"Shakespeare's dramatisation clearly encourages the audience to favour the embattled and
resilient Trojans over the chaotic and licentious Greeks" To what extent do you agree?
Shakespeare can be seen as criticising the Greeks for their chaotic camp and subverts the
status of them as a valiant fighting force. Moreover, he can also be seen as potentially
undermining the favourability of the Trojans to the audience, as they are arguably portrayed
as not embattled, nor particularly resilient and demonstrates their lack of focus upon the war.
Fundamentally, Shakespeare can be seen as breaking down the purpose of the war and
suggesting the war to be futile, in alignment with his portrayal of the Trojan’s attitude and
thus overall he arguably presents the Trojans as more favourable to the audience.
Shakespeare can be seen as challenging the status of the Greeks as a valiant fighting force
and instead questioning whether they are merely an incongruous group of egos. Before the
Greeks are introduced into the play, Troilus presents them as a harmonious unit of
masculine virility ‘fierce to their skill, and to their fierceness valiant’. However, this serves to
contrast the reality of their complete disarray as illustrated by Ulysses ‘the general’s
disdained by him one step below, he by the next’. This image demonstrates the subversion
of hierarchy so prevalent within the Greek camp, instead presenting a hierarchy of contempt.
Moreover, the image of Patroclus and Achilles ‘upon a lazy bed’ implies an erotic subversive
languor, with Ulysses’ anger emphasised through Shakespeare’s use of repeated caesura
which enact the inaction of Achilles and Patroclus. Thus, Ulysses’ extensive blaming serves
to demonstrate that the Greek camp is fractured and that the Greeks are seemingly not the
noble force they ought to be, thereby undermining their status to the audience. Furthermore,
Agamemnon, the general commander of the Greeks, is depicted as being easily and
tauntingly scorned by Aeneas; ‘a stranger’. This loss of dignity is added to when Aneas
refers to him as ‘Greek’ and condescendingly states ‘we have a prince called Hector - Priam
is his father’. Thus, the suggestion that Agamemnon lacks the capacity to overcome Aeneas’
scorn can be seen as subverting the strength of the Greek camp and its supposed valiant
leaders, which is further demonstrated by Nestor’s absurd attempts to prevent Greek
humiliation by stating that he will tell Hector of his lady that ‘was fairer than his grandam’. In
addition, Shakespeare can be seen as negatively depicting Ulysses through his
self-indulgent attempts at humour; ‘he is his argument that has his argument: Achilles’. This
suggests his overinflated ego, and the demonstration of his condescending air of superiority
can be seen as unfavourable to a Jacobean audience. Finally, even Achilles, who is
presented favourably in the beginning of the play as he is impressively above the pettiness
of Ajax and Thersites, ultimately commits an atrocious war crime at the end of the play,
thereby undermining the overall impression of the Greeks.
However, Shakespeare also arguably undermines the favourability of the Trojans to the
audience through their lack of honourable commitment towards the war effort. In the opening
scene, Troilus is presented as distracted from his war duties by his desires for Cressida, to
the extent that he is self-aware that he is deserving of scorn ‘I am weaker than a woman’s
tear’. Thus, through associating his desire with effeminate weakness, Troilus’ fickle attitude
to the war is arguably unfavourable with the audience, especially in contrast to the masculine
virility of the Greeks, who are hyperbolically described as ‘strong, and skilful to their
strength’. The relationship that Troilus is depicted as having with Cressida is further
undermined by Shakespeare through Pandarus’ oleaginous and unnatural involvement. All
sentiment from the moment of Troilus and Cressida’s first kiss is completely removed by
Pandarus’ forceful influence and use of degrading transactional diction; ‘a kiss in fee-farm’
‘give her deeds’, thereby presenting their romantic connection unfavourably. Moreover,
Pandarus himself has his status as a lord continuously undermined by insolent servants; ‘I
hope I shall know your honour better’ and hence the Trojans, like the Greeks can be seen as
also suffering from a subversion of rank and hierarchy. Furthermore, the portrayal of Helen
and Paris’ sensual relationship, which is also undermined by Pandarus’ involvement, further
depicts the Trojans as focused on trivial matters, rather than the pressing needs of the war at
hand, in contrast to the Greek camp, whose focus is almost entirely upon strategies for the
conflict. This is illustrated through Paris’s statement ‘I would fain have armed today, but my
Nell would not have it so’ which implies that relationship dynamics are being prioritised over
the honourable action of taking to the battlefield. Additionally, the favourability of Paris to the
Jacobean audience is further challenged through his use of the third person ‘Paris should
ne’er retract what he hath done’, as this detachment implies the incongruence of his
character and the valiant hero that he is projecting. Finally, the discordance within the Trojan
war camp over the motivations for continuing the war arguably undercuts the honourability of
their faction in the eyes of the audience. Hector infantilises both Paris and Troilus when he
refers to them as ‘not much unlike young men’ and critiques their motivations for the war
being ‘for pleasure and revenge’, thereby reinforcing the notion already presented that the
Trojans are guilty of a lack of honour in their attempts to overcome the Greeks.
Ultimately, Shakespeare arguably presents neither the Greeks nor the Trojans particularly
favourably to his Jacobean audience. Yet, the disorganisation and incohesion of the Greek’s
can be seen as comic and thereby enjoyable. Moreover, not all of the Greek figures are
necessarily unfavourable, with Ulysses providing an intelligent dissection of the dysfunction
within the camp. However, whilst there is an unfavourable discordance portrayed in both
camps, Shakespeare presents the camps differently, with the Greeks focused upon fighting
for their pride and upon the necessity of hierarchy, with grander speeches advocating for
fortitude and resilience in their war struggles. Whereas, the Trojans are seemingly portrayed
as more focused upon trivial relationships than the war, and the conflict within their familial
camp can be seen as motivated by a brotherly rivalry as much as anything else.
Shakespeare arguably presents the outcome of the war as irrelevant in the play and instead
explores the futility of the conflict, inviting the audience to see the war as pointless. Thus,
Troilus and the Trojans, who are portrayed as quarreling over whether the war is futile, in
contrast to the Greeks, who are in excessive disarray over how to win the war, can be seen
as more aligned with the perspective of the war that Shakespeare encourages the audience
to adopt. Moreover, they can also be seen as favourable due to the contextual significance
of the audience’s inherent identification with the Trojans, due to mythic lineage narratives of
English aristocracy and thus overall it can be seen that Shakespeare’s dramatisation
encourages the audience to favour the Trojans, despite not being resilient and embattled.