New Theories Stating Troy was in Great Britain
charlie1970
Active member
Sexybeast said:
According to Wilkens the war wasn't fought by Greeks. It was fought by Celts.
Another interesting piece of trivia is that Queen Elizabeth I was once greeted as 'that sweet remain of Priam's state, that hope of springing Troy'
charlie1970
Active member
Re: lies
This guy is cookoo or on drugs, seriously Troy is a lost land right?
If this is supposed to be true how comes its only come up now, and if so that would mean Englands History that has been counted for is lies.
[/quote]
Troy may not necessarily be lost. Maybe misplaced. Dictys (author of "Diaries of the Trojan War") backs up Homer's description of geography and weather. The descriptions are simply not of Turkey.
As for Englands history. Celtic spiritualty was the result Druidic lore. The Druids (and the Celts) did not keep written records of their history. Druids were required to memorise it all.
If Troy was located in England and was a battle between the Celts, Cessar's conquests of Gaul and England could have been responsible for the loss of that knowledge. Kill the high Druid priests and the knowledge is lost forever.
Another surprising piece of trivia (well I was surprised anyway) is that many towns in England have been inhabited since the Stone Age. People had been in England for a very long time before the Trojan War took place. Englands history (ie Kings & Queens) doesn't stretch that far into antiquity.
In relation to Hissarlik (where Troy is supposed to be), when the Trojan war is thought to have take place the Hittites were at the height of their power in Turkey. It could be said that it would have been difficult for Achillies to ravage the countryside without alerting them.
I don't know if any of it is true. I doubt anyone will ever know. But there are so many geographical inconsistencies, not to mention the fact that many translations leave out passages that cannot be explained geographically, that further investigations into the story should be conducted. Even if Troy didn't exist in England, wouldn't it be interesting to discover who fought a large scale battle in Cambridgeshire and left the 10k+ Bronze Age artifacts behind?
This guy is cookoo or on drugs, seriously Troy is a lost land right?
If this is supposed to be true how comes its only come up now, and if so that would mean Englands History that has been counted for is lies.
[/quote]
Troy may not necessarily be lost. Maybe misplaced. Dictys (author of "Diaries of the Trojan War") backs up Homer's description of geography and weather. The descriptions are simply not of Turkey.
As for Englands history. Celtic spiritualty was the result Druidic lore. The Druids (and the Celts) did not keep written records of their history. Druids were required to memorise it all.
If Troy was located in England and was a battle between the Celts, Cessar's conquests of Gaul and England could have been responsible for the loss of that knowledge. Kill the high Druid priests and the knowledge is lost forever.
Another surprising piece of trivia (well I was surprised anyway) is that many towns in England have been inhabited since the Stone Age. People had been in England for a very long time before the Trojan War took place. Englands history (ie Kings & Queens) doesn't stretch that far into antiquity.
In relation to Hissarlik (where Troy is supposed to be), when the Trojan war is thought to have take place the Hittites were at the height of their power in Turkey. It could be said that it would have been difficult for Achillies to ravage the countryside without alerting them.
I don't know if any of it is true. I doubt anyone will ever know. But there are so many geographical inconsistencies, not to mention the fact that many translations leave out passages that cannot be explained geographically, that further investigations into the story should be conducted. Even if Troy didn't exist in England, wouldn't it be interesting to discover who fought a large scale battle in Cambridgeshire and left the 10k+ Bronze Age artifacts behind?
godofthunder9010
Active member
Re: let em think
The Celts didn't have a written language, so there are no written records of their history. There is only the clues offered by their mythology -- which probably came directly from their oral history.
The Celts were extremely widespread at that point in history. Caesar dubbed them "the Fathers of Europe" for a reason. Celtic ruins and standing stones have been found in Romania, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain, England, France ... you get the idea. They were all over Europe.
Anciently, the Celts were second to none in their knowledge of metalworking. So they were an advanced culture in some ways, but primitive in that they were not united and had no written language.
I'm not saying that this theory is right or wrong, but if we're going to pick it appart, lets use historical facts.
