|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 16, 2008 13:48:44 GMT -5
Iliad's Trow was also a myth until recently so do not state opinions as facts unless you are sure and in this case there is no way that you can be sure but only close minded. The point is that Plutarch stated that early Romans are derived from Trojans led by Aeneas, calls them Hellenes and their language Hellenic and not yet Italized. The myth doesn't portray Aeneas as a superhuman being but as an average human. He was recorded in Iliad and later Romans and Greeks recount him as a Roman progenitor. I am going by their accounts much rather then by your gossip. What bothers you all is that these Trojans are called Hellenes and thus also early Romans, oh well life is such. -------- In Greco-Roman mythology, Aeneas (Greek: Αἰνείας, Aineías; pronounced /ɪˈniːəs/ in English) was a Trojan hero, the son of prince Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite (Venus in Roman sources). His father was also the cousin of King Priam of Troy. The journey of Aeneas from Troy, (led by Aphrodite his mother) which led to the founding of the city Rome, is recounted in Virgil's Aeneid. He is considered an important figure in Greek and Roman legend and history. Aeneas is a character in Homer's Iliad and Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneas ------ The Aeneid (pronounced /əˈniːɪd/; in Latin Aeneis, pronounced [aɪˈne.ɪs] — the title is Greek in form: genitive case Aeneidos) is a Latin epic written by Virgil in the 1st century BC (between 29 and 19 BC) that tells the legendary story of Aeneas, a Trojan who travelled to Italy, where he became the ancestor of the Romans. It is written in dactylic hexameter. The first six of the poem's twelve books tell the story of Aeneas' wanderings from Troy to Italy, and the poem's second half treats the Trojans' ultimately victorious war upon the Latins, under whose name Aeneas and his Trojan followers are destined to be subsumed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid ------ Alba Longa (in Italian sources occasionally written Albalonga) was an ancient city of Latium[1] in central Italy southeast of Rome[2] in the Alban Hills. Founder and head of the Latin League, it was destroyed by Rome around the middle of the 7th century BC.
Alba Longa is the legendary birthplace of Romulus and Remus.[1]
According to legend Alba Longa was founded by Ascanius or Iulus, son of Aeneas, thirty years after the foundation of Lavinium. Chronologically this would have been around the middle of the 12th century BC, some time after the destruction of Troy (which according to ancient scholars occurred in 1184 BC).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba_Longa
----------- __________________ If there is even an ounce of historical truth here it means Romans are Hellenes by origin via Trojans and I highly doubt that these stories were 100% made up but rather represent oral tradition passed from generation to generation that was written down at one point. The story is surely altered over time but again if there is even an ounce of truth... 2nd, the site about Troy is specific that the order of geographical locations as described by Iliad only makes sense when compared by localities presented there and from that region there was a major movement of people after Trojan war (not from Anatolia). Movements that include Illyrian movements to Italy (Rome is nearby), Dorian invasion of Greece, Movements of Sea People (originated after Dorian invasion that was its probable cause). Centuries if instability follow (Phrygians settle Anatolia from todays Peonia & vicinity). Not one recorded major movement from western Anatolia to Balkans at the time or from western Anatolia anywhere. Also bellow Daorson (todays Stolac) there are remains (as stated there) of a burned city that existed in the same time frame as Troy. The gossip about Anatolian Troy was started by man bellow Schliemann
With the rise of modern critical history, Troy and the Trojan War were consigned to the realms of legend. In the 1870s (in two campaigns, 1871–73 and 1878/9), however, the German, self-taught archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann excavated a hill, called Hisarlik by the Turks, near the town of Chanak (Çanakkale) in north-western Anatolia. Here he discovered the ruins of a series of ancient cities, dating from the Bronze Age to the Roman period. Schliemann declared one of these cities—at first Troy I, later Troy II—to be the city of Troy, and this identification was widely accepted at that time. Schliemann's finds at Hisarlik have become known as Priam's Treasure. They were acquired from him by the Berlin museums, but significant doubts about their authenticity persist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Schliemann ------- Criticisms
Schliemann's career began before archaeology developed as a professional field, and so, by present standards, the field technique of Schliemann's work leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed, further excavation of the Troy site by others has indicated that the level he named the Troy of the Iliad was not that; in fact, all of the materials given Homeric names by Schliemann are considered of a pseudo- nature, although they retain the names. His excavations were even condemned by the archaeologists of his time as having destroyed the main layers of the real Troy. However, before Schliemann, not many people even believed in a real Troy. Nonetheless Charles Maclaren identified Hissarlik as the location of Troy as early as 1822.
One of the main problems of his work is that King Priam's Treasure was putatively found in the Troy II level, of the primitive Early Bronze Age, long before Priam's city of Troy VI or Troy VIIa in the prosperous and elaborate Mycenaean Age. Moreover, the finds were unique. These unique and elaborate gold artifacts do not appear to belong to the Early Bronze Age.
In the 1960s William Niederland, a psychoanalyst, conducted a psychobiography of Schliemann to account for his unconscious motives. Niederland read thousands of Schliemann's letters and found that he hated his father and blamed him for his mother's death, as evidenced by vituperative letters to his sisters. This view seems to contradict the loving image Heinrich gave and calls the entire childhood dedication to Homer into question. Nothing in the early letters to indicate that he was even interested in Troy or classical archaeology.
Niederland concluded that Schliemann's preoccupation (as he saw it) with graves and the dead reflected grief over the loss of his mother, for which he blamed his father, and his efforts at resurrecting the Homeric dead represent a restoration of his mother. Whether this sort of evaluation is valid is debatable.
In 1972 Professor William Calder of the University of Colorado, speaking at a commemoration of Schliemann's birthday, revealed that he had uncovered several untruths. Other investigators followed, such as Professor David Traill of the University of California.
Schliemann claimed in his memoirs to have dined with President Millard Fillmore in the White House in 1850. However newspapers of the day make no mention of such a meeting, and it seems unlikely that the president of the United States would have a desire to hob-nob with a poor immigrant. Schliemann left California hastily to escape from his business partner, whom he had cheated. In the frontier society of the gold rush, cheating was punishable by lynching.
Nor did Schliemann become a U.S. citizen in 1850 as he claimed. He was granted citizenship in New York city in 1868 on the basis of his false claim that he had been a long-time resident. He did divorce Ekaterina from Indiana, in 1868, an obvious hasty move to clear the way for Sophia.
Schliemann's worst accusation, by academic standards, is that he may have fabricated Priam's Treasure, or at least combined several disparate finds. His servant, Yannakis, testified that he found some of it in a tomb some distance away, and that it contained no gold. Later it developed that he hired a goldsmith to manufacture some artifacts in Mycenaean style, and planted them at the site, a practice known as salting. Others were collected from other places on the site. Though Sophia was in Athens visiting her family at the time, it is possible she colluded with him on the secret, as he claimed she helped him and she didn't deny it. However, these claims are rejected by a vast majority of archaeologists as they are only speculation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticisms
I say there is enough doubt about Schliemann (moral character and even his mental state) to strongly question a find as important as Troy in a location that simply doesn't make sense historically speaking (the allies like Peonians could not react it in Anatolia where there is no major movement of people afterwards and the site does not correspond to the descriptions of geographical locations).
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 16, 2008 15:02:03 GMT -5
If Aeneas and his Greeks were of Greek origin, then they were the ruling class, since the language that Rome spoke was Latin and the language does not derive from Greek. The Latins, who were settled there before the arrival of Aeneas, spoke Latin--and it is that language that the Romans spoke, also. So, if what you say is accurate, then at best the Romans are as much Greek as Bulgarians are Bulgars.
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 16, 2008 17:04:51 GMT -5
If Aadmin wants to read about the early latins and Rome, then i suggest he read: A Critical History of Early Rome.
The Trojan myth is considered to be a foundation of the 4rd century, when Rome entered into contact with the Greek world. There is only one basis for the Trojan myth, but not throught Greeks, but rather a non-Greek speaking, native Anatolian people called the Lydians, from a migration story that we find in Herodotus(1.7), but even this has been contested and most dont seem to regard it with much truth. But in the end, it remains a myth:
"We do not know when the Romans first began to regard themselves as being of Trojan descent, and when this notion was generally embraced by the Latins, but the process of this myth's genesis probably probably dates at least as far back as the late 4th century B.C. when the Romans abolished the Latin League and appropriated its religious traditions onto themselves." - Forsythe, 293
The actual myth itself probably has some Greek origin since it was common for Greeks to attribute origins of foreign peoples to their own mythological people(Forsythe 93)
In fact, even Roman myths( such as Romulus and Remus to the death of the Fabians) have distinctive Greek overtones and seem to have been derived from Greek myths.
