RozalinafromDreams @rozalinafromdreams - Tumblr Blog

Introduction

Hello, Tumblr.

I finally decided to make an account after spending far too much time thinking about Greek mythology, the Iliad, PJO, Troilus, Patrochilles, prophecy, tragedy, and emotionally damaged heroes.

I write a PJO/Iliad crossover fic centered around Troilus reincarnated in the modern world, and I’ll probably post thoughts, mythology discussions, character analysis, and writing-related chaos here.

Glad to be here.

rozalinafromdreams

Currently working on a long fic about Troilus reincarnated in the modern world.If anyone’s interested, here’s the link:

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

unsightlymuse

I am rather fond of this Odysseus-Pyrrhus dynamic.

Two Real Reasons Why Menoetius Exiled Patroclus from Opus That Are Rarely Discussed

For some reason, whenever Patroclus comes up, I almost never see anyone discussing the reasons for his exile from Opus. Yes, I know the story: he killed a boy during a game of dice, and his father exiled him for it. That much is clear. But for some reason, we almost always interpret it in the same way: Patroclus becomes Menoetius’ disappointment, his father perhaps disowns his son, and Patroclus becomes a disgrace to society. In other words, Menoetius is almost always portrayed in a negative light. For some reason, other interpretations are either never brought up or are brought up very rarely. I personally haven’t come across posts discussing this (though I don’t deny that I might simply have searched badly).

But I came up with my own interpretation, based on actual aspects of Ancient Greek society. And in this post, I want to discuss things that are, in reality, fairly simple and right there on the surface, but which people rarely pay attention to, or simply don’t want to talk about. But I do want to discuss them.

Menoetius wasn’t simply a bad father who didn’t love or value his son and turned his back on him. No. He HAD TO exile his son. And there are two reasons for that.

1) Miasma. I think some of you may have heard this word before and may even be familiar with its meaning. But I’ll explain it anyway: miasma is “pollution,” a form of moral or religious contamination. The word comes from the verb miaino (to pollute, to defile). Of course, miasma is different from the traditional Christian concept of “sin.” In Ancient Greek religion, miasma was a contagious force… one that had a life of its own. Until it was cleansed through the ritual purification of the offender, society could remain chronically afflicted by disaster. It could arise from particularly serious crimes such as murder, sacrilege, or incest. Even though this force was invisible, it was something to be feared. The harmful influence of one person could bring famine, disease, or defeat in war upon an entire city. This is precisely why, in Oedipus Rex, the city of Thebes suffered from a plague: Oedipus was living in agos (miasma) because of patricide and incest with his mother. Another example is the famous hereditary curse of the House of Atreus. That is miasma too. And one more example: Medea. After killing her brother, Medea brought miasma, pollution, upon herself and the entire crew of Jason’s ship. They could no longer count on the gods’ support; Hera stopped helping them until Medea’s aunt Circe purified them. Miasma could result in collective disasters: natural catastrophes, epidemics and diseases among people and animals, as well as infertility of the land.

So what happens to Patroclus when he kills Clysonymus? Patroclus becomes a carrier of miasma. And it doesn’t matter why he killed his playmate, whether Patroclus lost, lost his temper, misjudged his strength, and accidentally killed him in a fit of anger, or whether Clysonymus started acting arrogantly, tried to take the dice, and Patroclus accidentally killed him. It doesn’t matter. Murder is murder. And Patroclus becomes polluted. Imagine what would have happened to Opus if Menoetius had decided to keep his son and do nothing about it. And they aren’t just some random family, they belong to the royal house. Menoetius is the king of Opus, and Patroclus is a prince. What happens to a kingdom if it is ruled by a polluted royal family? Society is doomed to misfortune. Patroclus’ miasma would inevitably spread throughout his surroundings. All of Opus would suffer because of it. Therefore, the boy had to be exiled so that he would no longer be a threat to society.

But there is another, no less important reason:

2) Blood vengeance. Believe me, the principle of blood vengeance was practiced throughout Ancient Greece (and not only there; the same principle is also described in the Bible). And you don’t have to look far for examples: in the House of Agamemnon, it’s vengeance upon vengeance. First Clytemnestra takes revenge on her husband for Iphigenia, then Apollo commands Orestes to avenge his father by killing his mother (and Electra deeply hates her mother and longs for revenge as well). The Trojan War: before his death, Patroclus appoints Achilles as his avenger, and Hector does the same, placing his revenge in the hands of Paris. And throughout the descriptions of the battles in the Iliad, warriors on both sides constantly avenge their fallen relatives, friends, and brothers-in-arms. Blood vengeance could also have become a problem for the House of Odysseus, because the murdered suitors of Penelope had relatives who could demand retribution from Odysseus for the deaths of their family members. Odysseus and his entire family could have suffered the consequences if Athena had not intervened in time and settled the conflict. (By the way, this is why I personally interpret the myth of Orestes’ trial in Athens as an explanation of how Ancient Greek society transitioned from the custom of blood vengeance toward judicial trials, though I may be interpreting it incorrectly.)

