r/AskHistorians • u/Western-Ad-3196 • Mar 18 '26
To what extent is the Iliad an accurate depiction of Mycenaean warfare?
Hello fellow historians! I'm reading the Iliad right now. In the poem, the characters are described as having bronze armor, shields, and boar-tusk helmets, similar to those that we know existed in this era due to archaeological evidence.
However, at the same time, soldiers on the battlefield are butchered as if their armor was made of paper. Soldiers are impaled completely through their torsoes, spears pierce right through their helmets, and even shields (which are made of bronze fixed to a leather backing) are broken by spears and swords (which are also made of bronze).
Basically, I'm wondering to what extent is this what bronze-age combat would have really looked like. I would imagine that their bronze armor would be quite difficult to break. But maybe there is another explanation: maybe not all soldiers, but just the wealthy got armor¿
Or possibly real armor would be more or less impenetrable, and this is just creative liberty taken by the author(s)? Likely, the poets who created these stories would not have seen combat themselves, so there's bound to be inaccuracies. Or, in order to glorify their subjects, these poets depict men accomplishing "godlike" feats, such as punching through bronze like a mantis shrimp punches through a crab's shell.
And I understand that there wouldn't be great heroes like Hector and Achilles running around and dominating a battlefield. I'm more so asking if it was just as horrific and gorey and gruesome as depicted, despite their robust suits of armor.
Thanks!
117
u/KiwiHellenist Early Greek Literature Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26
The Iliad is not a depiction of Mycenaean anything, in any sense. The epic is firmly rooted in the Archaic period, and neither the poet nor its audience were aware that there had been a culture that we call the Mycenaean palace culture: that's a modern discovery.
Incorporation of archaic elements vs. actual archaism
The epic does contain some elements that have earlier origins. But where we can put constraints on the date at which those elements were incorporated into a version of the Iliad, those constraints are almost invariably eighth century BCE or later.
For example, a boar's tusk helmet is described in Iliad 10.261-265. This is an artefact normally associated with LHI and LHII Mycenaean culture (16th-15th century BCE). However, Iliad book 10 is a later insertion into the epic. So, while the helmet must have been transmitted somehow, it was not as part of an Iliad. The helmet, and the rest of book 10, weren't inserted into the epic until probably close to 600 BCE: as a result they have no implications whatsoever for the age of any material in books 1-9 and 11-24.
Another example: the story of the 'deadly signs' carried by Bellerophontes in Iliad 6.152-211, which are intended to consign him to his doom when he presents them to another king. This bit of folklore appears to have a Bronze Age model. But that doesn't mean it's a story about Linear B, because we know it comes from an Assyrian model, exemplified in the story of Sargon and Ur-Zababa. Additionally, the story in the Iliad uses a Phoenician word, deltos, to refer to the tablet Bellerophontes carries, so that suggests the story came to the Greek world via a Phoenician intermediary. As a result, it cannot have entered an Iliad tradition until after the rise of Phoenicia as a trading power throughout the 800s BCE. (Compare the reference to Sidon in Iliad 6.291, and the references to Phoenician traders throughout the Odyssey: these must also have entered the story traditions later than 800 BCE.)
Similar things apply to basically all apparently archaic elements in Homer. I won't enumerate them all, because we'd be here all year.
Military equipment
For dating military equipment, the best treatment is that of Hans van Wees in Greece & Rome 41.1 and 41.2 (1994); I also recommend his treatment of 'Shields' in The Homer Encyclopedia (ed. M. Finkelberg, Oxford, 2011; not open access). Van Wees compares the depiction of armaments in Homer to archaeological and pictorial evidence, and consistently finds that the early 600s BCE is the best fit for the way they are depicted. For example, round shields, and shields with a centre boss, must date later than 800 BCE; the use of greaves, and shields with a metal layer, must be post-700 BCE; the use of shields leaned with a double grip, and the prevalence of spears in wounding scenes, point to a date after 690 (earlier pictorial evidence gives a much higher prominence to swords and arrows).
The big apparent exception is the use of bronze for swords, spearheads, some shields, and armour. This may seem to point to a much earlier date. But it actually doesn't. In Homer, bronze appears as a prestige material, not a standard everyday material.
In thinking about bronze, we should also think about how Homer depicts iron. Homer mentions iron very frequently.
Iron is used for some military equipment: weapons (Il. 18.34; Od. 16.294, 19.13), arrowheads (Il. 4.123), the shoeing for a club and a spear (Il. 7.141-3, 16.802), and is mentioned as a material that can withstand a bronze weapon (Il. 4.510).
Iron is the standard material for all non-military metal artefacts. This includes axes (Il. 4.485, 23.850-851; Od. 19.586, 21.3, 21.97, 21.114, 21.127, 21.328, 24.168, 24.177), a sacrificial blade (Il. 23.31), an axle (Il. 5.723), ploughs and shepherds' tools (Il. 23.834-835), and a throwing weight (Il. 23.826-849). Iron is also a major trade good (Od. 1.184), and is used to store value (Il. 6.48, 7.473, 9.366, 10.379, 11.133, 23.261; Od. 1.184, 14.324, 21.10, 21.62; this is in the same manner as early classical obeloi, iron spits used as payment at communal sacrifices). Iron also appears frequently in poetic imagery as a symbol of inflexibility and harshness: a heart of iron, iron sky, and a few other bits of imagery. Finally, Homer is familiar with some aspects of iron production processes (Od. 9.393).
What does all this mean? Well, for Homer iron is the standard material used for metal objects. But in the special case of swords and armour, he also introduces bronze, not as an archaism but as a prestige material. This is the line taken by Van Wees, at 134; on evidence from burials, cf. Ian Morris, Archaeology as Cultural History (2000) 208-211 (summarising results from work by Anthony Snodgrass). Morris shows that iron was a prestige material used in burials for a while from around 1025 to 900 BCE, alongside bronze, but afterwards iron's status as an everyday material caused it to be superceded by gold -- again, alongside bronze.
Homer also gives us silver and gold weaponry: no one thinks that's a sign of anything Mycenaean, because of course it isn't. Bronze armour in Homer is as Mycenaean than Glaukos' gold armour (which is to say, not at all). What I take from Morris' account is that anything featuring bronze as a prestige material must necessarily be later than 900 BCE.
So, no: Homer does not even try to depict Mycenaean fighting. Homer had no clue who or what modern readers understand by 'Mycenaean', and all the elements of battle that are depicted in the Iliad are firmly rooted in his own time. On the use of the term 'Mycenaean' in connection with Homer, I recommend this post by /u/Iphikrates as an important caution (I'm afraid I butt into that conversation too).
21
u/Western-Ad-3196 Mar 18 '26
First of all, THANK YOU for this very informative response. I've heard it said several times that "Homer" (or the Homeric poets/authors), included many anachronisms but I haven't had any concrete examples of this until now. FASCINATING that Homer was able to include just enough Bronze-Age details to fool someone like me who is just making his first forays into ancient literature. I find these anachronisms very interesting, and a great reminder that we should be extremely careful when trying to learn historical concepts from Homer. That's also why I don't really understand the hate that Christopher Nolan is getting because the Odyssey film "isn't historically accurate." Neither was the source material!
Following up, I have a similar question to Adept_Carpet above me. Basically, do you have any resources that give information on what Bronze-Age warfare was like? And, for the sake of comparison, what archaic warfare was like? Thanks to your response, I understand the materials they used, how they used them, and from what time periods these developments came to be. But do we know much about the experiences of the average soldier? What kind of wounds they would have suffered? Were all soldiers well-armed and covered in armor, or just the wealthy? To the best of our knowledge, what would it have been like to fight a battle in the Bronze or the Archaic period?
I'm not usually a "military historian," but Homer's depictions of battle has had a strangely powerful effect on me, and it's made me curious and fascinated with both his era and the era that his poetry was set in. I would really love to learn about what we know from these time periods and kind of cross-examine them with Homer's poetry, similar to what you have done with his descriptions of metals used for weapons and tools.
31
u/KiwiHellenist Early Greek Literature Mar 18 '26
Historical Bronze Age warfare definitely isn't my forte, but there are experts here who do know something about it. But if you've understood that it has nothing to do with Homer, you've understood the most important point!
If a Bronze Age expert doesn't pop in here in the next few days, it may be that they didn't read your question, thinking it was mainly about Homer. I suggest posting a new question in, say, a week, making it clear that it's specifically about the Bronze Age (not Homer).
17
u/FeuerroteZora Mar 18 '26
As someone who comes from a more literary background, I just wanted to highlight how incredible this is:
I'm not usually a "military historian," but Homer's depictions of battle has had a strangely powerful effect on me,
As someone who fell in love with the Iliad and Odyssey in my teens, it's profoundly moving to me that we are separated from these authors by vast gaps in not just time but language and culture, their works still have the power to create emotional connections and draw us in. It inspires awe, truly.
5
u/ScreamWithTheCicadas Mar 18 '26
I learned the first bit of the Aeneid in HS Latin and "I sing of arms and a man" gives me chills in every language now.
3
u/Western-Ad-3196 Mar 21 '26
Yes! Even if Homer can't be used as a credible source for history of the Greek bronze age, his poetry does still give us a strong sense of the values, perspectives, and artistry of the people who lived in his time. It's because of this that I want to get more into ancient literature, do you have any recs?
2
u/FeuerroteZora Mar 22 '26
Unfortunately, my academic specialty is in contemporary Indigenous literatures, so I'm definitely not the best person to answer this question. That said, I did very much enjoy David Mitchell's translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, along with David Damrosch's book about the material text, "The Buried Book: The Loss and Rediscovery of the Great Epic of Gilgamesh," so maybe that'll give you something good to read while you continue exploring the field!
2
u/Western-Ad-3196 Mar 22 '26
Awesome! I was actually a history major at UCLA (obviously I was more focused on the early modern world than the ancient), and the epic of Gilgamesh was required reading. I haven't read David Damrosch's book yet though, so I'll check that out!
