Ouroboros Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 My favorite examples is Abe Lincoln the vampire hunter. He was a real person and there are stories about him hunting vampires, so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Well, There is this guy. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3694931/Pastafarians-bid-for-hole-y-hat-on-driving-licence.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Look BD I just cant give it the designation of troy. When you look at the site its is a compilation of different cities that's why they are numbered troy I Troy II troy III etc. They are literally built ON TOP of each other. You have to combine the features of these different cities to get a troy. They're the same city rebuilt over and over. And you get "Troy" and "Illios" because those are the names they had, apparently, given to themselves. As its unusual for a knickname one tribe gave to another, to have also been used by another that isn't in contact with it. It's good to be skeptical, but there is a point where it is too much. Scholars don't label this city Troy without good reason.... And yes, it is one city. In fact, instead of repairing buildings after a diseaster, the ancient world is full of examples where the city would be rebuilt on top of the old. And coins from the city literally say what city it is, I don't get the dedication you have against this being Troy. Alexandros fits the mold but that does not mean he was paris referenced in the story it really doesn't it just means he bears some similarities. I bet you could find the same of countless princes across Europe Alexandros just happened to be in the right area. We don't even know the time when the Battle of troy took place. so your looking over a huge stretch of history and picking different pieces from different time periods to fit it together to fit the story. Agamemnon was greek btw not a Trojan it means king of kings.... I stated above that I thought the whole story was just a fable, but was based off historical figures. I read somewhere that there was an Agamemnon in one of the documents mentioned in Luwian, I didn't say he was a Trojan. My point was that the names are based off historical persons. Just like the epic of gilgamesh has in it the name of a real king, King Aga of Kish, yet as to the historicity of Gilgamesh? Well... It was based off historical people, but its entirely just a myth. Just like the Illiad. That is my point. Most historians call the sites Troy because it acts more or less like a place holder i.e. they are looking for troy they find something that looks like troy IT MUST BE TROY!!! Schliemann even admits as much that his original discovery was to small to be troy. These early archeologists falsified after the fact. So these sites get labled TROY and just get stuck that way. Point is there is more than one "troy" there are other dig sites that also claim to be "troy" yours is not the only one. We are getting way off topic though. So you should probably start another thread for this discussion I don't want to get to carried away from the discussion. By your logic, we don't know that Peleset was in Palestine, despite the overwhelming evidence that its the Egyptianized name Palestine, because we don't actually have anything in the area in and around Gaza in writing calling it Peleset? In fact, we can't even know that the Libu were in Libya, they could be from anywhere! Nevermind the evidence that leads scholars to say that they were libyans, and nevermind the evidence that leads scholars to link Illios/Wilusa to Troy/this city. All because an armchair scholar said so! One that can't even provide any evidence that it isn't Troy, that it might be some other city. Or that the evidence in favor of it being troy is flawed. I don't see the point, but if you want me to make this into another thread, I will. Also, I don't have jstor access, so if you could send me a pdf? Thank you! So far, the preview does agree with what I've said so far, that it is Troy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Look BD I just cant give it the designation of troy. When you look at the site its is a compilation of different cities that's why they are numbered troy I Troy II troy III etc. They are literally built ON TOP of each other. You have to combine the features of these different cities to get a troy. They're the same city rebuilt over and over. And you get "Troy" and "Illios" because those are the names they had, apparently, given to themselves. As its unusual for a knickname one tribe gave to another, to have also been used by another that isn't in contact with it. It's good to be skeptical, but there is a point where it is too much. Scholars don't label this city Troy without good reason.... And yes, it is one city. In fact, instead of repairing buildings after a diseaster, the ancient world is full of examples where the city would be rebuilt on top of the old. And coins from the city literally say what city it is, I don't get the dedication you have against this being Troy. Alexandros fits the mold but that does not mean he was paris referenced in the story it really doesn't it just means he bears some similarities. I bet you could find the same of countless princes across Europe Alexandros just happened to be in the right area. We don't even know the time when the Battle of troy took place. so your looking over a huge stretch of history and picking different pieces from different time periods to fit it