If we apply the principle of blood vengeance to the story of Patroclus and Menoetius, Clysonymus’ father, Amphidamas, would have had every right to take revenge on Menoetius for his son’s death. By that principle, Patroclus himself should have been killed. And if you look at it from this perspective, exile from his homeland becomes not only Patroclus’ disgrace, but also his salvation. Menoetius saved his son from death.

Of course, Patroclus could still have been a disappointment to his father, but that doesn’t mean Menoetius stopped loving him. After all, he didn’t simply cast Patroclus out as a disgrace. No. He brought him to Peleus’ household to be purified from the miasma, and he didn’t choose Peleus by accident. They were both Argonauts, and during the Argonauts’ journey, Menoetius and Peleus could have gotten to know each other very well. So Menoetius wasn’t throwing Patroclus to the wolves. He was entrusting his son to safe hands. Of course, Patroclus could still have been traumatized. Who wouldn’t be? But that doesn’t change the fact that he was warmly welcomed by Peleus, raised at his court, and ultimately became the closest and dearest person in Achilles’ life. And, as the Iliad shows us, Patroclus and Menoetius continued to maintain a relationship even after the exile. During his conversation with Nestor, Nestor reminds Patroclus that it was Menoetius who instructed his son to advise Achilles, since Patroclus was older. And when Patroclus comes running to Achilles in tears in Book 16, Achilles’ first reaction is: “Why are you crying, if neither of our fathers, neither Peleus nor Menoetius, has died?” Of course, sons are expected to mourn their fathers when they die. Nevertheless, would Achilles have assumed that Patroclus’ intense reaction, his tears and grief, were caused by Menoetius’ death if their relationship had been completely severed? I don’t think so. It’s difficult to imagine grieving that intensely for someone with whom you have completely broken ties and to whom you are no longer attached. Obviously, Achilles knows that Menoetius and Patroclus still maintain a relationship.

Whether you agree with me or not is up to you. But I’m tired of reducing Patroclus’ exile to “he had a bad father who disowned his son over one accidental mistake” while ignoring the things that actually mattered to Ancient Greek society. I’m not an expert, and I’m not trying to force my interpretation on anyone. Moreover, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a Greek person or a classicist found errors in my reasoning because of my limited knowledge of Ancient Greek customs and social norms. If that happens, I will publicly apologize for spreading misinformation. But for now, this is how I interpret it, and I’ve already explained why I think we tend to overlook things that are actually quite obvious.

#greek mythology #the iliad #patroclus #patroclus of opus #menoetius #peleus #achilles #achilles of phthia #my interpretation #my things #What is miasma #ancient greece #Patroclus and Menoetius relationships

katerinaaqu

someone send this to nolan https://greekcitytimes.com/2026/08/07/hotels-turn-to-the-greek-language-to-define-hospitality/ it's simplified and tailored to hosting paying visitors, but still showcases philoxenia way better than nolan did with... whatever all that was in his film making xenia seem like a one-sided servitude obligation out of fear of gods solely (that Trojans werent obligated to do strangely, neither as guests at Sparta nor as "oikodespotes" at Troy where if you follow nolan's logic to the end they should've opened their gates themselves) , that if you fail to follow it's (non defined steps) you, idk bring the demise of your civilization or sth, because "sin is contagious" christian smth smth & you become a raider smth smth & then fuck off to "The West" to get civilized, ugh my brain hurts. Philoxenia is not that hard to get nolan, from antiquity till today. But then again you have to actually want to try to get it, and not deliberately try to twist it. Hellenes shared our myths with him, opened our home our country to him, hosted him to make his movie, and he treated us the way Paris did Menelaus and Helen's family. Plundered our treasures and stole Homer & his poems to take him to "The West" . And brand him "Homer of Troy/West" instead of Homer of Hellas. And he of course ecpects he wont try to bring him back home, and that he wont face consequences for violating xenia because guess what nolan, filoxenoumenoi have obligations too, to their oikodespotes. Anyway that turned into a rant hope you wont mind, have a nice day, and thank you for this blog!

Nolan just created the analogy of "The only reason someone is a good person in Christian society is because they fear they will go to hell" which is such an insulting take. Are there people like that? Of course. Are all like that? Of course not.

