- This topic has 3 voices and 31 replies.
-
Posts
-
There are only two kinds of people in Homer's world: Hellenes and Barbarians. Never does Homer call the Trojans barbarians, which means he considered them Hellenes.
That doesn't jive at all with Thucydides.Thuc 1.3.1-4 - III. There is also another circumstance that contributes not a little to my conviction of the weakness of ancient times. Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, [2] nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. [3] The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan war, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. [4] It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action.
What I think Thuycidides implies here is that there was no Greek identity before Troy, which is how he explained Homer's not using the word barbarian. The Iliad is important in Greek culture, not as a history but as a way in which the Greeks achieved their separate identity from the rest of the world.I'll just call it even and agree to disagree, Don. What you're saying goes against all commentaries and ancient readings about this. The point and major theme of Homer's two epics is about Greek identity and how it came about. The Trojans were the 'conflict' Homer used to show this.Also see J H Bury, "History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great" page 48-50.What are you basing your opinion on, Don? I'd like to see the sources of your opposing view if that's not too much to ask.
I'm simply going by the Greek mythological tie-ins that Homer and Hesiod followed. The Trojans were of Greek stock per this family tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DardanusYes I used Wiki, but it was fast and spot on.
What I think Thuycidides implies here is that there was no Greek identity before Troy, which is how he explained Homer's not using the word barbarian. The Iliad is important in Greek culture, not as a history but as a way in which the Greeks achieved their separate identity from the rest of the world.I'll just call it even and agree to disagree, Don. What you're saying goes against all commentaries and ancient readings about this. The point and major theme of Homer's two epics is about Greek identity and how it came about. The Trojans were the 'conflict' Homer used to show this.Also see J H Bury, "History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great" page 48-50.What are you basing your opinion on, Don? I'd like to see the sources of your opposing view if that's not too much to ask.
You also have to remember that Thucydides is telling the history of essentially a Greek Civil War in the Peloponnesian War, but in order to do that, he must show the differences within Hellenic culture that precipitated the ancient rivalries of Sparta and Athens and where the spheres of influence resided. The Iliad is important because it's the first Panhellenic event that brought all of the various Peloponnesians together in a common cause. Obviously Agamemmnon represents the Mycenaean connection that led to the creation of the overall Greek identity, but 400 years later, Homer was writing in the context of Greeks vs. Trojans (who were also of Greek lineage essentially). Finally, Thucydides wrote several hundred years after Homer, and the context of what was Greek had changed from Homer's time so naturally there would be some differences. Still Troy would never be considered "barbarian" because it was just accepted that the Trojans worshiped the same gods as the Greeks because they too were Greek.
Osiris and Dionysos are the same according to Plutarch, Diodorus, and Herodotus so the
the Trojans worshiped the same gods as the Greeks because they too were Greek
is not a solid argument. Are you saying the Titans, Olympians, etc. were only gods of Greeks even though they created earth and man?? Just to throw some logic in here, how would non-Greek, foreign leaders coming to Delphi to seek advice from the oracles fit in here? I think one has to consider how much and to what extent (which is a lot!) Greek and Near Eastern culture mixed.How does page 50 confirm what you said? Bury is only talking about archeological finds. All he's trying to do is place the Mycanaeans at Troy during the timeframe of the conflict.The Iliad takes place before Greeks were Greeks (which is what Bury and many others are saying), and Homer uses the myth to show the separation between Greeks and the rest of the world. Why is it only the non-Trojan heroes who died there who are worshipped and had funeral games (Panhellenic and Panathenian) in their honor?Just speaking for myself here, I'd be careful to say that Dardanians were Greeks. According to Herodutus 1.189.1 they were not. And according to others, there is some controversy with the translation of that word in the Iliad anyway.
Thucydides is telling the history of essentially a Greek Civil War in the Peloponnesian War, but in order to do that, he must show the differences within Hellenic culture that precipitated the ancient rivalries of Sparta and Athens and where the spheres of influence resided.
Here's a slightly different commentary at Tufts' Perseus website explaining why Thucydides used the Trojan War:
The Greeks could not be conscious that they were a separate people before they were conscious that they were one people.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0095&query=chapter%3D%233
Osirus and Dionysius are not the same god, Plutarch, Herodotus, and Diodorus are saying they are based on the same ideas and fill the same function. The same could be said of Osirus and Helios or Osirus and Apollo. But from the mythology they are two very different deities.And yes the Titans, Hecatonchires, Giants, and the Olympians are purely Greek mythological figures some based on or borrowed from Middle Eastern deities, but not their back stories.I could say the Greeks stole the idea for Hercules on the Hebrews' Samson, who was a copy of the Babylonian Gilgamesh....but they are all three different individuals; not the same.Bury confirms my point about Agamemmnon representing the Mycenaean component of the Trojan War story. 🙂But seriously, I am totally lost on what you are trying to argue here. Let's start over. What is your original point. Otherwise we can keep going in circles if that's what you want.
Oh and the Iliad shows over and over again that the Greeks already thought of themselves as Greeks, just read it and you'll see. So by default, the Greeks of Homer's time already knew their cultural identity being associated with the Peloponnese. However, there was no concept of a nation-state at this time so they looked at it as, Spartans, Athenians, Argives, and Corinthians are all Greek, but belong to separate polis. That's why they were able to unite when the Persian threat emerged. They saw the confict as Greek vs. Barbarian and this is precisely what Herodotus says in the Persian Wars.
According to Ken Dowden in his book The Uses Of Greek Mythology, Troy was inhabited by Aeolian Greeks, and he's referring to the archaeological Troy discovered by Schliemann. I can't give you a link because I'm reading it from my copy on page 65. The Dardanians/Trojans were Greek as Greek can be. Furthermore, the Hittites have records of Troy circa 1296-1272 BC as having a king named Alaksandus (Alexander) similar to the Alexander son of Priam (also known as Paris). Troy was actually an encroachment of Greek influence into Hittite territory. Again this is from Ken Dowden, and this is what I was taught in my classes at UK.
According to Ken Dowden in his book The Uses Of Greek Mythology, Troy was inhabited by Aeolian Greeks, and he's referring to the archaeological Troy discovered by Schliemann. I can't give you a link because I'm reading it from my copy on page 65.
It's in Google Books....let's see if this link works:http://books.google.com/books?id=sE1-f0CAGgsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Uses+Of+Greek+Mythology&ei=EgmaSZOYE5T4NZDGhaUJ&client=firefox-a#PPA65,M1The book is also available in Questia.
Excellent. Though I'm a bit miffed that Google has something I had to pay top dollar for back in school 🙁
However, there was no concept of a nation-state at this time
This begs the question, when was there ever a concept of a nation-state in Greek history? Yes, they were good at uniting (still separate poleis though) whenever there was a foreign threat, but in everything else, they were quite separate.
Oh and the Iliad shows over and over again that the Greeks already thought of themselves as Greeks, just read it and you'll see. So by default, the Greeks of Homer's time already knew their cultural identity being associated with the Peloponnese.
Prior to 1600 or 1500 BC there was no concept of a Greek identity (not the same as nation-state). Homer's Iliad shows how this identity comes about. I'm not going by default, I'm going by what nearly every commentator says about this.Read pages 66-67. Notice the terms 'Pre-Greek Troy", and 'Troy fell to a Greek force'.from the book "we find a kingdom Wilu?a being ruled by one Alaksandus, and this instantly recalls the other name of Priam's son Paris - Alexander""this istantly recalls" isn't exactly sound historical proof. It recalls it, but doesn't necessarily mean he was the same. I would definitely take that as an unknown until further archeological evidence is revealed. What is known (from archeological discoveries in 1996 and 2001..AFTER Dowden's book was written) is that Wilusa (Ilium, Troy) was part of the Hittite Empire under the reign of Alaksandu. Whether this is Alexandros of the Iliad is not certain. What I'm saying here Don is Homer's Troy was not part of or inhabited by Greeks. That occured later. I'm also saying the Greeks viewed there gods as gods of everyone and everything. Greeks believed the gods controlled the whole earth and all the people in it, not just Greeks. Another question, when did this supposed war happen in the Iliad? We don't even know if it happened, nevermind when it occurred. Could have been 2000 BC or could have been 1300 BC. I go with about 1300-ish, while Troy was still part of the Hittite Empire, seeing that evidence shows some type of destruction around that time. Another thing here. I was a little thrown off by Apollo siding with the Trojans, but your book along with another I read "The Ancient OlympiCs" by Nigel Spivey explains that further and goes along with other things I've been reading. Apollo was originally a Near Eastern god, and was also the last of the Olympian gods. (The Iliad also shows the relationships between the gods, but that's another very complicated topic). And what about Vergil? He claims Roman descendency from Trojan heroes. Paris I think. Why? To make a separation between Greeks and Romans perhaps?
Osirus and Dionysius are not the same god, Plutarch, Herodotus, and Diodorus are saying they are based on the same ideas and fill the same function.
Really? It seems quite clear they are saying the two are the same, and not just based on the same idea."There is only the difference in names between the festivals of Bacchus and those of Osiris, between the Mysteries of Isis and those of Demeter." - Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, 1.13"It is proper to identify Osiris with Dionysos." - Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 28"Osiris, they say, was reared in Nysa, a city of Arabia Felix near Egypt, being a son of Zeus; and the name which he bears among the Greeks is derived both from his father and from the birthplace, since he is called Dionysos." - Diodorus Siculus 1.15"Osiris is he who is called Dionysos in the Greek tongue." - Herodotus 2.144
