Up until Book 9, the Iliad has shown us the heroic code IN ACTION: warriors fight for glory (kleos), defend their honour (timē), and accept the system's rules. Then Achilles BREAKS the system. He refuses compensation, questions whether glory is worth dying for, and chooses life over fame.
Book 10 then shows us a DIFFERENT kind of heroism entirely: not the glorious battlefield aristeia, but the cunning night raid. Intelligence, deception, and pragmatic violence. Together, these books force us to ask: what REALLY makes a hero?
The Central Question
Is heroism about honour and glory (the traditional answer), personal integrity and choice (Achilles's answer), or practical effectiveness and cunning (Odysseus's answer)? Homer doesn't give us ONE answer—he gives us THREE competing models and lets us decide.
Three Key Themes
1. Heroic Values Questioned
Achilles challenges the entire value system: if honour can be bought with gifts, is it real? If cowards and heroes both die, why fight? Book 9 is a philosophical crisis for Greek heroism.
2. Kleos (Glory/Reputation)
Kleos is the currency of heroic society—eternal fame through great deeds. But Achilles reveals kleos's cost: early death. Is immortal glory worth a short life? He's not sure anymore.
3. Friendship
Phoenix appeals to love, Ajax to friendship. The embassy FAILS because Achilles values personal integrity over social bonds. But Book 10 shows friendship WORKING: Diomedes and Odysseus succeed through partnership.
The Traditional Heroic Code
Before we understand how Achilles BREAKS the code, we need to understand what the code IS. Greek heroic culture has clear rules about how warriors should behave and what they should value.
Kleos (Glory/Fame)
The ultimate goal: achieving immortal fame through great deeds, especially in battle. Your name lives forever in poetry and song.
Timē (Honour/Recognition)
Public recognition of your worth, demonstrated through gifts, prizes, and respect from peers. Honour is VISIBLE and can be measured.
Aretē (Excellence/Virtue)
Being the best warrior you can be—skill, courage, strength. Warriors constantly compete to prove their aretē.
Aidōs (Shame/Respect)
Fear of public disgrace. What others think of you MATTERS. Shame drives behaviour as much as honour.
How the System Works
The Heroic Equation
You fight bravely in battle → demonstrate aretē (excellence)
Your deeds are witnessed → others recognise your skill
You receive public honours → gifts, prizes, the best cuts of meat
Your timē (honour) increases → social status rises
Poets sing of your deeds → you achieve kleos (eternal fame)
The Social Contract
The system ONLY works if everyone plays by the rules. Warriors risk their lives; commanders distribute honour fairly. When Agamemnon takes Briseis, he breaks this contract. Achilles's withdrawal isn't petulance—it's a legitimate response to the system's failure.
Traditional Responses to Dishonour
What SHOULD happen when someone dishonours you? The heroic code has clear answers:
Option 1: Accept Compensation
Offender offers gifts (material compensation)
Public apology restores honour
Society witnesses the restoration
Everyone moves on
Option 2: Seek Revenge
Challenge offender to combat
Restore honour through violence
Win or die trying
Never accept dishonour passively
💡 What You CAN'T Do
What the code does NOT allow: refusing compensation when it's offered. Ajax makes this point perfectly in Book 9—men accept blood-price for MURDER. Refusing compensation for a lesser insult is unprecedented and threatens the entire social system.
Achilles's Radical Critique
In Book 9, Achilles doesn't just refuse Agamemnon's offer—he attacks the ENTIRE heroic value system. His speech is revolutionary because he questions assumptions that NO ONE questions.
"The same honour waits for the coward and the brave. Death does not distinguish between the man who does nothing and the man who does much."
— Achilles, Book 9
What Achilles Is Saying
The system PROMISES glory for excellence
But DEATH is the same for everyone—coward or hero
Therefore the system is BROKEN
Why risk your life if the reward (honour) can be arbitrarily taken away?
This is EXISTENTIAL. Achilles is saying: the heroic code promises that your deeds matter, that excellence is rewarded, that honour is real. But if Agamemnon can just TAKE your honour away, then it's all a lie. Honour isn't inherent—it's just a game played by powerful men.
"I Have Won No Advantage"
"I have won no advantage for myself from all the hardships I have endured and the risks I have taken. Like a bird that gives her unfledged chicks every morsel she can find, though she herself fares badly, so I have lain awake through many sleepless nights and spent long days in battle, risking my life against warriors fighting for their wives."
— Achilles, Book 9
Achilles's Metaphor
The bird metaphor is DEVASTATING. The mother bird starves herself feeding her chicks. Achilles has starved himself of safety and comfort, risking his life repeatedly, while OTHERS (Agamemnon especially) get rich. The Greek army are the chicks; Achilles is the exhausted mother; and Agamemnon takes the food.
