Historical event that has been known of and retold for generations is considered to be just a legend

Even with Troy we have very little evidence except for the city and the war itself.
We have no idea what happened apart from the facts that their was a city of Troy and the Trojan War destroyed it.

Yes, evidence doesn't exist. It's an aspergial concept.
yeah THEY WUZ JUST LYIN UNLIKE ARE MODERN HISTORIANS WHO ARE TOTALLY HONEST AND SCIENCEMEN

the idea of water overtaking everything in a world where flooding would effect all agricultural societies is hardly remarkable. In fact its trite

For one thing history isnt stem. and What gods do they hate exactly? Jove and the Olympian host?

That Troy existed in no way proves the narrative of the Iliad is all literal fact. And to argue that it does would be an extreme overstep backed up by zero evidence.

Legends can contain clues to history but we know they often get facts wrong.

>King David was just a lege...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele#.22House_of_David.22

>The Bible is just mythol....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele#Line_27

XiXth century "historians" were retards about everything because they simply had worse tools and archaeology had just began as a discipline

no one's claiming ancient people lied, just that they didn't know what they were talking about when it came to what was even for them the distant past.

you clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think historians consider King David and the book of Kings to be mythological

They're worse now. They can't get over sucking STEM cock.
Why didn't they know? Progress? Bicameral mind? Some other meme?

Because the further you go back in time, the less likely you are to find corroborating evidence for different stories. Generally speaking, a story can be safely assumed to be merely legend unless you can find some sort of corroborating evidence that gives the story new validity.

They didn't know about carbon dating, for one thing.

Troy is the exception. Most legendary stories and locations end up never being real. For example, has anyone found Avalon or Asgard yet? How about Atlantis? Excalibur? Shangri La?

How are you going to find Atlantis randomly at the bottom of the ocean dummy?

Troy isn't really even an exception. Troy might have existed, that doesn't validate the entire illiad. Proving a single element of a story doesn't automatically prove other elements of the same story.

See? Sucking STEM cock.

>be Aristotelian
>science is bad you guys

>Troy doesn't exist Homer was writing fict-
Troy found.
>Nineveh doesn't exist the Bible is fict-
Nineveh found.
>The Hittites didn't exist you religious people are cra-
Archaeological remains of Hittite Empire found connecting it to an empire recorded in Egyptian history by a different name.
>The Battle of Jericho didn't hap-
Ruins of Jericho validate Biblical account. Kathleen Kenyon goes there explicitly to disprove the Biblical narrative (no bias there). Now, "Jericho exists but the destruction was not the Biblical account of its destruction."

Historians are liars sometimes.

>people can keep track of history
>this is evidence of divine inspiration in one specific book

Nothing I said had anything to do with divine inspiration. Take your fedora and your violated bananas back to rebbit.

History is multi-disciplinary, making use the tools, methods, and expertise from many different fields. What you want is to gimp the study by discarding more modern, objective methods to understand the past. Why rely only on (often unreliable) witness accounts, tall tales, and creation myths when you can use everything at your disposal to get as accurate a picture as possible?

Besides, history is always political. You shouldn't always so easily accept one people's version of a story, which might have been concocted for self-serving reasons of pride, unity, or propaganda (Yes, I'm quite obviously insinuating this is the case for the Israelites, since the most active poster in this thread who I assume you are seems to be most angry about second-guessing of the scripture).

I agree with you.

Objective history is archaeology. History is inherently subjective.

obviously the historians are just applying the scientific method. They don't have an active agenda to suppress mythology. They just say because something is presented is mythology that is no particular reason to assume it has a historical context in reality.

Aristotle was a hack.
>science
>objective
>history
>objective
Eat shit, cocksucker. Did you take that spiel of yours from your History 101 course introduction?
They do have an agenda, stop deluding yourself.

>have no proof something happened
>historians say the thing didn't happen
>some proof the thing happened is found
>historians now say the thing probably did happen

How's this lying? Surely saying a thing happened without any evidence would be the lie?

You can't be neither an Aristotelian nor a Platonist because that distinction frames the entire epistemological debate. There is nothing to believe outside of Plato or Aristotle.

>evidence
Evidence doesn't exist. The entire notion is propaganda.
This is what systematizers actually believe.
2017 not 1720.

Probably the Iliad having all the parts about the gods choosing sides and fighting, while the Trojans and Greeks were going at it, had an effect on credibility. Like how they try to say Jesus or the Buddha weren't real.

The only major character I can think of for that logic to apply to would be Hermes Tres Majistus or Sun Tzu, but there were pre-Ptolemaic gods in Egypt that were heavily speculated to simply be deified mortals, having actually existed in their times, and not being complete constructions, like say Hercules' mortal life.

>inb4 the Count of Monte Cristo

>I can't go around believing stuff greek philosophers said because muh Christian contrarianism

Greek philosophy is trash for pig-headed dopes. Go back to /r/eddit you pederast.

>evidence doesn't exist

So literally feels before reals?

>evidence doesn't exist
>THEY FOUND TROY THIS IS PROOF THE ILLIAD IS REAL

Reality doesn't exist, it is an ideology projected onto existence.
The instant one attempts to systematize existence, they are lowering it to reality.
I never said that.

I'm not defending "da greeks" I'm just saying the debate marking Aristotelian realism and Platonic idealism is so abstract and generalized there is no third option.

This is false. Yes, you are being a dicklick pederast. Stop that.

Stop imbibing so much alcohol

I'm not the grEEK-loving pederast here.

This entire thread is based on the premise that Troy being found is proof that the legends of the Trojan war are true...

I never said that, though. Are you illiterate? Is that why you love smegma-ridden STEM cock?

I fucking hate the greeks. They are boring as fuck. The debate has moved on. We have Wittgenstein now. You're the one bringing up greeks you alcy piece of shit.

In more recent years some historians have come out and said that a guy like Arthur existed in 6th century sub-roman Britain (his name was actually Arhur).

OP has a point, but he should have phrased it differently, historical truth is buried somewhere in between legend, fact, and hearsay. Stem shitters in history departments like to be autists and disprove and theory anyone puts out about these things, because that's their hobby.

There is also the legend of Prester John which more recently has been Identified with a solomonid ethiopian king.

No I wasn't, he was. Are you fucking illiterate? No wonder you adore that sperglord.
Fact doesn't exist.

>implying you aren't OP

O hey it's this guy here's your (You) you crave

We know where Troy was.