Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Britain & Troy what are the facts
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by trebor569 (U2692066) on Sunday, 9th March 2008
I recently came accross a web site that said that the battle of Troy was not in Turkey but took place in Britain. Some of the reasons given for it not being Turkey are
1) The Turkish setting had no nearby bay or port large enough to accommodate anything near the size of Achaean fleet.
2) The Greek (Mycenaean) civilisation died out at the beginning of the Trojan War, so where not in a position to launching or sustain a large long term war.
3) Agamemnon took a full month to sail from his kingdom Argos to Ithaca, we know the trip takes less than 24 hours in the Mediterranean setting.
Why Britain is suggested you have to look at
The Wikpedia gives some additional links to Troy & Britain
But is this all some far fetched rubbish a con? -
Message 2
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Sunday, 9th March 2008
1) The size of the Achaean fleet was probably exaggerated. IIRC ships were beached, IE, ran on dry ground.
2) Nobody knows when the Trojan War bgan.
3) What takes less than 24 hours today, would take a lot longer with ships back then. I would reread it and see if it gives any reason for the month's journey.
I don't know if I would call it a con, more like a hoax.
Ö÷²¥´óÐãr is an amazing literary trove, but not very reliable when it comes to history. There probably was an attack on the identified as Troy by a coalition from some of the territories mentioned by Ö÷²¥´óÐãr, but as for the cause, the timing, who was involved, the identity of the leaders, how many ships, what kind, etc., there is no way to tell. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 9th March 2008
Hi trebor,
Iman Wilkens's theory of British Troy surfaces here from time to time, most recently in December 2007 when we were discussing 'Trojan Celts'. I don't think that the idea is a 'con'exactly; there's not much doubt that the author has spent decades developing his ideas and he sincerely believes them. That doesn't mean that I think they are in any way likely.
For one thing it is really hard to fit a colossal international war into what we know of the British bronze age; for another Ö÷²¥´óÐãr, who after all was an epic poet not a historian, has been integrated into Greek culture for millennia. I'm sure the Greeks would feel as I would if it was claimed that Beowulf was based on Chinese legends!
I suppose I have to admit a sneaking respect for people who have the courage to take on orthodoxy even if, as is usual, they are wrong. Clearly we never know the absolute truth about the past and we have to live with multiple interpreted pasts. That doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally likely! Classical historians are really not keen on this one.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 10th March 2008
Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:37 GMT, in reply to trebor569 in message 1
There is actually quite a substantial bay close to Hisarlik (now generally accepted as the site of Troy). It would have been even larger in the supposed era of the Trojan War, having silted up since then.
It is not deep, but deep enough to bring ships inshore and beach them. As has been already pointed out, they would have been beached. Galleys were generally built of softwoods which decayed quickly in salt water, so when not at sea they had to be either beached or, where possible, housed in special galley sheds.
One period of the city which has been commonly posited as 'Ö÷²¥´óÐãr's Troy' - Troy VIh - contains extensive Mycenean material.
The article you link to talks about the seven 'fjords' supposedly near Troy. Seven locations which might be equated to fjords are present near Hisarlik.
It is dangerous to regard Ö÷²¥´óÐãr's story as anything BUT a story, but there are certainly links to be made between the description in the Iliad and the geography and archaeology of Hisarlik.
The site is also located in what the Greeks call 'Troias' - "The Land of Troy". -
Message 5
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 10th March 2008
"3) Agamemnon took a full month to sail from his kingdom Argos to Ithaca, we know the trip takes less than 24 hours in the Mediterranean setting."
Argos is situated just off the north east coast of the Pelopponese and Ithaca is situated further north and off the south western coast of the Greek mainland. Considering that the Corinth Canal had not been built at that time, Agamemnon would either
a) Have had to sail completley around the eastern, southern & western coasts of the Pelopponese to reach Ithaca. A journey that could easily have taken a month or more. Or
b) First travelled by land to the north coast of the Pelopponese to Corinth, a journey of 50kms. And then completed the rest of the journey by sea through the Gulf of Corinth to reach Ithaca, a further 250kms.
A far shorter journey yes, but considering the means of transportation available to Agamemnon at that time it is highly unlikely that he could have travelled 300kms in less than 24 hours.
Considering that it takes a modern ferry approximately 8 hours to travel 300kms, how much longer would it have taken anyone dependant on walking, wind and oars? -
Message 6
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 11th March 2008
Further to the above point b), Agamemnon sailing from Corinth would, of course, have been dependant on his having his fleet beached there.
However, it makes no sense to assume that this is what happened. Surely he would not have left Argos undefended by sea and had his fleet 50kms away as the crow flies but in actuality approx. 1,000kms away by sea.
His fleet would have been beached as close as possible to Argos, thus necessitating the month long journey from the eastern coast of the Pelopponese to Ithaca off the western coast of the mainland. -
Message 7
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Monday, 1st December 2008
Ever since nations arose around Europe, it was common for national historiography to link the own nation with the troyan war (mostly by constructing a family tree linking to Aeneas).
The theory at discussion in this topic is, just like the medieval examples of national historiography, pure nonsence...
However, I am pretty sure National Geographic would gladly make a documentary on it
-
Message 8
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
SOMETHING wrong with the message Board ? DAMNED,
I typed this conversation FOUR times and it gave out before the message was finnished How come ??
TROY in Britain or Holland for Atlantis is a fallacy by Iman Wilkings and a French Priest(1700 ad)
The facts are quite different and TRUTH is Stranger than Fiction: I write the Truth, not the Fiction:
TROY fell into the trap of Assyrian dependancy
Assur issued a trade embargo with Egypt
Hellen just happened to be in the way because she
had hired a Trojan ship to ship Bullion from her Husband's treasury
to fetch the entire Harvest of year 862-61 bc,
of Frankincense from Ras- Aden in Yemen before her rival buyers could, so she was a hot item for customs ! -
Message 9
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
I now put in the second half of this message:
Assur by King Assurnasirpal-2 had made a sort of :"british navigation act"( Not unlike Cromwell did to twart the DUTCH traders in 1649-50 ad.
which resulted in FOUR DUTCH ( Sea-)Wars to stop England continuing to harras Dutch Trade !{ of course the British said the same about the Dutch traders !)
So on the return mission Hellens' Frankincense-ship was seized by Egyptian Customs and only released on condition that in a covert Egyptian attack
on TROY, Greece would simulate that she were abducted in there wanting to get out by good-common sence( says Herodotus about Odysseus and Herald Ephialtes Peace-mission))
or by force (egyptian captains using mercenary Greek forces Says " Ö÷²¥´óÐãros" basher Zoilos.)
Since the Greeks were outsiders in the conflict
they were the perfect stooges to set-up a War on an invented trifle:
HELEN as both wanted for" Stealing" her husbands'useless Bullion trasuryfor no apparent purpose (!)
and Menelaus for having his wife" abducted" by the poor Trojan Captain Alexander-Paris !
Meanwhile Queen Hellenunder the guise of the " water/Beach Nympf " PSAMATHE", used the break in trade
To marry the Emperor of Egypt" Proteus " and also
his successor "Theoclymenos" the latter from whom
she became pregnant of " King- THUT"
The War only took ONE year in REVISED- Chronology: from 861-860 bc and the remaining
9 years were spent to elicit Helen back to Greece.
This Secret " Game " was givven away when
king Agamemnon got home with Cassandra and Two
kids after a Siege of supposedly eleven years.
BUT THE KIDS HE GOT FROM Cassandra were only aged FIVE.
Most layman think that this truth is stranger than fiction and prefer HOMER's fabulation above Herodotus and Euripides true stories !
By the way FREDERIC
would you like to comment on my message nr 183 in the thread " Historical- Jesus " please ?
Perhaps your answer nr 184 was not to my Message nr 183 THANK YOU !Kindly.
Sincerely " PlatosAtlantis " dd Dec. 2008
PS.
I'll just Post this message before it mysteriously disappears( or was I too nervous ?) -
Message 10
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Strange, now the Greek history buffs are silent !
-
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 3rd December 2008
Ever since nations arose around Europe, it was common for national historiography to link the own nation with the troyan war (mostly by constructing a family tree linking to Aeneas).
The theory at discussion in this topic is, just like the medieval examples of national historiography, pure nonsence...Ìý
Good point frederik.
Also - (and I don't know about all this 'British Troy' waffle) - just look at France. Their capital is called 'Paris' while another city is called 'Troyes'. It seems that when it comes to constructing a mythical national historiography, and unlike the UK (which isn't a nation anyway), the French don't muck about. -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 4th December 2008
They have a popular progressive rock band called Priam too!
-
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 4th December 2008
I write the Truth, not the Fiction:
Ìý
I'm always be very suspicious of anyone who says that say or write the truth... -
Message 14
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 4th December 2008
Wasnt Paris, the city, named after the Parisii? one of the tribes that was supposed to be living in that area?
-
Message 15
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 4th December 2008
Of whom many settled in the North East of England - so ha ha - what does that mean eh?
Are we to get the blame for just about every war that happened on the planet? -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 22nd December 2008
Bof, I am not the one that says certainly that Troy is there where Schlieman found it near the Hellespont and not the one that says that it happaned in 1180 B.C.
However of all the theories that we know, that is the most believable.
Ö÷²¥´óÐãr certainly lived at least 250 years before 500 B.C. - the language difference between Ö÷²¥´óÐãric language and all known dialects of 500 B.C. sometimes seem greater than 2000 A.D. and 100 B.C.!!! Certainly this differce is the result also of Ö÷²¥´óÐãr being based on earlier versions of the poem (and I doubt these were oral, most certainly they were written ones! - too long for those poems to be universally learnt by heart with all these details!). Ö÷²¥´óÐãr speaks on the event as if they happened several centuries before and in fact even the real names of people are forgotten: if people think that the names Agamemnon (great leader!!!), Menelaos (anger of people!!!), Helen (possibly destruction from the verb "helano") etc. were the real names of people he is seriously mistaken!!!
... let alone give Egyptian kings Greek names like Proteus or something. The Egyptian intervention was never mentioned in Ö÷²¥´óÐãr - in fact it is mentioned that only Ethiopians (either Indians or Ethiopians - Ethiopians are basically any Indian-like people) came to the rescue of Troyans but also failed - probably a poetic addition rather than a real event, who knows? Egyptians never seemed to have that enormous navy to do such campaigns - they tended to subcontract any navies they needed but then why would they need to punish a city up in the north were Egyptians never had any real interests. Hence the only intervention from the side of Egyptians could be an oral expression of support to Achaians against Troyans, more than that is simply hypothesis (why Egyptians and not Scythians or Chinese?). Anyway, as much as I like Herodotus, he is more the father of lies than of history as he did not resist a nice tale of dubious origin (one has to pay attention when he says "that is what they say, I cannot verify it").
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.