Jump to content

Talk:Trojan War/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Most recent template draft

Trojan War


Achilles tending the wounded Patroclus
(Attic red-figure kylix, ca. 500 BC)

The war

Setting: Troy (modern Hisarlik, Turkey)
Period: Bronze Age
Traditional dating: ca. 1194–1184 BC
Outcome: Greek victory, destruction of Troy
See also: Historicity of the Iliad

Literary sources

Iliad · Epic Cycle · Aeneid, Book 2 ·
Iphigenia in Aulis · Philoctetes ·
Ajax · The Trojan Women · Posthomerica
See also: Trojan War in art and literature

Episodes

Wedding of Peleus and Thetis ·
Judgement of Paris · Seduction of Helen ·
Trojan Horse · The Returns ·
Wanderings of Odysseus ·
Aeneas and the Founding of Rome

Greeks and allies

Agamemnon · Achilles · Helen · Menelaus · Nestor · Odysseus · Ajax · Diomedes · Patroclus · Thersites · Achaeans · Myrmidons
See also: Catalogue of Ships

Trojans and allies

King Priam · Queen Hecuba · Hector · Paris · Cassandra · Andromache · Aeneas · Memnon  · Troilus · Penthesilea and the Amazons
See also: Trojan Battle Order

Related topics

Homeric question · Archaeology of Troy · Mycenae · Bronze Age warfare ·

This box:


This image, though relevant, is not ideal in terms of subject matter (it doesn't shout "Trojan War!"). Purely on the basis of graphics, however, it shows what sort of thing might look good. See above for a draft with the Mykonos Vase; I would love to use that one because it's unique and educational, but have reservations about image quality for a template. Ought to be in the article, though. See this user page for two draft templates using images from Roman sarcophagi; good quality images, but not quite right, somehow. And I must apologize: When it came down to it, I simply couldn't bring myself to specify the ten-year period 1194-1184 B.C., because I've known too many classics profs who teach it as ca. 1250 BC; however, P Aculeius has solved the footnote problem as far as I'm concerned. Any template corrections, comments, additions, subtractions, should probably go in this section now. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is excellent, although I agree that the image may not shout "Trojan War!" as well as the original picture. I think at this size maybe the original painting would work as well, even if it's not ideal. But I'd like to see how it would look with the picture of Ajax the lesser dragging Cassandra from the Palladium. That showed soldiers armed with spears and civilians, so it might just shout "Trojan War!" or at least "blah blah war!"
I don't know if I'll be in the minority on this, and I know you don't really want to do it this way, but I really dislike the date range, "Traditional dating: as early as 1334 to as late as 1135 BC". Most of the dates converge within 20-30 years of Eratosthenes, and his chronology was the most widely accepted throughout ancient history (and until modern times). Plus he seems to have had greater expertise in chronology than others who asserted different dates, and we do know that Troy VII burned just about this time. So I still want to be specific and give "Traditional dating: circa 1194-1184 B.C." But obviously it would be better if everybody weighed in on this. P Aculeius (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I like the clarity of the image: but I'd argue against the use of images that imply particular characters as preeminent. If you know who Hephaistos, Achilles and Thetis were, they sort of mutter "Trojan War, maybe?". I agree that the Trautmann painting's not ideal but it does offer a usefully generalised, densely populated and dramatic context - enlargement might help. There's a Tiepolo painting but the available uploads are a bit wishy-washy and... um, wooden-horsey.
On the dates business. I'm a habitual skeptic but open to persuasion; this is not a subject I've read in any depth. I favour a cautious, broad reconciliation of traditional accounts with modern archaeology; that seems to chime with Cynwolfe's position. Haploidavey (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I like this image better than the Trautmann or the Mykonos vase.
I would rather see "Traditional dating: circa 1194-1184 B.C." than the current text. I know that other dates are possible, and frankly I think it's ridiculous to assign a date to the Trojan War beyond "late Bronze Age", because a specific date range implicitly settles a bunch of unanswerable questions (such as was there a single war or have many historical conflicts been collapsed into a single war). But, those who give a date usually settle on Eratosthenes' date. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section above this one, Old Moonraker has linked to Achilles bandaging Patroclus (from a kylix). This splendid, tender and dramatic image knocks all my objections above into a cocked hat. I'm all for it. Haploidavey (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't try this one for the numbskull reason that it was already used on the page, but there's no reason it couldn't be replaced in the body of the article. About the Cassandra one, let me just be honest and say that I'm not going to illustrate every article about the Trojan War with a naked woman among clothed men in a scene reeking of sexual threat. I'm just … not. I would become obstinate. The Achilles-as-healer image works graphically (I particularly like the Ukiyo-e foot, or that's what it reminds me of), is in keeping with the mood of the Iliad, at least, and could represent any pair of brothers-in-arms, which goes along with what Haploidavey says. And if Akhilleus is OK with giving a specific ten-year date range, who am I to object? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Cynwolfe, I wasn't thinking of that when I suggested the image. I was thinking of it because it was colorful, period, and portrayed armed men attacking civilians (I believe that's meant to be Priam in the center). The implications of the nudity didn't strike me as any more problematic than the display of male genitals in much of the pottery/statuary. But I'll be guided by your judgment.
One small detail that concerns me is the formatting of names: it says "Agamemnon, Menelaus," etc. but "King Priam, Queen Hecuba." Is there any reason to list their titles, when other kings in the list of characters aren't similarly identified? I know that the article on Priam is so named, although Hecuba's is not. But that's a separate issue (and I think it probably should be renamed for consistency, unless we want to retitle all articles about kings and queens, and I don't think we do!). P Aculeius (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I know you didn't mean to assert anything about the content, P Ac. It's just that I always forget how images from antiquity are read by those who don't live among them constantly. (My daughter's friends think it's weird that there are books all over our house with naked people on them, even though I keep the "Sex in Ancient Greece" playing cards in a drawer. I highly recommend the latter as a souvenir from the Parthenon gift shop.) The Trojan War is an article of general interest (top 5,000 WP articles, 103,345 hits in May) likely to be visited by young readers, who see enough images like that in Lady GaGa videos. Sorry to go femipuritan. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Old Moonraker's reasons for the image selection, which was his suggestion, are given in the previous section and are very cogent. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Some issues for consideration:
  • Why include the Trojan Women and not Hecuba among the sources? What about Quintus' Posthomerica?
  • Why are Aeneas's and Odysseus's wanderings part of the war but not the assasination of Agammenon and its sequelae?
  • Do we want to link major literature about the war? Things like the Chaucer or Shakespeare Troiluses? And, talking about Troilus, he is not a major element in the surviving literature from before the Roman Empire, but among Latin-using authors in the period of over a millenium dating between Dares and Shakespeare he would have been regarded as one of the most important characters in the tale. So do we keep to contemporary Western ideas of the major characters based upon the surviving literature of archaic and classical Greece or do we acknowledge the varying emphases in retellings and characters well-attested in pottery and other artifactual sources?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All good questions, and if they lead to "and so a template is uselessly reductive; let's not use it" I'm going to go cry in my tent. In general, I'd say that the template can't get too long; although length is not a problem in this very long article, if used in short articles a long template can get in the way of using other images, or exceed the length of the text. I don't think a template like this can be exhaustive, but yes, you'll recall that I generated this off the top of my head for discussion, and what constitutes "major" and "minor" in terms of inclusion will always be impressionistic. The "Episodes" section emphasizes episodes that have independent articles, for instance. What I aimed for was representing the maximum number of figures and topics in the minimum amount of space; therefore, since the play Philoctetes gets a link under "Literary sources," he's omitted in the list of characters. Ditto Hecuba/Hecuba in reverse; also, though again this can only be my impression, The Trojan Women gets produced regularly by both university and professional theaters. I started to add the Oresteia, but only the Agamemnon seems pertinent, and Agamemnon belonged in the list of figures (also, "The Returns," though that's an article that could use some work, is an umbrella topic that would account for his reception). I considered adding Clytemnestra to the list of Greeks, but in most versions she wasn't on site for the war. (Incidentally, till last night Helen was listed as Trojan in the template "Characters in the Iliad," which would seem to miss the point of the war.) The box is called "Trojan War," and not the Trojan cycle or saga, which gave me pause at some points. I will add Troilus and the posthomerica. Views on adding the Oresteia? That article doesn't mention Troy in the lead section. Again, the idea is that if hypothetically someone clicks on every link, they'd get a full range of information, but I tried to avoid too much overlap of material. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and consideration.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other topics for the last section of the template, "Related topics"? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Art objects are difficult to account for in a template unless each has its own article; do you have any particular work in mind, Peter? "Trojan War in art and literature" (which needs some concerted effort) could be moved from "Related topics" to the "Literary sources" section. I would also suggest that article as a way to account for your point about the survival of the Trojan War post-antiquity; the article Trojan War does seem to me to be well-focused on the construction of the myth in antiquity, and the "art and lit" article could dwell on sources that survive incidentally and on the later Western literary tradition (I didn't know there was a non-Western tradition of depicting the Trojan War, but would certainly be interested in seeing that in the art&lit article). Trojan War in art and literature beckons, Peter; check it out. It needs you. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added some material to that list in the past. And if you look at Troilus, for example the table of medieval sources, you'll see that I've organised some material. I'd be up for working with someone on improving the article, providing a proper lead, discussion around the lists, though my knowledge of medieval and later art is sketchy. (I also do need to take Troilus for Peer review with the intention of going for FA some time.)--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That is absolutely what Trojan War in art and literature needs, agreed. (Hadn't checked the edit history.) Not just a list (which might even end up being a separate list article), but a look at the tradition and how it played out in later writers and artists. I'd say antiquity would only be the first background section after the intro. You should just go with it and not worry about what you perceive as your deficiencies and let others fill in as they may. More narrative text would be useful even if the proportions (of period or genre) are off at first.
In regard to "King Priam" and "Queen Hecuba" (inquiry above), the use of the titles is a nod to those least familiar with the topic. Just a way to help distinguish among the many characters' names, which newcomers to the story find daunting. Applying titles to the Greeks would be otiose, since all the commanders were in some sense petty kings and it doesn't distinguish among them. As I said above (and Akhilleus concurred), in future this article should be looked at in terms of clarity and focus, with its interest and usefulness to the general reader in mind. The lead section, for instance, goes into too much distracting detail on events leading up to the war; I'm not sure, in fact, that the second paragraph needs to be there. That's a discussion for another time, but just to say that we editors can get wrapped up in making fine distinctions and lose sight of who's most likely to read an article on "Trojan War," what they'll be looking for, and what help they need to grasp the topic most efficiently. (I say that as someone who is far more likely to write about the recherché Lusus Troiae than the Trojan War, to recognize my own vices.) Are we close to going live with this? Of course it can always be edited later for details. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
As regards the date, "Late Bronze age" makes the most sense to me. Again I would ask the question are we referring to the age for the setting of the story? Or the date or dates for the possible historical events(s) upon which the story may be based? Paul August ☎ 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Paul, are you saying you would combine the two elements into one? No dates, and simply say "Period: Late Bronze Age"? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Essentially. It might be a way of avoiding needing to answer the question I asked. Paul August ☎ 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. But maybe I'm just impatient to be done with it. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Boxes boxes boxes

Three questions:

  • At the end of this article, the Epic Cycle navigational template is collapsed even though it's only a single line of text. Purpose of that? Someone want to unfold it? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Ancient Greek wars" nav template is not collapsed. If there's an issue with the Trojan War appearing in the latter, it should be discussed elsewhere (I think, anyway) under the Military History aegis; but I would rather see that one collapsed, if either needs to be. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Topics in Greek mythology" is going to create clutter at the top when we add the new template. Is it necessary? If so, where should it appear? It's so peripheral that I wouldn't mind relegating it to the footnotes section to avoid the many good illustrations with the article, but I suspect there's some rule against that. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Trojan War Infobox

Can and should the Trojan War article have an infobox? If so, can the military conflict infobox be used? --Edward130603 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No. The Trojan War article can have an infobox, because it is technically possible for *any* article to have an infobox, but the article shouldn't have one. This is because this is a mythological war whose historical basis is extremely uncertain; even the identification of a particular city as Troy is a matter of probability rather than certainty, and whether that city was ever destroyed as a result of military action remains unknown. Whether it was destroyed by an alliance of Greeks is a matter of further conjecture. To put these conjectures in an infobox at the top of the article can mislead readers into thinking that the war, its date, its participants, and so on, are historically certain. The latest version of the infobox states that 866,000 Greeks fought against 676,000 Trojans; Wikipedia shouldn't be stating such improbabilities as fact.
I don't like the idea of using an infobox designed for fictional conflicts either. A casual/careless reader would still think such an infobox was giving historical information. More important, though, is that it would be picking out trivia from the article and overinflating its importance. The most important information about the Trojan War is the story; how do you fit the Apple of Discord, the Judgment of Paris, and the Judgment of Arms into an infobox? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. An infobox's purpose is to provide the reader with a basic overview of the article, not to explain the article itself. The topic itself may be a bit controversial when it comes to factual evidence, but, as I have stated above a few times, the article regarding the use of Warboxes does not state that the military conflict must be proven 100%. It just says that it may be used for military conflicts. A look at One Year War proves my claim.

As a side note, Akhilleus (above me) states that the infobox may mislead the reader into thinking that the conflict was real. A look at the first sentence can easily dissprove that claim. As I said before, an infobox isn't the article. It just gives a brief overview.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So is the infobox going to say that Zeus planned the war to rid the earth of overpopulation? Because that's part of the story... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, to divert Strife from the heavens to the race of mortals, according to somebody-or-other. If the infobox gives a brief overview of the article, shouldn't it (to repeat myself from the previous section) reflect the content of the article in a way that's accurate, meaningful (or useful), and proportional? I'm not sure I understand the attachment to the infobox, except from a graphics perspective: an article on a subject this often depicted in art needs something other than gray text at the top. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No: the purpose of an infobox is to "unify... aspect[s] that ... articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." (See Help:Infobox.) In other words, the overriding Wikipedia policy for use is one of commonality, and not summary. Nobody has explained what these interrelated articles, or their unifying aspects, are; there is no article with which a demonstration of commonality is required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have already stated my thought in sections above. BTW, I put up this RFC hoping for some fresh faces....to see what other wikipedians think. As for Old Moonraker, the location and people like Odysseus and Achilles are linked in the infobox (interrelated articles).--Edward130603 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate (genuinely) the effort to enlighten me, but I remain puzzled: surely these can be dealt adequately by links, rather than warboxes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No to a "warbox". The first sentence of the lede gives the context as mythology; that's a reasonably accurate indication of content. Most of the remainder addresses an outline offered in Homer's Iliad - which is usually classified as epic Literature - and the contributions and commentaries of various other ancient sources; certainly a rich source for scholarly speculation (which needs expansion in the article) but just as certainly not to be taken on face value as history. Haploidavey (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Then how do you explain One Year War good sir?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to. That article describes a self-contained work of fiction: it explains itself and refers to itself without risk of contradiction, uncertainty or untidy variants. Fiction is not myth. That article's not related to this article. Haploidavey (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the One Year War infobox begins with the heading "Depictions"; it announces at once that it deals with representations, not historical reality. Besides, that article's tagged with the "in-universe" warning, so it appears not to be a model for how to distinguish a fictional or mythical treatment from history. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No for all the reasons above including those I've given myself. And an excerpt from my userpage, " A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles " Dougweller (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that the article could reasonably have an infobox, and that it could improve the appearance and usefulness of the article. I don't think that the Trojan War needs to be proven to be a historical event in order to be treated as though it could have been. We don't really know any of the facts for certain; what we have are traditional accounts, which may or may not be based on actual persons and events. But that doesn't make the infobox any less useful. Certainly the Greeks considered the war a matter of historical fact, even though their accounts of the events vary.
However, that said, I think that the last version of the infobox is overdone and contains speculative (as opposed to merely uncertain) and unnecessary information.
  1. If there's going to be a date, it ought to look like a date, not say "ten year war". I'd suggest Eratosthenes estimate and put "circa 1194-1184 B.C.", provided that the article discusses various other estimates as well.
  2. The number of belligerents ought to be pared down to "mainland Greece" vs. Troy, or some suitable equivalent, as opposed to a long list of city states on each side, and it certainly shouldn't stop after two or three are named and then say "et al."
  3. Not all of the individuals listed as commanders were really commanders or ought to be listed; they may have led the contingent from one city or island, but not every Greek hero would be considered a commander in the sense that word is used for an infobox. Perhaps limit it to Agamemnon, Menelaüs, and Achilles on the Greek side, and Priam and Hector on the Trojan side.
  4. The number of participants doesn't seem to come from ancient sources, but modern speculation that, frankly, isn't credible. The number of Greek ships and troops mentioned in the Iliad doesn't come anywhere near that figure, if memory serves, and if I had to guess how many soldiers might have been involved in a war such as that described in the Greek epics, I'd say the figures quoted are at least ten times the size of the largest armies that might have been in the field. But unless there's some ancient source giving at least a rough estimate, it would be better not to estimate the number of troops at all.
  5. The casualty figures probably ought not to be given. There's no ancient data on the number killed or wounded on either side. "Nearly all the Trojans" isn't a very helpful casualty figure and it doesn't sound like something that belongs in an infobox. At any rate, even if we assume, following tradition, that Aeneas and Antenor led two groups of Trojan refugees away from the ruined city, we have no way of guessing what percentage of the population they might have formed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir, that is an excellent idea! I'd approve of this straightaway. The only thing I truly disagree with you on is the commanders. If you are going to put a line between commanders and heroes, then soldiers such as Achilles wouldn't be listed, would they? I believe that heroes=commanders.Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this idea does sound like a good compromise in that it won't look like something 100% proven. What do other editors think of this idea?. --24.225.75.150 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Boldly going with template

Since discussion has died down, I'm going to go ahead and create the template. (I kinda need to get this off my plate and move on.) I'll also put it on pages where I think it's relevant. I'll mostly be placing it on text-heavy topics pages such as "Historicity of the Iliad" that lack much other graphic material. I'll probably place it with the articles of individual figures only if the page has minimal illustration, if the addition of the template won't create clutter, or if the primary interest of the figure is his role in the Trojan War.

I'm sympathetic to Paul August's point about dating above, and I myself would probably omit the date altogether and go with Paul's "Late Bronze Age." However, I'm not sure that would reflect consensus. And of course the template can always be edited later. 23:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidently I forgot to sign this. Anyway, the template's up and running, and placed on several pages. One concern I have is that the size of the image can be overwhelming on smaller pages. At any rate, it's there to edit. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Final step: I'm going to copy the discussion that pertains to the creation of the Trojan War template to the template's talk page. Further discussion about the template itself could then be conducted there. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Paris steal Helen?

I changed the introductory paragraph yesterday from the claim that Paris stole Helen, although I see User:Haploidavey has changed it to say "took" now. "Took" doesn't really explain it so well and would lead people to think he stole her, although Haploidavey is correct in suggesting that "accused" isn't quite right either, since everyone knew immediately that they ran away together. What if we said that Helen "ran away with Paris"? Would that be a better explanation? It's rather tricky to come up with a suitable summary. Avoiding any hint of guilt for Paris would be quite important, since historically inaccurate movies like Troy (2004) have been spreading this fallacy far and wide, so it would only take the slightest hint in the introduction for people to assume that Paris was to blame for the whole war. Really, the blame lies with Aphrodite, Hera and Athena.(Huey45 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

I see your point. "Eloped with" might be both accurate and non-partisan but I think the departure of Helen for Troy is more usually described as abduction – let's see what other users have to say about this. Haploidavey (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking again at the article, I see we have a subheading "Elopement of Helen and Paris". For the sake of consistency, I'll amend the intro accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
But the elopement subhead itself could be questioned. I thought "took" was a good compromise, because essentially Paris "took" Helen as his prize as a result of his judging the livestock, er, goddesses (after all, he was a shepherd at the time). Orlando Bloom and the Helen-du-jour may have been depicted as star-crossed lovers, but Helen as a trophy bride, regardless of her consent, will, or desire, is certainly a prominent tradition in antiquity: this was the second time she was a prize, after Menelaus won the competition for her hand in the first place. The social bonds behind this are why her other suitors have to rally behind the brothers to get her back. (And then there's also the Theseus abduction.) A later version that seeks to idealize the divine Helen says the physical form at Troy was not the "real" Helen; in the translation of a fragment from Stesichorus by Richmond Lattimore:
That story is not true.
You never sailed in the benched ships.
You never went to the city of Troy.
Helen's half-divine nature lends itself to the same kind of body-soul allegorizing as the myths of Herakles, or her twin brothers Castor and Pollux. In this light, the myth of Helen's abduction is more like the abduction of Persephone by Hades. In some ways, the abduction of Helen is analogous to the importance of possessing the Palladion. Yet another reason not to mistake narratives of the Trojan War for things that happened to real people.
But on the level of human society, there was a recognized form of marriage by abduction among the Greeks, Romans (deductio in domum mariti; see also the "rape" of the Sabine women), and possibly the Celts: "A wide variety of evidence suggests that in the Greek world for all periods of antiquity abduction marriage (also known as 'bride theft') was an alternative to the more formal betrothal marriage. … The stolen bride is expected to preserve family honor by asserting afterward that she was unwilling and forcibly abducted, although in many cases this is manifestly untrue," notes Christopher Faraone, "Aphrodite's κεστός and Apples for Atalanta: Aphrodisiacs in Early Greek Myth and Ritual," Phoenix 44 (1990) 219–243, citing tons of other sources. Abduction myths are associated with the cult of Artemis and rites of passage for girls; see Wayne B. Ingalls, "Ritual Performance as Training for Daughters in Archaic Greece," Phoenix 54 (2000) 1–20. (The role of abduction in Cretan pederasty is not unrelated.) A major article is Judith Evans-Grubbs, "Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: A Law of Constantine (CTh IX.24.1) and Its Social Context," Journal of Roman Studies 79 (1989) 59–83. It is an alien and fascinating way to look at the issue of consent. This is all just to say that we should be wary of imposing our modern conceptions here, because we are likely to be wrong in how we understand both the social conventions of marriage at the time, and the mythico-religious significance of abducting a goddess. Another issue is disentangling the Trojan War and its many meanings in antiquity from later versions; these are just as valid as cultural expressions, but reflect the myths of their own time. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
A very interesting and well reasoned post. I'll revert to "took" in the lead. Haploidavey (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought "eloped with" was good actually. The problem with "took" is that most people reading it would know very little about ancient history and would assume that Paris was selfish and irresponsible; they wouldn't know about how she came to be Menelaus' wife or any of that. While it would certainly be good to say all of that about the Sabine women etc later in the article, the introduction has to be very clear and concise. I would imagine that the majority of average people these days would say that Paris stole Helen and they committed adultery, so it would only take the slightest hint of suggestion to solidify this in their minds. A lot of people like to just read the introduction and nothing else, particularly for a long article like this. (Huey45 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure why the article should avoid casting blame on Paris. The Iliad certainly makes him out to be selfish and irresponsible. According to ancient Greek norms Paris violated Menelaos' rights as Helen's lawful husband, and perhaps even worse, violated the guest-host relationship (xenia) by taking Menelaos' wife and household wealth. Whether Helen was willing to go with Paris is a fascinating question, and one that ancient sources reflect upon and argue about, but blame attaches to Paris whether he ran off with Helen or took her by force. Just because a goddess lets you do something doesn't make it right... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Iliad makes Paris out to be selfish and irresponsible; it was written by a Greek for a Greek audience, from the Greek accounts of what happened. Likewise, The Odyssey doesn't mention Odysseus faking insanity to avoid going to war or trying to stab Diomedes in the back when they took the Palladium. It wasn't Paris' actions anyway; it was Aphrodite's actions. She gave Helen to Paris; it wasn't a case of giving permission or anything like that. (Huey45 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
I agree with "took". To me "eloped with" implies Helen's consent, which cannot be assumed. As for the remark that "of course the Iliad makes Paris out to be selfish and irresponsible", what sources do not? Paul August ☎ 11:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. And now I share Akhilleus' puzzlement. I didn't read Huey45's edit summary and first post in this thread with the care and attention they deserved. I've now carefully re-read both, and his/her later posts this thread. Their gist seems to be that NPOV requires fair, neutral and even-handed treatment of characters whose actions, virtues or failings seem ill-served by this or that ancient, modern, middling or movie version of myth. If so, then no; we don't rehabilitate subjects or readers. We just represent relevant sources and a balance of relevant scholarship as clearly as we can. If I've misread Huey45's intentions, my sincere apologies. Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Akhilleus, Paul August, and Haploidavey. The reason I like "Paris took Helen" is that "took" is nicely neutral. It can mean "steal, abduct," but if somebody "takes" me to Hawaii all expenses paid, for instance, that's OK with me. (I wasn't suggesting the material pertaining to 'bride theft' should go in the intro! My remarks were meant to provide cultural context for deciding how the point should be treated.) Paris did take Helen from her husband, physically, whether or not she was happy to go. He took her to Troy.
Second, your statement "most people reading it would know very little about ancient history and would assume that Paris was selfish and irresponsible" sets off numerous alarms, again already noted. As Paul August asked: What ancient sources don't portray Paris as selfish and irresponsible? (Or modern, for that matter.) Even the most romantic soul must surely pause to wonder whether a decent person in any era would stand by with his reward while hundreds of people died for it, and a great city burned, and hundreds of other women were taken from the men they loved and enslaved. And as Haploidavey said, the article has no obligation to be nice to Paris; the article's supposed to state how this fictional character is portrayed. Although Paris was entitled by Aphrodite to have Helen, his claim is not treated as unproblematic; as Ahkilleus points out, to obtain his reward he violated the bond of hospitality, sacred to Zeus. A key point in Greek religion, consonant with the Greek tragic view, is that while being utterly dutiful toward one particular deity, you can still piss off others. But Paris wasn't faced with a tragic existential choice, as for example Hippolytus was; Paris chose to accept a bribe. Is he ever presented as a tragic figure in antiquity? Though it was his unalterable fate to bring about the fall of his city (hence he was exposed as an infant), he does make choices that are neither innocent nor nobly motivated. The tragedy is that of Troy collectively, in steadfastly taking care of one of its own even though he was unworthy and the cause of their doom. The Trojan POV is represented in Aeneid 2 — where Aeneas, who has lost his own wife in the sack of the city, wants nothing more than to kill Helen on the spot.
Your notion that "of course" the Iliad would portray Paris unfavorably seems to be based on the demonstrably mistaken notion that the Iliad always portrays the Greeks in a positive light and is hostile toward the Trojans. In fact, Hector is a much more attractive figure than Agamemnon, who is the jackass corporate manager from hell. Andromache is a more admirable woman than Helen. Priam is such an venerable old soul that even his worst enemy is moved by him. And think of the pathos of Astyanax, afraid of his soldier-daddy's crested helmet — a tenderly realistic moment that gains our sympathy and tells us what's at stake for Trojan families. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add a hatnote

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following hatnote:

{{For|the 1997 film|Trojan War (film)}}

Thank you. 67.100.125.221 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Please consider creating an account; there are many associated benefits, one of which is the ability to edit semi-protected pages like this one. Intelligentsock 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

template revisited

An issue has arisen with the Trojan War navigation template that originated here. Some of the related articles use the BC/AD dating convention; others BCE/CE. If you would like to comment on the proposed solution, or have thoughts, please join the discussion at Template talk:Trojan War. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After a consensus seemed to emerge, an editor proposed what I believe to be a much better solution. More opinions on this sought. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the Picture

Hey guys, I think it would be better if we replace the picture of Achilles treating Patroclus with the Burning of Troy. Kind of makes more sense, plus it looks cooler  :). I noticed that the picture was a little further down in the article, so perhaps we could just swap the pictures?173.95.138.76 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear which two images you're talking about. I think you mean the painting of the Burning of Troy, the first image after the infobox, but which is the second image you want to swap with it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
AH! Sorry, you mean the current infoxbox image! No, I don't think that would be a good swap. The Burning image needs more size than the ibox can provide to be well-legible to the reader (in fact, in looking at it now it was a little cramped, so I adjusted it), whereas the current image does OK at that size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
All right, that makes sense. But I really do want to replace that picture. Perhaps we could find some new candidates?173.95.138.76 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
New candidates would be welcome, I'm sure. Just in case you've not read the recently archived, lengthily reasoned discussions that determined the current infobox image, here's some links to relevant sections: [1] [2] and [3]. Haploidavey (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WarBox

Hey guys, I know that we voted to remove this a while back (good times, good times :)), but I was wondering if we could readd it to the article. Obviously not at the top like it used to be, but perhaps somewhere lower in the article, like the section labeled 9 Years of War. I got the idea after taking a look at this article. Please share your opinion on the matter!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All right guys, I just talked to the Military History Project leader and he confirmed that the Trojan War does fall under their jurisdiction. Therefore, I have decided to be bold and add it where I said I would. If anyone has any problems with it or its location, please let us discuss it here. Thank you!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the warbox. Please don't restore it. Can we please skip the tiresome discussion and simply agree that it doesn't belong here? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There were strong arguments for and against the warbox, but the current infobox was the product of a long and involved discussion, and represented a compromise that most of us concerned about the issue could accept. Unless there's an authoritative statement from higher up that a warbox is more appropriate than what we have now, we should stick with that result.
In any case, it makes no sense at all to have both the compromise infobox and a separate warbox covering more or less the same material later in the article. That said, please try to keep this discussion a civil one on both sides. P Aculeius (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory has the book infobox, not a warbox. And I see the project leader agrees with us about the infoxbox here. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for the sake of explicitly supporting consensus, let me say that I too consider it utterly redundant to add an infobox that repeats probably 98% of what's in the (very lengthy) navigational template. There was a protracted discussion here that proved to be productive — a rare and valuable occurrence. As far as I know, no major new discoveries about the Trojan War have been made in the interim. Consensus here is that the warbox is proscribed. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but when I create my own site, all of you will be permanently banned from it.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


I don't mean to be rude, but why would we care? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you missed the satire, Dougweller ;) Warthomp (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I'd like to re-open the discussion just long enough to add my two cents. I've read through the old discussions and taken into account both sides of the argument. The Trojan War lies somewhere between entirely fictional and entirely historical, with relative minorities supporting either extreme.

I think we all can agree that the Trojan War is less fictional than the War of Wrath, the Siege of Angband, or any of the other battles of Middle Earth. The Trojan War is more significant than Scientology versus the Internet. And the Trojan War is every bit as legendary as the Norse Battle of Brávellir, the Battle of the Ten Kings, or the Hindi Kurukshetra War. And yet, it's denied a "warbox."

Personally, I don't think it necessarily needs one, especially since the current infobox summarizes the war. However, I support the more liberal use of the Military Conflict box, which is to say: why not? The presence of the box doesn't damn the article to the realm of fact and it helps sum up information quickly. I would suggest the box be placed in the Historical Basis section, however, as this will immediately answer any questions over whether "warbox = fact?". Also, I would only put in information which is potentially based in fact, which is very little "Belligerants: Greeks, Trojans", etc. Warthomp (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While I personally agree that a warbox could be used under the guidelines employed with other articles, it would be redundant and probably uninformative to add one, now that we've got a separate infobox at the head of the article, including pretty much all of the information that would go in a warbox, as well as a great deal of information that may or may not have a historical basis, but which cannot be proven or disproven using normal means.
I think that the conflict here probably reflects the unwillingness of some editors to lend credence to traditional accounts as recorded in the Epic Cycle (much of which has itself been lost and is known chiefly from secondary sources), when some historians still dispute whether there is any historical basis for the war, and are unwilling to acknowledge any historical validity to the names of persons or groups or to specific events described in the Epic Cycle, much of which, admittedly, was composed, or at least written down, long after the events in question occurred. That is a legitimate viewpoint, and without any evidence to prove or disprove the existence of such persons or the occurrence of such events, the conflict over their inclusion or exclusion in a warbox cannot be resolved.
What this boils down to, then, is whether we will use the current infobox, which contains much information that is traditional, and fundamental to the concept of the Trojan War, but which cannot be proven historical, or a warbox which would inevitably be the subject of continuous argument over who and what ought to be accepted as fact or excluded as myth. Note that I am not asserting that myth implies fictitiousness, however the word may be commonly used. Merely that editors would probably never reach any general agreement on the criteria for inclusion in a warbox, even if they could agree about having one.
Because a warbox would simply duplicate some of the essential details of the present infobox, but exclude other important information, or lead to endless discussions about historicity, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason for adding one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Laomedon's Fraud

Laomedon's fraud is not mentioned. According to myth Poseidon built Troy's high walls for a payment that Laomedon failed to pay. When Poseidon sought revenge Hercules protected Troy and then when Laomedon failed to pay him as well Hercules sacked Troy many generations before the Trojan war. None of this is mentioned in this article even though it plays a major role as to why some of the Gods hated Troy so much, it's not just about Paris and Helen. A lot of this is spread through various stories and footnotes. Some of this is in the Iliad however. The part about Hercules I read from my Aeneid footnotes. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

Just a quick google search found http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/hercules/a/080109HerculesHesioneLaomedon.htm (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

{{Infobox military conflict}}

Trojan War

Achilles tending the wounded Patroclus (Attic red-figure kylix, ca. 500 BC)
DateUnknown
Location
Mainly Tory
Result Greek victory
Belligerents
Ancient Greece Troy
Commanders and leaders
Unknown Unknown
Strength
Unknown Unknown
Casualties and losses
Unknown Unknown

Many scholars believed the war actually happened, sure there was some mythical license. However, it did happen. So I think it would do good with an infobox. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We already have an infobox. Please refer to various interminable discussions on this matter, here, here and here, elsewhere, and directly above. Haploidavey (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant a {{Infobox military conflict}}. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't need it, please don't put it in. Before arguing further on this matter, please look at the discussions that Haploidavey linked to. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I join Akhilleus in asking you to read the linked discussions. The current Trojan War template is the product of these discussions, which dealt with the proposed use of a military conflict box. Many people participated, so you're likely to find your arguments addressed there. Also, if you read Trojan War#Historical basis, I don't think you'll find the sort of hard stats that support the use of a military conflict box. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Paul August ☎ 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Trojan Horse

I'm wondering whether editors who watch this article also watch Trojan Horse. In particular, I wonder whether the section "Factual explanations" might need some attention. See this diff. I don't have access to this book, but the statements attributed to it sound a little off. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(SVG) Map of Homeric Greece

I took only a quick look at this Map, the location of Mysia seems very inconsistent. --Perhelion (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Location and historicity of Troy

In the third paragraph of the introduction, the following claim is made about the location and historicity of Troy: "In 1870, however, the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann excavated a site in this area which he identified as Troy; this claim is now accepted by most scholars.[1]". I have read the reference: "1. ^ Rutter, Jeremy B.. "Troy VII and the Historicity of the Trojan War". http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/27.html. Retrieved 2007-07-23.", and found no such evidence of a general acceptance of the story of the Trojan war or the city of Troy being real and historical. The referenced article actually makes quite the opposite claim, suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of any city named Troy or its location. The referenced article is quite long but its conclusion under the heading "Final Note" makes it quite clear that the author does not accept any historical city called Troy can be proved to have existed and that "belief or disbelief in the historicity of the Trojan War becomes in the end an act of faith, whichever position one adopts". The three paragraphs prior to the Final Note also make the authors view quite clear.

I suggest the text "this claim is now accepted by most scholars.[1]" be replaced with "though this claim is still openly debated and not widely accepted.[1]" which is a more accurate reflection of the associated reference.

Alternately, a new reference should be found that actually supports the claim.

118.209.53.156 (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)M.F. (Melbourne, Australia)

I don't read this article as casting doubt on the historicity of the Trojan War. The article merely discusses the various debates and discussions on the topic, without reaching a conclusion, and then asks the reader to consider specific questions that get to the heart of the matter. The article appears to be an essay aimed at Dartmouth Classics students, and as such whether it is the best reference for the point is debatable. However, the article's opening paragraph makes clear that the identification of Troy VIIa with the city of the Iliad is the majority view, and that the minority view identifies that city with Troy VI:

If we agree with Blegen, Dörpfeld, Schliemann, and many others that Hisarlik is the site of Homeric Troy (but see below for Carpenter's arguments against this possibility) and if we consider the Trojan War of Greek myth to have been an historical event, then Troy VIIa is perhaps the most likely candidate for the city of Priam, although a vocal minority have always expressed a preference for the preceding Troy VIh (see Wood 1985 for a balanced appraisal of the competing claims of these two chief candidates).

Competing claims that the Trojan War occurred elsewhere or that the literary Troy did not exist at all are discussed later in the article, but are not endorsed, and are treated with a reasonable degree of skepticism:

If one is willing to accept Carpenter's line of argument this far, one can place "Troy" virtually anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean where bands of Mycenaean Greeks may have undertaken joint piratic raids. Carpenter goes so far as to place "Troy" in Egypt and to connect the story of the Trojan War with the raids of the Sea Peoples mentioned in Egyptian sources at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 12th centuries B.C.

More recently, Meyer (1975) has gone well beyond Carpenter in dissociating a historical Troy from the mound at Hisarlik. In Meyer's view, no historical city of Troy existed anywhere. First of all, there never was a city called Troy: the Homeric Troie is an adjectival formation derived from the name of a people, the Troes. The conjunction of Troie and Ilion to refer to one and the same place, a city, is a late development. Both the Troes and the settlement of Ilion are to be located in Greece, not in northwestern Asia Minor.

In light of the article's purpose and its generally neutral treatment of competing views, I see no reason to alter Wikipedia's text to suggest that the historicity of the Trojan War or the identification of Troy with the city at Hisarlik represent only a minority view. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Greeks and Trojans"

First its the name.We know of course that Achaeans were a Greek tribe but Homer never said "Greeks" or "Greece". And something else, a lot of ethnolinguistics believe that Trojans were Greeks too.

I also saw that "Achaeans had allies". I am not sure who are you referring to but the Trojans had many-many allies from Asia Minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Αριστόδημος (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And what will you tell us about? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
If you mean this: List of Trojan War characters and this: List of Iliad characters hint is missing in the article, I would say: “Yes, you're right!”. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Metallurgical Timeline

I read the Iliad and Odyssey and Helen was NOT an abductee. She went with Paris willingly. Odysseus calls Helen a faithless woman during a party after the war. Helen eloped with Paris. Read the book!

Homer writes of Bronze swords, axes and helmets. They had Iron swords around 1225 BCE as well as knives axes and helmets.

The writing shows us that the Trojan War happened before the advent of Iron swords in war. I believe Michael Wood of BBC Manchester. The Trojan War must have happened about 2225-2250 BCE, before Iron was used. The story probably happened two or three times and the stories were bard blended.

Supercool Dude (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Bard blended": that's good. Sounds just like Heaney! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

Oddyseus came to troy and slaughtered many trojan warriors' dogs'!

66.214.220.134 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Not clear what edit is being requested, no source for information provided. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

schliemann

Schliemann identified a site that had previously been identified twice, once by someone who had never actually been to the site, Charles McClaren who recorded his speculation in 1822 and once by someone who had actually worked the site for seven years before Schliemann appeared, Frank Calvert.Pamour (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed Schliemann's article some time ago, I hadn't realised that this one was so bad. What do you think now? Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Troy without war?

Re: "In 1868, however, the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann met Frank Calvert, who convinced Schliemann that Troy was at Hissarlik and Schliemann took over Calvert's excavations on property belonging to Calvert[1]; this claim is now accepted by most scholars.[2][3] Whether there is any historical reality behind the Trojan War is an open question."

This confuses me. If there was no historical Trojan War (assuming there was not), in what sense was this city Troy? (I'm not arguing a point here, I'm just wondering. If I'm not being dense, though, then maybe the article could be clearer about this.) TheScotch (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this answers your question, but here's an attempt. There is a site that can be identified as Troy, just as there is a mountain in Greece called Olympus. If ancient Greeks climbed to the top of Olympus, they didn't see a heavenly palace of the gods; that Mount Olympus is mythological. So the archaeological site of Troy in its various layers does show signs of warfare. But these actual conflicts shouldn't be mistaken for the traditional mythological and poetic accounts of a war in which deities are depicted as fighting literally alongside mortals, as in the Homeric epics. When we say "Trojan War," we mean the mythological one as known from the stories told about it. So while it may well be that over the centuries, stories were told and elaborated about an actual siege of Troy, incorporating various themes of cultural exchange between the "Greeks" and the inhabitants of this part of Anatolia/Phrygia, it's impossible to determine any direct relation between an actual war, and the mythical Trojan War fought among leaders who were begotten by gods over a woman who hatched from an egg, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't answer the question. When we say there is a mountain called Olympus, we mean the mountain has been called that name apart from the myths and that an actual mountain had been given that name all along. (A mountain exists, and we happen to call it Olympus. The name is not intrinsic to the thing.) The reason Mount Olympus could be the mythological home of the gods is that no ancient Greek had actually scaled it. In the case of Troy, it was assumed for many centuries that no such city existed. For the city to be Troy with no Trojan War, it has to be referenced as Troy outside of the story of the Trojan War; otherwise it's just a city. TheScotch (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Greeks believed that there had been a city in Asia Minor called Troy, which was destroyed at the end of the Trojan War. There were many traditions relating to its founding and history for generations before the war, and numerous geographical details appear in the Iliad which seem to correspond with the city excavated by Schliemann. While the historical trend prior to that excavation was to assume that the Trojan war was an entirely mythical event, and that Troy might never have existed, Schliemann's belief was that there had been such a city destroyed in war about the time that the Greeks assigned it, and that there was a historical core around which the legends of the Trojan War were based. Extensive study of his work, debated over a century, leads to the conclusion that a substantial city did in fact stand on a site traditionally identified with that of Troy, had been inhabited for some time, was devastated twice within a couple of generations, as Troy was, according to legend, and then largely abandoned following evidence of a catastrophic fire, which can be dated to the time that the Greeks believed Troy was sacked.
So while we don't have a sign saying, "Welcome to Troy! Please Check Weapons at the Gate," the archaeological evidence suggests that Troy was a real place, in the location excavated by Schliemann, probably destroyed by war about the time the Greeks thought it had been destroyed. We don't know whether it was called "Troy" by its inhabitants or its attackers, or whether that was simply the name by which the Greeks remembered it; we don't know if there was a Priam or a Hecuba, a Hector or a Paris, an Agamemnon, Menelaüs, or Helen, Achilles, Patroclus, Ajax, Diomedes, or Odysseus. It defies common sense that such immense detail as appears in the Iliad and the Epic Cycle could have been accurately remembered in oral tradition over the centuries following the war. On the other hand, oral tradition can be surprisingly robust, and we don't have any facts contradicting these accounts either. So while we don't know, and probably will never know, which if any of the people or events of the Trojan War might have been actual people or events connected with that conflict, or whether their names are accurately remembered, we're pretty sure that there was a Troy, and a Trojan War, about the time the Greeks believed, and in the place excavated by Schliemann. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's well and thoroughly explained. Let me add only that the reason we have a consensus against a military infobox is that it wants to contain the names of commanders and troop statistics and such, implying that the specifics of the Trojan War as we have them reflect a documentable reality in the same way as the American Civil War or the Battle of Hastings. A few days ago we had to squelch that infobox again, and I wonder whether we shouldn't propose it for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. That's an exemplary explanation, P Aculeius. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Error on map

Apologies if this is not the correct place to post this. The map "Homeric Greece.svg" suggests that Nestor (mythology) died during the Trojan war. Since he appears in the Odyssey, I think this is incorrect. WinderA (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

50.206.90.30 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) My name is Patrick Connelly or @_pconn on the gram.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Under the heading "The Odyssey", "Penelope tested Odysseus and made sure it was him" ought to be corrected to "... it was he". 72.214.169.66 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I'd say it is proper the way it is unless you can show otherwise. Thanks for your suggestion and happy wikiing. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I like this article because their are more descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.145.3 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Envisioned" Momus?

Does "envisioned" here mean created by imagining into being?--Jrm2007 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates of the Trojan War

If we follow Eratosthenes in dating the Fall of Troy to 1184/1183 B.C.E., and that by the Attic method of starting the year in summer, i.e. to the "spring" of 1183 B.C.E. (proleptic Julian), then the Ephorus date of "23/24 Thargelion" should rather be 5 or 6 May 1183 B.C.E., not "(May 6 or 7)", because the ("classical", not "astronomical") New Moon of Thargelion should have been visible from both Hellas and Troas on the evening of 12 April 1183 B.C.E. The date of Hellanicus, "12 Thargelion" should then be 24 April 1183 B.C.E., and certainly not "(May 26)"; even if the Eratosthenes year should be wrong, the Hellanicus date ("12 Thargelion") must be 11 or 12 days earlier than the Ephorus date ("23/24 Thargelion"), not 19 or 20 days later. Using Ephorus' "own" year for the Fall of Troy instead gives us 13 or 14 May 1135 B.C.E., which is not at all in better accordance with the given dates here: "(May 6 or 7)". Something must be wrong with the dates, could maybe the one who created this paragraph check the sources again? /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

hi Cat2025 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. — xaosflux Talk 04:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

The Trojan war originally started when someone threw an apple into a wedding with, "to the fairest" written on it, immediately Hera, Aphrodite and Athena thought it was for them. Back in Olympus, the three gods were still arguing whilst the others tried to calm them down. Eventually, the other gods decided that one person would judge which one truly deserved the apple. This plan was clever, except for the fact that no god wanted to judge, then they agreed that they would choose a mortal to judge instead. Eventually, the gods chose a human named Paris, when he found out, he wanted to run away but knew what Zeus would do. When he got to Olympus, he decided that each god would meet him alone and say why he should give the apple to him, when Hera came she offered that Paris would be the best king around, he was happy how he was and didn't need to be a great king, plus he didn't want to do loads of work, kings had lots of work to do. Then Athena came over, she said that Paris would have the strength of 20 men and a shield that sends any arrow fired back at the person that shot it, Paris liked the sound of the strength of 20 men but didn't like battles. then finally Aphrodite who snuck an enchanted piece of clothing that would make her irresistibly beautiful and she offered Helen of troy as his wife, immediately, without thought he gave the apple to Aphrodite and was told to kidnap Helen, and that’s when it all went wrong... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Paris LeoH.7L (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's already explained in the article with better sources and better style. Dr. K. 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Footnote correction

Footnote 86, concerning Achilles' claim to have conquered cities, should read Iliad ix.328 instead of i.328. --Dgpayne (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017

{{subst:trim


}} 64.233.224.185 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Trojan War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Agamemnon was the commander

The info box says that Menelaus was the commander of the Achaeans,however it's made very clear in the Iliad that his brother,Agamemnon, was the leader of the invasion force. Also I would say either Piram or Hector were the leaders of the Trojans not Paris.--184.21.109.136 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Troy

What did the Greeks do in the ten years they were fighting troy ? because troy was so undefeatable did they just wait for ten years hiding? 184.179.24.181 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Greeks didn't just head to Troy all at once; by the start of the Iliad, the Greeks had been ransacking the city-states of Trojan allies. Briseis, the girl demanded by Agamemnon of Achilles, was one of the spoils from one of those cities. If the Greeks had attempted an invasion of Troy proper, they would have been surrounded and quickly killed. Also, the ten years weren't all years of fighting -- a large amount of time was spent mustering the forces to fight with. There was no such thing as a professional army at the time, and "wars" of the time were mostly just small raids for livestock. The Trojan War, like the Seven Against Thebes before it, was a once-in-a-generation sort of thing; a bunch of city-states fully committed to taking down one of the most prosperous rulers in the region -- across the sea, no less. A large-scale naval war was unheard of. The inland city-states might not have enough boats if they had any at all, and boats cost a lot to make, in terms of the labor and resources needed, repayment for the workers (and the world operated on a barter economy at the time, with the power of certain "kings" being more based on how many animals they had rather than a "divine right" -- much is made in the Odyssey, for example, of the 108 suitors constantly feasting on Odysseus's flock -- so payment for such an undertaking would be no mean feat). Even after the "thousand ships" were built, over the course of a year, another year was spent waiting for a good wind -- Iphigenia is sacrificed for it. Then come the fights with the Trojan allies. And keep in mind that there were no modern supply lines; armies had to live off the land, and the army was ludicrously large for its time and place. Raiding just to get food supplies would not be uncommon. Finally, after years, they'd get to Troy... and they'd have to wait for the army to come out and fight them in battle. It wasn't a matter of encircling the city and starving them out -- the Trojans (and other allies) are meant to be a match for the Greeks. So it would be a constant attack and counter-attack on the Dardanian Plain, causing the war to continue on... and on... and on... Mr. Phorcys (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Change "The Iliad relates four days in the tenth year of the decade-long siege of Troy" To "The Iliad centers on a few weeks of the tenth year of the decade-long siege of Troy"

(The overall time span is clear from a reading of the Iliad, and it is stated clearly in Richmond Lattimore's introduction to his translation (U Chicago P, pp. 14-17) Demiliojames (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Demiliojames: The entire Iliad covers about forty-six days, but around twenty-one of those days happen within the first book and another roughly twenty-one happen within the last book. The core of the poem (Books II – XXIII) only covers a period of four days and two nights. I have changed the sentence to clarify that the core of the poem covers this amount of time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Trojan War Epics

Not much is known about Homer. The iliad is dated to about 750 B.C., along with "Odyssey" being 725 B.C. The epics originated by orally, being told time and time again. Most of the episodes from the war starting with the abduction of Helen ending at the sack of Troy. Odysseus took a ten year venture to make it back home to Ithaca after the Trojan War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohdee 330 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

"Hittite and Egyptian texts that date to the time of the Trojan War."

Please change this to

"contemporary Hittite and Egyptian texts."

"date to the time of" means "contemporary," and since the context is the Trojan War, the text doesn't need to specify contemporary-with-what. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As the sentence begins with "Twentieth Century" use of contemporary will be ambiguous. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Modern reconstructions of armor, weapons and styles

Few modern (archeologically, historically and Homerically accurate) reconstructions of arms, armor and motifs as described by Homer exist. Some historical reconstructions have been done by Salimbeti et al. I think these warrant a presence in the article. [1] http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour5.htm 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour5.htm

Astronomical dating?

This morning an editor added dates for the Trojan War based on Papamarinopoulos' "new astronomical dating" techniques, analyzing textual references to "darkness" and occasional mentions of the sun, moon, and stars to correspond with determinable astronomical conditions observable from the site of Troy. I'm concerned that while these give the appearance of provable scientific fact, the studies themselves may not be reliable as I have been unable to find evidence that they are peer-reviewed and accepted as valid analyses, not to mention doubts about whether the descriptions in the Iliad and Odyssey should be interpreted to represent precise astronomical conditions as assumed by the authors.

There are two studies, although only one seems to be cited here, as it concerns a solar eclipse assumed to have occurred during the final year of the Trojan War, due to conditions mentioned in the Iliad, although the other study concerns a second eclipse assumed to be represented in the Odyssey, precisely ten years later, on Odysseus' return to Ithaca. It is essential to the studies' conclusion as to the dates of these events that the two eclipses occurred with this precise time span, since this is what allows them to be identified with particular eclipses; other studies proposed to identify the supposed eclipse in the Iliad with a different event.

I've only skimmed the article cited here, rather than analyzing it in depth, but that was enough to raise some red flags. For one thing, it suggests that a partial solar eclipse with 72% coverage was responsible for the darkness mentioned in the Iliad. Have I misread this? The Iliad seems to describe a very significant darkness, perhaps one lasting for some hours, as I read the descriptions in this paper. But I was at the total solar eclipse in North America last year, and even with 72% of the sun's disk covered there's quite a lot of light; while things are noticeably dimmer than usual, darkness really only descended at totality (i.e. 100% coverage), which never lasts more than seven minutes (and usually closer to two, sometimes less). 72% coverage for a few minutes might not have been that noticeable in the heat of battle, and nobody would have been able to look up and see that the sun itself was partly covered, as only with special glasses—or a cloud layer—would an observer have been able to see the disk of the sun well enough to see that it was partly eclipsed, and that that was the reason for the dimming. And if there were clouds, then the dimming might not seem particularly remarkable!

As far as I know, nowhere does the text of the Iliad or the Odyssey mention an eclipse. The existence of one in either text depends on the interpretation of "darkness", which I gather was quite profound in at least one of the cited passages. Only at the moment of totality would there be profound darkness, and if the maximum eclipse was 72% then there wouldn't have been anything resembling that—at least not due to the eclipse.

I'm also concerned that the calculations of eclipses and the positions of various heavenly bodies at precise times for the location of Troy (and Ithaca) was based on a program that may or may not be reliable as to the times and locations of such bodies more than three thousand years ago. Do we have enough data about Starry Night to be sure that its data compares with the best astronomical evidence? If the time and date of the eclipses were cited to NASA or ESA tables, or some recognized modern, published ephemeris, then I might feel more confident about it. "These are the conditions according to Starry Night" seems a little less certain.

These studies are cited in a few articles I saw on Google, but I haven't seen them reviewed or their conclusions discussed in detail. And they ought to be peer-reviewed, not merely described uncritically, if they reveal profound and potentially credible information about the dates of the Trojan War. It's not enough to summarize what the conclusions of the studies are. Have any astronomers, or for that matter classical scholars, analyzed the correspondence of text to astronomical data and concluded that these studies hold water? Papamarinopoulos seems astonished to note that Ursa Major is indeed circumpolar! as though the Greeks of Homer's time had no idea, or we were ignorant of that fact today. Could the events related in the cited passages of Homer reasonably be interpreted as eclipses, or just miscellaneous circumstances that might or might not represent natural phenomena? If the Iliad says that Zeus or another god created a profound darkness, then should that necessarily be interpreted as a scientifically verifiable event, or a matter of faith? Since when are the gods only able to create darkness during preplanned eclipses?

Even if we interpret these passages as referring to precise astronomical events, despite a lack of specificity about what was happening to justify that interpretation, would their occurrence in Homer necessarily prove that the events related—or at least the time described by those events—must have occurred at a specific period of time? If, as the skeptics hold, the events of the Iliad and the Odyssey are almost entirely mythical and bear no resemblance to history, then wouldn't it be remarkable that Homer would have known the precise astronomical conditions that prevailed ten years apart, despite knowing little or nothing about the persons involved and events that occurred? But even if, perhaps sentimentally, we suspend skepticism and assume that at least some of the persons and events of the Homeric epics represent a version of actual history, would Homer have faithfully remembered (or ever received information about) the precise astronomical conditions? And if he could have, would he have?

Ciardi's notes to the Divine Comedy note that the astronomical conditions described by Dante at the beginning of his epic do not correspond to the actual conditions that could have prevailed, but are a symbolic representation of divine order; an idealized version of astronomical events rather than a record. Wouldn't Homer or his antecedents for the generations between him and the Trojan War have tended to present natural phenomena in an idealized manner to heighten dramatic tension? In the same way that a fish in a fish tale grows with each telling, that comets foretold the death of Caesar and the Norman Conquest (but only with hindsight), wouldn't it have been natural for the poets to incorporate phenomena such as eclipses or unexplained darkening of the skies or the rising of stars with particular symbolism into their stories, to harmonize events that might have occurred at different times merely because they couldn't be sure when they occurred, but they ought to have corresponded with important events?

If there's any correspondence at all between the passages in Homer and actual astronomical events—which seems doubtful—do those events really tell us when the epics of Homer must have taken place, or do they merely represent dramatic license, associating known phenomena of unknown occurrence with events to which they might be symbolically associated?

I realize that we probably can't answer these questions here without engaging in original research, or at least coming very near it. But it seems to me that someone needs to have looked into these matters before we accept Papamarinopoulos' study as persuasive evidence for the dating of the Trojan War; and so far I can't find any peer review or expert analysis of his conclusions, which makes me very skeptical of the way in which they're presented in this article. Does anyone else feel similar concerns? P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a thoroughgoing critical review! I've nothing to add but I share your concerns. Absent (or pending) any peer review of the work, I don't believe we can justify using it. Haploidavey (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have now removed the paragraph dealing with the study. On a relevant side note, there was a similarly problematic section entitled "Dating The Odyssey" in the article Odyssey until spring of last year when I removed it. Here is the section on the talk page where I explained the removal. I think mostly the same reasoning can be applied here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@P Aculeius, Haploidavey, and Katolophyromai: This is very interesting because of the journal involved, "Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry". @Joe Roe and GenQuest:, this might interest you. This is the journal that published an article by two engineers supporting some ideas by Graham Hancock about Gobekili Tepe, see Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Sweatman and Tsikritsis 2017. It looks to me that we should be very careful about anything sourced from this journal.
Thanks, Doug. User:Macedonian points out that the paper in question can be accessed via the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System @ Harvard, and therefore doesn't qualify as fringe. But I don't think it works that way. The Archaeometric data element might well be sound, even flawless, but the topic it addresses is essentially ancient Greek history, literature and myth. The paper's authors, and the ADS editorial personel don't seem to include any specialists in those fields. Haploidavey (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I see your points, just thought it was an interesting, not fringe theory. But do we actually have a reliable academic view that sees it as a fringe theory or is this just our POV based on our assumptions? Macedonian (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Macedonian: The chief problem here is that the dating you describe is based on the assumption that the Iliad is an accurate account of the Trojan War, but there is no reason at all to think that. the Iliad is thought to have been mostly composed in the eighth and seventh centuries BC, roughly four hundred to five hundred years after the events it describes allegedly took place, and we have good reason to believe that the poem tells us a great deal more about the time when it was written than the time when the story is supposed to be set. The poem is loaded with anachronisms, such as the use of iron weapons, and there is no reason to think that any astronomical events it might describe actually happened at all, let alone in the manner it describes them. We have very little reason to believe that there was ever a single "Trojan War" in the traditional sense at all and it is far more likely that the so-called "Trojan War" is merely a heavily exaggerated and aggrandized folk memory of a series of minor conflicts between various Mycenaean kingdoms and the Anatolian kingdom of Wilusa over the course of many years, perhaps including small raiding expeditions and skirmishes in Asia Minor, that perhaps may have ultimately resulted in the city being sacked. A full-scale siege of Troy lasting ten years like the one portrayed in the Iliad is extremely improbable to say the least. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, just because this is your POV does not mean it is the absolute truth. There is an entire wikipedia article on “Historicity of the Iliad”, should we delete that too? I am extremely weary of absolutist editors such as yourself 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I find it interesting enough to have read through it. But it fails to take a sufficiently critical, informed approach to the text. To me, it reads as mathematical sophistication plus literalist naivety. That it hasn't received serious attention from academics in the Humanities since its 2004 publication says... something. Wikipedia's recommended default position (POV) on unreviewed, marginal or vanishingly minor theories is (mostly) silence. Except in talk-page discussions, QED. Haploidavey (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Lol, you've said it all. I will remove it. Macedonian (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Macedonian: Thanks. For something like this we'd certainly prefer to use secondary sources which would thus show it was significant. I was also going to point out that we don't tell readers what is worth noting, that's an editorial comment. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the above. Paul August ☎ 18:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, looks like you handled it without me! Personally, I'm perfectly happy to assume that the events related by Homer could have occurred at least something like the way they're described in the Iliad and Odyssey, since other than some obvious anachronisms the basic structure could well have been remembered for centuries, like we talk about George Washington or Henry VIII or William the Conqueror. We'd know about these people even if there weren't any contemporaneous histories, even though we might get a lot of details confused. And we can't underestimate the power of the oral tradition, particularly in poetry, which is designed to be repeated and recited, sung and chanted, as a means of preserving important stories. We may have poor memories now, but we know that memorization, poetry, and song were much more powerful in societies even a few centuries ago.
The question for me isn't really whether Homer could have remembered phenomena like eclipses tied to specific events, but whether there's evidence that the appearance of something that might be explained by an eclipse actually represents one, which given the descriptions in Homer seems to be a stretch; not to mention the question of poetic license intervening at any time between the Trojan War and the development of the form of the Iliad and Odyssey that have come down to us (and I think even the most skeptical will admit that some kind of stories about whatever occurred were circulated for centuries before that). Anyway, thanks again, sorry I wasn't briefer! P Aculeius (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of the Achaeans

The Achaeans were the name that was used to describe the people that lived at the cities o the Mycenean Civilization. Mycenean Civilization was indeed the most powerful civilization on that era but it was only the 1/3 of the total area that was inhabited by Greeks. Even the Trojans and their allies were propably Greeks (they communicate with Achaeans, their names are greek, they have the same gods and the same customs). To conclude, except of Mycenean Greece, there was greek-speaking population at Crete, Cyprus, Aegean, Epirus, Macedonia and maybe Thrace and coastal Asia Minor with greek cities at the south coast of Black Sea. So there is a possibility Trojan War be a civil war. I suggest to use only the name Achaeans or Danaans for the Myceneans and the name Greeks to be used only when we are talking for both of the sides or when we are talking for mythology and history generaly (for example greek mythology).
PS 1 Do not conclude that I am crazy because of talking about a civil war. At Iliad, the wise king Nestor says that those who love this civil war are disrespectful(«ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος ὅς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίου ὀκρυόεντος»). Also Homer never use the name Greeks for the Myceneans and he never refers to the Trojans as barbarians (term that ancient greeks used to describe foreigners and even greek-speaking population that were considered wild). Later historians also do not refer to the Myceneans as Greeks (Hellenes).
PS 2 I cannot understand why the name of the Trojan War is translated in turkish at the beggining of the article. The fact that Troas today belongs to Turkey today, doesen't mean that they Turkish have any relationship with Trojan War. Turkish people went to this area 2500 thousand years after the Trojan War. The article is part of Greek history and mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.93.171 (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The word "Achaean" has multiple meanings depending on source and context, as does the word "Greek". Although Greek writers describe the Trojans as though their civilization were Greek, this is a regular convention in Greek literature when foreign cities and states are described, and doesn't necessarily reflect historical fact. Moreover, Greek literature seems to distinguish between the Trojans and the rest of the Greek world, or at least mainland Greece and the Aegean, in a way that supports the traditional use of "Greeks" as a synonym for "Achaeans" as used in the Epic Cycle. Even assuming that the Trojans were ethnically Greek—which is a big assumption—using the term "Greeks" to refer to both sides in the Trojan War would be confusing, since it would contradict the practice of three millennia of literature and scholarship.
The term "civil war" is generally understood to mean a conflict internal to a state or alliance. No source suggests any form of polity between the various city-states of Greece during this period, much less between those states and Troy. That the war may have been (and is treated in literature as though) both sides consisted largely of Greeks—as we use the term today—is not disputed. Greek writers were aware of that, but never described the conflict as one internal to any form of polity, which precludes the use of "civil war" as that term is understood today, even though it may be possible to translate Nestor's words that way. Doing so would be misleading, since it would imply a situation which no scholar, Greek or modern, supports.
I agree that there's no reason to include the Turkish translation of "Trojan War" in the lead. I looked for clues in the rest of the article and the article history to explain why this might have been done, and found nothing. Someone arbitrarily added the name in both Greek and Turkish around fifty edits ago, without giving a reason. It's not particularly relevant, the way that the Turkish names for the sites associated with Troy and the Trojan War located in Turkey are. Reflecting further, there isn't really any need to have it in Greek, either. The article didn't need that before the Turkish name was added; the English name isn't a transliteration of the Greek, or of a Latinized version of the Greek, and the Greek name appears nowhere in the article; English sources don't generally refer to the Trojan War by any other name or in any other language. So I've removed them both. P Aculeius (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your opinion about the term civil war. But about the word Achaean there are a lot of clues that prove that the term Greek is wrong. Actualy we are talking about something that is about Greek history and mythology and not a war that Greeks fought against another nation. It may not be a civil war as you said, but at least I think that I was right on this: Trojans and most of their allies were possibly greek-speaking. The only allies of them that were not Greeks were the Phrygians and the Paeonians (both of them close related to Greeks). The reason that later greek literature may use the term "Greeks" as a synonym for "Achaeans" is just because Troy was destroyed, so the greek areas of Asia Minor were deserted until the first colonization and the descendants of the Greeks had no connection to Troy just because it was something unknown to them. Βut it's sure that we are talking about Greeks, the area of North Aegean (Lesbos, Chios, Troas) had a prosperity period at the time of Cycladean Civilization (some years before the Minoan) so it couldn't be another people that built such a big city there. Furthermore, the architecture of the buildings at the site of Troy is closely related to this of the Mycynean and other Greek cities. Also, the main culture centers in ancient Greece were the city-states of Central and South Greece, so historians were mainly from those areas. Those areas were also the land of the Mycyneaen civilization. Theese city-states a lot of times called other Greeks from the north Barbarians and they greek cities of Asia Minor were mainly colonies of them. Theese are the reasons that greek of classical era refer to the Achaeans as Greeks, because they were more familiar to them. To conclude I don't think that it would be confusing to use the term Greeks for all of the sides because the only thing I said is to remove the term Greeks from the points that it refers to Achaeans {Achaeans (Greeks) -> Achaeans}.
Also, of course English sources don't refer to the Trojan War at another language, but usually when an article refers to something foreign, there is a translation of the title to this language (For example: Great Wall of China (traditional Chinese: 萬里長城; simplified Chinese: 万里长城; pinyin: Wànlǐ Chángchéng)). My disagreement was only about the the translation to Turkish, becasue it's unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.93.171 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Theories on timescales; 10 years in Homer vs 100 years in archeology

Troy VI shows archeological evidence of destruction at 1275BC. Troy VIi (formerly called Troy VIIa) shows archeological evidence of destruction and fire at 1190BC. Are there any literary sources that aim to link the somewhat out of place and extremely long duration of the siege as described in Homer (10 years), with a conflation through the centuries afterwards, of the actual timescale of repeated destruction at Troy (100 years) ? 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, these dates are very approximate. But I note that according to legend, Troy was sacked by Heracles and Telamon in the generation before the Trojan War. And Priam, who was a boy at the time is typically portrayed as an old man during the Trojan War, so we're not necessarily talking about a period of thirty or forty years—it could be longer. A prior destruction of Troy could well have been identified with this expedition. And ongoing hostilities on a minor scale could easily have lasted this long. But a century is a long time—there's no reason to assume that two destructions a century apart were directly related to each other, any more than we do in the case of Rome—attacked and perhaps occupied in 508 BC by Lars Porsena, sacked in 390 by the Gauls, threatened by Pyrrhus in the 270's, threatened again by Hannibal in 216, etc. None of these was directly related to the preceding event. Simply because the city was destroyed by war or possibly other disasters from time to time doesn't mean that these events were linked or confused, or that they led, improbably, to the notion of a long siege. P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes that need to be at the topic

Could somebody add the greek translation at the Trojan War and remove the term Greek when they refer to Achaeans? (see the previous section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.56.198 (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should be done. As explained above, for most of its history the article didn't have its title translated into Greek until some editor—without explanation—added it in Greek and Turkish. The Greek translation is only very marginally relevant, since it's never referred to by those words in English, and it didn't lead, directly or indirectly, to the phrase we use in English. If this were the proper name of a person or a place, I would expect to find the Greek original. But here, it seems superfluous, and was only ever added, it seems, to provide cover for adding the name in Turkish—something for which the only justification seems to be that the site of Troy is now in Turkey, even though the region was part of the Greek world from the period of our earliest literature on the topic until late Byzantine times, and the original sources are all in Greek or Latin, with the majority of archaeological literature having been published in German and English. If one of the regular authors of this article feels that the Greek name is really relevant, he or she can add it. But as for expunging the word "Greeks" as a synonym for "Achaeans", that's clearly wrong, since the terms have been used interchangeably in this exact context since classical antiquity. That's the very reason we have the proverb, "beware Greeks bearing gifts" (such as wooden horses).
As it is, both the original addition of the names in Greek and Turkish, and the present request, give a strong impression of "nationalist editing": the editor who sneaked the name in Turkish into the lead pushing a "Turkish perspective" on the founding event of Greek history, and the present one wanting the Trojans to be identified explicitly as Greeks, by adding the name in Greek and avoiding using the word "Greeks" to refer to the enemies of the Trojans, and suggesting, as above that the conflict be described as a "civil war" (which it clearly was not) between Greeks. The most that can be said is that classical literature treats the Trojans as though they shared the same ethnic and cultural background as the Achaeans. But this was a common convention of classical literature, and cannot definitively settle the origins of the Trojans, about whom there remains considerable uncertainty. And even if we assume it to be true in this instance, using the word "Greeks" to describe the Trojans and Achaeans together, rather than the Achaeans specifically, would be confusing to our readers. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

The reason I suggested the translation of Trojan War to Greek has been explained. All the topics that refer at something that is concerns one country, are translated to its language.
Also, I didn't suggested to refer at both sides as Greeks (that would be make no sense). I said to remove the term Greek from the parenthesis next to the term Achaeans. Because now, it seems like the name Achaeans is synonym to Greek, something that is wrong, Achaeans were a part of the Greeks.

There is no reason to include the translation of "Trojan War" into Greek or Turkish, or any other language. In the context of the Trojan War, as for example in the Iliad, Achaeans = Greeks. Paul August ☎ 13:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC).
The position that the name Achaeans used to refer at Greeks is completely wrong. Homer never refered to Achaeans as Greeks. (Greeks > Achaeans). The Achaeans lived at nowadays Central Greece, Thessaly, Crete and Pelloponese. At that time Greeks also lived at nowadys Aegean Islands, Epirus, Greek Macedonia, Thrace, Cyprus, at parts of Albania and North Macedonia and also at the coastal areas of Asia Minor (possibly including Troy and its allies).
So, I think that somebody need to remove the term Greeks (not everywhere, remove them only at the points it's on the parenthesis and it's used to explain the Achaeans).
Making dozens of tiny edits to your comments day after day isn't going to make people change their minds. There doesn't appear to be a consensus for making the changes you want to make. Perhaps it's time to move on. P Aculeius (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The edits at the comments are making because I see some mistakes to them. For example, I trasported the comment to this section (while at the beggining I had made a new section for it) because I understood that it is related to the previous comments. Also, I could easily move on if there was a negative response that could explain why you disagree with appropriate arguments.
About your comment you did that there doesn't appear to be a consensus for making the changes. It is not my opinion, it's history. Homeric Achaeans lived in South Greece. Obviously, the whole nation of the Greeks lived at a much larger area than the Achaeans. Actually Achaeans = Mycenean Civilization (a part of Greeks). So, I can't find any reason not to remove the term Greeks as synonym to Achaeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.9.193 (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Minor spelling change within 2.6 After the Iliad(In paragraph 'Penthesilea and the death of Achilles') >>Please change "Otrere" to "Otrera" within the sentence "Penthesilea, daughter of Otrere and Ares, had accidentally killed her sister Hippolyte." GamesB4Gains (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi P Aculeius. Re my change to this sentence, which you reverted: "After the deaths of many heroes, including the Achaeans, Achilles, Ajax, and the Trojans Hector and Paris, the city fell to the ruse of the Trojan Horse."
My change to "After the deaths of many heroes, including the Achaeans Achilles and Ajax, and the Trojans Hector and Paris, the city fell to the ruse of the Trojan Horse." clarifies the two groups of two Achaeans and two Trojans - it brings the first group (Achaeans) into line grammatically with the last group (Trojans), and balances the sentence. The current version does not make sense, and does not make clear that Ajax is a an Achaean. (Alternatively, the comma could be left out altogether after Ajax, but I think that it aids comprehension in this sentence.) Do you understand my intention? Opinions, anyone else? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I misread the edit as interrupting a list, and have reverted the passage to your version. P Aculeius (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks, P Aculeius. It took me a re-reading to work out what the sentence meant when I encountered it! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

True or false

Say true or false 1) during war trojans jumped over the fort gates 2409:4042:279D:9666:0:0:1A4E:38A0 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your question is a bit vague, but I think you might be referring to this episode at the end of Book XII of the Iliad, where Hector, aided by Zeus, breaks through the gates of the Achaean camp using a large stone, and encourages his followers to accompany him as he "leaps" in through the gap to fight the Greeks. It doesn't say that he (or they) "jumped over" the gates—rather that they entered through the broken gate, although the use of the word "leapt" could be read to imply that the gate or part of it was lying on the ground, broken. I think the plain reading reading is simply that Hector and some his followers entered rapidly through the breach; and in no case should we visualize spring-loaded vaults over a closed gate. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristenValliere, Rohdee 330. Peer reviewers: KristenValliere.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022


First Iliad is not Greek book is writen by Homer on Old Macedonian why then greeks translated 1934 iliad to their new language and if you compare iliad with today modern Macedonian is 98% same Greece is fake country with fake history and nation invented by King Otto 1832 to 1874 using macedonian history 195.224.230.170 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please be civil and respectful of other people on Wikipedia. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

add Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa in see also section. 103.67.157.14 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There is no see also section in this article. Lemonaka (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

1. Lots of the text in this article is completely unrelated to the Trojan War.

2. "In the battle, Achilles wounded Telephus".

The article does not say what battle that is.

3. "Some scholars have regarded the expedition against Telephus".

Why was there such a thing (expedition)?

4. "The only way to appease Artemis, he said, was to sacrifice Iphigenia, who was either the daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, or of Helen and Theseus entrusted to Clytemnestra when Helen married Menelaus."

The sentence is not clear.

5. "Thucydides says that according to tradition there were about 1200 ships, and that the Boeotian ships had 120 men, while Philoctetes' ships only had the fifty rowers, these probably being maximum and minimum."

What does "maximum and minimum" mean?

6. "The Trojans and Achaeans in the Iliad share the same religion, same culture and the enemy heroes speak to each other in the same language, though this could be dramatic effect."

The sentence ends in an ambiguous way with an imperfect grammar.

7. "Palamedes set out and returned with a shipload of grain. Odysseus had never forgiven Palamedes for threatening the life of his son."

The transition is not clear and it's not obvious why Palamedes threatened Odysseu's son. I believe this is going back to the episode of the plough. If that is the case, it should be mentioned and clarified.

8. "according to one version, Achilles himself, who was resurrected at the request of Thetis."

Which version is that?

9. "While they were away, Memnon of Ethiopia, son of Tithonus and Eos".

Who is they?

10. "Like Ajax, Achilles is represented as living after his death in the island of Leuke, at the mouth of the Danube River, where he is married to Helen.".

The idea of Achilles being married to Helen invokes note 130 which points to Pausanias 3.19.13. I checked the original text which is at https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias3B.html. I do not see a reference about Achilles being married to Helen. I do not recall reading about anything of that sort either.

11. "According to an older tradition, he was killed by the Trojans".

Which older tradition is that? There is no reference.

ICE77 (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was reading the text and noticed Patroclus being called a ‘relative’ of Achilles, while, in the Iliad written by Homer, it says they had a deep friendship, though we are unsure if this is homosexual or not, I personally think this is heavily suggested, for example; The Iliad, book IX lines 188-191: “Therewithin was he delighting his soul and he sang of the glorious deeds of warriors; and Patroclus alone sat over against him in silence, waiting until Aeacus’ son should cease singing.” Achilles and Patroclus were alone while Achilles was singing and playing his lyre in their shared sleeping quarters. This is but one of the many examples shown how deep their relationship is.

Although Patroclus grew up together with Achilles, they are, in fact, not related. Patroclus was the son of Menoetius by either Philomela, Polymele, Sthenele, Periopis or Damocrateia, while Achilles was the son of Peleus and Thetis. Ash Chickenwhalepotatotrash (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
"Although Patroclus grew up together with Achilles, they are, in fact, not related." Come again? Patroclus' supposed mother is Polymele. She was a daughter of Peleus and a paternal half-sister of Achilles. The article on Patroclus already states that Achilles and Patroclus were depicted as lovers, but most myths also depict them as blood relatives to each other. Last I heard, there is nothing prohibiting people from romancing their relatives. Ask Abraham and Sarah about that, since they were a married couple and half-sibligs to each other. Dimadick (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The fall of troy

How did Troy fall? 112.209.130.179 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The main answers to your question are covered in these two subsections: Trojan War#Trojan Horse and Trojan War#Sack of Troy. However, the short answer is, the Greeks pretended to withdraw, leaving an immense wooden horse as a tribute to the gods, and burning their camp, before sailing out of sight. One volunteer stayed behind, pretending to have been beaten and thrown out of the camp. He told the Trojans about the wooden horse, making them believe that if they took it within their city, then they would receive the gods' favour.
Despite the opposition of some suspicious Trojans and some ill omens, the Trojans brought the horse within the walls of Troy, not realizing that Greek soldiers were concealed within it. After a raucous celebration of their victory, the Trojans were in no state to see the Greeks creep out at night and signal their fleet to return, before opening the gates of the city to the invaders, who put the city to the sword and burned what remained. The survivors are said to have gone with Antenor and Æneas, two Trojan princes whom the Greeks felt well-disposed to. Antenor's group settled at the headwaters of the Adriatic, where they became or merged with the Veneti; Æneas' group landed in Italy, where they merged with the Latins; their descendants founded Rome.
Of course, this is just how Greek and Roman legends report events; we don't know which if any elements of these stories relate to actual events or real persons. But the ruins of Troy do show evidence of a great fire dating from about the time that the later Greeks believed the war occurred, and the city was certainly destroyed—although parts of it seem to have been reoccupied on multiple occasions afterward. P Aculeius (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no combatants tab?

In most conflicts on wikipedia there is a small tab under the main picture of the page where the combatants of that conflict are specified. Even if this is a mythological war I think it deserves to have one. 2A02:587:9E03:3551:8D1A:97BB:8F6C:9F3E (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has a dedicated infobox with sections on the various heroes and other major topics concerned with the Trojan War. Click under "Greeks" and "Trojans" to expand them and see a list. For ethnic/political breakdowns of the belligerents, it's better to see the body of the article, since terminology (i.e. Greeks/Hellenes—Achaeans—Argives) and accounts vary widely in various sources. P Aculeius (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected status

Isn't it about time to remove the semi-protected status of this page? It's been more than 13 years now, semi-protected should not become the default state of any page on Wikipedia. 2001:1C03:3B11:DD00:179:D1B7:6A9B:1F89 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trojan_War/Archive_6&oldid=1236395596"