OUA HST 140 Assessment task 5

by Feodor Weissmann

student ID 40899152

Was there a Trojan War? Compare the literary with the archaeological evidence.

I will open this essay by quoting Manfred Korfmann, who is director of excavations at Troy and a professor of archaeology at the University of Tübingen, "Why should the scholars who won't rule out a possible degree of historicity in the basic events in the Iliad have to defend their position?". (1) Trojan war has captured the minds of millions for last couple of millenniums. Iliad has everything, story of love and hate, loyalty and betrayal, epic war and defiance of fate and gods. Ir is probably best know siege in the universe and we owe it all to Homer`s Iliad. His creation inspired both fictional recreations and variation, with latest being a expensive production of a motion picture "Troy" and numerous scientific researches trying to verify an existence of once glorious city. Historians probed the lyrics and compared them with known scripts of same era, measured structure and complexity of society portrayed in Iliad with Homer`s apparent surroundings and known facts about Mycenaean civilization. Military historians compared strategy and tactics of gods heroes and troops with actual Mycenaean and hoplits of Homer`s time. Archaeologist rushed to allocate the grand jewel - location of Troy itself. Students in every university chose Troy subject for they essays and researches. We have evidence of Alexander the grate caring a copy of Iliad with him. Herodotus and Thucydides, both made an analysis of the origins of the Trojan war as part of basic principals defining their approach to the historical past. Homer`s creation should better be examined in a layered view, with writing style in the center, then surrounding historical back ground, then anthropological analysis.

Basic plot of Iliad contains information about a war that a coalition of Mycenaean Greeks waged against some other Greek colony in the Asia minor. The was contained invasion to a kingdom, siege of the city and campaigns against the kingdom`s allies. The outcome of the war was a conquest of the city, complete annihilation of Troy`s male population. Female population was distributed among the victorious Greeks together with the rest of the spoils of war looted from Troy. The city itself wad devastated and burned down. According to Homer military campaign itself lasted for full ten years and ended with Odysseus tricking the Trojans. We are told that Greek forces were led by king Agamemnon, king of Mycenae, who had brought a hundred ships with him. The allied Greek army is portrayed as an armada consisting of a thousand ships, number meaning the invasion force itself must have been about sixty thousand men strong. The reason for the conflict, as Homer tells us was an abducting of Helen, wife of Agamemnon's brother Menelaus, by Paris, son of Troy`s king Priam. We know from the historical writings that Troy was a source of emotions for generations. Greeks and Romans supposing knew the location of the city but it was lost long time ago. Archaeologists tried to reveal the location of the city and one of them claimed that Troy was revealed in Hisarlık, Anatolia. It was close to the seacoast in what is now Çanakkale province in Turkey, under Mount Ida. This location site was found and excavated by German merchant and part time archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann in 1880s. Additional excavations revealed several city layers built on the same location. One of the locations, called Troy VII is regarded by many archaeologists as a location of Homeric Troy. Those assessments are so adopted by the UN and as a result, the archaeological site of Troy was added to the UNESCO World Heritage list in 1998.

Now with the assessment of historical evidence and new information we have from those excavations we are being able to drow a historical map. Excavations site has been identified with the city called Wilusa in the Hittite texts; Ilion (which goes back to earlier Wilion with a digamma) is thought to be the Greek rendition of that name. Hittite empire was Kaneš, and was established in north-central Anatolia from the 18th century BC. The city it self appears to be destroyed around 1180 B.C. , probably as a result of a war the city lost. (2) Translation from Troy to Wilusa was possible after analysis of Greek dialects used by Homer. The sound /w/, spoken and written in Greek until at least 1200 B.C., was discontinued and therefore the "Ilios" city of the Iliad must have been the "Wilios" of the Late Bronze Age and in this way identical with "Wilusa", what is apparently Hittite name of Troy.

There are also very interesting linguistic part of analysis. It reviles that Mycenaean Greeks`s army in the Iliad are consistently addressed as "Achaiói" (or "Achaiwói") or "Danaói," when the Iliad was composed, around eighth century B.C., there were no such names for the Greeks. Could it be that the "Achaiwói" of the Iliad were in fact the inhabitants of Ahhiyawa, a western kingdom from the Hittite documents of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. (The "Danaói" of the Iliad, on the other hand, must be identical with the inhabitants of "Danaya," a northern kingdom described in Egyptian documents of the fourteenth century B.C.) In addition, there are some evidence found in Hittite records, implying that there were some kind of military tensions around Troy exactly around supposed time of Trojan War as presented in Homer's Iliad. That would be somewhere during the thirteenth and early twelfth centuries B.C.

We know today that, the place we consider to be Troy is located in Anatolia. Carl Blegen, who directed excavations at the site in the 1930s, considered Troy VI/VIIa to be a Greek city. At a time general idea was of a Greek Troy, it was also supported by Schliemann so how did that happened? Simply. In Iliad, main theme is war between Greeks and Greeks, not Greeks and Anatolians. Homer portrays the inhabitants of Troy as Greek colonists of Asia minor an since the search is after his Troy, researchers assume that it is a Greek city. Archaeologists come from mainland Greece to Troy and later went back to Greece, and were completely sure about Greek Troy theory. According to Manfred Korfmann, up to 1930 Little was known from the archaeological point of view, to link western Anatolia with Homer`s Troy. At present time, archaeologists, after sorting out the excavation findings came to the conclusion that Bronze age Troy was in fact better linked with Anatolia then with Mycenaean Greece.

Iliad speaks of ten year old siege of the city, it also mentions additional military expeditions to Troy`s allies in order to disrupt support lines and prevent them from providing active military raids agings the aggressors. Could it be that it is compiled out of successive military campaigns taking place in the same area or perhaps against same enemy over wast periods of time? Homer`s Iliad mentions use of chariots, Hittite as Egyptians and Canaans should have been pretty skilled in using them. If we review however use of chariots from the military point of view there is small use of them against fortified camps or in proximity to such. They could be trapped to easy. Could it be that Chariots were added to the poem as part of myths about other engagements with Hittite / Trojans?

In Iliad Homer tend to glorify the act of siege and hostilities around it. When he describes military equipment used by the parties he tends to make it more heroic or grandiose, sometimes on the expense of common sense. From archaeological sources we know the types of equipment used during the bronze age but Homer, due to his own reasons sometimes extends or reduces the amount or quality of weapons and armor. He presents scenes of fatal, glorious combat, heroes against heroes with unique sets of weapons and sometimes single throwing spear. We could have few factors other then artistic creativity to blame on that account. Homer is not an archaeologist, he has limited knowledge about logistics of combat hundreds of years before his time. It could be that he tends to portray military equipment as older version of his contemporary. He tries to hide the knowledge of iron but we have couple of times iron being introduced into the Iliad universe as a weapon (sword) and a plow. That supports the previous claim of contemporary substitution. Other cases could be that Anatolians of Wilusa used a bit different sets of weaponry and armor. Having extensive chariot force they could be using heavier armor to protect the riders, the information available to Homer could have been mixed between heavier and different resulting him to try and explain the types the best way he could. We can see from the Iliad that use of chariots is somewhat transformed into mainly taxing heroes to the battlefield and back, perhaps due to lack of understanding by Homer of chariot use strategy and tactics.

Status system presented in the universe of Iliad is criticized by the scholars as not being in convergence with the political climate of Bronze era kingdoms. Mycenaean Greeks expedition is an alliance of forces from different kingdoms. Those forces led by king Agamemnon but it appears that the allied army managed in almost democratic manner. A lot of assembles taking places we get a feeling that Agamemnon is constantly forced to seek approval of other leaders and has little of execution authority when someone wishes to do something. One of the examples is the case of Achilles refusing to engage in combat after feeling insulted. In fighting terms he is addressed as a best Greek hero, his refusal to fight took heavy toll from Mycenaean forces directly and morally and yet supreme king and army commander, Agamemnon is apart of a problem, he is not beyond a trivial dispute, he is unable to make Achilles fight. After Achilles death his divine armor should have been passed to some over Greek hero. There are versions with Greek chiefs making an assembly and casting a vote on whoever should get the armor. During the summoning of allies by Agamemnon we sea different scenes of the lives of summoned heroes. Those scenes portray kings engaged in plebs activities. There is no escape during the reading and analyzing of Iliad that from anthropological point of view that Mycenaean kingdoms are some kind of oligarchy society, similar in many ways to the surroundings of Homer`s days. It appears that Homer does not completely understands the concept of kingdom and it`s internals.

