Talk:Hector

Possibly ambiguous syntax?

The article (very early on) says: "Hector commanded the Trojan army, with a number of subordinates including Polydamas, and his brothers Deiphobus, Helenus and Paris." To whom does the "his" refer? Were D., H., and P. Hector's brothers? Or were they Polydamas' brothers, as the syntax would have it?

Even if the latter, strict reading is correct, I think it's ambiguous and raises unnecessary questions. I'd fix it myself but I don't know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.248.241 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Change

Some kid placed a rather crude sexual joke into the article. I thought I'd remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.131.58 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubles

Hello all, it says For other uses, see Hector (disambiguation). twice at the beginning. I just learnt how to scribble into discussions and will take some more time to learn the editing of articles. Could you guys help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.136.168 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

someone has loaded this page with pov {unsigned}

Etymology of the Name

Alright, since there seems to be confusion regarding this, I figure I'll speak from what I know and have studied via the Liddel and Scott lexicon as well as Smyth's Greek Grammar.

Firstly, regarding the first footnote. Actually, it is very admissable in Greek to have something become kappa rather than khi in certain cases. One of those is when it is followed by a tau. One sees this in a word like 'aktor' (our 'actor') which stems from the word 'akho', the Dorian dialect version of the Attic 'ekho', or 'I reply', which we tend to write 'echo', and use in a similar way. The Dorian 'acko' is suffixed with the substantive 'tor' which implies someone performing an action, and becomes 'aktor'. In a similar way, something that might seem to become 'hekhtor' very accurately would become 'hektor', meaning 'he that does (x)', (x) being the meaning of the initial root. This the large Liddel and Scott gives as coming from 'ekho' (distinct from the aforementioned word whence we get echo, in that it was the long e, whereas this is a short e.) The meaning of this word is 'I hold', so 'Hektor/Hector' means basically 'one who holds (fast)'. Interestingly there seems to be an aspiration on the epsilon in Hektor (ie. the 'h') which doesn't appear in 'ekho', and I am unable to account for that. Perhaps it fell out of use in later times, but was fossilised in a name such as Hektor. The existance of an 'h' at the beginning of such a word does seem to denote Indo-European ancestry, as it is often that an initial 'h' aspiration in Greek before a vowel is the remnant of an older 's' which appears only now and again. For some reason the ancient Greeks did not like this initial s sound in some places and softened it to an aspiration. Thus, as the note says, the old Indo-European root might well be 'segh', and would seem to be in line with Greek linguistic development. It would be interesting to know if 'segh' has a similar meaning to 'I hold.' Alexaion 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

έχω does, as far as I know, have a hidden sigma in its root. Cf. its future 'hexo,' ostensibly from sekh- + future -so, and the sigma drops out and is replaced by aspiration. Cf. also aorist 'skheso'. I taught Greek last year, and even according to the book I used (Groton), the original root was sekh-. It would make perfect sense that Hektor is from ekho, then, "to hold (fast)" -- and this is always the etymology I have heard for his name. 130.212.171.155 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding usage of 'country'

whose translation is this? it is hugely important that people, and most notably people who live in north america, realise that the idea of a "country" or "nation" is a development of the last 2-400 years. It is important to see this. It is even more important to note that the concept of "freedom" is just as recent, and just as relative. Not all people share it. Some, for example, tend to see religeosity as geater good than personal liberty, whatever that may be. For example, Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace (yes, as in "braveheart") is grossly inaccurate, becasue it implies that Wallace had the same notion of politcal relations as a modern american. To suggest that Hector has the same notion of a "country" as a modern american is just as silly. So; whose is the translation?

ok, I admit it I am watching troy here atm .As ludicrous as the above mentioned is the way every one calls achilles "lord". What is this? medieval england? the king james bible?

don't believe it!

whats wrong with the translation? the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory according to MW, so it works --Herzog 04:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write this for the benefit of anyone who might have similar questions to this.

Acutally, many of those concepts are far older than one might think. The Classical Greeks would have had very much the same idea of freedom as we do, nor was it relatively different. When the fighters at Salamis were crying out 'freedom for the tombs of your fathers', it wasn't any different than a patrotic cry of our own or any other age. Regarding the use of 'country' in the Iliad, I'm not certain on the specifics, but it is likely just something like 'land.' However, I do not think this is in error. The first thing that must be understood is that there likely never was any such things as a 'Homeric' society, but rather that is was an amalgam of the distant memory of the Myceneans, the more recent but still distant Dark Age, and the present Archaic Age. Nevertheless, what might be seen in both Mycenean times as well as later Archaic times is the importance of the city. This is what Hektor is defending, and the freedom he is fighting for. This city, moreover, has sway over a large area around it, which might thus be called his 'country.' This sway of the Greek Polis in Archaic/Classical times over the surrounding area could be quite wide, evidenced in the power of Sparta and Athens over their surrounding areas, and essentially Athens, though a city, had a 'country' in the region of Attica. A similar sort of effect seems to be evident in the city of Troy.

