I enjoyed this very much. This story is one of those ubiquitous works of art that are commonly known before they've even been read. The story of this war has been adapted in many films, referenced for centuries in other works and spawned retellings as well, so that by the time I came to read it I already had certain ideas (true and false) about the book.

It's a story of two warring factions and one of the preconceived ideas I had about this book was that it's mostly glorification of war, and while there is some glorifying of certain heros and passages of war, it mostly deplores the murder and slaughtering and loss caused by war. The humanizing of both warring parties (Achaians and Trojans, and their supporters among them gods) was incredible to read and unexpected on my part. For instance in a certain passage Hektor goes back to his city and meets his wife and child to bid them farewell, the child, still a baby, doesn't recognize his father because of the war gear and begins to cry while his father laughs. Such touching passages between all that murder and killing gave a deeper effect to the story.

Also, as mentioned there's lots of warring. The meticulous descriptions of the weapons of the age this story happens in was fascinating and the people here kill each other with arrows, spears and stones in ways I never thought possible. Think of any way a person might die of these weapons and they most likely did in the story. And in all this the exploration of the human experience, and the contradictions that occur in life, the stories of adventure and courage, and no wonder this story has endured and enthralled readers for centuries as it has.

Soy totalmente parcial con este libro, porque me encantan los dioses griegos metidos en todos los líos que pueden encontrar o crear, así que disfruté un montón con la historia, llena de lealtadas y traiciones, de valor y cobardía, emociones tan antiguas como la historia humana.

There is something I want to address right off the top. Me giving the Iliad 4 stars instead of 5 is not meant as a way of diminishing or detracting from its classification as a classic of Western literature. I fully endorse it as a classic, and as an important work that contributed significantly to Western civilization. That said, I cannot in good conscience give it a top rating when it comes to its content as a whole. I will explain why.

This work glorifies violence, death and destruction on almost every page. Homer was not shy about providing graphic and gratuitous detail when describing death. I, of course, do realize that he was a poet of his time and that glory in battle, bravery, honor, etc, were all valued more highly than almost anything else. Me acknowledging the former doesn't make the content any less disturbing; nor does it make it any more beautiful. One also should take into account that this was originally considered a religious work. In all probability, the violence was considered glorious and an acceptable spectacle for the deities of ancient Greece (i.e. blood offering/human sacrifice). The Achaeans and the Trojans are not even the main actors, really; they are simply the pawns in a divine game of chess: from Paris' stealing of Helen, to Agamemnon's stealing of Briseis from Achilles, to Achilles' resentment and refusal to fight, to Hector's blood lust, vainglory and eventual death, etc etc--all are laid at the feet of the will of the Greek deities. The Greek deities are of course incredibly capricious and egomaniacal (one can understand why some Greek philosophers thought that Homer was guilty of blasphemy); they are suspicious of one another and all secretly jealous of Zeus. They often conspire against Zeus when they happen to favor a certain side in the war. Zeus is also not omniscient, nor omnipresent; he does get tricked by other deities and does not always have full control over events. At first, one is lead to believe Zeus favors the Trojans, but as I hinted at above, he capriciously turns against them in the end. One is left to extrapolate that the deities' favoritism is tied in with how many sacrifices and offerings they received, but certain actions that they take offense at can also cause them to abandon a side or a particular fighter. In some cases, it isn't really clear why Zeus or the other deities do what they do or allow what they allow.

One notices a theme with two notable epics of polytheistic religion: like the Mahabharata, the Iliad is a kind of mytho-theological work set within the backdrop of a war. Like the gods of the Iliad, Krishna is also notably capricious. There must be some lesson in futility that polytheistic religions meant to get across by making death and destruction the springboard for theology. It also could be that fate/karma is best illustrated through human suffering and death. That is only a guess; as a Christian I reject such things as fatalism.

I couldn't find anyone I identified with in the Iliad. I didn't like Hector or Achilles. I certainly didn't like Agamemnon or Menelaus. I also found the Greek deities to be rather repugnant. I was left with thinking that the whole story is rather more like a tragedy. People fighting over things that really seem trivial. They are being influenced by a bunch of numinous beings that have their own agenda for what they do, and the best interests of the human players is not foremost on their lists of concerns. I suppose I am biased as a Christian, but I am incredibly glad that works like this lost their religious significance.

This translation was done in the 19th century. The translator opted for the Latin equivalent of Greek divine names, e.g. Jove instead of Zeus, Minerva instead of Athena, etc. The translation was good as far as I could tell, so I don't have any criticisms as far as that goes. As I said, I recognize that this work is a classic. I could only read it as a work of tragedy to honestly appreciate it. Life and religion in ancient Greece was tragic.