Achilles [Troy Movie] vs Jason Bourne [Bourne Series]

[gooddragon1]

In a hand to hand battle in a cage fight (however big a standard cage for a cage fight is) and to the death.

Who would win?

Examples of each in action...

Bourne:
Pen vs Knife (www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFnmq5PPScA)
Facebook (Fight starts at 1:15) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLt7lXDCHQ0)

Achilles:
Achilles vs Hector (www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf4IoxEUmHM)
Achilles vs Boagrius (www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7iDMhZF_cY)

NOTE: I'm biased toward Jason Bourne.

[Brother Oni]

I assume we're not using Greek legend Achilles with his immortality as that would be somewhat one-sided. :smalltongue:
Let's say we use the normal human but consummate warrior version of Achilles.

Achilles is a soldier and warrior - Bourne is a killer and an assassin. Two related but significantly different skill sets.

Unarmed in a cage, my money's on Bourne. Achilles is used to fighting with weapons and has little experience in modern unarmed combat techniques as they would probably be classed as dis-honourable or underhanded.

That said, turn it into a gladiator match and give them a sword and shield each, Achilles would win hands down.
I doubt Bourne has any experience fighting with a melee weapon larger than a knife and certainly not with a shield. It'd be over faster than Achilles' fight with Boagrius.

[Traab]

I assume we're not using Greek legend Achilles with his immortality as that would be somewhat one-sided. :smalltongue:
Let's say we use the normal human but consummate warrior version of Achilles.

Achilles is a soldier and warrior - Bourne is a killer and an assassin. Two related but significantly different skill sets.

Unarmed in a cage, my money's on Bourne. Achilles is used to fighting with weapons and has little experience in modern unarmed combat techniques as they would probably be classed as dis-honourable or underhanded.

That said, turn it into a gladiator match and give them a sword and shield each, Achilles would win hands down.
I doubt Bourne has any experience fighting with a melee weapon larger than a knife and certainly not with a shield. It'd be over faster than Achilles' fight with Boagrius.


My history is rusty, but didnt Greeks spend a significant amount of time in hand to hand combat? I think they called it Pankration. I found an article, but heres a quote.


Pankration was more than just an Olympic event, it formed the basis for all combat training for Greek soldiers - including the famous Spartan hoplites and Alexander the Great's Macedonian phalanx. The techniques varied just as in the oriental martial arts according to ‘style’. Pankration systems were taught within families and many times by master teachers to students (pankratiasts). Forms or kata were known as Pyrrics and single blow challenges as Klimax; internal energy was developed through breathing exercises, the equivalent of ‘Chi’ in Chinese arts, known as Pneuma. Pneuma primarily denotes the wind (derived from the Greek word pneo which means to breathe, blow); also 'breath'; then, especially the spirit. Punching bags and wooded posts were used for striking practice and the hardening of the body and limbs.

Pankration, as practiced in the ancient world, combined elements of both boxing (pygme/pygmachia) and wrestling (pale) to create a broad fighting sport similar to today's mixed martial arts. A match was won by submission of the opponent or if the opponent was incapacitated. A contestant could signal submission by raising his hand, but sometimes the only form of submission was unconsciousness or death. Joint locks and choke holds were common techniques of accomplishing this. In fact, there were only two rules: contestants were not allowed to gouge eyes or to bite.

Grave, even permanent injuries were common as an accepted means of disabling the adversary: mainly breaking limbs, fingers or even the neck. Pankration bouts were quite brutal and sometimes life-threatening to the competitors. As a result, a paides event (a somewhat vague younger age group) for pankration wasn't established at Olympia until 200 B.C.

There were no weight divisions and no time limits. Referees were armed with stout rods or switches to enforce the rules against biting and gouging. The contest itself continued uninterrupted until one of the combatants either surrendered, suffered unconsciousness, or was killed. Although knockouts were common, most pankration battles were decided on the ground where both striking and submission techniques would freely come into play. Pankratiasts were highly-skilled grapplers and were extremely effective in applying a variety of takedowns, chokes, and punishing joint locks. Strangulation was most feared during ground combat, and was the leading cause of death in matches. A fighter would immediately raise his arm in defeat once his opponent's forearm had secured a firm grip across the windpipe or carotid artery (though there are stories of fighters who chose to die rather than surrender.)

So it is quite likely that achilles is very much so capable of hand to hand combat.

[Xondoure]

Bourne would win. He'd read Achilles' recklessly confident attacks like an I Can Read book.

[Forum Explorer]

Bourne hands down. The movie Achilles isn't very impressive (also that movie sucked.)

[dehro]

pankration and "pure" wrestling, so yeah, I reckon Achilles would have more than a fleeting chance.
the distinction between killer and soldier loses much relevance once you put them in a melee. much of Bourne's killing happens with firearms and that's integral to his reputation. Achilles' reputation is entirely based on melee fights.

if Achilles's attack (aside the silly fight in the silly movie) was always reckless, he wouldn't have lived to become the champion of the Greek.. I'm guessing he's reckless (more like flashy) when he knows he has all the odds in his favour. I wouldn't put it past him to be able to read Bourne just as well as Bourne reads his enemies

let's not forget 2 things... Achilles is traditionally reputed to be the strongest warrior of his era... that means, especially since it was pretty much all done melee (not only melee, but that's what he was strong in), that he's specialized in close quarter fighting under pretty much all circumstances... the second thing: he's probably built like a powerhouse too. also, we know he dies when he's pretty much at his peak, so that's when we should "pick him"
Bourne on the other hand is in a "still got it" phase, and may, especially in later books, have passed his prime, from a purely athletic pov. still better than anybody else in his time..but in his time, much fighting is done with firearms, not melee.
checking the body count on the 3 movies, of 19 confirmed kills by Bourne, only 2 are in melee fights. the books don't change this proportion much, if memory serves (I've only read the 3 original..not the Van Lustbader sequels)

Technically he's likely to be better, having had a chance to study all sort of modern and asian (as in vietnam, china and so on) martial arts, which should give him an edge.. but physically I don't think he plays in the same league as Achilles... it's like putting a very efficient mafia hitman (as in, expert in a variety of killing methods) against Muhammad Ali... in a boxing ring.

so..unarmed, in a cage? I'd say it's at most a draw (because Achilles is the champion of his time but Bourne has some letal skills there too..so it's just too close to call)..I'd give Achilles an edge though

if you give them a weapon or a set of weapons..much would depend on what weapons those were, how adaptable either of them is in fighting on the other's terms. your average greek-era-to-middle ages weapon set? hands down for Achilles. more modern equipment, random objects (the pen!!) or oriental martial arts weapon? (nunchucks/hookblades and such)...Bourne.

if they're not in a cage but in a larger environment (be it urban or wildlife), Jason Bourne 10 times out of 10... Achilles wouldn't see him coming...because he's used to fighting a visible opponent.. Bourne pretty much writes the book on sneaking up on you unnoticed

[Brother Oni]

I stand corrected on the unarmed combat experience (thanks Traab for the Pankration info), but I'm still inclined to give the unarmed matchup to Bourne.

Achilles is a late Bronze/early Iron age warrior. While he's a powerhouse for his time, advancements in diet probably makes him slightly undersized by today's standards.

In addition, he's used to fighting other Pankration users and this lack of experience with other fighting styles give Bourne the edge.
Take for example the samurai in the late 19th century - they were forbidden to fight with foreign (mostly British) sailors, not because of repercussions, but because they kept on getting trounced. Their fighting styles had ossified so much that the British, with more experience and unorthodox (to the Japanese) style would win.

While the samurai's particular issue wouldn't happen to Achilles (no chance of his fighting style having a chance to degrade), I feel it would still give an edge to Bourne.

In reply to dehro, I agree that outside of formal duel scenario, Bourne would probably win the majority of the time, but I don't think it would as big a whitewash as you make it out to be.

Although he's not a Spartan, Achilles certain would have experience in military reconnaissance and generally sneaking around as most infantry from that time would.
Unlike most training comparisons here, fieldcraft hasn't changed much - there's only so many ways you can blend in with nature or move quietly through undergrowth.

[dehro]

I'm not so sure that Achilles would be physically at a disadvantage.
I as well thought that if you go back in time people are smaller, unhealtier and so on..but I read up on this a few years ago..and it is only true in a certain period.
what made people short, unhealty, poxridden and prone to all sort of plagues and illnesses was rampant urbanisation and the first steps of industrialisation. malnutrition, fumes, no drains and all the various factors that come with living in massed heaps without any knowledge of what's healthy and what is going to spread germs like wildfire (I'm talking about people doing their number twos in the streets and such)..
in fact, inhabitans of the english islands around the year 1000 were a good deal healthier (also taller) than their descendants a couple of centuries later, because they had a healthier lifestyle, better food (meat every day as opposed to once a month) and so on.
this is of course much earlier, but not that much different. As a warrior prince, Achilles would have the pick of the food, and given his reputation for being exceptional when compared to his peers (one such peers could be Ajax Telamon, his half cousin and reputedly a giant of a man to their standards, probably to ours too...yet still an inferior fighter), it's fair to assume that he is, physically, at the very least on par with Bourne.
height doesn't really mean much, in a fight... Mike Tyson, to name one, and a number of japanese judokas have beaten a great number of people who were a good deal taller and heavier.
also, I've said it before but it deserves repeating, 99% of Achilles training was on melee combat. that's all we see him do and he's famous for.. Bourne was much more versatile, and we can see by the body count I mentioned that his field of excellence is killing "any which way"..and that most of his kills are in fact not in melee...so maybe he isn't all that lethal, compared to someone who specializes in melee.

as for the outside scenario..you're right..possibly not a witewash, but still.. Achilles, as far as we know, has only ever fought in pitched battles against other factions. I don't remember him taking part to any expedition or exploration where he took active scouting role...or where he was faced with experts in camouflage, infiltration and such.

