Greek myths- any historic basis?

[LightSpectra]

I'm not objecting to the notion that artists exaggerate the myths they write of; though in Homer's specific case, I'm curious how his epics came to be so celebrated in Greek culture if the Trojan War wasn't already a huge affair that was well-known in Greece. Which by that I mean, it's easy to make up some myth about a troll in a far-away land; it's not as if anybody can fact-check this. But when you're turning a siege of a hill-fort into a pan-Greek expedition with the relative scope larger than the First Crusade, that raises some questions about the historical account.

 

[Dachs]

This was Archaic Greece; who would be doing the fact-checking? And besides, it's not as though everybody took the Iliad at face value in even the sixth and fifth centuries.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I've read some people(?) contested the very existence of Homer, the poet being himself a myth. Can someone prove/disprove that ? Or find a source for that matter, can't remember where i read it.

 

[Takhisis]

I could, but most people in this forum reject the idea of Uncyclopedia being a reliable source.

 

[Dachs]

It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a "Homer". Many academics regard him as a construct representing the oral tradition of the rhapsodes. Many don't. Inconveniently, nobody was literate at the time and so couldn't actually provide anything to verify "his" existence.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm not objecting to the notion that artists exaggerate the myths they write of; though in Homer's specific case, I'm curious how his epics came to be so celebrated in Greek culture if the Trojan War wasn't already a huge affair that was well-known in Greece. Which by that I mean, it's easy to make up some myth about a troll in a far-away land; it's not as if anybody can fact-check this. But when you're turning a siege of a hill-fort into a pan-Greek expedition with the relative scope larger than the First Crusade, that raises some questions about the historical account.

Even the Greeks themselves didn't take the Iliad or the Odyssey at face value. Plato mentioned his personal belief that Homer made up a good portion of what he wrote on several occasions, and he was far from the only authority in Greece to question the Homeric poems. It's somewhat ironic that Plato himself was guilty of hyperbole on a far greater level than he ever accused Homer of being.

 

[Plotinus]

Plato wasn't exactly an "authority" except to Platonists, though. Philosophers had a strong tradition of doubting traditional legends, going back at least to Xenophanes; but I'm not so sure that this reflected any similar widespread scepticism among the general public. After all, look what happened to Socrates, who seems not to have been even especially interested in this issue. My impression, for which I am unable to give any evidence, is that most people in classical Greece probably did accept the Homeric account. Remember that Homer and Hesiod remained central to classical education right into late antiquity, the third or fourth centuries; they were like the Bible of hellenic culture.

As for whether Homer existed, I should think that "Homer" is pretty much, by definition, the person who wrote the text of the Iliad as we have it, in which case there can be no doubt of his existence. Whether there was a single poet who was responsible for the composition of pretty much the whole text, who was blind, who was named "Homer", and so on, is of course another matter.

 

[GoodGame]

But anyways, can't it just be a case of "whisper down the alley", that a story re-told orally will mutate elements to suit the generational audience rather than the facts or original intention of the story?

 

[Takhisis]

And somehow enlarge the army to a million men and the hill fort into a gigantic metropolitan fortress that could withstand ten years of siege? It's an almost sure thing that the winners wanted to make their victory seem more impressive than it really was, but... it's way too much. Or they had a very big ego.

 

[Traitorfish]

And somehow enlarge the army to a million men and the hill fort into a gigantic metropolitan fortress that could withstand ten years of siege? It's an almost sure thing that the winners wanted to make their victory seem more impressive than it really was, but... it's way too much. Or they had a very big ego.

It was actually a relatively large regional centre, and not just a "hill-fort"; LightSpectra is, I fear, engaging in a certain level of hyperbole on that count. Granted, the reality doesn't even begin to approach the myth- how could it?- but to dismiss it as nothing more than some barbarian fort is misleading; even a simple photograph of the site demonstrates that it was rather more than this.

 

[Takhisis]

Hey, I never 'dismissed' it, I was just emphasizing the difference between the real Troy (I've seen pictures too ) and the monstruous city and monstruous armies that the Iliad claims existed.

 

[7ronin]

Robert Graves and Mary Renault have both written novels which attempt to provide a historical explanation for some of the Greek myths and the Homeric epics. Graves even suggests that the author of the Odyssey was a woman.

Putting any controversy or issues of scholarship aside, the following are good reads: Graves: Hercules My Shipmate (Jason); Homer's Daughter (Odyssey origins); and Renault: The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea (both Theseus). Graves' The Greek Myths is an excellent non-fiction analysis of the myths.

 

[Lord Baal]

Plato wasn't exactly an "authority" except to Platonists, though. Philosophers had a strong tradition of doubting traditional legends, going back at least to Xenophanes; but I'm not so sure that this reflected any similar widespread scepticism among the general public. After all, look what happened to Socrates, who seems not to have been even especially interested in this issue. My impression, for which I am unable to give any evidence, is that most people in classical Greece probably did accept the Homeric account. Remember that Homer and Hesiod remained central to classical education right into late antiquity, the third or fourth centuries; they were like the Bible of hellenic culture.

As for whether Homer existed, I should think that "Homer" is pretty much, by definition, the person who wrote the text of the Iliad as we have it, in which case there can be no doubt of his existence. Whether there was a single poet who was responsible for the composition of pretty much the whole text, who was blind, who was named "Homer", and so on, is of course another matter.

I have no doubt that philosophers were somewhat more skeptical of these things than the general public. After all, they were philosophers. But, as in most societies, I'm sure the elite had their own doubts, philosophers or otherwise. You show me an experienced sailor who has been to Sicily and still believes The Odyssey word-for-word and I'll show you an idiot, Greek or otherwise.

 

[Traitorfish]

I have no doubt that philosophers were somewhat more skeptical of these things than the general public. After all, they were philosophers. But, as in most societies, I'm sure the elite had their own doubts, philosophers or otherwise. You show me an experienced sailor who has been to Sicily and still believes The Odyssey word-for-word and I'll show you an idiot, Greek or otherwise.

Well, it's worth remembering that the Odyssey was held by the Ancient Greeks to have taken place in either the Heroic Age or the Age of Bronze (sources differ; it depends on whether five or four ages are asserted), and that they themselves lived in the altogether more mundane Age of Iron. The transition between the two was seen to represent a significant change in the nature of the world, and particularly in regards to the level of supernatural activity within it. Believing that the various creatures detailed within had at one point existed was not necessarily seen to be any more innately ridiculous than my belief that the world was once roamed by enormous bipedal lizards.

 

[GoodGame]

And somehow enlarge the army to a million men and the hill fort into a gigantic metropolitan fortress that could withstand ten years of siege? It's an almost sure thing that the winners wanted to make their victory seem more impressive than it really was, but... it's way too much. Or they had a very big ego.

I'd never discount the potential of abnormalities of the human psyche.

 

[Pangur Bán]

But when you're turning a siege of a hill-fort into a pan-Greek expedition with the relative scope larger than the First Crusade, that raises some questions about the historical account.

Funnily enough, neither the Iliad or Odyssey portray Trojans as non-Greeks. That's a later assumption. The texts themselves just show two political confederacies, both of which "seem" to be Greek-speaking. The heroic age and kings depicted therein are common place in well recorded European myth (c/f age of Cormac mac Airt, age of Arthur, age of Hrothgar, and so on), from which ethnicity is normally absent.

 

[vogtmurr]

It was actually a relatively large regional centre, and not just a "hill-fort"; LightSpectra is, I fear, engaging in a certain level of hyperbole on that count. Granted, the reality doesn't even begin to approach the myth- how could it?- but to dismiss it as nothing more than some barbarian fort is misleading; even a simple photograph of the site demonstrates that it was rather more than this.

Hey, I never 'dismissed' it, I was just emphasizing the difference between the real Troy (I've seen pictures too ) and the monstruous city and monstruous armies that the Iliad claims existed.

Just thought I'd point out, the Iliad deals with the last year of that 10 year campaign, the details of which are lacking. Troy was only the climactic battle of that war between the nations of Greece vs. those of Asia Minor, the object of which may have been bronze, not Helen. The 'Trojans' were finally routed and some took refuge in that citadel; but there is little in the account about the actual siege and scope of the city, until you get to the Aeneid. Personally I find the Iliad too boringly dry with a very thin plot line, to be a great legend.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do you all have any favourite greek myths which i could look for, in the case i do not already know them?

 

[aelf]

I've seen claims by medievel historians that Battles involving one million knights took place. Clearly this couldn't be any of the small battles that we actually know about...

Even better. In the Kurukshetra War in Mahabrata, almost 4 million soldiers supposedly took part (according to Wiki), out of which, after 18 days, a grand total of 12 people were known to have survived. The battle involved 18 Akshauhinis, units consisting of 21,870 chariots, 21,870 elephants, 65,610 horses and 109,350 foot soldiers each. And this happened anywhere between 6000 BCE to 500 BCE.

 

[vogtmurr]

Do you all have any favourite greek myths which i could look for, in the case i do not already know them?

you've probably heard of the better known heroic legends of Perseus, Theseus, Heracles, Iason. I don't really have a single favorite, but taken as a whole cycle of mythology it makes for some pretty rich storytelling.