Published Indian Defence Review ISSN 0970-2512 Jan-Mar 2026 Vol.41(1)
“Just for hunger we rig and ride our long benched ships on the barren salt sea, speeding death to enemies”.
-The Odessey
[According to Homeric tradition and mythological narratives of the Trojan War, the Greek “Naval War Council” was not a permanent or formal institution. Instead, it was a gathering of kings and leaders, headed by Agamemnon, who met at their camp on the Trojan coast to make strategic decisions.
This article aims to ‘conceptualise’ the discussions that may have taken place in the council considering the extended siege, the condition of the ships, the morale of the crew, the losses sustained, and the future strategies for the Greek navy to maintain its dominance.]
The fate of the Ithacan fleet after the fall of Troy has been extensively analysed by historians. The narrative of this era is intertwined with archaeological discoveries and literary sources, primarily from Homeric epics (the written texts appeared around 750-650 BCE), which mix historical facts with myths. Consequently, interpretations of the actual events and their impact on the Greek city-states vary considerably.
The “Ithacan Navy” referenced in Homer’s Odyssey does not correspond to a formal military force as understood today, rather, it refers to the grouping of ships that Odysseus organised for his participation in the Trojan War and his subsequent return journey. Homer’s depiction of these vessels and their crews provides insight into the naval practices of the Mycenaean period, or at least how they were conceptualised centuries later when the epic was composed.
In the Odyssey, ships were penteconters, which possessed 50 oars (25 on each side), these vessels were equipped with a single mast bearing a square sail and a single row of oars on either side. They were long and narrow, optimised for speed and coastal navigation rather than transporting large cargoes over extended distances.
Odysseus’s ships are referred to as “black ships,” “hollow ships,” and “red-cheeked,” terms that describe specific construction techniques of the Late Helladic period (c. 1550 to c. 1050 BC). The “black” appearance of the Ithacan ships resulted from the application of pitch or asphalt to protect the hull. Mycenaean shipbuilders employed these materials to seal the hull against saltwater and to prevent the wood from absorbing moisture. Given that these ships were often beached for extended periods, such as during the so-called decade-long siege of Troy, maintaining hull integrity was essential for the fleet’s successful return.
The designation “red-cheeked” or “vermilion-prowed” indicates that the ship’s prow was coated with haematite-based paint, serving both decorative and protective functions. Evidence from a 13th-century BCE wooden ship model discovered in Egypt suggests that Helladic ships employed various colours, these vessels frequently featured “painted eyes” on the prow, believed to enable the ship to “see” through the waves, thereby infusing it with a semblance of life.
Based on the Gurob model[i] and other archaeological findings, a typical Ithacan warship measured 25 to 30 meters in length. The hull was narrow, approximately 3 m wide, aiding ease of movement through the water. These elongated, slender ships were perpetually threatened by sea forces, such as hogging, in which the ship’s bow and stern sagged if a wave supported the midsection; and sagging, in which the midsection of the ship tended to bend downward if waves supported the ends. To overcome these stresses, Mycenaean ships employed a system known as hypozomata, which consisted of heavy ropes along the hull for reinforcement. While later ships utilised complex internal supports, the Ithacan fleet relied on robust woods, such as pine, oak, and cedar, and the expertise of skilled builders.
The ships were constructed using a “shell-first” technique, in which the planks were joined before the addition of internal frames. Homer’s account of Odysseus constructing a ship on Calypso’s island offers a detailed, although poetic, description of this process, including the use of pegs and fasteners. The primary means of propulsion for these ships was manpower, with oarsmen propelling the vessels forward. Sails were employed to harness the wind but served as a secondary power source, particularly in the unpredictable and hazardous waters of the Mediterranean Sea.
According to the “Catalogue of Ships” in the Iliad, Odysseus’s fleet comprised 12 ships from Ithaca and the nearby islands under his dominion (Neritum, Crocylea, Aegilips, Same, and Zacynthus). Although the term “penteconter” implies a crew of 50 oarsmen, the total number of men on each ship, including the captain, fighters, and other personnel, was likely to be higher. Some scholarly interpretations of the Iliad suggest that the crew could number up to 120 men per ship, with a captain, 50 oarsmen and a mix of warriors and support staff members. With 12 ships, Odysseus’s original force was substantial, although smaller than those of more powerful kings, such as Agamemnon, who commanded 100 ships.
