Slitherine

I know its not really material to anything but the purist in me rebels against the way FoG and other sets lump these 2 together.

Surely the Trojans were Hittites or offshoots thereof.

Well since nearly all the data we have on the Trojan War is from a poem.

A lot of flexibility to recreate the feel is probably tolerable.

If Troy is more Hittite-era which some of the archeology suggests doesn't mean they were like the Hittite's that fought Ramses at Kadesh.

I think the Troy is Hittite faction is less that Troy are ethnic Hittites but more once were part of the Hittite confederation, which doesn't necessarily make them ethnic or militarily identical either.

Well it would have been around the same time period as Qadesh!

I think the Troy-was-the-same-as-the-Greeks thing is too influenced by clueless 1950s Hollywood interpretations of Homer.

In reality they would have been as different as the Persians were to the Classical Greeks.

Err, how do you know they would have been different?
The only descriptions we have (those in the Iliad) suggest the Trojans and Greeks were armed and fought much the same.
Pictures from the Geometric era suggest the same.
So why would you expect them to be different?

Well yes the individual noblemen would have fought in the same basic way (spear, armour and chariot) but at an army level I don't think they would have been the same in detail.

Eques wrote:I know its not really material to anything but the purist in me rebels against the way FoG and other sets lump these 2 together.

Surely the Trojans were Hittites or offshoots thereof.

Quite. Everyone knows Ilium, nowadays known as Ilford, was populated by very ancient britons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Troy_Once_Stood

Exactly why Ancient Brits should get armoured offensive spear to fight the Tromans with. Oh and Heavy chariots, preferably drilled.

Is there any reason to suspect the Trojans were "Hittites", or indeed in any way related?

I didn't think the Hittite empire exercised control over western Anatolia for very long, and when they did they were in the role of conquerors. Whereas Greek coastal colonies presumably grew up over time in a much more organic fashion. And were much more accessible from the Greek heartland than than of the Hittites.

I suppose that's really irrelevant though. The ultimate answer is: agree on a list that truly* represents what we think we know of how their armies were armed, organised, and fought. If that list turns out to be reasonably similar in composition to the Mycenaean one, the same actual list can cover both. If it is significantly different, it needs to be a different list.

But I presume that has already been done at some point. I doubt many people researching and publishing lists are too influenced by 1950's Hollywood!

ShrubMiK wrote:Is there any reason to suspect the Trojans were "Hittites", or indeed in any way related?

Actually there is a strong academic discussion on just that.

Well there is more evidence that the area was at times part of the Hittite federation. There is a lot to what means "Hittite".
Ethnic?
Federation?
Allied?
Kingdom?
and so forth.

It could be as loose as the Persian Empire that once contained Bactria and Memphis but the troops and people's of those cities would be very different. Or it could be more akin to Athens v. Sparta. Similar but not identical ethnic and armies.

ShrubMiK wrote: I doubt many people researching and publishing lists are too influenced by 1950's Hollywood!

Yes they are much more likely based on 1970s Doctor Who episodes.

Seriously, while I commend the herculean efforts of list writers in these and other rules, a truck load of bias' and previous wargaming theory clearly impacts the lists. That doesn't mean they are wrong. But they are not always pure as the driven snow either.

Nigel Tallis, on the TNE and AncMed Yahoo lists, drew attention to the representations of Mycenaean charioteers as archers; suggesting that they may not have been as different from Near Eastern charioteer-types as some thought.
A list has to be constructed from archaeology, the meagre representations and writings of neighbours, and the sievings of Homer's later poem.

hazelbark wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote: I doubt many people researching and publishing lists are too influenced by 1950's Hollywood!

Yes they are much more likely based on 1970s Doctor Who episodes.

Seriously, while I commend the herculean efforts of list writers in these and other rules, a truck load of bias' and previous wargaming theory clearly impacts the lists. That doesn't mean they are wrong. But they are not always pure as the driven snow either.

There's also previous wargaming practice. In circumstances where the evidence is vague, a list writer may be aware that people may have armies based up for previous rule sets and include at least an option that allows people to use exisitng model armies. I imagine the Trojan list could have been one of those.

I have also heard claims that the "Scots" were at some times in history part of the "English Federation", and I would obviously conclude from that that the various lists that represent them as being in any way similar to Irish or Scandinavians are incorrect.

grahambriggs wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote: I doubt many people researching and publishing lists are too influenced by 1950's Hollywood!

Yes they are much more likely based on 1970s Doctor Who episodes.

Seriously, while I commend the herculean efforts of list writers in these and other rules, a truck load of bias' and previous wargaming theory clearly impacts the lists. That doesn't mean they are wrong. But they are not always pure as the driven snow either.

There's also previous wargaming practice. In circumstances where the evidence is vague, a list writer may be aware that people may have armies based up for previous rule sets and include at least an option that allows people to use exisitng model armies. I imagine the Trojan list could have been one of those.

Yep. So at some point in the past the evidence was (I assume) considered and some sort of interpretation made, something maybe not everybody agrees with, but probably not something the majority of players find ridiculous. I agree that may be seen as a sort of bias, although I prefer to think of it as hysteresis...if there is enough evidence/reinterpretation which comes along later, the list will be changed at some point. It is better not to flip back and forth on little evidence.

Changes of course have been made many times, to many armies...for example, in the very same list book we see radical changes in the Hittites themselves compared to previous interpretations (albeit in the form of options, to appease the conservatives).

So I'm just wondering what the new evidence for a Trojan reinterpretation is. Presumably more than just an assumption based on the fact that they happened to share the same (large) land mass with another people who were quite powerful and assumed to be culturally and militarily influential?

Actually someone has loaded parts of the discussion onto the Troy Wikipedia page. You can see that there are several academic schools of thought on the subject. I don't suggest that is final but it can start you down the path of the discussions.