Given that it inspired the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two most pivotal and foundational works in all of western literature, is it possible that the Trojan War was the most important event in western history?
If so, doesn't that mean all of western history is based on some guy cucking some other guy?
My mind is fucking blown right now bros. Please tell me this isn't true.
Lmao
You probably also think that if Einstein didn't escape from Germany and died in a concentration camp that the atom bomb would never have been invented
>hurr if it wasn't for X we would never have Y!
>hurr it's not like someone else could have done it!
people still say hurr?
I never said that, I just said that its legacy technically makes it the most important event in western history.
> If it hadn't happened, then a different thing would be the most important event in western history!
No shit, Sherlock.
well the trojan war didn’t really happen they made it up, and it wasn’t really the focus of either story
> the trojan war didn't really happen
No, since literature is by no means thy important, and some other war would have taken its place
We have records that tell of a siege of Troy by the Argives, though the Iliad is obviously embellished
No, the most important event in Western History would be the Judgement of Paris which caused the war. All Western history is based on roasties competing for likes
"some guy cucking some other guy" is unironically responsible for a good half of the biggest events in human history and probably even more in prehistory
next you'll be saying Troy never existed
>If so, doesn't that mean all of western history is based on some guy cucking some other guy?
anything sounds stupid when you break it down into its most simple form like this
>Trojan-War-3.jpg
...That's the Intervention of the Sabine Women
Hahahaha hahahahahaha you think the Iliad and the odyssey contributed anything to the development of western civilisation???? That was philosophy and science my friend. Aha hahahaha art fags never cease to make me laugh. Art is there to entertain us, that's it.
wow you are a stupid fucking idiot.
probably it did. it's that great big city excavation in the dardanelles. it was a ruin though & around these ruins stories were invented about how it came to be.
we have records?
& most scholars take the line of paul cartledge 'i defy anybody to believe that there was such a ten year siege'
Troy is listed as Wilusa (wilusa is illiusa or iliam on greek, hence iliad) on Hittite tablets as is Prince Paris (albeit by his other more common name, alexander). The city is located where Homer said it was, in a layer that falls on our time line at a point when we expected the war to happen. Upon excavation, the city it's self is similar to that of the one in the iliad, great walls with a slanted base for example. There are also many cellars and holes in buildings in the city to store food that other cities in the area did not have, as though they were there due to an oncoming siege. And, this same city has signs of being destroyed by an enemy force. The grand buildings are destroyed, and then were hastily replaced by shanties. Mycenaeans pottery was found there as well, hinting at trade between the two, as one would expect in a rivalry such as Troy and Greece
It is also not wild to think someone told stories of what happened at troy. Norse kings often took bards into battle so that they could speak of their heroic deeds once they'd returned. With all the kings mentioned as being at troy, no doubt someone was there to record what happened. Is it true that Achilles fought a river, or that Hector ran around the city 4 times? Probably not. But, there was a war, that much we can be sure of
so the records you were talking about were the 14th century bc hittite records that refer to a city that may be troy and make no mention of a war. for all those linguistic similarities, or coincidences, the hittite records contain no reference to anything approaching a homeric trojan war. and hisarlik (which everyone agrees must have been homer's troy) has no confirmatory, objective archaeological evidence, let alone prrof, of greek presence or greek aggressive action.
>It is also not wild to think someone told stories of what happened at troy
nor is it wild to think poets invented it. the post trojan war greeks had good reason to invent such a tale, it's known the greeks suffered a raft of major catastrophes at this time (ensuing the dark age): a prime candidate for the impulse of a story about when greeks could launch a thousand ships led by heroic kings et al. and comparative socio-historical study of the epic as a genre suggests victories can be invented, based airily on nothing factual whatsoever.
>there was a war, that much we can be sure of
no, we can't.
why are losers obsessed with cucking? Adultery is not cucking. Cucking is what your wife does to you on saturday
Norse kings often took bards into battle so that they could speak of their heroic deeds once they'd returned.
For greek intellects they served in the military themselves, plato served in a war and socrates was heavy infantry when he served
Idk if homer ever served or not, or what others did, but its likely they got first hand taste of what they wrote about, not observers from afar
well greek poets invoked the muse for 'what they wrote about'
My reasoning for the war being real user, despite a full in your face history book saying it happened not existing presently, is that time undoubtedly has lost non-embellished information about it.
Consider Rome's opponents, the Samnites. Almost nothing is known about them, because Rome so thoroughly eradicated them, and the dark ages following Rome's collapse caused the loss of many texts. How much greater would this affect be for an even that had multiple dark ages between it and the present, a much longer span of time, and the driving out and replacement of many of the lands peoples?
Could it be fake? Yes. But I don't think it is. The city is located where it is expected to be, as was mycenae and pylos (these were actually found because of the iliad)
Evidence points more toward it being real than not
I don't know if homer was there. I do think that the original author was and as it was passed down,, things were added to it
>Evidence points more toward it being real than not
what evidence?
we'd do well sceptical about the historical authenticity of homer. the author had absolutely no idea of the scale of slaveholding practised in the great mycenaean palace economies of the 14th/13th century bc. they thought 50 was an appropriately sizeable holding for a great king, in reality a bronze age agamemnon could command the slave labour of thousands. such an error of scale suggests major frailty in the accounts' historical rigour. also; the shield to shield unbroken line fighting described is a post-mycenaean development of greek infantry tactics, and implies a changed social organization. and the mycenaeans buried their noble dead without burning their corpses or their funeral offerings; homer makes both greeks and trojans practise the modern total cremation.
>what evidence
The cities locations matching
The hitites tablets
The Egyptians having their own tale of the Trojan war and acknowledging Paris' and Menelaus' being there per Herodotus
The mycenaean pottery at the location
The signs of the city having been under siege and destroyed
There are bound to be discrepancies. As I said, I don't think homer was there. And in getting passed down, things would be garbled, things added, other things removed to sharpen the story thus leaving us with an account where things were altered to fit newer practises, but some nuggets of truth hidden within.
Burning of bodies is hard to call, there are archelogical sites in carthage where they find cremated human remains
Ive read alot of atuff arguing these are remains from sacrafice rituals to 'baal' cronus or saturn, but there is other claims that the sites found were just resting places for people who had passed away and been cremated
The only thing that is certain is some people were definitely cremated
I am Homer and you are it