Talk:Battle of Thermopylae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Battle of Thermopylae has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

:An event mentioned in this article is an August 11 selected anniversary.

Former FA Battle of Thermopylae is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Thermopylae article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
1 — 2

Contents

[edit] Quick Question

Under 'Size of the Persian Empire army':

Regarding the total number of forces Xerxes I assembled to invade Greece (land army, fleet crew, air force, etc), this number needs to be nearly doubled in order to account for support troops

Air force?

Trained falcons?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


You actually belive Persia had 15k-100k to invade Persia?

Greece with it's state could get a force up to 150k and was much better in combat and had better equipment so Persia probably had ca 250k warriors with them.

And to you think people made up how well greece did,imgaien this,7000k greece soldier in a mountain cliff killing over 10k persians,what happend then? 10k pile of dead bodies,when the rest of the 6k army left on the third day spartans just waited on Persians to come over the pile and get slaughterd.

You seems to think 300 spartans stormed 250k or 1 million persians for 3 days.

Quezcatol 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very poor article

One of the worst. Fix it.

-G

Well "G" if you feel that strongly and know something that isn't in the article then I encourage you to contribute. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

[edit] Endless Numbers Debate

Please discuss any further number debates on this board before editing the article. It is prudent to include both the historic views of Herodotus et al and the modern mainstream views and label them as such in the article. Endless feuding edits in the article do not improve the quality of the information or your reputations.JohnGaltJr 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Greek Army

The insertion of references to the modern Greek army are superfluous. This is trivia, and should be placed in a "contemporary references" section. These references have no place in the main body of the article. The following should be removed:

"Today Dienekes's phrase is the motto of the Greek 20th Armored Division.[13]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolethead (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Herodotus' citations

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Herodotus' citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probable phony citations

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Probable phony citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fortune of Leonidas

For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Fortune of Leonidas --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of the armies

Surely an army of over two and a half million is totally unrealistic, especially for those times. I strongly suspect that number has been exagerated out of all proportion to enhance the reputation and bravery of the outnumbered Greeks. Lianachan 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, someone should really change it. Yongke 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While obviously exaggerated or minimized (and you can't really prove which number has been falsified) we are left with Greek history. Do you, or does anyone, have verifiable numbers? I would think not. Unfortunately there is no way to know, so let us concentrate on the items that can be verified and / or falsified rather than quibbling about something that never can. Accept the fact that governments manipulate the facts and fight to stop it from happening today because you can't do anything about the Greek's manipulation of their histories now. You don't have the information to correct it. Inglixthemad

I'm not quibbling, and as a historian I know how little can be done to correct it. I'm just saying it's quite clearly shite. Lianachan 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The size of the armies is pulled from the historical account of a Greek historian. The numbers could very well be exaggaerated, but history is written by winners. What is for certain is that the Persian army was exponentially larger than the Greek one. The Greeks did so well because they used the land to their advantage and their army's reputation to instill fear in the Persians, causing them to hesitate at the sight of the Spartans.


I would say the Persian Army consisted of 100,000-200,000 troops and its navy consisted of just over 1,000 ships. I will quote from my AP World History Textbook "Traditions and Encounters 2/e" which has many contemporary sources and is scholarly accurate. Perhaps this will offer some insight to clear up the discussion.
"...Darius's(my brother) successor Xerxes decided to avenge the Persian losses. In 480 B.C.E. he dispatched a massive force consisting of perhaps one hundred thousand troops and a fleet of one thousand ships to subdue the Greeks. The Persian army succeeded in capturing and burning Athens, but a Greek fleet led by Athenians shattered the Persian navy at the battle of Salamis. Xerxes himself viewed the conflict from a temporary throne set up on a hillside overlooking the narrow strait....The following year a Greek force at Platea routed the Persian army, whose survivors retreated to Anatolia." cbhadha 11:45, March 16, 2007

You say? Incredible. Most evidence says bare minimum it was 400 000, you are forgetting this is the army intended to invade all Greece, they had been planning for decades. 156.34.192.75 12:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs fact check.

2 million vs 300 men? Come on. If its true, then the whole battle is a fantasy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.134.192 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Also, the world population at the time (as can be seen from the World Population page here at Wikipedia) was only 100 million at the time. It is extremely unlikely that 2% of the population would be in this single battle.

Yeah It's retarded to believe whichever historian said about that battle, especially someone as biased as Herodotus. We've all heard of the statement that history is written by the victors, and this is no different; majority of information we in the West have of that or any battle of the Greeks, is from the Greeks themselves, and it is rather obvious that they would skew history in their own favor. Frankly people still argue about what happened 10 years ago history, much less 2000+ yrs ago or so.

I agree. The number is probably closer to 300,000, and this is believable, since the Persian empire was massive. Xerxes took the invasion quite seriously, obviously. But to the guy at the top, this battle really happened. Anyone knows that in battle a valley can equalize the playing field, as numbers cannot be used to advantage. The length of the greeks' spears, combined with their superior skills and tactics, destroyed the Persian forces. 300 men could have held 10 million men for the same amount of time, if we forget the outflanking force of the Persians. The Bryce 11:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more concerned with the logistical support of an army of millions in the early 400s. As the editor above already said, 2 per cent of the total world population being involved in one localized campaign sounds utterly unrealistic. Some other common sense-type of thoughts that come to mind are:
(1) It is both extremely expensive and risky to upkeep a large army for any extended period in a pre-industrial, agrarian society. Probably most soldiers would have been farmers themselves, and their hands would be needed for food production in their homelands. With an army proportionally that big, the results would have been disastrous if they stayed away from home too long. Was Xerxes that desperate to conquer the Greek city states? It doesn't seem very plausible.
(2) How did an expeditional force of this size support itself? The most obvious way would be to live off the land, but Greece has never been that fertile in terms of agricultural yields, and it supports only a population of modest size even in modern times. Where would the Persian army have got the food for its soldiers and the fodder for its horses (and camels) from?
Regardless of what ancient historians would want us to believe, I'd stick with the lower number. Iblardi 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There we go again. Iblardi since you pretend to be a new editor (and not a sockpuppet of a banned editor) I would advise you to read up at WP:NOR. Miskin 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't touch the article itself, did I? As I said, this is just a common sense-argument, something that might be taken into consideration. It hardly involves any personal research. Anyway, I'm sure good sources could be found that say something similar. Iblardi 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are somethings that people haven't pointed out (or I just missed them) is that (1) If the army was 2 million and that percent of the world population would he not use it for more then just a battle? maybe to take over more land?? (2) Is the 300 vs 2 million, he didn't send all of the men at one time he sent them in waves so in saying that there very well could have been 300 men, also the Spartans sent the tired men to the back to rest and did this so the men could have the energy to fight. {petopali}

[edit] Accuracy?

