What do you think?
Rate this book
Războiul Troian: O nouă istorie
Timp de aproape trei milenii, povestea Războiului Troian a stat la temelia imaginarului occidental și i-a inspirat deopotrivă pe eroi, pe cuceritori și pe artiști. Dar este oare adevăratăă Istoricul și clasicistul Barry Strauss explorează mitul și realitatea din spatele Războiului Troian, de la relatările lui Homer din Iliada și Odiseea la descoperirea ruinelor Troiei antice în epoca modernă și până la cele mai recente săpături arheologice, care scot la iveală noi indicii despre povestea legendarei cetăți și despre acea lume de la începutul istoriei. Reconstituind bătăliile și dând un contur cât mai realist personajelor faimoase ale epopeii, cartea sa rescrie faptele din poemele lui Homer, fără să știrbească în vreun fel măreția mitului.
„Barry Strauss tratează Războiul Troian ca aparținând istoriei, nu mitologiei sau poeziei. El adaugă epopeilor lui Homer și celorlalte surse grecești o profundă cunoaștere a Epocii Bronzului, a vestigiilor materiale ale acesteia și a surselor scrise din arhivele hitite și egiptene. Rezultatul este o poveste pasionantă, scrisă cu mult talent, care îi aduce la viață pe eroii lui Homer și lumea lor.“ — DONALD KAGAN, Universitatea Yale
„O abordare nouă și radicală a Războiului Troian. Cartea lui Barry Strauss este cu adevărat o «nouă istorie», pe cât de diferită, pe atât de bine-venită.“— The New Criterion
„Talentul lui Strauss de a descoperi adevărurile universale din spatele miturilor face din cartea lui o lectură plăcută, curgătoare și captivantă.“ — The Harvard Book Review
„Barry Strauss tratează Războiul Troian ca aparținând istoriei, nu mitologiei sau poeziei. El adaugă epopeilor lui Homer și celorlalte surse grecești o profundă cunoaștere a Epocii Bronzului, a vestigiilor materiale ale acesteia și a surselor scrise din arhivele hitite și egiptene. Rezultatul este o poveste pasionantă, scrisă cu mult talent, care îi aduce la viață pe eroii lui Homer și lumea lor.“ — DONALD KAGAN, Universitatea Yale
„O abordare nouă și radicală a Războiului Troian. Cartea lui Barry Strauss este cu adevărat o «nouă istorie», pe cât de diferită, pe atât de bine-venită.“— The New Criterion
„Talentul lui Strauss de a descoperi adevărurile universale din spatele miturilor face din cartea lui o lectură plăcută, curgătoare și captivantă.“ — The Harvard Book Review
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
141 people are currently reading
2621 people want to read
About the author
Barry S. Strauss
46 books354 followersBarry Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, is a leading expert on ancient military history. He has written or edited several books, including The Battle of Salamis, The Trojan War, The Spartacus War, Masters of Command, The Death of Caesar, and Ten Caesars.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews
January 2, 2015
Thought this would give me more historical info on the actual Trojan War. Turns out we don't know enough to fill a book, so a lot of this is padded out by a blow-by-blow retelling of the Iliad, which I definitely didn't need. Booooring.
Someone recently asked me for my least favorite nonfiction books of my whole Reading Through History project, and this was one of two books I named. (The other: Hannibal: Enemy Of Rome.)
We had a stoop sale last Sunday and someone tried to buy this book for a dollar and I was like "Actually no, you're just going to have to take that for free; I dislike it too much to accept money for it."
But now it's gone from my house! Yaaaaay!
That same lady took Hannibal too. Sucker.
If you want to read nonfiction about The Iliad, here's what you should do: buy Fagles' translation of it and read the intro by Bernard Knox. That's the best essay I've ever read about Homer, and it covers basically everything we know about the Trojan War.
Someone recently asked me for my least favorite nonfiction books of my whole Reading Through History project, and this was one of two books I named. (The other: Hannibal: Enemy Of Rome.)
We had a stoop sale last Sunday and someone tried to buy this book for a dollar and I was like "Actually no, you're just going to have to take that for free; I dislike it too much to accept money for it."
But now it's gone from my house! Yaaaaay!
That same lady took Hannibal too. Sucker.
If you want to read nonfiction about The Iliad, here's what you should do: buy Fagles' translation of it and read the intro by Bernard Knox. That's the best essay I've ever read about Homer, and it covers basically everything we know about the Trojan War.
February 12, 2022
This is not the book that I expected. Strauss, a fairly well-known Cornell historian, oscillates between historical fiction and a genuine history of the Trojan War. Part of the narrative is a retelling of the Iliad and speculative reconstruction of people and events, part discusses ancient sources and archaeological evidence. It requires a fair amount of attention to keep these separate. While there is ample archaeological evidence that the Iliad is generally based on actual events, it is unlikely that most of the details are factual in any significant way.
The Trojan War, is a very readable book, aimed at a general audience. Strauss synthesizes recent archaeological work, providing an overview of what is know and what is disputed. He frequently draws on surviving Bronze Age Hittite and Egyptian texts to contextualize Homer and the Trojan War, showing that the Iliad does accurately preserve many Bronze Age customs and practices. As a military historian, Strauss is especially attuned to strategy and tactics, noting the Achaeans' use of asymmetrical tactics and the Trojans failure to do the same.
This is a good book for anyone looking for an overview of the Trojan War, as long as you are careful to differentiate the more fictional elements from the historical narrative. Strauss provides abundant notes and bibliographical references for further study.
The Trojan War, is a very readable book, aimed at a general audience. Strauss synthesizes recent archaeological work, providing an overview of what is know and what is disputed. He frequently draws on surviving Bronze Age Hittite and Egyptian texts to contextualize Homer and the Trojan War, showing that the Iliad does accurately preserve many Bronze Age customs and practices. As a military historian, Strauss is especially attuned to strategy and tactics, noting the Achaeans' use of asymmetrical tactics and the Trojans failure to do the same.
This is a good book for anyone looking for an overview of the Trojan War, as long as you are careful to differentiate the more fictional elements from the historical narrative. Strauss provides abundant notes and bibliographical references for further study.