Regarding the use of 'lord', that is very much acceptable. Reverent titles for a warlord seem to have always existed. A common one in the Iliad is 'heros' (our 'hero'), which in the context of the epic means nothing like what we know it to be, but is simply an honourary address for a male adult member of the warrior class, in some sense not much unlike the Midiaeval knight being addressed 'sir.' 'Lord' does have its own use in the Iliad, though, apart from the word 'king' (Basileus). It is the very old word 'Anax' (Mycenaean 'Wanax'), and means just that: 'lord'. In the proem of the Iliad Agamemnon is 'Anax andron', 'the lord of men.' Alexaion 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eldest son?

Nothing in the Iliad is definitive on the point of whether Hector is in fact Priam's oldest son. Based on the internal chronology of the story, Paris must be at least 40 years old when the action begins, whereas Hector is obviously a newly-married man of about twenty-five. Homer does not firmly commit himself at any point to who is the oldest son. My source on this is E.V. Rieu's translators notes for the Penguin Classics edition.

I just wanted to say that I added the bit about Hektor's pride, mainly because one of my favorite things about Greek myths was the fact that everyone had faults.

From my recollection Paris and Hektor are twins. Back in that time, having twins was considered a bad omen, so before Hecuba was awake to see she had twins, the younger of the two was brought into the woods with feet tethered together to be left to die. The shepherd who was given the task to do so, however, felt pity on the child and took him in, at which point Paris became a shepherd boy and later became the target of the three (Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite) goddesses in their determination to earn the golden apple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_apple#The_Judgement_of_Paris).

Mythographers do not say that Hector and Paris are twins. Hecuba left Paris to die because she had a dream of her giving birth to a torch that then set fire to Troy, symbolising its destruction.

Also, it should be noted that men married very late in their lives because of the many years they spent in becoming a political citizen by participating in the military and university. Hence a thirty five year old man will marry a teenage girl.

Eldest While it may not be clearly stated, as I remember from the Illiad, Hecuba is told she will give birth to a son who will set Troy aflame. She obviously knew it was Paris, otherwise she would have sent both Paris and Hector to Mount Ida. We must therefore assume Hector was already born. Christophore 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

achilles vs hector

The battle between Achilles and Hector has been written by some poor fool who has taken the movie "Troy" a bit too seriously. Unlike the movie, the book that "Troy" is loosely based on has the real fight between Achilles and Hector.

After an initial dialogue, Achilles casts his spear and misses. Achilles spear is returned to him instantly by Athina. Hector mocks Achilles and casts his spear which hits Achilles' shield but breaks and is rendered useless. Asking his friend to give him his lance, Hector is surprised to see his friend dissapear but realises that the Gods have tricked him (it is actually Athina in disguise and she dissapears as the battle starts). Realising his fate but wanting to go out with glory, Hector draws his sword and the two warriors charge at eachother. Achilles knows the weaknesses of Hector as Hector is wearing Patroclus' armour that he borrowed from Achilles. As Hector sweeps down on Achilles with a sword blow, Achilles drives his spear into a gap just below the helmet and above the breastplate, tearing Hectors neck open and killing him.

There is more dialogue and Achilles takes the dead Hector and ties him to his chariot then takes him back to the Greek ships

The fight between Akhilleus and Hektor (note proper spelling) is vastly different in the Iliad than the primary author, who seems to make up in his own account. Having cited Homer's poem the twice other in the page, I can only assume he means to do the same when the two warriors face off. Hektor is beaten soundly. It's not even a battle. Hektor wears Akhilleus' old armour that he stripped off Patroklos' body, and like a good warrior, Akhilleus knows the weak spots of that armour and exploits it with a single spear thrust through the fleshy part of his throat. There is no fight per se between the two, the message being that as great a man as you may be, the gods are going to trick you, deceive you, and in the end you will not get what you ask for, which in Hektor's case, was to go down doing something great. The primary author has done a great disservice to the original story by adding his own material from wherever he got it. Read the Iliad before you quote it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.45.97 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning how Hector died in Shakespeare's Troilus and Crissida O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Because it is Greek, and the Greek language contains no "C" they use a K. So while you use the untranslated spelling, it is commonly accepted with a "C" in both names. Christophore 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Very true. Also, you must remember that when Hector went out to face Achilles, Achilles could not be killed (or so Hector thought), so Achilles had nothing to lose and wasn't afraid of anything. Hector on the other hand went out knowing he couldn'a beat Achilles but he still went out to fight him. This shows true bravery and herosim. Achilles knew he couldnt die, Hector knew he himself would. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.56.187 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

who ever wrote that hector was going to make off with the body of patroclus is a dumb ass ive read the illiad and tha t doesnt describe his charactre his character is known for full resepct of the dead and hectors pride didnt make him face achillies it was his since of honor

Vandalism

the unregistered user inserted some joke about a gay Puerto Rican or something, keep that out of here

Another vandalize

Not sure what to fix, requested semi-protection. Christophore 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look