escription of the battle are derived solely from the greks, thus they are naturally fabricated and are extremely out of proportion. This battle would be more aptly filed under greek mythology. If anyone read recent research and commentary of this battle they would arrive at the same conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.84 (talk)

Erm, if the Greeks wanted to glorify their history, wouldn't they have used the six-digit figures of Herodotus rather than remarkably smaller figures? --Scottie theNerd 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
RevertOnly a fool who lacks comprehension of numbers would believe the hoaxes of herodotus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon1190 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Why do I get the impression that Jon1190 is the sockpuppet of the person who has been vandalising this and every other article related to this battle (300 (film), 300 (comic), Leonidas I etc). Miskin 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Scottie don't you mean the seven figure digits?--Arsenous Commodore 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually what the first guy's comment is correct. If you look at the persian greco war article it explains that the current statistical knowledge is based on pretty much on only herodatus's findings (he wasnt even alive at the time of the battles)and that his results were based on interveiws that were influenced by political slants and other biases. Other than that the article needs to point out that the size of the Persian Army was somewhat irrelevant tactically because of the geographic conditions (equally sized forces on both sides were actually in combat at the same time). The valley was "50 feet wide" (just enough room for the spartans but not enough for the persian army to utilize their numbers). Another item that needs emphasis is the equipment and the method of combat: the hopolites had spears with very far reach therefore they only needed to stand back in formation and protect their niche in the canyon (they fought extremely defensive unlike their portrayl as "herioc", aggressive combatants in the comic and film 300). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diddy2100 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Diddy2100 you have a point. Since the mountainous terrain was selected by the Spartans as the choke hold, it gave them two oportunities to capitalize. Firstly the 80,000 cavalry that both Herodotus and Kampouris claim would not have been employable. By all accounts these particular Persian units were most effective against Greek phalanx, it took much discipline to stand against a cavalry charge. Secondly as you stated the Persians would not have been able to use their full force, but obviously this was the Greeks alliance's plan. Had this battle been fought on an open field; rather than take 3 days, this battle probably would have been done in 3 hours. Leaving no time for the for the Athenians to flee or even plan the next strategy. There is no doubt that Herodotus exaggerated an at times employed rather false premises. Afterall he was an author an to publish and make famous his work he would have needed the assistance of the wealthy. So in many ways if you sponsored him, he would put you and your family in history, even if you were irrelevant.
That being said, Herodotus is our almost only significant source, so rather than completely bash him, it would probably be best if we could extrapolate what seems most truthful, neutral and realistic from his writings, that would be most useful. Did he exaggerate? No friggin doubt about it, but if we can carefully wander around the poetic bias we can unravel many truths as well.--Arsenous Commodore 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know Diddy, Herodotus was born at the time of the battle but he would have been I think a bit young to remember. Plus I don't think Herodotus should go so much stick because I very much doubt that he just selected some random numbers and placed them as the Persian strengths. He might have had a source that claimed that the Persians army had 2,000,000+ men. So please give Herodotus a break. :) Kyriakos 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's retarded to believe whichever historian said about that battle, especially someone as biased as Herodotus. We've all heard of the statement that history is written by the victors, and this is no different; majority of information we in the West have of that or any battle of the Greeks, is from the Greeks themselves, and it is rather obvious that they would skew history in their own favor. Frankly people still argue about what happened 10 years ago history, much less 2000+ yrs ago or so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This article should remain disputed until references to a 2 million-man army are removed. Aside from the exaggeration of the Greek accounts, logistically speaking, there was no way to sustain a movement of 2 or even 1 million men across Asia Minor and into Greece. The removal or modification of that section of this article should not even be a debate.Nakhoda84 23:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Book references

The CoDominion series by Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, especially the one called "Go Tell the Spartans"

the late David Gemmell wrote about a group of soldiers called the immortals in his series on the Drenai, the character called Druss and a small group of Drenai soldiers held them at a pass untill there navy was sunk by the Drenais

Gemmell also made much mention of Thermopylae in his "Lion of Macedon" novel. The historical accuracy of all of his books is pretty lacking though, and shouldn't be used in any dicsussion of real events. Hakikev 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film Reference

"Rambling Rose" in 1991

After Rose (Laura Dern) attempts to make a pass at the character Daddy (Robert Duvall), Daddy says:

DADDY - Goddamn you, girl! You've made me make a fool out of myself, damn your hide, but let me tell you I am standing at the pass of Thermopylae and I won't budge! The very idea, my own home with children in the house, to say nothing of my wife -- oh-h, you had better believe I am standing at Thermopylae, you little nut, you had better believe it! What are you, crazy? A man is supposed to be a fool like this, but a woman is supposed to have some control and sense! Are you a nitwit? What's the matter with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluechao (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


"The Last Samurai" (2003) The main character Algren mentions the battle to a samurai named Katsumoto saying, "There was once a battle at a place called Thermopylae, where three hundred brave Greeks held off a Persian army of a million men..." Later, during the final battle of the film, Katsumoto asks Algren,"What happened to the warriors at Thermopylae?" to which Algren enthusiastically replies, "Dead to the last man."

[edit] infobox

I removed the 120,000 figure for the Persian strength. It is the minimum figure and doesn't reflect any more consensus than Herodotus' 5,000,000 (max value). In other words there's no point on putting the minimum estimate above the maximum. I replaced it with 200K-2M, it seems to be an average range of the estimates given by both primary and secondary sources (120K-5M as a raw figure). Miskin 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration section

I think that things should only be included if they have a strong link to the battle - it is in popular culture to such an extent that references can be found in quite a few places. Some of the section is in danger of veering into this area - the book 'Halo: the Fall of Reach' has almost no connection to Thermopylae, whereas 'Gates of Fire' does, for example. As I am a fairly new user, however, I wouldn't want to upset the status quo by meddling with the article. What do other people think? Andyana 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additional movie reference

Please note that Tom Cruises (Capt. Algren) character in the movie "Last Samurai" also references the battle at Thermopylae at length.

I am not sure if this is a relevant reference, but it does bring the Greeks in a pseudo-heroic light again.

Sincerely

Richard OHm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.230.109.21 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Relocate?

Why is this article protected? It would seem more accurately placed in the greek propoganda/myth project. Throughout the article only the information of herodatos, the father of lies, is used. The article never addresses the arguments of other prominent, modern historians. The article never mentions alternate theories, explanations, or information. The article never mentions that some historians believe the battle is complete fiction. Many improvements could be made to this article, but some ass who totally believes the hoax of herodatus chose to block modifications.

Why Relocate?

The battle itself is a part of historical fact. Archeologists have found evidence of arrow barrages, et al. Remember something else: all history is technically lies (written by the winners no less) so don't get too proud of yours unless you were there to witness it personally. That's the idea your presenting carried to it's logical fallacy. Furthermore, pages are protected to keep random people from vandalizing them because they either disagree with the view presented or are simply changing it maliciously for the thrill.

