Why did Odysseus kill the suitors with a bow, considered to be a low class weapon?

It's possible that's how it was interpreted later, but we don't know if that was an intentional choice.

There was a slight trading relationship, but that is no reason to assume they had the same culture.

I'm three years into an MA in Ancient Mediterranean Civilisations by the way, I already know everything you're saying.

Came here to find the "i study the guy who posts in all caps", but was disappoint

That's because the Assyrians made frequent use of chariots. But Greece is far more rocky, which means chariots can't be used extensively.

Also, why are you shouting?

koryvantesstudies.org/studies-in-english-language/page218-2/

>Bronze Age cultures valued the composite bow as a highly advanced and efficient weapon, offering solutions to both mobility and firepower in conflict. It is certain that the composite bow wasn’t commonplace in Minoan and Mycenaean world. It was a prestige item with high cost owned by the elite warriors and aristocrats. The weapon was in use by the Minoans probably from the early Neopalatial period and continued to play a dominant role in Aegean battlefields till the 13 century BC following the decline of chariot archery. Local wild goat horn -as a raw material- was in high value and extensive use by the Minoans during the later Neopalatial Period and we have enough indications to believe that Minoans were able to construct their own composite bows in a large scale. In the Mycenaean context a series of textual and archaeological evidence support the argument that the composite bows were constructed in a broaded basis by state’s specialist craftsmen at least till the end of 13th century BC while practically used till the end of Bronze Age.

By the Bronze Age composite bows were specialized weapons developed by craftsmen for people of the upper classes meant to be used on chariot. In the context of the Odyssey, the bow is from Odysseus' storeroom. Held over from before the Trojan War. It was likely of high quality make and material.

>There was a slight trading relationship

SLIGHT TRADING RELATIONSHIP???

ARE YOU AWARE OF WHO GAVE THE ALPHABET TO THE GREEKS?

THE PHOENICIANS, THE SAME PHOENICIANS WHO HAD EMPORIUMS ALL OVER THE NEAR EAST AND ANATOLIA

ARE YOU AWARE THAT GREEKS WERE MERCENARIES IN EGYPT WHEN THE ILIAD AND ODYSSEY WERE BEING COMPOSED?

ARE YOU AWARE THE EUBOEAN GREEKS JOINED THE PHOENICIANS IN THEIR VENTURES IN THE MEDITERRANEANS??

ARE YOU AWARE PHOENICIANS SETTLED IN CYPRUS, SOUTH CRETE AND PARTS OF GREECE?

THEIR SHIPS HAD A MIXED CREW, AND THAT WAS HAPPENING EVEN BEFORE THE PHOENICIANS DURING MYCENEAN TIMES, SEE THE ULUBURUN WRECK FOR INSTANCE

THESE WERE NOT "SLIGHT" COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

PHOENICIANS WERE A BIG DEAL FOR GREEKS AND THE HOMERIC POEMS THEMSELVES CONFIRM IT SINCE THEY'RE VERY OFTEN MENTIONED, NOT TO MENTION GREEKS COLONIZED ANATOLIA AND CYPRUS SINCE THE BRONZE AGE AND LATER RECOLONIZED THEM IN THE EARLY IRON AGE, GREEKS WERE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE KINGDOMS OF ANATOLIA, THE LEVANT AND EVEN EGYPT, WAY MORE THAN YOU IMAGINE... I SUGGEST YOU READ ABOUT THE EARLY PHOENICIAN COLONIZATION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN, THE GREEK COLONIZATION OF ANATOLIA, CYPRUS AND THE MYCENEAN PRESENCE IN CILICIA AND THE LEVANT AS WELL

I thought we were talking about the Bronze Age, not Early Iron Age?

DURING THE BRONZE AGE GREEKS USED WAR CHARIOTS MORE OFTER THAN NOT, ACCORDING TO HITTITE ACCOUNTS THE AHHYAWA (ACHEANS) AIDED REBELLIOUS ANATOLIAN KINGDOMS WITH 100 WAR CHARIOTS!!

AND IN LINEAR B GREEK TABLETS FROM KNOSSOS THE PRESENCE OF 100 WAR CHARIOTS IS IN FACT ATTESTED!!

PIC RELATED, MINOAN ARCHERS

>DURING THE BRONZE AGE GREEKS USED WAR CHARIOTS

Correct

>MORE OFTER THAN NOT

Prove it.

>ACCORDING TO HITTITE ACCOUNTS THE AHHYAWA (ACHEANS) AIDED REBELLIOUS ANATOLIAN KINGDOMS WITH 100 WAR CHARIOTS!!

And we're supposed to just take that at face value?

>AND IN LINEAR B GREEK TABLETS FROM KNOSSOS THE PRESENCE OF 100 WAR CHARIOTS IS IN FACT ATTESTED!!

In the same specific incident? Or is it just a common epithet for denoting a large (relatively speaking) number of chariots?