Overall, if the main question is wherever we can operate ancient literature sources and to what extent. Taking Iliad for example we can see that archaeologists can support Homer`s story by supplying physical pieces of evidence for his events. But what those evidences point to more or less following: "Around 1200 BC a city in the area that was called Wilusa at the time of the Hittite kingdom was devastated, probably as a result of a siege." We have can not positive identify the aggressor, who some evidents point to be Mycenaean Greek or the reasons for armed conflict. After comparing the Iliad, additional literal sources with historical findings and the results of archaeological excavations, much of whom occurred in the past couple of decades, it is now more likely that the area suffered from several lager scaled armed conflicts. It does not mean however that Iliad is not a piece of evidence, rather we should keep in mind that as evidence it is simply not primary one and therefore should be analyzed in context of surrounding changes. Those changes could have accrued from confusion of actual events during the compilation of the poem or by authors misunderstanding of certain facts he was writing about. Analyses of the key motive of Iliad suggests that Homer can and should be taken seriously, that the basics of his story, story about a military conflict between Greeks and the inhabitants of Troy is indeed based on a collective memory of historical events, it is our job now to figure out whatever these events have been.

OUA PLT 120

by Feodor Weissmann

student ID 40899152

Assessment 2: Final Exam (40%)
Due: by 5pm (EST) Friday of Week 13

Part A: 10 short answer questions (50%)
Part B: 1 compulsory essay question (50%)
PLT 120 Examination questions
Part A. (50%)
Ten short answers. Answer each in not more than 150 words.

Is globalisation changing world politics?

Of course, there are a lot of angles how globalization changes world politics. Key element of globalization is information sharing and we were all witnesses just a month ago how Burma military crackdown on Buddhist monks sparked protests around the world forced liberal governments into some kind of political action. Economical inter dependents with for instance China however prevented any tougher action against Burma. Globalization changes an internal political agenda of states and tends to reduce the risk of armed conflicts between major players. It is also changes the balance of power between the state and it`s citizens or state and capital holders. State need to project stability and reduce taxation in order to keep or attract resources and they must act accordingly in the international arena.

How does neo-liberalism build on classical liberalism?

neo-liberalism is build on classical liberalism in a way that it embraces the liberal main claim that stability can be reached if ethics is introduced to the international politics. However it is more realistic and I see it in a way as “liberalism with a plan”. Not joust promotion of idealistic ideas but a solid roadmap with institutions, tactics and safeguards. It is in a way a hybrid of neorealist and liberalism political ideas. PROPERTY ISSUES

Is 'National Interest' a useful concept for understanding the actions of
states?

We live in a period of nation states. Even then the state is multi national, it promotes an idea of bounding nation identity that overrides ethical or tribal identity. Such states act according to a “National Interest”. Definition of “National Interest” is a goal that state pursues to maximize what is selfishly best for the state. I’ve come to another definition in Chinese Tsinghua University “national interest as the common material and spiritual need of all the people of a nation state. In material terms a nation needs security and development. In spiritual terms, a nation needs respect and recognition from the international community.” Such a definition from a totalitarian state with state’s approval of stuffy program fortifies the realism approach to global politics. Basically we can explain each state action through rhetoric of those 2 definitions alone.

What are the key causes of war?

key cause of was is an existence of the army, the bigger the army – most likely state will be engaged in a military conflict. It could be argued that it is an other way around but once armies exist they are being used. Depending on level of analysis we can see that periods of war and peace are cyclic, tend to have national or religious rhetoric and supported by people as long as “fog of war” is in place. But I would argue that the key reason is very simple, states (or other entities) are in a sense living critters and as such they must grow to survive and they grow to places occupied by other states. Simples and most accessible way of growing is physical capture of territory by military means.