[Megaduck]

I'm going to have to go with Achilles here.

First, Bourne is an assassin. His entire training is to attack by stealth and surprise. Every time he fights he's failed, it means something went wrong or his plan wasn't good enough.

Achilles is a warrior, not a soldier, but someone whose trained to into the thickest and heaviest fighting possible and still win. Every time he gets into a fight he's right where he is supposed to be doing what he is supposed to be doing.

There for, in a straight fight (Not an assassination) Achilles has that as an advantage.

Secondly, I would say that Achilles is in better condition. If Bourne needs to get somewhere he takes a car or a train. If Achilles needs to get somewhere he walks, runs, or takes a ship. Achillles life is far more physical then Bourne's is and as a prince he's not suffering from poor nutrition. He's also described as being one of the most perfect physical specimens of his time.

Thirdly, I do not believe that Bourne's modern training would have a significant advantage over Achilles. Many things have changed in the past 2-3 thousand years but people have not and unlike Japan, Greece at the time was not isolated. The people at the time were fighting for their lives and they knew it, they used every advantage they had to win.

End Result, in any sort of hand to hand combat, Achilles is in his comfort zone doing exactly what he does best and Bourne is not and does not have any mitigating advantages. I'd lay odds on Achilles.

[Brother Oni]

I'm not so sure that Achilles would be physically at a disadvantage.

Reading up a bit more around the subject, the average height for a Bronze/Iron age man is significantly smaller than what it is today, but certain individuals were able to achieve heights we expect today.

Since we're talking about Achilles here, stated to be a superlative physical specimen, I concede that he would probably be of a similar height and fitness to Bourne, although I said that Bourne had a better diet than Achilles, not that Achilles had a poor diet.

That said, improvements in medicine would certainly ensure that Bourne is in a better shape overall unless you make the assumption that Achilles lucked out and suffered no long term effects from any number of diseases or injuries.



Achilles is a warrior, not a soldier, but someone whose trained to into the thickest and heaviest fighting possible and still win.

With armour, weapons and probably a good few Myrmidons backing him up.
In addition, being a warrior as you've stated implies that he expects a certain level of conduct from his opponent, something that Bourne is highly unlikely to give him.

In my opinion, a well disciplined soldier is a far better combatant than a warrior - you only have to look at the success of the Roman Legions for proof of that.



Secondly, I would say that Achilles is in better condition.

Just because Achilles doesn't have the advantage of modern transportation, doesn't mean that Bourne is any less fit than him.

Training regimes have significantly improved since Achilles' time, especially with improved knowledge of human anatomy.



Thirdly, I do not believe that Bourne's modern training would have a significant advantage over Achilles. Many things have changed in the past 2-3 thousand years but people have not and unlike Japan, Greece at the time was not isolated. The people at the time were fighting for their lives and they knew it, they used every advantage they had to win.

End Result, in any sort of hand to hand combat, Achilles is in his comfort zone doing exactly what he does best and Bourne is not and does not have any mitigating advantages. I'd lay odds on Achilles.

Again, it depends on the exact circumstances.

Modern training and methods of warfare absolutely give an advantage over those with more obsolete styles - take a look at the various battles between the Mongols and European knights. The Mongols practised what is recognisably a predecessor of modern tactics and they pretty much trashed the better armoured knights in nearly every battle.
I agree that it's more unit tactics and strategy rather than the situation outlined by the OP, but I believe the point still stands.

The problem is that 'hand to hand combat' is a bit of a vague term, as it covered armed and unarmed combat.
Again, I think that Bourne has the edge in unarmed combat, but Achilles would absolutely slaughter him if they had a sword/spear each.

[Traab]

Reading up a bit more around the subject, the average height for a Bronze/Iron age man is significantly smaller than what it is today, but certain individuals were able to achieve heights we expect today.

Since we're talking about Achilles here, stated to be a superlative physical specimen, I concede that he would probably be of a similar height and fitness to Bourne, although I said that Bourne had a better diet than Achilles, not that Achilles had a poor diet.

That said, improvements in medicine would certainly ensure that Bourne is in a better shape overall unless you make the assumption that Achilles lucked out and suffered no long term effects from any number of diseases or injuries.

You also should keep in mind the different purposes of the training each underwent. Achilles entire being is tied up in training for physical combat. When he isnt fighting, he is training to fight. Bourne on the other hand was trained for a wide variety of circumstances. His physical capabilities would be far less focused on physical combat than achillies. Compare it to a guy who works out at the gym, and a mister universe competitor. The guy who works out may have the advantage in certain areas. For example, if he does a lot of treadmill or steps, he will likely have greater endurance than the mister universe competitor. However, if the contest between them is to see who can lift the most, I think we both know who would win.

Its the generalist versus the specialist. In a gladatorial style combat, bourne is at the disadvantage because that is achillies strength. Its what he is best at. Meeting someone in battle, then killing them. Bourne would have the advantage in other scenarios, like a game of hide and hunt. Achillies would likely die due to massive head trauma before knowing that bourne was taking aim at him from 800 meters away. And thats ignoring the whole culture shock issue, bourne is just a better assassin than achillies could hope to be.

[Brother Oni]

You also should keep in mind the different purposes of the training each underwent.

If we substitute power weight lifter for Mr Universe, then I'd agree with you. :smalltongue:

Achilles has spent nearly all his time training to kill people with weapons - the OP's scenario places them in a cage, presumably unarmed.
That evens up the odds significantly, hence why I think Bourne has the edge here.



Its the generalist versus the specialist.

In principle, I agree. In a scenario where the two are fighting in a fair matchup with favoured but equal weapons, then the specialist would win.
However the OP's scenario is putting the specialist at a slight disadvantage, one I think pushes it slightly into the generalist's favour.

[Traab]

If we substitute power weight lifter for Mr Universe, then I'd agree with you. :smalltongue:

Achilles has spent nearly all his time training to kill people with weapons - the OP's scenario places them in a cage, presumably unarmed.
That evens up the odds significantly, hence why I think Bourne has the edge here.



In principle, I agree. In a scenario where the two are fighting in a fair matchup with favoured but equal weapons, then the specialist would win.
However the OP's scenario is putting the specialist at a slight disadvantage, one I think pushes it slightly into the generalist's favour.

Except hand to hand combat was also a big part of a greek warriors life as well. Its all a part of combat. Bourne didnt spend all his time learning and training to be a better fighter. Achilles did. In a fist fight to the death, my money will always be on the professional fighter over the skilled fighter. Achilles is the professional in this case. I doubt bourne spent anywhere near as much time in a fighting pit learning to beat someone to death as achilles did.

[dehro]

check the body count.. Jason Bourne, 2 out of 19 confirmed kills are in melee fight.
ALL of Achilles' kills are from melee fights.

if we accept that Achilles is pretty much on par with Bourne physically (and that's aside from his divine ancestry and him being dunked in the river Styx, which we are negating on purpose).. we still have to face the fact that he's younger, more experienced in melee than Bourne could ever hope to be and pretty much the definition of melee warrior in his era. bourne may be the best assassin of all times... but Achilles'claim is pretty much the specific scenario in the OP. Achilles didn't need the myrmidons to kick plenty of buttock. in fact, most fights in the classics are depicted as individual duels...this is from a time before the roman testudo pretty much changed the political map of the world. specifically Achilles' fights are either him against *insert other hero* or pounding Aragorn style on droves of enemies... or gods of rivers who have the misfortune of conducting their business underfoot.
Bourne isn't presented at any time as being particularily fit..not more so than your average marine. the absolute best at killing in general and very well prepared in hand on hand combat, but by no means a master martial artist. all the people he fights hand to hand are either other assassins whose craft, like his, is conducted at the tip of a bullet, or people with considerable less training and with a definitely less impressive kill count than himself. whenever he can, Bourne arms himself with firepower.
Achilles fights and kills all sorts of fighters and more or less divinely supported opponents.. all of them in melee. he might not know Kung fu, karate, anatomy (debatable, I could argue this by quoting lesser myths surrounding him..but that would become endless semantics).. or other later developed melee techniques..but that only gives Bourne a fighting chance.
Achilles is still going to be much stronger in a melee..unless they're given pens and modern furniture to fight with.

[warty goblin]

With armour, weapons and probably a good few Myrmidons backing him up.
In addition, being a warrior as you've stated implies that he expects a certain level of conduct from his opponent, something that Bourne is highly unlikely to give him.

Did you read the same Homer I did? Because I remember Achilles lot of fighting sans backup - even in the wussified movie version. He also did a lot of things that would be frowned upon today. Killing surrendering enemies, mutilating bodies, human sacrifice and general rape, pillage and murder. By modern standards he's a war criminal several times over.

If anything Bourne is in for a shocker for how few standards his enemy really has.


In my opinion, a well disciplined soldier is a far better combatant than a warrior - you only have to look at the success of the Roman Legions for proof of that.
For largescale battles sure. For individual combat a person who is trained to obey orders and fight in a team is quite probably at a disadvantage against somebody who doesn't depend on those things.

