Were Achilles and Patroclus Lovers? The Story Behind the Iliad’s Most Debated Relationship

The release of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey in July 2026 brought Homer back into the center of popular culture. The film follows Odysseus on his journey home after the Trojan War and does not feature Achilles or Patroclus, but its arrival has renewed interest in the wider Homeric world, from the Odyssey to the Iliad. Even Madeline Miller, author of The Song of Achilles, has recently returned to discussing Homer and his poems amid the renewed attention surrounding Nolan’s film.

Among the stories that resurface whenever the ancient Greek world returns to the spotlight, one has been debated for more than two thousand years: what exactly was the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus?

The question “were they lovers?” might sound like the product of modern interpretations of Greek mythology. It is anything but. Ancient Greek authors were already openly debating the nature of their relationship, even disagreeing over which man should be considered the lover and which the beloved.

Achilles and Patroclus in the Iliad

In the Iliad, Patroclus is the closest companion of Achilles, the greatest warrior in the Greek army fighting at Troy.

Their relationship gradually emerges throughout the poem. Patroclus lives alongside Achilles, shares his camp and belongs to the hero’s most intimate circle. When Achilles withdraws from battle following his dispute with Agamemnon, Patroclus remains beside him.

Achilles’ decision sets in motion the events that ultimately lead to tragedy. Without their greatest warrior, the Greeks find themselves increasingly overwhelmed by the Trojans. Patroclus witnesses their suffering and persuades Achilles to allow him to return to battle wearing his armor.

The idea is to deceive the Trojans into believing that Achilles himself has returned. At first, the plan works. But Patroclus pushes too far and is eventually killed by Hector. From that moment, the Iliad changes completely.

The Death of Patroclus Changes Achilles

Until Patroclus’ death, the driving force behind the Iliad is Achilles’ anger toward Agamemnon. After Patroclus dies, that anger is overtaken by something far more personal.

When Achilles learns what has happened, he collapses to the ground, covers his head with ashes and is overcome by such violent grief that his mother Thetis, deep beneath the sea, hears his cries.

The warrior who had refused to fight even while the Greek army was suffering now decides immediately to return to the battlefield. Not for Agamemnon. Not for Greek victory. Not for Troy. He returns for Patroclus.

Achilles also knows that killing Hector will bring him closer to his own death. Thetis reminds him that his fate is tied to the Trojan prince: if he remains away from battle, he can live longer; if he avenges Patroclus, his own death will soon follow.

Achilles chooses to return anyway.

This would become one of the central elements in later Greek interpretations of their relationship: Achilles does not simply risk his life for Patroclus. He knowingly accepts his own approaching death in order to avenge him.

The Desire to Be Buried Together

Their bond continues beyond Patroclus’ death. In Book 23 of the Iliad, Patroclus’ ghost appears to Achilles in a dream and asks him to complete the funeral rites that will allow him to enter the realm of the dead. More importantly, he asks Achilles not to allow their bones to be separated once Achilles himself dies.

Patroclus wants their remains to be placed in the same urn, recalling how they had grown up together in the house of Peleus. Achilles agrees.

The scene becomes even more poignant when Achilles attempts to embrace Patroclus’ ghost. Three times he reaches for him, but each time the spirit slips through his arms.

It remains one of the most powerful images of their relationship: two men connected not only through life and war, but ultimately through death and burial.

What Homer Actually Tells Us About Their Relationship

This is where the question that would follow Achilles and Patroclus throughout history begins.

Homer never explicitly describes a sexual relationship between them. There is no scene in the Iliad comparable to passages in other ancient texts where erotic desire or sexual intimacy is openly depicted. Yet the absence of such a scene hardly makes their relationship secondary.

Patroclus occupies an emotional space in Achilles’ life that no other character reaches. It is Patroclus’ death, rather than the fate of the Greek army, that brings Achilles back into battle. Achilles refuses food as he mourns over his body. And it is with Patroclus that he ultimately intends to share his tomb.

Homer therefore leaves behind an extraordinarily intense relationship without fully defining its boundaries. That space left open by the Iliad would become fertile ground for interpretation in Classical Greece.

Aeschylus Portrays Achilles and Patroclus as Lovers

Around three centuries after the composition of the Iliad, Aeschylus brought the story of Achilles to the stage.

His tragedy Myrmidons, now almost entirely lost, formed part of a trilogy centered on the hero. Only fragments survive, but they reveal how Aeschylus interpreted the relationship.

In one fragment, Achilles addresses the dead Patroclus and recalls “the reverent company of your thighs.” Another surviving passage contains an explicit declaration of love.

The emotional intimacy of Homer has therefore shifted into something more overt. In Aeschylus’ version, the relationship carries an unmistakably erotic dimension.

This matters because it demonstrates that the interpretation of Achilles and Patroclus as lovers was already circulating in fifth-century BCE Greece.

And the discussion did not end there. A few decades later, it became even more revealing.

Plato: The Question Was Who Loved Whom

In Plato’s Symposium, written in the fourth century BCE, a group of speakers deliver a series of speeches on the nature of Eros.

During his speech, Phaedrus uses Achilles and Patroclus as an example of love’s extraordinary power and of the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the person one loves. But he also introduces a remarkable piece of literary criticism.

Phaedrus criticizes Aeschylus for presenting Achilles as the lover and Patroclus as the beloved. According to him, the roles should have been reversed: Achilles was younger and more beautiful and should therefore have occupied the position of the beloved, while Patroclus was the lover.

Phaedrus consequently accuses Aeschylus of “talking nonsense” when he describes Achilles as Patroclus’ lover.

The disagreement is arguably more revealing than the conclusion itself. The discussion is not primarily concerned with whether an erotic relationship between Achilles and Patroclus could have existed. That is effectively taken as the starting point. The disagreement concerns the structure of that relationship and the roles occupied by the two men within it.

Phaedrus also considers Achilles’ act particularly extraordinary because Patroclus is already dead. Achilles chooses to avenge him despite knowing that the decision will lead to his own death.

It is precisely this choice that allows Achilles to become, in the Symposium, an example of the extraordinary power of Eros.

A Relationship Continuously Reinterpreted in Antiquity

Aeschylus and Plato demonstrate that by Classical Athens, the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus had already become the subject of competing interpretations.

The Homeric story could be used to explore affection, heroism, loyalty, desire and sacrifice.

There was no single compulsory version of the myth. This is one of the defining characteristics of Greek mythology: writers could take familiar characters and reshape their genealogies, motivations and relationships.

Achilles and Patroclus underwent precisely this process.

Homer created an extraordinarily powerful intimacy without explicitly defining it as erotic. Aeschylus emphasized its sexual dimension. Plato used it to discuss the nature of love. And the two heroes remained a recognizable model for later generations.

Alexander the Great and Hephaestion at the Tombs of Achilles and Patroclus

One of the most fascinating later traditions concerns Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.

Alexander deeply admired Achilles and visited Troy during his campaign in Asia. Centuries later, the Roman writer Claudius Aelian recorded a particularly significant episode: Alexander placed a wreath on Achilles’ tomb, while Hephaestion did the same at the tomb of Patroclus.

For Aelian, the symbolism was clear: Hephaestion was as dear to Alexander as Patroclus had been to Achilles.

It is impossible to establish with certainty how much of the episode preserves a historical memory and how much belongs to the later literary construction of Alexander’s image. But the tradition reveals something equally significant. In the ancient imagination, Achilles and Patroclus had become a model through which another exceptionally close relationship between two men could be understood and represented.

Once again, mythology was being used as a language for interpreting human relationships.

From Ancient Heroes to Contemporary Queer Icons

Achilles and Patroclus never stopped being reinterpreted.

Some later retellings emphasized their bond as a warrior friendship, while others foregrounded its romantic or erotic dimension. Modern cinema has also played a significant role in shaping how audiences perceive the two characters.

In the 2004 film Troy, for example, Patroclus is presented as Achilles’ younger cousin, removing the romantic dimension entirely. It is a narrative choice far removed from the tradition represented by Aeschylus and Plato, and one that strongly influenced the modern popular image of the characters.

At the same time, particularly from the second half of the twentieth century onward, classical scholarship, literature and queer culture increasingly drew attention back to the ancient erotic interpretations of the pair.

Achilles and Patroclus have consequently become one of the best-known examples of a relationship between men in Greek mythology, alongside figures such as Apollo and Hyacinthus or Zeus and Ganymede.

But the work that has arguably done more than any other to reshape their contemporary image appeared in 2011.

The Song of Achilles and the Love Story That Became a Bestseller

In The Song of Achilles, American novelist and classicist Madeline Miller retells the story through the eyes of Patroclus.

There is no ambiguity in Miller’s novel. Achilles and Patroclus fall in love when they are young, and their romantic and sexual relationship accompanies them through their lives and ultimately to the Trojan War and Patroclus’ death.

Miller has repeatedly explained that she did not conceive this interpretation as a modern provocation. When asked where she found the idea that the two men were lovers, she famously replied: “I stole it from Plato.”

Miller has also pointed to the long tradition of Greek and Roman writers who interpreted their relationship romantically, including the surviving fragments of Aeschylus.

The novel won the Orange Prize for Fiction in 2012 and experienced another extraordinary wave of popularity years later, helped by BookTok. For millions of contemporary readers, it has become the main gateway into the story of Achilles and Patroclus.

Its success has therefore brought a very old interpretation back into mainstream culture — one that would already have been familiar to audiences watching Greek tragedy almost twenty-five centuries ago.

Were Achilles and Patroclus Really Lovers?

The Iliad never gives us a definitive answer, and that may be precisely why the question has survived for so long.

Homer depicts a relationship of extraordinary intensity without explicitly defining its sexual dimension. Yet only a few centuries later, some of the most influential figures in Greek culture had no hesitation in interpreting that relationship through Eros.

Aeschylus portrayed Achilles and Patroclus as lovers. Plato debated which man was the lover and which the beloved. The tradition surrounding Alexander and Hephaestion used their tombs as symbols through which another legendary relationship between two men could be understood. Madeline Miller eventually brought that same interpretation back to the center of contemporary popular culture.

Perhaps that is why Achilles and Patroclus continue to generate debate every time readers return to Homer.

Not because contemporary culture suddenly decided to rewrite an ancient story, but because that story has never had only one interpretation.

For more than two thousand years, generation after generation has returned to the same question left open by the Iliad: what exactly was Patroclus to Achilles? The debate, it turns out, is almost as ancient as the heroes themselves.

Read also: “Was Alexander the Great gay? Let’s shed some light on the question“