"There was civilization everywhere, but it's gone now"
Of all events, this always intrigued me if only because we've never been entirely sure what caused it. The Assyrians survived, but if they wrote about it we have no surviving documentation. But something caused everyone shit to get completely wrecked in the Mediterranean region and we don't know what. The Egyptians managed to win a war against the Sea Peoples, but from the way they talk the Sea People were never a threat until recently.
Based on the painting, it looks like the primary cause was fire.
The sea people's are still pretty irrelevant to the whole collapse. Look up on You tube real quick 1177bc. It's about an hour long video about the bronze age collapse and this guy who also wrote the book explains it pretty well.
Oh I never implied that they caused the collapse. I agree with the theory in what more likely happened is the collapse was already basically done and the Sea Peoples just showed up to take advantage of everyone's naval power being gone.
Do you mean, Phoenicians?
No they are specifically called the Sea Peoples because we have no clue who they were.
en.wikipedia.org
For all we know they were just an army (navy) of pirates
It is true that Phoenicians appeared soon after the collapse, though, right? Or at least, they became much more prominent than they'd previously been.
It seems like there's no real connection between the two though. If the Phoenicians were the Sea Peoples, they probably would've written about it, because Phoenician writing survived that civilization's collapse.
Phoenicia was already around for a good 300 years when the Bronze Age Collapse happened somewhere around 1200 BCE.
Meant for
Where did Phoenicians come from, then?
Israel/Lebanon area.
The ASSyrrians didn't write about it but the Egyptians did. Essentially, the chariot armies of the near east used mercenary "runners" alongside, these fought on foot and had the job of rushing in to murder the enemy charioteers after their horses had been killed, like a "clean-up squad". Over time these "runners" developed a number of useful weapons to help them do their job, these include especially a small solid metal shield that could be held at arms length while charging archers to provide considerable protection, plus the javelin, which became a secondary means of taking down enemy chariot horses, the primary still being your own armies chariots.
At some point, some of these "runners" probably figured out that they alone could beat an enemy chariot force, they didn't even need chariots on their side. They tried this out, where hugely successful, made a tonne of booty and went back to their various homelands with their wealth and their stories.
Cue a generation-long series of invasions from the homelands of the mercenaries, each larger than the last as more and more wealth flowed west and as the victims of the first waves joined in on the second and subsequent waves until every chariot-based state was destroyed.
The Egyptians wisely withheld their own chariots in their fights with the Sea Peoples, instead relying solely on their very numerous infantry, ASSyrria survived because their homeland was very mountainous, and many of their traditional enemies lived even higher up in the mountains, in areas no chariot could reach, so the ASSyyrians always fielded many infantry they could rely on to fight the invaders. Other states in the region fielded only levied infantries, whose job was chiefly to hold territory, with the entirety of the "fighting power" of the state being tied to a very small aristocratic elite of charioteers. This set-up had worked for 1,000 years but it made them terribly vulnerable to armies of "runners".
>we have no clue who they were
But we pretty much know who they were. Cretans, Cycladeans, Sardinians, Sicilians, as well as migrants from western Anatolia.
"Pretty much" is pushing it, we have a number of possible identifications,some seemingly very probably (Sherden were Sardinians, Phillistines were Myceneans) but others of which are basically just a guess (Meshwesh are Libyan? They came from that direction, that's literally all we know).
Shekelesh = Sicilians
Peleset = Philistines (likely Cretans/Cycladeans)
Sherden = Sardinians
The Meshwesh are pretty much confirmed to be Libyan, considering their pretty documentation by Egyptians (they were called Tjehenu, which was a generic descriptor of Lybian). A few of them even became Egyptian pharaohs during the 21st dynasty.
*pretty decent
I've read a theory that one of the biggest factors to the Bronze Age collapse was the temperature change in the Mediterranean. The temperature was dropping enough that less and less amount water evaporation happened, which caused less rain and screwed up the crops mostly in Levant. Nobody was prepared or knew how to solve this so many farmers had to emigrate to more suitable climates. Because of this, the prices for food skyrocketed and almost nobody can pay for necessities, causing riots and eventual collapse of society.
