Aside from the war lasting a month this movie was p good. Bana's rendition of Hector was outstanding
>>2044341
Bentley Bennett
Other urls found in this thread:
David Lee
Yes, the city of Troy existed at some point (or more likely, several separate points) in the past. The specific details of the war are obviously impossible to verify, beyond very general aspects like who the major players were and what the end result was.
As for the film, it was alright but suffered from lackluster acting/casting and no sympathetic/likeable characters.
Anthony Cook
The trojan war really happened. This movie does a decent job of depicting homeric greece
How close the events are to the actual trojan war is hard to say since the only real source is homer. Movie basically made a realistic version of the illiad
Ryan Martin
That movie was sweet. I loved watching brad Pitt kill everything*.
David Bennett
>Is this movie historically accurate, Veeky Forums?
Neither in the sense of it accurately representing what the place would have looked like in 1200bc (presumably) or in the sense of what Homer was trying to depict.
>Did the Trojan war really happen?
Archeological evidence strongly supports some level of conflict, though since the site clearly shows continued habitation and development it appears that it was nowhere near the scale of what the epics showed.
All that said the film was pretty fine except for a few casting choices. It had your typical Hollywood historical schlock but still managed to be entertaining.
Ryan Stewart
I wouldn't take it as fact that the "Troy" they dug up in Turkey is actually the same city Homer was writing about. It's wishful thinking paired with opportunism because of easy funding.
Charles Hall
>I wouldn't take it as fact
The majority of the archaeological community accepts it as such. We lack solid proof through writing, but the numerous excavations over the past 150 years give us enough evidence that to establish a theory stronger than any competition.
Christian Gomez
>ive never learned anything about troy and the digsites there
Logan Collins
You meant to say they lack any form of solid proof.
>b-but it matches what Homer described
Like I said, the idea that Homer based his tales on actual historic facts is wishful thinking because of a lack of other written sources. Also consider the fact that they were only written down hundreds of years after Homer came up with it by one guy who had one version out of many.
Even if Homer actually visited ruins that he thought to be Troy, there's no proof that what he thought was Troy, was actually the Troy he was writing about. There's a good chance he fell for the meme himself and thought Troy existed when it never did.
That "the majority" of the archeological community means jack shit when your proof is paperthin. Archeology relies on funding... and fairytales sell. And Homer wrote nothing but fairytales. How come he never talked about the 27 other Troys archeologists came up with? Because at no point in time was there ever a citystate called Troy.
>I have no argument or evidence for it but let me shitpost anyway
Isaac Cooper
>to establish a theory stronger than any competition.
True because it bases itself on the unfalsifiable premise that Troy existed.
In the same way you can argue creationism establishes a theory stronger than any competition.