Customer Reviews

The Trojan War: A New History

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Over the years, I've read quite a few books and articles about the Trojan War, but this one really hits the mark. For one thing, Strauss doesn't dwell on the oft-repeated story of Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of the "Mound at Hisarlik," which most archaeologists now agree was the site of ancient Troy. Instead, Strauss dives straight into the narrative in the Iliad and related but lesser-known works, treating Homer's probably fictional heroes as real characters and using them to illuminate the nuances of Greek and Anatolian culture during the Bronze Age.

In this narrative, Troy is a prosperous client state of the Hittite Empire and the Greeks are the Vikings of the Mediterranean. The Trojan War may or may not have been about the abduction of a Spartan queen named Helen, but it could easily have been about Mycenaean raids to capture booty and Trojan women. And while today's reader is skeptical of the active participation of gods in battle, Strauss makes it clear that the gods of the Iliad were an integral part of the thinking of Bronze Age warriors, not just a poetic device.

To top it all off, Strauss is simply a good writer. There are other good books about the Trojan War (Rodney Castelden's recent "The Attack on Troy" and Michael Wood's classic "In Search of the Trojan War" come to mind), but Strauss does the best job of integrating the powerful narrative of the Homeric epic cycle with our current knowledge of the Bronze Age world. "The Trojan War" is a fast and compelling read.

The Trojan War (circa 1200 BC) is a conflict shrouded in mists of myth, fragmented historical evidence and often-inconclusive archaeological clues. Most of our views on the war are shaped by Homer's heroic epics, not recorded history. In his book The Trojan War, Cornell University Professor Barry Strauss attempts to depict this conflict as a coherent historical narrative, accepting much of Homer as a starting point, but embellishing the tale with other neglected literary sources and all currently available archeological evidence. This is not a stuffy academic tome on Homer but rather, an attempt to depict Helen, Achilles, Hector, Agamemnon, Paris, etc as real historical characters and the author succeeds in this effort. On the one hand, this is a pleasing effort that brings life to our otherwise hagiographical image of these characters. On the other hand, the reader is constantly brought to wonder what the author has surmised and what he has simply invented whole cloth. Since we are not even sure of the existence of many of these characters - did Homer invent some of them? - it is disconcerting to see the author describing their appearance, thoughts and actions. Although this book provides wonderful insight into the Trojan War, I found myself torn whether I should consider it history or historical fiction; there is a huge gray area at the heart of this book.

The author's narrative is clean and strait forward, laid out in eleven chapters that begins with Helen's flight from Sparta with Paris to the fall of Troy. As a starting premise, the author accepts much of Homer's The Iliad as based upon real events, but he notes exaggerations and omissions that make certain sections suspect. Although the author can only guess at the dates - they fall within a 30-year period - readers will sense that the Professor Strauss has attempted to impose the historical structure of Thucydides upon the literary form of Homer. As the author notes, greed not jealousy was the cause of the war - "Helen was not the cause but merely the occasion of the war" and "Agamemnon rallied the Greeks to attack a gold mine." Readers will also note that the author attempts to be more balanced to the Trojan point of view than Homer permitted, although ultimately the author criticizes the Trojans for surrendering the strategic initiative to the Greeks.

One of the author's main hypotheses is that Troy was indeed sacked by the Greeks but there was no formal siege. Instead, the author maintains that the Greeks - frustrated by the seemingly impregnable walls of Troy - turned to small-scale attacks on the villages around Troy and her weaker allies. The author is hindered in testing this hypothesis by his limited understanding of military theory - referring to the period after the initial Greek attack on Troy failed as `low intensity conflict.' This was in fact a switch in Greek tactics from `counter-force' (i.e. destroy the Trojan Army) to `counter-value' (i.e. destroy the Trojan economy and alliance network), but the commitment of thousands of troops on these raids indicated that they were far from low-intensity. Nor does it help when the author fumbles military references from other eras, such as a comparison to "Ernst Rommel" (i.e. Erwin Rommel). The author also strongly criticizes the Trojans for not attempting to launch counteroffensives to take advantage of Greek mistakes, but the evidence for or against this is far too weak. Given our limited knowledge of the war and the Greek-centric nature of what sources are available, I don't believe that we have enough information to condemn the Trojan strategy as faulty. The author also tends to blame the Trojans when they did counterattack, accusing Hector of being vainglorious and reckless in seeking combat. This seems to be contradictory.

Nevertheless, the author's descriptions of Greek assaults upon the walls and furious fights upon the plains of Troy are thrilling to read. I just wish we had a better idea if they are based upon fact or this author's imagination. It is never really clear. When the author suspects that Homer exaggerates, he simply deletes or ignores those passages. This kind of `pick and choose approach' makes sense, but it also risks including some ideas that were false but sound reasonable while excluding true improbables. Would readers 3,000 years from now believe that the American Revolution was decided by an almost-unheard of French naval victory over the Royal Navy? The author does provide some nice maps and photographs of the terrain, as well as notes on sources. Overall, this book is a very good read and the author achieves at least partial success in laying out his hypotheses, although there are too many lingering doubts to call this a definitive work.