The Exploitation Argument
Achilles is arguing that the heroic system EXPLOITS warriors. Leaders like Agamemnon manipulate young men into dying for glory whilst the leaders stay safe and grow rich. This is almost a proto-Marxist critique of how power uses ideology to exploit labour.
Can Honour Be Bought?
"Not if his gifts were as plentiful as the sands on the seashore or the dust of the earth could Agamemnon persuade me, not till he has paid me back for the full bitter anguish he has caused me."
— Achilles, Book 9
Achilles's refusal is ABSOLUTE. Not just "these gifts aren't enough"—but "NO amount of gifts could ever be enough." Why? Because if honour can be taken away by an insult and restored by gifts, then honour is just STUFF. It's transactional. It's not real.
Traditional View
Honour is demonstrated through gifts
More gifts = more honour
System is based on exchange
Everything has a price
Achilles's View
Real honour is internal, inherent
Can't be bought or sold
Public humiliation can't be undone
Personal integrity > social recognition
💡 The Problem with Achilles's Position
If honour is purely internal and society's recognition doesn't matter, then what's LEFT? You're rejecting the entire social world. This is philosophically consistent but socially impossible. You can't be a hero if you reject the society that defines heroism.
Agamemnon's Non-Apology
Part of why Achilles refuses is that Agamemnon never actually APOLOGISES. He offers compensation but blames divine madness (atē) rather than taking responsibility.
"I was blinded. I will not deny it. Zeus took away my wits."
— Agamemnon, Book 9 (reported by Odysseus)
Why This Isn't an Apology
"I was blinded" = the gods made me do it
"Zeus took away my wits" = not MY fault
Offers compensation but not genuine remorse
Never says "I was wrong to dishonour you"
Achilles can sense this. Agamemnon is following the FORM of reconciliation (offering gifts) without the SPIRIT (genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing). It's a technical apology designed to restore order, not to heal the relationship.
What Is Kleos?
Kleos (κλέος) means "glory" or "fame," specifically the kind that comes from others hearing about your great deeds. It's connected to the word for "hearing" (κλύω). Your kleos is what people SAY about you—your reputation that outlives you.
Why Kleos Matters
In a world without afterlife rewards (Hades is grim for everyone), kleos is your ONLY form of immortality. Your body dies, but your name and deeds live forever in poetry and song. Epic poetry exists to grant kleos to heroes.
The Heroic Bargain
Die young in battle → achieve kleos → live forever in memory. This is the deal every warrior accepts. It's why warriors WANT to fight in famous wars like Troy—more witnesses, more poets, greater kleos.
Achilles's Two Destinies
In Book 9, Achilles reveals something HUGE: he knows his fate, and he has a CHOICE.
"My mother Thetis the silver-footed goddess tells me I have two possible destinies. If I stay here and fight at Troy, I shall not return home but I shall win undying glory. But if I go home to my own native land, I shall lose that great glory, but I shall live long and be spared an early death."
— Achilles, Book 9
Option 1: Stay and Fight
Gain: Undying glory (kleos aphthiton) Cost: Die young at Troy, never see home again Traditional choice: Every hero chooses this automatically
Option 2: Go Home
Gain: Long life, see family again, die old Cost: Lose glory, be forgotten by history Unprecedented choice: No hero chooses this
The Revolutionary Moment
Achilles says he's choosing Option 2—going HOME. This is unthinkable. A hero NEVER chooses long life over glory. But Achilles is saying: maybe kleos isn't worth dying for. Maybe a long, obscure life is better than a famous death.
Is Kleos Worth It?
Achilles forces us to examine kleos critically. What does "undying glory" actually MEAN when you're dead?
Arguments FOR Kleos
Your name lives forever in song
Future generations honour you
You become part of cultural memory
It's the only immortality available
A meaningful death > meaningless long life
Achilles's Counter-Arguments
You're DEAD—you can't enjoy the glory
Life itself is precious, irreplaceable
Glory is just what others SAY about you
You sacrifice real life for abstract fame
The system exploits young warriors
"Cattle and fat sheep can be had for the taking; tripods and chestnut horses can be bought. But a man's life cannot come back, it cannot be recaptured or caught again, once it has passed the barrier of his teeth."
— Achilles, Book 9
This is one of the most profound statements in Greek literature. Everything else—cattle, gold, horses, even honour—can be replaced. But LIFE, once lost, is gone forever. "Once it has passed the barrier of his teeth" = once you die, that's IT. No second chances.
The Iliad's Ambivalence
Here's what's brilliant: Homer doesn't RESOLVE this debate. The Iliad shows us BOTH perspectives:
Achilles achieves the greatest kleos of all by returning to battle (later) and killing Hector—his name is immortal
But the poem shows his death as TRAGIC, not glorious—Patroclus dies, Achilles knows he'll die young, Thetis mourns
The Iliad itself GRANTS kleos whilst simultaneously questioning whether it's worth the cost
Book 9 gives voice to doubts that every warrior must feel but can't express
💡 For Your Essays
When writing about kleos, don't claim Homer thinks it's simply "good" or "bad." He presents it as COMPLEX: deeply valued by the culture, but achieved at terrible cost. Achilles's questioning doesn't destroy the concept—it deepens it.
Friendship in the Heroic World
Greek has several words for different types of bonds: philos (friend/loved one), hetairos (companion), xenia (guest-friendship). Books 9 and 10 explore how these bonds SHOULD work—and what happens when they fail or succeed.
Friendship as Social Glue
In heroic society, friendships aren't just personal—they're POLITICAL. Bonds between warriors create alliances, obligations, and expectations. Breaking friendship bonds is as serious as breaking oaths.
Phoenix's Appeal to Love
Phoenix, Achilles's old tutor, makes the most EMOTIONAL appeal in Book 9. He's not arguing from logic (like Odysseus) or shame (like Ajax)—he's arguing from LOVE.
"Achilles, dear child, do not nurse such anger in your heart."
— Phoenix, Book 9
"Dear child" (philon teknon)—Phoenix is appealing to their father-son relationship. He raised Achilles. He held him as a baby. He loves him. Surely that bond matters more than anger at Agamemnon?
Phoenix's Relationship Claims
"I made you what you are": Phoenix taught Achilles everything—he CREATED the hero
"I held you on my knees": Physical intimacy, parental care
"I loved you as my own son": Direct emotional appeal
"Don't you owe me this?": Implied debt of gratitude
But even THIS fails. Achilles responds gently to Phoenix (more gently than to Odysseus), but he still refuses. Why? Because accepting out of love would mean betraying his principles. Achilles chooses integrity over affection.
Ajax's Appeal to Friendship
"Achilles has made his great heart savage within him. He is a cruel man, with no feeling for the love of his companions, who honoured him by the ships above all others."
— Ajax, Book 9
Ajax's accusation: you've become INHUMAN. "No feeling for the love of his companions"—Achilles is betraying the bonds of philotēs (friendship/love) that should bind warriors together.
"We are under your roof. We come as representatives of the Greek people and we would like to think we are closest to you in friendship of all the Greeks."
— Ajax, Book 9
Ajax's Argument
"Under your roof" = guest-friendship obligations (xenia)
"Closest to you in friendship" = WE are your philoi
"Don't abandon your FRIENDS" = not about Agamemnon, about US
If you reject us, you reject friendship itself
Ajax almost succeeds. Achilles DOES soften slightly—he says he'll defend his OWN ships if Hector reaches them. But he won't fight FOR the Greeks generally. He's maintaining personal bonds (protecting HIS men) whilst rejecting wider social obligations.
Friendship That WORKS: Book 10
Book 10 shows us friendship FUNCTIONING properly. Diomedes and Odysseus work together perfectly, demonstrating what heroic partnership should look like.
"When two go together, one sees the advantage before the other. A man on his own may see it too, but his wits work more slowly and his ideas lack weight."
— Diomedes, Book 10
Partnership Dynamics
Diomedes and Odysseus complement each other perfectly. Diomedes brings strength and courage; Odysseus brings cunning and planning. Neither could succeed alone. Their friendship is FUNCTIONAL—based on mutual respect and complementary skills.
Diomedes's Role
Physical action—kills Rhesus and soldiers
Battlefield courage
Youth and energy
Defers to Odysseus's planning
Odysseus's Role
Intelligence gathering—interrogates Dolon
Strategic planning
Experience and cunning
Ensures successful escape
Their mission succeeds BECAUSE they work together. Book 9 showed friendship failing (embassy couldn't move Achilles). Book 10 shows friendship succeeding (partnership achieves the mission). The contrast is deliberate.
Types of Friendship Bonds
Philotēs (Affection)
Love, affection, emotional bond. Phoenix's appeal to Achilles is based on philotēs—"I love you like a son, remember how I cared for you."
Hetaireia (Comradeship)
Warrior companionship, fighting side-by-side. Ajax's appeal—"we are your companions, we fought beside you, we honoured you above all others."
Xenia (Guest-Friendship)
Formal hospitality bonds. Ajax invokes this—"we are under your roof"—which creates sacred obligations.
💡 Why Achilles Rejects All Three
Achilles values personal integrity ABOVE social bonds. He can't be moved by affection (Phoenix), comradeship (Ajax), or hospitality (xenia) because accepting would mean compromising his principles. This makes him philosophically consistent but socially isolated.
Two Models of Heroism
Books 9 and 10 together give us TWO competing visions of what makes someone a hero. Neither is presented as "correct"—Homer shows both as valuable but different.
Achilles: The Warrior-Philosopher
Values: Personal integrity, honesty, questioning authority Strength: Physical prowess, unmatched in battle Method: Direct confrontation, refuses compromise Weakness: Inflexible, socially isolated
Odysseus: The Cunning Pragmatist
Values: Effectiveness, intelligence, adaptability Strength:Mētis (cunning), problem-solving Method: Deception, manipulation, pragmatic violence Weakness: Seen as devious, not "honourable"
Biē vs Mētis
Greek thought recognised two types of power: biē (force/strength) and mētis (cunning intelligence). Most heroes embody biē. Odysseus embodies mētis.
Biē (Force/Strength)
Representatives: Achilles, Ajax, Diomedes (in battle) Method: Direct physical confrontation, overwhelming power Values: Courage, martial skill, facing enemies openly Weaknesses: Inflexible, limited by physical constraints
Mētis (Cunning/Intelligence)
Representatives: Odysseus, Nestor (advice), Athene (divine patron of mētis) Method: Deception, strategy, finding clever solutions Values: Intelligence, adaptability, winning by any means Weaknesses: Seen as sneaky, not "heroically honest"
Both Are Necessary
Homer shows that war NEEDS both types of hero. Achilles's biē wins battlefield victories but can't solve political problems. Odysseus's mētis succeeds in night raids and diplomacy but can't match Achilles in open combat. Complete heroism requires BOTH.
Odysseus in Books 9 & 10
Book 9 shows Odysseus FAILING (his diplomatic mission doesn't work). Book 10 shows him SUCCEEDING (his intelligence mission works perfectly). This isn't contradiction—it shows his strengths and limitations.
Book 9: Diplomatic Failure
Speaks first, most persuasively
Uses logic, duty, compensation
Achieves nothing—Achilles refuses
Logic can't solve emotional wounds
Book 10: Intelligence Success
Chosen for his cunning
Interrogates Dolon effectively
Plans escape route whilst Diomedes kills
Mission succeeds perfectly
"How could I forget godlike Odysseus, whose heart is always so keen and whose spirit is so brave in all kinds of dangerous work? Pallas Athene loves him."
— Diomedes choosing Odysseus, Book 10
Diomedes recognises what Odysseus excels at: "all kinds of dangerous work"—not just battlefield combat, but ANY dangerous situation requiring intelligence. "Athene loves him" = divine endorsement of mētis as a valid form of heroism.
The Morality Question
Book 10 raises uncomfortable questions: Is killing sleeping enemies "heroic"? Is breaking promises to prisoners acceptable? Is cunning the same as dishonesty?
Traditional Heroic Values
Face enemies openly
Fight with honour
Keep promises
Win glory through brave deeds
Book 10's Actions
Sneak attack at night
Kill sleeping, defenceless men
Lie to prisoner, then execute him
Success through deception
💡 Homer's Presentation
Crucially, Homer doesn't CONDEMN these actions. Odysseus and Diomedes are celebrated, bathe ritually, and sacrifice to Athene. The gods approve. Homer is showing that war requires PRAGMATISM, not just honour. Effective warriors do what's necessary, even if it's not "glorious."
What Makes a Hero? Three Answers
Books 9 and 10 ultimately offer THREE competing definitions of heroism. All are present in the Iliad. None is completely endorsed or rejected.
1. Traditional Heroism
Fight for glory, accept the system's rules, value honour above life, die young but famous. Representative: Hector (later books), traditional warriors
2. Philosophical Heroism
Question the system, value personal integrity, refuse to be manipulated, choose authenticity over glory. Representative: Achilles in Book 9
3. Pragmatic Heroism
Use intelligence not just strength, adapt tactics to situation, achieve objectives by any means, value effectiveness. Representative: Odysseus in Book 10
Homer's Sophistication
Homer doesn't give us a SIMPLE answer. He shows multiple valid approaches to heroism, each with strengths and weaknesses. This complexity is what makes the Iliad sophisticated literature rather than propaganda for one value system.
Key Points for Revision
Achilles questions the heroic code fundamentally: If honour can be bought, it's not real honour
Kleos (glory) vs life: Achilles reveals he knows his two destinies and questions whether fame is worth early death
The system exploits warriors: "Like a bird feeding chicks"—young men die for leaders' benefit
Friendship fails in Book 9: Phoenix (love), Ajax (comradeship), and Odysseus (logic) all fail to move Achilles
Friendship succeeds in Book 10: Diomedes and Odysseus work perfectly together through mutual respect
Biē vs mētis: Two types of power—Achilles embodies force, Odysseus embodies cunning
Agamemnon's non-apology: Offers compensation but blames divine madness (atē) rather than accepting responsibility
Alternative heroism: Book 10 shows intelligence, deception, and pragmatism as valid heroic traits
No single answer: Homer presents multiple models of heroism without endorsing one exclusively