The case of the Iliad and the Aeneid's of the Romans are very different. For one, the Aeneid's are works that are taken from the Iliad and dont show an ounce of actual oral poetry(the various "oral" elements of the Iliad, such as the adjective names (Swift-footed Achilles, "much-enduring Odysseus", "bronze-cloaked Achaean's)because it is a construction by a very good poet who takes mythical elements that have now very much fortified in the Roman mind. The Romans of the 1 century BC did not know much if anything about what they were like in the 8-5th century, they just had small tidbits that they created a history out of. Even the Regal period has only an ounce of truth in it. We dont even know if those kings actually existed.
PS: Sorry I said 3rd century, I was wrong there.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 16, 2008 17:59:30 GMT -5
The point is that Plutarch stated that early Romans are derived from Trojans led by Aeneas, calls them Hellenes and their language Hellenic and not yet Italized. Any chance you could post these direct quotes from Plutarch? With a link.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 17, 2008 1:24:52 GMT -5
Wasn't ancient Egypt founded by Aegyptus? Aadmin, quick, claim the Egyptians as being Hellenic!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 17, 2008 12:15:27 GMT -5
The Life of Romulus: by Plutarch 753 BCE || Legendary Founding of Rome
Others, that at the taking of Troy, some few that escaped and met with shipping, put to sea, and driven by winds, were carried upon the coasts of Tuscany, and came to anchor off the mouth of the river Tiber, where their women, out of heart and weary with the sea, on its being proposed by one of the highest birth and best understanding amongst them, whose name was Roma, burnt the ships.
Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian. classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 17, 2008 12:25:08 GMT -5
Early Hellenic (Trojan derived) Romans are unlikely to have been negligible in numbers versus early primitive village dwelling Latins who could not muster a large body of people in such a limited space (and cultural backwater) as was early Latium. They would have surely elevated the cultural and civilizational levels of these early primitive people and these were even more enhanced with contacts with Etruscans. Finally Rome's Hellenism become cemented permanently after Rome managed to take Hellenic South Italy (called 'Magna Grecie' or 'Greater Greece' do to the fact that it contained bigger number of Greece then Greece itself) which surely also injected so much Hellenic blood and influence (that maintained itself t least within the Roman elite throughout Roman history) that Hellenic legacy that was Rome was cemented firmly.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 17, 2008 14:22:34 GMT -5
The Life of Romulus: by Plutarch 753 BCE || Legendary Founding of Rome
Others, that at the taking of Troy, some few that escaped and met with shipping, put to sea, and driven by winds, were carried upon the coasts of Tuscany, and came to anchor off the mouth of the river Tiber, where their women, out of heart and weary with the sea, on its being proposed by one of the highest birth and best understanding amongst them, whose name was Roma, burnt the ships.
classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.htmlYes, I see that Plutarch said that the ancestor of Romulus (Aeneas) came from Troy. I never doubted that. What I did question was that Plutarch had said the Trojans were Greek and that Aeneas spoke Greek as you claimed above: Plutarch said they still spoke Greek before being Italized. So what we have so far is Plutarch saying Aeneas came from Troy, and you saying that the Trojans were Greek, and you saying that therefore Aeneas spoke Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 17, 2008 16:16:26 GMT -5
One more time But most are of opinion (of whom Juba particularly is one) that this word was used to new-married women by way of incitement to good housewifery and talasia (spinning), as we say in Greek, Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian. But if this be the case, and if the Romans did at the time use the word talasia as we do, a man might fancy a more probable reason of the custom. classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html--------- Clearly says (during early interactions with Sabines) Romans spoke Greek ("Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian"). Even states if "the Romans did at the time use the word talasia as we do" (meaning if they were not italized linguistically yet but still greek speaking) and it states clearly "Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian". "Sabine rape" implies there is a population mainly composed of males (soldiers) in search of females to reproduce as the bellow text states. ---- "The word rape in this context means "abduction" (from the Latin rapere, to grab, later meaning 'steal', and finally to sexually assault, presumably from the idea of stealing virtue). It refers to an event supposed to have occurred in the early history of Rome, shortly after its foundation by Romulus and a group of mostly male followers. Seeking wives in order to found families, the Romans negotiated with the Sabines, who populated the area. The Sabines refused to allow their women to marry the Romans, fearing the emergence of a rival culture. Faced with the extinction of their community, the Romans planned to abduct Sabine women. Romulus invited Sabine families to a festival of Neptune Equester. At the meeting he gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands.
Livy is clear that no sexual assault took place. On the contrary, Romulus offered them free choice and promised civic and property rights to women. According to Livy he spoke to them each in person, "and pointed out to them that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying right of intermarriage to their neighbours. They would live in honourable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and—dearest of all to human nature—would be the mothers of free men."[1]." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women------- "The Sabines adopted the Roman months, of which whatever is remarkable is mentioned in the Life of Numa. Romulus, on the other hand, adopted their long shields, and changed his own armour and that of all the Romans, who before wore round targets of the Argive pattern. Feasts and sacrifices they partook of in common, not abolishing any which either nation observed before, and instituting several new ones; of which one was the Matronalia, instituted in honour of the women, for their extinction of the war; likewise the Carmentalia." classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html-------- "The Lupercalia, by the time of its celebration, may seem to be a feast of purification, for it is solemnised on the dies nefasti, or non-court days, of the month February, which name signifies purification, and the very day of the feast was anciently called Februata; but its name is equivalent to the Greek Lycaea; and it seems thus to be of great antiquity, and brought in by the Arcadians who came with Evander. " classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html----- Evander
In Roman mythology, Euander (Evander) [1][2] was a deific culture hero from Arcadia Greece, who brought the Greek pantheon, laws and alphabet to Rome sixty years before the Trojan War. He instituted the Lupercalia.
According to Virgil [3], previous to the Trojan War, he gathered a group of natives to a city he founded in Italy near the Tiber river, which he named Pallantium. Virgil states that he named the city in honor of his son, Pallas, although Pausanias says that Evander's birth city was Pallantium, thus he named the new city after the one in Arcadia.
Since he met Anchises before the Trojan War, Evander aids Aeneas[4] in his battle against the Rutuli under the autochthonous leader Turnus and plays a major role in Aeneid Book XII.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander------ "Upon this, conditions were agreed upon, that what women pleased might stay where they were, exempt, as aforesaid, from all drudgery and labour but spinning; that the Romans and Sabines should inhabit the city together; that the city should be called Rome from Romulus; but the Romans, Quirites, from the country of Tatius; and that they both should govern and command in common." classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html__________________ So the story is clearer. Arcadian Greeks present in Rome bring friendly Trojans and settle the region. They still speak Greek at this point. They needed women which they kidnap from Sabines and a new fused Greek-Italic nation is created (language eventually becomes mostly Italic, except Greek elite, while culture was Greek). According to this info this is how Rome started.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jan 17, 2008 17:02:15 GMT -5
One more time But most are of opinion (of whom Juba particularly is one) that this word was used to new-married women by way of incitement to good housewifery and talasia (spinning), as we say in Greek, Greek words at that time not being as yet overpowered by Italian. But if this be the case, and if the Romans did at the time use the word talasia as we do, a man might fancy a more probable reason of the custom. Hmmm. Did you notice above that Plutarch said " if this be the case[/size]" and" if the Romans did at the time use the word talasia as we do..." As to the other (non-Plutarch) arguments you are now adding, I stated above that most (if not all) modern Western historians do not consider Troy to have been Greek. The issue is not the legend of a certain Trojan Aeneas having come from Troy and landed in Italy.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 17, 2008 17:50:30 GMT -5
Forget Schliemann. Let's focuse on the Iliad itself. The truth can be found there in the names mentioned in the tale. The Hellespont is mentioned occasionally, as is Thrace, both of which are geographically close to Schliemann's Troy. Yet no Daorson are mentioned. Example; " Acamas and the warrior Peirous commanded the Thracians and those that came from beyond the mighty stream of the Hellespont." The Iliad, Book II If Troy was located in Herzegovina, the mentioning of the Hellespont when describing the direction from whence the Thracians came would be illogical & unnecessary. Here is another reference to the Hellespont; " If your champion slay me, let him strip me of my armour and take it to your ships, but let him send my body home that the Trojans and their wives may give me my dues of fire when I am dead. In like manner, if Apollo vouchsafe me glory and I slay your champion, I will strip him of his armour and take it to the city of Ilius, where I will hang it in the temple of Apollo, but I will give up his body, that the Achaeans may bury him at their ships, and the build him a mound by the wide waters of the Hellespont. Then will one say hereafter as he sails his ship over the sea, 'This is the monument of one who died long since a champion who was slain by mighty Hector.' Thus will one say, and my fame shall not be lost." Part of Hector's speech, from Book VII. Again, why mention the Hellespont unless it was geographixally approximate? It does not make sense. Unless Troy trully was located in Anatolia, regarding which there is a wide consensus among scholars. I am sure I can find more examples. In either case, it is not Schliemann talking. It is HOMEROS himself making references to the Hellespont. Troy is indeed a legend, but there's a good probability that it is based on a true war. And its location makes such a conclusion quite logical (as opposed to rugged Herzegovina). Why? Because the narrow strip of water we know as the Dardanelles trully functioned as an important trade route, connecting the Aegean with the Black Sea. This is why Constantinople rose to become the Eastern Roman empire's capital city and centre. Speaking of Constantinople; hey, c0gnate, the connection between the Albanian language and Illyrian & Thracian has since long been debated by linguists. Personally, I believe Illyrian and Thracian might have been related. Either way, it is worth studying the original name of Constantinople, which was Byzantion (or Vizantion). According to Greek legend, the name of the city came from a Thracian king named Byzas. This name striked me, because among Albanians, alot of names with the root - buzë can be found, such as Buza, Buzo, Buziqi, Buzuku etc. Just like in Romanian, our word for lip is buza. Yet the word has another meaning as well, that of a bank, as in a riverbank (buzë lumi), by the sea (buzë deti) et cetera. Byzantion was trully located by the water ... and it is known that there was a Thracian presence there. Could there be a connection?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 18, 2008 11:04:37 GMT -5
wide waters of the Hellespont Who says that that was the Hellespont in question (what if there were two) and since when is that one called Hellespont (whose to say it was called such back then). ------- HELLESPONTOS (the sea): Neretva’s delta; the flat and green expanses where the SKAMANDROS (Neretva) debouches, marked by convoluted brackish channels and marshy islets.
VII; 81: “But if so be I slay him, and Apollo give me glory, I will spoil him of his armour and bear it to sacred Ilios and hang it upon the temple of Apollo, the god that smiteth afar, but his corpse will I render back to the well-benched ships, that the long-haired Achaeans may give him burial, and heap up for him a barrow by the wide Hellespont. And some one shall some day say even of men that are yet to be, as he saileth in his many benched ship over the wine-dark sea: ‘This is a barrow of a man that died in olden days, whom on a time in the midst of his prowess glorious Hector slew.’ So shall some man say, and my glory shall never die.”
XII; 25: ...and Zeus rained ever continually, that the sooner he might whelm the wall in the salt sea. And the Shaker of Earth, bearing his trident in his hands, was himself the leader, and swept forth upon the waves all the foundations of beams and stones, that the Achaeans had laid with toil, and made all smooth along the strong stream of Hellespont, and again covered the great beach with sand, when he had swept away the wall; and the rivers he turned back to flow in the channel, where aforetime they had been wont to pour their fair streams of water.
Hellespontos is a compound-type which emphasizes a topographical condition, derived from the Illyrian root Felj-, connoting the marshy, swampy, banks of a river, + pont-, connoting a long and narrow corridor (as of a river, for instance). The later story about Helle falling from the back of the ram Phrixus at this place, thereafter forever named the Sea of Helle, may well be. Yet the only thing that really falls from the sky into the sea is the sun, and so this story may also well be about that of a midwinter sunset, when the sun, low and golden on the horizon, as seen from Ilios (Gabela), would appear to fall into the brackish waters and soggy marshes at the mouth of the Skamandros (Neretva).
The Hellespontos is dotted with a number of natural cone-like outcroppings, one of which was called Batieia (Kosjak, 82 mts.), also known as the Barrow of Myrine. These odd mounds served, upon a time, as burial sites, a fact which has been archaeologically substantiated. www.troya.com.mx/Sea_Iliad/SEA.html#HellespontosPS: Also this one is far wider then one you presented.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Jan 18, 2008 12:29:07 GMT -5
To my knowledge, there was and is only one Hellespont. The name derives from a myth about Helle, daughter of Athamas, who drowned in these waters in the myth about the Golden Fleece. Thus the name translates as "Helle's Sea". If you can find sources that confirm your statement that the name wasn't restricted to the popularly known Hellespont, fair enough. Until then, we can conclude that Homer's reference clearly confirms the Anatolian location of ancient Troy.
With your level of scepticism, anything in the Iliad can be endlessly interpreted in various ways ... Crete may not refer to Crete at all, but perhaps to some island on the Dalmatian seashore ... Ithaca may perhaps be Sveti Stefan along the Montenegrin coast .... etc etc. In my opinion, the Hellespont is an obvious reference to the strip of water connecting the Aegean with the Black Sea. And as I said; when Hector speaks of Thracians as coming from "beyond the streams of the Hellespont", that makes little sense if Troy was located in Herzegovina. This because both Illyria and Thrace were on the same side of the Hellespont .
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 23, 2008 12:39:43 GMT -5
|
|