The Ithacan fleet’s capabilities were well-suited to the Trojan War and the subsequent return journey since ships were primarily used to transport warriors and supplies, and their long and narrow design allowed for quick beaching on enemy shores. Early in his return journey, Odysseus and his men engaged in raiding, as shown by their attack on the Cicones, indicating that the ships could execute hit-and-run assaults on coastal settlements. The vessels of this period were not constructed for prolonged voyages across open waters; instead, they relied on coastal landmarks and island-hopping for navigation. Odysseus’s journey shows the constant danger of being blown off course and losing sight of land.
Ithacan crewmen were not merely sailors; they also served as soldiers. They rowed ships into battle, assisted with naval operations during landings, and subsequently engaged in combat on land. Each crew member was allocated a bench with their equipment stored beneath it, including a shield, spear, bag for grain, and containers for water or wine. This dual capability facilitated Ithaca’s execution of raids and extended campaigns far from their homeland.
Ithacan warriors employed standard Bronze Age weaponry; however, the armour of leaders was often described as artistic embellishment. The primary weapon was a spear, measuring 2.5 m to 3 m in length, with a bronze tip, it was used for thrusting in close combat aboard ships and for throwing. The sword or xiphos served as a secondary weapon for combat after the spear was thrown or broken. These swords were leaf-shaped and crafted from bronze, although iron variants emerged later during the Mycenaean period.
Odysseus was known for donning a boar’s tusk helmet, an armour piece originating in the Late Bronze Age. These helmets were constructed by affixing rows of wild boar tusks to a leather cap. They were lightweight yet robust, offering protection against downward attacks. Ithacan shields were of two varieties: the large “tower shield,” which extended to the feet, and the smaller round shield, which was utilised in naval engagements. Odysseus’s armour was intricately detailed, featuring bronze chest plates and cheek guards, often adorned with motifs such as the “triskelion” (ancient motif containing three interlocking spirals) or the “griffin.”[ii]
The Greeks of that era utilised the sea as their primary means of transportation, supply routes, and strategic operations. Devoid of their naval capabilities, the “Trojan War” would have resulted in an overwhelming logistical challenge. This conflict was not characterised by naval engagements between opposing fleets; where warships directly confront each other; but rather by an expeditionary naval campaign. The ships served as living quarters, supply depots, and final avenue for retreat.
In the Iliad, the ships were not left afloat but were instead beached onto the shore in a staggered, multi-row configuration along the Hellespont. These vessels functioned as the primary defensive barrier. The Greeks excavated a deep trench and erected a wall composed of timber and earth in front of the beached ships. The most significant tactical concern was the threat posed by the “Trojan Torch”[iii] because the ships were constructed from seasoned wood and coated with pitch for waterproofing, they were highly vulnerable to fire. The ships from Ithaca, under the command of Odysseus, were strategically positioned at the centre of the Greek formation. This arrangement enabled Odysseus to efficiently convey commands to both the left flank, where Ajax was located, and the right flank, where Achilles was stationed.
A pivotal episode in the Iliad occurs when the Trojans, under Hector’s leadership and with the assistance of the god Apollo, breach the Greek defences and attempt to set the ships ablaze. The loss of the ships would have been catastrophic, as they represented the Greeks’ sole means of retreat and their principal supply line.
Odysseus’s role in preserving the fleet was significant, during the Trojan assault on the ships, Odysseus was among the leaders who defended them. Despite being wounded by the Trojan Socus, he collaborated with Ajax and Diomedes to prevent the Trojans from penetrating the centre of the camp. While Odysseus devised the strategy, Patroclus prevented the ships from being set on fire. Clad in Achilles’ armour, Patroclus rallied the Greeks when the first ship was set on fire, extinguishing the flames and repelling the Trojans.
Following the fall of Troy around 1184 BCE, the Ithacan fleet’s destiny became intertwined with the events of the Late Bronze Age, a period characterised by conflicts among Mycenaean city-states and their adversaries, such as the Hittites. The fall of Troy was a pivotal moment for the region, as Greek forces plundered the city and sought to enhance their naval capabilities, recognising that controlling trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean was essential for maintaining power. Thucydides observed that a formidable navy was crucial for a modern empire, a notion that held true after the Trojan War, as the Greeks needed to maintain dominance over maritime trade and prevent the resurgence of rival powers in the Aegean. The loss of naval supremacy posed a risk of political and economic collapse; the war also led to a shift in focus from moral considerations to the power dynamics. Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue illustrates how war crimes led to a more pragmatic and occasionally harsh approach to politics and military strategy in the Peloponnesian War.
Trade routes were vital for the survival of Greek city-states, and any disruption could result in economic hardship; further, climate change, which caused droughts, exacerbated these challenges. Leaders therefore recognised the necessity of having robust navies to address food and resource shortages.
Naval War Council
In the aftermath of Troy’s fall, the Greek Naval War Council[iv] was convened to determine the future of the Ithacan fleet, marking a critical juncture in Greek military planning in which leaders were tasked with steering naval warfare and the evolving political landscape. The council faced the formidable challenge of ensuring safe passage home amidst enemy threats, wrath of the Gods, and logistical obstacles. They deliberated on strategies to manage the fleet, ensuring secure travel and protection from the Trojan forces and their allies.
Conceptualising Key Discussions and Decisions
During the council meeting, the military commanders deliberated on the strategic positioning of the fleet. Agamemnon played a key role in emphasising the necessity of a robust plan to safeguard Ithacan and other Greek territories. The discussion underscored the significance of naval power, a sentiment echoed in the subsequent theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan, who advanced that maritime dominance was crucial for military success.
The council also evaluated probable threats and advocated consolidating the fleet near the Isthmus to intercept enemy vessels. In contrast, other generals proposed a more aggressive strategy aimed at disrupting the enemy’s supply lines. These divergent perspectives highlight the strategic dilemmas that confronted the council.
The Naval War Council adopted a strategy that integrated both defensive and offensive elements into its naval strategy. Their objective was to fortify the Ithacan fleet and maintain readiness to engage with adversaries. This decision was critical in ensuring the safe return of the Greek commanders, sustaining a formidable naval presence, and was anticipated to influence future naval engagements & military campaigns in the Mediterranean region. The council’s deliberations illustrated the complexities of naval warfare and the requisite balance between strategy, leadership, and military logistics amid significant geopolitical shifts.
The council’s deliberations were not without challenges, the losses incurred during the war underscored the necessity of reassessing naval assets and strategies. Council members debated the practicality of maintaining a fleet that suffered personnel losses and material setbacks. Historically, deficient naval equipment led to suboptimal performance in critical battles, prompting a re-evaluation of naval priorities and investments in shipbuilding and technology.
The discussions centred on the concept of a “fleet in being,” which refers to maintaining naval forces in a state of readiness to deter attacks without immediate engagement. This concept was critical for the Ithacan fleet. The council deliberated on how the fleet could exert influence while preserving its strength for future engagements. Historical evidence underscores the importance of adaptability, strategic insight, and effective communication for success of a fleet in a dynamic environment. The debate concerning the Ithacan fleet symbolises broader discussions about naval power and its significance for Greece’s security, the lessons from this period continue to guide contemporary naval strategies and fleet management.
Following the discourse regarding the future of the Ithacan fleet, led by Odysseus, twelve ships departed from Troy, embarking on a challenging journey back to Ithaca, revealing the difficulties faced by Greek naval forces at the time. The fleet’s performance and condition were central to the council’s discussions, where strategic considerations were weighed against the ships’ capabilities; The council stressed that the primary principle to follow was that ‘naval strength was essential for Greece’s security and influence.’
The deliberations of the Naval War Council had significant implications for subsequent naval operations in the region. The complexity of the discussion, shaped by the protracted conflict, highlights the necessity of evaluating the fleet’s readiness and configuration. The Council recognised the need to reassess the Ithacan fleet’s capabilities in response to a changing world. The Ithacan forces were advised to judiciously utilise their remaining ships to safeguard their interests while confronting potential external threats. This debate underscored the need to reformulate the fleet utilisation strategy, some members advocated for the preservation and maintenance of existing ships. They stressed the importance of cooperation among Greek city-states to counter threats, drawing lessons from history, where unified naval efforts were crucial to wartime success.
In the epic, the Greek Naval War Council dispersed due to divergent opinions regarding the timing of their return, a dispute arose between Agamemnon and Menelaus, Agamemnon supported for staying back to conduct sacrifices to appease Goddess Athena, while Menelaus was inclined to depart immediately. This disagreement resulted in a bifurcation of the Greek forces. Menelaus and Diomedes, among others, departed, whereas some, including Odysseus chose to support Agamemnon. Odysseus initially set sail with the others but subsequently returned to fulfil Agamemnon’s wishes before ultimately departing permanently. Although the council’s deliberations were brief, the ensuing ill-fated voyage for the Ithacan fleet extended over a decade due to divine retribution. The decision-making process was fragmented and chaotic, occurring within a day or two of Troy’s fall.
Scholarly Perspectives
Numerous academic groups have investigated the fate of the Ithacan fleet. Some historians suggest that the fleet’s difficulties were a result of divine retribution, as depicted in the “Odyssey.” In this narrative, Odysseus’s crew encounters numerous challenges on their return journey because of their conduct during the war. This perspective suggests that the story imparts moral lessons, cautioning against hubris and defiance of the gods. Conversely, contemporary interpretations consider historical factors, proposing that the fleet’s demise was attributable to changes following the Trojan War. The conflict disrupted Greek maritime strategies and trade routes, potentially leading to fleet disintegration or a loss of influence. Researchers have uncovered archaeological evidence indicating Mycenaean influence and interactions with other cultures, which may explain the fleet’s difficulties after Troy.
Mythology significantly influences the understanding of the Ithacan fleet’s history, oral traditions were instrumental in transmitting these narratives, and the varying versions may reflect distinct regional perspectives and priorities. Consequently, the stories concerning the fleet may not solely represent historical facts but also serve as a medium for conveying the cultural values and norms of post-war Greece. This amalgamation of myth and history complicates historians’ efforts to distinguish fact from fiction.
Archaeological discoveries at sites such as Hisarlik, believed to be ancient Troy, are crucial in the discussion regarding the Ithacan fleet. Artefacts reveal Mycenaean presence on the western coast of Anatolia, suggesting that interactions were not exclusively hostile, and that trade and cultural exchanges may have shaped the post-war landscape. This historical context helps explain the challenges faced by the Ithacan fleet, contributing to its decline or transformation following the war.
Lessons for Modern Navies from the Ithacan Experience
Odysseus narrative imparts three critical lessons for contemporary naval forces. First, the Trojan War was won through tenacity and clever strategy rather than sheer force, modern navies should therefore prioritise intelligent strategies and technologies, such as drones and cyber warfare, over merely expanding their fleet size. Second, Odysseus’s fleet endured by adapting to changing conditions, modern navies must also learn to operate independently of complex supply chains. Third, the chaos caused by Odysseus’s crew opening a ‘bag of winds’[v] underscores the importance of avoiding errors that could lead to uncontrollable situations.
From antiquated wooden vessels to contemporary stealth frigates, the fundamental lesson is that naval dominance is increasingly reliant on sophisticated networks rather than mere ship strength. Odysseus’s fleet endured because of its integration within a broader strategic framework that prioritised ingenuity alongside strength. The lesson for nations such as the United States, China, and India is unequivocal, superiority is not solely determined by the quantity of ships; it is dependent upon “Strategic Deterrence, Asymmetric Denial,” and prudent resource management. Just as the Ithacan fleet was preserved through wise tactics and unexpected circumstances, modern naval forces will achieve success by amalgamating technology, geography, and effective leadership. The maritime domain, much like in Homeric times, remains a realm of perpetual challenges, necessitating resilience and wise strategies.
“…for it is the poet’s art to make every ear that hears the ancient songs think they have been sung for them alone, the old made new.”
― Claire North, Ithaca
[i] Unearthed in 1920 at the Gurob site in Egypt by the team of archaeologist Flinders Petrie, the Gurob Ship-Cart Model is a distinctive wooden artifact. Dating back to around 1500–1100 BC, it stands as the most intricate depiction of a Mycenaean-style galley.
[ii] The griffin, also known as gryphon, is a formidable mythical creature that combines the body of a lion with the head and wings of an eagle, symbolizing a mix of power, watchfulness, and grandeur. Often referred to as the “king of beasts” and “king of birds,” it stands as a symbol of royalty, divine authority, protection, and wild bravery, appearing in various ancient cultures from Egypt to Greece.
[iii] In the Iliad, specifically in Book XV, the term “Trojan torch” implies the blazing torch wielded by Hector, the prince and foremost warrior of Troy, to set fire to the Greek ships.
[iv] According to Homeric tradition and mythological narratives of the Trojan War, the Greek “Naval War Council” was not a permanent or formal institution. Instead, it was a gathering of kings and leaders, headed by Agamemnon, who met at their camp on the Trojan coast to make strategic decisions.
[v] In Book 10 of Homer’s Odyssey, Aeolus, the sovereign of the winds, bestows upon Odysseus a bag containing all the tempestuous winds, leaving only the gentle west wind to facilitate their journey homeward. As Odysseus slumbers, with Ithaca nearly within reach, his crew, motivated by avarice and suspicion that the bag conceals treasures, opens it. The released winds engender a violent storm that propels them back to Aeolia.
Unbiased Jottings on Global Maritime Issues 