Is terrorism best described as 'a tactic of the powerless against the
powerful' (Kegley and Wittkopf)?

Without a hesitation terrorism is the cheapest way to achieve military gains. It is best used in surrounding with developed informational infrastructure and highest possible personal income level. The more people have to loose the bigger terror impact is. Terror attack is also very useful in military sense in areas you can not physically garrison for one reason or the other. Those characteristics make terrorism effective weapon for small mobile forces fighting overwhelmingly stronger opponent. Military I must agree with the statement but there are different forms of resistance and conflicts so I feel that the statement is incomplete, glorifying and technically missing cultural connections.

In what ways do 'non-state actors' represent a challenge to the state
system?

None state actors are institutions derived from globalization and challenge they present to the state system is mainly based on process of globalization itself. We can take for example UN and EU (or its predecessor) – those institutions established by the states themselves came into seventy conflict with their creators. Even widest and most powerful UN can not achieve sovereignty over states and in present condition can not execute any policy. EU integration and expansion process appears to being stack over issues of sovereignty and control of EU itself. Again we see that none state actors are active only as far as “national interests” of the major global players. At least for now it appears that those institutions are more like instruments of major nation states expansion over smaller states. It is more or less the same with WB and IMF. WTO acts a bit differently since the interest lobbied there is less national and more of multi national corporations and they have their own agendas.

What is the best explanation for the persistence of the income and power
gulf between the 'Global North' and the Global South'?

In my opinion persistence of the income and power gulf between the 'Global North' and the Global South' exist due to lack of developed infrastructure in the Global South'. I’m using the infrastructure at it’s full meaning and include political, economical, cultural and educational derivatives. You can add arguably religious differences since it is clear that Christian states are more advanced in terms of income then their Muslim or Hindu counterparts even in the same areas. Some states shown “Asian tigers” or Israel for example clearly shown us what needs to be addressed for a leap forward I terms of economical wealth, however such changes require either strong dictatorship or strong cultural foundations or combination of both to succeed.

Why is 'human security' in tension with 'national security' (Kegley and
Wittkopf)?

'Human security' is in tension with 'national security' since they both compete for the same resources. Individual property, a basics of “human security” is taxed by a state in order to provide national security to it’s citizens. National security is too often viewed by a state as military or police spending in occurrence with realism theory views dominating the governments. If those resources are invested in military, arguably they are simply wasted and not invested into a society lowering wealth level of general population and decreasing it’s ‘human security” level. So there is a balance that tend to be shifted by a state to protect it`s short time interest over long term investments in the “human security”. Those shifts general occur after a stressful events such as military confrontations of credible threats.

How does the metaphor of the commons explain the global ecological
situation?

Why is it so difficult to measure power in international relations?

State power is a very difficult thing to measure since there are many aspects to measure. It is a combination of Military, diplomatic, economic, human resources, domestic, logistics and state’s potential factors that have thousands of variables. Immediate military might of Israel is bigger then Japan’s, yet other factor suggest that in a military confrontation it would be very hard for Israel to maintain superiority over period of time. Russia has the biggest army in Europe but does it strongest in a political sense? North Korea has or suspected to have atomic weapons but is it even a nation state? We knew two types of hegemony, sea and land with first type controlling more at some stage but much more fragile then the land type, what type is stronger? And nowadays it is even harder to measure since states became so interdependent and much of the new economy and technological advances are extremely hard to measure.

Part B. (50%)
Compulsory Essay (1000-1200 words)
'The rise of US hegemony may in time create a more prosperous and peaceful
world order'. Discuss with reference to geo-political, geo-economic and
cultural forces in world politics.

'The rise of US hegemony may in time create a more prosperous and peaceful
world order'.

US hegemony projected on a world its nature which is relatively peaceful liberal democracy. It is very human nature to look upon someone who is successful and understand that one wants to be like him. Image that

As a liberal democracy US believes in liberal democracy as a best way of governing and something that should be spread across the globe. US had managed to promote such governments in Asia, and South America and preserve them in Europe. Under US umbrella democratic regimes enjoyed open trade, fanatical and military assistance and relative stability in the world. Political and economical weight of those countries grew and continues to grow at present as well. In order to trade and prosper other countries are on a different levels forced to reform themselves and more relations they hold with a liberal block the more changes they undergo.

It is American culture that is the heart of globalization and globalization by itself reminds as that we are as much part of human kind as we part of a nation or a tribe. Globalization culture comes from Hollywood and promoted all other the world via established network of content distributors. We are shown values of American liberal democracy then we are opening a TV, going to see a movie or buy a new album of internationally recognized artist. It is everywhere in our life, bonding, creating a common grounds for shared experience as a human being. American contents is being distributed over the Internet with US still maintaining control of both root DNS (domain name system) and the IEEE (Engineering group responsible for standards of networking). American search engines, blog systems and content providers dominate the Internet media on international levels and almost everywhere on a domestic level as well. Google, Yahoo and MSN create an infrastructure of information sharing difficult to control by totalitarian states. Those companies are based in and upon liberal values, and ever though sometimes they must act according the local lows that they are not agree with sill the overall picture is they are excellent promoter of Western liberal values to the world. American news agency, CNN is the biggest and most watched agency in the world. It tries to adapt it’s content to different areas but still it operates under the rules of Democracy and provides liberal ideas propaganda on a daily bases all around the globe. Basics of the liberal value – “personal security” has made deep roots even in non democratic states such as China or Saudi Arabia.

It is the US that established most of international institutions such as UN, WTO and World Bank. Those institutions provide a new ability to states. United Nations provide a playground for execution of national ambitions without active military confrontations. World trade organization makes sure that trade grows between the states with as least barriers as possible. Strong trade ties serve three purposes, they aid economy growth, increase personal wealth in matter of value for money and establish economical interdependence between trade peers. This network of trade connections aids to the world stability in a lot of ways. It is a fact that wealthier states are much more reluctant to go to war since they have a lot to loose. National capital holders are also interested in continuation of trade and profits so they pressure the governments to proceed with diplomacy rather then military solutions to conflicts.

Global organizations, such as WMF and World Bank finance different operations developments at the “global South” countries. They do that with different level of success but nevertheless they aid in creating necessary infrastructure for prosperity at underdeveloped countries. Those institutions exists and are getting more and more efficient at what they do and arguably what they propose are the real solutions for developing nations.

Military it was able to act as a security guaranty for both balance of power with China and USSR, preventing new full scale armed conflicts to spark between USSR and Europe, China and Japan after the WWII. It was able to act as a focal point for communist aggression in South East Asia with it’s involvement in Korea and Vietnam. Arguably this involvement caused Communist aggression focused in specific places with most of their resources depleted in those conflicts. Although US did lost both conflicts on the ground Communist block was unable to proceed and get other significant gains in the region or perhaps overrunning it completely.

US also provided military guaranties to Taiwan, Israel and South Korea, what would happened to those countries without American support. US is the only active international player that interferes both in economical and active defensive military way.

In resent time US is engaged in controversial conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the prospective again is that in both countries they managed to hold elections, established some form of coalition government. Power of state institutions are now more connected to the actual citizens of these states. I both places there is still ongoing military confrontation, now with different enemy, Moslem extremists, Iranian backed militias and remains of initial regimes. Again like in case of Communist aggression in South East Asia we can see that best of the extreme Moslem elements are killed in Iraq region. Extremists groups can not suffer heavy losses as wide as Communists could in Vietnam and this is one of the reasons we are seeing lately positive changes in Iraq with common life stabilizing and refugees returning from their homes. It is too early to judge what will be the consequences of Iraqi invasion but we must remember that changing the way people live takes a while and sometimes aid is more then sending food rations to needed.

United States also created and promoted regional alliances that are established and provide additional trade and cooperation benefits to their participants. Those institutions together with multi national corporations, NGOs and webbed global trade serve as corner stones of new world order of relative cooperation. At present time US provides liberal democracies with time to grow stronger and spread themselves across the border and as we cold see in Georgia just couple of years ago those opportunities are taken upon.