Statting heroes from the Trojan War?

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

So given that, Achilles was treating Agamemnon as an equal, as was his right, not as his superior. Agamemnon clearly thought differently, but egos were big on all sides of the conflict.

At least some of the versions have Agamemnon as the real motivating force of the whole Greek side, event though Menelaus was technically the primary offended party. Some versions at least hint that Menelaus might have been willing to let things slide, maybe even that he was glad to be free of Helen, but Agammenon had other ideas.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

At least some of the versions have Agamemnon as the real motivating force of the whole Greek side, event though Menelaus was technically the primary offended party. Some versions at least hint that Menelaus might have been willing to let things slide, maybe even that he was glad to be free of Helen, but Agammenon had other ideas.

CS Lewis wrote a version where the whole thing was about a Trojan grain embargo and Agammemnon used Helen as a propaganda gimmick.

[DanHoward]

Troy controlled the Hellespont (Dardanelles). Greece could not access any of the markets in Asia without permission from the Trojans. Capturing Troy would have freed up all of these markets for the Achaeans. Agreed that Helen was just a pretext for going to war.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Troy controlled the Hellespont (Dardanelles). Greece could not access any of the markets in Asia without permission from the Trojans. Capturing Troy would have freed up all of these markets for the Achaeans. Agreed that Helen was just a pretext for going to war.

Herc sacked Troy a generation and a half before when Priam was still a child, too, so it wasn't the first time the Achaeans went to war with Troy.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Troy controlled the Hellespont (Dardanelles). Greece could not access any of the markets in Asia without permission from the Trojans. Capturing Troy would have freed up all of these markets for the Achaeans. Agreed that Helen was just a pretext for going to war.

A lot of that sort of thing is imputing motives that would in fact be more believable in a scheming eighteenth century cabinet minister to a barbarian warlord who actually could be imagined as fighting a war for a beautiful woman or even to live shortly but get eternal fame.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

A lot of that sort of thing is imputing motives that would in fact be more believable in a scheming eighteenth century cabinet minister to a barbarian warlord who actually could be imagined as fighting a war for a beautiful woman or even to live shortly but get eternal fame.

Generally speaking, most successful warlords have a keen grasp of economic realities and no lack of scheming credentials.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Generally speaking, most successful warlords have a keen grasp of economic realities and no lack of scheming credentials.

Homer makes it explicit that Odysseus is really good as scheming, Agamemnon rather less so (consider his provoking Achilles, for example), and Achilles was worthless at it.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Generally speaking, most successful warlords have a keen grasp of economic realities and no lack of scheming credentials.

That is not the point although in fact the career of many was at a time when there was no meaningful difference between their economic power and the size of their territory and/or their herd and so their was no need for such a multipolar outlook which only becomes needed with urbanism. And scheming would take place on familiar ground-with a goal toward gathering street cred. Gaining glory rather then dying in obscurity would be as instinctive to a prince in such an environment as gaining money would be to us. Most scheming would be directed toward that goal.

The point I was making was that it is anachronistic to assume that if a legendary warlord announces a lofty goal he must be being cynical-that for instance, Osman did not in fact wish to impose the Will of Allah on the Infidel or the Ruicks did not undergo a sincere religious conversion or whatever. That is imputing to them purely political and economic motives as if they were playing a board game in modern times and such would not even be applicable today and surely not then. If nothing else the political framework of the time favored having such motives-fighting over fair Helen is impressive and in modern terms carries street cred. And if such a motive did benefit a given prince politically he was unlikely to distinguish in his mind his personal motives and his political.

An example as late as early modern times comes with the Holy Alliance. A clearing house to prevent further revolution makes sense. A Holy Alliance is just wooliness for there is nothing holy about it. But Czar Alexander meant exactly what he said and the reason we know he meant what he said(aside from observations about his rather weird personality) is that holy alliances had lost their fashion by his time so they could not have been just a propaganda gimmick.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That is not the point although in fact the career of many was at a time when there was no meaningful difference between their economic power and the size of their territory and/or their herd and so their was no need for such a multipolar outlook which only becomes needed with urbanism.

For instance the obvious economic relevance of capturing Finnbhennach to a primitive society aside from the importance in prestige renders it superfluous to look for hidden motives for going on a raid to capture it. It is only when economics become more complicated that princes have to "take account of economic factors" because below that level going about their preferred activities is taking account of economic factors.

[DanHoward]

You seem to be falling for the myth that our ancestors were stupid and we are clever. There is nothing primitive or unsophisticated about Mycenae - it was well urbanised with a complex road network and trade routes all over the known world. Agamemnon's political acumen would have been just as sharp and cunning as someone like Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Some of the ancient rulers had far more political and economic smarts than any modern politician - Philip II of Macedon and Julius Caesar would be good examples.

It is hardly a stretch to assume that the Achaeans wanted to stop the stranglehold that the Trojans had on Asian trade. Every time the Achaeans (or anyone else) passed through the Dardanelles they had to pay tribute/duties to Ilion. Why is it hard to believe that someone like Agamemnon would want that revenue for himself? The whole myth about Paris and Helen may have not been part of the original events at all but added by later romantics.