Talk:Trojan War/Archive 2

Historicity of the Trojan War

I think it's a good idea to have something here about the historicity of the war in this article, but as the section notes, there's a main article at Historicity of the Iliad, so any discussion here should be short. Therefore, I'm removing the table of the catalog of ships (which is inaccurate, at any rate). Someone may want to table-ify the list at Catalogue of Ships, though.

I'm also moving the section down. As I note in a comment above, the Trojan War is primarily a mythological and literary phenomenon; most people who come to this article will probably want to know what the mythology of the Trojan War actually is before proceeding to arguments about whether it's fact, fiction, or some combination of the two. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Trojan War might be known primarily by mythology but ever since Shliemann it is mostly agreed it was a true event. Usually fact goes before fiction, which is why it should rather be on top. I think that people unaware would like first to know a few words on what might have happened in truth and then what happened in myth.Ikokki 10:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the possibility that there may be a historical nucleus to the mythical war does not mean that the Iliad is a factual report (come on). The focus of this article is clearly the mythical war. An article on opinions on late Bronze Age warfare, the Ahhiyawa vs. Arzawa etc. would read very different indeed. Yes, we should discuss the debate about the "Historicity of the Iliad" here, but we should not conflate myth with (presumed) history. This would be like making the article on the Nibelungenlied into a discussion of 5th century archaeology and historiography. The Nibelungenlied has a historical nucleus, and some of its characters are moulded after historical personages, but that doesn't make it historical, and we don'd add a "battlebox" treating the last stand of the Nibelungs at Attila's court. The same goes for the Trojan War. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know where Homer says that "the Trojans were Greeks", as claimed by the note I removed. It would have been difficult for Homer to claim such a thing, because he has no notion of "Hellenes", and I would be surprised indeed if he claimed that the "Trojans were Achaeans". The claim seems rather to be based on the fact that everybody is speaking in Greek hexameters which hardly constitutes a claim by Homer. Come on. Otherwise, we'd have to say that 1960s Hollywood directors claimed that the Nazis were English, or that Vergil claimed the Trojans were speaking Latin. Ah yes, and Ridley Scott in Gladiator (movie) claims the Romans were US Americans. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Homer does not use the name Hellenes to describe anyone except the Mermidons. Homer says in E at the duel that Priam founded Troy coming from Crete from Mt. Ida (also known as Psiloritis), hence the name Ida for the mountain above Troy. Since Crete in Homer is an Achean island, hence Trojans as Greeks. Ikokki 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read your Iliad again. Priam isn't the founder of the city of Troy (try looking at Aeneas' speech in Book 20). Everything that Homer says about Mt. Ida relates to the mountain in the Troad; this Cretan theory is a later invention. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right Scamander is the founder of Troy. I'll look again the Iliad when I remove from my 7th grade school books box. However according to Robert Graves (The Greek Myths vol. II The foundation of Troy) who does no original but only copies from original sources (alas, my edition does not include the notes so I could tell where he draws from) Trojans originate from Greek lands. The first story on the foundation of Troy is the one I described above, but Scamander instead of Priam that I wrongly put, the other is that according to Athenian myth Trojans are of Athenian origin because Ericthonius appears in both Athenian and Trojan royal geneology, and a third Roman myth that Ericthonius had a Tyrrhenhian prince as ancestor. I'll look up the source where I got the Trojans as Greeks again and I'll put up more evidence what Homer's standing was later, here. Ikokki 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

as Akhilleus says, that's interpretation of Homer, not Homer's own claim. Besides, even if the founder of Troy was from Crete, that doesn't mean he was Greek rather than Eteocretan/Pelasgian. The founder of Troy proper was not Scamander but Ilus, while the actual patriarch of the Trojans is Dardanus. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Y 215 Dardanus son of Zeus indeed was the founder of the Trojans. Apparently my source claims that this part is concrete proof that Homer considered the Trojans Greek since Dardanus was Arcadian (see Dardanus), but having read it Homer doesn't say Dardanus was Arcadian, Dionyssus of Halicarnasus does. It is Virgil that claims Dardanus was Tyrrhenian. I am not claiming that the Trojans were Greeks (although there are writers that claim so), I am claiming Homer claims that they were. Pelasgian/Eteocretan relation with the Greek nation is quite complex. Certainly their blood flows in our veins and in the veins of the Greeks of the historical era save Macedonians who were the purest-blooded Greeks because they did not intermarry with the populations they conquered but expelled them. Athenians of the historical era considered the Pelasgians as their ancestors, according to Herodotus. Again I am not claiming that Pelasgians/Eteocretans were Greeks (although respectable writers claim so). In any case the nationality of Trojans is subject of debate among Greek writers, let alone the scholarly communityIkokki 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since in the end the discussion will boil down to whether the Trojan war is more a mythological or a historical event I'll just say this: In books of fiction or semi-fiction there is usually in the beginning an introduction that usually has some allusions to true history (see for example Tolkien's introduction to the second edition of the Lord of the rings). Thus it is my opinion that we should have 5 sections before the spoiler warnings putting there historicity, date, independant evidence (Hittite or otherwise), battle tactics of the time and opinions of the true war by modern scholars. As I said, as a matter of introduction Ikokki 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Trojan War is a mythological war. There may be a historical nucleus, but whatever the Ahhiyawa did at Wilusa, this is not what we mean by "Trojan War". Do not conflate the myth with its nucleus. We can of course have infoboxes on mythical/fictional wars, but inasmuch as the infobox asserts that this is part of historical warfare, I think it is misleading to have it. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not conflicting the historical and the mythological. The infobox does not assert that it is part of historical warfare, as it says on top it is a part of Greek mythology. Infoboxes as mentioned earlier belong both to real and fictional battles, it does assert it was part of warfare. An article named Trojan War should include data on both the mythical and the factual if it is to be complete Ikokki 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I didn't remove the infobox. There is, however, no "factual data on the Trojan War". There are only hypotheses of how the Trojan War might relate to certain historical events, without these events being subsumed under the term "Trojan War", a subtle but important difference. dab (ᛏ) 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual data in terms of a contemporaty historian or contemporary source writing about this war does not exist, I agree. But what later writers including historians write about this conflict and what ancient and modern suppositions are about this war have to be included in a complete article. It is my opinion that they should be on top, or at least with a link on top directly to the bottom. I think before the spoiler warning, no matter where the Historicity section will end up, we should put a section on what ancient sources do we draw our information from. Ikokki 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The format of the infobox gives the impression that there are reliable historical details we can extract from myths of the Trojan War, simply by listing the date, "commanders", and numbers on each side. I think it's misleading, and I don't think that it belongs in this article. The fact that a bunch of Wiki military history enthusiasts are putting the same infobox on other warfare-related pages isn't going to change my mind.

I like very much the suggestion that we should say what primary sources we're drawing details of the war from. In my opinion, for each episode of the war, we should indicate where the earliest or most authoritative version of the episode is found, with pointers to major variations on the story.

And you know, there's really no reason to have a spoiler warning in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

SPOILER: everybody dies! :)

yes, the primary source thing is imperative; that's what I would come looking for on this page. I have no idea how we know any details that are beyond the scope of the Iliad+Odyssey. Is this all pieced together from Virgil and Ovid (would that still make it "Greek" mythology?). I am also rather opposed to the template. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the topic right at the beginning. Of course we should have a summary of Historicity of the Iliad somewhere on this article; but while it may make sense to discuss about the historicity of certain passages of the Iliad (such as the ship catalogue), it is entirely pointless to discuss the historicity of the "Trojan War", which is a mythological cycle, not a "war", preserved fragmentarily and reconstructed from bits and pieces. Now I know even War of the Ring has the bloody template, but in my view this is due to the excessive zeal of young Wikipedians rather than for good reasons, and if I could be bothered I would go over there and tell them they are misguided. However, I don't think having the box either here or there is a disaster, so I won't put up a fight about it :) dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

since we are talking about factuality vs. fiction, from "Trojan war in fiction",

The tales of the siege of Troy provided inspiration for many pieces of art, most famously Homer's Iliad, set in the last year of the siege

wtf? the Iliad is a tale of the siege of Troy. This is the same basic misunderstanding of mythology in oral tradition. The section should be called "in popular culture" and something, and list modern adaptations, while the ancient works are not fictionalizations of "the Trojan War", they are all there is to the Trojan War. I see this article needs quite some work still. I suggest we merge it with Trojan War cycle which has really the same scope, and maybe keep the article at the "cycle" title to prevent such misconceptions. Then there is Historicity of the Iliad, and all debate about historical nuclei belongs there. dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the Trojan War cycle separate, because that article covers a group of lost poems, whereas this Trojan War article covers a cycle of mythological narratives that are found in many different sources, including tragedy, prose mythography, and vase painting. In other words the Cyclic Epics are only a subset of the "primary sources" for the mythology of the Trojan War. There are also some issues of oral composition, etc. that Trojan War cycle ought to cover that aren't particularly germane to the Trojan War article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see; in this case, Trojan War cycle covers a subset of this article's scope; this might mean that we need a "Trojan War cycle" section here, linking to Trojan War cycle via {{main}}. dab (ᛏ) 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)