I was reading Michael Wood's "In Search of the Trojan War" (1985). He championed the burn layer of 1250BC as when the Trojan War happened, but since then, historians seem to favour the 1184BC burn layer.
Ok, so two burn layers, about 66 years apart.
On page 20 he relates an early Greek legend:
"Herakles sailed to the Troad and attacked the city" (sacking it). "In the sack, Laomedon and his sons were killed; only the youngest, Podarces, survived, for he alone had maintained that Herakles should be given his rightful reward" (he was owed horses; seems Troy was a good place to get horses, go figure).
"Podarces was released and took a new name, Priam, meaning redeemed.... Herakles left Priam a young king and Troy was restored within the same walls."
Ok, but waitasec!
If Priam was a young man during this, and Priam was an old man during the Trojan War dated to 1184BC, then it follows (in a very loose and speculatory way) that 66 years earlier Priam would've been a young man, and coincidentally, there's a burn layer at 1250BC.
So, while I'm wildly speculating here, this would suggest that a Herakles type guy was wandering around sacking cities around 1250BC, and there are myths and burn layers that seem to agree with this.
For sure this can't be taken as serious history, but it's great fun to speculate.
But, is there any research or discoveries that give any credence to the early myths/legends of Herakles?
Hmm, best to start with an important caveat. The idea of a historical Trojan War has always been pretty much a minority view, though to be sure there have always been a few respectable proponents at any given time. Even that might be an overstatement: let's be more specific. The idea that 7th century BCE (and later) Greek mythological texts provide an accurate guide to events of the 12th (or 13th) century, for which no written record survived in any of the intervening centuries, is a minority view. At any given time you'll find a handful of people vigorously arguing for a historical war (Michael Wood was one of these), and many many more people quietly pointing out that while there's nothing to rule out the idea of a historical backdrop to the legend, and the historical situation at the end of the Bronze Age is compatible with it in some ways (and incompatible in other ways), there's absolutely nothing to corroborate the legend either.
That said. If you are ready to take it on faith that "the Trojan War" occurred in ca. 1190 at the end of Troy VIi (what Wood calls Troy VIIa), then yes, it is not illogical to take the further leap of faith that Herakles' attack on Troy occurred at the end of Troy VIh, ca. 1280-1270 or thereabouts. But strictly on the understanding that there's no evidence whatsoever to corroborate this interpretation: no evidence of a historical Herakles, no evidence of a historical anyone else either, no evidence of Greek involvement in the destruction of either Troy VIh or VIi, etc.
But opinion has always been divided among the believers as to whether Troy VIh or VIi was the level of "the Trojan War": Dörpfeld opted for VIh, Blegen for VIi. If you opt for VIi, you have to abandon a couple of points that believers have used to try to link Bronze Age Wilusa to the legendary sources. First, a couple of pieces of textual evidence that some have tried to use to link Troy VIh to the legendary Trojan War, viz. the Alaksandu treaty and the Tawagalawa letter. Second, the fact that Troy VIh was wealthier and larger than Troy VIi. And third, the fact that Troy only formally became a member state of the Hittite Empire in the early 13th century; it may be that its incorporation into the empire coincided with the transition from Troy VIh to VIi.
I'd better link you to the section of the FAQ on the Trojan War. I'm responsible for quite a lot of the posts in the threads linked there, but there are more details, and some variance in the views expressed.
Finally, some corrections. Wood's book is no longer very up-to-date. Troy VIh was not destroyed by fire -- Wood himself doesn't claim that, though he does argue that it was more than just an earthquake that destroyed it. The plain fact is that we don't know what caused the transition from VIh to VIi. There is broad cultural continuity between the two layers, for example; the main difference on the citadel is that in Troy VIi, the citadel was the preserve almost solely of the elite. We don't know that there was an earthquake either, though damage to the walls and foundations suggest that as a possibility. Wood's dates have also been revised: go with 1280-70 for the end of Troy VIh, ca. 1190-1170 for the end of Troy VIi.