Why was the Trojan War so important?

Tulius · Jul 30, 2021

Calebxy said:
Here is the link: The Chronology of Early Rome on JSTOR

Look near the end of that page (where it mentions 'In the second class...') through to the end of the following page (up to, but not including, where it begins 'In the fourth class'). The two earliest sources mentioned are Hellanicus of ...... and Damastes of Siguem, both of the fifth century. They both describe Rome as being founded jointly by Aeneas and Odysseus.

Ah! Sanders work... Thank you! I read it while I was at college... it seems a millennium ago! That is really an old piece of scholarship. Today I will probably see it with other eyes.

Just note that Sanders refers to all the sources as myths. But you are quite right here seems to be the evidence that the myth predates Virgil by far.

Calebxy said:
Ok, that was poor wording on my part. I was being overly cautious. I personally believe that the evidence is extremely clear that there was a migration of a sizable elite class which then effected the Etruscan civilisation proper (i.e. from 700 BCE onwards, not the earlier Villanovan stage which started in 900 BCE, which I accept as was purely a native civilisation). My wording was meant to avoid me sounding like I am stating it as a fact, because I acknowledge that others do not agree. But for me personally, I feel the evidence is clear.

Well, I am an eternal sceptic, but good luck with your book.

FLK · Jul 30, 2021

Dan Howard said:
We covered this in your other thread. It is complete .......s.

Even myths must have an origin. There's no reason not to lay all the facts out in a matrix and have a look at them.

SilasMarner · Jul 30, 2021

FLK said:
Even myths must have an origin.

Claims to Trojan ancestry are a means to creating a mythology around your own culture - a means of constructing a cultural pedigree for your civilisation. They are explainable in that sense.

That Troy actually existed? - we can be reasonably sure of that.
That it was a prosperous place in the bronze age? - we can also be sure of that.
That its people had contact with the Mycenaeans, through trade if nothing else? - we can also be sure of that.

So the potential seeds of Homer's story are indeed there. The real question is - how much of what Homer wrote was embellishment / based on folk tales which, by Homer's time, reflected only a half-baked version of the truth.

SilasMarner · Aug 1, 2021

If we set to onside the writings of Homer and instead focus on the archaeology and on Hittite written records that survive and which were contemporary with bronze age Troy, then we can build up a picture of the history of Troy from its founding until the time it became the Greek city of Ilium.

First, it is worth remembering that the city has been known by two different names - Ilium and Troy (and that the name 'Troy' refers more to the country than to the city itself).

Troy I: (c.3000-2500 BCE) Troy was settled at some time before 3000 BCE, it began life as a small village. It began life as a few stone and mudbrick houses with a very basic wall. Pottery and copper artefacts have been found from this early period .

Troy II: (c.2500-2250BCE) Troy doubles in size and acquires a citadel and became quite wealthy. It had a larger wall. It was quite wealthy and had economic connections with the Balkans and Afghanistan. A number of precious metals and finer items of pottery mark this period. It appears to have been sacked/destroyed twice and this is why Schliemann thought it might be Homeric Troy. It does however pre-date Mycenaean Greece by a considerable period of time.

Troy III-V: (c.2250-1800BCE) Troy over this period appears to have been smaller and less wealthy but still cosmopolitan enough to have imported Minoan pots. The archaeology of this period has been seriously compromised by Schliemann's cavalier approach to excavating it to get at Troy II.

Troy VI: (c.1800-1250BCE) Troy in its bronze age heyday. Troy expanded and had a population of at least 5,000. It had large stone walls. It appears to have traded both with the Anatolian and Mycenaean world. Its pottery styles, architectural designs, and burial practices were Anatolian rather than Mycenaean.

In 1280 BCE Hittite documents record a treaty with a King Alaksandu of Wilusa (thought to be an early form of the name that became the Greek Ilium). It indicates that the Hittites and the Wilusan people had enjoyed a relationship dating back three centuries by this time. Muwatalli II and Alaksandu of Wilusa respectively, invoked the water god, KASKAL_KUR, who was associated with an underground spring. Some scholars have linked this deity to underground springs found at Hisarlik, which would have supplied water to the citizens of the lower city.