(It's also worth considering the likely composition of the Achaean army. Some reading I did on the subject a while ago suggests a relatively small number of well trained and equipped men like Achilles, Ajax, Hektor and the other heroes, and lots of people with very poor equipment and little combat experience. Given that it's arguably more effective to get your best fighters out killing dudes on their on as quickly as possible, since the guys with sticks and hide shields aren't really going to be much help until after the enemy line has broken.)


Again, I think that Bourne has the edge in unarmed combat, but Achilles would absolutely slaughter him if they had a sword/spear each.
Most armed martial arts are rooted very deeply in wrestling and other unarmed techniques - but mostly wrestling. It's not something you study on the side, it's pretty much their foundation.

[MLai]

If both are stuck in a small ring, without weapons or small objects that could be used as weapons by an assassin?

Achilles, hands down.

And yes, I agree that a professional fighter (Achilles) is better than a skilled fighter (Bourne).

[Mikeavelli]

If anything Bourne is in for a shocker for how few standards his enemy really has.

This. People talking about honor codes and fair fighting are completely missing the point of a soldier. They fight to win.

Honor codes only come into play when you're interacting with your comrades and peers. They're only necessary to make sure your warriors don't kill each other off before the enemy gets to them, and necessary to allow them to fit back into society during peacetime. On the battlefield, people are trying to kill you. No-one who's spent their lifetime at war is going to have the slightest bit of squeamishness about "fighting dirty."

In a straight fight it's Achilles.

Bourne wins out in a broader campaign where he can take Achilles by surprise or something.

[Brother Oni]

Did you read the same Homer I did?

I have a confession to make - I haven't actually read Homer due to differences in the British education system, so I've been primarily evaluating Achilles as a Bronze/Iron Age warrior elite. :smalltongue:



Most armed martial arts are rooted very deeply in wrestling and other unarmed techniques - but mostly wrestling. It's not something you study on the side, it's pretty much their foundation.

Anecdotal evidence, but the unarmed martial arts I've studied that have led into weapons were focused primarily on unarmed.
I'll defer to anybody with actual experience in a western fighting style though.


This. People talking about honor codes and fair fighting are completely missing the point of a soldier. They fight to win.

Really? I believe the Romans have records of how the Celts charged their lines wearing nothing but blue woad, or skyclad in Celtic terms.
The samurai used to list their achievements in boasts before a major battle - the Mongols soon dissuaded them of that notion.
During the Boxer Rebellion, you've got unarmed rebels attacking fortified locations with melee weapons, believing that a true follower was immune to bullets.

Even today in modern conflicts, you've got the Rules of Engagement, one aspect being PID, that is you have to positively identify the target before you can open fire. You can't just fire a couple bursts back where you think they came from.

So yes, soldiers fight to win, but they still fight with restrictions due to cultural (listed above) or political restraints (eg the Geneva Convention and RoE).

Again, I'll defer to people with better knowledge of Greek culture and their concept of kleos, since I've been shown that my specific knowledge of Achilles is a bit lacking. :smallredface:

[warty goblin]

This. People talking about honor codes and fair fighting are completely missing the point of a soldier. They fight to win.


While I agree with your general point, the Iliad isn't entirely free of standards. There's the duel between Hector and Ajax, which clearly operated on some sort of code. That was only when calling off the mega-battle was to both sides' advantage though. The next day they were back to spearing, hacking and hitting each other with extremely large rocks. Paris and Menelaus' duel also was clearly conducted according to some set standards, albeit standards that the gods felt fine breaking.

There's also the curious truce for the funeral of Hector at the end. That could be seen as part of Achilles' general transcendence of the heroic code he had previously operated under though, or a sideways way to enhance his own glory - if Hector was so badass they had to call off the war for two weeks after he got killed, how hardcore does that make Achilles look? It could even be seen as another way of asserting his dominance over Agamemnon, to make sure it's clear that this war thing is going the way Achilles wants, or not at all.

When it comes to actual fighting though, it's pretty clear anything goes. I suspect the only reason there isn't very much literal hand to hand combat throughout is that the opportunities for insane gore are fewer, and it's generally a bad idea when up against somebody with sword, shield and armor. The one instance of simply grabbing the enemy I can think of is Paris and Menelaus' duel. After Paris dodges Menelaus' spear and the jilted husband's sword breaks*, he simply grabs Paris by the helmet crest and starts hauling him around. Since Paris is basically a joke combatant, it's something a person can get away with.


*Read into that whatever you want.

I wouldn't really call Achilles a soldier though. He's not fighting for love of country, defending his homeland, or out there making the world safe for truth, justice and the Myrmidon way. Like all the other Greeks he sailed halfway across the known world to stab Trojan men and take their armor, horses - in about that order.

edit reply time:


I have a confession to make - I haven't actually read Homer due to differences in the British education system, so I've been primarily evaluating Achilles as a Bronze/Iron Age warrior elite. :smalltongue:

You should absolutely read the Iliad. I think I've read all of it three times now, and various parts four or five. Suffice to say I see why people still pay attention to it after a few thousand years.