Chariots did appear in Mycenaean Greece, but as a status symbol, perhaps comparable to composite bows. They wouldn't have been the workhorse of an army like in Assyria.

Bows were not considered a low class weapon ever.

In classical Greece they were, as they became associated with the Persians.

... WHEN DO YOU THINK THE ODYSSEY WAS COMPOSED EXACTLY???

ANYWAY EVEN IN THE BRONZE AGE GREEKS COLONIZED CYPRUS (WHICH IS A MATTER OF HOURS FROM SYRIA BY SHIP), AND PARTS OF ANATOLIA, AND WERE REPORTED RAIDING SYRIA BY HITTITES, THEY ALSO PROBABLY INVADED CYPRUS

THE ULUBURN AND CAPE GELYDONIA WRECK HAD A MIXED CREW MADE OF MYCENEAN GREEKS, CRETANS, CYPRIOTS, SICILIANS AND CANAANITES, THE SHIPS THEMSELVES WERE MADE WITH WOOF FROM EITHER SYRIA, CYPRUS OR ANATOLIA, EITHERWAY TRADE WAS BIG AT THE TIME AND GREEKS WERE PRESENT IN THE NEAR EAST AND OFTEN IMPORTED NEAR EASTERNER LUXURIOUS OBJECTS, SO THEIR ARISTOCRACY ENJOYED ENAR EASTERNER FASHION AND CUSTOMS, ANATOLIAN ARTISANS AND SLAVES WERE PRESENT IN MAINLAND GREECE ITSELF AS ATTESTED IN LINEAR B TABLETS, AND THE KING OF GREECE EXCHANGED LETTERS WITH THE HITTITE EMPEROR, THE MEDITERRANEAN WAS MORE INTERCONNECTED THAN YOU THINK,

PIC RELATED IS A MYCENEAN PAINTING FROM THE ROYAL PALACE OF PYLOS (GREECE)

sorry i don't entertain arguments offered without proof.

>... WHEN DO YOU THINK THE ODYSSEY WAS COMPOSED EXACTLY???

The date of composition is irrelevant, the period of its creation as an oral tradition is. That began in the Bronze Age.

>
ANYWAY EVEN IN THE BRONZE AGE GREEKS COLONIZED CYPRUS (WHICH IS A MATTER OF HOURS FROM SYRIA BY SHIP), AND PARTS OF ANATOLIA, AND WERE REPORTED RAIDING SYRIA BY HITTITES, THEY ALSO PROBABLY INVADED CYPRUS

Sure, but there was no direct trading relationship with Egypt, which is what I originally said.

And, again, a trading relationship with the East is no reason to assume Mycenaean Greece copied their culture and societal values wholesale.

>Prove it.

THEY WERE A "MUST" FOR THE NOBLES, ESPECIALLY IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEANS, GREEKS ARE RECORDED USING THEM BOTH BY FOREIGN POWERS AND BY THEMSELVES!!!

>And we're supposed to just take that at face value?

EVEN IF WE ASSUME THE NUMBER MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLATED FOR WHATEVER REASON IT STILL INDICATES THAT NOT ONLY THEY USED CHARIOTS, BUT THEY ALSO HAD A GREAT QUANTITY OF THEM...

WAR CHARIOTS WERE OFTEN REPRESENTED IN MYCENEAN PAINTINGS IN THE ROYAL PALACES

KNOSSOS WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MYCENEAN "RULED" TOWNS (ORIGINALLY FOUNDED BY MINOANS), COUNTING PERHAPS 80,000 INHABITANTS, PYLOS IN THE PELEPONNESOS WAS MAYBE AS BIG... OF COURSE THESE ANCIENT METROPOLEIS COULD AFFORD THAT NUMBER OF CHARIOTS, IN COMPARISON UGARIT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PORT TOWNS OF THE NEAR EAST HAD ONLY 25,000 INHABITANTS, AND TROY HAD ONLY A FEW THOUSANDS

PIC RELATED BOWMAN FROM A DRAWING IN MYCENAE

Persians are almost always portrayed as lightly armed and armoured in Greek art, and frequently with bows.

Also consider what the elites were doing. Being able to outfit yourself as a heavy infantryman was a mark of prestige, as was knowing how to ride a horse. Light infantry and archer was for peasants and Easterners.

>Sure, but there was no direct trading relationship with Egypt, which is what I originally said.

YES THERE WAS... AN EMBASSY OF GREEKS IS REPORTED IN AN EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT AROUND 1350 BC, WHERE GREEK AND CRETAN CITIES ARE LISTED IN GREAT DETAIL, EVEN CENTURIES EARLIER CRETANS EMBASSIES WERE DRAWN IN EGYPTIAN RELIEFS, LATER AEGEAN SEA PEOPLES INCLUDING GREEKS INVADED EGYPT

BY THE WAY WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

THE COSTUME OF DEPICTING RULERS WITH A BOW WAS COMMON IN ALL THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN (AND BEYOND) DURING THE BRONZE AGE AS I'VE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES ABOVE, PIC RELATED ANATOLIAN/LUWIAN KING WITH HIS BOW IN WEST ANATOLIA, A KINGDOM BORDERING THE MYCENEAN COLONIES OF EPHESUS AND MILETUS

>THEY WERE A "MUST" FOR THE NOBLES, ESPECIALLY IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEANS, GREEKS ARE RECORDED USING THEM BOTH BY FOREIGN POWERS AND BY THEMSELVES!!!

