Author Alexander's main points in this book seem to be that war is cruel, vicious and senseless, that most of those fighting in one have no personal reason to be fighting, little idea what the war is about and would rather not be risking their lives, that they are often following orders that seem to make no sense, that war leaders may be inept, that many lives (mostly young ones) will be brutally snuffed out and that there are few real winners in war. While certainly worthy of frequent repetition, these are commonplace observations.
In addition, she believes that the "Iliad" is not about the epic glory of war at all but is instead a deeply ironic antiwar work that has been misunderstood for nearly thirty centuries. This is her central idea and is a far from commonplace observation, but it requires evidence and careful argument to establish. Alexander fails to provide these.
Indeed Alexander does not attempt to make a systematic argument in support of her insight. She relies instead on scattered textual passages from the poem and other classical sources to support her point.
Thus, for example, she looks repeatedly to a few passages in which Achilles himself states that he has no personal reason to fight the Trojans and would rather be waging peace at home than war at Troy. Two such passages are referenced more than once: One is Achilles' statement to the effect that he would advise other Greek warriors to sail home and live in peace. The other is a statement from the "Odyssey" in which Achilles' ghost in the underworld tells Odysseus that he (Achilles) would rather be alive as someone's serf than be king of the underworld. Alexander also makes much of what she sees as Achilles' supposed challenge to Agamemnon's status as leader of the Greeks.
To these Alexander adds numerous references to highly realistic, pull-no-punches descriptions of pitiable death in battle, many involving characters who are sympathetic and appealing (Hektor not least among them). She also quotes occasional materials from ancient commentators and poets to the effect that both sides were ruined by the Trojan War.
Such scattered and selective references do not make the case, at least for me, especially since Alexander ignores passages that do not support her. In the first place, the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon is never over policy or even generalship. It is about an insult to Achilles' honor. Moreover, not only does Achilles make no effort whatever to seize power, he does not even try to persuade anyone else to support him in his withdrawal of himself and his Myrmidons from battle. Moreover, he gets his mother to obtain Zeus' promise to let the Trojans press the Greeks nearly to destruction so that his return to battle will be desperately needed and will therefore not only repair his honor but enhance it. Achilles is concerned deeply with glory and honor and has no serious intention of abandoning the war. Nothing could stop him from sailing home, but he never attempts to do it.
Nor do the awful battlefield deaths refute this picture. The Iliad is fully aware of the horrors of war and does not prettify death and destruction in the slightest. Yet only Thersites tries to provoke mutiny and no one makes any serious effort to force the leaders to make peace. Thersites is the character who clearly argues that "glory" is an empty term and that death in this war is senseless and without value. Not only does he attract no support, he seems to be universally despised in the Greek army and is beaten senseless for his pains.
Alexander notes that no one dies well or happily in the Iliad. No one is rewarded for their valor and there is no heaven to receive them. But the Greeks had no heaven to receive anyone. The Greek "afterlife" consisted of a fragment of a human being with no memory and very limited awareness of any kind. No ordinary mortals received any rewards in the afterlife. I suspect that most ancient Greeks (a few philosophers aside) would find the very notion of dying well, let alone happily, inconceivable.
It seems to me that the Iliad, while fully sensible of the horrors of war, is equally at ease with the idea that glory, even undying glory, may be found there.
So while Alexander's favored theory must to my mind be regarded as, at best, not proven, I think the book is worth reading as an excellent introduction to the power and richness of the Iliad. Alexander is knowledgeable not only about the Iliad itself but about the works of lesser poets who wrote epic cycles of the Trojan War. She knows the works of Hesiod, of commentators and of other early Greek writers as well. Alexander writes clearly and engagingly and imparts her knowledge without condescending to less informed readers. Overall this is an informative and entertaining book that offers something to anyone even remotely interested in the Homeric epics.