Anecdotal evidence, but the unarmed martial arts I've studied that have led into weapons were focused primarily on unarmed.
I'll defer to anybody with actual experience in a western fighting style though.

My familiarity with any martial art is basically academic. And really anything one says about how the Greeks fought, let alone trained to fight, in 1100 BC is almost pure speculation.



Really? I believe the Romans have records of how the Celts charged their lines wearing nothing but blue woad, or skyclad in Celtic terms.
The samurai used to list their achievements in boasts before a major battle - the Mongols soon dissuaded them of that notion.
During the Boxer Rebellion, you've got unarmed rebels attacking fortified locations with melee weapons, believing that a true follower was immune to bullets.
Charging into battle naked may in fact have had some advantages. For one thing a large hairy blue naked man charging at you wearing only an enormous battle-boner is off-putting as all hell. It also arguably reduces the risk of infection, since whatever clothes most of the Celts had would have been less than sterile, and it's not like wool stops swords very well.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Japan so insular that at one point they got rid of guns because it messed with their nice set piece battles? They're probably a fairly fringe example when it comes to the whole culture of war thing.


Even today in modern conflicts, you've got the Rules of Engagement, one aspect being PID, that is you have to positively identify the target before you can open fire. You can't just fire a couple bursts back where you think they came from.

So yes, soldiers fight to win, but they still fight with restrictions due to cultural (listed above) or political restraints (eg the Geneva Convention and RoE).
Rules of Engagement really weren't much of a thing in the Trojan war. Just in the Iliad you get corpse looting and mutilation - both attempted and carried out, the killing of surrendering enemies, and quite a few references to sacking cities. This doesn't mean capturing them in the modern strategic sense, but killing all the men capable of bearing arms, raping all the women, taking everything of value - including the survivors as slaves, and burning the whole thing to the ground. Achilles personally sacked about 12 cities in the area of Troy over the course of the war.



Again, I'll defer to people with better knowledge of Greek culture and their concept of kleos, since I've been shown that my specific knowledge of Achilles is a bit lacking. :smallredface:

There has been a lot written about why the heroes at Troy fought, but it really boils down to reputation and stuff. They wanted the reputation for being the best and proving it by beating* either individual enemies of great renown or lots of lesser foes, and they wanted stuff. Armor, horses, chariots, cattle, tripods, women, if it could be carried off and looked pretty it was fair game.

The key point is that these two things are deeply linked. Part of winning glory was winning stuff, and glory was expressed by having fabulous armor and beautiful women. Both are fundamentally reflections of the same overwhelming drive to be the best at everything - fighting, athletics, oratory, strategy, and being totally blinged out. Having really good armor or horses or the most beautiful woman in the world as a wife doesn't just mean you have nice stuff in this system, it is an expression that you are more glorious, better, than everybody else.

These two, or really one, motivation(s) are why all the Greeks are there, and all of the Trojan allies. The Trojans themselves are obviously fighting to not be killed, burned and enslaved, but it's clear if you pay attention to Hector that glory is right up there as well.


*Fascinatingly you could also gain glory by being killed by somebody glorious. Being killed by them made them more notable, but it also made you notable as somebody killed by an awesome dude. This is why pretty much everybody who dies onscreen on the Iliad is named, and usually described. There are a lot of lower grade fighters in the Iliad, but there isn't anything like the modern notion of mook or cannon fodder.

[Brother Oni]

Like all the other Greeks he sailed halfway across the known world to stab Trojan men and take their armor, horses - in about that order.

So where do the women fit in on the Greek hierarchy of good loot then? If I remember correctly, Agamemnon sent Achilles off into a huge sulk when he took a woman prisoner/hostage (Briseis?) from Achilles, claiming it as tribute or something.

[dehro]

I was told that the historical reason for fighting was the fact that Troy was controlling a rather relevant seafaring route and had estabilished a toll the greeks didn't feel like paying

[warty goblin]

So where do the women fit in on the Greek hierarchy of good loot then? If I remember correctly, Agamemnon sent Achilles off into a huge sulk when he took a woman prisoner/hostage (Briseis?) from Achilles, claiming it as tribute or something.

Valid point: clearly it's worth going to war for ten years for Helen, which puts her quite high on the list of things worth having. I'll amend my comment to armor, horses and women - in that chronological order.


I was told that the historical reason for fighting was the fact that Troy was controlling a rather relevant seafaring route and had estabilished a toll the greeks didn't feel like paying

The ruins generally believed to have been Troy sit pretty squarely in control of the Dardanelles, so it would do a good job of controlling trade. Due to that I've read at least one fictionalized account that gives this as the underlying reason for the war. However I know of no actual source from the time, or even later antiquity, that confirms this. IIRC even Herodotus never questions that the war was over Helen, although he maintains that Helen and Paris were shipwrecked and stuck in Egypt for its duration, because otherwise Priam would have given her back.