Exactly! They were a prestige item for nobles, that directly precludes extensive use. They were not militarily useful in the Greek terrain and, hence, were not extensively used. They were basically a toy for the elites.

>THEY ALSO HAD A GREAT QUANTITY OF THEM

That depends entirely upon your definition of "great quantity".

The whole illiad reads like some expert liar spent years partying around some islands and went back home to find his wife having orgies with a bunch of dudes, and decided to make an epic out of it to clean his name.

>YES THERE WAS... AN EMBASSY OF GREEKS IS REPORTED IN AN EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT AROUND 1350 BC, WHERE GREEK AND CRETAN CITIES ARE LISTED IN GREAT DETAIL, EVEN CENTURIES EARLIER CRETANS EMBASSIES WERE DRAWN IN EGYPTIAN RELIEFS, LATER AEGEAN SEA PEOPLES INCLUDING GREEKS INVADED EGYPT

You're presuming the Minoans were Greek.

There was an embassy recorded, and that's about the only direct contact between Egypt and Greece we have in the Bronze Age. I.e. there was no direct trading relationship that we have any evidence of.

>ANATOLIAN/LUWIAN KING WITH HIS BOW IN WEST ANATOLIA, A KINGDOM BORDERING THE MYCENEAN COLONIES OF EPHESUS AND MILETUS

So what? The Luwians aren't Greek.

>Sure, but there was no direct trading relationship with Egypt, which is what I originally said.

THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OF WHY ODYSSEUS, A NOBLE KING OF SEVERAL IONIAN ISLAND USED THE BOW

>They were not militarily useful in the Greek terrain and, hence, were not extensively used.

CRETE IS GREEK TERRAIN AND THE CRETANS WERE FAMOUS ARCHERS

>You see, we know that "kings" and other elites across the Mediterranean used bows as a symbol of identity because of these statues of kings, using bows.

>We know they're kings, of course, because they're using bows

>THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OF WHY ODYSSEUS, A NOBLE KING OF SEVERAL IONIAN ISLAND USED THE BOW

No it doesn't.

>CRETE IS GREEK TERRAIN

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

And that doesn't mean the Minoans were Greek.

We also see maces being used by the kings of Egypt and Assyria, yet we don't see anything of the sort in Mycenaean Greece. Why would they adopt the bow but not the mace?

At least on the Eastern side Bow is the weapon of choice for the greatest and the fittest warrior

This.

>You're presuming the Minoans were Greek

YOU'RE PRESUMING GREEKS IN 1350 BC WERE NOT IN MAINLAND GREECE AND CRETE, WHERE THE KINGDOM OF "TANAJU" SENT THEIR EMBASSY FROM (THE CITIES LISTED INCLUDED CITIES BOTH IN MAINLAND GREECE SUCH AS MYCENAE, THEBES AND NAUPLIA AND IN THE AEGEAN ISLANDS AND CRETE SUCH AS KNOSSOS), THE FACT THAT YOU IGNORE THAT GREEKS RULED OVER BOTH MAINLAND GREECE, CRETE, THE AEGEAN ISLANDS AND PART OF ANATOLIA BY 1450 BC SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE OF LATE BRONZE AGE GREEKS, WHICH LEADS ME TO DEDUCE YOU'RE TOO IGNORANT TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION WITH ME ABOUT THIS TOPIC, CHEERS

>CRETE IS GREEK TERRAIN AND THE CRETANS WERE FAMOUS ARCHERS

MY POINT WAS THAT THE GREEK ELITE SHARED USED AND CUSTOMS WITH OTHER NEAR EASTER MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERIODS DISCUSSED HERE... BU YOU LACK THEM WHOLESOMELY, AND I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME NOR THE PATIENCE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU IN DETAIL, NEAR EASTERN RULERS SHARED A COMMON CODE, AS IT'S CLEARLY FROM THE LETTERS EXCHANGED BY THEM, RESEARCH IT YOURSELF AND YOU'LL MAYBE UNDERSTAND, CHEERS

YOUR IGNORANCE IS OUTSTANDING AND EMBARASSING, BOWS WERE MORE WIDESPREAD IN MEDITERRANEAN ICONOGRAPHY THAN CLUBS, AND WHILE CLUBS WERE NOT OFTEN USED IN GREECE, MACES WERE

>THE FACT THAT YOU IGNORE THAT GREEKS RULED OVER BOTH MAINLAND GREECE, CRETE, THE AEGEAN ISLANDS AND PART OF ANATOLIA BY 1450 BC

The Mycenaeans were in control of Crete by the late bronze age, that doesn't mean the Minoans were Greek, which is what I was discussing.

