Back in the hopelessly optimistic days of early 2020, I went to the British Museum's Troy: Myth and Reality. Contrasting ancient artwork and artefacts with the findings of archaeological digs along with modern cultural depictions of the conflict, visitors were able to see the many variations of the story over time. But despite all the centuries - millennia - that these tales have been told, the world tends to ignore its connection with the real world. I found Castleden's book almost by chance after attending the exhibition and it shone a whole new light on this story which I have read so many times. The questions around the 'real' Trojan war - what, when, where - have been puzzled over since time out of mind and yet many of the issues of that mythical conflict are still being played out today. The Greeks and the Turks still harbour animousity towards each other. The Turks are still angry that nineteenth century German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann stole 'Priam's Treasure'. The Turkish government is still trying to get it all back from the Pushkin museum in Moscow. And the only reason why it is in Moscow is because the Soviet army looted it from Berlin in 1945. People are literally still fighting over the spoils of the Trojan war. But does that mean that the Trojan war really happened?

The Attack on Troy engages with the original classical sources and tries to construct how the Trojan war might have occurred. Castleden begins by charting Schliemann's notorious archaeological expedition in the late nineteenth century and the discovery of Troy VI. Essentially, there were several different cities on the same site but Schliemann's destructive methods dug too deep and eliminated much of the material from what most likely the Troy of Homer's Iliad. Even the controversial 'Priam's Treasure' likely did not date from the same time period as the conflict. I find it fascinating how the gung-ho archaeologists of that period such as Schliemann and Howard Carter have managed to carve themselves a place in these ancient stories through their rather questionable methods. Schliemann famously claimed (falsely) that his wife carried the treasure out of Troy wrapped in her shawl and he had her pose wearing it. Yet the true palace of Priam's time was destroyed by his irresponsible archaeology. He was one of the central figures in the British Museum exhibition as well as this book and yet he is the man who both found and destroyed Troy.

Sophia Schliemann wearing 'Helen's Diadem'

Yet that does not mean that answers cannot be found. Castleden notes the more recent discovery of the Mycenean settlement and cemetery, indicating a long-term presence in the area which would tie in with part of the story. Equally, he explains how certain key landmark features of the area could link into Homer's descriptions in The Iliad. For decades there was a debate over whether the presence of a bay in the area would preclude or prove that the Trojan war had truly happened. Other aspects of the original story are also proven true by the archaeology; numerous horse bones suggest that horses really were part of the Trojan economy. While other elements of the legend are dismissed, such as the various incidents of divine intervention, Castleden does emphasise that religious observance would have been a crucial part of life for both sides of the conflict. And the wooden Trojan horse? Most likely a form of siege engine because as Castleden points out, only an idiot would have failed to see through the deceit.

While it is interesting to read Castleden's analysis of Paris' helmet based on Homer's description, I was more intrigued by the revelation of actual documentation, with tablets found containing letters between monarchs. One of them complained about the 'Piyamaradus' raids and there is some indication that Piyamaradus may have been Achilles. Castleden explores all possibilities, taking a 'minimal' view that it was a small conflict which became overblown in the retelling and then a 'maximal reconstruction', that it really was as epic as The Iliad suggested. Castleden's writing style is academic and presupposes an awareness of the mythology but yet his observations are full of humanity. He points out that for Greece, the victory was a pyrrhic one. The war took too long, too many lives and the leading commanders were at odds from the start. When they all finally left, their homes were homes no longer. Yet the attack on Troy was only one in a series of raids by Mycenaeans. Castleden suggests that it was remembered with particular poignancy because it was the last. The Mycenaean centres crumbled, and the ruling dynasties fell into feuds.

I can struggle to get through military history - it is not my favourite genre and I struggle to visualise it. I decided to give this a try because after all the fiction, some actual history about the Trojan war seemed like a good contrast. It also turned out to be a surprisingly soothing read for the beginning of lockdown. It is a very back-handed compliment to state that a book helped you get to sleep but when your mind is whirring, it is a true gift and one that I whole-heartedly appreciated. Castleden is a clear and precise writer, his explanation is concise and well-organised and accessible to the general reader. It was thought-provoking to imagine how iconic moments of history can fade into legend. I was intrigued by Castleden's mention of Lord Byron's quotation, 'I've stood upon Achilles' tomb, And heard Troy doubted; time will doubt of Rome.' How do we hold on to the truth of history when all things pass away? What I perhaps loved most of all however was that Castleden and I seem to be of agreement about the conflict. The Attack on Troy closes with the comment that the Greek victory over the Trojans was 'the ultimate hollow victory, a multiple tragedy, and as such it became for ever after the archetype of the tragedy of war'. While it is possible, maybe even probable, that the Trojan war took place, the men who fought in it were not the heroes that Homer would have had us believe.

Everyone knows the story of the fall of Troy, but this book goes into a great amount of detail. I was blown away with the amount of information on not only Troy, but many of the surrounding areas that would have had an impact on Troy.

I absolutely loved this book! I was drawn in immediately and the history presented was fabulous. I have not seen this level of detail in a long time, and this book went into more than just the fall of Troy. If you are interested in the fall of Troy, this book goes into the full breakdown of the many levels of Troy and the different changes that the city went through over its diverse history.

The Attack on Troy by Rodney Castleden is a concise and informative “history” of the Trojan War, one shows (with reasonable doubt careful noted) how the war that gave rise to The Iliad and The Odyssey might have actually occurred.

Castleden opens with the archaeological evidence of Troy’s existence in western Turkey and its destruction by outside forces, quickly moving through Schliemann’s notoriously destructive excavations in the late 1800s and then into the discovery in 1893 after Schliemann’s death of the Troy VI citadel dating to 1700-1250 B.C. (like most cities, Troy was built and rebuilt atop successive layers, with layer VI being the mostly-consensus literary Troy). What is probably less well known by casual readers are more recent discoveries of a Mycenean settlement and cemetery that give further credence to some sort of conflict between the Myceneans and Troy. We’re offered a physical tour of the city, nearby town, and surrounding geography and then Castleden takes us on a broad tour of the Mycenean and Trojan cultures.

The book briefly covers Mycenean expansion, colonization of Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), their political and religious structures and then does the same for Troy, which some scholars see as the capital city of the kingdom of Wilusa, on the fringe of the vast Hittite Empire. As he discusses their societies, Castleden also offers up various explanations for why the Mycenean’s might have attacked Troy/Wilusa.

Then there’s a short but effective summary of the war as described (minus the fantastical elements) in The Iliad and lesser known/mostly lost poems on the topic that make up the Epic Cycle and fill in the gaps before, during, and after Homer’s account. New to me were the admittedly vague but still intriguing references to conflicts in the region from the Hittite records, one of which is a letter from the Hittite King to the Achaeans referring to “the town of Wilusa over which we made war.”

Following the background, the book takes a deeper dive into the military aspects, discussing troop numbers, weapons, armor, ships and transport, and strategies of the time period, such as the use of chariots. It is in this section that Castleden notes that the story of the Trojan Horse is most likely an exaggerated version of a plain old siege engine.

Castleden then gives us two possible versions of the conflict. One, a minimalist one, involving small numbers of ships and warriors and several small-scale raids of various coastal towns, with “the attack on Troy [being] quite simply the last in a sequence . . . [and] became the most famous in song and legend simply because it was the last.” The other is a maximalist version involving far larger number of soldiers thanks to alliances on both sides and a conflict that lasted some time. The accounts are thorough and detailed, and the maximalist one especially so, done in narrative form using Homer’s names and events and making use of the newest archaeological finds such as the aforementioned cemetery. I’ll admit this section was a bit too detailed/long for me, especially as it is wholly speculative (or nearly so), but I can’t fault Castleden’s decision to be so thorough.

Afterward there’s a short look at the aftermath (spoiler alert—both societies went downhill fast) and then an overview. The latter felt a bit repetitive, but if you read the book over multiple sittings rather than in one as I did, it probably will be a useful recap. Finally, the book closes with a notes section and then an extensive Works Cited list (I like big bibliographies and I cannot lie) for those interested in further reading. There are also a number of helpful and evocative images throughout.

The Attack on Troy is clear, smooth, well-organized, accessible to the general reader, up to date, and is careful about noting when information is speculative. An informative well-told look at the truth that may lie behind one of literature’s greatest works. Happily recommended.

A decent looking bibliography (mainly 1960s to 2000) and good looking photographs. A look at the city as we know it and Homer's version in the Iliad. Get a look at Troy's location, war, and how they dealt with it. Good maps of attacks that have said to happen and more.

The ancient attack of Troy is one of the most infamous throughout all of history. But why is this so? Did the war heroes number in their tens of thousands, as dictated in The Epic Cycle, or does its notoriety remain merely due to it being the last raid of its kind? Did the attack stem from declared vengeance over the abduction of famed beauty, Helen, or was it a routine invasion to gain glory and slaves? Was Troy the teeming metropolis or a more sedate settlement? All these questions, plus many more, are explored an unpacked throughout this intriguing non-fiction.

What most impressed me about this observation of the ancient world, was the variety of lenses that Castleden used to garner some semblance of the truth about it. He combined research from archaeological digs, the events portrayed in Homer's infamous works, and more modern-day revelations and research related to the attack. These myriad insights were pieced together to form an image as close to the truth as a modern-day individual could expect to find.

This remained fascinating, accessible, and seemingly well-researched throughout. I certainly learned a lot would definitely recommend this to those wishing to learn a basic understanding of the events that led to the attack, a potential play-by-play of occurrences, as well as a detailed overview of a broad spectrum od related topics such as the people, warfare tactics, and battle clothing and weapons of that time.

No matter how you feel about Homer's representation of Troy, this book is sure to be a real eye-opener. It's packed with information that is laid out in a thoroughly accessible way and is very easy to read. What we know as fact is given substance by the inclusion of HOW we know it, and any speculation is clearly that and given possible alternatives. It will be interesting to read The Iliad again having read this book.

My thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for an advance copy to review. This review is entirely my own, unbiased, opinion.

The short summary is - I was disappointed in this book.

There is now much historical evidence to demonstrate that Troy existed, and the battle occurred. There is even currently a sold out exhibition at the British Museum about it! So for this book to be arguing that it was all a myth was somewhat disappointing.

Beyond that, I studied classics at A Level, and even without higher education around it, I know that the reoccurring statement that Homer's Illiad was written in the 8th Century is just inaccurate to a point that it was enough to put me off.

It's a huge shame that this book wasn't more prepared to be launched out into the world, as I adore the idea that more people are being educated around classics. If we are to do that, however, we need to educate them correctly.

Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley

The question of whether or not there was a Trojan War has occurred for some time. Was there a Paris, Achilles, Menelaus, or Helen? What about that horse? Was it really a horse? Alexander the Great supposedly stopped at the tomb of Achilles so the hero worship has been going on for quite a bit.
Castleden’s book, a scholarly work, offers historical evidence and context for a real Trojan war, if not quite the version that Homer recorded, though Castleden does address the areas where Homer and truth coincide, such as the place names and helmet types just to name a couple places.
The book is less a discussion of Mycenae and Hittite history and culture as well as conflicts between the two societies. There is the question of the letter to the Hittite king about a certain runaway prince with a woman.
The book is scholarly but not dry. There are discussions about siege strategies, the role of the generals on the battlefield and such. You do not have to be an expert on the ancient world or even ancient Greece for the book to be readable or concise.
It does help to have familiarity with the story of Troy itself, and to be fair, at one point there is a bit too much play by play. But this was an interesting book.

I wished to read The Attack on Troy by Rodney Castleden on NetGalley, and the publisher kindly granted that wish in exchange for an honest review. This is a nonfiction book. Any quotes, page references/counts, and the like are from the version I have and may not align with the published versions. According to Goodreads, this book has been published multiple times already.

My background
This isn't something I'd usually include in my reviews, but since this is a nonfiction book, I thought I should.

I have a BA Hons in Classical Studies, Creative Writing, and Archaeology. I began my MA in Classical Studies, almost finished the taught section before the dissertation, but had to defer due to health reasons. My main areas of speciality are the Trojan War through the Homeric epics, and the formation of the first to the fall of the second triumvirates during the Late Republic into Early Imperial Rome.

I love the Trojan war.

The small details
The book constantly refers to the Iliad as being "written down in the 8th century BC" when we know that is not true. The epics were composed in the 8th century BCE, but were not written down until the 5th. I'm fully aware that this might seem like a petty thing to be annoyed at, but it is important; the Homeric epics were oral traditions, they were performed and not read.

There is endless debate about Homer as an author. The most accepted theory is that the epics were adjusted as they were performed by each bard, but it was not until the epics were written that the stories were set in stone (if you'll pardon the phrase). This book settles on the idea that Homer was one person, the epics unchanging, and Homer was a real historical person. None of that can be proven without doubt.

This book contains a summary of the Iliad but "with the supernatural elements stripped away to clarify the progress of the military action" which I believe is unnecessary. This goes on for ten pages. There is a ten page summary of an epic poem. There's no analysis, it is just description. Anyone with any academic experience knows that you are taught to never describe, never summarise events. This has a ten page summary that can easily be found online, but this seems to be aimed at an academic audience who would already be familiar with the Iliad. It's just unnecessary.

While discussing idols being loaned to other places, the author says "I doubt whether the British Museum will be lending the Greeks the Elgin Marbles, because of the strong suspicion that they would not be returned" and I have opinions about this. I'm not going to go into my rant about what I think should happen to the artefacts stolen by the British Museum, but my initial thought was quite simply "Good."

The book calls the Trojan horse a "fable" but there is evidence to argue against that. It absolutely could have existed. I'm going to suggest this documentary on it, but there are other sources available. When Castleden dismisses repeatedly the notion that the epics are pure fiction, or fictionalised history, I am genuinely surprised that the one piece of the story that has been proven to be potentially true is dismissed as "fable" when that's clearly not the case.

There are so few references in this. At university, we were taught that every claim you make must be backed up by evidence. Castleden makes countless claims without the evidence to prove them. Give me your references, show me where you found the evidence, let me read the sources myself as well. For primary sources, give me your translations, I want to read other translations of the same evidence. There should really be five times as many references as there actually are in this book. Likewise, for a book to be (re)published in 2020, the most recent source in the bibliography should not be from 2005; a fifteen year gap between the most recent source and publication is ridiculous, and needs to be changed. I'm aware that this was first published in 2006, but honestly, if a book is going to be republished it should be updated to reflect the changes that have happened since the first publication.

Overall
Putting aside my pet peeves, like the way the book constantly says that the Homeric epics were "written" in the 8th century BCE, I'd probably not recommend this book. Castleden makes grand claims without the evidence to back them up, and combined with ignoring the last decade and a half of scholarship, I cannot recommend this book for an academic audience. If you are a more casual reader of the Trojan war, I'd suggest Bettany Hughes' book Helen of Troy: Goddess, Princess, Whore instead.

​Time it took to read: two hours including review

​E