More generally I'm skeptical of assigning modern real-politik reasons for all things in ancient history. It strikes me that people living thirty-three hundred years ago almost certainly thought about a lot of things very differently, and would probably have gone to war for very different reasons than we do today. Such analysis has a place, but postdating our own thought processes onto everything they did seems a strange albeit inevitable form of blindness and temporal chauvinism.

[warty goblin]

So where do the women fit in on the Greek hierarchy of good loot then? If I remember correctly, Agamemnon sent Achilles off into a huge sulk when he took a woman prisoner/hostage (Briseis?) from Achilles, claiming it as tribute or something.

Valid point: clearly it's worth going to war for ten years for Helen, which puts her quite high on the list of things worth having. I'll amend my comment to armor, horses and women - in that chronological order.


I was told that the historical reason for fighting was the fact that Troy was controlling a rather relevant seafaring route and had estabilished a toll the greeks didn't feel like paying

The ruins generally believed to have been Troy sit pretty squarely in control of the Dardanelles, so it would do a good job of controlling trade. Due to that I've read at least one fictionalized account that gives this as the underlying reason for the war. However I know of no actual source from the time, or even later antiquity, that confirms this. IIRC even Herodotus never questions that the war was over Helen, although he maintains that Helen and Paris were shipwrecked and stuck in Egypt for its duration, because otherwise Priam would have given her back.

More generally I'm skeptical of assigning modern real-politik reasons for all things in ancient history. It strikes me that people living thirty-three hundred years ago almost certainly thought about a lot of things very differently, and would probably have gone to war for very different reasons than we do today. Such analysis has a place, but postdating our own thought processes onto everything they did seems a strange albeit inevitable form of blindness and temporal chauvinism.

[MLai]

It was my understanding that Helen was stated as the reason because Homer was writing an epic Hollywood movie, and he felt that having a love interest as the source of conflict is more exciting than making the audience read a wall of text on galactic trade disputes.

And then his movie became such a pervasive cultural phenomenon, that even historians started taking his Hollywood logic as historical fact. :smalltongue:

[Brother Oni]

Charging into battle naked may in fact have had some advantages. For one thing a large hairy blue naked man charging at you wearing only an enormous battle-boner is off-putting as all hell. It also arguably reduces the risk of infection, since whatever clothes most of the Celts had would have been less than sterile, and it's not like wool stops swords very well.


Normally I'd agree with you, but by the time the Romans legions reached Britain, they'd conquered large parts of Gaul already and either would be used to large hairy blue men charging them, or be gaulish auxillaries who were also large hairy men. :smalltongue:



And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Japan so insular that at one point they got rid of guns because it messed with their nice set piece battles? They're probably a fairly fringe example when it comes to the whole culture of war thing.

Kind of. During the Sengoku, Japan's last major war prior to its whole scale modernisation of warfare, I'll admit there were some oddities like Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin's little duel battles, but by and large, firearms were what Oda Nobunaga, the unifier of the Japan used.

After this civil war in the 16th century, the Japanese were at peace all the way up to the 19th century, thus never had the need or the urge to integrate firearms into their battle tactics.



Rules of Engagement really weren't much of a thing in the Trojan war. Just in the Iliad you get corpse looting and mutilation - both attempted and carried out, the killing of surrendering enemies, and quite a few references to sacking cities. This doesn't mean capturing them in the modern strategic sense, but killing all the men capable of bearing arms, raping all the women, taking everything of value - including the survivors as slaves, and burning the whole thing to the ground.

I'm familiar with the terms 'plunder and pillage' - you only have to look at what the Vikings did to monks during the early Middle Ages. :smalltongue:

I'm curious though that the Greeks didn't have some formalised ritual of warfare, aside from the mini-truces they had when great heroes died.

Note that the heroes' duels before major battles is in itself a code of conduct. The Japanese tried doing this when the Mongols invaded back in the 13th century, since that was their code of conduct. The Mongols shrugged and filled them full of arrows since they a) didn't understand what the Japanese were trying to do and b) probably thought they were [redacted] idiots for trying to do so.

[dehro]

More generally I'm skeptical of assigning modern real-politik reasons for all things in ancient history. It strikes me that people living thirty-three hundred years ago almost certainly thought about a lot of things very differently, and would probably have gone to war for very different reasons than we do today. Such analysis has a place, but postdating our own thought processes onto everything they did seems a strange albeit inevitable form of blindness and temporal chauvinism.