>MY POINT WAS THAT THE GREEK ELITE SHARED USED AND CUSTOMS WITH OTHER NEAR EASTER MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS

You're still assuming the Minoans were Greek.

As just because the later Cretans were famous as archers is not proof that the Minoans were proficient archers. We also have absolutely no identifiable iconography of elites from Minoan Crete, and to my knowledge no iconography of elites archers from Minoan Crete.

The simple fact is that your theories don't stand up to rigourous scrutiny, the fact you're relying on as hominems perhaps is proof of your own lack of conviction in them.

You aren't the same lad who was banging on about the Indo-Europeans worshipping horse cocks are you? You remind me of him.

But that's a Minoan fresco, not a Mycenaean one.

You also can't demonstrate the individual there is an elite. He certainly doesn't look it.

THAT'S A MYCENEAN FRESCO FROM THE MYCENEAN CITY OF PYLOS, DON'T RIDICULE YOURSELF ANY FURTHER

>The Mycenaeans were in control of Crete by the late bronze age, that doesn't mean the Minoans were Greek

NON SEQUITUR, THE EMBASSY OF THE KINGDOM OF TANAJU CAME FROM TANAJU, A POWER THAT RULED OVER BOTH MAINLAND GREECE AND CRETE ACCORDING TO EGYPTIANS, WE KNWO THAT IN THAT PERIOD (LATE BRONZE AGE) GREEKS RULED OVER THAT AREA, THE EMBASSY CAME FROM BOTH MAINLAND GREEK CITIES FROM MAINLAND GREECE AND CITIES RULED BY A GREEK ELITE FROM CRETE, THE MINOAN CIVLIZATION DIDN'T EXIST ANYMORE, ALL OF CRETE WAS UNDER GREEK RULE DURING THAT PERIOD, AND THE EMBASSY DIDN'T JUST COME FROM CRETE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM GREECE PROPER

>As just because the later Cretans were famous as archers is not proof that the Minoans were proficient archers. We also have absolutely no identifiable iconography of elites from Minoan Crete, and to my knowledge no iconography of elites archers from Minoan Crete.

I JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH IT NUMEROUS TIMES, YOU'RE SIMPLY BLINDLY REPEATING YOURSELF, YOU ANNOYING IGNORAMUS.

CHEERS

WE KNOW THAT WHOEVER WAS ABLE TO AFFORD AN ELABORATE HEAVY BRONZE ARMOR AT THE TIME WAS IN A POSITION OF POWER

>THAT'S A MYCENEAN FRESCO FROM THE MYCENEAN CITY OF PYLOS, DON'T RIDICULE YOURSELF ANY FURTHER

You sure? Looks rather Minoan. But then fair enough I suppose most did back then, the Minoan craftsmen got around a bit.

>NON SEQUITUR, THE EMBASSY OF THE KINGDOM OF TANAJU CAME FROM TANAJU, A POWER THAT RULED OVER BOTH MAINLAND GREECE AND CRETE ACCORDING TO EGYPTIANS, WE KNWO THAT IN THAT PERIOD (LATE BRONZE AGE) GREEKS RULED OVER THAT AREA, THE EMBASSY CAME FROM BOTH MAINLAND GREEK CITIES FROM MAINLAND GREECE AND CITIES RULED BY A GREEK ELITE FROM CRETE, THE MINOAN CIVLIZATION DIDN'T EXIST ANYMORE, ALL OF CRETE WAS UNDER GREEK RULE DURING THAT PERIOD, AND THE EMBASSY DIDN'T JUST COME FROM CRETE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM GREECE PROPER

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

First of all, nothing but nothing of what you said proves that the Minoans were Greek.

The Minoan culture did not disappear with Mycenaean political overlordship.

We have no real proof that the embassy that arrived in Egypt were Greek. The most the Egyptians said about them was that they came from somewhere in "the Great Sea", i.e. the Mediterranean.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that mainland Greece was a unified kingdom, much less that that kingdom included Crete.

The only one engaging in non sequiturs here is yourself.

>I JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH IT NUMEROUS TIMES, YOU'RE SIMPLY BLINDLY REPEATING YOURSELF, YOU ANNOYING IGNORAMUS

No, you haven't.

There is no identifiable iconography of kingship from Minoan Crete. That is simple fact.

Generally, there is very little iconography of war or warriors from Minoan Crete at all.

The closest thing to elites we have in Minoan art are groups of women in what appears to be religious ceremony.

Who says they're wearing armour? That could easily be fabric.

You're evidently bending the facts to fit your theory here, mate, and just inventing fantasy to fill the gaps.

What's more, you can't prove they're kings or elites, rather than gods.

