4 ms·

So literally ? Hard to, however there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated and many torched citie

So literally ? Hard to, however there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated and many torched cities that were rebuilt frequently. It might be more pertinent to say which events of over 20-30 major campaigns inspired the texts of the Iliad.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece. If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief. The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  I suspect OP is thinking of the Sea Peoples, some of whom are conjectured to have been Greeks (e.g. Acheans).
  - wwtrv 2y ago
    Do we know anything at all about any contact between the "Sea People" and Persia? e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Well, again, the concept doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as Persia in the time of the Sea Peoples. Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia. Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same. But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply. If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition. But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
      - wwtrv 2y ago
        > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism. > If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap. > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place. > none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian" Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
wwtrv 2y ago
Persia? What about China? I don't think there is any evidence of any contact between bronze age Greece and Persia.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece. If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief. The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
I suspect OP is thinking of the Sea Peoples, some of whom are conjectured to have been Greeks (e.g. Acheans).
- wwtrv 2y ago
  Do we know anything at all about any contact between the "Sea People" and Persia? e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Well, again, the concept doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as Persia in the time of the Sea Peoples. Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia. Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same. But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply. If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition. But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
    - wwtrv 2y ago
      > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism. > If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap. > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place. > none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian" Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?

wwtrv 2y ago

Persia? What about China? I don't think there is any evidence of any contact between bronze age Greece and Persia.