"Myceneans and Trojans - How Different ?" Topic

I'm just starting a Myceneans and Trojans project, but I wonder how different they were ?

How do you differentiate ? Do you bother ?

I suspect they were actually very similar, so I wonder if figure-8 shields for one and tower shields for the other ?

Any suggestions gratefully received.

TIA

I remember a friend who loved this period and he was convinced that the Trojans were a client state of the Hittite Empire.He would use a mix of Hittite/Anatoilian troops to represent the Trojans.The Myceneans would be with ox hide shields and boar helmets, also he used Sea peoples as their allies.His figures were mainly Foundry.

Paint the Myrmidons all in black. I saw it in a movie.

According to the Iliad, not very different.

I use Myceneans, Trojans and Sea Peoples altogether

The Trojans had a number of allies listed in the Odyssey, among them a force of Ethiopians under Memnon.

[In the Odyssey (III.111-2) Nestor recalls the death of his son Antilochos who died by the spear of "the glorious son of shining Dawn," (Od. IV.185-202) which is the epithet reserved for Memnon. Later in the Odyssey the Ethiopian warrior is mentioned by name as "great Memnon." (Od. XI. 522)

More here:

varchive.org/dag/trowar.htm

A small caveat: the author that TKindred has linked above (Velikovsky) was a bit of a crackpot (see here link). But yes, the Trojans had a substantial number of allies in the Iliad.

Aside from Velikovsky's "worlds in collision", I still am convinced he was square in the black regarding the "500 year" gap or "ancient dark ages". His position that the egyptologists have miss-dated their timelines (the timelines that they imposed upon every other archeologist) are very well supported by archeology throughout Greece, Mycenia, Anatolia, the Fertile Crescent, etc.

Moving everything up 400-500 years removes the alleged "dark ages" and the rest of the history, outside of Egypt, fits together very nicely.

The EAM (Egyptian Archeology Mafia) have a lock on many archeological programs, and viciously fight any attempt to show they are wrong. But they must be wrong, because the solution they present, that for 4-5 centuries, a literal dark age descended upon the rest of the world, where there was no building, no trade, no written language, etc, simply beggars belief. People do not suddenly forget how to write, how to build homes and villages and temples and cities.

But that's my opinion after decades of reading and comparing notes. Velikovsky's theories on planetary formation may well be (and likely are) way off the chart, but his theory of ancient history and the faux dark age is, I believe exactly correct.

YMMV, of course, but I'd still recommend that folks at least read the articles regarding Homer and the Trojan War, etc, at the link I provided. It may not change your mind, but it won't cost you anything more than a little time.

that for 4-5 centuries, a literal dark age descended upon the rest of the world, where there was no building, no trade, no written language, etc, simply beggars belief. People do not suddenly forget how to write, how to build homes and villages and temples and cities.

That's not what a Dark Age is. In a nutshell, a Dark Age simply is a period from which significantly fewer written sources survive than from the periods before and after. That doesn't mean people lived in caves.

Sorry, dude. Dark Ages do happen occasionally. I don't understand why you would be so upset about that.

Because, perhaps, it's interesting that NO written records survive from a period of 5 centuries from anywhere but Egypt? That somehow people forgot how to write, after having done so for centuries beforehand, than suddenly remembered, but with a new alphabet? Seriously?

The real problem with ancient history is that Egyptian archeologists convinced and/or coerced archeologists everywhere else that the timeline that they (the Egyptologists) had developed was the only correct one.

But it was flawed, and as a result, the timelines everywhere else are skewed. Even in the "Dark Ages" of Europe, writing continued, construction continued, trade continued. Yet, we are supposed to believe that for a period of 5 centuries everything outside of Egypt stopped, literally stopped, and then suddenly started back up again in a more advanced state than when it stopped?

I know, I know. It's unpopular to rock the boat, but when the evidence points to the Egyptian timeline being off, then it's worth the time to consider, rather than short-shrifting it, dismissing it outright because it isn't what you were taught, what you believe.

C'est la vie. It just seems to me that the backbone of our wargaming hobby, especially Ancients, is research, and we ought to be reexamining what we know, from time to time, rather than just accepting things as we've always been led to believe.

V/R

You have to remember that parts of W Europe had a 'Dark Age' with no written records.

In England the period from 410 to the 7thC is 'Dark'. No one denies the Romans were literate before that date, or that our records only pick up when the Christian monks start writing the ASC some time in the 8th C.

I haven't studied Scotland, Wales and the rest of post Roman Europe, but I have no doubt they have similar gaps.

