![Debunking the 'gay Greeks' Myth [1024x579 - 235KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/8PDIeV.jpg){kind=link}
Achilles fucked a little boy to death.
"Yet Achilles, struck by the beauty of both Troilus [a young boy] and his sister Polyxena, and overcome with lust, directed his sexual attentions on the youth – who, refusing to yield, instead found himself decapitated upon an altar-omphalos of Apollo Thymbraios. Later versions of the story suggested Troilus was accidentally killed by Achilles in an over-ardent lovers' embrace. In this version of the myth, Achilles' death therefore came in retribution for this sacrilege. Ancient writers treated Troilus as the epitome of a dead child mourned by his parents. Had Troilus lived to adulthood, the First Vatican Mythographer claimed, Troy would have been invincible; however, the motif is older and found already in Plautus' Bacchides."
That's from Wikipedia, so of course I'm a little skeptical. But when I read the Illiad, when I read this part about Troilus, it really does sound like Achilles saw him, fell in love, tried to enslave both Troilus and his beautiful sister. Then he tried to fuck Troilus, but he resisted- but you can't resist Achilles. He killed him while trying to fuck him.
But that's from "later versions of the story". I ask "why would that change from a decapitation to a raped-to-death?" Perhaps an effort to smear the legendary Achilles? Who knows.
But Patroclus... idk man, as much as I hate to say it, it really seems like they were involved in a sexual relationship along with that strong male bonding. This would make Achilles "bisexual", because he did fuck women such as Briseus.
Achilles probably wasn't real, though- or at least he was very loosely based on a real person. I don't think anyone killed thousands of people single-handedly with a spear, and then choked a river with their corpses so badly, the river god Scamander got all pissed and attacked Achilles. Achilles proceeded to wrestle Scamander into submission, his rage at Patroclus death was so great.
I read an english translation a very long time ago. I was not looking for the homo so I did not see it, but there was was enough there for other ancient writers to argue over it, and for later treatments to make explicit what may or may not have been implied. But if homer does not explicitly say they were homos, you have to ask yourself why he did not, if he indeed intended to cast them as homos.
Why do you write two homo characters but not actually say they are homo? Perhaps because there is widespread disapproval of homo?
You raise good points.
Personally, I believe so much has been lost in translation over the centuries, we may not ever know for sure. Phrases in different languages, context, time periods, etc. had vastly different meanings than they do today. Historians/anthropologists have to look at these things through the lens of modernity, and because of this I don't think any 100% accurate translations and subsequent interpretations can be reached.
We need our time machine.
(post is archived)