I see what you mean,.. but it kind of works though, most of the times..look at the crusades.. the majority of which were all about people trying to carve a kingdom for themselves out from under their rulers' influence. the masses of pilgrims and the general populace may have gone out there to free the holy land from the infidels..but that was certainly not the main purpose of those who actually financed and run the whole show. heck..half the crusades never bothered to actually get all the way to Jerusalem

[MLai]

Agree with dehro that realpolitik reasons apply to humanity since at least recorded history (which marks humans as having a social contract). All the codes of conduct and societal reasons of the time were only window dressing. It was always about wealth and power.

[WalkingTarget]

Valid point: clearly it's worth going to war for ten years for Helen, which puts her quite high on the list of things worth having. I'll amend my comment to armor, horses and women - in that chronological order.

One major point about this was the Oath of Tyndareus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndareus). Helen was so desirable that just about everybody wanted her, but her father, Tyndareus, wouldn't choose a suitor out of fear of offending the others. Odysseus came up with a way around that - have all the guys swear to defend the honor of whoever marries her. That way, if anybody were to fight over her, he'd be fighting everybody and not just the husband.

This worked well until some upstart who wasn't part of the proceedings in the first place shows up and takes her away, dragging all of them into war.

Loot, Glory, etc, but Odysseus was happy with Penelope and tried to fake madness to get out of going.

[dehro]

wasn't achilles made to crossdress to hide away from having to go?

also..just how hot a babe was Helen, after 10 years of living through a war and a few kids, I wonder..

[Traab]

One major point about this was the Oath of Tyndareus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndareus). Helen was so desirable that just about everybody wanted her, but her father, Tyndareus, wouldn't choose a suitor out of fear of offending the others. Odysseus came up with a way around that - have all the guys swear to defend the honor of whoever marries her. That way, if anybody were to fight over her, he'd be fighting everybody and not just the husband.

This worked well until some upstart who wasn't part of the proceedings in the first place shows up and takes her away, dragging all of them into war.

Loot, Glory, etc, but Odysseus was happy with Penelope and tried to fake madness to get out of going.

See now THAT makes a lot more sense. I dont really care who you are, there is no woman beautiful enough to be worth waging a bloody war over, barring her actual husband of course. But if it was all treaty conditions and they HAD to fight, then I can accept that. Romanticize it by claiming it was done because she was so beautiful, (she may have been very beautiful, it wasnt the point) but the truth is, they either fulfill their treaty obligations or most likely wind up next on the list of people to destroy.

[WalkingTarget]

wasn't achilles made to crossdress to hide away from having to go?

If I'm remembering stuff right (checks Wikipedia, yup, ok), that was his mother, Thetis', doing since she knew that he'd either live a long life of peace at home, or a short, glorious life if he went to war and she wanted to protect him.

[dehro]

If I'm remembering stuff right (checks Wikipedia, yup, ok), that was his mother, Thetis', doing since she knew that he'd either live a long life of peace at home, or a short, glorious life if he went to war and she wanted to protect him.

I can totally picture brad pitt in drag

[Wardog]

Agree with dehro that realpolitik reasons apply to humanity since at least recorded history (which marks humans as having a social contract). All the codes of conduct and societal reasons of the time were only window dressing. It was always about wealth and power.

True (and it was already pointed out upthread that to a large extent, wealth = how much stuff you can take from your enemies, and power and influence depends to a large extent on how good you are at taking stuff from your enemies).

On the other hand, we are talking about lots of petty despotisms ruled by charismatic warlords, who have both the authority - and social expectation - to wage war over personal insults. "Foreign policy" will essentially be based around who the king is personally chummy with, and who he has a grudge against. And if someone did steal a king's wife, not only would the king be in his right to wage war to get her back, he may well lose his reputation and authority if he didn't. (If you are a budding warrior seeking wealth and glory are you going to follow a king who's too meek to defend his own honour, or or you going to follow the one who is audacious enough to steal queens?)

[t209]

Achilles used to be immortal, then he took an arrow to the heel.
So if Jason Bourned focus on heel, voila.

[Brother Oni]

Achilles used to be immortal, then he took an arrow to the heel.
So if Jason Bourned focus on heel, voila.

And Bourne will be able to do that in the 30 or so seconds that it takes the immortal Achilles to kill him?

The thing about being functionally immortal and aware of it, is that you have absolutely no fear when wading into hand to hand combat, so Borne has little to no time for feints, clever strategic wearing him down or ability to aim for specific weak spots, because he's too busy trying to stop Achilles ripping his head off his shoulders.

In any case, the heel weakness only appears in one version of the myth - in other versions, Paris just nailed him with a poisoned arrow (with and without divine assistance).

[dehro]

I'm thinking you failed a sarcasm check, brother...:smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

I'm thinking you failed a sarcasm check, brother...:smallwink:

Yeah, my Sense Motive rolls have been shocking recently... :smallsigh: