WI Trojans Victorious

[WorldWarZ]

Simply put. WI , whether you choose to accept Troy happened, as there are reasons to and not. I wont comment personally. WI Troy had survived the Greeks onslaught and the fabled WOODEN HORSE burned by them. What would the consequences of a Trojan victory over the united greeks be?

No rome?

 

[WorldWarZ]

Sorry for the quick posts, on my way to work. Please discuss between yourselves

 

[Rebel]

Simply put. WI , whether you choose to accept Troy happened, as there are reasons to and not. I wont comment personally. WI Troy had survived the Greeks onslaught and the fabled WOODEN HORSE burned by them. What would the consequences of a Trojan victory over the united greeks be?

No rome?

Well, first off, Troy at this time was considered equal in power to the Mycaeneans (Sp?), so with their defeat we should see at least 90 years of Trojan dominted Greece, Asia Minor, and the Caspian. I say 90 years because in 1100 BC (With the war being in 1190) the first invasions of the Dorians and the Sea People began. Now the Dorians were mostly land-based tribes, and would be of little threat to the Trojans, except for their Greek holdings. The Sea people, however,would be a serious problem, but it is unknown who they actually were, so we can consider them butterfield away by the Trojan victory.

So by the begining of what we know as the classical age of city states, except with Troy being the main power instead of Athens or Sparta. Afte that it depends on how things go with the Persians, who may or may not have been butterfied away by a Hittie State that wasn't destroyed by the Sea People.

 

[robertp6165]

Well, first off, Troy at this time was considered equal in power to the Mycaeneans (Sp?), so with their defeat we should see at least 90 years of Trojan dominted Greece, Asia Minor, and the Caspian.

First of all, Troy was NOT considered equal in power to the Mycenaeans. Troy was normally a sub-kingdom of the Hittite Empire, while the King of Ahhiyawa (which most scholars consider to be an overlordship of Mycenae over the other Greek cities) was considered a "Great King" on the level of the King of Hatti, the King of Babylon, the Pharoah of Egypt, and the King of Assyria. Troy was NEVER at or anywhere near that level. The idea that they would dominate anything beyond their corner of Asia Minor is pretty ludicrous.

The reason why the Greeks had difficulty taking the city was 1) the Trojans likely had help from the Hittites, and 2) siege technology didn't exist. Even something so basic as the battering ram had not been developed by the time of the siege.

I say 90 years because in 1100 BC (With the war being in 1190) the first invasions of the Dorians and the Sea People began.

The 1190 date is in dispute. Troy was destroyed twice within a relatively short time...at the end of the archaelogical level known as Troy VI, and at the end of the level known as Troy VIIa. The Troy VI destruction is dated to roughly 1250 BC, and Troy VIIa's to about 1190 BC. While some scholars attribute the 1250 BC destruction to an earthquake, there is reason to believe that this, rather than the town destroyed in the 1190 BC destruction, was the city of the Homeric Trojan War.

--Troy VI greatly resembles the rich and powerful city described by Homer, whereas Troy VIIa was a much poorer and less imposing place.

--The Mycenaean kingdoms were at the height of their power in 1250 BC. By 1190, most of the Mycenaean cities were in ruins, destroyed by the Dorians, which begs the question of how they could have at the same time fought an extended war against Troy.

--And indeed, the earthquake theory fits neatly into this scenario, because of the legend of the Trojan Horse. The horse was the symbol of Poseidon, the Sea god who also caused earthquakes. So the Trojan Horse story may be a distant folk memory and/or metaphor for an earthquake which breached the city walls, allowing the Greeks to come in and slaughter the inhabitants.

So, most likely, the Mycenaeans destroyed the city in 1250 BC, it never fully recovered, and then the Sea Peoples (or the ancestors of the Phrygians, who were crossing over into Asia Minor from Thrace at this time) destroyed it again in 1190 BC.

 

[Rebel]

First of all, Troy was NOT considered equal in power to the Mycenaeans. Troy was normally a sub-kingdom of the Hittite Empire, while the King of Ahhiyawa (which most scholars consider to be an overlordship of Mycenae over the other Greek cities) was considered a "Great King" on the level of the King of Hatti, the King of Babylon, the Pharoah of Egypt, and the King of Assyria. Troy was NEVER at or anywhere near that level. The idea that they would dominate anything beyond their corner of Asia Minor is pretty ludicrous.

The reason why the Greeks had difficulty taking the city was 1) the Trojans likely had help from the Hittites, and 2) siege technology didn't exist. Even something so basic as the battering ram had not been developed by the time of the siege.



The 1190 date is in dispute. Troy was destroyed twice within a relatively short time...at the end of the archaelogical level known as Troy VI, and at the end of the level known as Troy VIIa. The Troy VI destruction is dated to roughly 1250 BC, and Troy VIIa's to about 1190 BC. While some scholars attribute the 1250 BC destruction to an earthquake, there is reason to believe that this, rather than the town destroyed in the 1190 BC destruction, was the city of the Homeric Trojan War.