Him placing Xenia as a "greek only" custom (therefore excluding the Trojans from it and therefore by his logic the Trojans did nothing wrong and violated no Xenia because Xenia is not for them)

Him saying the only reason someone does it is because it might be a god in disguise

Him saying that Xenia is gone and doesn't come back by the end of the movie

All that shows to me that a man knowing nothing of Greek culture decided to get into one of the deepest cultural pieces of all time and butcher it. Then hypnotized his audience with a couple of pretty lines and his know talent for storytelling and to fight back his critics he says "they are amateurs" or "they don't know what they say" as if he didn't stomp upon the most critical portions of Greek culture to make a movie that has nothing to do with Greece based on the poem that shaped Greece and half the world.

Xenia is a universal law of the gods. Even Gods themselves follow it. People who trample it regret it. It doesn't matter if they are Greek or if they are in fact not human. The centaurs violated Xenia, Polyphemus violated Xenia etc and all regretted it

Saying that the only reason someone treats the other fellow man in need well is because they fear it is a god in disguise is really insulting at this point. That always reminds me of the skits of religious people asking atheists "then what stops you from murdering and raping all you want?" As if the only reason people have conscious is the fear of eternal damnation.

If Xenia doesn't come back the fuck was Odysseus doing in Ithaca then? Or to the Phaeakes? What was Telemachus doing in Sparta and Pylos? The fuck is he talking about? The Odyssey even teaches you that Xenia doesn't need to be some fancy setting but it can be done by a slave a humble man feeding pigs to a beggar, someone who relies on scraps to survive. Eumaeus taking in Beggar Odysseus in his humble hut even after he lived for years under the tyranny of the suitors trampling Xenia means he never stopped believing in it. Odysseus who literally got fucked multiple times because someone trampled Xenia he never stopped believing in it! And he received it by humble people in a humble setting in his own home

Oh and as I said in the past the Trojan Horse has absolutely nothing to do with Xenia. At best it is weaponizing gift-giving as someone else said. It's its own thing of violation of code of conduct but not Xenia.

The very word "philoxenia" can be translated in so many different ways "love for xenia" "give Xenia with love" "offer Xenia to friends" "be friends through xenia" etc. This is NOT GONE, Nolan! We still exist Nolan! We still fucking do it in a way Nolan!

rozalinafromdreams

One of the most common arguments I've seen today in defense of Nolan's The Odyssey is: «"Helen is a FICTIONAL character. She never existed! She's not real! She hatched from an egg anyway!"» Yes, for us, she is a fictional character. She never existed.

But!

The beauty standards admired by the ancient Greeks did exist. The ideals of beauty that Helen embodied did exist, otherwise she would never have been called the most beautiful woman. Just as beauty standards exist today —otherwise we wouldn't have beauty pageants like Miss [insert any country] or Miss Universe. Please don't act as though ancient Greek ideas of beauty never existed.

Now I'm going to bring up the most controversial point. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm completely overthinking this and the reality is much simpler. But I can't stay silent about it. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, Menelaus scars Helen's face in the film and then says something along the lines of her face now being worth not a thousand ships, but five hundred. Helen herself says that her beauty was never the real reason for the war, but rather people's desire for wealth. So... does the film itself deny Helen's beauty?

The Trojan War has already received countless adaptations. At least from what I remember, in most of them Helen is still presented as the most beautiful of women. Helen of Troy (2003), Troy (2004), Troy: Fall of a City (2018) and those aren't even all the adaptations. Even in the least historically accurate adaptations, Helen remains the most beautiful woman. Yes, the casting choices have often been controversial, and not everyone personally found those actresses beautiful. But the films still allowed them to feel like the most beautiful woman on screen. Yes, in Troy (2004), Briseis says, "The Queen of Sparta is only an excuse," but Helen still remains the most beautiful woman, and nobody in the film argues otherwise.

What does Lupita Nyong'o's film give Helen? Maybe five minutes of screen time at most, and even then she's mostly suffering. The film never lets her experience being the most beautiful woman. Honestly, it feels like it's trying to push her into the background. In Sparta, Lupita could have shone as queen, welcomed Telemachus as the lady of the palace, and comforted Menelaus as much as anyone could after the war, even if the scars of war could never truly disappear. Honestly? If I were Lupita, I'd be disappointed by all that lost potential.

Instead, there has been more controversy surrounding her casting than actual screen time for Helen. And that's after her interview where she jokingly sends Homer a message, basically saying, "How do you like how much screen time we've given the women you forgot?" Now, considering how little screen time she actually has... well... I'll leave it at that. I'm not claiming that I'm right. My opinion may change someday. But right now, I don't understand the people who call every critic of The Odyssey (2026) racist, because by the same logic I could accuse the film itself of racism and say that the first racist in the movie is Nolan's own Menelaus.

I'll end with one last point. For the ancient Greeks, Helen and Menelaus were absolutely real. More than that, they even had a hero shrine near Sparta dedicated to both of them together — the Menelaion. It still exists today. You can visit it. So when people say, "Helen is just a fictional character," and reduce everything to "who cares?", we're deliberately ignoring those facts.

rozalinafromdreams

I'm promoting some post.

#greek mythology #helen of sparta #helen of troy #menelaus #odyssey 2026

epic-cycle-hottakes

the hate on characters like theseus, jason, achilles ect feels so forced when the same people will go glaze ppl who have done the same or worse

Hating Theseus for kidnapping Helen but then loving Zeus who did the same thing to a younger boy fully knowing he was a child, because he was a child. Or hating Achilles for what he did to Hector’s corpse when it was revenge for what Hector tried to do to Patroclus’ body. And Jason was mostly just an asshole and not necessarily immoral, just so very blasphemous. I agree.

oxyintelligent

Did Achilles Rape Troilus? Reading Violence and Desire in the Myth

I’m posting this so I can link back to it when this discourse inevitably pops up again. I’ll disclose now that I’m not a classicist, so it’s entirely possible that I may be missing or misinterpreting a text.

It has become common knowledge in Greek mythology circles that Achilles followed Troilus into Apollo’s temple, raped and killed him. This version of the story being so widely known may come as a surprise, given that no author—from Homer to Apollodorus, Hyginus, Ovid, or Nonnus—mentions it at all. So where does this myth originate? And is it even true?

Now, I ask, why should this version of the story be treated as the definitive, canon truth? In the Iliad, after Hector’s death, Priam says, “[…] I fathered the best sons in broad Troy, but none of them is left—godlike Mestor and Troilus the horseman and Hector, who was a god among men […]”; and scholars agree that “the poet presents Troilus as a warrior who died in the course of pitched battle.” (source). The Library of Apollodorus narrates, “Since the courage of the barbarians had failed, Achilles laid an ambush for Troilos in the sanctuary of Thymbrian Apollo and slew him, and raided the city by night and captured Lycaon.” In the Aeneid, “Troilus, his weapons discarded in flight, unhappy boy, unequally matched in his battle with Achilles, is dragged by his horses, clinging face-up to the empty chariot, still clutching the reins: his neck and hair trailing on the ground, and his spear reversed furrowing the dust.” (analysis) In the fragments of Sophocles, “in this drama Troilos was ambushed while exercising his horses near the Thymbraion (cf. Il. 24.257); otherwise we know only that the city itself was the setting, a eunuch spoke some lines, and that Polyxena and Troilos’ mutilation may have been involved” (Gantz, Early Greek Myth). The Cypria, part of the epic cycle, simply mentions that Achilles “slew Troilus” with no further details. The visual sources are harder to analyze. Some people have pointed out that Troilus being portrayed with a rooster, which often represents pederastic love, is a reference to rape. On this topic, I’ll refer again to Early Greek Myth: “the boy now faces his assailant, and the platform has clearly become a formal altar; moreover, there is a cock sitting upon it (B 1912). This last element inevitably causes one to think of the tradition (preserved only very much later) of Achilleus’ sexual passion for Troilos, with the cock here as love gift; to dismiss it as nothing more than a coincidence here is difficult, to accept such a theme this early perhaps equally so.” And: “A bird often perches on top of the fountain, but whether he was a traditional decorative element or a part of the narrative we cannot say. One additional detail on two Lakonian representations is the presence of a snake at Achilleus’ feet (VG 106349, Troilos and Polyxena in exergue; the second, from Samos, lost); in neither instance does it seem to concern him, and it is probably a guardian of the spring.” The Roman comic playwright Plautus seemingly creates the tradition that the death of Troilus was among the key events that led to Troy’s downfall, comparable to the theft of the Palladion; no rape mentioned (Bacchides 953–55). Dares Phrygius, another Roman writer, describes Troilus as a foremost warrior who took command of the Trojans after Hector’s death, even managing to wound both Diomedes and Agamemnon, until Achilles struck him down after his horse was disabled (Dar. 33).

sneakysnekoden

with mama

The new highly anticipated Nolan film has once again revived the claim: "Myth doesn't require historical accuracy, because it's fiction. It's fantasy."

THEN WHY THE HELL WAS NOLAN TALKING IN INTERVIEWS ABOUT HOW MUCH EFFORT HE PUT INTO MAKING IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?