Archers made up 10% of the Athenian forces during the Peloponnesian war. There was never a time in ancient Greek history where the bowman did not play a significant role.

Sure they may have played a significant role, but that doesn't mean they were respected or that archery was seen as an honourable thing to do. Certainly, whenever Greeks talked about serving honourably in the wars it's always in the Phalanx or as a tower, in Athens.

Only after the Persian wars. Before this era the bowman was not looked down upon.

Well yeah, I am talking about Classical Greece.

>
You sure? Looks rather Minoan. But then fair enough I suppose most did back then, the Minoan craftsmen got around a bit.

GOOGLE REVERE IMAGE IT YOU IDIOTIC LOSER, MYCENEAN PAINTINGS OF COURSE TOOK A LOT FROM THE PREVIOUS MINOAN CIVILIZATION

>First of all, nothing but nothing of what you said proves that the Minoans were Greek.

FIRST OF ALL, THE EMBASSY CAME FROM A REGION WHCH ENCOMPASSED MAINLAND GREECE, THE AEGEAN ISLANDS AND CRETE, NOT JUST CRETE, STOP INSISTING THEY WERE "MINOANS"

>The Minoan culture did not disappear with Mycenaean political overlordship.

THE LINEAR A SCRIPT DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY FROM CRETE WITH THE ARRIVAL OF THE MYCENEANS SINCE AT LEAST 1450 BC, TO BE REPLACED BY THE LINEAR B SCRIPT WHICH ENCODED THE GREEK LANGUAGE, MUCH OF THE LINEAR B CORPUS COMES IN FACT FROM THE BIG CRETAN CITIES OF KNOSSOS AND MALIA RULED BY GREEK SPEAKING ELITES, WHILE LINEAR A COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR, THE MINOANS BECAME SUBJECT TO THEIR GREEK MASTERS

>We have no real proof that the embassy that arrived in Egypt were Greek. The most the Egyptians said about them was that they came from somewhere in "the Great Sea", i.e. the Mediterranean.

THEY PRECISELY LISTED THE GREEK CITIES OF MYCENAE, NAUPLIA, THEBES AND MANY OTHER MAINLAND GREEK CITIES, ALONG WITH SOME GREEK RULED CITIES IN CRETE, BUT OF COURSE YOU IGNORED MUCH OF MY POST TO SPOUT YOUR SCARCE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PERIOD, SOURCE FOR THE LIST OF GREEK CITIES IN THE EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT:

academia.edu/221955/The_Egyptian_Interest_in_Mycenaean_Greece

>It is complete nonsense to suggest that mainland Greece was a unified kingdom, much less that that kingdom included Crete.

IT IS INDICATED AS A SINGLE REGION BY THE EGYPTIANS, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, AND THE EMBASSY CAME FROM THERE, THE HEGEMONIC ETHNICITY THERE WAS GREEK AS SUPPORTED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

>There is no identifiable iconography of kingship from Minoan Crete. That is simple fact.

THERE IS OF ARISTOCRACY

WHO SAYS THAT'S ARMOUR?

VIRTUALLY ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS WHO HAVE DESCRIBED THEM AND THE FACT THAT BRONZE PLAQUES BELONGING TO AN ARMOR WERE FOUND WITH THE INDIVIDUAL BURIED WITH THOSE TWO STATUETTES

>Why did Odysseus kill the suitors with a bow, considered to be a low class weapon?

It isn't about class. It's about heroism. Odysseus is consistently portrayed as a different type of hero from the others. His defining traits are trickery, wiliness and a willing to lower himself to accomplish his objectives.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CLASSICAL GREECE?

WHY?

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A POEM COMPOSED IN THE ARCHAIC GREEK PERIOD WHICH TAKES PLACE IN THE BRONZE AGE WORLD, YOU ARE TOO STUPID FOR WORDS TO DESCRIBE IT

Persians are lightly armed, so therefore Greeks despised archery? You genuinely think that's a plausible inference?

>FIRST OF ALL, THE EMBASSY CAME FROM A REGION WHCH ENCOMPASSED MAINLAND GREECE, THE AEGEAN ISLANDS AND CRETE, NOT JUST CRETE, STOP INSISTING THEY WERE "MINOANS

Prove it.

>THE MINOANS BECAME SUBJECT TO THEIR GREEK MASTERS

This does not prove that the Minoans were culturally Greek, or that the culture died out after political overlordship by the Mycenaeans.

Linear B was mainly based off Linear A, hence the name. This would suggest the writing system formerly used by Minoans centres of power was adapted for use with an other language. This, and the fact we are unable to decipher Linear A suggests the Minoans did not speak Greek and, hence, were not culturally Mycenaean/Greek.

Even then, what happened to the centres of power in Crete's tells us absolutely nothing about the culture more generally. We have no reason so suppose a genocide of the Minoans. Hence, it stands to reason that Minoan culture survived Mycenaean political overlordship for at least some period of time.

>THEY PRECISELY LISTED THE GREEK CITIES OF MYCENAE, NAUPLIA, THEBES AND MANY OTHER MAINLAND GREEK CITIES, ALONG WITH SOME GREEK RULED CITIES IN CRETE, BUT OF COURSE YOU IGNORED MUCH OF MY POST TO SPOUT YOUR SCARCE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PERIOD, SOURCE FOR THE LIST OF GREEK CITIES IN THE EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT

An awareness of some place names in Mycenaean Greece is not proof of a direct trading relationship, as per my original claim. This is because there was no direct trading relationship between Mycenaean Greece and Egypt. The relationship was extremely hazy at best, with a few high status Egyptian objects arriving in Greece via Levantine middlemen.

>IT IS INDICATED AS A SINGLE REGION BY THE EGYPTIANS, AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, AND THE EMBASSY CAME FROM THERE, THE HEGEMONIC ETHNICITY THERE WAS GREEK AS SUPPORTED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

None of this proves a single, unified Greek kingdom in the Bronze Age.

The Egyptians may have referred, vaguely, to a single geographical region, and there may have been a fairly homogeneous material culture across the Greek mainland, but that is simply not evidence for a single, unified Greek Kingdom. To suggest otherwise is complete lunacy.

>THERE IS OF ARISTOCRACY

No, there isn't. The vaguely religious women are the closest we get.

And who on earth says the statues are of the deceased? You're bending the facts again.

They despised the Persians, so it stands to reason they'd be at least ambivalent about things associated with the Persians.

You are. We are talking about Classical Greece.

Why would you be buried with statues of yourself?

That makes it all the more likely the statues are of a god, desu.

>Prove it.

I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED THE SOURCE FOR MY CLAIM, YOU HAVE ONLY PROVIDED YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY AS ALWAYS

>Linear B was mainly based off Linear A, hence the name. This would suggest the writing system formerly used by Minoans centres of power was adapted for use with an other language. This, and the fact we are unable to decipher Linear A suggests the Minoans did not speak Greek and, hence, were not culturally Mycenaean/Greek.

THE STUPIDITY OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHOCKS ME, PERHAPS YOU MIGHT COULD TRY NOT USING STRAWNEN ARGUMENTS

>Minoans did not speak Greek and, hence, were not culturally Mycenaean/Greek.

???

MY POST CLAIMED THE EXACT OPPOSITE SO WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST EXACTLY??

>We have no reason so suppose a genocide of the Minoans

WHICH I HAVE NEVER ARGUED FOR, SUBJECTION=//=PHYSICAL ELIMINATION OF THE SUBJECTS

>Hence, it stands to reason that Minoan culture survived Mycenaean political overlordship for at least some period of time.

MINOAN CULTURE WAS ADOPTED BY THE GREEK ELITES , AS I HAVE STATED IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS MULTIPLE TIMES, MINOAN CRETECIS CONSIDERED TO BECOME "MYCENEAN RULED" BY THE MID 15TH CENTURY BC, THE TANAJU ENVOY CAME FROM AN AREA WHICH WAS RULED MY MYCENEAN GREEK ELITES, AND SO WAS PRESUMABLY GREEK

>An awareness of some place names in Mycenaean Greece is not proof of a direct trading relationship

THE ENVOY CAME FROM THERE

MYCENEANS SETTLED IN PLACES LIKE CYPRUS AND THE LEVANT, PLACES WHICH HAD DIRECT CONTACTS WITH THE EGYPTIAN EMPIRE

THE ODYSSEY WAS COMPOSED CENTURIES BEFORE THE CLASSICAL PERIOD.

Or not. You really have no idea how logic works, do you?

I know. But we're talking about the Classical era.

How so? And if not, why are Persians shown with bows so frequently?

>MYCENEANS SETTLED IN PLACES LIKE CYPRUS AND THE LEVANT, PLACES WHICH HAD DIRECT CONTACTS WITH THE EGYPTIAN EMPIRE

This is the only point worth discussing, everything else is borderline incomprehensible.

There was no direct trading relationship between Egypt and Mycenaean Greece.

Individual Mycenaeans did venture to the Levant. But their contact with Egypt does not constitute a direct trading relationship between Mycenaean Greece and Egypt.

To sum up the whole Minoan argument: we have absolutely zero proof that the Minoan elite, such as it existed, held archery as an class identifier as did elites in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The fact that Cretans were highly regarded as archers several hundred years later does not prove the Minoan elite held archery as an class identifier as did elites in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The statuettes from Sardinia do not prove the existence of an elite class as in Mycenaean Greece, and furthermore do not prove that this hypothetical class held archery as an class identifier as did elites in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

I agree with most of what you're saying, you seem sound in substance... but please don't capslock your entire post my dude.

capslock doesn't portray passion as much as it portrays discourtesy. I enjoy your history sperging, its interesting and well thought, but
Please sperg responsibly

Did the Persians drink water?

>There was no direct trading relationship between Egypt and Mycenaean Greece.

THE PAPER I PROVIDED PROVES THERE WERE DIRECT TRADING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MYCENAE AND EGYPT IN THE AMARNA PERIOD, READ IT

>we have absolutely zero proof that the Minoan elite, such as it existed, held archery as an class identifier as did elites in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

>To sum up the whole Minoan argument: we have absolutely zero proof that the Minoan elite etc...

ALL THOSE EXAMPLES WERE TO SHOW ARCHERY WAS OFTEN PRACTICED IN THE LANDS GREECE HAD TRADE RELATIONSHIPS WITH, MYCENEAN ELITE DID INDEED DEPICT THEMSELVES USING ARROWS AS SHOWN IN THESE MYCENEAN PANTINGS

I'm the guy he's been arguing with most of the time. I think there's a good case to be made for composite bows to have been considered an prestige good in Mycenaean Greece, I just think it's pushing it to say that archery was incorporated into elite identity as in Egypt and Assyria.

If you had one weapon in the bronze age, why the fuck would you not choose a bow and a nice sidearm?

No, they drunk strait wine, ate too much, were lazy, and sexually promiscuous, at least according to the Classical Greeks.

They also used bows far more than the Greeks, because they were cowards and didn't want to fight at close range like a proper manly Greek, again, according to the Greeks.

Worth remembering, most of the authors who come down to use came from the Hoplite classes, so there perhaps a preservation bias there.

the elite military of egypt and assyria was mostly war charioteers, and they used bows as well as swords. It's a hard weapon to learn, takes years of training to do right, a lot of investment in equipment. This all meant that the charioteers enjoyed a pretty high rank in egyptian and assyrian society, and half of the weaponry available to them were bows

>THE PAPER I PROVIDED PROVES THERE WERE DIRECT TRADING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MYCENAE AND EGYPT IN THE AMARNA PERIOD, READ IT

No, it does not. There was an embassy from somewhere that was probably in the Aegean, but there were no ships sailing directly from Egypt to Greece with the intent to trade there, or vice versa. Hence, no direct trading relationship.

>MYCENEAN ELITE DID INDEED DEPICT THEMSELVES USING ARROWS AS SHOWN IN THESE MYCENEAN PANTINGS

Two cherry picked examples, and you can't even prove they're elites. The second one looks naked, for god's sake.

when talking about the weapons used by the elite, it's usually not about one-on one usefulness. Swords are generally harder to learn and use than pikes, bows are harder to learn and use than axes, etc. It's a lot about being a prestige symbol, and bows cost a lot to maintain and take years of training to use effectively and quickly in battle, kind of like swords.

The prestige comes from cost and skill involved, not necessarily usefulness

Few things:

1. Odysseus used the bow out because it was apart of a challenge that Penelope had for the suitors (to string it and shoot through some ax-head holes or whatever). Not because it was his weapon of choice.

2. Homer, or whoever first created the myth, probably wanted a sort of puzzle-ish challenge where Odysseus outwits his opponents, and the bow narrative did just that.

3. It's true that in the Iliad, characters disparage archer characters, but that doesn't exactly mean that Archaic and Dark age Greeks exactly hated archers. Archers were on both sides in the Iliad and are pretty much accepted as being legitimate and apart of warfare, and it's only really other 'heros' / 'nobles' that get disparaged for using them. The proposal that the Ancient Greeks looked down on archers is really just a Classical era rationalization based on comments made in some tragedies, and not something that they held in opinion since Mycenaean times. After Achilles' death, the Achaeans were told that they needed Heracles' bow (then owned by the deserted lonesome Philoctetes). Teucer is portrayed heroically in the Iliad and by Classical writers.

4. It wasn't really until the 5th century that hoplites became idealize and standard in the Greek city-states and where that class-conscious notably arose. Before that, based on the writings of archaic poets and artistic depictions, it appears that the warrior bands and levied armies of the time were far more diverse, with there likely being a smaller portion of the armed forces being shielded spearmen (likely the aristocratic elite) with mostly light infantry javelinmen and archer supporters. Once hoplites became popular, the middling yeomen that primarily consist of them likely looked down upon those two just to have a sense to feel superior and because it was the hoplite army trend was such a contrast to near-Eastern armies.

You fucking faggot I literally started the book three days ago

why would one have an embassy if there was no trade? embassies are costly, and there is no need for one unless there is a lot of casual contact, issues of international law, etc.

this

so much this

mountains of this

Yeah, I just don't see any evidence of that being the case in Mycenaean Greece.

You don't get anything like the great funerary reliefs of the Pharaoh firing into a crowd of foreigners, y'know?

Because a ranged weapon negates their numerical advantage.

oh, yeah the Mycenaean Greeks don't have much on military documentation. Oddessy was written later though, after the collapse

Because it makes the elite who can afford to send people all the way to Egypt and maybe bring back some trinkets look very impressive. Conspicuous consumption.