Complain about it all you want. When it comes to history, especially early histories, there are very few concrete sources. Do you want to do something constructive (I hope so). Did the Persians keep a better history? Log in and present sources under the aspect title of "Persian Accounts" or something similar. Remember, complaining does little, presenting verifiable fact goes further. --Inglix the Mad - Killing all hope. 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type of Victory

Should the line for "Result" in the Infobox read "Persian victory" or "Pyrrhic Persian victory", as it can easily be argued that the victory was pyrrhic? Mmace91 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be simply a Persian victory. Maybe it shouldn't be labelled a Persian victory at all. The Spartans and Thespians who stayed and died knew full well that they were going to be killed, however eventually. Their entire purpose in staying was to delay the Persian army. By all accounts, the Greeks won an astounding victory if one is to judge the battle's importance in the overall scheme of the Greco-Persian war. Thermapylae allowed the Greeks time to marshal their forces and prepare for the battle, and the morale damage the Spartans and Thespians inflicted on the entire Persian army simply can't be calculated. I imagine the knowledge that the 1,000 they fought (and bled rivers of blood against) were a mere fraction of the actual Greek army was frightening to many soldiers in the Persian army. It would seem to me that a Pyrrhic victory is exactly what this was, if we must label it as a victory at all. I think I'll log in and change this now. 151.151.21.100 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The battle was a Persian military victory and a Greek moral victory, kind of like the second siege of Messolonghi in 1827. Problem is there is no such thing as moral victory for the Wikipedia warbox Ikokki 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This debate actually went on for quite a while earlier, however it was unanimously agreed by Wiki users (except for one aggressive anon) that this battle cannot be classified as a Pyrrhic victory. Losing anywhere from a low of 1% to a high of 10% of your army (from Xerxes' perspective) according to the strength (200,000-2,000,000) listed above, does not at all constitute a pyrrhic victory. One of the errors repeated on this article is that we are using costly on a small scale synonymously with pyrrhic. Xerxes could have sustained 10-100 more similar battles. Even from a strategic standpoint the Persians were successful. It was the result of this battle that ensured Persian occupation of Greece and the razing of Athens. There isn't a doubt that in terms of a comparative tactical figure ratio to the Greeks, it was costly for the Persians; but that's all. This wasn't the case for Persian army's perspective. Also the whole crushing of morale, well with all sincerity that's probably not more than speculation. And the other point is like Ikkoki mentioned, "moral" or even "costly" are not standard Wiki descriptions for result. I am changing it back to the originally agreed upon result. I welcome any comments on the issue, just please post your reasoning before you make the changes. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a moral victory meaning that the Spartans at the end demonstrated moral superiority, not that Persian morale was affected very negatively. Greek morale was actually seriously weakened by the outcome Ikokki 09:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just discovered this: Now that we have spoken at sufficient length of the valour of these men we shall resume the course of our narrative. Xerxes, now that he had gained the passes in the manner we have described and had won, as the proverb runs, a "Cadmeian victory,"1 had destroyed only a few of the enemy, while he had lost great numbers of his own troops Diodorus Siculus 11.12.1 Like I said earlier I do not agree Ikokki 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This article covers the military battle. As far as the military battle is concerned the Persians defeated the Spartan army. This is something that is verifiable from Herodotus and other sources. Whether there was a moral or strategic victory over the Persians is irrelevant to the military result and is not verifiable.Klymen 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The question is: as far as military battle is concerned, isn't meeting military objectives that define victory in the battle? Battle of Kursk of the WWII for example: both sides suffered equally, no territorial gain, so you could argue that the result was a draw. However it was a "strategical" victory for the Soviets as they met their objective of stopping Nazi offensive.
I tend to think that Leonidas's objective wasn't defeating enormous Persian army with his 300 men. It was delaying its advance and inflicting great casualties. And in that he obviously succeeded.
I like "Pyrrhic Persian victory" or "tactical Persian victory and strategic Greek victory." --Zealander 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As a simple, narrow, battle result question, "Persian victory" is correct. As a question of war, "successful Greek delaying action" is correct, and ought to be mentioned, not in the battle box but in the "Aftermath" section. As a demonstration of military devotion, it seems the most successful military demostration in all history, since its legend has lasted thousands of years and produced more movies and other modern media attention than all other ancient battles put together. I mean, is anyone still dismayed or delighted by Cannae or Actium? Jim.henderson 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poet Simonides Comment

Simonides wrote after the battle this epitaph:

  "Here four thousand from the Peloponnese Once fought three thousand thousands."

Were there 4000 Spartans?

No, there were only 300 Spartans. However, the Spartans were joined by 6,700 other Greeks. Kyriakos 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah kriak knows for sure because he was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
There were 300 omoioi (full citizen soldiers), some perioikoi and the helot servants of the omoioi. In Plataea there were 7 helots for every omoios. In Thermopylae we do not know Ikokki 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

{{Editprotected}}

It's been a month, I think it's time to remove protection.

Yes, done. If the vandalism starts right back up again, though, don't be surprised if it goes back on, and stays on for a lot longer. Proto ► 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology/History

The article could keep the fairy tale version, but it definitely needs modern estimates by modern historians while emphasizing that the ancient greeks fabricated these ridiculous statistics. According to the capacity, number, and size of the invading ships some scholars estimate 40,000 Persian Soldiers tops while the spartans had about 10,000. I have read on a few encyclopedias that some modern historians doubt that the battle even existed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).


I expressed some reservations about the size of the Persian army further up this talk page. These reservations are not the result of any "nationalist insecurities", and neither were they "denialist comments against western scholarship". There is never going to be, to borrow a horrible expression from wikilore, a NPOV account of this battle simply because history has only handed down to us accounts from one side. To fully accept the account of Herodotus, without question, is not good historical practice. Lianachan 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the part of the article where it is implied that Herodotus is fully accepted. The number of the persian numbers appear as a range closest to the consensus. Over 2M is too much, and under 200K is to little. Since there can be no specific answer, we either remove the numbers completely or stick to the wide range. There you go. As for "denialists" and "nationalists", I think those terms are actually complimentary to someone who thinks that the battle is actually mythological. Look I don't understand why the Iranian crowd cares so much about this. Can't they just let it go? How come there's no Greeks complaining on Persian imperialism which nearly cost their freedom? Maybe because they won? That is the only reason. Miskin 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this, very little interest at all actually, and no axe to grind. I am just deeply suspicious of the reported size of the Persian army, as it is reminiscent of similar (although smaller) exaggerations in the accounts of historians such as Tacitus, with which I am more familiar. As a Scot, I'm not even sure who "the Iranian crowd" are! Lianachan 01:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the people who have been causing the vandalism and delivered personal attacks in discussion (which I removed). Miskin 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Herodotus knew no language but his own, and he was therefore forced to rely on interpreters or on natives who spoke Greek. He himself is perfectly frank about the matter, and usually tells the source of his information. “This is what the Persians say,” “Thus the priests of the Egyptians told me,” are types of expressions which recur again and again. Even when Greek matters are involved, he seems usually to have relied on oral tradition, rather than on documentary evidence; he rarely mentions an inscription as the source of his information. But even given that, Herodotus deplored the Greco-Persian war and blamed it on the Greeks. But not only on the Greeks: he blamed it on the Athenian "democrats". Herodotus writes next:

"The Athenians indeed, convinced [by Aristagoras], voted to dispatch twenty ships as succors for the Ionians and appointed as general Melanthius, who was a man among the townsmen esteemed in all respects. And those ships proved the beginning of evils for both the Greeks and the barbarians." Histories (5.97)

Many historian (e.g. Plutarch) believe that Herodotus's praise (in other passages e.g., in 5.78) for Athenian "democracy" is rather sarcastic (see "On the Malignity of Herodotus" of Plurach).


