What Have Modern Polytheists’ Reactions Been to the Netflix/BBC Series Troy: Fall of a City?

As is so often the case, I am way behind on many things, and watching particular films and television series is no exception. I think I might have heard of this show when it came out in 2018, but did not have a chance to see it (it’s only eight episodes, each about an hour long) until the last several days.

I may be discussing it in-depth here, so if you’re one of these people who reads some version of a review of narrative media and is mad if it talks about it in particular details, I’ll just say that since this is based on stories that have existed for the better part of the last three millennia, and there’s not too much novel in it, then get over it.

To summarize before I even truly begin: I liked it! If I didn’t like it, I would not have continued with it, and I watched the first episode thinking I might just try it and then sleep on it and maybe watch another the next day…but no, I ended up watching the first three episodes that night before I went to bed.

I have only read a few reviews and reactions to the series, and almost all of them had me pissed off for a variety of reasons. To address some of the “big” issues people had with it that I think are pretty ridiculous:

–Some have said the show is too “racy” with its nudity warnings and such. There are various women’s breasts shown; there is an arse or two. No genitals of anyone are ever shown, even in statuary. About the only full nudity that occurs are a few bath scenes, but even there, most of the lower halves of people are concealed by the bath and/or the water, so I wouldn’t really count that. There are sex scenes, but there’s always clothing or coverings involved so you don’t really see anything other than people writhing on top of or against one another. Big fuckin’ deal…get over it, prudes!

–Was it “historically accurate”? As the events of the Trojan War are not reflective of what we can verify as actual history at any point, and even Homer’s version of the tale was therefore set in what would have been his own (and “Homer” probably wasn’t a historical person, either!) contemporary cultural and technological setting, any discussion of a media portrayal of the story that tries to make itself sound like it is concerned with these things is barking up the wrong tree. Most of the versions of the story that people have known in the European world have not been Homer’s version since the end of late antiquity, and we have no small number of versions that show the Greeks as medieval armor-clad knights, and there’s even the Irish version known as Togail Troi that sets the tale as one of the medieval Irish genres of “Destructions” (of cities or buildings), and in my own position as both a scholar of premodern narratives and someone who understands the personal and cultural functions of myth, this is as it should be! The story of Troy is always more illustrative of what is going on when it is told than anything actually historical–it’s a mirror into the people and culture that tells it. So, there’s stirrups on the horses; there’s an ostrich in it for a few seconds; the ships’ prows look a bit more like Viking ships than any period of Greek ships…and any number of other such “anachronisms.” I don’t think it really matters that much, honestly. The only one I would really dispute is Helen making reference to the story of “Actaeon and Diana” rather than “Aktaion and Artemis,” especially since Artemis is then later referenced (and portrayed directly!) in the show with the incident of Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia, on which more later.

–One of the other biggest gripes, and sadly not surprising, is that there are many major characters who are portrayed by Black actors: Pandarus (who has an interesting role in this in comparison to Troilus and Cressida, for example), Nestor, Aeneas, the Deities Zeus, Athena and Artemis, and most significantly for the story and overall screen time, Achilles and Patroclus (I’m going to use their spelling/pronunciation of this, rather than my usual “Achilleus” to distinguish the Greek Hero from Achilles the Trophimos of Herodes Attikos). This is another occurrence in a long line of British casting choices where race blindness is in operation, and I think there’s nothing wrong with it. (In the Royal Shakespeare Company production of Troilus and Cressida that I saw when I was in Oxford, Paris was portrayed by a Black man, and yet all of the other sons of Priam were played by white actors…and so what?) Again, people trying to argue that it is “non-historical” to have Black actors in these roles, or playing these characters “realistically,” is a bunch of bullshit since there is nothing historical about the story in the first place. Yes, it would have been nice if Memnon were in this version (he has yet to appear in modern media outside of fiction, alas), but perhaps they attempted to at least allude to him in the way they portrayed Aeneas as the cousin of the Trojan princes “from the south,” perhaps thus referring to Egypt/Ethiopia rather than the Dardanian provenance of Aeneas’ father Anchises (which is to the north of Troy traditionally).

–Some have said the acting was bad, the characters unlikable, and the pace was way too slow. I would disagree on all three: only eight hours to tell the whole saga of Troy is too little, in my view, and a 10-12-part series would have been better, but still probably not enough. They decided to focus on particular moments, and more on interpersonal matters than on large epic combats (which, whether they are done with hundreds of extras and cavalry and so forth, or are computer-generated, are very expensive, so I understand why there was so little of that in this), which is what I personally prefer. I didn’t feel that any of the characters were portrayed “inaccurately” to what we have about them in earlier literatures, and thought the actors did a fine job with what they were given. Agamemnon is cruel but conflicted and then vindictive; Menelaus is inept and overly prideful; Odysseus is deceitful though occasionally merciful, only to have his own feelings overridden by his duties to his superiors. We get some backstory on several characters in detail, and as this is a telling that is more sympathetic to and focused upon the Trojans rather than the Greeks, we get a lot on Paris’ background, which though not exactly as it was in the original literatures, is closer than anything we have seen on a screen before (e.g. he was abandoned after birth due to a prophecy that he would ruin Troy by his presence, though the circumstances and details in the series are slightly different than the established literature). That Zeus chooses Paris to judge between the three Goddesses because of his impartiality in an earlier competition with Ares is not mentioned, though they do work Hermes (who escorted Paris to Mt. Ida for the judgement) into the scene of the judgement, though He is nowhere else portrayed in the film. Some have said that Achilles was not portrayed “emotionally enough,” perhaps, and was just indifferent, moody and angry…but to my knowledge, this is how he is portrayed in the Iliad itself, so I don’t see any problems there!

–Though as part of pacing, there is the fact that time is elapsed but also not shown as being long enough in certain respects. The war is said to last “years,” and traditionally it was ten years, but no one seems to age, including a child (Evander!) that ends up surviving and going with Aeneas, still appearing as roughly .7-9 years old from when the war started until it ends. Further, the judgement of Paris took place just after the wedding of Thetis and Peleus, which means Achilles would not have been born yet at that point…and yet it seems that this judgement occurs and then a month or two later, he’s meeting Helen in Sparta and they elope soon after, the Greeks follow, and Achilles is a full-grown adult already. While the actual chronology on this is not entirely clear in the originals (I imagine Paris would have had to have been a late teen when the judgement occurred, then a good deal of time would have passed before he met Helen, and then Achilles would have been a mid-to-late teen when he joined the war), the narrative order of events is indisputable, so at least they got that correct.

–In comparison to the 2004 Troy film, for a whole host of reasons, this one is far superior. There is no reference to atheism (as I’ve written about on my old blog, which so often happens with other Greek/Roman myth/history retellings on film and television these past two decades, e.g. Troy, Immortals, Clash of the Titans, Spartacus: Blood and Sand), Deities make regular appearances in the series (as opposed to only Thetis in the 2004 film…and sadly, She does not appear in this series, though She is referred to–not by name–several times, and alluded to pretty clearly by Achilles at one point when he muses, “What does the Sea think of all this?”) and the Deities’ favor or disfavor follows directly on characters’ actions–and everyone acknowledges it!–and though the portrayal of time has some problems in this series, it at least looks like it took longer than the 2004 film, which makes the whole Trojan campaign appear to have been a matter of weeks or months rather than years. While the series does mistake “belief” as being a major issue in religious matters (a common creedal monotheist-normative cultural mistake when examining other religions), no one questions the reality of the Deities at any point, and that is a major step forward. One of the things that made the 2004 film so objectionable on that point was that Thetis’ appearance near the beginning of the film puts all of those sorts of questions entirely to the “moot” category, and thus Hector’s apparent private atheism is essentially either a modern intrusion on the skeptical author’s or producer’s part/s, or it shows how very weak and hypocritical the character was, when in fact Hector is almost inevitably portrayed as “the best of men,” as he was to a large extent in the film, and as he is in this series as well.

So, enough with the answers to some critical comments that others have made. What about the rest?

As a character study, one thing I found of great interest is the contrast that is made between Priam and Hecuba’s rulership of Troy and their approach to prophecy and religious piety, versus that of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra (who is never mentioned to be the sister of Helen, though Agamemnon’s winning of Helen for Menelaus is a matter of scorn throughout the series…though it is novel in this telling; on other discrepancies of lineage and such, I will have more to say below).

Priam and Hecuba literally share a throne in Troy, and a point is made of the relative equality of station and opinion that the women of Troy enjoy with their husbands, including co-rulership and co-decision-making. Thus, both Priam and Hecuba are equally to blame for the casting out of Paris, which is as the prophecies related to him suggested, but then likewise receive him back happily when the time comes, though they are aware that it may result in their doom ultimately, and they and their family are given many reminders that it will be so along the way. They are shown to be exemplary and in many ways idealized, concerned for their people, compassionate, and fair…and when the Greeks meet them, they are degraded as being degenerate “Asiatics.”

Agamemnon, though, is an interesting contrast to them. When he learns that Artemis requires the sacrifice of Iphigenia to allow their voyage to Troy to commence–and the Goddess’ non-speaking appearance to the priest as he divines on this shows Her to be upset, or perhaps even conflicted, over it, which is quite interesting–Agamemnon is understandably upset, but readily assents to it, and to deceiving both his wife and daughter over it. Clytemnestra only appears in this scene, and is totally unaware of what is to come, and then when she realizes what is going on, she is beside herself with grief and anger, understandably! Agamemnon is upset that it must be done, but he goes through with it, and after an initial horrified reaction on Iphigenia’s part, she then resigns herself to her fate and stops and says “Let it be without struggle” that she be sacrificed. This was a moving scene, above the obvious emotionality of it and the difficulty of the situation, because she is clearly pious and knows how sacrifice should be offered in her religious context.

But, what I find interesting here is how this is shown as the contrast to the sharing of decision-making, even where prophecies and divine injunctions are concerned, on the part of Priam and Hecuba. Hecuba and Priam discuss almost everything, whereas Agamemnon makes the decision himself, and thus demonstrates that his culture has little regard for women as anything other than pawns and prizes. This decision, of course, gets him killed in the aftermath of the series (whether the audience knows it or not!), and it is a brutal following of the requirements of piety and prophecy; but as his side is the ultimate “winner” in the war, it sets up an interesting counterpoint to the Trojans, who are aware of the dangers involved in going against the prophecies given to them related to Paris, and yet they do as the interests of family cohesion and compassion would direct all the same, though it results in their ruin ultimately. I wonder what the writers and producers of the show wished to communicate in this, even though it is something that is present in the original texts (though without the aftermath of the further ruin of the House of Atreus, the larger point might be lost somewhat).

While we hear that Achilles is the son of a Goddess (unnamed), we never hear that Helen is the daughter of Zeus, nor of her brothers the Dioskouroi, nor that Aeneas is the son of Aphrodite (though She appears more frequently than any other Deity in the series), nor that various other people on each side are the children of Deities (and most others don’t even appear as characters). Apollon (as “Apollo”) is mentioned a great deal, especially on the Trojan side, but is never seen directly appearing at any point, though prophecies and prodigies are relayed and interpreted by His priests frequently. That Thetis is not in the series at all is especially lamentable to me, not only because of my own connection with Her, but because Achilles is Black, and thus it makes me wonder if Thetis would have been portrayed by a Black actress as well. (Since Artemis and Athena were both portrayed by Black actresses, whereas the only other two Goddesses in the series are Hera and Aphrodite–portrayed by White actresses–I suppose it is 50/50!) If so, that would have really been amazing for me, because that is exactly how Thetis appeared to me in my first major experience with Her last year, and thus it would have been very intriguing to see that coincidence since I was not aware of this series’ content when all of that occurred in May of 2020.

One other thing that I have to praise this series for is that Achilles and Patroclus are, in fact, portrayed both as loving each other, and as essentially bisexual, as there is a bit of a threesome in the show between Briseis (who is portrayed pretty accurately, though where she comes from is not the same as traditionally in the earlier literature), Achilles, and Patroclus, and then the demand of Agamemnon for Briseis in recompense for Chryseis follows this relatively quickly, which sets up Achilles’ refusal to fight and so forth. That this was done correctly here is fantastic, since there was nothing but “cousinly affection” shown between Achilles and Patroclus in the 2004 film, and it all seemed to be more about Achilles’ attachment to Briseis, ultimately, than about Paris and Helen in that awful, awful movie. So, on this–and on a few brief bits in which Penthesileia expresses her love for women and aversion for men–the series gets much higher marks, though they make it sound as if homoeroticism is not as common as it was amongst the canonical characters of the story (including the Deities…let’s not forget that Ganymede happened before Troy and in many ways is backstory to it, not to mention Poseidon and Pelops being in the backstory of the House of Atreus!).

What about the Deities and the other characters? I would have liked to have seen Apollon appear rather than just being present through priests and prophecies and prodigies (nice alliteration there!); I also would have liked to see Athena appear around Odysseus and inspire him more, as She did not have as large a part as She deserves in all of this (Hera seems to move in that direction for a split second at one point, which is an interesting thing). Aphrodite’s appearances are pretty consistent with the established lore, though she goes even further with Paris at one stage, which I’ll let you see for yourself, as it is an interesting and rather “modern” and perhaps even directly Buffy the Vampire Slayer-esque touch at one stage! And, as I’ve indicated above, I would have loved to have seen Thetis intercede with Zeus, appear to Her son, and to have lamented Him, and likewise for Eos to have done so with Memnon (and for Memnon to appear at all!), since that combat was even more important in sealing Achilles’ fate than has ever been shown in any screen version of Troy that has ever occurred thus far.

I also have to say: the Trojan horse’s appearance and explanation in this version was far more satisfying than any I have seen before in its rationalization. It’s very modern, yes, but also very appropriate, and makes of the Trojans rather opportunistic and impious people, which brings about their downfall at the moment they believe they have actually won, which is a very intriguing touch.

So, what I’m interested in knowing is: how many modern polytheists have seen this, and what did you think of it? Did you like or hate particular parts of it, or all of it? What was done well and what got in your way of enjoying it? Were you able to immerse yourself in its story and portrayals, or did some of its novelties and oddities distract you too much to appreciate what merits it may have had in its narrative choices? I am curious to know! Have at it in the comments, therefore! 😉

If You’re A Polytheist, What Are Your Views on Human Sacrifice?

[I’m getting to write again sooner than expected!  Or, perhaps, am making the time to do so because I prefer it to other pressing matters!]

Since “polytheism” implies “barbaric,” “uncivilized,” “deluded,” and “outdated” to many people (usually monotheists or atheists!), this is probably not an uncommon question that some of us receive, often in ignorance and with no ill intent.  This, and cannibalism (and if the two can be combined…oh, what a night!), are two of the surest ways to demonstrate that a particular religion or culture is “evil,” and that it should be abandoned, suppressed, and derided.  And even if the actual practice of human sacrifice isn’t occurring in a given culture, there are plenty of mythic narratives that indicate it has taken place in some way or another, or that some Deities approve of it, and therefore those Deities are evil, wrong, and so forth.

So, if the question is:  do polytheists, by necessity, have to approve of human sacrifice?  Quite simply, the answer is “no.”  There’s much more to say on that…but first, something else must be said, and ALWAYS should be said if a person of a particular religion is asking this question, and even more so if they are asking it in a derisive and haughty manner.

And that follow-up statement should be:  but, in order to be a believing Christian, you must believe that human sacrifice is not only something that you and your co-religionists approve of, but that your God has demanded.

While we can certainly say much more about the differences between ritual or mythic homicide and ritual or mythic deicide, the fact of the matter is that for the Christian redemption story to have any validity, and for it to have taken place (especially as stated in the most common Christian creedal statements and as depicted in all of the canonical Gospels), the person who is arguably fully divine (arguable for non-Christians, at least!) but undoubtedly fully human (which is also arguable for non-Christians!), was required to give up his life in sacrifice for the benefit of the human race and all of creation, and that nothing else would satisfy their God but such a human sacrifice.  They cannot reason their way out of this under any orthodox explanation of the redemption story and its soteriological details if the narratives of the Gospels are in any way based on something that is taken to have been a matter of historical fact.  Gnostic and other schismatics can claim Jesus didn’t really die at the crucifixion, or that the appearance of his humanity was only an illusion, but mainstream Christians cannot.  Non-Christians of various stripes can argue that it doesn’t have to be a literal historical narrative to have religious value, or that if the narrative details are in some sense historically factual that the theological interpretation and explanation of them does not necessarily need to follow in that manner, but faithful Christians can argue neither of those things and remain in the realms of acceptable doctrine.

I would thus argue that when this question gets asked by Christians with a superiority complex, it’s not so much a matter of whether a polytheist approves of these things, or if our Deities demand them, but instead a question of can we be in any kind of cordial communal relations with a group of people belonging to a set of religions that asks their believers to accept human sacrifice as a necessity for salvation and likewise hails a Deity that required it, even in that Deity’s omnipotence and omniscience, to assuage what is often described as His “anger” towards humanity for original sin (which He should have been able to prevent!) and despite the supposed omnibenevolence of this same Deity.  It’s not that they are uncomfortable with and distasteful toward other people for their perceived (and generally ill-assessed!) religious convictions, but instead that they are projecting this discomfort with the implications of their own religion onto others, and are simply not realizing it, nor calling what their own doctrines require what they actually indicate.  (But then again, Christians are great at this double-talk a lot of the time…”We’re not proselytizing, we’re simply evangelizing the unchurched” is literally something that a missionizing officer in the Air Force said of his proselytizing activities at the Air Force Academy around a decade ago, and he said so without irony or any notion of cognitive dissonance…!?!)

But, let’s get back to polytheism!

If one looks at a lot of the tales where human sacrifice is involved, particularly amongst the Greeks, it tends not to go well for those who sacrifice (Iphigenia, anyone?). The Romans were clearly not comfortable with this idea, either, and even though there is abundant archaeological evidence to indicate either foundational sacrifice (or perhaps just foundational burials?) in some Roman buildings, they did not like this idea in later times, and tried to explain it away in as many cases as possible.  Romulus didn’t sacrifice his brother Remus, but instead lawfully killed him for a transgression.  Likewise, this kind of cognitive dissonance extended to some of their practices in relation to the Gauls, for example, whom they derided for their supposed druidic sacrifices (the basis for The Wicker Man!) while also carrying out a rite on a regular basis that involved the “ritual killing” (and what is that other than sacrifice?) of a Gaul in order to continue to avert the possibility of a second Gaulish sack of Rome.  So, even where evidence exists for this in some myths, archaeology, and ritual practices, the “official” line on it was that it was forbidden and not remotely lauded.

As the polytheistic practices of most modern people, including myself, come from periods in which such sacrifice was frowned upon, likewise modern practice has also generally been disapproving of such rituals.  I know of none that are doing this, even in a “symbolic” fashion, but I don’t know every modern polytheist individual or groups’ practices, either, so perhaps there’s someone out there that feels differently…I cannot say for certain.

But what about the Deities?  Do They approve of this, or even demand it?  Let’s look again at the story of Iphigenia.  A seer tends to be the one who says that Agamemnon’s daughter must be sacrificed to Artemis, and then the other Greeks demand it, but at the last moment she generally gets saved by Artemis and something else is substituted for her, or even if she is killed she gets some special reward from Artemis.  There are many variations on her story, but the ultimate effects of it are not good for the House of Atreus!  And does Artemis Herself ever actually speak with Her own mouth that She requires this sacrifice for whatever reason?  In the extant texts, no, which then raises the problem of the validity of the seer consulted, and perhaps also (at least for the modern polytheistic devotional perspective!) the problem of discernment when interpreting signs from the Deities or using one’s abilities to determine Their will.  Was this particular seer just reading his own vengeful and luridly murderous desires into the situation?  Did he receive a vision from Artemis, but interpreted it in such a way that this course of action was decided upon but not intended by the Goddess?  It’s hard to say, but it seems possible.

Or, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, was this something that ultimately Artemis did inspire because of what “had” to happen later in the story, and so that the various fates of all of the characters involved would transpire as they did to fulfill the dictates of the Fates and of Ananke?  That could also be, but then ultimate responsibility for these things is called into question, if everything is simply an unfolding deterministic process in which no one–including all of the Deities–have any free will whatsoever.

And, more pertinent to my own devotional life and activities:  what about Antinous?  Was His death sacrificial, and could it have been brought about by His own willful self-sacrifice and forfeiture of His life in order to benefit others, or could some nefarious persons (including the Emperor Hadrian himself!) have demanded it to suit their own purposes?  These things have been suggested and theorized, both in the ancient world and by more modern historians (generally to cast dispersions upon the entire edifice of Antinous’ cultus and His divinity), and even some devotees.  One can certainly interpret Antinous’ death sacrificially, even if He did not willingly do so, nor did anyone else bring his death about, but the fact of it could still be interpreted as having had beneficial impacts, up to and including the overflowing of the Nile after his death and so much else.    The people who generally come to conclusions similar to this, however, in regards to Antinous have also had strong Christian backgrounds, and even ongoing Christian practices, and so we cannot discount the likelihood that such ideas are being imported from one religion to the other without as much consideration as might be due them…but, to each their own.

I don’t think of it that way, and neither do I think that these stories and theories that too many have propagated without a full appreciation of the situation have any validity whatsoever, based upon my own understanding of the situation, the prevailing cultural attitudes at the time, and also with my own interactions with the Deity…but, that is all ultimately my own interpretive choice, too, and I cannot say with any certainty what the historical realities might have been.

While these things will vary from culture to culture, and even from time period to time period, and change in these is evident (as with the Roman situation mentioned earlier!), and so it will also vary with individual polytheists in different traditions and over different times in their devotional lives.  For myself, I can say:  yes, it did occur in the past in several different cultures, and that is a matter of historical fact, as far as we can tell; but, that doesn’t mean we have to approve of or continue such practices (just as we don’t continue slavery, the legal disenfranchisement of women, and so many other abhorrent things from the past, either!), nor does it say anything about what the Deities might have wanted or still want.  Whether a Deity demands something or not, it is not the Deity but rather a human being with volition and agency who wields the sacrificial blade, and therefore to such a person be the responsibilities for their actions.