It doesn't prove there was an actual necessity for an embassy, or that there was any direct trade.

Remember, in the bronze age all sailing was done in sight of coast still. If you wanted to get to Egypt from Greece you HAD to go via the Levant. In that case it simple makes sense for the Levantines to become the middlemen in any exchange between the Mycenaeans and Egypt.

Composed yeah, but based off an oral tradition going long before the collapse.

SOMEWHERE THAT WAS THE AEGEAN?

HAVE YOU TRIED READING IT? EMBASSY OF THE KING OF TANAJU CAME AND IN ANOTHER EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT MYCENEAN CITIES ARE LISTED AS BEING PART OF TANAJU/DANAJU (PROBABLY THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME DANAIOI)

And in Amarna THE absolutely MASSIVE quantity of Mycenean pots (over 600) proves direct trade, around the same period Mycenean pottery becomes much more common in all OF Egypt

In my own study of Mediterranean cultures the Bow is an interesting weapon,

Have you read the wider mythologies?

Much of them show both sides as good and bad, there is no real good side, simply the gods games with men as chess.

The actual war was started by a competition by the gods.

Odyssey and Illiad themselves are very far apart in style, Illiad puts war and glory as virtue, while Odyssey puts strategy, patience and wits as the key virtue.

I personally think these two stories are from different cultures perhaps hundreds of years apart.

You should certainly read Achilles in Vietnam

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1994/94.03.21.html

>EMBASSY OF THE KING OF TANAJU CAME AND IN ANOTHER EGYPTIAN DOCUMENT MYCENEAN CITIES ARE LISTED AS BEING PART OF TANAJU/DANAJU (PROBABLY THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME DANAIOI

This would literally be the sole shred of evidence of a unified Greek Kingdom in the Bronze Age. It is far more likely that the Egyptians simply didn't really understand the reality on the ground in Greece, that there were numerous distinct palace centres each ruled over by their own elite.

>And in Amarna THE absolutely MASSIVE quantity of Mycenean pots (over 600) proves direct trade, around the same period Mycenean pottery becomes much more common in all OF Egypt

No, it doesn't. The Levantines imported Mycenaean pottery, they easily could have sold it on to the Egyptians.

>I personally think these two stories are from different cultures perhaps hundreds of years apart

That's an interesting thought.

I haven't read either cover to cover, but I have a working knowledge.

Using a bow is in fact the edgiest way to slaughter a room full of assholes. Just imagine that scene. It takes stone-cold hatred and mechanical precision to stand there and snipe a bunch of people probably running around like headless chickens versus swinging your sword around like an angry cuck. He went Columbine on their asses.

>Remember, in the bronze age all sailing was done in sight of coast still.

No, Myceneans and Cypriots reached Sardinia directly sailing from Sicily/Calabria, there is plenty of Mycenean and Cypriot imports in Sicily, Sardinia and South Italy, but none or next to none in Central Italy same thing with the Cypriot oxhide ingots: they are absent in central or northen Italy but plentiful in Sardinia and present in Sicily and Lipari, all this suggests there was a direct route from Sicily to Sardinia, to add to this Nuragic Sardinian pottery dating to the same period is found in Sicily, the Aeolian islands, Crete and Cyprus, suggesting the ships left the islands directly heading South east to Sicily without going north to Corsica and all the way to Central Italy, where Nuragic pottery is absent during that period

There is also evidence for direct trade between Iberia and Sardinia during the bronze age,

Forgot the picture

Well, why is it when the Phoenicians start doing it a couple of hundred years later, everyone acts like it's a new thing?

Although I'll admit Western Mediterranean is outside my area of expertise.

It was part of a plan.
First he had the suitors, who I think were also drunk, all disarmed.
The only weapons in the courtyard were the bow and the column of axes that were planted into the ground. The deal was that the suitors would need to shoot an arrow through every axe handle and hit the target on the other side.
When it came for Odysseus to try he hit the target, announced who he was, and used the only weapon in the room that wasn't partially buried to kill the defenseless suitors.

There is even evidence for direct trade between South France and Sardinia in the Neolithic without passing from Italy, this video explains it really well:

youtube.com/watch?v=5f4IdasDkK8

pic-related. it doesn't show combat, but it does show that the the rich elites in their society valued the chariot enough, and at-least some could shoot a bow while riding in one, that they create a seal of it.

Oh, I'm sure it was known to happen but it doesn't seem central to their identity as was the case in the east. Not to the degree that you'd think archer=leader, in any case.

Well okay, but in the eastern med, it seems shipping generally held to the coast. You wouldn't get a ship sailing directly over open water from Greece to Egypt.

And we don't get much Egyptian good in Greece. Some golden scarabs and other trinkets, but we don't really get anything else.

Perhaps something to do with the introduction of sails versus the dugout canoes I presume a neolithic trader would use? Or maybe currents?