There is probably no good compromise between the 'mythical'/propaganda account and likely historical fact. I suggest two sections wherein the essential facts of each account are briefly summarized. Begin with the popular form and describe it as it is understood, then proceed to criticize it where it is likely to be exaggerated and made up, presenting as you go more realistic figures. This should satisfy the people who want the traditional account to be represented while not misinforming readers as to the probable reality.--Sorpigal 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of the Persian army

Umm, why did 202.177.214.172 change it to say there were only 61 Persians? Is that supposed to be a joke or something? :-o I'm putting back numbers from an earlier revision... -- MyrddinEmrys 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Miskin 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different suggestion for the warbox. I find the inclusion of "the entire Persian presence" of 5M+ to be somewhat unnecessary. After all, it is a warbox, and the strength category is located just below the combatants. Wouldn't it be far more accurate and reasonably logical to maintain the warbox for war (or combat) units only; rather than to sum is value with support troops. It is pretty strange to up the Persian presence with the inclusion of maids, mistresses, musicians, treasure carriers, many ceremonial nobles etc; that all don't fight or make any military difference in the battle, in the warbox. Shouldn't Herodotus' claim of 2,641,610 military presence only be listed in the warbox footnote instead? I think this is a good idea, because the doubling of Persian troops is already done and explained in the article. Does anyone agree with the idea to change the footnote’s wording to imply only military unit figures and thus list the 2M+ number? I guess my point is that the battle box sould solely be reserved for battling and potentially battling units, not support troops too. I’ll make the change and be happy to hear others’ opinions.--Arsenous Commodore 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I agree with the way you put it. What about the 'pyrrhic' status of the victory? Some people keep adding it back. Miskin 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, an excellent argument against calling it Pyrrhic is made by User:Vawarner2000 on the Pyrrhic victory talk page... -- MyrddinEmrys 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the phrase "Pyrrhic Victory" is that it does not only relate to the size of an army vs. the number of casualties, but also to the number of casualties to what was gained from the victory. I think that in this case, the traditional view is that the casualty figure was somewhat unproportional to the eventual payoff.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand I don't wish to be seen as completely advocating the traditional view of the battle. I doubt that Xerxes army even exceeded 100,000 but still I find it believable that the persian dead outnumbered the Greek casualties many times over.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The size of Xerxes' army in infobox

The lowest estimate is not 200,000, there are many modern sources that report 40,000 or 60,000. --Mardavich 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The highest estimate is not 2M either, the range is not going for the extremes. What sources mention 40,000 and 60,000? None is mentioned in the article. Credibility has to be taken into account, many foreign language articles provide a 400,000-500,000 figure as a modern estimation. Miskin 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is practically impossible to have less people at Thermopylae than at the battle of Plataea. Miskin 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are absolutely hilarious. No serious contemporary salaried historian would take 400,000-500,000 as realistic figures. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about all the scholars cited in the size of the Persian army section? I don't think your word is more credible than theirs. The Persian army was in reality "the armies of the kingdoms of the Persian Empire", which at a time expanded from Northern Africa to India. If a handful of Greek cities were able to gather over 100,000 soldiers, then it's only natural that Persia would have been able to gather many times that number. Now whether they she actually did, is a whole different story. Miskin 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Figures in article are just laughable. Any idea what it takes to organize the logistics for just 20,000 for a short expedition, never mind keep it in order? No "scholar" would take any kind of figure above 200,000 seriously, and yet that's apparently the article's minimun figure. Oh, if you believe 300 Spartans could have held off that kind of numbers for any period of time, you might as well believe that Zeus was there helping them. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell this to Hannibal who crossed the Alps with 50,000 men, or was he aided by Zeus as well? Your argumentation reaches the other extreme. The Art of War does speak of massive armies well in the hundreds of thousands, and those Chinese Empires were much comparable to if not smaller than Persia. Anything above 100,000 is exaggerated for medieval but not for ancient warfare. Persia could easily gather a large army, whether she could control it and send it all the way to Greece is a whole different story. If you can improve the article by citing some contemporary estimates then be my guest, otherwise don't make free criticism. Never in the article it was stated that 2M was the actual Persian number, it is clearly stated that they were Herodotus' numbers. If it were up to me I'd remove the 'numbers' field from that infobox altogether. Miskin 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that at one point Herodotus himself betrays some suspicion at his numbers of the Persian army. At 7.187, as he wraps up his estimate of the Persian host (admitting that the number of camp-followers were many & uncountable), he states that he is "not at all surprised that the water of the rivers was fount too scant for the army in some instances; rather it is a marvel to me how the provision did not fail, when the numbers were so great. For I find on calculation that if each man consumed no more than a choenix of corn a day, there must have been used daily by the army 110,340 medimni, and this without counting what was eaten by the women, the eunuchs, the pack-animals, and the hounds."
An army travels on its stomach, & after they crossed the Hellespont, the Persian army was forced to live off of what it could forage -- i.e. steal at spearpoint from the local peasants. Herodotus had a good sense of just how many soldiers that part of Greece & Thrace could support, & I suspect at this point in his narrative he was beginning to doubt his own calculations. Based on what I know of Ethiopian military history, the effective maximum size of an army living of the land is not much more than 100,000; since I doubt few Greeks had seen more than 10,000 people gathered in once place, to them even 100,000 was indistinguishable from 2.5 million. -- llywrch 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Persian army was well supplied not until the Hellespont but until Therme, which is the site where 200 years later Cassandrus founded Thessaloniki. Food had been sent over several years from Asia and Egypt to fill five major food depots (last of which was Therme). Thassos actually was forced to pay 400 talants of silver to sustain Xerxes's army (see VI.118). From Therme to Thermopylae it only took them 10 days to arrive. Lack of food was not the determining factor is the size of the army. Ikokki 10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look instead of criticising you might as well try to help by citing some sources. Everywhere I've looked scholars avoid giving numbers, they only say that Herotodus' figures are exaggerated, which is already taken for granted. As long as there is such a field infobox, Herodotus' estimates _must_ remain as the maximum range. Miskin 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? I'm merely pointing out obvious problems in Herodotus' estimate -- which, from the passage I quoted even Herodotus was aware of. Estimates for the number of combatants are notoriously unreliable for ancient battles, as a specialist's discussion of almost any battle will state. To say that Herodotus was wrong about the size of the Persian army & it had a specific number of soldiers is original research: pointing out that there are problems with Herodotus' estimate, then offering a list of modern estimates is a responsible discussion of the problem. If you want to quote Herodotus in the infobox, then make it clear (maybe in a footnote) that he's the source, & that modern scholars disagree with him (whose estimates will be presented in the appropriate section). -- llywrch 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to take Herodotus' account of numbers seriously; besides the totally impossible figure, he had absolutely no way of knowing whether the Persian army was 2000 or 2 million (was he there? did he go around counting them?). Some people act like he had access to reuters news service or drew on goverment figures. Hilarious! His "estimates" shouldn't even be brought into consideration. As far as I remember, all serious estimates put it between 40,000 and 100, 000, but as all my classics books are packed away in a far away place (I no longer do these subjects), I won't be giving you any references any time soon. Maybe you yourself should consult some serious books for proper figures. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
In my edition of Herodotus the commentator (whose name is Gabriel Syntomoros) comes to the conclusion that Herodotus came with the 1,7 million figure because during the counting and reorganisation of the army that took place in Ennea Odoi (later Amphipolis) the box that was built there and could hold one baivabaram filled 170 times. He assumes that all 1,7 million were infantry and, adding cavalry and fleet multiplies his numbers by 2 and comes with the 5 million figure. Ctesias of Cnidus who had access to the Achemenid Persian archives ("vasiliki diftheira" is Tzetzes' exact wording) wrote 150 years later that the army Xerxes sent numbered 800,000 battle troops. Considering that indeed at least as many troops are necessary for support as for battle Stecchini (who was a professor at Harvard if I remember correctly) believed that indeed 800,000 were the battle troops and 1,7 million their entire number. Beyond that Dr. Kampouris argues that it if for arguements sake there were 25,000-30,000 Persians (he is more inclined to believe there were 60,000 and he is not alone) at Marathon then with a double fleet during Xerxes' invasion the fleet carried troop should be 50-60,000 alone since Xerxes had twice the fleet that Datis had 10 years earlier. It is totally irrational (in his arguement) that 250,000+ rowers would be mobilized to carry that many battle troops by sea that accompany only 100,000 land based troops. Then he continues to argue why Stecchini is right; Ikokki 10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us try avoiding original research for the moment, we cannot assume what Herodotus may have or have not known. The Cambridge companion to Herodotus states that an estimation of 210,000 land troops is the modern consensus. This is based on the theory that an error in Herodotus' calculations (having to do with persian military units) resulted in multiplying the real number by 10. This excludes the huge number of "personnel" that came with the Persian fleet (where btw Herodotus' estimates are considered reliable). Miskin 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, stop trashing Herodotus, never in the article nor in discussion it is mentioned that his estimates were correct, that's a given fact, but he remains the primary source on the issue and has to be cited. Miskin 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page has drawn too many attentions thanks to the movie 300. While it's good that people renew their interest in history, it's also bad that many want to edit this page according to their wishes and NOT according to factual accuracy. I see hilarious and fictionous figures all over this article, for example: 5,000,000 inhabitants of Greece at the time; 200,000 persian soldiers; and so on and so on. There are better and more informed users than me that have already said what are the problems with ancient history, i'll repeat them. 1) Historians had to work on oral tradition. 2) Inflating enemies' numbers was a common practice (Caius Julius Caeasar did the same in the "Commentarii de Bello Gallico"). 3) History was regarded as a literary exercise more than a factual research- although this is an exxageration, ancient historians seemed to take everything they heard for good, included long and pointless diversions, invented parts to fill up holes. 4) Comparison with other battles is important: watch for example the size of the Roman Republic expeditions in Africa during the Poenic Wars. Sir Dante 11:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate article

Anyone know why Adeebkasem duplicated this article just to claim that only 10,000 Persian immortals fought at Themopylae? This is his only edit to Wikipedia under this name. I'm changing that article to a redirect. -- llywrch 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This article is a trav

This article makes a mockery of whatever sense of legitimacy Wiki has by citing "modern historians" that claim upwards of 5 million people is a realistic estimate of the number of people the Persians fielded at Thermopylae. Just throwing that out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.74.218 (talk • contribs) 16:42, March 9, 2007.

Thank you for that helpful and constructive comment. --ElKevbo 04:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.74.218 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

how can anyone even believe that 5 million is a close to accurate guess. Imagine for a bit trying to support an army of 5 million in the field the logistical and complex nightmare that it must have been. Or how did 5 million troops land on the shores of Greece, remove this"This number needs to be nearly doubled in order to account for support troops and thus Herodotus reports that the whole force numbered 5,283,220 men,[30] a figure which has been accepted by some modern historians and rejected by others. ". Everyone citing these huge numbers needs to think a bit and not take the first crack pot historian seriously. Even the idea of 2 million is widely exaggerated. The Roman Empire at its height never had a million men.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Current consensus supports that Herodotus accidentally multiplied the real number of the Persian land forces by 10. This gave him a wrong estimate of 2M for land forces, doubled to 5M for the total. This would make the real estimate 200,000 for land forces alone. Miskin 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you before Miskin, Herodotus' figures are useless ... he couldn't possibly have known; as a rule, never trust the figures given in an ancient source; they are almost never known to the writer, and are included usually to make a victory or defeat seem more glorious or more disastrous. Your use of sources here is amateurish (I don't mean that as an insult). Any estimate based on a direct reading of Herodotus will be worthless. Any figure above 80,000 all in is in my view seriously doubtful (10000 Greeks were enough to serve as the basis of a full Persian army in the 4th century). PS, even this lower estimate you're giving would make the expedition very close in size (if not considerably higher) than the entire population of Greece in this period, in which case defeat would simply be impossible (a few thousand Normans were enough to control over 1 million discontented English 1500 years later). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my answer above, I'm citing information from a very credible source (The Cambridge companion to Herodotus). If you call this publisher 'amateurish', then due all the respect but you are not being very objective. It appears that most modern scholars believe that Herodotus or his sources did have access on official Persian records, the numbers on the land troops are a miscalculation from his part, but the numbers he gives for the fleet are considered accurate. Therefore, despite what you assume, Herodotus is very important. Some sources speak of a consensus between 150,000-200,000 others 180,000 and the most credible ones 210,000 based on Herodotus' estimation error. Your personal estimates is nowhere near modern consensus and do not concern wikipedia much (see WP:ATT). Miskin 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw the Greek population is estimated by a different source at 5 million in Greece and 3 million on overseas colonies. Or maybe 3 in Greece and 5 in the colonies, I'll get back to you if you're interested. Miskin 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by and refer you to what I said. I'm not even going to bother responding to you anymore; I just hope that some editors with a serious background can rescue this article from its current high school state. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're being so hostile and obsessive about this. Just accept that your anti-Herodotus stance falls on the other extreme, not on the mainstream view. I took your advice, checked some credible sources and made significant changes. What are you still arguing about? The infobox? That will be changed too. Miskin 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have crossed a certain limit. Your last comment is easily a personal attack. Miskin 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I know it is kinda difficult to question the traditional account. When we do this it generally leads to the rejection of all types of other things we have accepted (this is why Copernicus and Galileo had such hard times). However, the fact is that we can't even begin to really accept the authenticity of ancient accounts at face value until the Peloponnesian War, and even then they are only occasionally accurate. For example in Roman history the accounts of the Second Punic War are generally thought to be relatively accurate as they take into account the logistical capabilities of the opposing sides and describes the actually difficulties that the generals had in supplying and moving their armies around. Compare this to the Cimbrian War between Rome and a coalition primarily consisting of the Cimbri and the Teutons, even though it took place more than a century after the second punic war the accounts of it are much less accurate and more shrouded in more legend than fact. This is why it appears that the battles of Arausio, Aquae Sextiae, Vercellae all appear to be larger than the battle of Cannae and the battle of Zama combined. When I first started to realize the inaccuracy of the historical accounts that I have been engroosed with for years I was devastated, but I did eventually accept them
You may wonder why smarted and more knowledgable historians then me apparently accept these accounts if I am correct. The answer is not that they are stupid, rather it is because they have to. At a basic level history is the study of written accounts. So in the absence of any reliable figures historians simply provide the only figures that they have. Do you really believe that in a battle between Aram Damascus and the Kingdom of Israel in 846 BC, the two sides could field enough soldiers so that their would be 127,000 casualties on the Aram Damascus side alone?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Constanine. For the same reason I've been trying to convince some editors here that Herodotus is in fact important to mention for being the authentic primary source. This doesn't mean that his numbers will be taken literally. As you can most people here support extremities, ignoring academic consensus. What can you do. Miskin 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you somewhat misunderstood my point. While I believe that we should include Herodotus's numbers, we should make clear that they are completely unrealistic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This resistance against accuntability, and relying on just Herodotus's account is "at best" convenient for the current ediitors of this article. It is unfortunate that few in here boast of reason and sense, but when it comes to this topic, the only thing they don't care about is reason and sense. I invite you to read more, e.g. Plurach "On the Malignity of Herodotus", and "The Lies in the History of Herodotus" Aelius Harpocration. I am just amased if we should ignore the ignorant?! or there is no ignorance and there are underlying reasons behind this...not a Wiki spirit

Is all the hyperbole really necessary? Also in regards to your sources I have one word for you, invective- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am saying "reason and sense" and you say "hyperbole" and "invective". I couldn't have provided any better evidence to my argument than what you mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.196.147 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I have given some NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH arguements above why the Persian army was large. The issue with Herodotus and the numbers he gives boils down to how good a historian Herodotus was. Herodotus wrote his history some 30 years after the last event he narrated. He had spent a large part of his life travelling around the eastern Mediterranean gathering tales of the events of the Persian wars (and other tales) and spent his time waving them into a narrative. He earned his living retelling these tales to other cities. Near the end of his life he wrote them down but without rechecking them, which is why he does things like giving the topography of Thermopylae twice yet in both cases confusing north and south with east and west. As Kakrides has argued much scorn against him has come from the cities that collaborated with the Persians. Plutarch's work "on the malice of Herodotus" (which seems to be treated here as a work of high calibre) is a libel in which the Heronian biographer scolds him beginning from a very localistic mentality: he wants to justify the Boeotian defection to Persia. What is Plutarch's accusation? That Herodotus is "pro-barbarian". Herodotus' ancient critics claim that he is biased in favor of the Persians. On his modern critics I think this page is quite eloquent [1] In the last 50 years the scholarly appreciation of Herodotus has risen. His tale of the fall of the neo-babylonian kingdom is corroborated by the chronicle of Nabonides, his tale of the Indian mice digging for gold, long derided as lies, was proven accurate some ten years ago, only that it was not mice but marmots which in ancient Persian were called big mice. The scholarly consensus today is that Herodotus is not lying on purpose. His numbers seem excessive today. I am well aware of the infamous Herodotus 10 rule. However all Greek, Latin and Byzantine historians give large numbers for Achaemenid armies. The two eyewitnesses of the battle of Cunaxa (Xenophon and Ctesias) give different numbers on Artaxerxes' army but both agree it was massive: Xenophon gives 1,2 million and Ctesias 300,000. Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Curtius Rufus agree that Alexander the great faced armies of over 100,000 in Isus and Gaugamela. Byzantine historians and chroniclers usually give Ctesias' 800,000 troops as the size of Xerxes' army in Thermopylae. Either every ancient and Byzantine historian is a liar (willingly or not) or the Achaemenids did draft major armies. Read here fore some more arguements [2] [3] Ikokki 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval historians are also noted for their exaggerations of the size of armies and battles, especially with numbers, so its not like any historical account past some arbitrary date is to be looked at realistically, so even Byzantine accounts will not necessarily be accurate simply because they came later. All classical accounts have to be looked at skeptically; this is a principle of the study of ancient history. It's not enough to simply state "the victors write history" and accept Greek figures of this size; it's doing a disservice to anyone who reads Wiki and is looking for accurate information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.254.37.85 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Please add when article lockdown is over

Category:Battle of Thermopylae

EnviroGranny 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. (The article is only semi-protected). --ElKevbo 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thebans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephialtes_of_Trachis according to this article among the 300 spartans and 700 thespis was also a small theban force that was hold hostage by he Spartan that surrender to xerxes.Can someone please provide me with more information about them ?For example how many they were,why the were hold hostage etc... Tbere 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Thebans were 400 and they have been hold at the battle fild, because Spartans believed they were traitors. And probably that was true, since when Thebans surrendered to Persians, Persians didn't harm them. Later, city of Thebas allied with Persians. Years later, Alexander the Great destroyed city of Thebas, using as an excuse this ally. The truth of course was that Theba was the strongest city of South Greece, after the Peloponesian war.

[edit] Lead

I think the lead of article should be rewrite because it is an overview to all of the battles among Xerxes I and Greeks. The subsequent Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis left much of the Persian navy destroyed and Xerxes was forced to retreat back to Asia, leaving his army in Greece under Mardonius, who was to meet the Greeks in battle one last time. The Spartans assembled at full strength and led a pan-Greek army that defeated the Persians decisively at the Battle of Plataea, ending the Greco-Persian War and with it Persian expansion into Europe.[2]Sa.vakilian(t-c)--18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also this part isn't appropriate for the lead:The performance of the defenders at the battle of Thermopylae is often used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain to maximize an army's potential, and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds. The heroic sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians has captured the minds of many throughout the ages and has given birth to many cultural references as a resultSa.vakilian(t-c)--18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay for the second part, until it gets sourced, but the first part should remain in the lead. I don't see a reason to remove a summary of the aftermath. Miskin 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good summary for the lead of Greco-Persian Wars article but it's not good one for this article. We should write about "Battle of Thermopylae" in the lead instead of the other battles.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I think the lead needs to have some sort of brief discussion of where our modern-day information about the battle comes from and how scholars assess its reliability.--ragesoss 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

The tags you added[4] were on the accounts which were traditionally given by Herodotus and accepted/repeated by modern historians (see P. Green - the Greco-Persian wars). The source is already provided at the bottom, and already overlinked to the article. There's no reason to link them on every single full stop. Also, please don't change the head, I think it provides a good summary of the event. Miskin 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You know that it's not sufficient to say something "is the original Herodotian version as it accepted today, already "overcited" in the article I'd say" and each part should have its own reference. Also if you disagree with my editions in the lead, you can participate in a discussion.talk:Battle of Thermopylae#LeadSa.vakilian(t-c)--03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You can discuss about the lead in the talk page and I believe that we should add reference at the end of each paragraph. It's not sufficient to say something is wellknown and we don't need to refer to reference.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I kinda said that the reference was already provided, but cited more globally. Miskin 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We should mention the source of each part specifically and it's not good idea to cite it more globally in an encyclopedia. For example Herodotus writes that Leonidas was idolized by his men. He was convinced that he was going to certain death and his forces were not adequate for a victory, and so selected only men who had fathered sons who were old enough to take over the family responsibilities. Plutarch mentions in his Sayings of Spartan Women that, after encouraging him, Leonidas's wife Gorgo asked what she should do on his departure. He replied, "Marry a good man, and have good children. is not good form of information in an encyclopedia. We should clarify that in which part or page of his book Herodotus has written this idea.
Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Please pay attention to Wikipedia:The perfect article:is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
To avoid original research and reach Good article criteria we should cite all part of the article.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, those edits are not mine, I don't make unreferenced claims. Check the diffs to find out who made those edits or verify them yourself. Miskin 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed those edits from my Talk page, please don't flood it again. Miskin 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my duty to add reference. I put [citation needed] tags wherever the reference is unknown and [verification needed] tags wherever the name of a historian is mentioned. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--09:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I informed the editor who made the edits and I hope he fulfils your request shortly. Miskin 11:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw I'm one of the first advocators of WP:CITE but I think you have exaggerated with your POV tags [5]. Miskin 12:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on the articles which have to many references like Hezbollah. You can see in its talk page I even insist on check sources again to reach good article criteria. you'll find why I insist on it if you notice to WikiCharts — Top 100 — 03/2007.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to add citations to the original sources they are Herodotus book VII (the copy at bostonleadershipbuilders.com loads fastest), Diodorus Siculus book 11 (try this link [6], Ctesias Persica (it is paragraph 26 that refers to the battle) [7]. Plutarch and Pausanias have some things to add, too but the latter's whole corpus is not available online. Basically I've been adding references to the first 3 today Ikokki 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to add a new section about historiography of battle as we did in Battle of karbala#Historiography of the battle of KarbalaSa.vakilian(t-c)--03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epitaph of Simonides

I'm a little confused, for the translations that have no citation, did random people just come up with them? I feel like they shouldn't be there if there's no attributable source, but there's so many I didn't want to go ahead and delete it. Thoughts? WLGades 07:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need for 17 different translations, half of which have no attribution. At the very least I'm going to remove the ones with no attribution whatsoever, and I think more could be removed as well. Kafziel Talk 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Indeed. Do we actually need more than one? Or would there just be argument over which was nicest? Some of them are just dreadful. It seems bonkers having so many versions --Orias 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there would just be argument over which to keep. I actually find it kind of interesting to see the different translations, as there's always something lost when you go from one language to another. WLGades 12:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Use the one that is seen as the 'standard' translation. This shouldn't be too difficult to find out, as there are plenty of Herodotus scholars out there. CaveatLectorTalk 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect request

Please unprotect the page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 (talk • contribs).

Why? Kafziel Talk 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So that users who don't spend enough time on wikipedia to have an account could correct obvious mistakes. For example, there's a wikilink at Artapanus, a Persian commander, leading towards the Artapanus article about a... peaceful writer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, but the subject is too high-profile at the moment, and the levels of vandalism from anonymous addresses have forced us to block anonymous editing for now. Believe me - the article is much better off now than it would be if unprotected.
Out of curiosity, what would you do to fix that link if the article was unprotected? Kafziel Talk 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove the wikilink of course. Duh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, I don't think I'd say "duh", exactly. It would be better to create an article on the right person and then change the link so it leads to that one. I've already done that. The link no longer leads to the Jewish historian. Kafziel Talk 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many Spartans?

If I remember correctly there were about and average of 3 slaves to each Spartan in this battle, they carried;armor, weapons, cared for horses, and other menial tasks. They did not leave their Spartan masters and also had to fight for their live as well--Co1dLP1anet 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think it probably was true that the spartans brought Helots to the battle, unless we can find a source it would be original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When he talks of the 300 (after the description of the batle) he says that one of them had so bad eyesight he was led into battle by his helot who immediately fled. He does not give a helot ratio or number though Ikokki 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Undoubtedly all the soldiers involved must have had slaves.Helots to carry their gear, take care of horses, and others most of the basics of life. They would have had a minor city of helots. While there is no research that i have found, i haven't looked, that would point to there not being helots present. Also some of these undoubtedly would have been enemy soldiers captured in other battles.This might pan out to be upwards of about 900-1200 slaves. --Co1dLP1anet 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that usually Spartans had 3 to 5 hillots for each Spartan fighter in the Battle. Hillots were participating actively in the battle usually carrying out tasks such as removing dead bodies from the frontlines, providing with weapon replacement, providing with water and in general doing any helpfull task. They were also fighting, sometimes in the frontline if that was really necessary. It was an opportunity for them to get their freedom back. Spartans rarely were giving freedom to those hillots that were showing exceptional bravery in battle. It is unlikely that Sparta deployed only 300 men. It should have deployed a number between 1200 to 1800 but only 300 of them were free Spartan citizens.

[edit] Date of the Battle

In the Battlebox, it states that the Battle took place on August 11, 480 BC and later on in this article it concludes that the battle took place in September 480 BC

So which is correct?

