StarDestroyer.Net BBS

While the location of troy has been confirmed (more or less, although people is free to dispute) the exact nature of the trojan war has never been discussed by alot of forums.

Of course, while it is possible that SOME of the events in the trojan war can be based on real events, it is impossible for the entire war to be based on the novel alone.

Some historicans has speculate that the trojan war is responsible for the end of the bronze age, and the end of the Mycenaean civilzation.

While I admit that I am NOT an expert in the historical basis of the trojan war, I do hope that the more learned members can share their infomation in regards to the events in the Illiad.


And while wikipedia isn't a reliable source, it does give us a very very general idea about the whole issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Iliad

^You have to be more specific than that. You can't really expect me to condense over 500+ books on the subject in a single post on this forum. If you want to get somewhere, ask a specific question.

Otherwise this will just be a general information topic about antiquity, which - based on the replies to mine on this forum - nobody cares about.

Can you recommend me SOME books that mention about the historical basis of the trojan war?

For example, giving us a timeline of how the war is like, who is really involved, and what happened AFTER the trojan war.

And HOW is the troops in bronze age greece like, how is the armies orgainsed.

Well, some say the Trojan war was a campaign to subjugate Troy because of trading disputes. They were advantageously placed to control trade in the Aegean.

Setzer wrote:Well, some say the Trojan war was a campaign to subjugate Troy because of trading disputes. They were advantageously placed to control trade in the Aegean.

There are lots of theories. A friend of mine who used to edit one of the foremost Egyptological journals in the states is of the belief that the Trojan Wars were tales told of the Hittite expansion into Asia Minor and the levant which entered popular folk lore, and that the focus on Troy was a literally device to condense all the stories. I've heard half a dozen other theories, some very credible others not so much. The fact is that there's next to no evidence for what happened, and a whole lot of speculation. So there's not much to go with.

Actually Straha, the excavations at Troy, conducted under the leadership of Ernst Pernicka and the late Manfred Korfmann (both University of Tübingen) have discovered a lot of archeological evidence that seem to indicate (or in the words of Pro. Pernicka, even prove) that Troy was actually one of the biggest Hittite vassals in the regions. That seems to be the biggest theories. Also, Troy is supposedly much bigger and civilized than previously expected - there is evidence of centralized city planning, for instance.

This is the homepage.

You can read the page in both german and english. I prefer the german version, but not everyone reads german.


Ray, here is the link to the Studia Troica, the publication of the excavation. One can read the abstracts in both german and english.


Also, Ray, do you speak german? Because I have a PDF of an excellent lecture about the saga of Troia and its context of the area. That PDF is available online as well.

Weren't there some 7 or so incarnations of Troy? There was actually one version during the Roman Empire, and I recall that city (or some other city. I probably mixed it up), was under consideration for siting the capital for the Eastern Roman Empire there. Of course, in the end, it went to Byzantium which was a lot more defensible.

^That is a bit of a legend. If not Byzantium, it would most likely have been Nikomedia, Thessalonika or Antiocheia.

There are actually IX "incarnations" people agree on, if you can even call them that. They aren't that much divided from each other anyway.

And after the Roman empire, there were even Ottoman settlers. Pottery from the 16th century have been found in the lower city of Troy.

Edit: The source for that, if anyone is interested, is:

Hayes, John W.: A late Byzantine and early Ottoman Assemblage from the Lower City in Troia, Studia Troica V, 1995.

There's also some people who say that Troy was:

a) in the UK and was a Celtic civilization.

b) that Troy was in India.

And some even wackier ones that I've heard bandied about:

c) Troy was an early Mesoamerican civilization.

d) Troy was around what is now Somalia/Eritrea.

Thanas wrote:Actually Straha, the excavations at Troy, conducted under the leadership of Ernst Pernicka and the late Manfred Korfmann (both University of Tübingen) have discovered a lot of archeological evidence that seem to indicate (or in the words of Pro. Pernicka, even prove) that Troy was actually one of the biggest Hittite vassals in the regions. That seems to be the biggest theories. Also, Troy is supposedly much bigger and civilized than previously expected - there is evidence of centralized city planning, for instance.

This is the homepage.

You can read the page in both german and english. I prefer the german version, but not everyone reads german.


Ray, here is the link to the Studia Troica, the publication of the excavation. One can read the abstracts in both german and english.

Also, Ray, do you speak german? Because I have a PDF of an excellent lecture about the saga of Troia and its context of the area. That PDF is available online as well.

Sadly, I can't read german.

weemadando wrote:There's also some people who say that Troy was:

a) in the UK and was a Celtic civilization.

b) that Troy was in India.

And some even wackier ones that I've heard bandied about:

c) Troy was an early Mesoamerican civilization.

d) Troy was around what is now Somalia/Eritrea.

The most curious claim which I've encountered so far is that Troy (or, to be more precise, the Iliad and the Odysseia) historically happened in the Baltic Sea; on Finnish (or Swedish) coast, apparently. Needless to say, that theory (of sort...) has NOT garnered support.

weemadando wrote:There's also some people who say that Troy was:

a) in the UK and was a Celtic civilization.

b) that Troy was in India.

And some even wackier ones that I've heard bandied about:

c) Troy was an early Mesoamerican civilization.

d) Troy was around what is now Somalia/Eritrea.

Yeah, but none of those nutjobs have garnered one ounce of support from experts.

Thanas wrote:Actually Straha, the excavations at Troy, conducted under the leadership of Ernst Pernicka and the late Manfred Korfmann (both University of Tübingen) have discovered a lot of archeological evidence that seem to indicate (or in the words of Pro. Pernicka, even prove) that Troy was actually one of the biggest Hittite vassals in the regions. That seems to be the biggest theories. Also, Troy is supposedly much bigger and civilized than previously expected - there is evidence of centralized city planning, for instance.

This is the homepage.

You can read the page in both german and english. I prefer the german version, but not everyone reads german.

Thank you. It's nice to give my german (which I originally wanted to learn solely for the use of reading Mommsen but has ended up getting more use elsewhere) a workout.

My friend actually talked with me for some time about Troy being potentially a hittite city (I do not think he knew of the archaeological evidence above though) but fascinating as the conversation was I've forgotten most of it and am hazy on the details so I didn't want to say anything for risk of being egregiously in error. Frankly, much as I love archaeology and history I can't help but get bored when reviewing anything before about 500 BC.

Straha wrote:My friend actually talked with me for some time about Troy being potentially a hittite city (I do not think he knew of the archaeological evidence above though) but fascinating as the conversation was I've forgotten most of it and am hazy on the details so I didn't want to say anything for risk of being egregiously in error.

Well, the fascinating thing about troy is that it apparently was a vassal state, not a full Hittite city. Which leads to all kind of fascinating things - the city being a melting pot between the archaic greek and the cultures of asia minor being one of them.

Frankly, much as I love archaeology and history I can't help but get bored when reviewing anything before about 500 BC.

I used to be that way. First, I was hugely focused on the period from Ceasar until Marcus Aurelius, then I branched out into the third and fourth century and lately I have discovered quite the interest into the early cultures. The stuff before 500 BC is indeed quite frustrating and sometimes boring, mainly due to the abscence of literary sources. Archeological evidence is nice, but it does little without any other sources that tell us what X does.

BTW, if you really want to stretch your german, this is the link to a pdf file of a lecture by Martin West, who not only talks about the historical context of the illias, but also about other famous epics and their genesis. Well worth reading IMO.