Around 1250 BCE Hattusili III wrote to a king of Ahhiyawa, concerning the exploits of a renegade identified as Piyama-Radu against the Hittites and requests his extradition to face Hittite justice. In this letter Hattusili reminds Ahhiyawa that "Now as we have come to an agreement on Wilusa over which we went to war... " which suggests again that Wilusa (Troy) fell within the Hittite sphere of influence at that time.

It was destroyed in around 1250 BCE, almost certainly by an earthquake.

Troy VII (c.1250BCE-950BCE) Troy was quickly re-built, not quite so large but almost as grand as before. There is evidence that the population was restricted within the fortifications of the city - possibly for protection against raiders and other threats (perhaps the Mycenaeans).

Troy VIIa was destroyed, probably sacked by invaders in around 1180BCE. Bronze age arrow heads and corpses of people who had died violently, as well as signs of deliberate arson were contemporary with this event.

This sacking is the only archaeological evidence for a major siege ending in a catastrophic sacking that would come close to something described by Homer. By this time the Mycenaeans themselves were in serious decline and so this has raised the question as to whether the 1180 sacking was the work of Homer's Mycenaean heroes or the work of other invaders (possibly from south eastern Europe).

Troy VIIb - Troy was rebuilt and continued to produce the characteristic Anatolian Grayware pottery that is also found in Troy VIIa. Towards the end of this period a new style of pottery Buckelkeramik which is more characteristic of south eastern Europe increasingly appears. Trou VIIb was finally destroying in a fire in around 950 BCE. A Luwian seal has been found dated to this period which suggests at least some native Anatolian people remained in the city. The only written language found at Troy from the bronze age or early iron age is this seal. At present, it remains the only language that we know for sure was in use in bronze age Troy.

Dark Age Troy: (950-750BCE) After 950 BCE Troy was largely abandoned & the area was very sparsely populated.

Troy VIII: In 750 BCE Attic-Ionic Greeks settled Troy and founded the Greek city of Ilium on the site. The new city featured a prominent temple of Athena.

So, there is nothing in the archaeology that fits that well with Homer's story. The best candidate is the sacking of around 1180 BCE. However, this occurs at a time when the Mycenaean world was itself in turmoil / terminal decline, which makes it slightly problematic.

SilasMarner · Aug 1, 2021

In terms of what happened to the Trojans?

The only language we know for certain that they used in the bronze age/early Iron age is Luwian.

In the iron age, Luwian speakers increasingly migrated eastwards. The last Luwian speakers founded the neo-Hittite Kingdoms in south east Turkey/north west Syria. Their culture survived until around the eighth century BCE, which is the latest we find Luwian hieroglyphics in use. They were gradually absorbed into the Assyrian Empire and disappeared from history.

Calebxy · Aug 1, 2021

SilasMarner said:
If we set to onside the writings of Homer and instead focus on the archaeology and on Hittite written records that survive and which were contemporary with bronze age Troy, then we can build up a picture of the history of Troy from its founding until the time it became the Greek city of Ilium.

First, it is worth remembering that the city has been known by two different names - Ilium and Troy (and that the name 'Troy' refers more to the country than to the city itself).

Troy I: (c.3000-2500 BCE) Troy was settled at some time before 3000 BCE, it began life as a small village. It began life as a few stone and mudbrick houses with a very basic wall. Pottery and copper artefacts have been found from this early period .

Troy II: (c.2500-2250BCE) Troy doubles in size and acquires a citadel and became quite wealthy. It had a larger wall. It was quite wealthy and had economic connections with the Balkans and Afghanistan. A number of precious metals and finer items of pottery mark this period. It appears to have been sacked/destroyed twice and this is why Schliemann thought it might be Homeric Troy. It does however pre-date Mycenaean Greece by a considerable period of time.

Troy III-V: (c.2250-1800BCE) Troy over this period appears to have been smaller and less wealthy but still cosmopolitan enough to have imported Minoan pots. The archaeology of this period has been seriously compromised by Schliemann's cavalier approach to excavating it to get at Troy II.

Troy VI: (c.1800-1250BCE) Troy in its bronze age heyday. Troy expanded and had a population of at least 5,000. It had large stone walls. It appears to have traded both with the Anatolian and Mycenaean world. Its pottery styles, architectural designs, and burial practices were Anatolian rather than Mycenaean.

In 1280 BCE Hittite documents record a treaty with a King Alaksandu of Wilusa (thought to be an early form of the name that became the Greek Ilium). It indicates that the Hittites and the Wilusan people had enjoyed a relationship dating back three centuries by this time. Muwatalli II and Alaksandu of Wilusa respectively, invoked the water god, KASKAL_KUR, who was associated with an underground spring. Some scholars have linked this deity to underground springs found at Hisarlik, which would have supplied water to the citizens of the lower city.

Around 1250 BCE Hattusili III wrote to a king of Ahhiyawa, concerning the exploits of a renegade identified as Piyama-Radu against the Hittites and requests his extradition to face Hittite justice. In this letter Hattusili reminds Ahhiyawa that "Now as we have come to an agreement on Wilusa over which we went to war... " which suggests again that Wilusa (Troy) fell within the Hittite sphere of influence at that time.

It was destroyed in around 1250 BCE, almost certainly by an earthquake.

Troy VII (c.1250BCE-950BCE) Troy was quickly re-built, not quite so large but almost as grand as before. There is evidence that the population was restricted within the fortifications of the city - possibly for protection against raiders and other threats (perhaps the Mycenaeans).

Troy VIIa was destroyed, probably sacked by invaders in around 1180BCE. Bronze age arrow heads and corpses of people who had died violently, as well as signs of deliberate arson were contemporary with this event.

This sacking is the only archaeological evidence for a major siege ending in a catastrophic sacking that would come close to something described by Homer. By this time the Mycenaeans themselves were in serious decline and so this has raised the question as to whether the 1180 sacking was the work of Homer's Mycenaean heroes or the work of other invaders (possibly from south eastern Europe).

Troy VIIb - Troy was rebuilt and continued to produce the characteristic Anatolian Grayware pottery that is also found in Troy VIIa. Towards the end of this period a new style of pottery Buckelkeramik which is more characteristic of south eastern Europe increasingly appears. Trou VIIb was finally destroying in a fire in around 950 BCE. A Luwian seal has been found dated to this period which suggests at least some native Anatolian people remained in the city. The only written language found at Troy from the bronze age or early iron age is this seal. At present, it remains the only language that we know for sure was in use in bronze age Troy.

Dark Age Troy: (950-750BCE) After 950 BCE Troy was largely abandoned & the area was very sparsely populated.

Troy VIII: In 750 BCE Attic-Ionic Greeks settled Troy and founded the Greek city of Ilium on the site. The new city featured a prominent temple of Athena.

So, there is nothing in the archaeology that fits that well with Homer's story. The best candidate is the sacking of around 1180 BCE. However, this occurs at a time when the Mycenaean world was itself in turmoil / terminal decline, which makes it slightly problematic.

Of course, if you cut off your discussion just at the point it starts tying in with the legends (remember that the Greek legends portray Troy as being founded by the Greeks, exactly like you noted is the case for Troy VIII), then naturally you’ll be missing some key information.

Even within the information you have included, the destruction at 950 BCE seems equally as plausible as the 1180 BCE date. Even if one thinks that my date of c. 700 BCE is too late, the destruction of 950 BCE is surely another viable candidate.

Olleus · Aug 1, 2021

Well yes, the more "facts" you change, the more you can make them fit into any pet theory. But it also means that a larger part of the consensus needs to be overthrown. Not only does this mean that more evidence needs to be reinterpreted, but also that the case to do so must be exceptionally good (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), and that there needs to be an explanation why an overwhelming number of Homeric scholars are wrong. It's too easy to cherry pick a few data points and say that they make more sense in 700BC than 1200BC; you have to look at every piece of evidence and show that as a whole they make more sense in the revised date. Considering the huge corpus of work on Homer, that is an awful lot of people and arguments you have to debunk.

That you disregard the ancient Greek mythology of when the Trojan War took place, but accept the Roman mythology that they came from Troy, stinks to high heaven of cherry picking.

Calebxy · Aug 1, 2021

Olleus said:
Well yes, the more "facts" you change, the more you can make them fit into any pet theory.

I’m sorry, what facts have I changed?

But it also means that a larger part of the consensus needs to be overthrown.

Certainly!

Not only does this mean that more evidence needs to be reinterpreted, but also that the case to do so must be exceptionally good (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence),

Only if the currently-accepted consensus has a strong foundation, which it demonstrably doesn’t. Just wait until you hear how Ctesias established his c. 1200 BCE date for the Trojan War! It’s absurd!

and that there needs to be an explanation why an overwhelming number of Homeric scholars are wrong. It's too easy to cherry pick a few data points and say that they make more sense in 700BC than 1200BC; you have to look at every piece of evidence and show that as a whole they make more sense in the revised date. Considering the huge corpus of work on Homer, that is an awful lot of people and arguments you have to debunk.

My theory actually fits in with the conclusions of numerous Homeric scholars in far more ways than you assume, though I understand your skepticism.

That you disregard the ancient Greek mythology of when the Trojan War took place, but accept the Roman mythology that they came from Troy, stinks to high heaven of cherry picking.

The matter of what happened is rather different from the matter of when it happened. I am happy to explain to you what caused the ancient Greeks to generally exaggerate the dates of things if you would like. But it is certainly the case that their descriptions of what happened indicates a later date.

SilasMarner · Aug 2, 2021

Although there is evidence of a significant fire in around 1000 BCE - 950 BCE at around the time that Troy was largely abandoned, this is not generally thought to have been the result of war. The destructive event of around 1180 BCE (some Troy academics may argue for an earlier date, possibly as early as c.1250 BCE) looks like the only significant destructive event in bronze age/iron age Trojan history that can be attributed to a sacking (due to the presence of fire, weapons and human remains that are all consistent with what you would see in a sack).

Mycenaean Greece is taken to span the period 1750 BCE to 1050 BCE. It was in its heyday between c.1400BCE and c.1200BCE but in a state of rapid decline/collapse from around 1200BCE until its final demise.

Therefore Mycenaean Greece overlaps (just) with the sack of Troy. If we take the date of 1180 BCE then Mycenaean involvement in the sacking is possible.

In that sense Homer's story is just about set at roughly the right time to tie in with the archaeology.

What Homer's story lacks, of course, is the sense that Mycenaean society was entering a state of turmoil and eventual collapse at exactly the time when the Trojan war must have happened. On the one hand that is problematic, on the other it makes some sense.

It makes sense in so far as we don't really know why Mycenaean society collapsed - internal conflict is one theory but so too is external invaders. Perhaps both. But internal conflict may well have contributed & the Iliad shows the alliance between the various Greek leaders was a rocky one. It also shows Odysseus was not able to enjoy the fruits of victory but was forced to wander homeless. This may reflect a certain truth - the Mycenaeans who sacked Troy may have fought amongst themselves after the war and some may have ended up with their palaces destroyed within a short time of their triumph at Troy.

The Trojan war may simply have assumed mythical status because it was the last great gasp of Mycenaean civilisation - one final moment of glory before chaos and collapse.

That is IF the Mycenaean's were responsible for Troy's downfall. Some argue that invaders from South Eastern Europe are more likely to have been responsible – as it is their culture, rather than Greek, that emerges in the period immediately after the sacking. Of course, for all we know, it could have been a Balkan invader using Mycenaean mercenaries.

Of course, the slightly annoying fact (for those who believe in a Trojan exodus to found Rome or the Etruscans) is that although Troy was sacked in around 1180 BCE, it actually recovered. Most of its people probably did not flee at that time but rather stayed and rebuilt their city & continued to live in it for around another century before Troy finally slipped into its own dark age.

Calebxy · Aug 2, 2021

SilasMarner said:
Although there is evidence of a significant fire in around 1000 BCE - 950 BCE at around the time that Troy was largely abandoned, this is not generally thought to have been the result of war.

What is it thought to be the result of?

The destructive event of around 1180 BCE (some Troy academics may argue for an earlier date, possibly as early as c.1250 BCE) looks like the only significant destructive event in bronze age/iron age Trojan history that can be attributed to a sacking (due to the presence of fire, weapons and human remains that are all consistent with what you would see in a sack).

Mycenaean Greece is taken to span the period 1750 BCE to 1050 BCE. It was in its heyday between c.1400BCE and c.1200BCE but in a state of rapid decline/collapse from around 1200BCE until its final demise.

Therefore Mycenaean Greece overlaps (just) with the sack of Troy. If we take the date of 1180 BCE then Mycenaean involvement in the sacking is possible.

In that sense Homer's story is just about set at roughly the right time to tie in with the archaeology.

You are making an assumption that Homer's story is set in the Mycenaean era. It's worth checking again how many times Mycenae is actually mentioned in the Iliad, and what Agamemnon is actually said to be the king of most of the time.

That is IF the Mycenaean's were responsible for Troy's downfall. Some argue that invaders from South Eastern Europe are more likely to have been responsible – as it is their culture, rather than Greek, that emerges in the period immediately after the sacking. Of course, for all we know, it could have been a Balkan invader using Mycenaean mercenaries.

Yes, I think it's quite likely that the sacking on Troy in 1180 BCE was the result of the Phrygian migration from Europe into Anatolia.

Massenzio · Aug 2, 2021

It was a war between a coalition of all Greeks and a non-Greek enemy, aided only by non Greeks, thus it was a founding myth for Greek identity.
Anatolia was the first place to be colonized by the Greeks because of its proximity to Greece, first by the Mycenaeans, then by other Greek populations. Interestingly the Aeolian colonies were the first to be founded after the Bronze age collapse, and the Aeolian Greeks colonized North West Anatolia, the region where Troy was located.

SilasMarner · Aug 2, 2021

Troy VIIb suffered two fires. It was re-built after the first but after the second the site was largely abandoned. This final phase of Troy's Luwian history spans the period c.1180 - 950 BCE. The fires may have been caused by someone putting the city to the torch (i.e. war) but there is no other supporting evidence of war for either event (no human remains indicating violent death or any weapons such as arrowheads).

There is a big gap between Troy being largely abandoned (c.950 BCE) and Greek settlement proper (c.750 BCE). The Greek colony is largely founded on a ruined city which the Greeks rebuilt. They would have encountered very few remaining locals by that time. Certainly the Troy the Greeks of 750 BCE encountered would have been a meagre shadow of its former glory.

Michael Zwingli · Aug 2, 2021

The principal importance of the Trojan War, whatever the true circumstances surrounding that storied series of events were, is that it provided the basis for the literary epics of the Homeric tradition. Everything else about Troy seems to be of meagre historical import.

Oh...and perhaps without Aeneas, we would not have the fifth food group, pizza!

SilasMarner · Aug 2, 2021

The actual impact of the war (if it happened) was probably quite limited. If we look at the sack of 1180 BCE - this event did not prevent the Trojans from re-building and continuing on in their city for another century. Equally, it did nothing to prevent the collapse of Mycenaean civilisation.

Luwian migration eastwards was almost certainly the result of a broader pattern of events of which the misfortunes of Troy played only a small part. More important was probably macro events like the collapse of the Hittites and the power vacuum that created in Anatolia, the migration of Balkan peoples into Anatolia and the general growth of Greek colonies along the coast.

So, it is probably correct to say that the big impact of the Trojan was literary and had much more impact on cultures in the future than on the cultures directly involved with the events themselves.

SilasMarner · Aug 2, 2021

We might legitimately ask - why did Homer choose to write an epic narrative of this particular war? What made it so culturally important in his eyes?

We can never really know the full answer to that. My theory would be that the story must have already had a semi-mythical significance to the Greeks - an important legend of past glory (rather like the tales of King Arthur to the Brits). But why?

Perhaps it was because Troy had been a major city in western Anatolia during the bronze age. It had been rich, its buildings monumental and it had been an ally of the Hittites - the great power of the bronze age with the exception of Egypt. If the Mycenaeans had somehow managed to sack it, it may well have seemed like a glorious achievement at the time - to defeat the great Troy which, by that time, would have been a major centre of civilisation for several centuries and considered important enough for the Hittites to have fought a war over it.

OK, perhaps the Troy of 1180 was not quite so glorious as the Troy of a century or two earlier, but it was still fairly impressive.

Also, it may well have been that the victory over Troy was the last great triumph of the Mycenaeans, coming as it did so close to the end of the Mycenaean world.

After Troy Greece knew no more great triumphs, just Mycenaean collapse and the descent into the Greek dark age that would last for several centuries.

In that sense the Trojan wars, for Homer, would have seemed rather like the exploits of King Arthur to the medieval world - the final act of an heroic age prior to a dark age collapse.

This probably greatly exaggerated the significance of these wars in the Greek mind. Their significance was far more mythical and cultural than real.

FLK · Aug 2, 2021

SilasMarner said:
Although there is evidence of a significant fire in around 1000 BCE - 950 BCE at around the time that Troy was largely abandoned, this is not generally thought to have been the result of war. The destructive event of around 1180 BCE (some Troy academics may argue for an earlier date, possibly as early as c.1250 BCE) looks like the only significant destructive event in bronze age/iron age Trojan history that can be attributed to a sacking (due to the presence of fire, weapons and human remains that are all consistent with what you would see in a sack).

Mycenaean Greece is taken to span the period 1750 BCE to 1050 BCE. It was in its heyday between c.1400BCE and c.1200BCE but in a state of rapid decline/collapse from around 1200BCE until its final demise.

Therefore Mycenaean Greece overlaps (just) with the sack of Troy. If we take the date of 1180 BCE then Mycenaean involvement in the sacking is possible.

In that sense Homer's story is just about set at roughly the right time to tie in with the archaeology.

What Homer's story lacks, of course, is the sense that Mycenaean society was entering a state of turmoil and eventual collapse at exactly the time when the Trojan war must have happened. On the one hand that is problematic, on the other it makes some sense.

It makes sense in so far as we don't really know why Mycenaean society collapsed - internal conflict is one theory but so too is external invaders. Perhaps both. But internal conflict may well have contributed & the Iliad shows the alliance between the various Greek leaders was a rocky one. It also shows Odysseus was not able to enjoy the fruits of victory but was forced to wander homeless. This may reflect a certain truth - the Mycenaeans who sacked Troy may have fought amongst themselves after the war and some may have ended up with their palaces destroyed within a short time of their triumph at Troy.

The Trojan war may simply have assumed mythical status because it was the last great gasp of Mycenaean civilisation - one final moment of glory before chaos and collapse.

That is IF the Mycenaean's were responsible for Troy's downfall. Some argue that invaders from South Eastern Europe are more likely to have been responsible – as it is their culture, rather than Greek, that emerges in the period immediately after the sacking. Of course, for all we know, it could have been a Balkan invader using Mycenaean mercenaries.

Of course, the slightly annoying fact (for those who believe in a Trojan exodus to found Rome or the Etruscans) is that although Troy was sacked in around 1180 BCE, it actually recovered. Most of its people probably did not flee at that time but rather stayed and rebuilt their city & continued to live in it for around another century before Troy finally slipped into its own dark age.

I think it should also be kept in mind that even if there might have been some historical events that coincidently happen to have sort of resembled Homer's story, and were sort of in the right place at the right time, it doesn't mean that Homer's story wasn't complete fiction with no grounding in truth whatsoever.

SilasMarner · Aug 2, 2021

FLK said:
doesn't mean that Homer's story wasn't complete fiction with no grounding in truth whatsoever.

No it does not preclude total fiction on Homer's part. I suspect it is derived from folk stories that contain some memory of actual events - however, I am fairly sure that Homer dramatized the story for his audience and almost certainly added his own fictional embellishments.