March 13, 2013
I remember finding Barry Strauss' book on Spartacus entertaining and readable, which is probably why I asked for this for Christmas. I've always been interested in the Trojan War, and when it came to getting round to actually reading this I was a little hesitant -- I like my stories of cunning Odysseus and beautiful Helen, not the sordid truth. But so, apparently, does Barry Strauss -- and in fact he suggests that the work of Homer is a lot closer to the historical truth than modern scholars have tended to believe. I can't remember where I read it before, but probably in Bettany Hughes' book on Helen, but Strauss champions the idea that Homer's epics reflected years of oral history: not myth, mind, but actual history. The names of cities, the geography, the customs of both sides, all seem to fit, more or less.
Strauss sticks very close to the narrative of the Trojan War, using the names and roles described in Homer's epics. That seems to be going a little far to me -- it seems like Strauss verges on fiction -- but it does make his book readable and interesting, and when he does comment on the likelihood of certain aspects, that fascinates me. He is quite optimistic, for example, on the actual existence of the Trojan Horse, though not quite as described.
Strauss sticks very close to the narrative of the Trojan War, using the names and roles described in Homer's epics. That seems to be going a little far to me -- it seems like Strauss verges on fiction -- but it does make his book readable and interesting, and when he does comment on the likelihood of certain aspects, that fascinates me. He is quite optimistic, for example, on the actual existence of the Trojan Horse, though not quite as described.
January 30, 2021
I've read two other books by Barry S. Strauss. One 3 stars and one 5 stars. I had hoped this would be at least 4 stars but sadly it disappointed me and is more of a 2.5. The Trojan war is a very interesting part of history yet this book made it boring and I couldn't get a clear grip on interesting facts probably because I was to in focused in learning and read more to finish it.
May 28, 2018
This was such a nice book to read. Even though it is short, the author shows his depth of knowledge and succeeds at grounding the Trojan War on archaeological evidence- not only from Greece but also comparing the Greek and Trojan armies to other Bronze Age civilizations from the Near East such as Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, and Babylonians-.
Anyone interested on what a real Trojan War might have looked like will have a solid starting point with this book.
Anyone interested on what a real Trojan War might have looked like will have a solid starting point with this book.
August 28, 2019
A very readable and interesting introduction to the classic tale of war in the ancient world and the heroes of the age. Good preparation for reading The Iliad which I mean to do. Good maps too! 3 Stars
August 6, 2017
Based on discoveries made in the last decade in archaeology and epigraphy, Strauss recounts, in his very distinctive voice and style, the story of the Trojan War and analyzes its historicity, connecting it to what we know about Bronze Age warfare, the cult of the warrior, and interstate conflicts and alliances. Strauss has a really compelling sense of narrative. One jarring note for me: when he quotes from The Iliad and The Odyssey, he uses poet Alexander Pope's translations, an interesting choice but not particularly to my taste.
Read
July 21, 2025After reading The Odyssey and The Iliad, I wanted to read a book on the historic evidence of the works and the areas they supposedly took place. This fit the bill.
March 12, 2016
This feels like it started out as an annotated edition of the Iliad, and then ballooned into its own book, but it's still an entertaining read. The Trojan War goes through the Iliad (and later, a few other sources), treats the sack of Troy as if it was a historic event (including characters - they probably did not have these names, but similar people probably did exist - "Whether Helen’s face launched a thousand ships or none, queens of the Bronze Age wielded great power and kings made war over marriage alliances."), and then goes from event to event - could this have happened this way? Do we have evidence for similar events around that time? Do we have archaeological evidence for similar wars happening at Troy?
An example:
or
All the while Strauss is a great narrator - often starting out with "Now imagine the scene", going into living detail how it could have been, then switching over to the primary text with comparison of secondary sources.
The Trojan War is a good introduction to the Iliad and its events, it doesn't purport itself to be an academic work, in fact, the introduction explains most basic archaeology. If you've never had a university course in Greek history or literature go for it.
An example:
When the Greeks sacked the city, they put Troy to the torch. Archaeology discloses that a savage fire destroyed the settlement level known as Troy VIi (formerly called Troy VIIa). [...] The inferno can be dated, according to the best estimate, sometime between 1230 and 1180 B.C., more likely between 1210 and 1180.
or
Bronze Age documents show that however brutal the sack of Troy may have been, it would have conformed to the laws of war. Cities that did not surrender would, if they were captured, be destroyed. This rule goes as far back as the first well-documented interstate conflict, the border wars between the two Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma between 2500 and 2350 B.C.
All the while Strauss is a great narrator - often starting out with "Now imagine the scene", going into living detail how it could have been, then switching over to the primary text with comparison of secondary sources.
The Trojan War is a good introduction to the Iliad and its events, it doesn't purport itself to be an academic work, in fact, the introduction explains most basic archaeology. If you've never had a university course in Greek history or literature go for it.
September 6, 2017
Il romanzo dell'età del bronzo
Come quasi tutti, ho letto Iliade ed Odissea a scuola. Allora era una pietra miliare della formazione classica e come tale si studiava. Achille, Patroclo, Ulisse, Ettore erano personaggi letterari sui quali, ai tempi, non ho riflettuto più di tanto, poichè il dubbio sull'esistenza di Omero aggiungeva leggenda a leggenda.
Ripensandoci dopo, ho realizzato che erano guerrieri dell'età del bronzo e che l'Iliade, a poterla interpretare correttamente, ci offriva un importante documento sulla vita e i valori in Grecia e in Anatolia in un periodo preclassico, del quale non ci sono testimonianze greche scritte. La storia dell'Uomo nel periodo pre-storico mi ha sempre affascinato, proprio per la mancanza di documenti che la definiscano.
Il primo motivo d'interesse di questo saggio sta nell'aiutare il lettore a inquadrare il racconto di Omero in una dimensione storica. Per esempio, per quanto la figura di Omero sfumi nel mito, la città, le usanze, le navi, la guerra che descrive sono considerate attendibili, nonostante i 500 anni fra gli avvenimenti e la scrittura dell'opera: questo perchè il racconto orale, in un'epoca in cui la conoscenza non poteva essere trasmessa in altro modo, era tenuto in grande considerazione e veniva riportato con grande attenzione.
Mi ha anche sorpresa che la verosimiglianza delle cose narrate sia supportata dal confronto coi documenti Egizi e Ittiti contemporanei alla guerra di Troia.
L'autore chiarisce che la durata della guerra fu molto più breve di 10 anni, dato che non sarebbe stato possibile sostenere gli eserciti, nè spostare i capi di stato greci dalle polis per un tempo così lungo senza perdere il potere. La guerra serviva probabimente (come molte altre) a distrarre l'attenzione del popolo dalle turbolenze interne e inoltre a saccheggiare una città di grande ricchezza, posta strategicamente sulla via del commercio fra il mar Nero e il Mediterraneo. Non ci fu un cavallo di Troia, ma è molto probabile che i Greci siano entrati a Troia con l'inganno.
I nostri eroi omerici erano predoni che si spartivano bottino e donne, non i primi e neanche gli ultimi, basti pensare alle Crociate, che ebbero vari diversivi, fra i quali i sacco di Praga e quello di Costantinopoli.
E' strano pensare che una delle opere più importanti della classicità che si studiano a scuola sia questa storia di stragi, bambini buttati giù dalle mura, cadaveri trascinati per chilometri.
Nonostante questo, vorrei rileggere Iliade ed Odissea per rinfrescare l'impressione che ne ho avuto da ragazzina.
Come quasi tutti, ho letto Iliade ed Odissea a scuola. Allora era una pietra miliare della formazione classica e come tale si studiava. Achille, Patroclo, Ulisse, Ettore erano personaggi letterari sui quali, ai tempi, non ho riflettuto più di tanto, poichè il dubbio sull'esistenza di Omero aggiungeva leggenda a leggenda.
Ripensandoci dopo, ho realizzato che erano guerrieri dell'età del bronzo e che l'Iliade, a poterla interpretare correttamente, ci offriva un importante documento sulla vita e i valori in Grecia e in Anatolia in un periodo preclassico, del quale non ci sono testimonianze greche scritte. La storia dell'Uomo nel periodo pre-storico mi ha sempre affascinato, proprio per la mancanza di documenti che la definiscano.
Il primo motivo d'interesse di questo saggio sta nell'aiutare il lettore a inquadrare il racconto di Omero in una dimensione storica. Per esempio, per quanto la figura di Omero sfumi nel mito, la città, le usanze, le navi, la guerra che descrive sono considerate attendibili, nonostante i 500 anni fra gli avvenimenti e la scrittura dell'opera: questo perchè il racconto orale, in un'epoca in cui la conoscenza non poteva essere trasmessa in altro modo, era tenuto in grande considerazione e veniva riportato con grande attenzione.
Mi ha anche sorpresa che la verosimiglianza delle cose narrate sia supportata dal confronto coi documenti Egizi e Ittiti contemporanei alla guerra di Troia.
L'autore chiarisce che la durata della guerra fu molto più breve di 10 anni, dato che non sarebbe stato possibile sostenere gli eserciti, nè spostare i capi di stato greci dalle polis per un tempo così lungo senza perdere il potere. La guerra serviva probabimente (come molte altre) a distrarre l'attenzione del popolo dalle turbolenze interne e inoltre a saccheggiare una città di grande ricchezza, posta strategicamente sulla via del commercio fra il mar Nero e il Mediterraneo. Non ci fu un cavallo di Troia, ma è molto probabile che i Greci siano entrati a Troia con l'inganno.
I nostri eroi omerici erano predoni che si spartivano bottino e donne, non i primi e neanche gli ultimi, basti pensare alle Crociate, che ebbero vari diversivi, fra i quali i sacco di Praga e quello di Costantinopoli.
E' strano pensare che una delle opere più importanti della classicità che si studiano a scuola sia questa storia di stragi, bambini buttati giù dalle mura, cadaveri trascinati per chilometri.
Nonostante questo, vorrei rileggere Iliade ed Odissea per rinfrescare l'impressione che ne ho avuto da ragazzina.
April 20, 2022
Tek yıldız vermemde yazarın anlatısındaki sıkıntılar kadar Kronik Kitap'ın alıştığımız kalitesinden uzak bir çeviri olmasının etkisi büyük.
Giriş bölümünde çevirmenin "Metin içerisinde kimi noktalarında okuyucunun aşina olduğu ancak Eski Çağ literatüründe bulunmayan bazı kavramlara (mesela komondo ya da lord) eserin niteliğini göz önüne alarak yer verdim" notu sıkıntı. İlk okuduğumda çevirinin dönem literatüründe olmayan bu kavramlarla yapıldığını düşündüm. Yayınevi ile yaptığım görüşmede orjinal metinde de bu ifadelerin geçtiği söylendi. İthaka Kralı Oddsseus'u ana çeviride Lord yazsa bile (yazar hükümdar anlamında kullanmış) orjinaldeki ünvan ile bırakırsanız sıkıntı olur... (BKZ: syf 68)
Çevirmenin zorunluluğu olmamasına rağmen anax, wanax, rölik, Fort Knox gibi kelimelerin karşılığını vermesini beklerdim. Ben alana hakim olduğum için sıkıntı yaşamadım fakat standart okur için bunlar odaklanmayı azaltan etmenler. Son olarak bazı ifadelerdeki bulanıklık da üzücüydü.
Gelelim içeriğe...
Troya Savaşı ve döneme ait kaynakların sınırlı olması yazarın bolbol tahminde bulunmasına, şahsi görüşlerini pervasızca yazmasına neden olmuş. Bu bağlamda yazarın bazı fikirleri hayal gücünü zorlayıcı. Komşu olması yanında, bölgenin etkin güçlerinden Hititler ile yapılan karşılaştırmalar da çoğu yerde gereksizdi. Metinde Homeros'tan alıntılanarak ilerlenen bölümlerin yorumlanmasında da çok ciddi sıkıntılar var. İlias ve Odysseia kolay okunur görünse de katmanlı metinlerdir. Keşke bu kadar basite indirgenmeseydi. Örneğin, Andromakhe için "dik kafalı" yorumunda bulunmak cesaret işi... Yazara dair en büyük eleştirim olayları değerlendirirken anakronizme düşme hatası. "Bugünün şartları ile Akhilleus bir terörist olmasa da bir savaş suçu işlemiş sayılabilirdi" ifadesi kabul edilemez.
Keyif kaçıranlara bir örnek daha vermek istiyorum:
"Helene, muhtemelen Menalaos'tan resmen boşanmıştı." 58
"Kral Priamos, Helene için bir kahramandı ve ona baba diyordu. Tek sorun yasal kocasının uzun eliydi." 59
Sayfa 58'de boşanmıştı derken 59'da yasal kocası ifadesini yazmak ciddien düşündüren bir şey...
Bunlara rağmen eser içerisinde güzel tespitler de var. Ayrıca esere eklenmiş haritalar dönem olaylarını anlamakta, mesafeleri canlandırmada oldukça faydalı olacaktır. Bakmadan geçilmemesini öneririm.
Bu açıklamalardan sonra okumak ve okumamak konusundaki karar sizin...
Giriş bölümünde çevirmenin "Metin içerisinde kimi noktalarında okuyucunun aşina olduğu ancak Eski Çağ literatüründe bulunmayan bazı kavramlara (mesela komondo ya da lord) eserin niteliğini göz önüne alarak yer verdim" notu sıkıntı. İlk okuduğumda çevirinin dönem literatüründe olmayan bu kavramlarla yapıldığını düşündüm. Yayınevi ile yaptığım görüşmede orjinal metinde de bu ifadelerin geçtiği söylendi. İthaka Kralı Oddsseus'u ana çeviride Lord yazsa bile (yazar hükümdar anlamında kullanmış) orjinaldeki ünvan ile bırakırsanız sıkıntı olur... (BKZ: syf 68)
Çevirmenin zorunluluğu olmamasına rağmen anax, wanax, rölik, Fort Knox gibi kelimelerin karşılığını vermesini beklerdim. Ben alana hakim olduğum için sıkıntı yaşamadım fakat standart okur için bunlar odaklanmayı azaltan etmenler. Son olarak bazı ifadelerdeki bulanıklık da üzücüydü.
Gelelim içeriğe...
Troya Savaşı ve döneme ait kaynakların sınırlı olması yazarın bolbol tahminde bulunmasına, şahsi görüşlerini pervasızca yazmasına neden olmuş. Bu bağlamda yazarın bazı fikirleri hayal gücünü zorlayıcı. Komşu olması yanında, bölgenin etkin güçlerinden Hititler ile yapılan karşılaştırmalar da çoğu yerde gereksizdi. Metinde Homeros'tan alıntılanarak ilerlenen bölümlerin yorumlanmasında da çok ciddi sıkıntılar var. İlias ve Odysseia kolay okunur görünse de katmanlı metinlerdir. Keşke bu kadar basite indirgenmeseydi. Örneğin, Andromakhe için "dik kafalı" yorumunda bulunmak cesaret işi... Yazara dair en büyük eleştirim olayları değerlendirirken anakronizme düşme hatası. "Bugünün şartları ile Akhilleus bir terörist olmasa da bir savaş suçu işlemiş sayılabilirdi" ifadesi kabul edilemez.
Keyif kaçıranlara bir örnek daha vermek istiyorum:
"Helene, muhtemelen Menalaos'tan resmen boşanmıştı." 58
"Kral Priamos, Helene için bir kahramandı ve ona baba diyordu. Tek sorun yasal kocasının uzun eliydi." 59
Sayfa 58'de boşanmıştı derken 59'da yasal kocası ifadesini yazmak ciddien düşündüren bir şey...
Bunlara rağmen eser içerisinde güzel tespitler de var. Ayrıca esere eklenmiş haritalar dönem olaylarını anlamakta, mesafeleri canlandırmada oldukça faydalı olacaktır. Bakmadan geçilmemesini öneririm.
Bu açıklamalardan sonra okumak ve okumamak konusundaki karar sizin...
June 13, 2012
This book wasn't what I was expecting at all. I was looking for a detailed examination of the archaeological evidence for Troy and the Trojan War. What I got was a retelling – in often purple prose – of The Iliad. There were frequent references to near contemporary records, to be sure, but the hard nosed archaeology was scarce indeed, and far too often it took a back seat to the author's rhetorical flights of fancy. Maybe there isn't enough evidence to furnish a book, but considering this volume had the word history in its title made me feel justified in expecting something a little more rigorous.
February 14, 2019
A recounting of the Trojan War using Homer, other ancient texts, and what we know of the Bronze Age from archaeology. Well-written and enjoyable.
February 26, 2023
Ho visto molte recensioni negative su questo libro, eppure non capisco perché. Cercavo un libro per documentarmi, che mi desse un contesto realistico della guerra di Troia e il libro ci prova per quanto possibile. La guerra di troia fu per lo più un fatto inventato? Certo, eppure da quello che si sa, l'autore cerca di ricrearne un contesto realistico, servendosi delle fonti che abbiamo di questo periodo, confrontando l'epica con le fonti storiche.
Vista la difficoltà delle premesse, mi sembra un ottimo lavoro
Vista la difficoltà delle premesse, mi sembra un ottimo lavoro
December 19, 2007
Strauss crafts a great short book, replete with quick prose, great language and interesting scholarship, tying together Egyptian and Hittite records to show that many of the outlandish tales from the Iliad and the Odyssey are not nearly as surprising as we might think. Anyone who has seriously enjoyed the epics would love this book, a contemporary version of the classic The World of Odyseeus by M.I. Finley. I highly recommend this book for novices and serious scholars. The approachable length makes it more appealing, as do the short chapters and the nuggets of narrative voice that Strauss includes to spruce up the countless inscriptions. A great addition to any library.
September 18, 2018
The author's understanding of what "really" happened insofar as we can reconstruct the story from Homer and the archaeological discoveries of the last 200 years.
May 5, 2018
Không hẳn là History mà là tác giả viết lời bình và dẫn giải về cuộc chiến thành Troy dựa trên những sử liệu về bối cảnh thời kỳ (cuối thời Đồ Đồng, khoảng thế kỷ 12 TCN ở vùng Anatolia nay thuộc Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ) dựa trên các thư tịch của cả Hy Lạp và Hittite (đế quốc thống trị ở Anatolia và Trung Cận Đông vào thời đó). Ví dụ: thư tín của người Hitite có nhắc tới tên vị vua Alexandu của Wilusa tức Troy (dễ làm liên tưởng tới Alexander là tên khác của Paris trong Troy của Homer).
Thành Troy trong lịch sử là một thành quốc quan trọng ở Anatolia, ban đầu độc lập và về sau liên minh với Hittite. Thời điểm người Hy Lạp (thuộc cuối thời kỳ văn minh Mycenae, mà thành bang quan trọng nhất chính là Mycenae của Agamemnon) đánh Troy cũng là thời hưng thịnh cuối cùng của Mycenae. Ngay sau đấy, cả đế quốc Hittite hùng mạnh thống trị Trung Đông trong hàng trăm năm cũng như nền văn minh Mycenae đều bị tan rã vì những nguyên nhân không thể xác quyết. Nhân loại đồng thời cũng bước sang thời Đồ Sắt (còn ở Hy Lạp cổ thì là sự xâm chiếm của người Dorian và bước vào thời kỳ Dark Ages kéo dài 4-500 năm).
Có 1 số điểm thú vị mà cuốn sách này nêu: ví dụ như Hector là 1 viên tướng tồi khi không sử dụng chiến tranh du kích để đánh người Hy Lạp. Hay các di tích cho thấy Troy của Homer là một thành bang mang tính Cận Đông chứ không phải Hy Lạp (dù rằng người ta tìm thấy nhiều dụng cụ của người Hy Lạp - cho thấy sự giao thương rộng rãi giữa Troy với Hy Lạp).
Số phận của Troy có gì đó hơi giống như thành Carthage của người Phoenician sau đó mấy trăm năm (bị La Mã hủy diệt), làm giàu nhờ thương mại do vị trí cực kỳ đắc địa (với Troy là cửa ngõ để tiến vào Biển Đen còn Carthage là chốt chặn trong con đường giao thương giữa châu Phi với châu Âu) và hùng mạnh nhờ ngoại giao và của cải (sử dụng quân đánh thuê là các "đồng minh") nhưng bị một thế lực sắt đá, kiên nhẫn và cunning hơn đánh bại và hủy diệt.
Tất nhiên là sau chiến tranh Troy, Troy cũng không bị hủy diệt hoàn toàn (có 9 thành Troy được phát hiện, đè lên nhau, trong đó thành Troy của Homer được phỏng đoán là Troy thứ 7). Các di chỉ khảo cổ cho thấy thành Troy được dựng lại, có thể dưới thời vị vua Aeneid huyền thoại nhưng những thành Troy về sau này mãi mãi không bao giờ đạt được sự huy hoàng của Troy VII (tức Troy của Homer)
Thành Troy trong lịch sử là một thành quốc quan trọng ở Anatolia, ban đầu độc lập và về sau liên minh với Hittite. Thời điểm người Hy Lạp (thuộc cuối thời kỳ văn minh Mycenae, mà thành bang quan trọng nhất chính là Mycenae của Agamemnon) đánh Troy cũng là thời hưng thịnh cuối cùng của Mycenae. Ngay sau đấy, cả đế quốc Hittite hùng mạnh thống trị Trung Đông trong hàng trăm năm cũng như nền văn minh Mycenae đều bị tan rã vì những nguyên nhân không thể xác quyết. Nhân loại đồng thời cũng bước sang thời Đồ Sắt (còn ở Hy Lạp cổ thì là sự xâm chiếm của người Dorian và bước vào thời kỳ Dark Ages kéo dài 4-500 năm).
Có 1 số điểm thú vị mà cuốn sách này nêu: ví dụ như Hector là 1 viên tướng tồi khi không sử dụng chiến tranh du kích để đánh người Hy Lạp. Hay các di tích cho thấy Troy của Homer là một thành bang mang tính Cận Đông chứ không phải Hy Lạp (dù rằng người ta tìm thấy nhiều dụng cụ của người Hy Lạp - cho thấy sự giao thương rộng rãi giữa Troy với Hy Lạp).
Số phận của Troy có gì đó hơi giống như thành Carthage của người Phoenician sau đó mấy trăm năm (bị La Mã hủy diệt), làm giàu nhờ thương mại do vị trí cực kỳ đắc địa (với Troy là cửa ngõ để tiến vào Biển Đen còn Carthage là chốt chặn trong con đường giao thương giữa châu Phi với châu Âu) và hùng mạnh nhờ ngoại giao và của cải (sử dụng quân đánh thuê là các "đồng minh") nhưng bị một thế lực sắt đá, kiên nhẫn và cunning hơn đánh bại và hủy diệt.
Tất nhiên là sau chiến tranh Troy, Troy cũng không bị hủy diệt hoàn toàn (có 9 thành Troy được phát hiện, đè lên nhau, trong đó thành Troy của Homer được phỏng đoán là Troy thứ 7). Các di chỉ khảo cổ cho thấy thành Troy được dựng lại, có thể dưới thời vị vua Aeneid huyền thoại nhưng những thành Troy về sau này mãi mãi không bao giờ đạt được sự huy hoàng của Troy VII (tức Troy của Homer)
February 27, 2023
Comparând cele mai noi descoperiri arheologice cu poemele homerice cât și cu fragmente din alte texte referitoare la epocă Barry Strauss recompune povestea sângeroasă a cuceririi Troiei cu același har de povestitor cu care ne-a obișnuit deja în celelalte scrieri despre antichitatea greco-romană.
October 15, 2022
1.5 stars [History]
(W: 1, U: 1.5, T: 1.5)
Exact rating: 1.33
#112 of 112 in genre
One might stomach this book if one isn't a historian. Historians will justifiably scoff at Strauss for the presumption of putting the word "history" in his subtitle.
Basically, the author wove several hundred generalizations (enriched by unending conjecture) into a somewhat systematic, somewhat chronological narrative. He told what could have happened in the campaign for Troy, based upon Homer and broad historical data from the Hellene and Hittite cultures.
It was difficult for me to read more than one chapter at a time. Strauss punctuated almost every page with quasi-related generalizations from the more reliable historical record in order to help his conjectures look less like guesswork because of their company.
However, it was forgivable if you are interested in the period, and don't set your expectations too high. I picked up the book because I am interested in ancient Greece, and in Bronze Age warfare. If you have a similar interest, it might be worth reading once.