Well, I could end the discussion right here, but this topic deserves a separate, serious analysis. Because I genuinely want to understand it myself. And yes, this post is not only about historical accuracy, but also about culture. Because the two are closely connected. Culture develops within the framework of a particular historical era. So, let's begin.

Okay. Since we're comparing myths to fantasy, what if I told you that historical accuracy actually matters even in fantasy? Yes, even fictional fantasy worlds have their own kind of historical accuracy. How does that work?

When writing fantasy, most authors base their worlds on a particular historical period. Not always, of course, but very often they do, because even fantasy can be "authentic" in a certain sense. Fantasy worlds are the invention of a particular author; they are not connected to real historical events. However, every well-written fantasy world also has its own history (lore). The author establishes the historical framework themselves. And no good author can simply step outside those boundaries, because otherwise their fictional world will stop working. A great deal depends on the historical period: clothing, technology, the way people think, their worldview, and even the political system. If an author chooses a particular historical framework, they cannot simply break it, because otherwise the audience will stop believing in the world they have created.

Take Game of Thrones, for example. George R. R. Martin based his world on real historical events and a real historical era. The primary historical inspiration for A Song of Ice and Fire (and therefore Game of Thrones) was the English Wars of the Roses (15th century), as well as the Hundred Years' War. Martin drew inspiration from real feudal conflicts, dynastic struggles, and brutal fights for power. And it shows. We see monarchy, civil wars, and struggles for power. Naturally, every noble house has its own distinct culture. You would never confuse Casterly Rock with Highgarden or Winterfell. Even the Dothraki are based on nomadic peoples.

In other words, this fictional world has its own historical framework, and it does not cross those boundaries. If the characters suddenly started behaving like people from the 21st century, wearing 21st-century clothes and thinking like people from the 21st century, it simply wouldn't be Game of Thrones anymore. Moreover, breaking the historical logic of a fantasy world can create plot holes. That is why an author must know their own world well—what they have written, and what boundaries they have established. Otherwise, the world stops working. Even if it contains magic and dragons, which are unrealistic.

Another example is The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien did not base his world on any specific historical events, but he did create a mythological prehistory of our own Earth by placing The Lord of the Rings in the fictional Third Age of Middle-earth, which is stylistically inspired by the Early and High Middle Ages of Europe. For example, Rohan is based on the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings. Dwarves and Elves draw heavily from Germanic and Norse mythology. But all of it works together because Tolkien built his world so well. Every people has its own distinct culture. You would never confuse the Shire with Gondor, or Gondor with Rohan or Rivendell. Tolkien even created his own historical chronology. In this world, none of us could imagine modern technology such as motorcycles, cars, helicopters, airplanes, or other modern inventions. Even though it's fantasy, and technically everything could be explained away with Gandalf's magic (no). It would still feel out of place. Something would constantly bother us and break the immersion. It simply wouldn't be The Lord of the Rings anymore.

By the way, regarding the claim that historical accuracy isn't necessary. The Chinese would disagree with you. One of the main reasons why Chinese audiences criticized Disney's 2020 Mulan was because the filmmakers mixed together completely different historical periods. That's hardly surprising. To many of us, different periods of Chinese history may all look similar, but Chinese people (especially those who know their own history) clearly distinguish between them, because Chinese culture was directly shaped by the ruling dynasty of each era. Another major reason for the criticism was the introduction of qi as an explanation for Mulan's abilities. In the original legend, Mulan becomes a warrior because of her intelligence, resourcefulness, determination, hard work, and perseverance. And yes, there is no evidence that Hua Mulan had a real historical prototype. In other words, we can safely call her a fictional character. Yet Chinese audiences were still angry because Mulan is a legendary cultural figure to them. She is not just some random fictional character. (Doesn't that remind you of the situation with Helen of Sparta, for example?) So perhaps historical accuracy doesn't matter to some people, but it certainly matters to the Chinese. The logic is simple: if you've chosen a particular historical period, then stay consistent with it until the very end.

Fantasy even has its own subgenre: historical fantasy.

And when it comes to myth, it isn't even fantasy. A myth is a particular people's understanding of how the world works. For ancient people, it was not fiction, but real truth and an explanation of how life worked. Myth was a direct reflection of the culture, mindset, and historical experience of the people who created it. Even the places where myths take place are real, not fictional. Troy itself, which for a long time was considered nothing more than a legend or a myth, turned out to be a real place. Behind myth stands the very real culture of a real people, not an imaginary one, unlike fantasy. Moreover, myths also served as a means of legitimizing power. For example, through myth, someone could claim, "My family descends from Zeus himself, therefore I have the right to rule this land." And no, the absence of gods does not automatically make a story more realistic. You're simply replacing one worldview with another. For the ancient Greeks, the gods were reality. They could not imagine life without them. The gods were part of everyday life, and they directly influenced events. They even had established physical descriptions, such as owl-eyed Athena or ox-eyed Hera, which clearly shows that the ancient Greeks perceived them as real.

Of course, myth was never required to follow historical accuracy, because it was constantly rewritten and reshaped depending on the era. Different authors gave it different meanings according to their own time. This was reflected even in the clothing of mythical heroes. But what Nolan has done cannot really be called an anachronism. Because yes, I agree that ancient authors themselves used anachronisms, but everything still remained within the framework of ancient Greek culture. Greek myths continued to represent Greek culture, even with those anachronisms, and the same can be said about myths from virtually any other culture. The same cannot be said about what Nolan has done.

Honestly, historical accuracy itself never really bothered me. I knew perfectly well that even ancient Greek vase painters depicted mythological heroes according to the fashions of their own time. I never complained about the historical accuracy of Troy (2004); it simply wasn't important to me. And it wouldn't have been important to me in Nolan's The Odyssey either, if Nolan and Lupita themselves hadn't kept talking about authenticity. I clearly remember Lupita praising in interviews how historically authentic everything had been organized, how much work had gone into making it accurate, and how precise it all was. Nolan repeatedly emphasized the same thing: he didn't even include an orchestra because there were no orchestras in Ancient Greece (but apparently there was rap), and he specifically made sure to mention the Bronze Age in the film. So now it's obvious why people keep criticizing the historical accuracy. Where exactly is the Bronze Age in Nolan's film? Neither in spirit nor in historical authenticity does this film resemble the Bronze Age. Yet there has been a great deal of talk about authenticity. If nobody had originally promoted the film as historically accurate, far fewer people would be criticizing it on those grounds.

And finally, I'll say this: even if all of this is fiction, not every fictional world is equally believable. Unfortunately, I simply cannot believe in Nolan's version.

#greek mythology #the odyssey #odyssey 2026 #nolans odyssey #athena #hera #greek gods #greek myths #zeus #fantasy

rozalinafromdreams

I'm continuing to share the Heart of Troy fic. Achilles and Patroclus are definitely showing their dark side. (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the sacrifices and worship, I'm not a historian.)

The Trojan War, Seventh Year

Bronze-clad Achaeans gathered with all the leaders of the tribes under the command of Agamemnon, son of Atreus, king of kings, and helm-bright Trojans with their Lycian and Thracian allies under the leadership of Hector, son of Priam, first defender of Troy. Their gaze was heavier than the clouds of Zeus the Thunderer in the hour of mourning for fallen brothers.

The spear-bearing Danaans brought gifts with them, every king among them, that they might ransom the bodies of their kinsmen from the Trojan army and bury them with honor. Nor did the Trojans remain aside, bringing with them the gifts of wealthy Troy, wishing to reclaim their fallen warriors. In return the Trojans received bowls, armor, weapons, gold, and tripods. And they themselves gave swift horses, purple cloth with cunning patterns, and precious jewels.

Salt sea air washed over them, sent forth by the winds of Boreas, Zephyrus, and Notus. Thus, having exchanged gifts, Trojans and Danaans received the bodies of their fallen warriors. None remained deprived.

“Let us seal our agreement before Zeus, guardian of oaths, and the other gods!” Hector proclaimed for all to hear.

Agamemnon, son of Atreus, willingly raised the cup of wine and, as was proper, first made offering to the gods, swearing an oath and pouring for them, then drank from the cup. Hector also sealed the oath before the gods, pouring wine from the cup and then drinking from it. And beside him stood the beloved sons of Priam, bearing witness to the agreement.

At that hour, while mighty Hector and radiant lord Agamemnon performed libations before the gods, noble Patroclus, son of Menoetius, found Troilus among Hector’s other brothers with his gaze. And at once he said to the son of Peleus:

“Look, among many even Troilus has honored us with his presence!”

Swift-footed Achilles at that moment turned his gaze upon the young son of Priam as a hawk sights its prey. There was not even a shadow of the former fire in Troilus’ eyes, the fire that had burned within him on the evening of their first meeting. The boy had given himself to universal mourning. Grief came upon both Achilles and Patroclus, that such sorrow darkened that beautiful face. And the boy, as though sensing that the two Achaeans had turned their gaze upon him, met their eyes. For some moment he looked back at them. But then, a moment later, he hastened to turn his gaze away, troubling the spirits of Achilles and Patroclus. The son of Menoetius thought that fear had seized him, and that he was full of hesitation.

Both Trojans and Achaeans cut timber and gave the bodies of the fallen warriors to the fire. They laid upon the altars young bulls that had never ploughed the fields. And part they placed upon spits. They began to share food with one another as a sign of reconciliation. Only the son of Peleus did not touch the food, still piercing with the eyes of a hawk the Trojan youth who in body and speech turned toward his brothers, Deiphobus, Paris, and Helenus. And anger awoke in his heart that the boy would not look back at him.

“What troubles you, Achilles? Do you not wish to share the feast with our companions and honor the Trojans?” Patroclus asked.

“No matter how I wish to take food into my mouth, it will not go down, Patroclus. Even though hunger tears at me.”

Meanwhile, Agamemnon, son of Atreus, also caught sight of the young son of Priam and addressed him:

“Who is this youth, fair of face? Never before have I seen him among the sons of Priam.”

“Troilus is my name!” the son of Priam exclaimed.

“Troilus... Ah, is this not the youth of whom glory resounds, that he is fairer than all the sons of Troy? That not Priam, but the great Far-Shooter himself is his father?”

“You are most generous with praise, lord of men Agamemnon!” Troilus answered loudly. “Much have I heard of you, king of kings. Even the Trojans acknowledge your strength among men. I too count it an honor to speak with you!”

Agamemnon laughed aloud.

“You speak well, son of Priam! And how much boldness I hear in your words. Were you older in years, you would have struck down many mighty Danaans among us.”

At this Troilus smiled, yet the smile at once gave way to pride as Diomedes, son of Tydeus, cast his gaze upon him, and wise old Nestor with his young son Antilochus, and clever-minded Odysseus, son of Laertes, and great Ajax Telamonian with his brother Teucer, and Menelaus, beloved of Ares.

“My hour shall come — and I shall equal mighty Hector in strength. On that day you shall see me among the brave warriors, winning honor and glory for my father’s house and for all of Troy.”

Achilles sensed that a young lion stood before them, no otherwise. And such daring words did he speak that even the leaders of the Danaans forgot their grief for a fleeting moment, though they should not have.

“And will you equal me also, young son of Priam?” Achilles spoke, drawing the boy’s bold gaze toward himself. “Perhaps you shall even set me upon a sharpened spear?” the son of Peleus asked with cunningly narrowed eyes, wishing to humble the pride of youth.

The son of Priam faltered, his boldness shaken, yet he did not look away, only raised his chin higher, taking on a proud appearance.

“Great is your glory, Achilles, son of Peleus, but my glory shall surpass yours!”

Silence fell among the people. Until godlike Achilles laughed aloud, and with him the Myrmidons, among them Automedon and Patroclus. And with them laughed the other Achaean leaders. Yet it was no cruel mockery. The Achaeans laughed kindly, with indulgence.

“Sharp is your tongue, but do not grow arrogant!” Achilles said. “And boast not of your deeds before their hour! I see that your heart is full of courage. But beware lest your courage abandon you on the day you enter the battlefield. Preserve it until that hour!”

Troilus answered nothing. And the Achaeans and Trojans parted in peace, the Achaeans to their camp, and the Trojans to the walls of the city, to wives and children.But no peace came to the son of Peleus within his tent. Nor did sleep come upon him. Patroclus, lying beside him, pressed himself against his back and spoke:

“Why do you not sleep, Achilles, dear to my heart? For whom does your heart long? Has the young son of Priam seized your thoughts?”

“You know all these things, Patroclus. Nothing can be hidden from you,” Achilles answered him, drawing the hand of the son of Menoetius closer against his hairy chest.

“You did not take your eyes off him, Achilles. I saw it. And all your desires are known to me even before you speak a single word of them.”

Achilles fell silent, agreeing with all of it. Then Patroclus brought his lips close to the ear of the son of Peleus and whispered sweetly:

“Listen to me, son of Peleus Aeacides and of Thetis, goddess of the sea. This is what I shall say to you. Of all the valiant Achaeans, you are most worthy of the treasures and riches of Troy, for you are the best of the Achaeans. If you desire to take young Troilus for yourself — then let it be so. There are ways to bend his will toward you. On the day he leaves the walls of Troy, send envoys to him with gifts. Or go yourself and give white doves, such as delight the hearts of youths. I have heard that the Trojans are skilled horsemen. Give Troilus beautiful horses. Seeing your kindness, perhaps he shall willingly agree to enter your tent, to the envy of all the Achaeans.”

“You speak wisely, philtatos. Not without reason did my father command me to listen to you. But what if the heart of the son of Priam does not soften, and he does not agree to come with me willingly?”

