: No, that was merely a rationalisation: while Sili was
: right in saying that Troy in itself was not a
: trememdous military power, it was capable of standing
: up to Mycenae when supported by its allies.
k.
: Iron was used, because it is, frankly, better ,in almost
: every way, than bronze. But it wasn't used in this
: period because they didn't have the required
: technology (and, if they did have iron, they certainly
: wouldn't have known that iron is incredibly brittle,
: and well nigh useless, unless it has carbon added.
: Although they might have "known" that it was
: incredibly brittle and well nigh useless. :) )
Requotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Bronze is also harder than pure iron and far more resistant to corrosion. The substitution of iron for bronze in tools and weapons from about 1000 BC was the result of iron's abundance compared to copper and tin rather than any inherent advantages of iron.
Iron was more abundant, but required more advanced mining techniques and was of lower grade. Copper and tin were less abundant, but made better tools as bronze compared with iron and were easier to mine. Therefore, bronze was the metal of choice in the more primitive Bronze Age.
The prospect, such as in the Iliad, that iron tools were used for menial labor and bronze for special and better weapons indicates that copper and tin could be found in greater quantities than in most other parts of the world and that the society had the advanced technology adiquate enough to mine pure iron. Hmm…I've heard of a place just like this somewhere…
Iron is only any good when it isn't pure, such as mixed with carbon. This kind of deliberate smelting comes far later in history.
: It's an epic. Homer has to make Troy sound glorious
: because that gets him an audience.
Well, then why did you say that the opposite was the case, basing your point on the concept that, if Troy were so gloriously declaimed, it would qualify as being so in greatest truth? Now you contradict that earlier sentiment in favor with what I have proven, agreeing what I have said is so, and then going on to say that this basis is false, the very same basis by which you based your former argument, and yet still trying to disagree with me in both instances, which are diametrically opposed? Preposterous! :-) Why not merely say that a straight road (naturally forming great circle across the Earth's spherical surface) goes south in either direction? :-)
: I think you may be confusing mother-godesses with parton
: deities.
No, I'm not. The confusion you mention is that of the believers themselves, the writers of these tales, making misassociations with different deities and virtues; it's no fault of our own, but of the ancients.
: Athena especially seems very ill suited to
: the role, as her virginity is one of her primary
: characteristics (and she certainly didn't identify
: very much with other women).
Very good again, Martel! The virginal Holy Mother is the *exact* representation prevalent through mythologies, as is visible, for example, in Christianity, to name one.
: I was making a point, showing that the extensive cult of
: Isis indicates that the Egyptian pantheon does not as
: such worship a father deity over a mother (Isis
: certainly did much more interesting stuff than Osiris
: did. Stitching all the bits of his body back together
: for one.)
Aye, which is an allegory for the union of the two Egypts as well. Nevertheless, Father Ra is yet an equivalent melding.
: That there is no reason why the society of the writer
: cannot be an opponent of the ideal society. No win
: situation: great irony.
I still don't know why you brought this up…let's let it go.
