Come cheer up my lads, 'tis to Glory we steer..

The second Marshal Petain Club Post Captain campaign, the Biscay Cruise will be set in 1794.  A guide to the political events unfolding is available in the Naval Times, below.  The Napoleonic Naval rules used are the very detailed "Post Captain" by GQ3 These focus on small actions involving only a few vessels.  Last time we used 20 gun Sloops ofWar.  This time we have a promotion to Frigates.

In May 1794 Lord Howe sent two Frigates to look into Brest and ascertain the whereabouts of the French Fleet.  Admiral Villaret was still present in the French naval base, although he was expected to move out into the Atlantic to escort the vital food convoy from the West Indies into a French port.
Historically this situation led to one of Britain's greatest naval victories, although it was later overshadowed by Nelson's career as an Admiral.

Our Post Captains will be expected to complete Lord Howe's mission, and cruise down the Biscay coast dealing with encounters and events as they occur.  In the previous game the Channel Island Patrol, both Captains conducted a very sucessful introduction to the skills needed for command in the game.  This time the ships are bigger, as is the Campaign area.  The challenges will be larger too...

And it’s a hello to the Tjehenu: the Early Libyans

Three weeks in the bright sunshine of Cyprus and I`ve finally finished the Libyans.  The “Extroverts” need a dip in Army-painter but I`m quite happy with them.  The zebra skin cloaks on some of these boys were a joy to paint.

I intermingled some javelinmen among the swordsmen, mainly because of parsimony, but I`m quite pleased with them.  I`ve also been hitting the books, trying to find out more about the history and culture of this somewhat enigmatic people.  There's not much to find, because there seems to be an Early Libyan shaped hole in history.

The Egyptians called the Western-Desert the “Red Land.”  This part of Libya is a vast featureless expanse of sand and stone-plateaus with a hyper-arid climate. The coastal-plain (the littoral) is partially protected from the desert’s extremes but it could never compare with the fertility of the Nile Valley.   If the climate change that dried the Sahara was linked to the Sea peoples invasions and the end of the Bronze age, the nomadic tribes must have been increasingly desperate to move into the Nile Delta.
 

Of course the very name “Libya” is a misnomer.  The Libu tribe isn’t recorded until the reign of Merenptah, when they headed the coalition from Western-Cyrenaica,  It was Greek authors who named this harsh environment Libya.  The Egyptian inscriptions are precise and spell out the name of the desert tribesmen phonetically as “Tjehenu.” The temple inscriptions of Seti-I, Merenptah, and Ramesses III all agree on this name.  

My Egyptian civilians.

Among the Greek writers who did look at these people Diodorus scathingly wrote that the Libyans were “nomads who had neither rulers nor laws and lived by raiding and rapine.”  Most conflict involving Egypt and Libya was identified as raids, counter-raids, and petty-revolts.    There is a strong resonance of this in the Tuareg, the Berber tribes who still inhabit parts of the Saharan interior as nomadic pastoralists,  Harshly judged by the colonial powers as “mendacious and masters of surprise tactics” these descendants of the Tjehenu provide a good parallel for their ancestors conflict with Egypt, another colonial power.

The archaeology of the area of the western desert has been understandably neglected.  There were no tombs filled with gold, no heroic poems to follow.  That the tribes finally succeeded and Egypt saw a Libyan dynasty is largely forgotten.   

Oddly enough it is among wargamers that the Early Libyans saw something of a resurgence.  The army was quite popular under DBM as a sort of masochistic counterbalance to the gamery of "perfect army" tournament players.  With the best will in the world an army of the Tjehenu is a bit of a loser.  On the other hand mendacious ... masters of surprise tactics," raiders and petty revolts sound like excellent skirmish material to me.  

My only Egyptian so far, a chariot runner off to warn the Pharaoh. 

So it's on to the Egyptians.  Now I have one army done the "colonial power" needs sorting out and painting up.  Can`t wait to get some games in with these. 