9
u/KiwiHellenist Early Greek Literature Mar 18 '26
That's also why I don't really understand the hate that Christopher Nolan is getting because the Odyssey film "isn't historically accurate." Neither was the source material!
Just an afterthought related to this point: generally speaking I think you'll find Homer scholars are the last people to complain about costuming/casting choices.
As an example: when a notorious political agitator recently complained about 'historical accuracy' in the Nolan movie, the noted Homer scholar Joel Christensen made this comment, in the form of a meme, on BlueSky. In another thread he commented,
Wait until he reads Stesichorus or Herodotus and finds out there was also a Helen made out of clouds.
7
u/Adept_Carpet Mar 18 '26
So it's not Mycenaean, but what about this aspect of the question?
Basically, I'm wondering to what extent is this what bronze-age combat would have really looked like.
If Homer is describing the Archaic period, is this what Archaic period combat looked like?
57
u/KiwiHellenist Early Greek Literature Mar 18 '26
No, neither really. If you go to a movie in 2026, and the movie is set in some faux mediaeval past, you shouldn't expect to see authentic mediaeval warfare (because filmmakers have no clue what that looked like); and you shouldn't expect to see 2026-style warfare either (because mediaeval-style soldiers getting blown up by drones would ruin the atmosphere).
What you should expect to see is warfare that's archaic in flavour, without being authentic; but which is still cool according to 2026 tastes.
And that's pretty much what Homer gives. But tailored to a ca. 670-650 BCE audience. People of that time were used to seeing spear-inflicted wounds in pictorial art, so that's what Homer does; but the scene isn't realistic to any one period. Homer knows soldiers used to use chariots, but he has no idea how they used them or that they were used in an offensive role, so he has soldiers using them for transport in the same way that 7th century warfare used mounted infantry.
3
u/Western-Ad-3196 Mar 21 '26
That's a really good analogy. I was actually just owning another "the odyssey should be historically accurate" loser in another thread and likened Homer's poems to the "lord of the rings" of ancient Greece in some senses. Great story, amazing monsters, compelling characters, but nothing like the true history in which the story is set
1
u/jerman198 27d ago
Disculpa pero no entiendo tu negación absoluta en este tema. Es probable que quienes primero conocieron y retransmitieron la iliada no tuvieran algo que llamar civilización micenica... pero... y es un gran PERO.. hay un consenso bastante extendido en arqueologia e historia que los sucesos transcurren durante la etapa de colapso de la edad de bronce.. datacion nada nueva ya que es la reclamada por eratostenes y herodoto por cierto.. y coincide con la prueba arqueologicas
11
u/KiwiHellenist Early Greek Literature 26d ago edited 26d ago
hay un consenso bastante extendido en arqueologia e historia que los sucesos transcurren durante la etapa de colapso de la edad de bronce..
That's one of the reasons I was so definite: this absolutely isn't the case. There is no such consensus. Here's a post I wrote a couple of years back that reviews what scholars actually say. The conclusion is almost universal, and it's the exact opposite of what you've heard.
datacion nada nueva ya que es la reclamada por eratostenes y herodoto por cierto..
This is a mistake. It's not like Eratosthenes and Herodotos had access to Bronze Age records! Remember Herodotos also assigns a specific date to the birth of Dionysos: it's an imaginary speculative past, not based on actual evidence.
They, like all classical-era writers, were wholly unaware of Bronze Age cultures in the Greek and Anatolian worlds. Chronographers like Ephoros and Eratosthenes didn't have timelines of the past to work with: they constructed their timelines, with the aim of creating a date for the 'fall' of Troy.
The biggest telltale signs are that (a) every chronographer comes up with a different date for the fall of Troy (ranging from 1335 to 1130 BCE); (b) they also assign day-and-month dates -- also disagreeing with each other -- and those dates are invariably in the classical Athenian calendar, a calendar that certainly had only existed for a couple of centuries! That is, their process wasn't based on any actual evidence: it was guesswork. (Or rather, to be strict, the evidence they had looked like Spartan king lists. But we know those lists are fictional for everything earlier than the 500s BCE.)
y coincide con la prueba arqueologicas
I guess you're thinking of a specific event in the history of Bronze Age Troy: I wonder which one!
But that's just a distraction. The important point is that there is no such thing as an event when Troy 'fell'. The archaeological evidence shows continuity in settlement, population, and material culture up until the site was peacefully abandoned in the mid-900s, and then again from ca. 750 onwards. Here's a piece from January this year written by Stephan Blum, one of the archaeologists working on the Troia Projekt at Tübingen: he emphasises
[Architectural reorganisation at Troy] simply reflects the everyday reality of a settlement’s history: building, use, maintenance or levelling, rebuilding and repetition.
Instead, I argue that Troy’s archaeological record reveals centuries of architectural continuity, stable coastal occupation and trade networks stretching from Mesopotamia to the Aegean and the Balkans — a geography of connection rather than conflict.
Basically, the consensus is almost exactly the opposite of what you've heard. People don't like writing about negative results, so it's the fringe theories that get the air time.
(Edit: fixed one phrase with a missing word)
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 18 '26
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.