“And if Troilus remains unreachable — then use force and claim him as a trophy of war. Why should you grieve? The walls of wealthy Ilios shall fall — all desired treasures shall belong to you, the fairest Trojan women you desire, and beautiful Troilus as well, though he weep for the days of freedom, for his father, for his mother, for his brothers and sisters. Yet still he shall not escape his fate.”

This thought pleased glorious Achilles, and within his mind he resolved that so it would be.

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

rozalinafromdreams

Reposting this fanfic because it's dear to me.

currentlycryingaboutlancelot

the achilles scene in the odyssey is haunting tbh. the whole iliad being about men dying to have honor and glory to be remembered after death and achilles is just, just getting to the point where he believes maybe there’s more to life than dying and maybe he doesn’t want to lose his life in this pointless war and then him getting pulled into it anyway, dying the homeric hero he never wanted to be, then meeting odysseus in the underworld and telling him a slave’s lot would be better than his own because at least he would be alive

oscar-out-of-a-suitcase

Carpathians, Ukraine

kyleesarthell

Deidamia bidding Neoptolemus fairwell, not knowing she'll never see the light in her son's eyes again

rozalinafromdreams

One day, @katerinaaqu tagged me under a post that included a passage from Philostratus describing Achilles' eyes. And yes, ever since then, the image of Achilles with amber eyes has never left my mind. I promised that one day I would draw Achilles with eyes like that. Of course, I know that @midnightproser has already made sketches of Achilles with those kinds of eyes. Even so, I wanted to try portraying them myself. I decided to combine every eye colour that has ever been associated with Achilles, so I tried to depict blue around the edges, fading into green, then into yellow, and finally becoming a bright, deep, rich amber around the pupil. Of course, I didn't manage to capture the gaze of a lion. That's still something I need to work on. But at least I tried to make his hair thick, like a lion's mane. Honestly, he ended up looking more like Helen of Sparta, but oh well. Maybe I'll make another sketch of Achilles in the future.

midnightproser

Thank you for the mention, and I love your drawing of Achilles with central heterochromia eyes. I like how you combined the colors to make his eyes stand out from the amber around his pupils, to the blue and green pigments circling around the edges.

This is pretty random, but I couldn't help but be reminded of gas stoves based on his eyes.

When I look into his eyes, I can feel his gaze burning me the more I stare at him. I think you capture the gaze of a lion pretty well since he's already intimidating me ^^

Oh yes, he definitely resembles more of a lion with his wild and luscious, golden hair. And might I say he looks undoubtedly noble. Hahaha well if he is compared to the most beautiful woman whose face launched a thousand ships, then that is saying a lot about him. Too bad for him he can't get everything he wants with his face card. Not even the lover boy can get Helen ┌|o^▽^o|┘

It's really cool that I'm seeing more artists give Achilles amber eyes, but I am a little stunned there are others who like the idea he could also have central heterochromia eyes. Mind you Achilles would look even more gorgeous with those eyes, because the pretty boy of course gets to have the best looks. What a showoff.

I actually was a little worried at first the idea of Achilles having different eye colors might not be possible, because it was a far fetch idea that might come off as random or out of character for him.

I even provided info on my interpretation of Achilles on why I chose to give him central heterochromia eyes.

💬 6 🔁 5 ❤️ 9 · Post by @sushxisss · 1 image · Hahaha yes your recent blog reminded me to take the opportunity to consider my design for Ac

It seems we're in agreement that Achilles would look good in everything no matter what it is. I like to see more sketches of your version, especially with this eye color. Let's continue to have Achilles with the most dazzling eyes ever.

rozalinafromdreams

Oh, thank you so much for the reblog! I'm really happy that you saw it this way. Comparing Achilles' eyes to a burning gas stove was completely unexpected for me, but honestly, I find it incredibly flattering. The same goes for the fact that I somehow managed to create the effect of a burning gaze without even intending to. I'll definitely take that as a compliment.

I was actually worried because I didn't think I had managed to capture that lion-like, predatory gaze, but you and @katerinaaqu keep giving me more confidence. After all, I'm not a professional artist. I draw spontaneously, simply following my own intuition.

To be honest, Achilles is *the* ultimate pretty boy among men. 😆 He deserves to be recognized as dangerously beautiful, just as Helen is the most beautiful among women. I think even Helen's beauty didn't always work in her favour. Yes, there were moments when it truly helped her, but there were just as many moments when it brought her trouble. There's a reason people say that beauty is a dangerous force.

I've already seen your posts as well as your sketches, which is exactly why I mentioned you as someone who drew Achilles with central heterochromia before I did.

I'll definitely let you know when I create more sketches of Achilles!

But!

#greek mythology #odyssey 2026 #helen of sparta #helen of troy #menelaus #christopher nolan #the odyssey #telemachus