Paint the Myrmidons all in black.

You jest, but for a HOTT army years ago I actually did have a base of Myrmidons with shiny black armour and shields to pick up on the ant connection.

I'd still recommend that folks at least read the articles regarding Homer and the Trojan War, etc, at the link I provided.

Here we go again. I did, and (along with others) have explained (in this thread) some of the reasons why it still seems deeply unconvincing.

we ought to be reexamining what we know, from time to time

Well, quite.

Yes, England produced no, or few, *surviving* written records from the 5th to 8th Century. However it should be well noted that written records are not the only historical or archeological evidence.

As for the original question, if you want to model Homer the lists of combatants are quite clearly given, including Ethiopians and Amazons fighting for Troy, and the two sides are not described as differing in any meaningful way.

If you want to model history, well then it gets more complicated. First you have to pick a date for the conflict. Sadly, tower and Figure-eight shields with boars tooth helmets seem to early. Troy may well have been a Hittite vassal state and some of the "Sea Peoples" have been speculatively identified with Greeks.

I tend to use a mix of Late Bronze Age figures, with some of the earlier mixed in. For my Trojans I mix in more Hittites and use Peleset Sea Peoples, and Lybians, etc among the allies. For the Achaens I sprinkle in some Sherdana and other Sea Peoples. In general though I just use a wide mix of Late Bronze Age for both sides. Go with what looks best to you. I do the period in 15mm and have examples of every 15mm Trojan War, Sea Peoples and Bronze Age range out there. I think I even have a few Assyrians and Babylonians who show up to fight. My games tend to feature huge motley hordes covering the tabletop.

The whole issue of what warriors of the Trojan War wore and fought with was what stopped this project 3 years ago – before I bought any figures.

I came back to it recently having read up on it again, and sadly it remains undoubtedly true that the vast majority of 15mm figures sold as 'Trojan War' are actually Mid Mycenean at the very latest.

In the end therefore I decided to go ahead with a mix of archeology and Homeric references for the Mycenean army. So my infantry will have a front rank of nobles with big shields, boars tooth helmets and long spears, supported by lesser infantry with little armour.

Having read more, I think the Trojans will have a similar arrangement but with Hittite-type lesser infantry in the 2nd rank. The idea that the Mycenaens are more homogenous and the Trojans more dependent on allies also has appeal, so they will have many more supporting troops. I also don't see how any gamer worth his salt can avoid having a contingent of Amazons alongside the Trojans

I'm presuming you have seen Osprey's Bronze Age Greek Warrior. I think its pretty good there is a nice illustration of Greeks and Trojans on page 59.

MY miniatures has a range you might like.

Idealy we could use a new range of figures perhaps Khurasan or Irregular might be tempted.

Drews books are very interesting on the period.

Like this:
link

Nice, but I thinks it's fair to say we want 15mm not 28

But the Osprey P59 clearly shows Fig8 shields and something very similar to the Dendra suit. This may be 'Homeric' but isn't supported by the archeology.

It would be helpful if you could set out what you think these guys should be wearing and how you think they were armed.

Yes, I have been rather vague – although not on purpose.

I suspect the other Osprey drawing of the two warriors with Bronze Corselets, light spears and shields with a cut out lower half are the most correct for a 12th-13thC BC war between states bordering the Aegean – This image from the Osprey is about right -

link

But I simply can't find any in 15mm

Check out Myceneans and Trojans and Dark Age Greeks here.

link

Some of these are nice figures that might do though they are big 15mms if you know what I mean.

I reckon the best bet would be to assemble the research here, drum up some support and then try to engage interest from Irregular or Khurasan.

I would certainly be interested.

You've probably got this source:
link

It was always my 'go to' place when I was building Bronze Age armies.

A very interesting site, and one which only confirms the lack of correct 15mm figures.
:-(

I have managed to cobble together the article lost when our old club forum passed away and re-posted it on the new forum. Covers building a Later Mycenean army from(mostly) 15mm Old Glory fgures.
Might be of use.

link

Personally, it would be great to see a crowd-funded new range of 15mm late Mycenean/Trojan War figures.

Khurasan seems to be the go-to guys on this account.

Out of curiosity, are MY figures compatible with OG15s? What about Magister Militum with Essex?

Furthermore, has anyone heard of Vexilia? Their website was down the last time I checked but it seems their Trojan War figures might just do the trick.