Links for information about the "Viking Age":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#The_Viking_Age
http://www.intercollege.se/viking/WebGroup5N2B/analyse.htm
1.) The Vikings didn't rule anything at all in England until much much later than the date that the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place. During the time period that the Trojan War would have happened in, the British Isles were controlled by the Celts. The Vikings dominated the British Isles much later in the 600-700's AD I believe.Blue_Eyes said:
The Celts didn't have a written language, so there are no written records of their history. There is only the clues offered by their mythology -- which probably came directly from their oral history.
The Celts were extremely widespread at that point in history. Caesar dubbed them "the Fathers of Europe" for a reason. Celtic ruins and standing stones have been found in Romania, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain, England, France ... you get the idea. They were all over Europe.
Anciently, the Celts were second to none in their knowledge of metalworking. So they were an advanced culture in some ways, but primitive in that they were not united and had no written language.
That could be said of almost anything in ancient history.
I don't have the information of course, but according to the archaologists who came up with this theory, there is historical and archaological evidence of things that fits very well with the description of the Trojan War. As I already stated, the British Isles had no written record from that era.
I'm not saying that this theory is right or wrong, but if we're going to pick it appart, lets use historical facts.
Links for information about the "Viking Age":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#The_Viking_Age
http://www.intercollege.se/viking/WebGroup5N2B/analyse.htm
Charge 7
Master Gunner
No doubt about it Celts (not Celtics - that's a basketball team) were highly advanced in both culture and technology. Art which is gloriously beautiful even today and they invented chain mail for example long before the Romans copied it. Also the Romans called _anybody_ not Roman "barbarians" as they said their languages sounded like the bleating of sheep to them "bah bah". I wouldn't let Roman terms decide who was and who wasn't a barbarian in the sense that we use the word now.
charlie1970
Active member
Charge_7 said:
Phonetically they were 'kelts' and not 'selts'. And the Romans considered the Gauls (which were Celts) one level above barbarian. The Germanic tribes they considered barbarian. Cessar himself said so in his book 'Conquest of Gaul' (another interesting read).
charlie1970
Active member
Quoting from the website: http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk/
"The false assumption that Troy and the Trojan War was waged near Hissarlik in Asia Minor, where no traces of war are found, dates back to the eighth century BC when the first Greeks settled on Turkey's west coast.
The Greeks did not know that the Trojans who once lived in that area were migrants, as the collective memory of this fact was lost during the Dark Ages (1200-750 BC).
From 1180 to 1100 Hissarlik was indeed inhabited by a non-local people. They were the survivors of the greatest war of prehistory, when Troy on the Gog Magog Hills in Cambridgeshire, England, was destroyed. Here, countless bronze weapons and other remains of a major war in the late Bronze Age have been found.
The great migrations of the second millennium BC brought also Achaeans, Troy's enemies, from regions along the Atlantic coast of the Continent to the Mediterranean where they caused the collapse of many civilisations.
The name 'Achaeans' means 'Watermen' or 'Sea People' (the Gothic 'acha' for 'water' or 'stream' is cognate with Latin 'aqua'). The Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century BC) confirms that Pelasgians ('Sea Peoples') had settled in Greece long before his time. They founded Athens, renamed places, merged with the local population and adopted their language.
With the Achaeans came their gods and their oral tradition, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, which were written down in Greek only around 750 BC. Meanwhile, the newcomers had engaged in the time-honoured practice of renaming towns, rivers and mountains after familiar places in their former homelands. The transfer of place-names naturally led to the belief that the events described in the epics took place in Greece and the Mediterranean and that the Achaeans were Greeks. "
"The false assumption that Troy and the Trojan War was waged near Hissarlik in Asia Minor, where no traces of war are found, dates back to the eighth century BC when the first Greeks settled on Turkey's west coast.
The Greeks did not know that the Trojans who once lived in that area were migrants, as the collective memory of this fact was lost during the Dark Ages (1200-750 BC).