(W: 1, U: 1.5, T: 1.5)
Exact rating: 1.33
#112 of 112 in genre
One might stomach this book if one isn't a historian. Historians will justifiably scoff at Strauss for the presumption of putting the word "history" in his subtitle.
Basically, the author wove several hundred generalizations (enriched by unending conjecture) into a somewhat systematic, somewhat chronological narrative. He told what could have happened in the campaign for Troy, based upon Homer and broad historical data from the Hellene and Hittite cultures.
It was difficult for me to read more than one chapter at a time. Strauss punctuated almost every page with quasi-related generalizations from the more reliable historical record in order to help his conjectures look less like guesswork because of their company.
However, it was forgivable if you are interested in the period, and don't set your expectations too high. I picked up the book because I am interested in ancient Greece, and in Bronze Age warfare. If you have a similar interest, it might be worth reading once.
February 17, 2015
A great, readable history of the Trojan War. Strauss avoids getting bogged down in the archaeological issues surrounding Schliemann’s discovery, and instead dives right into the Iliad’s narrative (as well as lesser-known works about the war). He treats Homer’s characters as real people and uses their story to tell the real story of ancient Greece.
Strauss is a pretty good writer, and he does a great job combining the dramatic narrative of the Iliad with what is actually known of this time period, and explores what might have actually happened during this time. The book is smoothly written, although at one point Strauss calls Erwin Rommel "Ernst Rommel."
If you’re looking for a solid book based on concrete evidence, this book will disappoint, but the problem is that these don’t really exist at this time, so Strauss does his best to tell the story anyway. A quick but interesting read, with a clean, straightforward narrative.
Strauss is a pretty good writer, and he does a great job combining the dramatic narrative of the Iliad with what is actually known of this time period, and explores what might have actually happened during this time. The book is smoothly written, although at one point Strauss calls Erwin Rommel "Ernst Rommel."
If you’re looking for a solid book based on concrete evidence, this book will disappoint, but the problem is that these don’t really exist at this time, so Strauss does his best to tell the story anyway. A quick but interesting read, with a clean, straightforward narrative.
August 27, 2023
I want to set this book on fire and then myself.
The entire book is "well the Trojan war maybe sorta of could've happened" and I have never been more bored in my entire life. Just read the Illiad at this point. At least THAT is interesting.
The entire book is "well the Trojan war maybe sorta of could've happened" and I have never been more bored in my entire life. Just read the Illiad at this point. At least THAT is interesting.
September 3, 2011
I grow weary of books on the Trojan War. Who was Homer? When did he live? Where did he come from? Did he compose in the Greek alphabet that was apparently adopted sometime around 750 B.C. or was he an oral poet who dictated his poems to a scribe? Were the Iliad and Odyssey composed by the same individual or by different authors? Was the author a man or a woman? If they were in fact oral compositions, how were poems of such extraordinary length recited -- piecemeal or in their entirety?
Is the city Schliemann discovered the Troy which we read of in Homer's poems? Was the Trojan War actually fought? If so, when was it fought? Why was it fought? Were Achilles, Agamemnon, Nestor, Odysseus and other characters legendary figures with some basis in men who actually lived, or are they purely the creation of a poetic, mythic imagination?
And on and on and on... There are no answers, only intense speculation. And this very absence of firm answers about the composer of these poems we call the Iliad and Odyssey is one of the things that makes Homer and his Trojan War so interesting. Apart from the spellbinding artistry and transcendent power of his poetry, there is a mystery, a vast chasm of the unknown that separates the creation of these wonderful poems from our world. It is a gulf that is unlikely ever to be bridged.
Contemporary scholars who write about Homer are like ants crawling over the chariot tracks of antiquity. And yet these modern day Myrmidons remain undeterred in their quest, carrying back a grain here, a grain there, and occasionally taking up academic arms against one another. And so they publish books discussing Bronze Age archaeological findings, the meanings of Hittite inscriptions, theories of oral composition, military tactics, social and political organization, etc., etc. etc.
The inquiry into the Trojan War is not at all unimportant, of course. And, in fairness to the scholars, we must admit that their researches have been remarkably fruitful, albeit inconclusive. Still, reading their works is like poring over a book of baseball statistics when you could be watching an actual game. In the end, there is Homer, and only Homer. My advice is to read him (in Greek, of course) or re-read him before opening this book. Smell the salt air wafting over the wine dark sea; hear the rattling of Apollo's arrows as he speeds angrily from Mt. Olympus in response to the prayer of his priest, Chryses; watch the smoke rising from the pyres cremating the Greeks who have been killed by Apollo's plague; behold the manifold wonders of Homer's epic world rather than lie entombed in the frigid, gloomy mausoleum of what are called "Homeric studies."
Is the city Schliemann discovered the Troy which we read of in Homer's poems? Was the Trojan War actually fought? If so, when was it fought? Why was it fought? Were Achilles, Agamemnon, Nestor, Odysseus and other characters legendary figures with some basis in men who actually lived, or are they purely the creation of a poetic, mythic imagination?
And on and on and on... There are no answers, only intense speculation. And this very absence of firm answers about the composer of these poems we call the Iliad and Odyssey is one of the things that makes Homer and his Trojan War so interesting. Apart from the spellbinding artistry and transcendent power of his poetry, there is a mystery, a vast chasm of the unknown that separates the creation of these wonderful poems from our world. It is a gulf that is unlikely ever to be bridged.
Contemporary scholars who write about Homer are like ants crawling over the chariot tracks of antiquity. And yet these modern day Myrmidons remain undeterred in their quest, carrying back a grain here, a grain there, and occasionally taking up academic arms against one another. And so they publish books discussing Bronze Age archaeological findings, the meanings of Hittite inscriptions, theories of oral composition, military tactics, social and political organization, etc., etc. etc.
The inquiry into the Trojan War is not at all unimportant, of course. And, in fairness to the scholars, we must admit that their researches have been remarkably fruitful, albeit inconclusive. Still, reading their works is like poring over a book of baseball statistics when you could be watching an actual game. In the end, there is Homer, and only Homer. My advice is to read him (in Greek, of course) or re-read him before opening this book. Smell the salt air wafting over the wine dark sea; hear the rattling of Apollo's arrows as he speeds angrily from Mt. Olympus in response to the prayer of his priest, Chryses; watch the smoke rising from the pyres cremating the Greeks who have been killed by Apollo's plague; behold the manifold wonders of Homer's epic world rather than lie entombed in the frigid, gloomy mausoleum of what are called "Homeric studies."
