Is the Aeneid worth reading?

[Anonymous No.21707904]

It was hundreds of years after either Troy or Homer which is why I'm hesitant.
The fact that makes me consider reading it is that Dante was obsessed with Virgil.

[Anonymous No.21707907]

No

[Anonymous No.21707922]

>>21707904
I read the Aeneid before starting Dante and I liked it
It was shorter than Metamorphoses which was good too.
I'm a sucker for Greek Goddesses though

[Anonymous No.21707947]

Also if you're reading it for Dante, the section about the underworld adventure is great.
When reading it, I was astonished nobody has tried to make the Aeneid into a movie, it's really just non-stop action for the last third.
oh
>1.1 stars tv show
shame

[Anonymous No.21707948]

>>21707904
>It was hundreds of years after either Troy or Homer which is why I'm hesitant.
why would this make you hesitant

[Anonymous No.21707979]

>>21707948
I heard earlier today that The Trojan Horse had never been mentioned before The Aeneid.
It seems it'd be much less historically accurate than, say, The Iliad or The Odyssey, even if those themselves aren't entirely accurate.

[Anonymous No.21707981]

>>21707904
Nothing is worth reading, just jack off and wait for death.

[Anonymous No.21708037]

>>21707979
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the wooden horse was mentioned in the Odyssey, by a bard at Alcinous’ palace. The Aeneid probably has a much more detailed account, though.

[Anonymous No.21708065]

>>21707979
>It seems it'd be much less historically accurate than, say, The Iliad or The Odyssey, even if those themselves aren't entirely accurate.
Dude they're 95% ahistorical, Odyssey doesn't even get the geography of Ithaca right, they're oral narratives that have been retold and reshaped for centuries before Homer's especially elaborate take on them. You're a fucking moron for reading ancient poetry and expecting historical accuracy or treating it as relevant at all in your reading choices.
>I heard earlier today that The Trojan Horse had never been mentioned before The Aeneid.
Wait, have you even read the Odyssey?? Book 8, verses 499-520

[Anonymous No.21708076]

>>21707979
The Trojan horse is from a story in the Epic Cycle and the scene appears on Greek pottery, it definitely wasn't created by Virgil.
Homer isn't historically accurate. The works themselves are historically value but no, Achilles wasn't real, Odysseus didn't blind a cyclops etc. Those stories were as old to Homer as Homer is to us.
Sounds like some weird reasons to not read the Aeneid. You're hung up on meaningless stuff.

[Anonymous No.21709407]

>>21708065
>they're 95% ahistorical
this.
Algernon Herbert in his "Nimrod" talks about this and shows that the books derive from Sumerian/Babylonian time period and area, and then these stories were retold throughout the entire ancient world that this culture conquered (so, Greece, Rome, Egypt, Kush, India, Persia, Phoenicia, etc.)

[Anonymous No.21709781]

>>21709407
Are you sure we don't have any better arguments for that than obscure early 19th century studies? They didn't even have access to much of Mesopotamian literature, not even to Gilgamesh, and the Egyptian hieroglyphs hadn't been deciphered either.

[Anonymous No.21709790]

>>21709781
he got this from comparing all the myths of the ancient world and finding similarities between them.

[Anonymous No.21709866]

>>21707904
Why not just read it for yourself. If you find yourself hating it you can choose to stop but until you actually read if for yourself you won't know. It's good for getting a grasp on how the Romans mythologized their history and origins. (They aren't Turks like this would imply but just Italians).

[Anonymous No.21711315]

>>21707904
It's as worth reading as the Iliad and Odyssey.
I personally rank it above the Odyssey and below the Iliad.
Really these aren't works that are trying to be historically accurate so you shouldn't be concerned about that.
Virgil set out to create a foundation myth for Rome and succeeds beautifully at it. The fact that it ties in with the story of the Iliad is simply gravy. Although the chapter detailing the sack of Troy and Aeneas escaping is the easily one of the best in the poem.
If you're interested in Virgil then his Georgics are also a must read. Albeit a very different endeavor than the Aeneid

[Anonymous No.21711321]

>>21709790
That's what has been done repeatedly over the following centuries too, with more rigour too, he wasn't the only author who did so.
You could easily compare e.g. Achilles-Patroclos to Gilgamesh-Enkidu. But at the time Gilgamesh wasn't even discovered yet, so that's one massive valuable connection he couldn't make yet.

>>21711315
>If you're interested in Virgil then his Georgics are also a must read.
Eclogues too, they're short and nice and full of gay shit.

[Anonymous No.21711438]

>>21707904
>It was hundreds of years after either Troy or Homer which is why I'm hesitant.
Yeah because it was written as a history book lol.

[Anonymous No.21711460]

Is this THE Latin work to read?
It feels like everything is actually Greek. Why did they even bother tecahing Latin if all the worthwhile stuff is Greek

[Anonymous No.21712208]

>>21711321
>but at the time Gilgamesh wasn't even discovered yet.
and yet he still arrived at the same conclusion through other myths.
When you have enough information to make a conclusion, the "one massive valuable connection" of Gilgamesh is just superfluous at that point.
>that what has been done repeatedly over the following centuries too
then what exactly are you arguing about? Just that he arrived at the same conclusion without all the recently discovered evidence?

for what it's worth, he had plenty of other myths and historical evidence to work with.

[Anonymous No.21712218]

>>21708065
>he thinks they're ahistorical
Retard.

[Anonymous No.21712408]

>>21712208
I'm not really trying to argue, just commenting.
How did you even find out about the guy anyway? He seems a total obscurity. I tried reading him a bit, it's quite difficult to figure out what he's trying to get at.

[Anonymous No.21712446]

>>21707979
>It seems it'd be much less historically accurate than, say, The Iliad or The Odyssey,

[Anonymous No.21712470]

>>21708076
>Those stories were as old to Homer as Homer is to us
not at all
>>21708037
>by a bard at Alcinous’ palace
which is Homer himself

[Anonymous No.21712550]

>>21707904
I got a copy of the Aenid for free, but gave up on it after a few pages.
In general I'm not a fan of epics. They just seem conceptually sparse, like an action flick but with none of the enjoyment that comes with watching an action movie.
Literature is a medium I enjoy more for interesting/speculative ideas.

[Anonymous No.21713639]

>>21712550
are you a zoomer perchance? are you white? Muslim? hispanic?

[Anonymous No.21713715]

>>21712408
>just commenting.
ah ok, my bad.

>how did you even find out about the guy
was reading josephus, he made a reference to an obscure deity that i'd heard of before on a tv show (but which at the time i thought was just made up), so when i saw it in Josephus' work i researched the name, and stumbled across Algernon Herbert's "Nimrod" book :)
one of those happy accidents Bob Ross was always going on about

[Anonymous No.21713742]

>>21712470
>not at all
Yeah, that time scale is a bit off. Homer is traditionally dated to the 8th century BC and the Trojan war took place in the archaic period of Greek civilisation, around 1200 BC, so at least 400 years earlier. Nowhere near to over two and a half millenia.

[Anonymous No.21715136]

>>21713639
23yr old white guy. Why?

[Anonymous No.21715355]

>>21707904
The writing is beautiful but the pacing is atrocious and the story is weak. It's essentially just Roman propaganda.

[Anonymous No.21715679]

>>21707979
>It seems it'd be much less historically accurate than, say, The Iliad or The Odyssey,
Oh. You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.21716264]

>>21715136
just confirming a suspicion

[Anonymous No.21717684]

>>21707904
Yes.