Untitled - Get a Free Blog

Book Twelve
TO KOCT&, bT). Scaling ladders were a tactic of Near Eastern armies from an
early period, see the illustrations in Arch. Horn N IO-II, and from the
standpoint of Hellenistic siegecraft may have seemed obvious, yet they are
clearly out of place here: one need look no further for their absence than the
account of Sarpedon's near-successful attack at 375 and 397-9. The Kpoacrca
have been thought to describe, in a way that can hardly now be
conjectured, the construction of the parapet (the K69CxAi5es of Aristarchus):
the compound TTpoKpoaaoi (14.35 ( see n -)> Hdt. 7.188) may mean 'in
echelon' but is itself less than clear. Lorimer's suggestion, HM 433, that at
its base 'the Greek wall had a strong "batter"' is possible, though her
reference to the (no longer visible in the first millennium) batter 'such as
forms the almost sole surviving part of the great wall of Hissarlik vi' does
not help. The OeueiAioc (28) of many archaic and classical town-walls extend
beyond the superstructure and may be stepped, see Lawrence, Fortification
201-7. The sole other mention of this feature in the Iliad, Kpocrcrdcov
g7T6(3aivov at 444, does not help to determine the sense. The eiraA^eis are
battlements which give the wall height as well as protecting its defenders;
they are clearly thought of as relatively flimsy, for Sarpedon can break them
away with one wrench of his heroic arm (397-9), so as to make a 'practicable'
breach. (The escaping Plataeans did the same, Thuc. 3.23.) The
onrqAai TrpopA'HTES must be vertical members, of stone or timber (cpiTpoi,
29), necessary to hold the improvised materials in position, or to support
the superstructure of a permanent wall. It is not clear why they should
project (in the manner of a buttress?), unless the poet has in mind some
architectural practice which has left no trace in archaeology.
262 yaLpvTO KeAeuOou (= 11.504) must be understood as 'get out of their
way' (so Leaf). No literal KEASUOOS can be in question.
263 pivolcji pocov 9p&£ocvT€S 6TT&A£6is is explained by bT as TOC 8i&Keva
TCOV £TT&A£6COV 9pd£avTes TOIS OTTAOIS. The Achaeans formed a front on top
of their wall like the solid formation in the field described by 9pdcrcTGo/
9pdaao|iai (see 13.126-35^).
265-75 The Aiantes exhort their men. Kampfpardnesen are part of the
typology of the Homeric battle. Latacz, Kampfdarstellung 246-50, lists 65
examples, 38 on the Achaean side against 27 on the Trojan. Only occasionally,
as at 31 off. below, do the speakers rise to eloquence. — The poet must
mean by AiccvTe Aias son of Telamon and Aias son of Oileus, as is clearly
the case at 335-6. For the probable idea that the dual primitively signified
'Aias and one other, sc. Teukros' see 13.46^ and J. Wackernagel, Kleine
Schriften 1 (Gottingen 1953) 538-46. The ambiguity could lead to confusion,
see 13.177-8^
265 KeAeuTiocov (also 13.125) exemplifies a productive epic formation
(Risch, Wortbildung 321), common in the participle. It may be understood
346