| 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..... |