August 15, 2014
I was expecting Strauss' The Trojan War: A New History to be a scholarly study of every detail we have about the Trojan world; basically an updated version of
In Search of the Trojan War
. Instead, it is a more scholarly
Age of Bronze Volume 1: A Thousand Ships
. The book is structured around the story of the Trojan War, which is then clothed in modern archaeology, and decorated with Homer.
And it works. Taking the view that the Trojan War is based on something that happened, the book gives the 'history' of the war, cross-referencing with what we know of other nearby Bronze Age cultures. There's plenty of passages where something from the Iliad is compared to existing Bronze Age writings and shown how it is typical of the time. In fact, the book hides a fairly good overview of Bronze Age politics and warfare.
In all, it is a short but quite worthwhile book.
And it works. Taking the view that the Trojan War is based on something that happened, the book gives the 'history' of the war, cross-referencing with what we know of other nearby Bronze Age cultures. There's plenty of passages where something from the Iliad is compared to existing Bronze Age writings and shown how it is typical of the time. In fact, the book hides a fairly good overview of Bronze Age politics and warfare.
In all, it is a short but quite worthwhile book.
August 29, 2011
The cover says 'New History', but it should really say 'Homer had it right from the start'. Barry Strauss basically narrates the classic work and throws into the mix referencesto whatever archeological finds that suit his interpretation. A nice read in some respects, but fast and loose play with scant factual evidence makes it as plausible as a Hollywood movie.
September 16, 2025
An unfortunate fact of the ancient world is that the further we try to go back in time, much has to be pieced together with historical guesswork. Using what few sources we have available for the Trojan War, historians seem unable to avoid the "he said, she said" in piecing together events. Because of this, Strauss fills in the gaps by engaging all of your senses: the whirs of spears flying by your head, the groans of injured Greeks and Trojans bleeding out on the plain, the twang of arrows released from taut bowstrings. Still, Strauss contextualizes the war in what we know about the general social milieu of the region at the time and provides mind-blowing facts throughout.
There are a few things that were confirmed for me. 1) Perhaps not all, but most of the characters mentioned in the primary sources were real people. 2) The war could not possibly have lasted 10 years. 3) My long-held belief that the Trojan War, not the Athenian invention of democracy, should be considered the starting point of the Western tradition.
Disappointingly, we might never know what the Trojan Horse really was, so I agree with Strauss that it is probably better to see it as a placeholder for small scale guerrilla warfare and stealth operations that eventually gave the Greeks the upper hand to sack Troy. Strauss provides all the best theories, some which are more plausible than others. I feel this gives me license to add my own theory. Based on all the available evidence, we have reason to believe that the Trojans were among the shrewdest of horse traders in the Ancient Near East. This makes me wonder if perhaps all along the Greeks meant the Trojan Horse as simply a mythologized backhand slap, akin to Dante's contrapasso principle of punishment imposed on sinners in Inferno. Whatever the Trojan Horse actually was, by whatever means the Greeks actually gained entrance to Troy on that fateful night over 3000 years ago, I think it is at least partially probable that the Greeks were saying: "Look at how great and mighty Troy has become by way of horses! Let us destroy it by the same means!" A fun part about ancient times is that a lot of theories can be just as viable as any other. What’s yours?
There are a few things that were confirmed for me. 1) Perhaps not all, but most of the characters mentioned in the primary sources were real people. 2) The war could not possibly have lasted 10 years. 3) My long-held belief that the Trojan War, not the Athenian invention of democracy, should be considered the starting point of the Western tradition.
Disappointingly, we might never know what the Trojan Horse really was, so I agree with Strauss that it is probably better to see it as a placeholder for small scale guerrilla warfare and stealth operations that eventually gave the Greeks the upper hand to sack Troy. Strauss provides all the best theories, some which are more plausible than others. I feel this gives me license to add my own theory. Based on all the available evidence, we have reason to believe that the Trojans were among the shrewdest of horse traders in the Ancient Near East. This makes me wonder if perhaps all along the Greeks meant the Trojan Horse as simply a mythologized backhand slap, akin to Dante's contrapasso principle of punishment imposed on sinners in Inferno. Whatever the Trojan Horse actually was, by whatever means the Greeks actually gained entrance to Troy on that fateful night over 3000 years ago, I think it is at least partially probable that the Greeks were saying: "Look at how great and mighty Troy has become by way of horses! Let us destroy it by the same means!" A fun part about ancient times is that a lot of theories can be just as viable as any other. What’s yours?
October 9, 2025
Strauss writes the story if the Iliad as if it were a real historical document. It's an interesting challenge. He gives the historical context, the supporting archaeological evidence, and cites analogies from history and other mythical and literary sources. For example, when describing how the walls might have been taken he describes accounts and Assyrian wall reliefs showing sieges. Then, if nothing contradicts it, he assumes the Iliad is true. It is a little strange but the more I think about it, it's the right approach. For example, he relates Hector's assault on the Greek ships as if it were a detailed, true account. When Hector is hit by a rock, passes out, vomits and temporarily retreats, Strauss treats it as if that was the actual timing and order of events, then says "really nobody could recover that quickly from a concussion." If he had said "this couldn't possibly have happened" he would have no alternative story to present and comment on. It's so speculative that it's hard to call it history.
One more thing that bothered me: Strauss is almost apologetic about the violence and slavery of the Greeks. He explicitly says a major motivation was to steal women and take slaves and points out the historical record of slavery and rape in the bronze age. But then he says Andromache and the other Trojan women became the "mistresses" of the Greek chiefs. It's a strange term to apply to slave concubines who were forced to serve the men who killed their husbands. He rightly describes the culture as patriarchal and violent when excusing the actions of Achilles and Agamemnon. But then he bizarrely and repeatedly criticizes Hector for seeking glory on the battlefield instead of retreating safely behind the walls of Troy. I'm not being completely fair in this summary, and I won't knock the book for an interpretation I disagree with, but...?
My favorite parts are the citations of historical analogies. It gives good insights into what a bronze age war might have really been like.
Extra fun: I had the good fortune to visit Troy while reading this and it provided a decent guide to what we were looking at.
One more thing that bothered me: Strauss is almost apologetic about the violence and slavery of the Greeks. He explicitly says a major motivation was to steal women and take slaves and points out the historical record of slavery and rape in the bronze age. But then he says Andromache and the other Trojan women became the "mistresses" of the Greek chiefs. It's a strange term to apply to slave concubines who were forced to serve the men who killed their husbands. He rightly describes the culture as patriarchal and violent when excusing the actions of Achilles and Agamemnon. But then he bizarrely and repeatedly criticizes Hector for seeking glory on the battlefield instead of retreating safely behind the walls of Troy. I'm not being completely fair in this summary, and I won't knock the book for an interpretation I disagree with, but...?
My favorite parts are the citations of historical analogies. It gives good insights into what a bronze age war might have really been like.
Extra fun: I had the good fortune to visit Troy while reading this and it provided a decent guide to what we were looking at.
May 27, 2024
Spre sfârșitul Epocii Bronzului (acum mai bine de 3000 de ani), undeva în zona strâmtorii Dardanele, se pare că a existat o cetate, Ilion, care a fost distrusă de un incendiu puternic. Evenimentul a stat la baza faimosului poem epic homeric, Iliada - sau războiul grecilor cu troienii pentru a o recupera pe frumoasa Elena, prințesa spartană sedusă și furată de moștenitorul regelui troian, prințul Paris.
Despre acest subiect arhicunoscut (probabil din repovestiri la a treia și a patra mână, în variante cenzurate și polizate pentru biblioteca școlară, a la Alexandru Mitru) s-a scris foarte mult, cel mai probabil invers proporțional cu cât se cunoaște sigur despre asediu în sine; iar autorul american (care este și profesor universitar de istorie) nu face din aceasta un secret, afișând cu mândrie o bibliografie sub formă de eseu, un compendiu de note și referințe, precum și un index, care toate la un loc alcătuiesc aproape o treime din volumul cărții. Se presupune o cunoaștere cel puțin elementară a subiectului tratat, Barry Strauss rezumând tranșant în fiecare capitol câte un scurt fragment din asediul Troiei. Astfel, autorul creează un scurt narativ, adăugând uneori fragmente patetice la persoana a doua despre gândurile, intențiile și fricile personajelor principale. Evident, fondul istoric nu este deloc ignorat, fiecare aspect al războiul fiind descris în comparație cu similare evenimente din izvoare hitite sau egiptene din aceeași perioadă clasică. Sunt aduse astfel în discuție geniul lui Homer în mod direct, și indirect acuratețea istorică a acestuia. Din păcate, așa cum se recunoaște și în text, multe din ce se știa s-a pierdut și nu mai putem reface cursul evenimentelor originale decât prin deducții vagi și prin ghiceli educate. Se creează astfel o operă pentru publicul larg, omogenă și ușor de citit, din care cititorul pasionat rămâne cu un palid sentiment nostalgic, o părere de rău pentru inscrutabilitatea trecutului și o evocare demnă de epoca eroilor.
Despre acest subiect arhicunoscut (probabil din repovestiri la a treia și a patra mână, în variante cenzurate și polizate pentru biblioteca școlară, a la Alexandru Mitru) s-a scris foarte mult, cel mai probabil invers proporțional cu cât se cunoaște sigur despre asediu în sine; iar autorul american (care este și profesor universitar de istorie) nu face din aceasta un secret, afișând cu mândrie o bibliografie sub formă de eseu, un compendiu de note și referințe, precum și un index, care toate la un loc alcătuiesc aproape o treime din volumul cărții. Se presupune o cunoaștere cel puțin elementară a subiectului tratat, Barry Strauss rezumând tranșant în fiecare capitol câte un scurt fragment din asediul Troiei. Astfel, autorul creează un scurt narativ, adăugând uneori fragmente patetice la persoana a doua despre gândurile, intențiile și fricile personajelor principale. Evident, fondul istoric nu este deloc ignorat, fiecare aspect al războiul fiind descris în comparație cu similare evenimente din izvoare hitite sau egiptene din aceeași perioadă clasică. Sunt aduse astfel în discuție geniul lui Homer în mod direct, și indirect acuratețea istorică a acestuia. Din păcate, așa cum se recunoaște și în text, multe din ce se știa s-a pierdut și nu mai putem reface cursul evenimentelor originale decât prin deducții vagi și prin ghiceli educate. Se creează astfel o operă pentru publicul larg, omogenă și ușor de citit, din care cititorul pasionat rămâne cu un palid sentiment nostalgic, o părere de rău pentru inscrutabilitatea trecutului și o evocare demnă de epoca eroilor.
March 27, 2022
Definitely provides material and historical weight to the traditional account of the Trojan war, and I was personally convinced by the general thesis of this book, which is that the Trojan war did happen and that some of the Homeric account is certainly plausible. I appreciated how B.Strauss does not try to play down the poetic or divine elements, recognising the role that the idea of the Gods played in Bronze Age life, and how Homer’s style is comparable and in line with his contemporaries. Occasionally veers off into a general summary of the story, and we may wonder about how useful it is to expect that Bronze Age Greeks be as culturally compatible with the likes of the Hittites and Egyptians as some of the conjectures made here require us to believe. Nonetheless, there are sources aplenty for us to dig into which B.Strauss has kindly provided, and a ridiculous argument is never made.
September 13, 2018
A clear and concise primer to the Trojan War as a historical event rather than an epic poem. I enjoyed Strauss's sense of humour and his defense of Homer as a source, but there was also an awful lot of romantic imagining that got in the way of his evidence.
February 23, 2025
Mi-a plăcut. Domnul profesor Barry Strauss știe ce vorbește și se vede că are in spate o vastă experiență academică. Sunt numeroase trimiteri către alte lucrări academice, dar și legături cu diverse evenimente similare.
Mi-ar fi plăcut să fi vorbit mai mult despre mișcările (presupuse ale) trupelor și să fi inclus mai multe hărți.
Mi-ar fi plăcut să fi vorbit mai mult despre mișcările (presupuse ale) trupelor și să fi inclus mai multe hărți.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews