The above is the beginning of Achilles' answer to the speech of Odysseus, a member of the delegation sent by Agamemnon. It is my intention to examine some essential problems by interpreting these lines, especially the last two lines 312-313. These two lines, though unspecific in expression, reveal Odysseus' cunning technique of persuading Achilles while at the same time 'cheating' Agamemnon. Odysseus, as a member of the delegation, conveys almost verbatim the conditions of reconciliation offered by Agamemnon. Nevertheless, concealing Agamemnon's acknowledgement of his own 'blindness of mind' and his intention to make Achilles yield to his power as overlord, Odysseus extends the request for Achilles to return in order to secure 'the safety of all the Achaeans' an axiom, so to speak, common to Achilles and to Agamemnon. Furthermore, Odysseus adds a few other tempting and encouraging words. The warrior-hero, Achilles, angered by Agamemnon, had retired from the battle-field. From the warrior's standpoint, the bestowing of honour should be proportionate to his achievements on the field of battle. Achilles' anger and retirement were caused by the violation of this fundamental rule, and, moreover, by his having been deprived of the girl, Briseis, who had belonged to him. Hearing the speech of Odysseus, Achilles conceived that Agamemnon had 'cheated' him and now intended to 'cheat' again. But, in fact, Agamemnon had no intention of 'cheating'. The subordination of warrior-heroes to the power of the overlord was considered by him to be quite proper. If so, whence arose this discrepancy in their conceptions? Although it is true that the personal excellence of a warrior-hero such as Achilles afforded his side constant advantage over the foe, this in itself was not sufficient to sack the firm citadel of Troy. On the other hand, although the power of an overlord such as Agamemnon was, of course, necessary to organize the allied forces of the Achaeans, it could do nothing more. That is to say, there was a basic need to change the whole method and strategy of conducting the war. Nevertheless, no improvements were made in the armaments nor in the organization or strategy of the armed forces. Here we can find the reason why the two heroes persisted in maintaining their widely divergent opinions. (In this examination of the above problems I have purposely not mentioned the story of the wooden horse.)