Trojans Who are they
- Thread starter Dark Khan
- Start date
antonio
Warlord
As far as I believe they were Hittites. Some one here will give you a huge long explaintion of there ethnic back grond and they'll do a better job than me so I'll leave it for them.
they werent hittites; but they ARE recroded as being an ally of the Hittite empire (an din the Illiad, the Hittites are depicted as being Trojan allies) they were liklly just Greeks on the other side fo the Aegean whom rose to prominace because they happend to settle on a GREAT spot to control trade, and raise horses in.
Dreadnought
Deity
I believe they were Thracians, but then again I might not know. I also think they might have been Troadians.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Troadians is the name of the people which come from the Troad - that is from the region around Troy 
AFAIK, the Trojans were a branch of the proto-Thracians. Other people should know more though.
AFAIK, the Trojans were a branch of the proto-Thracians. Other people should know more though.
Dreadnought
Deity
Mongoloid Cow said:
Thought so...
Mongoloid Cow said:Troadians is the name of the people which come from the Troad - that is from the region around Troy
they shouldnt be; the proto thracians come from central europe- the Trojans are more connected with the Phyrgians, if you really want to try to give them a non-Mycenaean origin, but I think evidence bears out they were just a buch of Mycenaeans on the otherside of the aegeans- somthign hardley spectacular in and of itself.
vikingruler
King
i believe that aside from the tribal speicifics, they were a greek colony that got really strong.
Dreadnought
Deity
The Phyrgians came from Thrace and can be call Thracians, thus if the Trojans were Phyrgians, then they were also Thracians.
HamaticBabylon
Deity
The Trojan Star Empire, that's who!
Moderator Action: Warned, spamming. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Warned, spamming. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Greek Stud
Prince
I'm not sure where you found information on the proto-Thracians seeing as excavations are only beginning to emerge in Bulgaria today.
The truth is there is no data or evidence of what the Trojans were before the Trojan War. The Greek City-States wrote of them as if the Trojans were Indo-European. Remember, that before the Trojan War, the stretch from Lycia, to the Hittite Kingdom, to the area which in the mideval times became the Cilicia Kingdom, was a rich agricultural and farming land undisturbed by the disputes in the Levant, Babylonia and Egypt.
The only we proof we have that Troy is located where we believe it to be, is because of the lost treasure that was discovered there. Troy was known for having such a treasure, and looking at those items only discribes the trade capacity and range of Troy. Another such treasure has been unearthed 20 miles from Sofia, Bulgaria. The proto-Thracian treasure is the largest of its kind and will give further knowledge of the Thracian identity.
After Troy was sacked, it was most definitely Hellenised. But before, they don't seem to have such an extensive trait in marine warfare or lifestyle that most Mycenae cities and Minoan cities had. Trojans were known for having trade relations with the Mycenae Greeks, but also had such relations with Phrygia and the Hittites. Nothing is mentioned about Troys relations to the known Mysian cities like Lampsakos, nor with Mysian relatives the Ionians of Asia Minor. Nor is anything known about Troys relations with Lydia, which is most likely an Indo-European kingdom that just like Troy was culturally Hellenised. Lydians and Trojans both had troubled relations with the Greeks, but may have culturally adapted to them as a response to the Persian expansion into their kingdoms.
Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf were Indo-European trading cultures located between Lake Van and Lake Urmia. Ubaidian pottery and art came from the island of Bahrain, which at that time was known as the island of the Ubaidian culture. Artifacts from these and Levantine kingdoms are visiable in the Trojan Treasure along with trade with the Greeks and the Egyptians.
The truth is there is no data or evidence of what the Trojans were before the Trojan War. The Greek City-States wrote of them as if the Trojans were Indo-European. Remember, that before the Trojan War, the stretch from Lycia, to the Hittite Kingdom, to the area which in the mideval times became the Cilicia Kingdom, was a rich agricultural and farming land undisturbed by the disputes in the Levant, Babylonia and Egypt.
The only we proof we have that Troy is located where we believe it to be, is because of the lost treasure that was discovered there. Troy was known for having such a treasure, and looking at those items only discribes the trade capacity and range of Troy. Another such treasure has been unearthed 20 miles from Sofia, Bulgaria. The proto-Thracian treasure is the largest of its kind and will give further knowledge of the Thracian identity.
After Troy was sacked, it was most definitely Hellenised. But before, they don't seem to have such an extensive trait in marine warfare or lifestyle that most Mycenae cities and Minoan cities had. Trojans were known for having trade relations with the Mycenae Greeks, but also had such relations with Phrygia and the Hittites. Nothing is mentioned about Troys relations to the known Mysian cities like Lampsakos, nor with Mysian relatives the Ionians of Asia Minor. Nor is anything known about Troys relations with Lydia, which is most likely an Indo-European kingdom that just like Troy was culturally Hellenised. Lydians and Trojans both had troubled relations with the Greeks, but may have culturally adapted to them as a response to the Persian expansion into their kingdoms.
Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf were Indo-European trading cultures located between Lake Van and Lake Urmia. Ubaidian pottery and art came from the island of Bahrain, which at that time was known as the island of the Ubaidian culture. Artifacts from these and Levantine kingdoms are visiable in the Trojan Treasure along with trade with the Greeks and the Egyptians.
Greek Stud said:
1)Troy isnt described as being Pelagasian, thierfore we know Homeric poets thought of Troy as Indo-european
2)that we onyl knwo where troy is because of the described treasure is complettly false; its right where its geographic description puts it, on the asia side of hellespont, towering over the ancient plain of Illium.
3)It cant be "hellenized" Greek (Hellenic) civlization wouldnt exist for the next 500 years; mycenaean civlization at this point, is almost identical in every aspect to ever other bronze age culture in europe, and, moving past the Bronmze age, identical to every culture in europe that was on the gateway towards blossoming into a real civilization, such as, for example the Iberians, Illyrians, and Celts from Romes day; to say it was "hellenized" is false, considering it was likelly a Mycenaean outpost to begin with, and this is clear before actual hellic civilzation was even around
4)Its trade realtions with the peoples of Asi minor has no impact whatso ever on who the Trojans actually were.
Greek Stud
Prince
2) eh, Illium and the Hellespont are great indicators, but the treasure is the factual proof that the city that was unearthed was indeed Troy. Might I remind you that two other cities have been unearthed in the same area.
3) the expansion of Mycenae culture is most definitely a form of Hellenization. It is the same invasion by the Mycenaens on the other City-States that brought the Peloponnesian Greeks together. When Troy was sacked, the Trojans were forced to live under the heal of Mycenaen Kings. If Troy was so closely linked to the Greeks beforehand, Agammenon would not have wanted to take the city for himself as he repeated many times.
4) Trade relations has lots to do with demographics, especially during the time of Troy. Trade was conducted on foot or horse. People interacted, intermarried, relied more fully on particular peoples over others. Trade also shows habits in cultural life. All the Minoan cities throughout the Aegean and on Cyprus are linked by the huntress goddess that the each city had homes containing this little statuite. The fact that Troy's treasure was so much larger than the other cities, increases the statistical reference to which regions Troy had better relations with. If you find these political values, you can also link them to cultural values and familial values. So I disagree that trade has no value whatsoever.
3) the expansion of Mycenae culture is most definitely a form of Hellenization. It is the same invasion by the Mycenaens on the other City-States that brought the Peloponnesian Greeks together. When Troy was sacked, the Trojans were forced to live under the heal of Mycenaen Kings. If Troy was so closely linked to the Greeks beforehand, Agammenon would not have wanted to take the city for himself as he repeated many times.
4) Trade relations has lots to do with demographics, especially during the time of Troy. Trade was conducted on foot or horse. People interacted, intermarried, relied more fully on particular peoples over others. Trade also shows habits in cultural life. All the Minoan cities throughout the Aegean and on Cyprus are linked by the huntress goddess that the each city had homes containing this little statuite. The fact that Troy's treasure was so much larger than the other cities, increases the statistical reference to which regions Troy had better relations with. If you find these political values, you can also link them to cultural values and familial values. So I disagree that trade has no value whatsoever.
Greek Stud said:
area-shmarea- the site labeled as troy matches the description exactley- somthign the other contenders dont have to thier name, but are recorded as existing, because of the various other princdoms recoded as existing around Troy
1)you cant have hellinization without the Hellenes, and the Hellenes didnt exist; theyt are called "proto-Greeks" for a reason its because they came before the greeks, and influenced thier civlization, but they are not one in the same- far from it in fact, as the Myceanaens bear more resemblence to the celts in thier culture then they do the classicla greeks
2)Thier is no proof what so ever that the Mycenaens conqored Troy- AFAIK, they sacked it, pillaged it, and left for home right after, not bothering to establish thier temporal rule in the region at all
3)Lets assume that you can hellinize before the thing even exists; this implies that the Trojans themselvs arnt already Mycenaeans (which eividence bears out, they already are) Tell me; when Sparta won the peloponesian war, did they hellize Athens? i think not; the same rule applies here; when the Mycenaeans sacked troy, they couldnt have made the Trojans more Mycenaean then they already were.
pish, if that was the case, all to eastern med sea woudl have Minoan; but very clearlly, they werent-Trade has precious little to do with actual culture until relitivlly recent times, when mass media could take effect; in the Bronze age, it would take populations ****s to change the culture of a particuler area, OR an ove rbearing ruler who had the resources to force his subjects to following a new culture, and considering that this couldnt be achieved by the richest kingdom of the era, Egypt, its folly to conclue that far lesser power could exert any real influence over Troy, in an era when you can tell where certian peice sof pottery came from because regions were so anal about thier own traditions and observing them, that they wouldnt copy another lands artisitc styles unless, a population shift of soem kind (like a colony) had been established at soem point
Dreadnought
Deity
Xen said:
I meant that since they came from Thrace, than Troy was both Phyrgian and Thracian.
For example, if you go to say America from England, even though your American your also English...
Greek Stud
Prince
Hellenisation is a cultural shift towards Greek lifestyle, and although I should be the one on here claiming Troy as a culture similar to the Mycenae, which was proto-Hellenic, considering Greek is a Latin word not a Greek word, the Mycenaens were the first to conquer, colonate, and unite Hellenic peoples (Greek is a newer word from the Romans that came after the Renaissance). We Hellenes take our name from Helen of Sparta or Helen of Troy same girl.
Troy was not Hellenic before the invasion. Where are you getting the information that Troy was Mycenaen colony. Not even Jerusalem, with the proof of the Greek Orthodox Church or Byzantine Greeks is 100% located where the original Temple of Solomon and where the crucification occured. Archeologists have determined by the factual evidence we provided that the Church of the Holy Sulpeture and the Jews Holy Wall are the most probable locations of the original sites. Also remember that when offering concrete proof that statistics can only verify conclusions at the highest 99.9%, so please dont pish me.
So Agammenon conquered Troy because he wanted control of their port and taxes, and then he left it after he sacked it. Agammenon could have cared less of his brother's wife Helen, the one thing he wanted was Troy herself. And he won it, and kept it.
---
If you are refering to the Ionic Hellenization, which I assume you are consentrating on, Athens was not the cultural center of Classical Greece. Sparta and Athens were poli (in Greek that is plural). We had war ettiquette, treaties like the ones you found between the Hittites and the Egyptians. War victories, did not always end in sackings, pillagings and enslavement. The Peloponnesian War could not have ended in Sparta or Athens Hellenizing one another because both cities had Hellenic citizens. Hellenic culture is: Ionic, Doric, Aeotolian, Achaean, Cycladic, Macedonian, Thracian, Epiran, and so on. The exchange in cultural values between Sparta and Athens, or Hellenization occurred through trade, diplomatic relations, religion, alliance against the Persians. You have a narrow view of how you see cultural adaptations and changes. They dont change by force. Culture changes by choice. When Alexander the Great made a Hellenic Empire, the Babylonians, Anatolians, Jews, Egyptians, Susians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Phrygians and others did not Hellenize because a magnicant army came and conquered their lands. This didnt occur in the Assyrian Empire, the Persian Empire, and especially the Ottoman Empire. Because cultural groups made choices. They had purchasing power over which statues, relics, dress and food that they bought. When you find an entire empire singling out particular goods that are different than before, then they have adapted a new cultural trend. For example: America in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s. What defined our culture. The materials we owned, and our cultural tendencies in how we interacted as a group during those time periods. Hellenism is visiable accros the landscape of the 4 Hellenic Kingdoms, only Israel defied the Greek-Syrian King in Antiochia, and this defial was from Jewish religious clerics that saw the Israelis living a lifestyle with pagan idols over the traditional Hebrew values. They dressed like Greeks, bought wine, danced around statues that were bought and traded and erected in Israel instead of the traditional pottery that came from Israel itself. And throughout the points of trade were cities named Alexandria. These trading points set up factory-type quarries and commercial centers that built goods that identify people in one Hellenic culture. You can not convince me that trade is not a part of culture. The documents unearthed in Egypt that show trade with Minoa is the greatest proof of the Minoan culture that it had extensive influence and a cultural identity separate from the Mycenae, Jews and Egyptians. If you choose to continue to believe trade has nothing to do whatsoever (which is one word) with culture as an identity or a way to classify cultures and who the people are within a culture, who they may have married, or idolized, it just does not have sufficant evidence to say anything less than trade is a huge measurement on how to define cultures, and where people trace their roots, their cultural changes, and why they made those choices. Theres no better place to look than trade.
Troy was not Hellenic before the invasion. Where are you getting the information that Troy was Mycenaen colony. Not even Jerusalem, with the proof of the Greek Orthodox Church or Byzantine Greeks is 100% located where the original Temple of Solomon and where the crucification occured. Archeologists have determined by the factual evidence we provided that the Church of the Holy Sulpeture and the Jews Holy Wall are the most probable locations of the original sites. Also remember that when offering concrete proof that statistics can only verify conclusions at the highest 99.9%, so please dont pish me.
So Agammenon conquered Troy because he wanted control of their port and taxes, and then he left it after he sacked it. Agammenon could have cared less of his brother's wife Helen, the one thing he wanted was Troy herself. And he won it, and kept it.
---
If you are refering to the Ionic Hellenization, which I assume you are consentrating on, Athens was not the cultural center of Classical Greece. Sparta and Athens were poli (in Greek that is plural). We had war ettiquette, treaties like the ones you found between the Hittites and the Egyptians. War victories, did not always end in sackings, pillagings and enslavement. The Peloponnesian War could not have ended in Sparta or Athens Hellenizing one another because both cities had Hellenic citizens. Hellenic culture is: Ionic, Doric, Aeotolian, Achaean, Cycladic, Macedonian, Thracian, Epiran, and so on. The exchange in cultural values between Sparta and Athens, or Hellenization occurred through trade, diplomatic relations, religion, alliance against the Persians. You have a narrow view of how you see cultural adaptations and changes. They dont change by force. Culture changes by choice. When Alexander the Great made a Hellenic Empire, the Babylonians, Anatolians, Jews, Egyptians, Susians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Phrygians and others did not Hellenize because a magnicant army came and conquered their lands. This didnt occur in the Assyrian Empire, the Persian Empire, and especially the Ottoman Empire. Because cultural groups made choices. They had purchasing power over which statues, relics, dress and food that they bought. When you find an entire empire singling out particular goods that are different than before, then they have adapted a new cultural trend. For example: America in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s. What defined our culture. The materials we owned, and our cultural tendencies in how we interacted as a group during those time periods. Hellenism is visiable accros the landscape of the 4 Hellenic Kingdoms, only Israel defied the Greek-Syrian King in Antiochia, and this defial was from Jewish religious clerics that saw the Israelis living a lifestyle with pagan idols over the traditional Hebrew values. They dressed like Greeks, bought wine, danced around statues that were bought and traded and erected in Israel instead of the traditional pottery that came from Israel itself. And throughout the points of trade were cities named Alexandria. These trading points set up factory-type quarries and commercial centers that built goods that identify people in one Hellenic culture. You can not convince me that trade is not a part of culture. The documents unearthed in Egypt that show trade with Minoa is the greatest proof of the Minoan culture that it had extensive influence and a cultural identity separate from the Mycenae, Jews and Egyptians. If you choose to continue to believe trade has nothing to do whatsoever (which is one word) with culture as an identity or a way to classify cultures and who the people are within a culture, who they may have married, or idolized, it just does not have sufficant evidence to say anything less than trade is a huge measurement on how to define cultures, and where people trace their roots, their cultural changes, and why they made those choices. Theres no better place to look than trade.
slip79
Princess
How about the strata layer at the modern Troy site? Evidence of a sacking? Or merely a normal fire that swept thru the city? Carbon dating makes is pretty close to the legendary time of the Trojan war.
bullocks, sheer bullocks; Helen of troy was named after the fact, and mor eor less, exclusivlly for the purpose fo representign Greece, because otherwise, even if she is th emost beautiful woman in world, a 10 year war aint exactley worth itGreek Stud said:
the church of the holy selpeture dosent matter in this; it isnt even applicable as an example; simply put, if you wont except archological evidence (aqs, i assume you mus have done researhc, because if your argument is merelly based on your opinions, and not actual facts then I'm wasting my time (which, gorwinglly, is the vibe I'm getting mind you), then why take the hittites word for it? Thie ralliance whith the king of the Trojans, one "Alexander" certinally seems to a nice name that is origional to Greece, and liklly origionated during the era anyway; now, generally speaking, in the xenophobic bronze age you generally dont go naming your child whomis destined to be king (or even have the possibility) after a rival, and strange culture.
besides, once agian, homer, who described severl peoples as "pelagasian", dose not describe the Trojans as such, giving firm weight that the average veiw was that the Trojans were just another Mycenaean center grown to promiance off the trade routes
no, "he", assuming "he" even existed, didnt; Troy was saked, pillaged bruned, and left; later on the site was re-developed, but it wasnt by the Mycenaeans, it was by the ealiest wave of real greeks, from the culture that developed in the greek dark ages
Spoiler :
Similar threads
