Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Single Combat during the Trojan War
#31
Quote:I'm more inclined to think that Homer IS describing weapons, armour, and tactics that actually occurred at the end of the Bronze Age. The old argument that Homer was writing 300 years later no longer holds water. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the current chronology is wrong. Various experts suggest that between 100 and 250 years should be removed from the so called "Dark Ages". Homer could have been writing as little as 2 or 3 generations after the events in question. There have been five publications just this year alone supporting this.
http://www.centuries.co.uk/news.htm
The most relevent one is this
Nikos Kokkinos, "Ancient Chronography, Eratosthenes and the Dating of the Fall of Troy", in Ancient West and East 8 (2009), pp. 37-56. It proposes that the Trojan War should be dated to c. 940 BC, not c. 1200 BC.
I'm not so sure about all that. I first read theories like these in the publications of one Immanuel Velikovski, who had similar bright ideas. Not bad ideas to begin with, but he ended up distorting even the 'knowns' to first the details of his theory. His timeshift was a bit larger than 250 years, btw.

Now I'm the first one to agree than anciet Egyptian chronology is by no means an iron-clad thing. We've learned from medieval chronology based on pedigrees and king-lists that the resulting 'counting of regnal years' usually ends up with problems, and that's from Medieval sources 2000 years closer in time. The much smaller basis of history that is the Bronze Age is even more difficult, and has far larger problems when it's upset - Egyptian chronology is also often the lynchpin for the chronologies of neighbouring civilizations.

That said, I think that the authors of CoD are trying to do a 'Velikovsky'. It's very similar to discussing 5th c. AD Britain.
Part of their ideas certainly have merit, but they are in danger of wanting a achieve too much. They, too, are restrained by a dearth of historical material, and, too, should accept that some theories just cannot be proven - because no-one can.

Back to the Trojan War.
I agree with those who argue that it took place, but never as described. For one, what about a siege of 10 years? Or what about heroes (Ajax was it?) with that very large shioeld, that does not really seem to belong to the age, just like the Dendra panoply? I like to think that (like Plato describing Atlantis or King Arthur and the Round Table) the Trojan War was part event, part writing for an audience. yes, there was action in the Troad, in which European warlords went to war to seize the hold of Asian warlords on trade (perhaps). No, 'twas not of a beautiful face, nor did it last for 10 years, nor did they use an oversized hobbyhorse to end it all. :wink:
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#32
Quote:That said, I think that the authors of CoD are trying to do a 'Velikovsky'. It's very similar to discussing 5th c. AD Britain. Part of their ideas certainly have merit, but they are in danger of wanting a achieve too much. They, too, are restrained by a dearth of historical material, and, too, should accept that some theories just cannot be proven - because no-one can.
All they are doing is removing the so-called Dark Ages which was an artificial construct to account for the fact that the current chronology is bollocks. Centuries of Darkness was written over ten years ago and nobody has put up a credible argument against its main conclusions. Every year there are more and more papers that support James' work. As I've said there are five in the last year alone.
John Bimson and Juan Tebes applied the new chronology to the Timna site and found that only by revising the timeline by the full 250 years could the previous inconsistencies between the Egyptian and Assyrian dating systems be resolved.
Last year Chapman attempted to redate Shoshenq I by going back to the original evidence and concluded, independently of CoD, that Shoshenq must belong to Stratum V, which was 9th-century BC.
Try reading Furlong's PhD thesis, which was done completely independently of CoD yet he came up with a very similar chronology.
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/V5JSVRMVLVQ ... ndle=GUEST
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#33
Quote:Or what about heroes (Ajax was it?) with that very large shioeld, that does not really seem to belong to the age
What age are you talking about? The shields described by Homer are not the same as the shields used during the time of the Dendra Panoply. I can think of artefacts dating to the alleged time of the Trojan war that look exactly like the shields described by Homer. Here is a recent thread that might prove enlightening
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/vi ... =4&t=15214
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#34
The standardization of arms and armor is often held as most common but leaves little room for custom pieces. I believe(until proven otherwise) that the period would have alot of trial and error and the Trojan War being a huge attraction for many warriors would be a mixture of many sub cultures. Even in the Classical Greek city states there was division and practices particular to each. Generally the equipment would be similar but there was nothing preventing a warrior from having a shield or armor specifically designed for him. The shield of Ajax being so large and heavy (and uncommon)I think is a good example of this. It is not a matter of ages(I think) but more a matter of preference. In a similar case(unrelated to Troy) General Guan Yu of Shu during the Warring States period in China supposedly invented the Kwan Dao and from memory was supposed to weigh around 50 lbs.(probably less though). He was known to be an abnormally large Chinese man and to an extent can be believed(Yao Ming). The Chinese at the time of Emperor Shi Huang Di fought with Chariots as well and saw many developments of weaponry such as the halberd.

The lack of evidence and documentation forces me to look at similar situations in other cultures. Forgive me but I think until a large find is made for the period this is the best policy but I understand is worlds away. I only state what "may be" relevant in adoption practices of arms and armor. I am not trying to rewrite history or claiming that Chinese warriors were at Troy! Big Grin
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply
#35
Quote:I'm not so sure about all that. I first read theories like these in the publications of one Immanuel Velikovski, who had similar bright ideas. Not bad ideas to begin with, but he ended up distorting even the 'knowns' to first the details of his theory.

Forget Velikovski, he's a non-issue. Every Bronze Age/Early Iron Age culture west of India has significant and often bizarre dating problems. Practically everything found has to be shoehorned, twisted, interpreted with wild leaps of logic, or simply shoved sullenly into a corner and ignored in order to fit the "orthodox" chronology. Simply taking the evidence at face value, however, chops about three centuries out of existence, and things start falling into place.


Quote:That said, I think that the authors of CoD are trying to do a 'Velikovsky'. It's very similar to discussing 5th c. AD Britain.
Part of their ideas certainly have merit, but they are in danger of wanting a achieve too much. They, too, are restrained by a dearth of historical material, and, too, should accept that some theories just cannot be proven - because no-one can.

Reasonable dates are too much? There is not a dearth of material at all. The problem is that basic scientific archeological principles have to be ignored to support the orthodox dates. There are well-established families of artifacts that are assigned radically different dates depending on where they are found! Tenth century Mycenaean graves *under* 12th century walls. An Egyptian 22nd Dynasty tomb that had a corner cut off to make room for a supposedly *earlier* 21st Dynasty tomb. Artifacts with clear features from different centuries. A big cemetary from 1200 with no settlement nearby, except for the settlement from 900 which has no cemetary. Whole cities or regions supposedly abandoned for 300 years, then suddenly reoccupied with exactly the same material culture. Carbon-14 dates which are exactly right--IF you "calibrate" them by adding 2 or 3 centuries.

Pick up a copy of "Centuries of Darkness", read a little of it, and tell me if you think it's a sensationalist work aimed at the unwashed masses for the mere sake of publicity and money!

Lower the dates. Seriously.

Matthew

PS: Sorry, I think I was frothing, there. I warned you about the froth!
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#36
One thing I do recall from the Iliad was the recounting of all the different custom armour the heros wore....
and the variety.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#37
As taken from Osprey's Mycenaean Citadel's 1350-1200 B.C.

Chronology of major Bronze Age events

3100 Start of Bronze Age culture on mainland Greece, Cyclades and Crete
3100-1900 Minoan Pre-Palatial period on Crete (EM l-lll & MM IA)
2900 Hisarlik is settled and soon fortified (Troy I)
2600 Start of Cycladic culture in the Cyclades
2450 Troy Ik destroyed but soon rebuilt (Troy HA)
1900-1700 Minoan Proto-Palatial period on Crete (MM IB-IIB)
1700-1450 Minoan Neo-Palatial period on Crete (MM III-LM IB)
1700-1250 Troy VI, established by Neo-Trojans, major trade centre and
maritime power
1650-1 550 Grave Circle B at Mycenae (LH I)
1650 Foundation of Hattusas-Bogazkoy by Hattusili I
1628 Cataclysmic eruption of Thera (Santorini) according to scientists
1600 Cyclades under Minoan influence
1550-1425 Grave Circle A at Mycenae (LH I-IIB)
1500 Cataclysmic eruption of Thera according to archaeologists
1457 Battle of Meggido
1450 Mycenaeans at Knossos on Crete (Linear B) and in Cyclades
1400 Dendra Panoply (LH IIIA)
1380 Destruction of Knossos
1300 Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae (LH IIIB)
1275 Battle of Kadesh
1260/50 Destruction of Troy Vlh (Homer's Troy?)
1250 Lion Gate and North-East Postern, Mycenae (mid LH IIIB)
1200 North-East extension, Mycenae (end LH IIIB)
Warrior Vase from Mycenae (LH IIIB/C)
1200/1180 Widespread destruction of Mycenaean citadels (LH IIIB/C)
1190/80 Destruction of Hattusas-Bogazkoy
1185 Destruction of Ugarit
1184 Traditional date for destruction of Homer's Troy according to Herodotos
1180 Destruction of Troy VIIA
1179 Rameses III defeats the'Peoples of the Sea' in the Nile Delta
1100 So-called invasion of Dorian Greeks from north-west Greece
1050 Migration of mainland Greeks to Aegean islands and Anatolia

Also from the same book a depiction of the Lion's Hunt Dagger. Notice the Shield furthest to front being similar in the description of Ajax's Shield.
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply
#38
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:2qxttv7u Wrote:Or what about heroes (Ajax was it?) with that very large shioeld, that does not really seem to belong to the age
What age are you talking about? The shields described by Homer are not the same as the shields used during the time of the Dendra Panoply. I can think of artefacts dating to the alleged time of the Trojan war that look exactly like the shields described by Homer. Here is a recent thread that might prove enlightening
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/vi ... =4&t=15214
I see. I was still under the impression that Aias' shield was of the large kind, and that these larger shields were dated to a period earlier than the period of the Trojan War.
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#39
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:y6l5ngca Wrote:Immanuel Velikovski, who had similar bright ideas.
Forget Velikovski, he's a non-issue. Every Bronze Age/Early Iron Age culture west of India has significant and often bizarre dating problems. Practically everything found has to be shoehorned, twisted, interpreted with wild leaps of logic, or simply shoved sullenly into a corner and ignored in order to fit the "orthodox" chronology. Simply taking the evidence at face value, however, chops about three centuries out of existence, and things start falling into place.
I can't forget Velikovski, because James IS in fact revising that very chronology originally penned down by Velikovski.
What do you mean by 'everything'? The complete chronology of Egypt, the Near East as well as Mediterranean Europe? I can't believe that.

Quote:
Quote:That said, I think that the authors of CoD are trying to do a 'Velikovsky'. It's very similar to discussing 5th c. AD Britain.
Part of their ideas certainly have merit, but they are in danger of wanting a achieve too much. They, too, are restrained by a dearth of historical material, and, too, should accept that some theories just cannot be proven - because no-one can.
Reasonable dates are too much? There is not a dearth of material at all. The problem is that basic scientific archeological principles have to be ignored to support the orthodox dates.
Sorry Matt, I think you are confusing 'archaeological information' (of which there is indeed plenty) with 'historical information' (which is what I was talking about). We simply do not have any written source from mainland Europe that can tell us something about dates, kings, the lot. Homeros wrote a lot later, even if you shorthen the chronology. We have Egypt and we pray that that chronology is right (but we almost know for certain that it isn't) and we compare everyting else to that. But even if we can shorthen that one, AND make it fit with the chronology of everything else, than we still have nothing about the Trojan War, right? So how do we date that one if we cant match it with any available source? We still have to decide which layer best fits the account of Homer. Has anyone done that with absolute certainty?

Just asking, I'm absolutely NO specialist in Bronze Age Greece and I'll read everything you throw at me.
I'm just a wary historian. :wink:
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#40
Quote:All they are doing is removing the so-called Dark Ages which was an artificial construct to account for the fact that the current chronology is bollocks.

I'd rather that they removed a certain part of the Egyptian chronology because they could prove it was based on wrong evidence. The way you describe it sound like they had a bright idea (the 'dark ages' are bollocks) and they subsequently tried to fit the evidence to prove that idea. Which is what that guy Velikovsy started out to do, he wanted Ramesses II to be the pharaoh of the Exodus. But if it fits, well...
Quote:Centuries of Darkness was written over ten years ago and nobody has put up a credible argument against its main conclusions.
That sounds good. Has there been serious oppiosition or has the book been ignored by mainstream Egyptologists?
Quote:John Bimson and Juan Tebes applied the new chronology to the Timna site and found that only by revising the timeline by the full 250 years could the previous inconsistencies between the Egyptian and Assyrian dating systems be resolved.
That sound very promising, because that is the main problem of redating a chronology - it still has to fit with all the other chronologies. If you shorthen one by 250 years, you must perhaps do that to every related one. Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, etc.
Quote:Try reading Furlong's PhD thesis, which was done completely independently of CoD yet he came up with a very similar chronology.
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/V5JSVRMVLVQ ... ndle=GUEST
I will.
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#41
Quote:I can't forget Velikovski, because James IS in fact revising that very chronology originally penned down by Velikovski.


Well, I'd have to go back and re-read James et al. again to be sure, but the impression I recall is that they noticed discrepancies on their own. They certainly knew about Velikovski, but they were not building on his work.

Quote:What do you mean by 'everything'? The complete chronology of Egypt, the Near East as well as Mediterranean Europe? I can't believe that.

The little list of areas with chronology problems that I collated includes Greece, the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria, Israel, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Nubia, Libya, Spain, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Crete, Cyprus, and of course Egypt. Western/northern Europe isn't completely free, but tends to be more independent of Egypt just because of the distance and lesser amount of influence. Which of course gives the impression of that area being "primitive" because things like the Naue II type sword showing up several centuries later than it does in Greece! Obviously that's silly, but it's taken as dogma. The Pass Lueg helmet, dated to 1200 BC, is clearly a close relation or immediate ancestor to the triangular-crested Villanovan helmets from Italy, which are 8th century. Other finds and aspects that demonstrate the problems include pottery, architecture and construction methods, metalwork, jewelry, ivory carvings, artwork, military equipment, even alphabets. So it very much is an "everything" problem, and while "I can't believe that" is a perfectly understandable response, it becomes an institutionalized reaction. People who want to solve the problem get marginalized and ridiculed. Healthy skepticism and wariness is good, but objectivity and fairness are essential.

Quote:Sorry Matt, I think you are confusing 'archaeological information' (of which there is indeed plenty) with 'historical information' (which is what I was talking about). We simply do not have any written source from mainland Europe that can tell us something about dates, kings, the lot.

OH! Yes, mea culpa, I was lumping everything together, my bad. You're right, there's nothing written from that area, and even from a few others. So we end up with a huge dependence on Egypt.

Quote:Homeros wrote a lot later, even if you shorthen the chronology.

The Trojan War is on one side of the "Dark Age" gap, while Homer is on the other. Chop out the gap, or most of it, and at the very least he is a LOT closer to the events.

Quote:We have Egypt and we pray that that chronology is right (but we almost know for certain that it isn't) and we compare everyting else to that. But even if we can shorthen that one, AND make it fit with the chronology of everything else, than we still have nothing about the Trojan War, right? So how do we date that one if we cant match it with any available source? We still have to decide which layer best fits the account of Homer. Has anyone done that with absolute certainty?

There's still debate about the various layers at Troy (IF it IS Troy, ha!), and little of that will really change in *relative* terms. The layer that is said to correspond with the War probably still does. Only its absolute date will change, i.e., "1200 BC" to something like 900 BC instead. Interestingly, I can remember years ago when the date for the Trojan War was said to be as late as 1050. Then it crept back to the 12th century, holding pretty steady at 1175 or 1184 for a while. Now it's a solid 1200. No idea why that has happened!

Quote:Just asking, I'm absolutely NO specialist in Bronze Age Greece and I'll read everything you throw at me.
I'm just a wary historian. :wink:

Understood! Heck, I'm not even a historian at all, so I can only guess how scary and unbelievable this must be to a professional. We're talking about major careers crashing down, after all. (Sorry, I can't help cackling evilly at this point!) Well, I better end here, or we'll be at it for days! And my boss is bound to notice...

Valete,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#42
Quote:That sounds good. Has there been serious oppiosition or has the book been ignored by mainstream Egyptologists?
Kitchen was the most vocal opponent. It makes sense because his entire career was built on constructing the current Egyptian chronology. His counters have been methodically and comprehensively debunked.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#43
Quote:One thing I do recall from the Iliad was the recounting of all the different custom armour the heros wore....
and the variety.
Actually there is very little of this. I combed through the Iliad and extracted every reference to armour, shields and helmets that I could find; then retranslated each relevant passage from a hoplological point of view. There is very little detail about armour. IIRC The armour worn by Menelaus and Agamemnon are the only two that have any specific details. At most we can say that the heroes had decorated cuirasses of bronze with a mitra plate protecting the stomach. There is a strange passage about Menelaus getting injured by an arrow that suggests that his armour may have been joined in the back [132-136]. There are little details such as Glaukos having a cuirass made of gold and we are told that it was worth 100 oxen compared to 9 oxen for a bronze one, but it doesn't help with a reconstruction. I tried to work out how much of the body was protected by analysing where various heroes were wounded but it is only speculation.

Shields are different. There is more than enough detail to make a fairly accurate reconstruction.

It was an exercise in text analysis and gave me an excuse to practice translating Homer. Of course all this assumes that Homer was actually describing REAL events and equipment. I have a finished article on Homeric shields that is looking for a home if someone can suggest a publication.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#44
Quote:As taken from Osprey's Mycenaean Citadel's 1350-1200 B.C.

Chronology of major Bronze Age events
All of which is wrong if the chronology is revised. This is a pretty bad book that rehashes a lot of outdated work. Grguric's book is a little better but I listed a page of problems when I reviewed it.

Quote:Also from the same book a depiction of the Lion's Hunt Dagger. Notice the Shield furthest to front being similar in the description of Ajax's Shield.
No it doesn't. There is not a single shield described by Homer that resembles anything on the Lion Hunt dagger. Never in the entire book is the shape of Aias' shield described.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#45
Can we get a revised timeline?
I also agree with you on the shield thing as I have read multiple versions of The Iliad(though none in Greek). That is one of my two main issues with the books 1st one is multiple opposing translations and 2nd one is inaccuracies/lack of description of armor. I respect the argument but would love to have the counter argument to understand where you are coming from. Big Grin
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply


Forum Jump: