New Units: Mycenean and Trojan Chariots

Punkymonkey said:
That's not how Mycenean armor looks although it's an awesome unit you made for a greek chariot(sadly they didn't use them). They actually did find ancient Mycenaean armor and it's exactly as Homer describes it in the Illiad. Here's the website: http://edtech.floyd.edu/~lnewby/mycenean_page.htm


Homer has sever descriptions of armour in it, including a description for the armor of AGamemenon that results in somthign looking not at all unlike early hoplite garb; besides, that armor that you link too dosent fit well with the description sof fighting between the champions in the book; so while that armor was used, IMO, it may have been either a regional fashion, or have been limited to a particuler segment of the army manned by the nobility
 
Homer was supposedly blind. Unless I'm mistaken, he was also supposed to have been born after the events took place, so, unless the story was passed to him from generations before him, there isn't many ways he'd know about it.
 
Louis XXIV said:
Homer was supposedly blind. Unless I'm mistaken, he was also supposed to have been born after the events took place, so, unless the story was passed to him from generations before him, there isn't many ways he'd know about it.
Nope, you are very right: In fact more than at least 300 years after the Iliad supposedly took place.
 
Homer in all likyness was the last in a long line of oral story tellers, who made the final version of the Illiad and Odyssey, from oral tales, pased on by traveling bards during the Greek Dark ages; obviouslly, in thier descritions of armor, they werenot at all far off; and the fact that no good story teller would have two major characters have the same names lends just a little bit more credence to it all being based on a singuler event
 
Xen said:
Homer in all likyness was the last in a long line of oral story tellers, who made the final version of the Illiad and Odyssey, from oral tales, pased on by traveling bards during the Greek Dark ages; obviouslly, in thier descritions of armor, they werenot at all far off; and the fact that no good story teller would have two major characters have the same names lends just a little bit more credence to it all being based on a singuler event
Ehm, you obviously don't know how many historicaly important people shared the same names... I remember going crazy when reading the biography of Hannibal Barkas- every third person in that book is either called Hannibal, Hasdrubal or Hamilkar- oh and armies of Hannos- that's why great personages of history have titles (the great, the bold, the bald, the whatever). Or just think how many Phillipos of Macedonia there were, for the sons were named after their fathers, often even adopted "sons" would change their names when becoming of age, so as to legitimize their claims to the family leadership. And between the Iliad and Homer's poems there is a time period of several hundred years- If I mentioned "King George of England" we already have 6 to chose from in merely 200 years.

A final remark on on bards and storytellers: What do we know about the character of Little Red Riding Hood? Anyone? Well, that she must have worn a red riding hood, or some cap, or perhaps a cape. That's it, thats all. Homer was indeed an oral story teller- he couldn't write, could he- he dictated it and had it written for him. And the result is comparable to approaching a handfull of painters and have each of them paint a picture of some medieval battle from scratch and no further visual ressearch apart from what we tel them they should paint. Needless to say no two paintings will looks alike when comparing them afterwards- especialy when looking at the details....
 
your missing the point; how many story tellers name two main characters the same name?

Now, take your own point abotu how many, many, many "personalities" in history share the same name; the poitn shoudl eb clear; the fact that people who create stories from scratch, ro even a very loose basis will not choose to name two main characters the same name; however, if the history is based ona real event, and two of the "personalities", share the same name, Homer would have been stuck up a creek as far as names go, and would have had to use the same names, literary convenicen aside, as that was how it down (or at least said to have)
 
actually; I take that back (though I'm not going to to go edit my post, as that would be confusing to anyone following up on the conversation at a later date); I dont think your missing the point, just perhaps mis-understanding what I'm tryign to get at; that being, that thier is a strong possibility that "characters" described int he Illiad are at least beased upon real people; and that even wise, a seige of troy is assured
 
Ah yes, certainly the Iliad is based on historical events (and figures) of the many wars and sieges of the ancients, perhaps even really on the city called Troia (likely that Troia was merely one of the mayor battles, itemized along with several other greater military campaigns). I'm not saying the city would not have existed and that the story was made up; what I was getting at was the contrast between the overall uncertainty over 'Homer's' tellings (think of the wonderful Odisea that is directly connected to the Iliad) and 'Homer' being able to rescite down to detail what the individual armor looked like. The best (and probably only) way of knowing what it looked like is by digging it out some day and relating it to its historical barer.

I sometimes wonder what Aliens might think when they pick up our TV programes; Star Wars for instance. They are either dying of fear over the mighty human empire and fierce battleships- or of laughter when commenting bout the special effects ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom