posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 01:05 AM
Well there are just some problems I find with the Roman connection. First is that Rome was becomming a greater power in the world when Aeneas was
claimed to be the one who created Rome, so it could be assumed this was a way of nationalizing Romans.
Also the irony against the Greeks as one day Rome would conquer the Greeks is ... a lot.
I wonder if there's any similarities to Etruscan civilization and Trojan?
Also Rome is agreed to be formed about 700BC, so that's about 600 years too late.
Also the question of why would Aeneas be mentioned in the Iliad before the composers knew of Rome? Mostly things are only put in the story that the
listener will understand.
For instance there is never in the Iliad a part where it says, "and then paris took a dump over the wall on the east side." We all know that's
quite possible concerning bathroom habbits, but to the listener this is detracting from the story line.
And if we take out the fact that Aeneas would one day go to Rome, Aeneas's escape to me seems detracting. (We know that Aeneas's escape is
important because even the movie Troy which is very much unlike the book...Aeneas in the movie is a boy who looks like he never saw battle...they give
him the "Sword of Troy" which Orlando then says, "Where ever this sword goes, Troy shall follow" or something like that. Just
But again, if we remove that part of the "irony" what were the ancient Greeks just after the Doric invasion thinking about the Aeneas line?
To me I can just see a young Greek asking "did Aeneas lead that dark invasion our grandfathers talk about?"
Or such...I just wonder if there's a more cultural connection there that we can no longer detect because of divisions due to time, locations, and
histories that would later shape the story to something we wanted to see it as.