Statting heroes from the Trojan War?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

You seem to be falling for the myth that our ancestors were stupid and we are clever.

You seem to be falling for the myth that because I said that our ancestors did not necessarily think in Clausewitzian terms I must therefore be saying that our ancestors were stupid. Or rather the myth that the goals of Clausewitzian materialism constitute rationality. I said Agamemnon likely thought like Agamemnon High King of a warrior society not like William Pitt Prime Minister of a Nation of Shopkeepers. In principle there is nothing more rational about wanting the money from the Black Sea trade as there is in wanting to avenge an insult to ones honor caused by stealing a kinsman's wife. It is simply about which ends one devotes one's intelligence toward.

The main point is that it is chronological prejudice to assume people of the past think in the way we think we should. How they thought is better gotten by observing them. For instance it is unrealistic to assume that Alexander had some materialistic goal in mind even though no one would call him stupid. He said his goal was to avenge Greece upon the Persians, gain glory, and become a mighty warrior, his actions indicate someone intending to achieve exactly that, and he did achieve exactly that. Why is it so hard for you to believe that people in the past might be what they say they are? While it is doubtful that a divine beauty contest had anything to do with the real Trojan War there is no reason jealousy over a princess could not have had.

[DanHoward]

Human nature is the same. Political maneuverings have never changed. The struggle for resources has always been the primary reason for instigating war. I have studied the Aegean Bronze Age in far more depth than you have (post graduate degree and a published academic textbook) and have no trouble believing that the campaign against Troy had nothing to do with a stolen woman.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Human nature is the same. Political maneuverings have never changed. The struggle for resources has always been the primary reason for instigating war. I have studied the Aegean Bronze Age in far more depth than you have (post graduate degree and a published academic textbook) and have no trouble believing that the campaign against Troy had nothing to do with a stolen woman.

Human nature is the same. Occupational and cultural prejudices are different(be it known that you are not a Bronze Age warlord). Political maneuverings have changed quite a bit because personal reputation is no longer as much of a factor in the developed world and kinship manipulation has practically ceased to exist. The struggle for resources has always been only one reason for instigating war and in any case honor is also a resource and often the primary one. I have long studied history and sociology in general. And while I am willing to believe that the campaign against Troy may have been about the Black Sea trade I have no trouble believing it was mostly about a stolen woman, or for that matter it could have been about a bunch of overprimed aristocrats wanting to show what they could do.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Human nature is the same. Political maneuverings have never changed. .

.....and one of the most common reasons for losing an office be it elected or seized is visible personal failure. Lose a referendum or see an ally suffer intense personal embarrassment and it can make your position very hard to maintain vis a vis potential rivals.

Plenty of wars have been started to help the current strongman retain his position. It's motivation much closer to home for the decision makers than enrichment of their nation.

Economic reasons can very well underlie a series of wars over multiple generations without being the sole cause of any particular exchange. Do not discount the effect of personal self-interest on individual decision-makers.

[DanHoward]

The Greeks had previously attacked Troy when Priam was younger so there was a precedent for conflict that had nothing to do with the Atreides and stolen women. When Helen was taken, Menelaus suffered the loss of face, not Agamemnon. Menelaus tried to talk Agamemnon out of attacking Troy so we know he didn't go to war at the request of his brother. Agamemnon killed his own daughter to get the expedition going so there is no reason to think he had any higher regard for other people's women. The most rational conclusion is that Agamemnon didn't care about Helen except as a pretext for going to war.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Menelaus suffered the loss of face, not Agememnon. Menelaus tried to talk Agamemnon out of attacking Troy. Agamemnon didn't care less about Helen except as a pretext for going to war.

Agamemnon lost plenty of face. Every one of his clients would now start thinking, "What if he fails to protect me if someone kidnaps my wife?"

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Menelaus suffered the loss of face, not Agamemnon. Menelaus tried to talk Agamemnon out of attacking Troy. Agamemnon killed his own daughter to get the expedition going. Agamemnon didn't care less about Helen except as a pretext for going to war.

Did I say he cared about Helen? I did not.

I said he was probably motivated by reasons having to do with his personal political power and influence. That he was motivated by some abstract economic reason is an attempt to simplify history by removing those irrational and self-centered humans from it.

[jason taylor]

Honor is not about justice and in it's crudest form does not even take it into consideration; the mere fact that it was someone else that was cuckolded matters as little as the fact that a Pathan girl did not consent. What matters is how it affects relationships among the network and if people have lost their fear of Agamemnon enough to cuckold a kinsman, that has to be rectified. People are supposed to be nice to Agamemnon's kin especially when they are guests. If they do not it shows they are not afraid of Agamemnon.

That is not so hard to understand because it still continues today. A terrorist group that blows up the Israeli Olympic team gets assassinated by the Mossad. Why? Because Israel would kinda like to be loved but it is more important that it be feared. The fact that they were individual Israelis rather then Israel is not the point.

[Fred Brackin]

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=145158

Why have I linked this old thread to the latest release? Because Odysseus is one of the example characters.

Just to highlight the flexibility of Gurps you also get Lizzie Bennet from Pride and Prejudice, the Tin Man from OZ and a wuxia lady from the Chinese Water Margin epic.

[Anders]

DanH, Jason, you are discussing two different sets of people and two different wars. Jason is discussing the mythical Trojan war of the Iliad and various other literary works. In the mythical war, Agamemnon is clearly there for Helen - he's quite willing to call of fighting and head for home if Menelaos can defeat Paris and get Helen back.

In the historical war.... well, who knows? All we have is a layer of ash at Troy at approximately the right time. We don't know who participated, how long the war took, all we know is that Troy presumably lost since the city was burned. The cause may well have been trade, but we don't have enough information about the war. And statting the heroes of the historical Trojan war... well, how could we? We have no sources for what happened.