From 1180 to 1100 Hissarlik was indeed inhabited by a non-local people. They were the survivors of the greatest war of prehistory, when Troy on the Gog Magog Hills in Cambridgeshire, England, was destroyed. Here, countless bronze weapons and other remains of a major war in the late Bronze Age have been found.
The great migrations of the second millennium BC brought also Achaeans, Troy's enemies, from regions along the Atlantic coast of the Continent to the Mediterranean where they caused the collapse of many civilisations.
The name 'Achaeans' means 'Watermen' or 'Sea People' (the Gothic 'acha' for 'water' or 'stream' is cognate with Latin 'aqua'). The Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century BC) confirms that Pelasgians ('Sea Peoples') had settled in Greece long before his time. They founded Athens, renamed places, merged with the local population and adopted their language.
With the Achaeans came their gods and their oral tradition, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, which were written down in Greek only around 750 BC. Meanwhile, the newcomers had engaged in the time-honoured practice of renaming towns, rivers and mountains after familiar places in their former homelands. The transfer of place-names naturally led to the belief that the events described in the epics took place in Greece and the Mediterranean and that the Achaeans were Greeks. "
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Correct, pronounced "kelt" not "selt". However, Rome's leader's name is spelled "Caesar" not "Cessar".
The Bronze Age was global. Unless you're going to tell me that the Trojans were in China too, I find the fact that bronze impliments have been found in Britain a non-arguement.
Becareful of back to back posts. Mods don't care for that. If you have something to add to a post it's best to use the "edit" button and add your other info that way.
The Bronze Age was global. Unless you're going to tell me that the Trojans were in China too, I find the fact that bronze impliments have been found in Britain a non-arguement.
Becareful of back to back posts. Mods don't care for that. If you have something to add to a post it's best to use the "edit" button and add your other info that way.
charlie1970
Active member
Charge_7 said:
You are correct and thanks for the tip.
In relation to the bronze implement finds in England. It wouldn't really be a big deal if they were found all over the country. But almost all of the finds are in the area Wilkens suggests the battle took place. Outside of this area finds are limited.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Just to clarify, the Boston Celtics are named for the Celts and vice-versa. Its all about Boston and their overwhelming pride in their Irish roots. Ireland, in turn, is quite proud of its Celtic roots and so forth.
Celtic is to Celt as Spanish is to Spain. (For those who were unclear on that point.) Yes the phonetic pronunciation is Kelt, and if Bostonians were straight on their Gaelic, they be pronouncing Celtics as Keltics. Chalk up another language blunder on the part of us silly Americans.
Wikipedia Article on Celts (a very thorough one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Map of Main concentration of the Celtic peoples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Distribution_of_Celts_in_Europe.png
The Celts were very widespread. I don't have a source to link to you, but I took a class in Celtic History at a university and learned a good deal there. One of those items was the fact that ruins and artifacts distinct to the Celts have been found all over modern Europe as well as parts of Turkey and North Africa. They were equal to or superior to anyone of that time period in ship making and in Metalworking they were well ahead of anyone in the world.
The Troy site found by Schlieman does appear to have seen a significant war and the ruins that are believed to be Troy (in Turkey) did see a major destruction that involved a layer of ash that dates closely to the time the Iliad would have happened in. There were also walls, but the walls of that period for Troy are ... disappointingly small and insignificant when compared to the story Homer tells us.
So there are two options: Either we are seeing the results of several generations of exaggerating the account (this is the more accepted theory currently), or you have to look for Troy and the Trojan War elsewhere.
If you decide to look elsewhere, then the theory that places Troy in the British Isles fits very well. Additionally, we know that there was significant Celtic presence in ancient Greece, ancient Turkey and many other places. Many Celts were enthusiastic seagoing peoples, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a group of them move from modern day France and England to modern day Greece and Turkey. (They landed in North America somewhere around 300BC, so why not Turkey and Greece?) The Celts were surprisingly good at preserving their histories orally. If Homer was one of those that had the memorized history passed on to him then it would explain a lot.
Celtic is to Celt as Spanish is to Spain. (For those who were unclear on that point.) Yes the phonetic pronunciation is Kelt, and if Bostonians were straight on their Gaelic, they be pronouncing Celtics as Keltics. Chalk up another language blunder on the part of us silly Americans.
Wikipedia Article on Celts (a very thorough one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Map of Main concentration of the Celtic peoples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Distribution_of_Celts_in_Europe.png
The Celts were very widespread. I don't have a source to link to you, but I took a class in Celtic History at a university and learned a good deal there. One of those items was the fact that ruins and artifacts distinct to the Celts have been found all over modern Europe as well as parts of Turkey and North Africa. They were equal to or superior to anyone of that time period in ship making and in Metalworking they were well ahead of anyone in the world.
The Troy site found by Schlieman does appear to have seen a significant war and the ruins that are believed to be Troy (in Turkey) did see a major destruction that involved a layer of ash that dates closely to the time the Iliad would have happened in. There were also walls, but the walls of that period for Troy are ... disappointingly small and insignificant when compared to the story Homer tells us.
So there are two options: Either we are seeing the results of several generations of exaggerating the account (this is the more accepted theory currently), or you have to look for Troy and the Trojan War elsewhere.
If you decide to look elsewhere, then the theory that places Troy in the British Isles fits very well. Additionally, we know that there was significant Celtic presence in ancient Greece, ancient Turkey and many other places. Many Celts were enthusiastic seagoing peoples, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a group of them move from modern day France and England to modern day Greece and Turkey. (They landed in North America somewhere around 300BC, so why not Turkey and Greece?) The Celts were surprisingly good at preserving their histories orally. If Homer was one of those that had the memorized history passed on to him then it would explain a lot.
Got a great laugh out of this one. The basis of the pro-England argument are that "the facts" fit Homer's Illiad and Odyssey better. Yet we are talking about the same writer (BTW approx 800BC) who confirmed that Achilles was dipped in magical waters (head down up to his ankles), Odysseus fights with cyclops and Polyphemus falling in love with a sea nymph. Maybe we should all be searching for the sea nymphs - find them, we find Troy.
But just on a little more practical basis, the guy advocating this theory suggests that the Greeks would have simply gone through Thessaly to reach Troy had it really been in the spot Schliemann found in Turkey. (Supposedly the need for 1186 ships was to get to England.) Well, if you've been to the Dardanelles, its not exactly a still puddle of water. It's big and its got notoriously strong currents. Armies throughout history have had problems crossing it, especially when there's another army on the side waiting to make your day really unhappy. Sailing to (turkish) Troy would have been a h&$l of a lot easier and ensures you've got secured supply lines through naval control.
Further, according to this new theory, Greece was meant to need access to the tin mines in England. Tin mines? In 800BC England - it might be true that they existed but sounds extraordinarily far-fetched. Besides, the Romans won't arrive in England for another 800 years - what did the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans do in the mean time for tin - fetch it out of magical pools!!.
The last thing is that the Greek writers are notorious for their exageration because they were entertainers as much as historians. Homer's books are too full of fancy to be relied on much - but using them as a basis to advance the theory of English Troy.....
But just on a little more practical basis, the guy advocating this theory suggests that the Greeks would have simply gone through Thessaly to reach Troy had it really been in the spot Schliemann found in Turkey. (Supposedly the need for 1186 ships was to get to England.) Well, if you've been to the Dardanelles, its not exactly a still puddle of water. It's big and its got notoriously strong currents. Armies throughout history have had problems crossing it, especially when there's another army on the side waiting to make your day really unhappy. Sailing to (turkish) Troy would have been a h&$l of a lot easier and ensures you've got secured supply lines through naval control.
Further, according to this new theory, Greece was meant to need access to the tin mines in England. Tin mines? In 800BC England - it might be true that they existed but sounds extraordinarily far-fetched. Besides, the Romans won't arrive in England for another 800 years - what did the Greeks, Macedonians and Romans do in the mean time for tin - fetch it out of magical pools!!.
The last thing is that the Greek writers are notorious for their exageration because they were entertainers as much as historians. Homer's books are too full of fancy to be relied on much - but using them as a basis to advance the theory of English Troy.....