I'm taking a look at this. The first thing I notice is the tense needs to be made consistent. It switches from past to historical present and back without a plan. So, if there is no objection I will use the past when the author is narrating about Hector and the historical present when he is relating what the story says about Hector.Dave 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Later. After reading the above comments, I must say that I think it would help your understanding greatly if you read the Iliad, which is available on the Internet and now is cited in the article.Dave 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm not sure whether some of the vandalism was intentionally that. If I step on anyone's toes, I'm sorry. I would say, if you want to make a change, be careful, will you? You can always use your sandbox to try it out. With regard to how to make a change, "if in doubt, leave it out." By the way I'm still looking at this article. One thing it could use is a table of later works of literature on the theme, so that the public can know it more fully as a classical theme appearing in western literature. Meanwhile you are going to see some of the original raw article toward the end.Dave 12:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FORVM

it seems that greek and turkish guys are disputing here . yes dave you are mostly true but you have also one fault you are kindly trying to teach the ethic way but you use deeply wrong methods please dont display peoples ip numbers secondly do not argue this kind of topics according to the old texts

Hi buddy. I appreciate you desire to work on the article but many of your changes could improve in appropriateness or relevancy. So, I am putting them in here with full explanations.Dave 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• During the I.World War after the Gallipoli Campaign has resulted with Decisive Ottoman victory against the Allied powers in Dardanelles (same place where the trojan war had happened ).General Mustafa Kemal supposedly said Hector, We have avenged you.

Now, this one is already in the Gallipoli campaign so it doesn't really belong here. Moreover, in the article just mentioned it has a request for a citation on it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC).Woops!Dave 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)There you are.

,however the latest researchs strongly emphasize that trojans have Luwian links...

That quote is sometimes attributed to Mehmed II after the conquest of Istanbul(Constantinople)]] when he was 21 years old. I just wanted to mention that. Mehmed II said once after the conquest of Bosnia:

"... Let nobody bother or disturb those who are mentioned, not their churches. Let them dwell in peace in my empire. And let those who have become refugees be and safe. Let them return and let them settle down their monasteries without fear in all the countries of my empire..."

Kinda similar to Atatürk's case. All these quotes might very well be made up say, by a columnist. deniz 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Vandalism?

Removed an incomprehensible line saying "He killed a brave man named Christian Denerstick" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.41.84 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged "Zeus Ektor"

In Greek, Ἕκτωρ, Héktōr, or, in its Aeolic form, Ἒκτωρ, Éktōr, is an epithet of Zeus: "Zeus that holds (everything together)"; from the verb ἔχειν, ékhein, "to have" or "to hold".

I have moved here this assertion by an anonymous contributor. Who is making this etymological connection? Where does Zeus Ektor appear in a classical text?--Wetman (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page first?

Just wondering whether "hector" should direct to this first? Or is this instance of hector significant enough (i guess there are guidelines?) djambalawa (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A reader searching "Hector" comes here. A reader searching "Hector Berlioz" goes there. The trick is to give the reader the least amount of runaround. --Wetman (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

I tried to do my best reorganizing the article in a homogeneous way. I wanted to create a smooth transition between sections. I also reorganized images and placed them where they belong. I list a few things I noticed that require some attention.

1. I split the "Historical references and etymology" section into two separate sections, placing "Etymology" at the top (more logical location). The spellings of Hector in the introduction and the etymology sections do not match. Somebody who knows Greek better than me should probably fix the mismatch.

2. I reorganized the sequence of duels of Hector. Yet, I'm not completely sure if they are in proper chronological order.

3. The section called "Duel with Achilles" does not focus on Hector and Achilles but rather diverges on completely different stories. This section needs to be reworked.

4. I don't see why the "Trojan counterattack" should use quotes and thus be non-homogeneous from the other sections in terms of form.

5. "Apollodorus, Bibliotheke III, xii, 5-6; Apollodorus, Epitome IV, 2." seems to be two footnotes for what appears above. The part in quotations is visibly separated and it does not look good that way. It should be fixed.

ICE77 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman Mythology

Why was this removen 109.255.48.28 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hector/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The information is all right; my concern is over Hector's descriptor 'reluctant warrior'. 'Reluctant to get himself killed in one instance where he knew he couldn't make it if he went' is closer to the truth. Call it a warrior's wisdom--Hector was by nature a warrior, and to describe him as 'reluctant', in my opinion, does him a disservice. MaddMonkeyC (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Run on, double comma sentence

I found " Hector chooses to remain outside the gates of Troy to face Achilles, partly because had he listened to Polydamas and retreated with his troops the previous night, Achilles would not have killed so many Trojans". If you can make sense of this double comma sentence, please correct it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

incredible dynamite

Under Mythology: someone with access to Robert Fragles works want to check the descriptions therein against this article?

As the ancient Greeks had no word for dynamite, I suspect "incredible dynamite" is supposed to be something like "incredibly dynamic". 136.34.208.65 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That was a result of old vandalism. However the original was an apparent misreading of Fagles translation of 6.114 ff., where Helenus describe Diomedes as "that wild spearman, that invincible headlong terror! ... a maniac run amok". Paul August ☎ 01:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)