Talk:Trojan Battle Order

Is "Trojan Battle Order" the best title?

I'm not sure that "Trojan Battle Order" is the best title for this article. Most scholarship refers to this section as the "catalogue of Trojans" or "catalogue of Trojan allies" vel sim. As far as I know this section didn't have a standard title in antiquity. A google search for the exact phrase "Trojan Battle Order" turns up nothing.

What ancient Greek corresponds to "Trojan Battle Order"?

Should there even be an article for this section of the poem at all? Catalogue of Ships is not that long, and the Trojan catalogue is usually discussed along with it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't previously see this comment. The ancient Greek title that corresponds to this is "Trōikos diakosmos", title of a very long study of the Trojan catalogue by Demetrius of Scepsis, which is lost of course but was frequently quoted by Athenaeus, Strabo and others. The translation "Trojan Battle Order" was chosen by C. B. Gulick, translator of Athenaeus (whether he was the first to use it I don't know). I haven't seen it used elsewhere, and wouldn't disagree if someone wanted to move this article to "Trojan catalogue" or "Catalogue of Trojan allies".

I don't agree with the idea of merging this article with Catalogue of Ships. I've meanwhile said so at Talk:Catalogue of Ships and won't repeat myself. They both contain some very ancient material, but there is every reason to suppose that the listings had a quite distinct prehistory before they got into the Iliad, and that prehistory needs to be discussed in each case. In addition, the two catalogues don't have the same structure. And the Trojan catalogue actually is not a catalogue of ships, while the Greek catalogue actually is.

I'm copying this comment to Talk:Catalogue of Ships, where there has been more recent discussion. Andrew Dalby 16:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though no one cares at this point as not a thing has been done for a long time as Wikipedia goes. I've seen Trojan Battle order used by the scholars so it seems OK to me. For that matter catalog is not ancient Greek either but scholars often use standard terms devised for the purpose. The reason for breaking out the catalogs is that they are believed to have been distinct oral poems originally and other works have catalogs in parallel. It was a standard genre here a sort of a time capsule in the most sanguine view.Dave (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PS The catalogs are differently constructed so each should have its own article and also a combined article would end up being too long. Better a greater number of shorter articles - the network so achieved is more user-friendly.Dave (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Asteropaios

Should Asteropaios be listed as the leader of the Paonians along with Pyramchmes? While he is not mentioned in any modern trasnslations in Book II of the Iliad he does address himself as the leader of them when talking to Achilleus. Also (Alough I'm not entirley certain, because I lost the book so I can't double check), I beleive the Companion to the Iliad states that some ancient editors wrote him in the Trojan Cataloge in Book II.

It's a nice question. There is actually a very good reason why he isn't in the "Trojan Battle Order" -- it's because, according to the Iliad, he joined up later (see Iliad 21.155-156). But you are right that at least one manuscript inserts him at this point.

To add the variations in the manuscripts would be quite an interesting thing to do but quite a complicated one.

To add names of people who (according to the rest of the Iliad) belong to these contingents but aren't in the catalogue would also be interesting and complicated. I hesitate because it might just make the thing too difficult to read. If you look at a commentary, such as Kirk's, you do find this information (or most of it). Andrew Dalby 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I would add, the subject is the catalog not all the Trojans. There are quite a few in the text but not in the catalog. So, to put them in would require a different article, say "Trojans of the Iliad" or some such thing.Dave (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Homer treated him as one of the more prominant ally's featured (certainly more prominatly than the other Paonian chieftan, Pyramaches). As far as his late entry into the war (i think it said he was in his 11th day when he died), it shouldn't matter, as the Trojan catolouge was meant to go along with the current leaders of their tribes, and i think at the time Asteriopaios would have been present (though that is just me guessing). Even if that isn't the case than Neoptolemus should definatly be removed as leader of the Myrimidions in the Catalouge of ships using that reasoning correct? Could Asteriopios be listed if we used an asterik by his name and stated he was not actually listed by Homer? In my opinion I think it wouldn't be taking away from what is written by the poet if it is stated that he isn't listed in the asctual text, and also it would add a little bit more information about the leaders of the Trojan allys, I will however wait for feedback and opinions before any edits on this topic are made.

No one is in much of a hurry to move on this I see. But I vote no, for the reason I just stated above - this is about the catalog and a study of all the Trojans would be a different article, and as Dalby points out, quite a bit more complex.Dave (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The expanded version

I hope it's OK. I can't make the statistics agree with the citation from Luce (but then, they didn't agree before, either). I don't have Luce's book, so I don't know the reason, but I suspect it just depends how you count. Andrew Dalby 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I put Luce in there and I have the book and it is just as you say - it depends on how you count. I didn't want to put my own count in there and then have to argue endlessly about whether this is the right count and how did I obtain it and is this not original research, etc ad infinitum ad nauseam usw ktl. Whatever you got is fine with me. If you find yourself in fight just use someone else's count and if you cite him or her you will save yourself some time.Dave (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Harvard reference system

I don't see the Harvard Reference System set up by our software as being sufficiently flexible to encompass an adequate footnoting system. What we seem to have here is a mixture. The parentheses are OK in the text but in the footnotes they look awful and you can't get rid of them. This is the first time really in all my 10,000+ edits I have seen the system at work. I've seen it imitated with parentheses placed in the text but they don't refer to citations set up as "Harvard Reference". Moreover if you do set them up that way you seem to get the phony and incorrect "written at." The work was not "written at" its place of publication. These things being so I would like to switch over to the regular cite book system and in-line cites. Here is your chance to say something. Since I would like to add some catalogue theory to the article (lest you think the scholars all discount it as fictional, as is implied) I don't plan to wait too long for your comments. Well, I guess I can continue the mixed system for a bit.Dave (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Later. I studied the help on refs and I now see the point of the Harvard refs for those who prefer them. I also see that you can't treat a harvard ref as a footnote, although you can have one in a footnote. So, I changed back to the Harvard ref, except for the genuine notes. I was following Wikipedia policy there, which is to follow the article's precedent unless there is a reason to change it. I didn't have a reason. The article was not originally Harvard ref but now that it is why bother to change it back.Dave (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)