Our antiquity - TROYA (Chapter 5. On a shield or with a shield?)

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

In the final chapter, we will look at some aspects of the Iliad, as well as the course and results of the Trojan War.

Chapter 1.

Chapter 2.

Chapter 3.

Chapter 4.

The events of the Trojan War have long seemed to be textbooks.

Everyone remembers that the origins of the war in the dispute between the goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite over the apple, on which was written "the most beautiful." The Trojan prince Paris awarded this apple to Aphrodite, which predetermined the alignment of divine forces in the upcoming war.

But these are divine deeds.

And in everyday life, Homer's pretext for war was the kidnapping of Helen, Menelaus' wife, by Paris. Unable to bear such an insult, Menelaus's brother, King Mycenae, Agamemnon, gathered other Achaean kings, and they sailed to the walls of Troy.

The Iliad begins its story in the tenth year of the war. The Paris, which seems to have happened, is described in unsightly tones. The most heroic hero Achilles is mostly offended and sits in his tent while his allies are mercilessly beaten by the Trojans.

Then he dresses his best friend (or brother) Patroclus in his armor and lets him go to certain death. Patroclus was naturally killed, and not just anyone, but the Trojan prince Hector, who displayed courage and heroism during the war.

Then Achilles woke up, nevertheless left his tent and, having fought with Hector, onto whom he had shifted all responsibility for the death of his friend (brother), killed him. Then he mocked the body of the deceased hero for twelve days, periodically dragging him behind the chariot.

The king of Troy, the old man Priam, was forced to get into the camp of the Achaeans and humiliate himself before Achilles, kissing the hands of the son-killer, so that the "hero" had mercy and gave Hector's body for funeral ceremonies.

Achilles broke like a red girl, but in the end he agreed. Then Hector was solemnly buried. With this the Iliad ends.

But what about the famous Trojan horse? And there was no horse in the Iliad. The making of the horse and the fall of Troy is already mentioned in the Odyssey, but this is rarely remembered.

The death of Achilles and Paris is described in the poem "Ethiopis" (VIII-VII centuries BC), which has nothing to do with Homer, and from which only a synopsis and a few fragments have come down to us.

It is interesting that the belonging of the Odyssey to Homer has been questioned since ancient times (Xenophanes, Gellonic). The 19th century Russian historian Yegor Klassen also says that the authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey are different.

Discussions about this continue to this day. Nowadays, some kind of computer seems to have given the result that both poems belong to the pen of the same author. However, this may be the result of the simultaneous processing (maybe collective) of both texts at a later time, because the history of the recording of poems is very vague.

Soviet-Russian philologist L. S. Klein in his work "Anatomy of the Iliad", after analyzing the text, came to the conclusion that the poem contains earlier and later books (songs). He also believes that the texts of individual books have been altered.

It is not known for certain how much the course of events of the Trojan War could have been changed by later insertions, but we already know that the fall of Troy is absent in the Iliad, it is only predicted.

It is believed that both poems acquired a more or less modern look in the so-called “pisistratovo edition” dating back to the 6th century BC. The editing, we are told, was carried out to order the performance of the poems at the Panathenes. Since this edition was prepared by order of the Athenian authorities, the likelihood of a tendentious approach to handling the course of the Trojan War is not excluded.

A list of the Iliad dating back to the 3rd-4th centuries AD has come down to us.

There are versions about the Slavic roots of the Iliad.

According to Ellian (the turn of the 2nd-3rd centuries), the Iliad and Odysseus were written in Brigian, but by the end of the 6th century BC they were translated into the ancient Greek - Ionian (Attic) dialect. According to Strabo, the Brigians are Phrygians, and the latter, as we found out in the second chapter, belong to the Thracian tribes, who were one of the main allies of the Scythian Trojans.

Xenophanes (turn of the 6th-5th centuries BC) describes the Thracians as fair-haired and blue-eyed. Yegor Klassen and a number of other researchers believe that the Thracians are Slavs, but the canonical history adheres to a different version.

Regarding the Slavic origin of the Iliad, Yegor Klassen also writes: "… Lycurgus found the first 8 songs of her (Iliad - mine) in Kem, the city of Troy …"

For some reason, I immediately remembered a scene from the famous film: “Kemsk volost. Oh, ya, ya!"

By the way, in the Crimea, not far from the city of Belogorsk, there is a mound of the III millennium BC, which is now called Kemi-Oba. And the fact that the name of Kem, the "deposit" of the Iliad, is not alien to the Slavic world, Klassen reports.

Arguing about the Slavic roots of the Iliad and drawing a parallel with the Word of Igor's Campaign, Klassen says that the author of Igoreada (that is, the Word of Igor's Campaign) would not have used the chronology from the Trojan centuries if Troy had no relation to the Russians. and the history of the Trojan War and the Iliad would not be familiar to the author of the Word.

Putting forward the thesis that later the “Greeks” wrote the Odyssey, Klassen writes: “… she (the Odyssey - my note), despite her later appearance, is dry, in places rough, filled with too coarse fictions and very stretched out with colorless paintings. The Odyssey is an example of Greek poetry that cannot bear comparison with the Slavic Iliad."

It is difficult to disagree with Klassen, the high poetry and imagery of a number of scenes in the Iliad cannot be questioned. Another thing is that the storyline and the relationship of the heroes, apparently due to later revisions, in particular, under the “general line of the party” of the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus, leave an ambiguous impression.

We'll talk about this later, but now let's get back to the reasons for the Trojan War.

We already know the traditional version. One can add to it only that the brothers Helena (Castor and Polideukos - the so-called brothers of Dioscuri) for some reason did not rush to the walls of Troy immediately after the abduction. Although when Helen was abducted by Theseus, they, without delay, in hot pursuit destroyed Athens and freed her sister. To somehow explain this awkwardness, we are told that after the abduction of Elena by Paris, her brothers died. Well, they died, so they died.

Herodotus does not deny the abduction of Helen by Paris, although he presents the situation in a slightly different way.

The Achaeans kidnapped Medea, the daughter of the king of Colchis. Paris, having learned about this, although he had nothing to do with Colchis, considered that he could kidnap some woman from the Achaeans. After the abduction of Elena, Paris from Sparta did not sail to Troy, but took refuge with Elena in Egypt. The Achaeans went on a march to Troy after Helena. They did not believe the Trojans that Elena was not in the city, they besieged and took Troy, but they did not find Elena. Then they sent Menelaus to Egypt for his wife.

Dareth of Phrygia cites his version of the beginning of the war, on the basis of whose composition, as already mentioned in the first chapter, the history of the Trojan War was written in the Illuminated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible.

Dareth writes that at first the Achaeans captured Priam's sister Hesion during a military campaign. Priam sent an ambassador to the Achaeans, but he returned with nothing. After that, Helen was abducted by Priam's son Paris. When the Achaeans wanted to fight Troy because of the abduction of Elena, the Trojans again told the Achaeans to return them to Hesion, but now in exchange for Elena. The Achaeans disagreed and the war began.

Dion Chrysostom (turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries) says that there was no abduction. Or rather it was, but only one thing before. Helen was kidnapped by the king of Athens Theseus, and the brothers of Helena Castor and Polideukos, they rescued her, destroying Athens. After that, Elena was betrothed to Paris, since it was a profitable party, given the power of Troy (therefore, Elena's brothers did not participate in the Trojan War). Menelaus was refused the matchmaking due to the fact that the Spartans had already intermarried with Menelaus's brother, the king of Mycenae, Agamemnon.

Agamemnon saw that the marriage of a Spartan princess and a Trojan prince strengthens the influence of both Troy and Sparta, which could promise trouble for Mycenae in the future. Yes, and for the rejected brother, he was offended. Agamemnon did not fight Sparta, since they seem to be his own, and he managed to become related with the king of Sparta Tyndareus. Therefore, under the pretext that the Hellenic woman was married to an Asian, and this is a mess, he began to collect Achaeans who wanted to profit from the riches of Troy under a plausible pretext.

So we have four versions. Everyone can choose for themselves the one that seems more believable.

I would consider the traditional version of the latter on this list. I would put Herodotus in the penultimate place. And the versions of Dareth and Dion, in my opinion, look relatively plausible in equal measure.

It doesn't make much sense to examine the course of the war in detail, but in all versions, except for Dictis of Crete (who wrote on behalf of the Achaeans), before the death of Hector in the tenth year of the war, one can see some advantage of the Trojans. It should only be noted that, according to Dareth, the Phrygian and Litsevoy Code, the Trojan prince Paris fights bravely and does not show signs of cowardice.

After the death of Hector, a radical turn in the Trojan War takes place in the works continuing the Iliad, which looks somewhat strange.

Judge for yourself:

Dareth's version of the Phrygian and Facial vault. The Trojans repeatedly drove the Achaeans to their camp and nearly burned their ships. The Achaeans were even going to lift the siege and go home, tk. considered a further war hopeless. By the way, the Iliad also describes the desire of the army to return home.

Homer's version. The Iliad begins not only with the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon (when things are going well, the leaders usually do not quarrel), but also with the mention of an epidemic in the Achaean camp, which happens when a large number of people gather, if there is not enough fresh food and water. Most likely, the Trojans especially did not give the Achaeans freedom of movement outside their camp.

When the Trojans attack the camp of the Achaeans and crush them, Patroclus (dressed in the armor of Achilles) comes to the aid of the Achaeans with the Myrmidons, which evens out the situation. But Patroclus, as we know, is dying. The next day, Hector, dressed in the armor of Achilles he had captured, again crushes the Achaeans, and only the onset of night prevents him from burning their ships.

As we see in both versions, the situation among the Achaeans, if not awkward, is very difficult. It is possible that these are events from more ancient sources.

It is necessary to dwell in somewhat more detail on Achilles and Hector, in relation to whom even canonical studies come to disappointing conclusions.

Consider the position of L. S. Klein from his book Anatomy of the Iliad.

Klein on Hector. “Hector was not originally a Trojan hero. His name belongs to purely Greek names (cf. Nestor, Castor, Actor) and means "holder". The entire family of Hector (Andromache, Astianax) has transparent Greek names, except for Priam. But the relationship between Hector and Priam is a late invention: in the Iliad, the patronymic Priamides has not yet managed to merge with the name of Hector into the usual combination."

Klein on Achilles. “Some bewilderment may be caused by the position of Apollo (we are talking about a duel with Hector - my comment) … He is here on the side of Achilles, while in the Iliad he is the patron and protector of Hector … pean is a hymn to Apollo … … the connection between Apollo and Achilles is very ancient, deep, and their position in the Iliad is late, superimposed on these images by the plot of the Trojan cycle: according to his disposition, Apollo is a supporter of the Trojans."

Further, Klein summarizes: “… Achilles was not among Elena's suitors (he was too young), and he did not take an oath. He invaded the plot, like Hector, later, from the outside."

As we can see, Klein draws conclusions about the alienness of Hector, his family and Achilles in the Iliad.

But in order for us to draw our conclusions about Achilles, there are a few more facts to consider.

Klein points to a deep connection between Achilles and Apollo. At the same time, in his work, he draws an analogy between the murder of Hector by Achilles and the sacrifice to Apollo, who, as already mentioned, was the patron saint of the Trojans and was one of their main gods.

According to the Hymns of Homer (I 123-125), the mother of Apollo Leto did not breastfeed her son - Themis fed him with nectar and ambrosia. And according to one of the versions, the name Achilles is "feedless", that is, "Not breastfed".

In the Ossetian epic, only the knees were vulnerable at Soslan's nart, which brings him closer to Achilles. And his counterpart Sauseryk'o from the Adyghe epic is a symbol of the sun and light, in this connection, it is appropriate to recall the sun god Apollo (and the Slavic Dazhbog too).

In the Iliad, Achilles' epithet "swift-footed" is often found, but Apollo also has the epithet "runner."

As we can see, Klein's conclusions about the deep connection between Achilles and Apollo are not without foundation. And it is possible that Achilles may be the heroic image of Apollo (like Helen of Aphrodite, and Iphigenia of Artemis - we touched on these parallels in the second chapter).

Incidentally, the epithet of Achilles 'swift-footed', which is stable in the poem, is not used in any of the scenes of the modern Iliad. Moreover, chasing Hector, the swift-footed Achilles cannot catch up with him. But they ran around the city three times along the Iliad, getting to the springs where the Trojan women went to wash their clothes (according to the canonical version, from Troy to springs 6-7 kilometers). By the way, the fright of Hector, because of which he began to run away from Achilles, does not fit with his character and previous exploits.

Klein says that the inserted character of a number of Achilles' fights from books XX and XXI, preceding the battle with Hector, has long been convincingly shown by the work of many scientists. Thus, it turns out that apart from the victory over Hector, Achilles did not really do anything heroic in the Iliad. Moreover, he behaved, to put it mildly, doubtfully in relation to his Achaeans, his best friend (or brother) Patroclus, the dead body of Hector and the old man Priam.

Achilles was a Scythian (Leo the Deacon, Arrian), Alkeus (VI century BC) calls him "reigning over the Scythians." Achilles could fight against the Scythian Trojans only if he went over to the side of the Achaeans, in other words, having committed betrayal (here the analysis is carried out within the framework of an aggressive interpretation of the war, and not internecine war, which was dealt with separately in the third chapter).

Achilles is deified, and his cult was developed primarily in the Northern Black Sea region, i.e. in the lands of the Scythians. And this would hardly have happened if Achilles had fought against the Scythians on the side of the enemies.

Flavius Philostratus (Vita Apol. IV, 16) writes that the Thessalians, unlike the Trojans, do not bring the funeral gifts to Achilles. The Trojans' funeral gifts to the invader Achilles, after all the atrocities attributed to him, look generally ridiculous.

But all these inconsistencies instantly disappear if Achilles, for example, takes the place of Hector, and Hector is in Achilles' place, or, given Klein's conclusions about Hector's alienness in the Iliad, some other character from the Achaean camp. There will remain the only knot in the form of the Achilles-Hector fight, which will not be difficult to untangle separately.

As a result, we will get that Hector with his Greek name will not loom in the camp of the Trojans, and Apollo will help the Trojan Achilles, and running around the city to some extent can be justified by the desire of the swift-footed Achilles to wear down his opponent before the battle. In addition, the whole bouquet of impartial actions that are now recorded behind Achilles would have migrated to another character.

It is in this case that the worship of Achilles, first of all, among the Scythians in the Northern Black Sea region, and the funeral gifts to him from the Trojans, will be understandable. In general, everything will fall into place.

It is interesting that in the Observatory of Ivan IV, an illegitimate (!) Son named Anchilles is mentioned among the sons of Priam. He is mentioned only once in the list of sons and does not appear again in the text. Maybe this is the shadow of the great Achilles, which has come down to us from "alternative" sources?

I won't talk about the Greek text, but in the Russian translation of Peleus into Priam, Achilles is replaced without effort as the father. Of course, this is a very primitive trick, but let's see what happens:

Anger, goddess, sing of Achilles, Priam's son, Terrible, who caused thousands of calamities to the Achaeans:

Many mighty souls of glorious heroes have cast down

Into the gloomy Hades and spread them themselves for the greed of the carnivores

To the surrounding birds and dogs (Zeus's will was performed), -

From that day, as those who raised the dispute, were inflamed with enmity

Shepherd of the peoples of Atrid and the hero of the noble Achilles.

These are the first seven lines of the Iliad. Please note that I only changed the name of Achilles' father, which turned Achilles into a Trojan. I haven't changed a single word again. Does this stanza sound logical? Yes.

And it sounded logical when Achilles appeared to be a formidable Achaean, who caused thousands of calamities to his Achaeans and sent many of their souls to Hades? In my opinion, no.

The murder of many tribesmen because of the captivity of Chryseis looks unpresentable. But if Achilles is a Trojan and therefore a fierce enemy of Atrid Agamemnon, the need to defend the Fatherland at any cost makes it impossible to treat the invaders otherwise.

By the way, few people notice that the Iliad in the form in which it has come down to us often praises the base aspirations of the hero highlighted in the foreground. For example, the priority of the individual over the collective, the ability to sacrifice a friend or brother (not to mention allies) for the sake of personal interests and ambitions, justification of unworthy actions in relation to the enemy (an episode with a mockery of the body of the deceased hero).

The explanation of this style of behavior of the protagonist of the Iliad by the fact that, they say, the ancients had a different philosophy of life seems to me to be a stretch.

Even if the current version of the Iliad is not as old as it is attributed to, more than one generation has grown up on it. And this whole bouquet of questionable actions of the highlighted character, unfortunately, became the cornerstone of the model of behavior, first of all, in Western civilization.

But if the plot of the Iliad provided for retribution and contempt for such a character, then one could speak of the high humanistic component of this literary work. By the way, I do not exclude that this was the case in the original text of the poem.

Only the question is, if not Achilles, then who of the Achaeans acted so ignoble?

We find interesting evidence from Klein: “… Book VI requires special consideration … In it, Trojan women, at the request of Hector, march to the temple of Athena and pray to the goddess for the protection of the city from Diomedes, and only from Diomedes. They do not know any other adversary worthy of mention …"

Further, Klein writes: “K. Robert captured the hidden rivalry between Achilles and Diomedes and their plot parallelism. These two heroes are almost never brought together: Achilles disappears - Diomedes appears, Diomedes disappears - only then Achilles appears again (they are found only in The Funeral Games in honor of Patroclus, in Book XXIII, but there is generally a lot of confusion). These are incompatible figures, they exclude each other."

And finally, Klein reports: “… Diomedes acted instead of Achilles, as Achilles … He was Achilles' understudy. And this version has survived in large chunks - in some books of our Iliad.

Isn't Diomedes the mysterious Achaean we were looking for? And the godlike Scythian Achilles could fight for the Scythians of the Trojans, as he was supposed to, and perform many glorious feats, defending Troy.

“So what,” the reader will ask, “does the Iliad need to be restored?”

My answer is: “In my opinion, we should simply understand that the plot of the Iliad most likely came to us distorted beyond recognition, and not harbor any illusions about its philosophical“value”.

But back to the Trojan War. So the Iliad ends with Hector's funeral. According to the later works accompanying the Iliad, the fall of Troy takes place soon after.

Dareth the Phrygian, by the way, has no Trojan horse, and Troy is captured because of the betrayal of Aeneas and Antenor, who opened the gates to the Achaeans in exchange for guarantees of life for them and their families.

This is more like the truth than a phantasmagoric story with a horse, for the justification of which the authors of works written in the development of the Iliad invented the intrigues of the gods who sent collective madness to the Trojans.

However, let's see what happens in Greece after the alleged fall of Troy.

At this time, the so-called "Dorian invasion" takes place - the conquest by the Dorian tribes in the XIII-XII centuries BC. Central Greece and the Peloponnese.

Georgian scientist R. V. Gorteziani says that there is no indication in the Homeric epic of the existence of the Dorians in mainland Greece. This means that the Dorians began the conquest of Greece after the end of the Trojan War.

It is believed that the "Dorian invasion" was reflected in the legends about the return of the Heraclids. Heraclides are the descendants of Hercules, to whom several royal families of archaic (VIII-V centuries BC) and classical (V-IV centuries BC) Greece traced their origins. It is appropriate to recall here that according to one of the legends cited by Herodotus, the Scythians are the descendants of Hercules.

There are many versions of where the Dorians came from. This is the north of Greece, and the north of the Balkans, and even the Northern Black Sea region, which fits into the results of our study.

Therefore, it is highly probable that a Scythian trace is present in the "Dorian invasion".

The death of the Mycenaean civilization is associated with the arrival of the Dorians, i.e. the former Achaean Greece, and the onset of the so-called "dark ages" (XI-IX centuries BC). In other words, all the Achaean dynasties known to us from the Iliad fell.

Could such events have occurred in the event of the victory of the Achaeans over one of the most powerful kingdoms of that time, Troy? Not sure. Rather, it looks like a consequence of the crushing defeat of the Achaeans.

It is very interesting that the defeat of the Achaeans in the Trojan War is justified by Dio Chrysostom. Every time I get great pleasure when I reread his "Trojan speech in defense of the fact that Ilion was not taken."

And it's hard to disagree with a number of his arguments.

After the "victory" the Achaeans sailed from the Trojan shores separately. This may indicate a disorder in their camp, which is unlikely in the event of a brilliant victory.

And here is what happened to the Achaean kings at the end of the Trojan War.

Menelaus, as Dion writes, did not return to Greece and remained in Egypt. Odysseus was in no hurry to go home, and his friends did not come to help Penelope when the suitors came and began to plunder the royal property. Subsequently sentenced to exile (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Plutarch).

Diomedes and Neoptolemus, according to Dion, were expelled from the Peloponnese shortly after their return. According to other sources (Trifiodorus, Euripides, Pausanias), Neoptolemus was killed.

On his return, Agamemnon was killed by his wife Clytemnestra and her partner Aegisthus, who later ruled Mycenae. And those around them took it calmly.

The question arises: "Is this how the winners are greeted?"

Here is what Dion says about this: “Indeed, it was hardly customary to attack those who came with victory, or those who were lucky - they are rather admired and feared, while the losers are despised by strangers too, and some of our own."

Moreover, Dion reports: "Subsequently, the Achaeans, driven out by the Doryans, not knowing in their weakness where to go, came to Asia to the descendants of Priam …"

It is traditionally believed that the Achaeans moved to Asia Minor. But is it not these Achaeans who fled from the Doryans that we find on the historical map of the 17th century in the Northern Black Sea region?

Now we should look at how the outcome of the Trojan War influenced the fate of the Trojans. Let's consider the canonical version.

The well-known Aeneas, as we know, moved to Latius, where he became the king of the Latins.

Priam's friend and advisor Antenor moved to the Adriatic, where he eventually founded Patavius (present-day Padua). This is very close to Venice and is consistent with the migration route of Trojans from the mouth of the Don to Pannonia (northern Yugoslavia) according to the Book of the History of the Franks, which we discussed in the third and fourth chapters.

Priam's son Gelen goes to Greece, where he becomes king of the Molossians in Epirus.

If you do not take into account the "Hellenic" explanation of what is happening, this is more like the expansion of the Trojan kingdom than a flight after defeat.

Dion rightly points out that if we were to flee, it would be more logical to go to Asia, where Troy had a lot of weight. Flight to Europe and, moreover, to the enemies - "victors" in Greece looks very absurd.

In the light of the hypothesis of the victory of the Trojans, the appearance in Asia Minor becomes understandable, where Schliemann later sought Ilion, the allies of Troy, the Thracian tribes of the Mysians and Phrygians. Archaeological evidence suggests that these peoples appeared in Asia Minor about two hundred years after the end of the Trojan War.

Thus, the emergence of the Asia Minor Troas and the founding of a new Ilion there may also be the result of the victory of the Scythian-Trojans and their allies in the Trojan War.

It seems to me that as a result of the Trojan War, the positions of the Scythian Troy on both Bosporus were strengthened, and perhaps the "path of the bull", which we considered in the first chapter, appeared as a result of this victory of the Trojans. Once again, we should return to the Kurgan hypothesis of migration of Indo-Europeans. In my opinion, its chronology very clearly illustrates the results of the Trojan War (XIII century BC) precisely in the light of our hypothesis about the location of Troy in the Northern Black Sea region.

Probably, it should not be ruled out that the fall of the city could later be brought into the Trojan cycle from the Theban cycle, where, as a result, Thebes were destroyed by the sons of seven leaders from the tragedy of Aeschylus "Seven against Thebes". Klein, for example, gives a number of arguments in favor of the Theban origin of the image of Hector and his relatives (the cult and the grave in Thebes, the indication of Thebes as the homeland of his wife, etc.).

If we take into account the testimony of many canonical scholars about the alterations of the Iliad, the idea arises that the works describing the events of the Trojan War may be one of the first falsifications of history.

I think that Scythian Troy won this war from the Achaean invaders. They were expelled from the Northern Black Sea region. The position of Troy on the shores of the Great Don Sea was strengthened, and she expanded her possessions to the Mediterranean Sea, establishing colonies in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy.

And how could it be otherwise if the attack of the invaders was repelled together by numerous peoples from the Caspian to the Adriatic - nomads, and sedentary, and mountaineers, and steppe dwellers. And all of us were united by the belief in the Sun, the grandchildren of the earthly incarnation of which we considered ourselves.