Not really, the Phoenicians were already there, but They didnt start expansion westwards until The 9th century bc
Philistines seem to be Cypriots, Sikalayu were Not just Sicilians but a population from all of South Italy, They needed to get Mycenean pottery because it was an essential luxury good for their chiefdom System but since The Myceneans didnt provide them regularly with it because They collapsed The Sicels had to go East and take it themselves, plus probably Sicel mercenaries Who were already there revealed and became pirates after The collapse
Also Herodotus talks abou The Mexwes from Tunisia as a Lybian tribe
That painting has nothing to do with The bronze age, looks more like 15th century architecture
That sounds pretty cool. Any good books covering it?
There is also an interesting episode where a Hurrian princess gets kidnapped by Sikalayu pirates and when The king of Hatti gets her he interrogates her about the Sikalayu's land as if he never heard about it, before sending her back to Ugarit
From what I gather the Phonecians originally came to Lebanon from Bahrain via the Red Sea
Cute theory but there is no evidence for it in the climatic records.
Try "The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC" by Robert Drews goes over the evidence for the theory, it's pretty compelling, heavily referenced, and written with a minimum of technical jargon so even a layperson can follow.
No, They were always there, thats a Herodotean myth and it's bullshit like most of his stories
Phoenician is a Canaanite language like Hebrew, meaning it's a West Semitic language so native to The Levant.
Also Phoenician cities like Byblos existed since like 2,000 BC, and we even have several letters which testify The relationship between The Pharaoh and Phoenician rulers, at The time of The letters (1350 BC) The Phoenician were under The Egyptian empire so The rulers of The city states like Tyre were just vassals, They pretty much licked his boots, it's only from 1100-1000 BC onwards that The Phoenicians started getting independed and flipped off Egyptians (see The letter of Wenamun, 1050 BC) because The Egyptian empire lost its grip on The Levant due to The Philistines and political instability
And it's only in 900 BC that They started e expanding west and colonizing Cyprus, Cyprus was basically The only levantine region to trade directly with West Meds such as Sicels and Sards, so when Phoenicians conquered Cyprus They learned about their traderoutes for silver from them and by 850-800 BC They started colonizing The Central and West Mediterranean, which is something The Cypriots didn't do since They only went there seasonally or settled in local centers
We shouldn't call them Pheonicians, we should call them Canaanites, that's what they called themselves. Phoenicians is some retarded name the Greeks gave them.
Well maybe you're right but Phoenician is more specific, also correct me guys if I'm wrong bu the Phoenicians responsible for the creation of all the colonies in the West Med including Carthage were from Tyre, so shouldn't we just call them Tyrians, just like we call Roman colonies Roman and not Latin.
While I cant upload the original PDF, here is another source that talks more about the theory and provides more evidence.
Canaanites come in three kinds, the coastal ones who built Tyre, the highland ones who bred pigs and got genocided, and the Israelites who were highland Canaanites who converted to an Egyptian cult.
I fucking hate Hellenization of names, thanks to that faggot Alexander, everything we didn't discover in 19th or 20th century has a Greek name.
>Byblos
Canaanite: Gebal, Greek: Byblos, English: Byblod
>Tyre
Canaanite: Sur, Greek: Tyros, English: Tyre
>Thebes
Egyptian: Waster, Greek: Thebai, English: Thebes
>Memphis
Egyptian: Mennefer, Greek: Memphis, English: Memphis
etc
This thankfully doesn't extend to places like Hattusa or Ugarit because they fortunately collapsed before the yogurt niggers could fuck their names up.
>Waster
*Waset
I tried fixing that awful mess of the Eupedia map
there was literally never a bronze age
What do you mean?
He means that he suffered a serious head injury as a small child and has never been the same since.
Kek
The phoenecians were one of many groups who are thought to have been included in the Sea peoples.
Not really, they are not included by anyone among the sea peoples.
Egyptians knew the Phoenicians well since they were under their rule, the sea peoples' tribal names were listed many times and there were never Phoenicians among them
History is cyclical.
They didn't even use true arches in the bronze age, except maybe a few isolated cases in Mesopotamia, they all built corbel arches
The most likely explanation is that that the painting was made in the 15th century, and the painter just created an image of what he imagined an ancient city would look like, rather than researching what it would really look like. Ancient cities didn't look as impressive as we often imagine them to be. Many of the most iconic paintings of antiquity were painted by renaissance artists. For example, this famous image of Cicero denouncing Catiline, was actually painted in the 19th century. My overarching point here is that the artist probably wasn't an expert on ancient architecture and just painted architecture that he was familiar with, sort of like how William Shakespeare falsely assumed that there were mechanical clocks in classical Rome.
Yes though your painting isn't really farfetched, the Roman senate probably didn't look much different than that
I don't know about the clothes though, maybe they were more colorful, but I'm not really an expert in Roman history
Troy probably looked something liked this
It was a relatively powerful city state considering how often it's mentioned in Hittite sources, but the city only had around 1,000-5,000 inhabitants, some estimates even say 10,000 but I don't know, anyway most people lived in the lower town, not inside the stone walls
>the Roman senate probably didn't look much different than that
The Roman senate was composed of 500+ men. Unless there is a huge number of senators offscreen, the entire scene is much too small to be realistic. Attendance fluctuated, but this particular meeting must have been packed. The clothes are also wrong because Roman senators wore togas with purple edges. Pure white togas were only worn by people who didn't hold any office, or were campaigning for office. In fact, the modern word "candidate" is derived from the latin word for a pure white toga. It captures the spirit of what probably happened, but it's not an accurate representation.
The earth began in about 900BC
Eat shit degenerate. Ill put you on a cross
read the illiad it looked nothing like that. The population numbered higher than 70,000
>trusting the myth over archeology
archaeology is as much a science as grave robbing. Homer was there when he wrote it
>Homer was there when he wrote it
proof?
his name is on the book as teh author of The Illiad
>"There was civilization everywhere, but it's gone now"
Huh, sounds like the world since 9/11.
how are you falling for this bait?
proof?
find a copy of the illiad and itll say it was written by Homer
They've recently discovered a whole extensive "suburb" under the fields around Troy, it was probably much bigger than has been assumed, albeit probably not the size it's portrayed in Iliad.
There's also the fact that the building the actual event occurred in was a square room, not a half-circle as the painting depicts.
>The ASSyrrians didn't write about it
how do you know?
just because you cant found it, it doesnt mean it didnt exist
remember that those lands sa more destruction than greece, egypt and other civilization
Essential viewing:
>mfw I was taught in Christian school that The Flood caused the Bronze Age collapse
Oh God, my shitty education.
they're actually called the sea peoples because that's what the egyptians called them
I bought a first edition copy at a flea market.
When I say "they didn't write about it", OBVIOUSLY I mean "we have never found anything about it written by them". Do you really need to have this explained to you, you fucking mental cripple? I realize you're some dumb google who can't even manage grammar let alone reasoning but seriously, even for a """person""" like you this should be too obvious to need stating.
sorry whatever you are but im not a nigger
explain yourself better then, imbeciel
>can't manage grammar
>namefag
It's very obvious which of us is the imbecile, dope.
The hyperwar
user that was over 5000 years earlier
Oh I thought we were talking about the quantum age collapse.
No, the Iliad is a myth, Troy was nowhere near that sizd, the max it could've had is 10,000 but many say it's an overestimate, 10,000 is a considerable number for a bronze age city, one of The most powerful near eastern city states had 25,000
My image includes the lowertowb
those near eastern cities save EGypt, Egyptian cities, Israeli cities and Troy were irrelevant. To disprove it compeltely there was literally iron at the battle for Troy. You claim that the illiad is a myth, but every Roman document will literally proclaim that they descended from Trojans. There is no reason to beileve that any people would have even been able to survive the slaughter of 30,000 greek soldiers if there wasn't more AND 10,000 is a pathetic number for God to give before he forms Rome out of fire and sword. Or do you deny that Agamemmnon brought a full army consisting of 30,000 people to the fight? You also have literally no proof, empirical (which is garbage that you are obviously obsessing over) or philosphical to say that The Illiad is a myth when it is the most defeinitive guide on the Trojan war, greek theology et al
> there was literally iron at the battle for Troy
So?
so there was never a bronze age which would demand all thse ghetto shit everyone on this thread keeps promoting where cities aren't aloud to be legal cities
Bronze age doesn't mean iron didn't exist. IIRC iron metallurgy is even older than bronze one, iron was just cheap and shitty while bronze was highly priced and a heavily seeked commodity, hence bronze age.
bronze age literally denotes that there was no iron. They were all amde around the same time, but this was long before any human walked the earth. Bronze is literally an inferior material to Iron as an ancient weapon. It also costs much more to make because it requires three different raw materials to make along with specified furnaces and techniques that knowledge of which would make you a chemist. Making iron is like cooking food, which only requires two materials rather than three.
>literally denotes that there was no iron
It literally doesn't.
>inferior material
You are an idiot. Iron was literal shit before steel was invented.
soldiers who wielded iron always defeated those who wielded bronze because they would have a shortage of soldiers and their horses would be much slower so their chariots and auxilires were shit. It was better suited for machinery than warfare, which is penny pinching and empirical in nature. On top of that, steel was literally recorded as existing during that very war
Says who? You? some idiot who doesn't beileve undenible theological fact?
>metallurgy is theology
Fuck you're on about brainlet
Not metallurgy, the fact that there was never a bronze age, but the earth was formed around 900BC right before the trojan war
You're from Texas right
Your gods are pure delsuions. The bible demonstrates metaphorically with a historical basis all kinds of events you will ever try to comprehend.
The world started 50000 years ago. Your dumb heresy will only make you go to hell.
Iron was not used for weapons at the time of the battle of Troy, only some knifes, spears, swords and most daggers were still in bronze
I saw Troy burn and I saw the Earth form so dont doubt me
hard to think that when you can literally see all of this happen if you just pray. Though I bet your more concerned with committing blasphemy so you can impress people on the internet
You're from Texas right
>Or do you deny that Agamemmnon brought a full army consisting of 30,000 people to the fight?
Unlikely, Egyptians used 20,000 people to fight the Hittites, and the Egyptian empire was much bigger and had much more population than Mycenean Greece, plus when the supposed Trojan war happened, 1180 bc, the Mycenean palatial system had collapsed so it's unlikely Greeks were able to put a large army on the field
Take your meds, your mother is worried about you.
The armies of the Sea Peoples could be much larger than that, as they were in the invasions of Egypt.
people like you get shot by people like Stalin
eat shit libcuck you've been BTFO and fuck texas irma is a blessing
The Roman myths are that, myth
There is no archaeological evidence of any migration from Anatolia to Central Italy, sorry to burst your little bubble, you're the same kind of idiot who believes there was a "pre inca" culture which build polygonal walls over the world, you're that precise kind of idiot who denies conventional history and rather believes in myths and stupid conspiracy theories because it's easier than reading books or doing an objective research, your kind should fuck off and find a hobby more suited for gullible dumb asses like you.
>people like you get shot by people like Stalin
What, concerned onlookers? Yeah I guess you're right. Just take your meds and we can talk more about how Stalin is trying to kill us all.
You're entire post is wrong in every way. Where are you getting this garbage information, wikipedia? On top of that, you are in no position to decide what is unlikely as there was more arable land in Greece than in Egypt so there is no reason why they couldn't have had more people, and on top of that agamemmnon was a demagoge so he wouldn't have the same army at EGyptians who relied on professional troops rather than levies as he did
>The armies of the Sea Peoples could be much larger than that
We don't know the exact number, but it wasn't much, plus we don't know who destroyed Troy, considering that the pottery in Troy after the 12th century cb destruction looks more like Balkanian ugly pottery and there were Balkanian vases there after the destruction it's likely it was Balkanian barbarians, while the sea peoples who invaded Syria and Egypt were mostly displaced Greeks, Cretans and a minority of South Italians and Sards according to the pottery and material culture they left behind, so it probably was different groups
>in every way
Such as?
Make an argument instead of making these vague statements pretending you know shit while you are a fucking gullible idiot
People who deny God and chide those who do suffer unto death. Why don't you just shut your trap if you have no argument other than calling people crazy because christian dogs have never held belief of faith of any kind
>we don't know who destroyed Troy,
Yes we do, it was the Sea Peoples, including elements of the military forces of the collapsed Mycenaean states, reduced to freebooting for loot by the destruction of their civilization by the first wave of Sea Peoples.