Trojans

Eques · Post by **Eques** » Sun May 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Would the Trojans not make more sense following the Hittite rather than the Mycenean list?

Homer may have made them sound similar to the Achaeans but that was already at a remove of serveral centuries when the conflict was already a stylised myth rather than true history.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun May 22, 2011 6:02 pm

Why.

I could say that Hungarian should have steppe terrain. But would need a reason.

Eques · Post by **Eques** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:10 pm

Well I gave one reason in my second paragraph - or at least a reason why its wrong to have then as Myceneans.

But also:

Troy was most likely located in Asia Minor in the dying days of Hittite dominance there and fashionable historical opinion now equates Troy with the Hittite city of Wattusa, which is actually one of the illustrations for the Hittite section of the list book.

But even if this theory is wrong Troy's location would have made it more Hittite-esque than anything else. To have the Trojans as Westerners is a little too Eurocentric in world view for my liking.

Sorry, was assuming a degree of specialist knowledge on this forum.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun May 22, 2011 9:37 pm

We went with the Homeric approach (if you like to call it that) for familiarity as much as anything, however, if you feel that Hittite or Anatolian would better represent them then use those lists - nothing stopping you from calling them Trojan if you want (unless for comp where you'd at least have to declare the army was from whichever list you used).

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Mon May 23, 2011 2:33 am

nikgaukroger wrote:We went with the Homeric approach (if you like to call it that) for familiarity as much as anything, however, if you feel that Hittite or Anatolian would better represent them then use those lists - nothing stopping you from calling them Trojan if you want (unless for comp where you'd at least have to declare the army was from whichever list you used).

I have done exactly this with an earlier incarnation of DBM. I can't remember the list names, but my thoughts were that the Etruscans of the DBM list didn't quite sound like what I'd read of the Etruscans... so I used an book1 Roman list and called it Etruscans. Never used it in competition, but if I did I would have called it 'Romans list ##' - and explained to my opponent what I was actually doing. Not that anyone would really be able to tell much difference between an early Roman army and an Etruscan army, but there is a certain amount of 'feel' for the army they are running.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon May 23, 2011 7:40 am

Eques wrote:Well I gave one reason in my second paragraph - or at least a reason why its wrong to have then as Myceneans.

No, you said Homer was wrong, but gave no evidence for that, and he was a lot closer to them than you.

Troy was most likely located in Asia Minor in the dying days of Hittite dominance there and fashionable historical opinion now equates Troy with the Hittite city of Wattusa, which is actually one of the illustrations for the Hittite section of the list book.

But even if this theory is wrong Troy's location would have made it more Hittite-esque than anything else. To have the Trojans as Westerners is a little too Eurocentric in world view for my liking.

If this theory of its location is wrong its location means its Hittite. If its right I'm right, if its wrong I'm right. You can't have it both ways. I think your opinion is a little to asia-minor-centric, as Troy was apparently affected by both Greece and Asia/Middle East.

But obviously it was affected by Greece the most.

Sorry, was assuming a degree of specialist knowledge on this forum.

You expect too much.

Eques · Post by **Eques** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:20 am

All right, easy!

Its perfectly valid to say "My theory is supported by X, but even if that weren't the case we have Y". Its quite normal to have more than 2 variables in any given situation.

Wasn't saying Homer was "wrong" - he wasn't a historian. Was suggesting that he was doing something similar to medieval and renaissance painters who painted Roman and biblical scenes in contemporary dress.

He may have been closer to events but did not have the overview, or research techniques, that we have.

Anyway wasn't laying down the law, was asking the question. The extent of my knowledge is pretty much what is in this thread.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:06 am

Eques wrote:All right, easy!

Sorry I came across badly, my only excuse is its Monday morning.

Its perfectly valid to say "My theory is supported by X, but even if that weren't the case we have Y". Its quite normal to have more than 2 variables in any given situation.

True, and mine is a third.

Wasn't saying Homer was "wrong" - he wasn't a historian. Was suggesting that he was doing something similar to medieval and renaissance painters who painted Roman and biblical scenes in contemporary dress.

A bit like the stories about king Arthur having lots of knights. They worked and possibly started in a more recognisable middle ages, but we don't have much better so Arthur gets some drilled cav lancers. The best source we have for Troy is Homer.
(At least we know Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest)

Anyway wasn't laying down the law, was asking the question. The extent of my knowledge is pretty much what is in this thread.

I'm unfortunately at work so can't check my lists but from what I remember the Mycenaean and Hittite are quite similar. Chariots with Lt Sp and lots of foot spearmen. The grading and armour is the major difference, but after many years fighting each other they may have become even more alike.