--Troy VI greatly resembles the rich and powerful city described by Homer, whereas Troy VIIa was a much poorer and less imposing place.

--The Mycenaean kingdoms were at the height of their power in 1250 BC. By 1190, most of the Mycenaean cities were in ruins, destroyed by the Dorians, which begs the question of how they could have at the same time fought an extended war against Troy.

--And indeed, the earthquake theory fits neatly into this scenario, because of the legend of the Trojan Horse. The horse was the symbol of Poseidon, the Sea god who also caused earthquakes. So the Trojan Horse story may be a distant folk memory and/or metaphor for an earthquake which breached the city walls, allowing the Greeks to come in and slaughter the inhabitants.

So, most likely, the Mycenaeans destroyed the city in 1250 BC, it never fully recovered, and then the Sea Peoples (or the ancestors of the Phrygians, who were crossing over into Asia Minor from Thrace at this time) destroyed it again in 1190 BC.

Hm, I think I should back out now, I don't really know much about Troy.

 

[robertp6165]

Simply put. WI , whether you choose to accept Troy happened, as there are reasons to and not. I wont comment personally. WI Troy had survived the Greeks onslaught and the fabled WOODEN HORSE burned by them. What would the consequences of a Trojan victory over the united greeks be?

Not much, actually, at least in the short term. Even if the Greeks go home and never come back, Troy VI is still destroyed by an earthquake c. 1250 BC. Troy VIIa will still be a poor city built by the refugees of said destruction, and will be destroyed by the Sea Peoples and/or Phrygians c. 1190 BC. And likely, the Greeks lick their wounds and try again a few years later. The defeat dealt to the Greeks might shake the dominance of the King of Mycenae over the other Greek Kings, but probably not. Even if it doesn't, Mycenae has 50 years left to it before the Dorians start pouring into southern Greece.

The main consequence is likely to be that the Trojan War never becomes the subject of an epic poem. That could cause major butterflies, because the Illiad really shaped Greek thought in significant ways. Greek cities could be at war with each other, but they all remembered a time when, according to the Illiad, they had fought together against a common foe. One could argue that this helped the Greeks put aside their differences and join together to resist the Persians. Even Alexander the Great was influenced by the Illiad...he kept a copy of it with him at all times, and it fueled his ambition to conquer Asia.

No rome?

Since the Aeneid is almost certainly an invention of the poet Virgil and not a true folk memory passed down from earlier times...no. Rome was founded by Latins, not by Trojans.

 

[robertp6165]

Hm, I think I should back out now, I don't really know much about Troy.

I hope I didn't come off too strongly. The Bronze Age has been an interest of mine for many years, and the Bronze Age in Anatolia a particular interest. So I just happen to have a lot of info to offer to such a discussion.

 

[Giladis]

Just small bits of information.

As far as archeology is concerned the Dorian migration didn't happen.

Sea peoples were most likely Mycenean Greeks from would be Ionia (based on distincitive headwear, pottery and diet examination of the later Philisteans).

The story on which Aeneid was based existed in Rome before Vergil, he simply embelished. There is a figurine of Aeneas and Anhiz from 5th century BC.


Cheers

 

[robertp6165]

Just small bits of information.

As far as archeology is concerned the Dorian migration didn't happen.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially when speaking of events during the period following the Mycenaean collapse. There is precious little archaelogical evidence at all of what was going on in that period in Greece.

Sea peoples were most likely Mycenean Greeks from would be Ionia (based on distincitive headwear, pottery and diet examination of the later Philisteans).

Some of them undoubtedly were. The Denyen and the Ekwesh mentioned by Rameses III and Merneptah are thought to be the Danaeans and Achaeans mentioned in the Homeric poems. Or at least some portion of them. The Philistines too, seem to have originated in the Aegean region, although it is not clear exactly where. Ionia is certainly one possibility, although the Phaestos Disk (found in Crete) also shows men wearing Philistine-like head-dresses, so perhaps they were Cretans (they were said by the Bible to come from Caphtor, which has been identified by many scholars with Crete, which is an additional line of evidence for that theory).

But there were other tribes among the Sea Peoples that were not Aegean in origin, and seem to have originated in Sicily or Sardinia, as well.

The story on which Aeneid was based existed in Rome before Vergil, he simply embelished. There is a figurine of Aeneas and Anhiz from 5th century BC.

Given that Aeneas was mentioned in the Illiad, and the Illiad was known in Rome through early contact with the Greeks, I don't doubt that Aeneas was known in Rome in the 5th century BC. But there is no evidence that Aeneas was held to be an ancestor of the Romans until Virgil.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

As the Etruscan language is known to be related to Lemnian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnian_language, it is quite plausible that the story of Aeneas' travels is based on an Etruscan migration from quite close to Troy. They may even have brought their cattle with them http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11174-on-the-origin-of-the-etruscan-civilisation.html.