together to fit the story. Agamemnon was greek btw not a Trojan it means king of kings.... I stated above that I thought the whole story was just a fable, but was based off historical figures. I read somewhere that there was an Agamemnon in one of the documents mentioned in Luwian, I didn't say he was a Trojan. My point was that the names are based off historical persons. Just like the epic of gilgamesh has in it the name of a real king, King Aga of Kish, yet as to the historicity of Gilgamesh? Well... It was based off historical people, but its entirely just a myth. Just like the Illiad. That is my point. Most historians call the sites Troy because it acts more or less like a place holder i.e. they are looking for troy they find something that looks like troy IT MUST BE TROY!!! Schliemann even admits as much that his original discovery was to small to be troy. These early archeologists falsified after the fact. So these sites get labled TROY and just get stuck that way. Point is there is more than one "troy" there are other dig sites that also claim to be "troy" yours is not the only one. We are getting way off topic though. So you should probably start another thread for this discussion I don't want to get to carried away from the discussion. By your logic, we don't know that Peleset was in Palestine, despite the overwhelming evidence that its the Egyptianized name Palestine, because we don't actually have anything in the area in and around Gaza in writing calling it Peleset? In fact, we can't even know that the Libu were in Libya, they could be from anywhere! Nevermind the evidence that leads scholars to say that they were libyans, and nevermind the evidence that leads scholars to link Illios/Wilusa to Troy/this city. All because an armchair scholar said so! One that can't even provide any evidence that it isn't Troy, that it might be some other city. Or that the evidence in favor of it being troy is flawed. I don't see the point, but if you want me to make this into another thread, I will. Also, I don't have jstor access, so if you could send me a pdf? Thank you! So far, the preview does agree with what I've said so far, that it is Troy. Ill just have to concede you seem to have better knowledge on the subject than me. I'll do some more digging on the matter. My position I so unintelligibly wrote is that I could not concede with the information that I had read at hand to be 100% in fact literally the troy as depicted by homer. You have made some good points so I think I will refine my position and look at the evidence again. Thanks for the insight. you should be able to register on jstor for free and read it online ill see if I can snag it off of my browser and pdf it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Ill just have to concede you seem to have better knowledge on the subject than me. I'll do some more digging on the matter. My position I so unintelligibly wrote is that I could not concede with the information that I had read at hand to be 100% in fact literally the troy as depicted by homer. You have made some good points so I think I will refine my position and look at the evidence again. Thanks for the insight. you should be able to register on jstor for free and read it online ill see if I can snag it off of my browser and pdf it for you It won't let me, but if you can do that, thanks! I made an account but it says I need to pay for it. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I didn't think what you wrote was unintelligible. I thought you did a good job. Though I think you might have misunderstood where I was coming from, thinking that I was argueing for a historical trojan war, which was why I reiterated that I highly doubt it was based on a real war. At least one between the greeks and the trojans. In particular, because of the time differences. The greeks wouldn't have been able to take on their hittite overlords and the trojans (who were hittite vassals). And Agamemnon, if he was the mycenaean king the story is based on, certainly wasn't able to send an army to Anatolia, his country was on the brink of ruin in the time period mentioned. We're talking the brink of the Greek Dark Ages here. Though I'll say more on that in the thread I'm going to make on this. I'm making another thread for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted May 18, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 18, 2013 All of this makes me wonder, if it's true that history repeats itself, how soon will there be people that believe Yoda is real? I was actually thinking about this the other day. I could see a future where people SERIOUSLY worship the flying spaghetti monster as real. As to Yoda, http://www.jedichurch.org/ Thanks for posting. I was not aware of the Jedi Church but I must say that I'm not at all surprised by it either. As for drawing an analogy between something like Yoda and Jesus, I'd say that with enough political force and in a far less technologically advanced society it would have been just as possible to have everyone believing in an historical Yoda in several generations as it was to have people believing in Jesus of Nazareth. There were some people flat out against this bullshit from the outset, calling it a superstition and essentially a myth. But over time it became popular and essentially forced on everyone at some point. If it were possible to do that with Yoda in this day and age then it could happen just as easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts