:
Achilles was still alive to come out of the Trojan Horse.
Lil... read what I say... WRITTEN 100 years later... not SET 100 years later.
Geez, for the love of sense, check your facts...
How can I put this any more clearly?
That... was... not... in... the ... Iliad!
Got it?
Now please try not to make further errors talking about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
People should just go watch the movie and enjoy the story that is presented there!!! I saw it and loved it!!! I'm going again later this week. Great acting and action sequences, and the storytelling and writing were wayyyyyyyy better than I thought they'd be. One of my favorite movies of all time!!!
I was highly gratified to find this editorial piece in the Daily Telegraph this morning:
"However bad the new film Troy is might be, to condemn it on the basis it is a historical travesty or nothing like Homer's original is ludicrous. It is not even clear that the Trojan War ever took place, and the Iliad is a mish-mash of stories, in different dialects, from different ages; no such thing as an 'original' exists. Brad Pitt is equally qualified to give an impression of what really occurred as any Regius Professor of GReek.
It was 500 years after the suposed event before somebody started composing a poem about this supposed war. We know next to nothing about Homer- or, as Ford Madox Ford called him, 'the blind poet with seven birthplaces' (Smyrna, Rhodes, Colophon, Salamis, Chios, Argos and Athens all lay claim to him).
Whoever composed the Iliad, his creation went through a thouand manglings as it was passed from bard to bard across Greece by word of mouth. That is why there are so many repetitions- 'rosy-fingered dawn', 'grey-eyed Athena'- used as mnemonic devices for performers. The Iliad was meant to be heard, not read. You are much closer to a ancient Greek listening to a bard in the agora after several wineskins if you watch Troy in the Odeon rather than reading the Iliad in a library.
By the time the Iliad was eventually written down in something approximating to its current form, probably around 600 BC, it was a garbled mixture of Ionic, Aeolic and Attic dialects from all voer Greece, a mixture that no-one had ever spoken. Call Troy rubbish, by all means, but don't call it wrong."
Hear hear.
Well, I was discussing with my mates, and one suggested that the reason they left out all references to Gods and special ponds is that they were telling it as it really could have happened, the historical tale, not the myth. Achilles actually died from the three arrows in his chest, but when they found him he only had the arrow through his heel, which led to the ledgend of Achilles' Heel
Originally posted by Phoenix
Well, I was discussing with my mates, and one suggested that the reason they left out all references to Gods and special ponds is that they were telling it as it really could have happened, the historical tale, not the myth. Achilles actually died from the three arrows in his chest, but when they found him he only had the arrow through his heel, which led to the ledgend of Achilles' Heel
the only things they got is a place discovered by Schliemann which COULD be Troy, a book that partly is about the war and actually partly about the society in which it was written. Up to know they don't even know which layer of this "Troy" could have been the one mentioned in the story.
So, to say they want it to be historical "accurate" or whatever shows a lack of knowledge of the subject cause it might as well not have happened at all