Barry Strauss examines the Trojan War in terms of what our contemporary knowledge might tell us in illuminating this sanguinary contest between Greeks and Trojans. The underlying conceit to this book is to assume that Homer's listing of actors is a useful starting point. Thus, he speaks of Paris, Helen, Achilles, Menelaus, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Ajax, Hector, Priam, and others as if they were actual historical figures. As Strauss notes (page 11), ". . .this book will refer to Homer's characters as real-life individuals. The reader should keep in mind that their existence is plausible but unproven." If the reader accept this, then the book is interesting reading. If not, then the book will be most unconvincing.

The volume uses historical information, archaeological findings, and texts (such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey) to create a narrative addressing what might have happened at Troy.

Issues addressed include the gathering of the Greek army and navy to attack Troy after Paris' abduction of Helen (Menelaus' wife), the amphibious landing of the Greek forces before the city of Troy, the network of alliances among both Greeks and Trojans, the tactics and strategy of warfare at this time in the Bronze Age, various scenarios as to how Troy was defeated, and so on.

This short book (189 pages of text) will not convince those who want concrete evidence. For those who are interested in a sense of what might have occurred at an historical Trojan War, there is much here to think about.

Useful features of the book, for those able to move beyond the premise, include some very nice maps at the start of the volume and photographs of the geography and artifacts of the era.

All in all, a thought provoking work. If the reader can accept the conceit, then this is a volume that gets one thinking about what might have been at 1180-1210 BC at Troy. If one does not accept that conceit, then this will likely be a frustrating work to confront.

According to the author, the past twenty years have yielded much in the way of archaeological evidence about the ancient city of Troy, the Trojan War and the Late Bronze Age. This he makes clear in the introductory sections of this wonderful book. Using this new archaeological information, as well as ancient literary sources, especially Homer's Iliad, he reconstructs the story of the Trojan War - from beginning to end. Along the way, he points out which events are now known to have happened, which ones are plausible and could have happened and which ones are not likely to have happened. In some cases, he treats certain ancient descriptions of events that seem unlikely (if not impossible) if taken literally, as being plausible if one re-interprets the ancient texts using expert knowledge of the way ancient authors expressed themselves, e.g., a war lasting "ten years" may simply have meant a war that lasted "a long time". At the end of the book is a section entitled "A Note on Sources". This is an extensive twenty-one page bibliographical essay (i.e., with the author's commentary) that is priceless for someone wanting to read further. The writing style is clear, friendly, authoritative and quite gripping. To paraphrase the author, the more one learns about ancient Troy, Mycenae and the Late Bronze Age and the more one finds through archaeological excavations, the more one realizes that there is more truth and accuracy in Homer's writings than was thought in the past. I recommend this book to anyone, but especially to ancient history buffs.

"The Trojan War" does not focus on proving that the Trojan War occurred, although there is plenty of discussion of evidence. Rather, it operates on the assumption that such a war was plausible, if not factual. Strauss shows how accurately Homer depicted Bronze age warfare.
Strauss writes about the Trojan War and how its heroes would have dressed, fought, and acted. The level of detail about clothing and weapons is wonderful. I found it especially interesting to learn that women probably had more power and freedom in Trojan society than among the Greeks.
Anyone who read "the Iliad" and was moved by it is sure to appreciate "The Trojan War".

There is much to admire here, especially the synthesis of a vast array of evidence from so many disparate sources (e.g., Hittite and Egyptian texts, up-to-date archaeological research and discoveries, etc.). Unfortunately, the excessive use of purple prose detracts from the enjoyment of this work. Even if the book was intended for a popular audience, the sensationalism is overdone. The net effect is to "dumb down" a fascinating topic. Not only does this aspect of the writing smother the serious scholarship, but some of it is just plain awful:

"... the soft sound of blood squirting onto paving stones ..."
"... the Harpies of Death flew ahead to scout the Trojan plain."
"... a dying cry or the roar of a group of men; piercing or roaring, whistling or thwacking, clanging or thudding, laughing or fulminating; verbal or grunted; shrill or subdued; commanded or uttered in lamentation; words honeyed or harsh, exhortatory or terrified."
Pointless, sensationalistic garbage. Where's a good editor when you need one?

The notes provided toward the end of the book are not easy to use. How difficult would it have been to insert specific notations? Without them, we have no idea that there might be supplemental notes for a given page. We encounter them later, and have to re-read the text page carefully to find the phrase used as a clue in the endnotes.

The underlying scholarship is presumably solid and reliable. But I have to make one observation: Strauss asserts (p. 117) that Bronze Age archers could hit a target at 300-400 yards. Oh really?? The renowned English longbow of the 14th-15th centuries had a probable maximum range of about 200 yards, and there were few bows in any era with a significantly greater range. Are we to believe that a Bronze Age bow had a range 50% - 100% greater, even if it was a composite bow? And to imply that a Bronze Age archer could actually hit a target at a bow's extreme range is utter nonsense.

I'd give this four stars for the scholarship but only half that for the sensationalistic writing.

i have always thought the Trojans were the stupidest people that ever lived and the Greek conquest was the best thing for them. I mean who would drag a gigantic horse inside their city without looking inside it? Pictures of this event show guys with ladders climbing out from obviuos seams (whole battalions)? I decided early that i was going to give the Trojans some credit and had formed an early opinion that the horse was real small and maybe one really small guy,a contortionist to be exact was so concealed in the horse that noone would suspect,at night he crept out and stole a key or something.Strauss pretty much clears all this up and you'll have the most logical explanation of the Trojan horse complete with readable archaeological research. I had previously read that the main target of Viking raids was other Viking settlements so I always thought Troy was a Greek colony that "got too big for it's britches" and was taken down by their main Aegean rival.This question was never answered in the book,"Were the Trojans rival Greeks or were they more under the influence of the eastern Hittite empire"?Strauss presents the evidence and let's you decide,that's what I enjoyed about this book.Particularly there is reference to obscure ancient texts such as the "Little Iliad",a lesser known but important writing as well as other antiquarian sources that add to Strauss' interpretations.i concluded from the book that there is probably alot of sources that were lost on the Trojan War over the last 3000 years,so a final picture will never emerge.Before there was the bible there was the Iliad,a ray of hope and optimism for the human condition,that is asking"what values are really important to us"

First off, I would like to say that this is one of the best accounts of the Trojan War I have ever read. Strauss provides maps in the front of several different maps of Greece, and also shows the geographic location of Troy and a rough layout of the city and its infamous walls. Pictures are provided, primarily by the author, to show examples of ancient Greek potter, items, and architecture recovered from archeological digs. All this, however, is not the strong points of the book.

The best thing about this book is Strauss's ability to tell a story of a happening that took place over two thousand years ago. Using Homer's account from the Iliad as his base, Strauss tells the story of the Trojan War, the causes of it, and the aftermath. He does so by using Homer's characters to tell the story and at the same time compares legend with fact and what we know to be true. Dozens of times does Strauss tell us the legend and then compares it to archeological findings and other historical accounts (primarily Liner Tablet B and Herodotus.) Strauss also goes into detail of the "thousand ships" that sailed to Troy, how they were made, how they were operated, where the wood came from, and even a rough estimate on exactly how many actually set sail.

Strauss also shows his knowledge of the story when he explains the culture and society of Sparta, Troy, the Hittites, and other Greek city states surrounding the area. References to ancient Egypt and even some present day events are used to back up possible explanations when separating fact from fiction.

Another thing I loved about this book was the Glossary of characters mentioned in the back of the book. 3 pages full of characters names that Strauss had mentioned throughout the text. He even has a timeline of major events leading up to the war and events happening after the war.

I recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a history of the Trojan War and who really wants to know more about Greece during that time period.

The reviews written by other voices on Amazon - both in praise and criticism - are valid. Strauss does re-hash _the Iliad_ and he does make a lot of conjecture about what the characters may have worn, may have thought, and might have done. I found this a bit tiresome. To his credit, he also provides some great insight into Bronze Age strategy, insightful analysis of the possible motives for the war (Helen leaving with Paris was less an issue than the fact that they also emptied the Spartan treasury, for example), and his explaination of the actions of heroes (both Trojan and Greek) demonstrated an intimate knowledge of Bronze Age epic story telling.

While I had anticipated a more archaelogical and historical analysis of the confilct and less of a blow-by-blow historical deconstruction of _the Iliad_, Strauss seeks to strike a balance between the two. I assume in order to provide necessicary background for the layperson (or those who had not read _The Iliad_.) It seems this is a major point of contention. For those considering buying the book, keep this in mind.

The other issue I had was Strauss' choice of the translation he used in weaving the text into his history. I much prefer Robert Fagles' version The Iliad (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) for its language and vivid details that breathe life into the poem. My second choice would be Richard Lattimore's translation, Iliad of Homer; Translated with an Introduction by Richard Lattimore which I am told, is closer to the original Attic Greek. Instead, Strauss chose Alexander Pope's translation, The Iliad of Homer - Alexander Pope which I think is a bit klunky and forced. Its minutae, I know, but it bothered me.

For serious students of the time period, the anatotated bibliography is almost worth the price of the book - it is comprehensive, detailed, and provides a wealth of information for further reading on the Trojan War, Homer, Troy itself, the archeology of the area, and the Ancient Near East in general: the Hittites, Mycenaeans, Trojans, and ancient warfare. The book has its merits, to be sure, but I don't think they outweigh the problems I had with it to warrant more than 3 stars.

Another outstanding military history from Cornell University Professor Barry Strauss, The Trojan War provides a modern interpretation of one of antiquity's major campaigns.

Having enjoyed Strauss's earlier works, I was not surprised at the extent to which I appreciated this one - particularly in light of the lessons which are directly applicable to our post-modern military.