The approach of historiography requires an approach through the records that outlast the events that take place, namely the literature, archives, human memory (when applicable), and physical evidence related to those events. In the case of the historical Trojan War we have a well-preserved and translated piece of literature, The Iliad, but the question brought into debate is whether or not to reject this epic as a source for the Trojan War. Can a source highly tainted and removed from its subject be used in the analysis of that subject? I propose that, as I have found through research and the text itself, The Iliad is not an historical source for the Trojan War but a source for the later period during which it was written and can be used as a lens to see the events of the past as Homeric Greeks saw them.
The historical Trojan War is estimated to have occurred around 1250 BC, five hundred years before Homer (either an individual or a group of literati, it is uncertain) collected the various stories about the war that were a part of the Greek oral tradition into a single epic work, which was a further 200 years before that work was actually written down. That some distortion happened is more of a certainty than a probability.[i] In all likelihood what we have today is not the exact story (or stories) Homer told, but what was remembered as his stories when individuals decided to record them, and those stories he told were not the exact accounts of the war itself. Through analysis of cultural identifiers, such as fighting techniques and technology, one can tell that the stories in The Iliad do not tell of a purely Mycenaean war but have examples of the age in which Homer wrote. “Homer’s [work] is a mixture of some fairly accurate details of the Bronze Age and other details from his own time, bound together by poetic imagery.”[ii]
When Diomedes (also called Tydides) is charging Hector in his chariot towards the end of the second round of fighting between the Trojans and the Achaeans one gets a picture of chariot warfare not in the Mycenaean age but in Homer’s time. The two opponents use the chariots as a moving platform from which to launch their spears, a commonality seen throughout the epic’s battle scenes. Also, throughout the epic, and right before this scene between Diomedes and Hector, the chariot is used to transport troops to and from the front lines.[iii] But according to ancient sources for this time period, such as the depiction of Ramesses II in battle against the Hittites, one sees chariots used as platforms for archers to fire upon their enemies, not a vessel for transport or throwing spears; the method of chariot warfare described in The Iliad was common during Homer’s time, not the Mycenaean age. This is but one example of several discrepancies found in The Iliad.
Double spear fighting, as is displayed in The Iliad on a few occasions, did not appear until about 900 BC, far later than the Trojan War. Phoenician trade ships, as is mentioned once in The Iliad but several times in The Odyssey, did not start traveling along those trade routes no earlier than 900 BC as well. Also, the burning of bodies to bring back the bones of warriors to their sons, as Nestor proposes to the Achaeans, was not prevalent until the Athenians practiced it in 464 BC, perhaps spurred on by the traditions from The Iliad.[iv] This truly is a mishmash of cultures with not just one war tactic awry but many Homeric age influences. “The cultural picture as a whole is an artificial one. Actual people never fought quite the way the Iliad suggests.”[v] Therefore, The Iliad cannot be used as a source for the Mycenaean age due to its later historical taints. That does not, however, discount The Iliad as a source of history all together. One must simply change the focus from the time the text describes to the time it was written. The Iliad contains many cultural practices and identifiers from Homers age; it can therefore be used as a source for that age. Or, to be specific, how people in that time period viewed the stories gathered in The Iliad.
If the culture presented by Homer is an artificial one, then the creation of that artificiality is quite interesting. That the actual place Troy existed is almost certainly known. The picture that Homer gives us, then, matters little according to the actual Troy, though in many ways the two line up. The more evident derivative, though, is how Homer wrote about Troy. The Iliad presents the way in which Homeric Age Greeks perceived the places and events in which their heroes took part. In this manner we can understand their thoughts on these settings and characters. For example, Troy is always described as a city of “broad streets” and “high walls.”[vi] Perhaps this is an indicator for the respect or awe that the Greeks of Homer’s time held for the Troy of the Mycenaean age. Also, a hero would not be venerated if one did not hold in esteem his deeds or characteristics; in like manner the heroes mentioned in The Iliad help us understand the qualities held in esteem by the Greeks of Homer’s time. Through this mode of analysis, one can better understand the Homeric Greeks and the importance such stories had with this people.
The Iliad is not the best of sources for the Mycenaean Age in which the historical Trojan War likely happened. It can, however, be used as a lens to see how Homer and the Greek people of his time saw those historical events. Through this manner of analysis historians can come to understand the Homeric Greeks by understanding the stories that were most indicative of their culture. Through this, rather than proving the actuality of the war, historians prove the importance of the contexts and peoples involved in the Trojan War, whether fictitious or actual, to the Greek people of Homer’s era.