Heroes

I, I will be king

And you, you will be queen

Though nothing will drive them away

We can be heroes, just for one day

(David Bowie)

Whilst researching potential force compositions for my Achaean army, I have gone back to the Iliad for inspiration; it goes without saying that the Iliad will be the principle source for this project. Whether Homeric warfare reflects Bronze Age warfare or is actually more representative of warfare at the time the poems were written down is a controversial and oft debated subject; that said it's the only source we have so it will have to do. Anyway it's such a damned good story that it would be a shame not to use it; so the Iliad it is then. Reading the battle accounts therein, I was struck by the emphasis on heroes, both Greek and Trojan. Take the following passage for example:

He had two sons, Phegeus and Idaios, both of them skilled in all the arts of war. These two came forward from the main body of Trojans, and set upon Diomedes, he being on foot, while they fought from their chariot. When they were close up to one another, Phegeus took aim first, but his spear went over Diomedes' left shoulder without hitting him. Diomedes then threw, and his spear sped not in vain, for it hit Phegeus on the breast near the nipple, and he fell from his chariot. Idaios did not dare to bestride his brother's body, but sprang from the chariot and took to flight, or he would have shared his brother's fate; whereon Hephaistos saved him by wrapping him in a cloud of darkness, that his old father might not be utterly overwhelmed with grief; but the son of Tydeus drove off with the horses, and bade his followers take them to the ships.

The passage was chosen at random but is a typical example of many such instances. The quoted section largely focusses on the exploits of Diomedes; in fact the whole chapter centres upon Diomedes' actions, in which he appears to be a one man army as he wreaks havoc and destruction upon the Trojans. With page after page of such accounts, one could be forgiven for assuming that all the fighting is attributable to the named heroes alone. However, my completely untutored view is that this is just an example of ‘heroic’ poetry as sung by bards from time immemorial. 

To me the emphasis on the principal heroic characters does not seem that unusual; this is nicely typified by the 9th century Historia Brittonum in which we find:

‘The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself’.

Oh yeah, 960 men all by himself? He might be a legendary king but that’s going some!

Or how about Y Gododdin, in which the exploits of many British heroes are described, each with their own dedicated verse?

Never was made a hall so mighty.

There was never a warrior braver

Than kind-hearted Cynon, jewel-decked lord.

He was seated at the table's head.

The man he struck was not struck again.

Very sharp his spears,

White shield rent, he ripped armies.

Very swift his steeds, racing in front,

On the day of wrath his blades were death

When Cynon charged in the green of dawn.

We might expect this of these ancient British Celtic types; after all they’re descended from Trojans anyway – if you ascribe to that tosh. However, leaving the more mythical and legendary stuff behind and moving forward in time to more firmly historical events we can still see heroic versions of fairly well attested events. Take the Battle of Brunanburh (937 AD), for instance:

King Athelstan, the lord of warriors,

Patron of heroes, and his brother too,

Prince Edmund, won themselves eternal glory

In battle with the edges of their swords

Round Brunanburh; they broke the wall of shields,

The sons of Edward with their well-forged swords

Slashed at the linden-shields; such was their nature

From boyhood that in battle they had often

Fought for their land, its treasures and its homes,

Against all enemies.

Or the Battle of Maldon (991 AD):

Bows were busily at work, shields received spears.

Fierce was that onslaught. Warriors fell in battle

on either side, young men lay slain.

Wounded was Wulfmaer, meeting death on the battlefield,

Byrhtnoth's kinsman: he with sword was,

his sister's son, cruelly hewn down.

There were the Vikings given requital:

I hear that Eadweard smote one

fiercely with his sword, withholding not in his blow,

so that at his feet fell a doomed warrior;

for this he of his people gave thanks for,

this chamber-thane, when the opportunity arose.

The Brunanburh account reads as if Athelstan, Edmund and sons did all the fighting themselves, yet the enemy are implicitly numerous in their wall of shields. In the same vein, the Maldon poem gives prominence to Byrhtnoth, along with his kinsmen and retainers but, in this case, they are explicitly part of a larger force.

The example of Brunanburh is interesting as one of the Norse sagas, Egil’s Saga, is thought to contain an account of the battle.

Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his halberd with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring’s standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl’s standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his halberd at the earl’s breast, driving it right through mail-coat and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the halberd over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. Then Thorolf drew his sword and dealt blows on either side, his men also charging. Many Britons and Scots fell, but some turned and fled.

This saga shares many parallels with the Iliad; both were put down in written form hundreds of years after the event (1240 AD in the case of Egil’s Saga). It has been claimed that the Iliad contains material that is later than the Bronze Age in which it is set. This also seems to be the case with Egil’s Saga; halberds in the 10^th century sound unlikely, unless of course this is just a vagary of the translation. In both cases we see the emphasis on ‘the hero’ with attendant heroic actions involving feats of great strength; Homer’s heroes throw large boulders whilst the Norse heroes lift bodies on the end of halberds!

What seems clear is that the heroic poems and sagas emphasise the role of the heroes but it seems more than likely these were battles involving masses of troops fighting. And so it is with the Iliad; our heroes have the greatest prominence yet if we look close enough I suspect we will find the unnamed masses fighting and dying alongside their lords and masters. But that is for another post.

So what have we learned from this little exercise? Well, it suggests to me that if we are to capture the feel of Homeric warfare then our chosen rules will need to emphasise the ‘heroes’. To my mind that suggests a variant of the Lardies’ rules, with their emphasis on ‘Big Men’. At the moment, I reckon, a Dux Britanniarum variant is the front runner and current favourite.

The Tomb of the Charioteer

The tomb of Uriah the Charioteer was found in the hills west of Karnak in 1908 by a team lead by Dr Howard Parker of the University of North Durham, and Lord Randolph Farthingdale the eminent Egyptologist and notorious Tomb Raider.  Acknowledging almost immediately that the tomb had been ransacked in ancient times, and may never have actually been used, the expedition moved on, but not before Dr Parker recorded the wall inscriptions in his expedition notebook. 

Panel from the real charioteer's tomb, Sakhara south of Cairo

Sensing that these were merely a biography of the tomb`s intended occupant the Doctor wrote a paper “Tomb XVIII West of Karnak and its implications for the 18^th Dynasty:  Archaeology Monthly, Issue 6 1909 ”  He then accompanied Lord Charles on the disastrous expedition among the Nubian Pyramids, where the local tribes accused the pair of resurrecting the Mummy of Imhotep, finding and destroying the lost Oasis of Am-Sher and plundering the tomb of the so called Scorpion King.

Both were subsequently accused of starting and finishing an accidental Mahdist uprising in Abbysinia, and credited with the defeat of the anarchist “Red Headed League.”

The Inscriptions

The hieroglyphic inscriptions on the walls of the Tomb of the Charioteer detail the military career of a Sherden Mercenary from Alasiya (Cyprus), an Officer of the Pharaoh Thutmosis.  The panels are broken up into the various campaigns undertaken by the Charioteer on behalf of his Pharaoh.

The first panel deals with Uriah’s time among the Libyans and his subsequent capture by the Egyptians following a raid into the Nile Delta.  As a valuable “Kedjen,” a Maryannu chariot warrior, Uriah was taken into the Egyptian army, standard practice for warriors with this skilled training.

Dr Parker’s translation of the first series of inscriptions runs thus:

The guy in the middle clearly has some issues.

My youth in Alasiya

My tribe the Sher-Dana

My People of the Sea

My Father a King

Sailing beaked ships of war 

We grew skilled in the bow

Warriors of the chariot.

Yes, I found a hieroglyph font!  It appears however that google translates it back into English if your computer does not have the same font installed, so I used a picture of the text instead!

And yes, this is just a framework idea for a few games, beginning with a Libyan raid.

The basis of this as a game framework are the detailed biographical inscriptions in the tomb of Ahmose son of Ebana, a naval/marine Captain who served the 18th Dynasty in many campaigns.  It's a fascinating read that gives the flavour of the times.  I hope that Uriah can live up to it.

And this is the Bronze Age - how?

I keep six honest serving-men

(They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and When

And How and Where and Who.

(Rudyard Kipling)

In previous posts I have answered most of Mr Kipling’s questions, namely:

What? – A new project based on the Bronze Age.

Why? – I’ve had a long held fascination with the Trojan War since I was a nipper.

When? – The Late Bronze Age.

Where? – North-West Anatolia, in particular the Troad

Who? – The Akhaioí  and Dardanoi

That only leaves how? Although, I’m still indulging in a lot of background reading and only have a vague idea of what I want to do, it’s probably about time I turned to the nitty gritty aspects and thought about how to bring the project to fruition. After all it’s all about ‘toys on the table’.

First off, I’m still pondering on the best figure ranges for the project. This is, as yet, undecided but I am leaning towards Warlord’s Cutting Edge Miniatures range. 

They’ve just released Sea Peoples chariots and I’m sure I have seen pictures of armoured Sea Peoples somewhere, although the latter don’t appear to be on the website yet.

Cutting Edge Armoured Achaeans

I’m not sure how well they fit with other ranges but I do like their more ‘realistic’ proportions. I believe armoured Achaeans are also in the pipeline so I will be keeping an eye on these.

Eureka Bronze Age characters

Another range worth watching is the Eureka range; they’ve just added some nice character figures, including women, to their range. These are at the high end of the price range, for my budget, but are worth bearing in mind for characters rather than rank and file.

Casting Room Miniatures Trojans

I’ve also just discovered a manufacturer of whom I was previously unaware; Casting Room Miniatures.

http://www.castingroomminiatures.com/collections/trojans

They do a Trojan War range as well as Hittites and (just for Uriah) Nubians. They’re a bit chunky for my taste but look like they may fit with Foundry and Redoubt.

So after that short figure update it’s time to look at that old favourite - ‘army lists’. I’m not ready to start worrying about troop types and all that nonsense yet but I do want to look at potential force sizes. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m thinking along the lines of the warbands and factions used in the big skirmish style of game. At the moment, the main contenders for this project are variants on Dux Britanniarum, Lion Rampant or Saga. Sharp Practice is also worth considering although I suspect that would take more work to convert. That said, there is a rumour that TFL may be looking at doing an ‘ancients’ set, so you never know.

As a way of gauging force size, I’ll start with Dux Britanniarum, using the Romano-British as a basis for comparison. It remains to be seen whether the troop types have anything in common with their Bronze Age counter parts but the point is that there is a nice mix of troop types and this force size does give a good game.

In Dux Britanniarum the starter force is of a fixed size and composition:

1 Lord with champion

2 Nobles

1 six figure group of household troops

2 six figure groups of warriors

3 six figure groups of levy

1 four figure group of missile troops (archers or slingers)

This gives a total of 40 rank and file plus 4 command figures.

By comparison, Lion Rampant uses a variable force size with units chosen to match an agreed points total. A 24 point retinue is typical.

Using the Landwaster (Dark Ages) supplement a 24 point retinue may look something like the following:

1 Leader (free)

1 six figure group of Foot Companions (6 pts)

2 twelve figure groups of Upper Class Spearmen (8 pts)

3 twelve figure groups of Lower Class Spearmen (9 pts)

1 six figure group of slingers (1 pt)

This mirrors the Dux Britanniarum warband quite well but comes in at 72 figures plus 1 command.

Turning now to Saga, this a bit of an oddity in the way units are created. Units can be between 4 and 12 figures strong but are bought in increments of 4, 8 or 12 figures, depending on troop class. A standard warband is 6 points.

The Late Roman supplement is due for release in the near future but approximating the Dux Britanniarum list, using the standard Viking age types, gives us something like this:

1 Warlord (free)

1 eight figure group of Hearthguard (2 lots of four figures @ 2pts)

2 eight figure groups of Warriors (2 lots of eight figures @ 2 pts)

3 eight figure groups of Levy (2 lots of twelve figures @ 2 pts)

I’ve cheated a bit here as Levy normally refers to missile troops but I believe there is a precedent for Levy spearmen in the Anglo-Saxon list. I’ve also left out any archers or slingers as these can only be bought in increments of 12 figures, which I’ve always found a bit odd.

So this gives us a total of 48 figures plus 1 command figure.

From this little exercise it would seem that Saga and Dux Britanniarum have very similar figure requirements but Lion Rampant is almost double that. However, at the unit level all three games utilise about 6 groups of figures. This also tallies well with Uriah’s seven group forces for his Egyptian campaign.

So if I say that my warbands will consist of about 6 groups of figures, I now need to work out of the composition of the groups. To do this I also need to have an idea of what I’m trying to represent. For example, I could say that each figure represents 1 man and the warband is part of the force available to a particular Homeric hero – say Achilles and his Myrmidons. In this case, 50 or so spearmen would seem to be a reasonable size for a small raid and would likely consist completely of Myrmidons. On the other hand, if I designate my warband as a larger force, using a figure scale of one figure represents 20 men; my 50 figure warband then becomes 1000 men. It seems reasonable to expect that my Myrmidons might be supplemented by Mycenaeans, Pylians or other Achaeans in such a larger force.

Of course this could be a moot point if all the above mentioned contingents look the same anyway. The ‘look’ is a topic I’m yet to explore. A solution might be to collect a fairly generic force but tailor it by adding the odd distinctive unit, so by swapping the ‘special’ unit the nature and identity of the whole force is modified.

Another option is simply to not worry about it and just field what looks good. There is a precedent for this in Sharp Practice. For instance a basic starter force for the French in the Peninsular consists of 4 groups of line infantry and 2 groups of voltigeurs. In reality, for a force this small, one might expect the groups to consist solely of line troops or solely of voltigeurs. No doubt allowing a bit more variation provides for a more interesting game but also provides a bit of intentional wooliness so that in the words of the author ‘In some games, one figure is one man, while in other games a few Groups of figures might represent a larger body of men, such as a Company. Generally one figure represents between one and five real men, but the scale is always flexible in the same way that television dramas will often use fifty or sixty men to represent a battalion.’

On reflection this may be the way to go. Perhaps I should aim for the feel of Homeric warfare rather than the actuality of Bronze Age conflict; especially as we don’t really know what the latter is anyway.

The Ancient Libyans near completion

My Libyans in Warbases stands

The first “army” of my Bronze Age project is nearing completion.  I`m hoping that the light in Cyprus will improve my painting!  I`m slowly painting the animal skin cloaks, but by and large they are looking good. 

I`ve also been reading up on the Libyans to try to make sure that my forces are as historically representative as they can be.  The problem I have hit recently is that I`m not sure that they are.

The bulk of my Infantry are archer skirmishers.  It seems clear from the evidence that the Libyans did not adopt close order bow formations as the Egyptians seem to have done, and possibly even the Nubians to a certain extent.  Perhaps it is the terrain.  The Sahara was becoming more desiccated during the Bronze Age, and whilst it was not totally the bare desert we see today, the Egyptian frontiers would offer sufficient rough terrain for raiding and skirmishing. 

The Libyans - tackle out!

Although raiding occurred along the western frontier, the Libyans lands ran as far south as Nubia, the bulk of the incursions occurred in the North.  It seems that the fertile Nile Delta was particularly attractive for the Libyans who moved in as whole tribes looking for lands to settle.  The Egyptians had fortifications, but these could be bypassed by large forces.  Spalinger points out that a warrior society such as the Libyans would have a very high percentage of combatants, much higher than the Egyptians.   It seems clear however that the professionalism of the Egyptians generally overmatched the Libyans.

Libyan Archers - fear the prick of their arrows!

O’Connor  points out that Rameses III faced a Libyan army composed of 5–10 percent chariots; 25–35 percent swordsmen; and over 50 percent foot archers.  I added in some Javelin skirmishers, since these are clearly seen on the Egyptian reliefs, although as a minority.  Clearly however my single unit of 12 swordsmen should be two units of 12.  After a battle against an estimated 16000 Libyans the Pharaoh Meremptah captured over 9000 swords.  Libyans archers are rarely shown with swords on Egyptian reliefs so it can probably be surmised that there were 9000 swordsmen (and only a handful of chariots) in that battle.  Still I should perhaps add a single light chariot group.   My original plan had been to give the Libyans a group of three chariots by using Sea People allies, with Larry as my single Libyan High Chief, and that still looks reasonable.

O’Connor also notes that Libyans at this time served as mercenaries in the Egyptian army, so our view of them as simplistic “barbarians” is probably incorrect.  I cannot however agree that this means that such trained warriors would have gone home to serve in a Libyan tribal force.  It seems doubtful that any Libyans were Maryannu, even if they had served in the Egyptian Army.  I had also planned to use a single group of Sea Peoples swordsmen, but on reflection I think the Libyans would be a far more dangerous force with the chariots and more swordsmen.

The Chiefs discuss penis sheath colours

I need no suggestions for names from the MPGC.  I have gone for anacronistic yet Heroic names.  My High Chief is Larry, the sub-chiefs Lester and Lola.  Other first names beginning with L are available.  They will all have epithets beginning with L, Larry being “the Lame,” due to the terrible things I did to his feet to get him to fit into the chariot.  Lester is “the Lanky,” just because he looks taller than his mates, and Lola “the Leopard-skin,” because of the shoes I`ve painted on him.  His handbag however does not match his penis sheath.

We all have some doubts about Lola.

As well as Stillman and Tallis I`ve just finished these two:
Anthony J. Spalinger, “War in Ancient Egypt. The New Kingdom”
O’Connor, “The Nature of the Tjemhu (Libyan) Society in the Later New Kingdom”

What's in a Name?

In previous Bronze Age posts I have looked at both when and where my project would be set; namely north western Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. Continuing with this theme, I now want to look at another of the ‘five Ws of journalism’, specifically who?

On a simplistic level I will be looking at Greeks and Trojans but it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. Referring back to the Wikipedia map, shown in a previous post, it can be seen that there are numerous names shown, some of which will be familiar, some less so.

In this post I will be taking a closer look at some of these but before we look at the terminology it may be useful to examine some of the naming protocols that we take for granted.

Homer ponders nomenclature

It is a curious fact that, for instance: 

1)     Mycenaeans weren’t Mycenaeans

2)    Minoans weren’t Minoans

3)    Hittites weren’t Hittites.

Uh…..what’s he on about then?

Well put simply these are names given to particular Bronze Age cultures by archaeologists. In some cases we don’t know what the ancient peoples actually called themselves. For instance, take the Mycenaeans; the first time I came across the term was probably in the relevant WRG army list – sad I know but there you go – and ever since I have more or less believed that there was an ancient people called the Mycenaeans. I’m not sure who actually coined the phrase but the name Mycenaean seems to have been applied to a particular phase of Bronze Age Greek culture largely as a result of Schliemann’s excavations at the site of ancient Mycenae. As this seemed to be the most prominent site in Greece then it came to stand for the whole Greek culture of that time.

Similarly, the Bronze Age civilisation of Crete was named the Minoan civilisation by Sir Arthur Evans, the excavator of the palace of Knossos. As Knossos is associated with King Minos, he of Minotaur and labyrinth fame, the civilisation was named after that legendary king.

Turning now to the Hittites, it gets even more confusing. According to Cline, this is actually a misnomer as the name was adopted by scholars, to refer to the Late Bronze Age Anatolian kingdom, simply because the Bible referred to Hittites; whereas the so-called Hittites actually referred to themselves as the ‘people of the Land of Hatti’. As the Bible actually places the Hittites in Canaan this is a bit odd, especially when one considers that it has been postulated that these ‘Canaanite’ Hittites were successors of a long lost kingdom and have been termed Neo-Hittites to distinguish them from their ancient ancestors. Could it not be that the Neo-Hittites are the real deal and the people of Hatti are misnamed? Dunno – frankly I’m confused.

So now that we have seen that the names of various Bronze Age societies are often modern confections let’s take a look at some of the pertinent appellations actually originating from the Bronze Age.

For the Bronze Age ‘Greeks’ we don’t really know what they called themselves but we can perhaps get an idea by looking at the traditional myths and legends from that era, in particular the poems of Homer. This approach seems to have been taken by many scholars but is by no means universally recognised as a valid method.

In the Iliad, or at least the Penguin edition translation of the Iliad, the Greeks are collectively referred to as Achaeans and, to a lesser extent, Danaans or Argives. The confederation of ‘Greek’ states, that fought the Trojan War, included contingents from all over the Aegean world including mainland Greece and the islands. This alliance was led by Agamemnon of Mycenae but is habitually referred to by one of the aforementioned names, in particular Achaeans. Of course this is the English version and the original term in the Greek alphabet (according to Wikipedia) is something more like Ἀχαιοί (Akhaioí).

Similarly, we can also look at how the Iliad describes the Trojans. These are often referred to as Dardanians or in Greek Δάρδανοι (Dardanoi); whereas, Troy itself is more frequently referred to as Ilios (hence the Iliad). Of course these are the Greek terms and we still don’t know what the ‘Trojans’ called themselves. However, there is a possibility that name of Troy itself appears in the Hittite archives. These mention a city called Wilusa (or Wilusiya) which some scholars have identified with Troy. It is argued that the original spelling of the Greek Ilios began with a digamma (part of the archaic Greek alphabet), so the argument goes something along the lines of Ilios = Wilios = Wilusa. Furthermore, although the precise location of Wilusa has not been identified it does appear to have been somewhere in north western Anatolia.

So those are our main protagonists but what of the other names appearing on our map? Perhaps the most controversial is the land of the Ahhiyawa (or Akhiyawa as it’s sometimes written). This mysterious land makes a couple of dozen appearances in the Hittite records, over several centuries. It is sometimes referred to as overseas and its leader is occasionally accepted to be of high enough status to be considered a Great King. The location of Ahhiyawa is still a subject of debate but some scholars equate the Akhiyawa with the Greek Akhaioí or Achaeans. Although this association was first made early last century it is still a matter of dispute.

To the far south of Troy we have the kingdom of the Lukka; often identified as classical Lycia. The Lukka appear at times to have been vassals of the Hittites and appear in the list of Hittite forces at Kadesh (as does Wilusiya). Once again, this identification is disputed but the Lukka are often described as one of the ‘Sea-Peoples’ so I intend to come back to these in a later post.

Between Troy and the Lukka we have the region marked Arzawa. I’m not going to look at this region too closely, at the moment, mainly because I don’t yet understand it! However, for now, it is enough to note that this is one of many kingdoms in the area sometimes allies or vassals of the Hittites, at other times in open opposition to them. It is also the region of the Assuwa confederation (which is sometimes said to be the origin of the term Asia). This was a confederation of 22 states, in western Anatolia, that were at one time in conflict with the Hittites; these included Wilusiya and possibly also the Lukka.

So in conclusion, I suppose I need to put names to my prospective protagonists. I like the idea of Akhiyawa or Akhaioí for the Greeks. It may not be correct but let’s indulge in a bit of Bronze Age ImagiNations! I’d like to get away from the classical feel of Greeks and Trojans and Akhiyawa just seems to pull us more into the world of Bronze Age Anatolia. I suspect that they will be facing the Dardanoi of Wilusiya. I know I’ve used the Greek term, Dardanoi, for the Trojans but I’m at a loss for something better. Wilusians just seems to me to be too reminiscent of Sci-Fi!