>>2044341

Aside from the war lasting a month this movie was p good. Bana's rendition of Hector was outstanding

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypria
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

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.

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

That movie was sweet. I loved watching brad Pitt kill everything*.

>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.

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.

>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.

>ive never learned anything about troy and the digsites there

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

>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.

Yes, though obviously not in the manner in which it is depicted in the Iliad.

I've actually been. It's a pretty cool archaeological site.

>hector not a likeable character
Get out.

>Is this movie historically accurate, Veeky Forums?

Homer set his story in his own times, some 300 or more years after the time the stories are notionally set. Fights between champions fighting on foot were the norm in Homer's time, but the actual Trojan War took place during the Bronze Age, when elite warriors fought from chariots.

>Did the Trojan war really happen?

Troy was burned to the ground by Achaens circa ~1,200BC. This event inspired the Homeric legends, but how much truth is in the stories is impossible to tell.

"Paper thin"? Are you on crack? The Hitties preserved accounts of the attack on "Wilusa" (illium) by the "Ahhiyawa" (acheans). Achean weapon points have been found at Troy, and there is a level of destruction that exactly coincides with the time of the bronze age collapse. This is hardly "paper thin" evidence, in fact it's about as conclusive as you could ask for.

I watched the extended version where Nestor tells Agamemnon that the war could last 10 years, and he yells back it's not going to take 10 years.

But,

>No Diomedes

Hector was likable in the movie, but a bit of a dick in the book.

>>Did the Trojan war really happen?

0/10

>This movie does a decent job of depicting homeric greece

except it's a made up story set hundreds of years before Homer was even alive

>Is this movie historically accurate, Veeky Forums?

definitely, much like the television documentary series Hercules: The legendary jounrneys

fucking great movie desu, not "historically accurate" but does a decent retelling of the Iliad plebified for mainstream audiences

At Homer's time, they looked back at the Mycenaean as some kind of super beings.

The Hercules legend is just a rip-off of the Biblical Samson.

So it wouldn't surprise me that the Greek myth of Troy is actually about the city of Tyre.

>The Hercules legend is just a rip-off of the Biblical Samson

not really, as the stories are completely different aside from both having strongmen who did strongman things.

Except the Herakles story is older, so that's pretty unlikely. Besides, both are ultimately derived from the same archetype, Enkidu of Sumeria.

>No Diomedes

I understand why they left him out. Honestly, I missed Philocetes and Teucer more than "I'm so great at everything but such a modest bro about it"edes,

>but does a decent retelling of the Iliad plebified for mainstream audiences
I'm very butthurt about Aeneas being given some silly sword instead of the housegods.

Including diomedes would have taken away from how great achilles was. Look at what they did to Ajax....

But you're not butthurt about Aeneas being some pleb that Alexander didn't know?

>Including diomedes would have taken away from how great achilles was

And also from how cunning Odysseus was, and how morally forthright Hector was, etc etc. Diomedes is literature's first Mary Sue.

>But you're not butthurt about Aeneas being some pleb that Alexander didn't know?
I'm butthurt about all the changes, but I value the idea of Trojan legacy being passed down through culture, incarnated by the housegods, more than the idea of Trojan legacy being passed down by genetics or status, which is what Aeneas being special would be.

Even homer puts Diomedes on the back burner for a huge swath of the book.

>Mary sue

Aeneid aeneas was the true Mary sue. In the Iliad he spent his time getting blown the fuck out, then in the Aeneid he pretty much has God mode enabled.

It is archaeologically proven that Troy existed and that it was destroyed violently at some point. Homer or whoever created the Iliad probably based it on real events.

Do you think it was a story passed down, or was it the most popular version of the story so it was written down?

Also, was anyone else kind of disappointed with no fall of troy in the iliad?

It was almost certainly preserved by an oral tradition, the many repetitions and use of stock phrases such as "rosy-fingered dawn" and "wine-faced sea" are typical of oral performances.

Homeric question is a tough one. It's safe to say it was passed down through generations until someone decided to write it down. There were apparently other less known poems that spoke about the war but they were lost.

>Also, was anyone else kind of disappointed with no fall of troy in the iliad?

The Iliad was the original story. There were other stories such as the Iliupersis (destruction of Ilium (Troy)) which have not survived.

There was a small city in Western Anatolia upon which the Iliad was loosely based upon, the city itself wasn't a big deal, with a small population of about 2,000 people during the LBA before getting destroyed by unknown invaders in a fire, those invaders carried Mycenean pottery with them so they were connected to the LBA Greeks aka Myceneans, and no, that movie isn't accurate, that kind of armor wasn't used by Myceneans during that time period, the helmets are especially of place, which would've been mostly variations of boar tusk helmets if it were accurate, we don't know what kind of armor the Trojans wore since they didn't left anything written behind nor any armor or artistical depiction of armors or weapons, the way they dressed would've been similar to those of other more relevant Luwian city states such as those of Mira, whose ruler is depicted in the Karabel monument, but in the movie they are just generic lofty clothes so not really that accurate, the one absolutely inaccurate thing that I saw were the life size statues in Troy which weren't present neither in Anatolia nor in Greece at the time to our knowledge, also said statues look more like something out of 600-500 bc Greece than those of the LBA-EIA Mediterranean, especially the Apollo archer one the architecture is also a little too monumental and Troy was much, much smaller than what it seems in the movie actually

It's a movie based off a legend based off a myth.

The bronze age equipment looks neat though, could be brighter though, i hate the DARKBROWNGREY of everything post 2000

There's also Cypria, which is about events from the start of Trojan war, but only a handful of verses survived.

Cypria?

Has it to do with Cyprus?

Because we know from Hittitie texts that the same Mycenean coalition which was involved in Wilusa (Troy) also attacked and conquered Cyprus

Within the first 5 seconds you can see Egyptian statues and an Athenian depiction of a Persian from the Parthenon circa 450 BC.

I think that speaks for how accurate the rest of the movie will be.

Is like asking if Atlantis: The lost Empire is a accurate depiction of Atlantis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypria

>The title Cypria, associating the epic with Cyprus,[9] demanded some explanation: the epic was said in one ancient tradition[10] to have been given by Homer as a dowry to his son-in-law, a Stasinus of Cyprus mentioned in no other context; there was apparently an allusion to this in a lost Nemean ode by Pindar. Some later writers repeated the story. It did at least serve to explain why the Cypria was attributed by some to Homer and by others to Stasinus. Others, however, ascribed the poem to Hegesias (or Hegesinus) of Salamis in Cyprus or to Cyprias of Halicarnassus (see Cyclic Poets).

>It is possible that the "Trojan Battle Order" (the list of Trojans and their allies, of Iliad 2.816-876, which forms an appendix to the Catalogue of Ships) is abridged from that in the Cypria, which was known to contain in its final book a list of the Trojan allies.

I think he means it as "the Greece Homer wrote about", not the one he himself lived in.

But the Illiad contains many historic errors, the warfare of the late bronze age was based on chariot archery, nothing like the heavy infantry based warfare of Homer's time, but Homer has his heroes using chariots as wagons and fighting on foot, as the Greeks of his own age did, not fighting from chariots with bows, as the "real" war for Troy was fought.

Was there enough flat plains for chariot archers to effectively fight?

>using chariots as wagons and fighting on foot
That's a mythological trope. The exact same thing happens in the Mahabharata: you'd have the two heroes of the opposing armies ride up to each other in golden chariots, dismount, and beat each other up with farm tools.

It's not like they only relied on chariots, warriors on feet were always there and really, really important

The Iliad had people killing others from chariots, though they got off them when honor fights among important people happened.