Guthroth, any updates on your project? My project is slowly taking shape, and, like you, I'm in a daze trying to figure out which way to go. Basically, I've decided on starting with the Trojans first [OG15 Myceneans], then adding a few Trojan allies – Lukka [OG15 Sea Peoples in 'reed' headdresses], Seha River Land [Magister Militum Peleset in horned helmets] and another city [haven't quite named them yet] – [Essex Assyrians in bronze helmets]. At least, that's the plan but I plan to 'test buy' a pack and see how they 'measure' up in the flesh.

"Furthermore, has anyone heard of Vexilia?"

Vexillia are fine. Are you thinking of Venexia? Though AFAIR they only did Philistine, Sea People, Egyptian and Israelite for this period. Sgt Major Miniatures have the Venexia ranges but only released the Ottomans so far.

Aquilifer link are a newish range of Trojans. I can't vouch for the quality.

As for figure size, Magister Militum have a bit of variation between the Sea Peoples. Most of the Sherden and Peleset are a bit bigger than the Myceneans. You can see the difference if you look at the picture of the command pack – the Sherden standard bearer is smaller than the Peleset trumpeter. The Peleset figure is more typical of the height of most of the Sherden and Peleset figures.

Swampster,

Man, I've eaten too much! I was thinking of Aquilifer when I typed in Vexilia.

I just tried the Aquilifer website and it's not coming up.

My main concern is the size of the figures between manufacturers, since I'm going to use certain manufacturers for certain 'nations'. On a table, if they go up against each other, how big of a difference is there between Essex, OG15s, Magister Militum, and other manufacturers [like Mike Yarrow and Black Hat]? I've heard the Black Hat [the old Gladiator range] are a bit smaller than the others but would having Essex, OG15s, Magister Militum in the same army or in opposing armies be a case of giants vs. pygmies?

I tried again and Aquilifer is working for me. That is on Chrome – could it be your browser?

A great thread discussion high jacked by fools. Just don't respond to people who are off tilt.

Op: if you consider influences, neighbors, trade goods, common mythology, you could suppose they were similar in dress, language, and culture. Who did the Mycenaeans trade with if not those along the coast of the Agaean? Troy was an advasary in trade by rationalization. Sea peoples are also a prime suspect for either or both at least in part. I prefer to think the "horse taming" Trojans were more chariot oriented all Hittite influences and the Greeks more infantry oriented as befits a maritime culture.

Testiculies,

Good points. I have a tendency to lean that way as well. If the Trojans did trade in horses, it would make more sense that they would be more chariot oriented, besides where would the Myceneans get fodder for their chariot horses – considering it takes up to 3 acres to feed an active horse.

Besides, I'm not so sure that 'trade' influences culture in a military capacity. If something would happen to our modern world and archeologists dug up the remains of our civilization 2500 years from now, they would hypothesize that every country in the world [with a few exceptions] fought like the U.S.A. – considering they would find Coke cans in every country [the equivalent of Mycenean stirrup jars].

I'm also surprised that the more recent digs by Prof. Korfmann haven't turned up the Wilusian [Trojan] archive. If they had chariots and a substantial army, as has been speculated, then it would stand to reason that they would need a way to keep track of expenditures. Besides, the outer wall of the lower city was discovered back in the 2000's and Wilusa [Troy] is a lot bigger than earlier scholars thought. So, why is there no record of writing?

The Hittite influence is interesting because the Wilusians were allied to the Hittites for centuries but again, 'allied' doesn't necessarily mean 'the same'. After all, the Americans were allied to the French during the AWI and while the uniforms were similar, the cultures were different. Just to reinforce the point, Russia was 'allied' to Denmark during the 1788 Russo-Swedish War, and their cultures and uniforms were about as different as one could get. In WW2, the Americans were allied to the Brits but the uniforms were different as well. Admittedly, it has been speculated that Wilusa was a 'client state' of the Hittites, but again, they were recognized as an independent entity under treaty obligations, not as a 'Hittite subkingdom'.

I don't remember any boar's tusk helmets being unearthed at Troy [or any helmets for that matter], so it's all speculation at this point. I would hazard a guess, and say that most armies in the late Bronze Age wore similar 'uniforms' meaning some sort of body armor and helmets for the upper class warriors and a form of kilt or tunic for lower class warriors. However, each nation would be dressed in a 'national' style, that would reflect their culture. How strict would that style be? Therein, lies the rub.

This is not meant to criticize, only clarify in my mind the massive problems with gaming this period and the lack of 'accurate' Late Bronze Age figures. Boar's tusk helmets seem to be way too early in my mind but they do look good on the gaming table. However, how many boars did it take to make a helmet? If it took 2, how many men would have one? Again, not trying to be a smart-aleck, just trying to add a sense of the massive problems with fielding armies made up of boar's tusk helmets. It would seem that a bronze helmet with horse-hair plume would be more common.

Swampster,

It might be my browser as I'm using IE. I'll hop on the wife's computer downstairs and see if it works [she swears by Chrome].

I suspect that historically they were armed very similarly, but for aesthetic/easy identification reasons, I made my Trojan War Greeks (Achaeans) look like proto-hoplites, with crested helmets and round shields. I play with 2 history professors and no one objected.

@swampking. Nice framing of your thought. Two thought. 1. Given the relative size of the populations, massive armies might actually number in the hundreds, not thousands. One of the most compelling finds to support wide use of boars head helmets is a fresco from santorini. This is, in my mind the palace guard rather than an army template (as we would think photo). Art is, after all a reflection of culture. 2. The influences for body armor and bronze helmets, and chariots actually, is scarce ,because it wasn't all tha common. Leather, feathers, and textiles ruled the day with bronze at a premium--the basis for much of the trade in the region. Bronze was not spun cast at this time, but beaten.

While I myself prefer a much more cenimatic look to my own army with lots of dendric armor clad charioteers and tower shield toting ranks, the truth for the Achaeans was probably more akin to early Germanic tribesmen described by Caesar. Raiders, traders, and opportunist with little more than a shabby shield, a spear and moxie!

What a refreshingly rational discussion on TMP [for once].

Testiculies,

Art is definitely a reflection of culture. Unfortunately, there is so little of it present in Wilusa, and again, the lack of writing is a tragedy beyond repair. This is a hobby, after all, and a more 'cinematic' look to a miniatures army is all well fine and good by me.

My plans for my Trojan/Wilusian horde include mostly Myceneans. Like I stated before, the Trojan allies will be a polyglot of figures from various manufacturers and I plan to do the same with the Mycenean contingent as well.

Dendric armor clad charioteers would make sense, as would charioteers in bronze corselets [don't know how many of them there are in 15mm though]. I think for the rank and file, some sort of helmet and leather body armor or just a simple tunic/kilt without armor would be the best route. I've got an old set of rules from the 1970s lying around here somewhere that I'm planning on updating and yes, I think the armies were probably in the hundreds, not thousands but really who knows?

I was just on the Aquilifer website. The figures seem to measure around 20mm if I'm looking at the measurements the right way, so may fit in well with the 'bigger' manufacturers but at 6 Euro a pack, I doubt I'll be getting any. The price just seems way too high and I've had problems with packages 'going walkabout' from Italy to Poland. Heck, it'd be cheaper for me to drive there, buy the figures I need, take the wife out to a nice dinner, spend a night or two in a hotel and drive back home than it would to pay Italian postage rates!

It looks like it's going to be Essex, OG15s, and Magister Militum with some Museum 'nekkid' slave girls thrown in the mix just for 'flavor' for my Trojan War project.

the truth for the Achaeans was probably more akin to early Germanic tribesmen described by Caesar. Raiders, traders, and opportunist with little more than a shabby shield, a spear and moxie!

I think it was highly probable the actual Bronze Age armies were comprised mostly of poorly armed light troops as Testiculies writes.

I read somewhere of the amazing number of boar needed to make just one boar's tusk helmet.

Being that as it may, how do you feel about the concept that most of the actual fighting was done by well equipped "champions" whilst the hoi polloi looked on?

This certainly is in line with Homer. In wargames' terms it justifies us raising armies with, perhaps, disproportionate number of armoured/protected warriors with bronze weapons.
And, if I'm not making a guess too far, justifies a certain sameness in the appearance of such warriors as upper class styles can more easily transcend distance simply because expensive items such as arms & armour are prime luxury goods, ripe for merchandise.

ochoin,

I would hazard a guess and say that Homer's descriptions might contain an element, but only an element of truth about so-called 'Heroic' warfare. I'm sure that individual combat between the 'heroes' happened but I'm not sure it was the norm or was as commonplace as Homer describes. The simple fact would be that if a 'hero' is killed, then what? Will the rest of the army give up, go home and say, "Okay, ya'll win. That's it." I find that hard to believe, especially considering if the war is being fought for territory, gold or women.

That is not to say that morale would not be affected, it would but I doubt that an entire army would give up, flee the field, go to their ships and sail home or [if the Trojan hero is killed] flee the field and allow the 'barbarian' Acheans to sack Troy and rape their wives, daughters and mothers without fighting back.

In wargame terms, I have no problem with any army fielded by anyone. This is a hobby, as I've stated previously and the simple fact remains that we just don't know that much about Bronze Age warfare, as opposed to say, the Great Northern War or even the Crusades – the written records aren't there and neither is the archaeological evidence. We know a lot more than we did 20 years ago that's for sure but still it's all speculation and supposition. Drews' books and articles have dispelled some myths but raised other questions.

I think that in practical terms, wargamers have to fudge history a bit. A certain amount of sameness makes sense to me, the hoi polloi would be dressed simply, while the aristocrats/'heroes' would be dressed with more armor, in richly colored kilts, etc. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a certain 'national'/city-state sameness would be the norm but also those in the army would be a riot of color.

Therefore, I have no problem with any wargame army that employs sameness or any amount of randomness in figures/painting of figures. In my research on the Net looking at Trojan and Mycenaean wargame armies, I've seen a beautiful Trojan army using a few Assyrian figures which looked perfectly normal beside Sea People figures and Mycenaeans – in Dendra armor, in kilts and naked.

Unless, and until we find the written records of the Trojan/Wilusian archive [which may never be found] or unless some mad scientist invents a time machine to where we can go back in time and see what these people really looked like and how they fought, it's all a matter of personal taste; meaning, what are you comfortable with and what do you think they looked like and how they fought.

@ Swampking

Will the rest of the army give up, go home and say, "Okay, ya'll win.

You're probably right but I know that traditionally Papuans, for example, gather in large numbers to "fight". Their leaders throw a few spears & sometimes a fatal injury occurs. The others then go home. I'm not saying that the Bronze Age is a perfect match for Stone Age Papuans but it's possible.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. More than a little wisdom there.

Ochoin,

That's an interesting point. I was also thinking about the pre-Shaka Zulu and affiliated tribes who fought 'wars' where almost no one got killed, where it was better to humiliate your opponent rather than kill him and I would say that that is the essence of 'Stone Age' [a very relative term] warfare. Aztecs and other pre-Columbian tribes/nations/whatever fought wars to gain captives to sacrifice, which is another example of a different kind of warfare.

Now, let's move to 'Homeric'/Late Bronze Age warfare. If the Hittites and the Egyptians are anything to go by, the warfare would have been brutal as everything. After all, depending on how the chariots are used, either as mobile missile platforms or as 'horsed taxis' – the warfare would have been up close and personal. We know that the Egyptians counted the hands and/or phalluses [phallusi? – my Latin is really rusty], so what about the Hittites and their allies? I don't know for sure, but it seems that they didn't engage in 'heroic' warfare. If the Trojans were allied to the Hittites, as is suggested by the 'Alexandrus' letter, then why would they engage in 'heroic' warfare, where only the champions of either side fought each other? I tend to lean towards 'wars of conquest' for women, booty and/or territory than 'wars of status' as regards the Late Bronze Age. However, again it depends on your personal tastes as far as what you want to represent on the tabletop.

Earlier in the Bronze Age, Piamaradus was known [according to the Hittites] to have been raiding for women and other forms of booty, so I'm wondering as to the form of warfare the Trojan War would have taken. Could Helen have been a stand-in for the 'Women of Asia' mentioned in the Pylian archive – meaning was the Trojan War just a big 'panty raid' [no offense meant] – a raid that was designed to get women?

If Agamemmnon and the Greeks wanted to control Troy, which controlled access to the Dardenelles and the Black Sea, I doubt they would have given up just because a few of their heroes were killed.

As you've said: so little evidence, so if you don't mind some hopefully inspired guesses…..

The military record of the Hittites is relatively clear: organised & effective armies able to inflict losses on foreign enemy & revolting subject peoples alike.

If we allow their "Ahhiyawa" are the Mycenaean Greeks, Hittite records indicate a violent & almost uncontrollable people who cause considerable destruction in their hit & run raids. So, at least the roving warbands of Mycenaeans are serious warriors.

If we go to the myths & legends, effective wars are recorded against a number of cities: 7 against Thebes for instance. So, local internicene war would indicate respectable armies capable of successfully conducting sieges.

Finally, the archaeological record (the latest ones) seem to indicate a strong & populous Troy was taken by enemies. Allowing these to be Homer's Greeks: foreign expeditions of some magnitude organised & fought to successful conclusions.

Sorry about being long winded but I guess what I'm saying is your final paragraph appears a fair assumption.