A contemporary view on the Horse

Reading the previous post, about why the Trojans have committed the folly of opening their gates to let in a hollow horse, you may be inclined to think this is hindsight, or as the Americans put, Monday morning quarterbacking. It is easy to play a hand at bridge, after the game is over. It would be wrong, not to say ungentlemanly, to judge others' choices by the facts we know now. It is folly only when there were alternatives, visible and viable at that time.

Virgil gives Laocoon the line: Equo ne credite, Teucri / Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, or "Do not trust the Horse, Trojans; Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even bearing gifts." Laocoon was a priest of Apollo (or maybe Poseidon). He is said to have thrust a spear into the Horse, and the onlookers heard moans from within. Capys, another elder, also pointed out that the Horse is dedicated to Athena, who favoured the Greeks. Why not break it open to see what was within?

Laocoon had earlier said, upon seeing the Horse,

Either the Greeks are hiding in the monster, Or it is some trick of war, a spy or engine, To come down on the city. Tricky business is hiding in it. Do not trust it, Trojans; Do not believe this horse. ...

So it is not that the thought had not crossed anyone's mind.

The lintel over the gate to the city was named the Scæan Gate, and its destruction was one of the three (or six) requirements for the fall of Troy. And yet, as the Horse was too tall, this, too, was taken down.

Why would a people deliberately pursue an act that had clear negative consequences?

The Greek and Roman poets of the centuries after Troy accepted the story as true, and worked to resolve this question. The answers ranged from the enmity of the gods, to "this was foretold and must happen". Even they marveled at the stupidity, or blindness, of the Trojans.

I shall continue later on their on how the philosophers of antiquity drew lessons from this incident.

At the start of this post is a picture of a statue, found in Rome in in 1506, believed to be of c200BC, based on an earlier copy. It shows Laocoon and his sons being attacked by serpents sent by the gods, because they tried to prevent the Horse from being pulled into the city.

An old tale of shooting yourself in the foot

A long time ago, according to Virgil (who expanded upon Homer and Co.), the Ionian greeks (Greeks) went to war with the greeks of Ilium (Trojans). We shall take the stories as historical, as did the primary audience.

The long-term cause of the war, be it trade routes or not, does not distract from the story. The immediate cause was the refusal of Paris to hand back Helen.

Note that handing Helen over, whatever the moral issues, would have ended the war. The Ionians repeatedly set this as their condition, and the Trojans discussed this, and rejected this. They knew what the issue was, and there are no hints to someone making a bigger issue of this. And yet, over repeated losses, they refuse. Not on a point of principle, but just refuse. At no time does someone say "If we hand over Helen, we would have crossed a line". They just refuse. And lose Hector, etc.

Seven (or nine, or ten) years later, everyone is tired. Menelaus is nowhere near getting his wife back, the Trojans show no signs of giving up, and the gods continue to interfere and be fickle. Even Poseidon has switched sides a couple of times.

To cut a long story short (too late!), the Greeks decide to build a horse of wood, hollow, declare it to be an offering to Athena (who had played both sides), and stuff it full of men (as low as 50, and as many as 300, depending on your version). They then sail away, round the corner, and wait for the Trojans to pull down their wall(s), and push it in.

Stop now, and consider what they were thinking. Would you like to be one of those inside? What were the chances of this succeeding, anyway? What were they smoking?

Less than what the Trojans were, obviously. People who knocked on the horse reported moans from inside. Despite clear warnings from Laocoon, Apollo's priest (who described exactly what the problem might be: the horse may be full of men, Homer gives him the line about not trusting Greeks bearing gifts), and over Cassandra's prophecies (which were well attested), they took the lintel of their gate off, refused to let anyone look further, and got drunk. Again, think this over. They have:

• removed the gate (or pulled down the wall)
• got drunk
• not placed a guard on their city
  
• gone off to sleep

The slaughter was complete.

The point of this story is not that this may be made up, just a myth. The point I am making is that everyone from the 7th century BC recognised the folly in the Trojans behaviour. Sophocles is said to have discussed this in a play (now lost), and Virgil covered this at length. Why would the Trojans be so stupid?

For Homer's immediate successors, the moral was clear. The gods had decided, and blinded all. To Virgil, the fall of Troy was required to enable Aeneas, a Trojan, to set sail and thus establish Rome later, providing legitimacy to the Remus/Romulus story. There was no other way to explain this.

Why would a people who had successfully held off a (partial) siege, and who knew well of the dissensions in their enemies ranks, shoot themselves in the foot with a wooden horse?

Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens.

-- Friedrich Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans (The Maid of Orleans, at Project Gutenberg), Act III, sc. vi