Just look at Shakespeare. He wrote plays like Richard III about events that happened only around a century before his time, into which he inserted events that he (and his contemporaries) knew were fictional. Margaret of Anjou appears at Richard III's court - even though the real Margaret actually died before Richard became King. These twists were added purely for dramatic effect. I am sure Homer did the same - he was, after all, writing a literary work - the primary purpose of which was to entertain.

Olleus · Aug 2, 2021

The problem with asking "Did the Trojan war happen?" is that it's very vague. Is the story of the Iliad inspired by one (or even multiple) wars? Almost certainly. But to be inspired by an event doesn't mean that the description of the event in the epic is real. Centaurs are obviously inspired by horses, but that doesn't mean centaurs are real, or that any individual horse is the "real world" version of a centaur.

That the Iliad is set in Troy means that it was seen as reasonable at the time that the epic was first composed that there could be a large war encompassing most of the Mycenaen world against a city in north west Anatolia. IMO, what we can deduce from this is that there were wars with large alliances of Mycenaen proto-states fighting together, and the Mycenaens fought in NW Anatolia. Perhaps these two happened together, perhaps not. It's also possible that sometimes these alliances were led by a pair of brothers. Perhaps some wars were started by wife stealing. Perhaps some sieges were finished by a fake offerings to the gods tricking the defenders into submission. Of course these could all be imagined, but it seems likelier to me that the main setting was made by piecing together various true historical events - that's how most fiction seems to work. It's also possible that the epic does follow a singular event closely, but then we have to ask why would major elements like the Gods intervening in men's lives be added, but no other detail?

So which war is the "real" Trojan war: Is it the one where some Mycenaens fought in NW Anatolia? Is it the one where Mycenaens made a large alliance between themselves? Is it the one about a pair of brother-kings? The one about a fake offering? IMO, it makes more sense to say that none of them is the "real" one, but all of them were sources of inspiration, like in the centaur analogy above.

SilasMarner · Aug 4, 2021

We do know, from Hittite letters, that Wilusa (Troy) was considered an ally of the Hittites. We also know that at least on one occasion, the Hittites went to war to protect Wilusa when it was threatened by enemies. It would seem that Troy continued to enjoy Hittite military protection up until the time of its sacking in 1180 BCE (which is around the same time as the Hittite Empire itself collapsed).

One possibility is a Mycenaean sacking similar to that suggested by Homer. However, this cannot be confirmed by the archaeology (there is no evidence of significant Greek occupation in the area until several centuries later - long after the city was abandoned).

After the sack of 1180, Troy was re-built and there is evidence of Balkan influences over the pottery it produced in the period immediately after this. This has led some historians to suggest that it was sacked by Balkan migrants and that at least some of these people remained in the city after the sacking (possibly as conquerors). Under this hypothesis the Greeks play no role in the siege and sack of Troy. Troy was sacked by the same wave of migrants who contributed to the fall of the Hittites at the same time.

How then do the Greeks get inserted into the story by Homer? Quite possibly the answer would be (in this scenario) that later Greek colonists (post 750 BCE) saw the ruins of ancient Troy and asked the few remaining locals about its history. They were probably told that Troy had once been a great city but that enemies had sacked it. The memory of who those enemies had been may have been quite vague three centuries after the event. So perhaps the Greeks of Ilium added to and embellished the local myth by inserting Greek heroes into it. By Homer's time the story may have become quite popular - ideal material for an ambitious writer.

Demosophist · Jul 2, 2022

I've generally accepted the view that the Trojan War took place at the end of the Bronze Age, more or less contemporaneous with the Exodus and the invasions of Egypt by the "Sea Peoples". If this is true then Homer was transcribing a bardic story that had been passed down for centuries. But is it possible that the War was actually 400 to 500 years later than the Bronze Age surmise, and much closer to the time of Homer?

Search

Search

Why was the Trojan War so important?

Tulius

FLK

SilasMarner

SilasMarner

SilasMarner

Calebxy

Olleus

Calebxy

SilasMarner

Calebxy

Massenzio

SilasMarner

Michael Zwingli

SilasMarner

SilasMarner

FLK

SilasMarner

Olleus

SilasMarner

Demosophist

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions