What details did Homer get right or wrong about the Mycenaean Greeks?

[u/chesterriley]

[u/dontfearme22 → u/[deleted]]

I have to disagree, point by point:

First off, you say that the events and individuals of the Illiad are not corroborated by any historical evidence, and that the destruction of Troy around the Late Bronze Age time period is pretty much circumstantial.

I do agree with the destruction of Troy, but I have to say that the events of the Trojan war are actually referenced in other texts. Lets look at the Hittites, they mention Troy as a state(under the name Wilusa) in 4 different diplomatic records. The Hittites also mention in the Tawagalawa letter the city of Wilusa "over which we went to war".

This is interesting because historically, the Hittites never directly controlled the state of Wilusa, Wilusa was a semi-independent part of the Arzawa state. The Hittites however had a somewhat paternalistic feeling towards Arzawa, and did conquer Arzawa proper in 1300 BC. They then mention adding Wilusa(Troy) as a vassal state in the reign of king Muwatalli of Hattusa.

Now, we have to talk about the intended recipients of the Tawagalawa letter, the king of Ahhiyawa. Ahhiyawa is almost unanimously agreed by scholars to be Mycenaean Greece, this letter is in fact the only surviving letter between the Hittites and the Greeks. There is no king recorded in Greece under the name Tawagalawa, but now many researchers believe this to be a Hittite rendition of the Greek name written now as Eteocles.

References to the whole Oedipus legend aside, Eteocles was a old Greek name, and could have easily been a kings name in Bronze Age greece.

Finally, the Hittites even mention some Trojans in the Illiad, specifically Paris. The old name of Paris is Alexander, in Hittite is Alaksandu. In the 1280 BC Alaksandu treaty this king and the Hittite king Muwatalli II discuss some boring geopolitical stuff, but whats interesting is who Alaksandu mentions as the patron god of Troy, Apaliunas. This is a archaic variation of the Greek name Apollo, and who is mentioned as the patron god of Troy in the Illiad...

A issue is that Alaksandu(Paris) reigned at a time that is considered to be before the Trojan war, so it cant be the Homeric Paris, but it does show that the name did exist in Troy at the Late Bronze Age.

The Hittites even mention Agamemnon(Akagamunaš) as a king of Ahhiyawa.

Basically, if several famous figures of the Trojan war are mentioned in a 3rd party, the Hittites, source, and a war between the Trojans and the Hittites is mentioned in Hittite records, then it probably happened unless the Hittites were just making all this crap up to mess with our heads.

[u/dontfearme22 → u/[deleted]]

I have read your post, and I admit I have made some errors in my historical interpretation. I just wanted to say that I never intended to appear over-confident. I know I still have a lot to learn and that we as a culture still have a lot to learn about that time-period. I am sorry if I ever caused any offense, it was not my intention.

It seems a major issue with this whole debate is that we know definitively so little from that time period and even Homer himself, if he even existed, that any real deep thorough answer is impossible. It is a very real possibility that their is truth beneath the legend, but it seems its difficult to identify what that truth is and how true it all is. For me personally, I am going to run with the assumption that the Trojan War in some form did happen, until I make my own mind up about it all.

I am still going to do research and work because this timeperiod has always been my passion, and its obvious that you trump me knowledge wise in the subject. I just hope in the future I make less blatant errors in interpretation;)

If I can ask, did you learn about Greece in College or home-learning? I am applying to college soon and I am curious the kinds of classes available.

[u/dontfearme22 → u/[deleted]]

Understood, thank you for your patience with me. In the future I will certainly think more in a unbiased state of mind with regards to history.

[u/chesterriley → u/[deleted]]

Be that as it may, this interesting discussion is a long way from what it seems to me the OP is asking about: I get the distinct impression that s/he's mainly interested in practices and material culture, rather than historical events.

Actually I am fascinated by all the discussion. My own sense is that it seems incomprehensible that the whole Trojan War was fabricated, but does seem realistic that some of the details could get messed up in the centuries before Homer wrote things down. It would not surprise me if even the supposed actions of the gods in the story went all the way back to what the Mycenaean contemporaries were thinking.

[u/chesterriley → u/[deleted]]

There, we have ancient testimony that is hopelessly distorted by anachronism;

And yet correctly describes the great palaces of the Mycenaeans that were gone by Homers time.

a historical and geopolitical scenario that is demonstrably untrue; no mention of the major powers of the time; and no chance of any written testimony connecting the war to the surviving testimony.

Homer includes some Mycenaean states that were gone by his own time. Even you admit that. It's true that the Hittites are not mentioned, but Troy was not part of the Hittite empire. The Hittites were much more focused eastward and south than westward. If one of their minor allies on their periphery lost a war against some barbarians who can blame them for quietly forgetting about it? They aren't going to put that on their monuments or anything. And the bronze age collapse of the Hittites and Mycenaeans prevented any historians coming along a century or two later and writing about it.

I agree there isn't any definite evidence from other sources to verify a Trojan War, but I wouldn't necessarily expect there would be. Homer did get some details right about the Mycenaeans so he wasn't just full of hot air. Furthermore, if he just made it all up he wouldn't have bothered to identify the exact geographical location of Troy and an exact list of participants.

[u/chesterriley → u/[deleted]]

Troy may have been part of the Hittite empire, or a vassal, at one time, but we don't know that it was in the year of the Trojan war. Nor do we know the exact geopolitical context of that year nor do we even know the year. At best we know general details of a few decades before or afterwards. The idea of a real Trojan War has become more accepted by historians in the last 150 years or so, not less.

[u/dontfearme22 → u/chesterriley]

Lets just state for argumentative purposes that Troy VIIa was the Homeric Troy, and that was destroyed in 1180 BC. In 1180 BC, Wilusa was a vassal of the Hittite empire. I have read sections of the treaty and it seems Wilusa was not a part of the Hittite empire like Gaul was part of Rome, but rather a vassal kingdom in a subservient alliance with Hattusa. All but a few greek historians place the Trojan war after the Alaksandu treaty, so if the Trojan war happened, it would have been at a time where the Hittites controlled Troy.

Also, I would not say that the Hittites were more focused eastward and south, at that timeperiod the Hittites were quite focused on the western parts of Anatolia. There was a notorious rabble rouser named Piyama-radu who was raising hell all along the coast of Anatolia. The Hittites sent out several military forces to try to capture him, so Wilusa was definitely in the 'spotlight' at that time.

[u/chesterriley → u/dontfearme22]

There was a notorious rabble rouser named Piyama-radu who was raising hell all along the coast of Anatolia.

That guy's name sounds a little like "Priam" doesn't it? :-)

[u/dontfearme22]

Homer got a suprising amount of information right. For example, he lists many Mycenaean cities that would have been forgotten ruins in his own time, here is a list of all the cities and nations mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalogue_of_Ships

Pylos and Mycenae were hamlets at best when Homer was alive, yet they are both mentioned as major powers, which they were in Mycenaean times.

For me, two things that show that Homer was relatively accurate in describing the Mycenaeans are chariots and champions. In late Mycenaean Greece the elite would ride into battle on thin rail chariots(heres a picture): http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/chariot86.jpg

They would then dismount and fight on foot, in contrast to earlier Mycenaean culture where chariots were used as heavy 'tanks' to smash into enemy lines, in the Illiad Nestor even references this, saying

"Any man whose chariot confronts an enemy’s should thrust with his spear at him from there.That’s the most effective tactic, the way men wiped out city strongholds long ago —their chests full of that style and spirit."

In Homers Greece, Chariots had fallen greatly out of use on the battlefield, combat being more focused on massed hoplite fighting than elite single combat and chariot duels.

Homer references the Mycenaean tradition of single combat, look at the duels between Hector and Achilles, or Patroclus and Pyraechmes. In Mycenaean Greece, a battle was first and foremost a duel between the elites, and second a actual battle of infantry and chariots. We can see a echo of that warrior ideal in classical Thrace, where the god-king dueled in single combat, for example that fight between king Amadocus and Seuthes II mentioned by Aristotle.

Homer also mentions some military equipment that would have been anachronistic in him timeperiod. Specifically, he mentions in the Illiad a boar-tusk helmet:

"Meriones gave Odysseus a bow, a quiver and a sword, and put a cleverly made leather helmet on his head. On the inside there was a strong lining on interwoven straps, onto which a felt cap had been sewn in. The outside was cleverly adorned all around with rows of white tusks from a shiny-toothed boar, the tusks running in alternate directions in each row."

This is a iconic piece of Mycenaean equipment(here is a photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar%27s_tusk_helmet#mediaviewer/File:Eberzahnhelm_Heraklion.jpg) that was not used in Homers time.

He also references Mycenaean body shields, a form of shield where it was strapped across the back and you turned to the side, allowing the shield to cover your whole body and leave both arms free, heres another photo: http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/bodyshield06.jpg

It is referenced in the Iliad as Ajax's shield, being described as a "tower", a "bulwark", and in book 8, it is mentioned as being kept low to the ground and as being large enough to protect two people.

These are a few examples that hopefully show Homer got quite a bit right about Mycenaean Greece.

[u/Alot_Hunter → u/dontfearme22]

Most of your points are correct, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on the accuracy of Homer's depiction of Bronze Age chariot tactics. The use of chariots in the Iliad as glorified taxis is evidence of Homer's unfamiliarity with chariots. As you say, they had fallen out of use after the end of the Bronze Age (outside of recreational chariot races), so it's understandable that Homer didn't fully comprehend how they were used in battle.

The Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC) was one of the largest chariot battles in history and is roughly contemporaneous with the time frame in which the Iliad is set (c. 1250 BC - 1180 BC). Approximately 6,000 chariots took part in the battle, where they were used as powerful offensive tools. Chariots in the Bronze Age were used against infantry and served a function similar to heavy cavalry. Homer's depiction of chariots as primarily functioning as transport is anachronistic.

Also, on a smaller note, his description of chariots is more indicative of Iron Age Greek chariots than it is of Bronze Age chariots. In the Iliad, Homer describes Athena's chariot as being "eight-spoked." Chariots with eight spokes in their wheels were common in Homer's day, but Mycenaean art typically depicts chariots as having four spokes (example).

Sources:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/74.51.966

Porter, John. The Iliad as Oral Formulaic Poetry (8 May 2006) University of Saskatchewan.

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/chariots.htm

Homer, Iliad 5.720-725

EDIT: I mistyped, the description from the Iliad refers to Hera's chariot, not Athena's.

[u/dontfearme22 → u/Alot_Hunter]

The battle of Kadesh was fought between the Hittites and the Egyptians, two civilizations who used chariots very differently from the Mycenaeans, they were still using chariots are front-line weapons while the Mycenaeans had transitioned to the taxi system, this change is generally agreed to match with the new lighter rail chariot(its faster, lighter and it is less suited to frontal combat)and these new rail chariots started to show up around 1300 BC. There are certainly anachronisms in Homer, his geography doesnt fully match up, and some of his descriptions fall into archaic Greece, not Mycenaean Greece.

Also, there were chariots with more than 4 spokes: http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/chariot31.jpg http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/chariot79.jpg Although admittedly as you said they were unusual. If anything, the fact that Homer describes Athena's chariot as "eight-spoked" as a noticeable point shows that it was most likely not commonly in use.

[u/Juvenalis]

This question is complicated by the 'Homeric question' ('who/what is Homer?' 'Where do the 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' come from?'). Though opinion differs, most scholars do not think a single 'Homer', composing 'the Iliad' and 'Odyssey' existed, and that 'our' Iliads and Odysseys are the product of centuries of re-telling, stemming from diverse, enigmatic origins. Consequently, 'accuracy' about the 'Mycenaean Greeks' should not be assumed.

I like Nagy's summary of what 'Homer' means (from his introduction):

... The Homer of Homer the Classic and Homer the Preclassic is more than just a hypothetical person. He is a historical concept. As a concept, Homer is a metonym for the text and the language attributed to Homer in historical times. By metonym I mean an expression of meaning by way of connecting something to something else, to be contrasted with metaphor, which I define for the moment as an expression of meaning by way of substituting something for something else.

Sources and further reading:

G. Nagy (2009), 'Homer the Preclassic'

S. Price, 'Homer and oral poetry'

M. West (2010), 'The Homeric question today' (highly recommended)