Mercenary2k 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say August otherwise Salamis took place in mid-Coctiber, impossible Ikokki 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

They decided to defend it and send a fleet to Artemision, a naval choke point, as Xerxes' army was being supplied and supported by sea. Using the fleet, Xerxes' army might have crossed Maliacos bay and outflanked the Greek army again.[8]

Artemision,the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus should be replaced with Artemisium the penisula in the island of Euboea.

The suffix -um is latin and not greek.As you might know or guess, greeks (and romans as being parent-language and lingua franca) spoke and wrote in greek and not latin.Anyway,the latin second or -us-um declension of nouns is derived from the greek second or omicron or -os-on declension of nouns...just read wiki or any other web-based or a just plain ol' paper Ancient Greek Grammar and Latin Grammar...

Thanatos666 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to correct Thanatos666 here. The Latin o-declension on -us, -um is certainly not derived from the Greek o-declension on -os, -on. Rather, they are parallel morphological features of two languages that are related by common descent from the proto-Indo-European language. Artemisium could be considered "correct" insofar as the Latinized forms of names of persons, places etc. from ancient Greece were traditionally used in scholarly literature, so it would be the traditionally correct form; but this practice has been in decline during the last decades. Iblardi 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
dear Iblardi

hellenic language and latin language didn't evolve apart from each other nor did the people nor the culture,so using the indoeuropean theory argument is a little bit too much here IMO. if one uses (ad nauseam :-) ) this way of thinking then simply by extrapolating almost nothing in any modern or ancient indoeuropean language is derived from latin or greek or sanskrit or ... but only from protoindoeuropean.
as for artemision vs artemisium ,of course artemisium is correct per se being latinised greek.but in the context of the post by the user above (Ikokki?),at least as I understand it , one ,if not one who speaks greek or latin,might think that the two words represent-symbolise different "things" although they are just two forms of the same word.
ciao
Thanatos|talk 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible translation error(s)

Just happened to notice a possible translation error... "the Greeks" is translated as "οι Έλληνες". Shouldn't it be "οι Έλληνοι"? I'm not confident enough in my ancient Greek to fix it myself, but could an expert enlighten me? Gitman00 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ho Hellen ,hoi Hellenes.belongs to third or labial and velar declension of nouns.For more check Wiki Ancient Greek Grammar. Thanatos666 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Gitman00 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last stand

Cut from intro:

A small force led by King Leonidas of Sparta blocked the only road through which the massive army of Xerxes I could pass. After three days of battle, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines. Dismissing the rest of the army, King Leonidas stayed behind with 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers. Though they knew it meant their own deaths, they held their position and secured the retreat of the other Greek forces. The Persians succeeded in taking the pass but sustained heavy losses, extremely disproportionate to those of the Greeks.

This fascinating description of the last stand, which presumably is a favorite scene of 300 (film) fans, should go somewhere. --Uncle Ed 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


but this is exaclty what happened ...at least according to the sources.....Tbere 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution of the picture

There is an artistic picture by Jacques-Louis David which doesn't show the reality of battle. Nor Persian neither Greek were bare. Thus we should substitute it with more correct picture. I've find some better pictures but I can't find their copyright situation.1, 2, 3 and 4 What's your idea about them?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No visual representation of hoplites from antiquity is acurate. They are usually shown nude with their shield and spear. Nudity in antiquity was considered a sign of bravery. Jacques-Louis David is simply following ancient models. I actually like the picture though I have not seen the alternates yet Ikokki 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the picture in the first three links and it is unrealistic too. Phtiotis is not that green in august. I still prefer the romanticism of David Ikokki 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of my sources say that the spartans would have been armored with;A heavy bronze helmet,Heavy bronze shield,bronze greeves, a heavy iron or bronze slashing sword, a bronze tipped spear, in the case of the spartans they would have indeed had a long red cloak.

--24.119.202.84 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only men who had fathered sons?

There's a slight contradiction in the article concerning the force the Spartans sent. In one sentence we say it was the King's Personal bodyguard, and in the next that he only took men who had already fathered sons. Now, this is because he disbanded his bodyguard (traditionally form of the elite young soldiers in their early twenties) and reformed it with older soldiers. As it is the article looks like it contradicts itself, even if it actually doesn't.
We should change the wording, yes? --Orias 11:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to remember that back in this time period people didnt live long, they had children young, grew up fast.It was a hard time and thus a man in his twenties was ,yes young by our standards, but was a full blown adult back then.--24.119.202.84 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, nope. For a start to serve on the spartan council you had to be 60 (or 65, I forget), the active military was between 20 and 30. You could marry aged 20, but again could not live with your wife and family until aged 30. Indeed you were also not considered a full citizen until you reached that age either. Your point is not entirely invalid, but the fact is that the king's bodyguard was of the very best of the fresh (ie. very early twenties and unlikely to have children) trainees, and Leonidas disbanded his usual entourage to replace them with older ones all of which had children. --Orias 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth and Water

The first paragraph of Battle_of_Thermopylae#Greek_preparations says that Sparta and Athens killed Xerxes' messengers that asked for earth and water. But the Heroditus bit that is referenced actually says that Xerxes did not bother to send messengers to Sparta and Athens, because they had killed Darius' messengers previously. I'm not sure how to fix this, so I'm leaving it for now. -- Calion | Talk 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spartans and Athenians had killed the messenger that was sent in 492 BC before Mardonius' campaign ...

In ancient Greece it was taboo for anyone to kill and official messenger.He carried a special emblem of his position and could supposedly ride freely through any situation.Which is why the killing of the messengers by Sparta was so unusual.--Co1dLP1anet 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Is Herotodus accurate, and no messengers were sent before the battle because the Athenians and Spartans had earlier killed the messengers of Darius? Or were messengers sent to Athens and Sparta before the battle of Thermopylae? If so, were they killed? The cited reference does not support the text as written.216.193.173.189 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the Spartan causalities to say 299. As I understand it Leonidas summoned 300 men making him have an army of 301. Then 2 men left the battle from those 301 and were not killed making 299 Spartans killed.

--Greg.loutsenko 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)== clash of civ's ==

I've read somewhere on wikipedia, it was prob this article, that if the Persians did win the battle and the war then democracy would have been destroyed and replaced by Persian monarchy. hence this battle was the most post important to our modern civilization because the spartans managed to defend the earliest development of democracy, free speech and liberty, no matter how far away from our modern standards, from authoritarian imperialist, xerxes 1. i was just wondering where has that bit of thinking gone? i remember that the idea outlined above had citation in couple of history books so i dont think it should have been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GregLoutsenko (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it is sort of true for the war as a whole, but this particular battle was among armies that had little interest in democracy. Besides, democracy, or anyway a rough approximation like the kind that appeared in some places in Greece at this time, popped up elsewhere including Rome without much reference to Athens or Greece. Perhaps the point you are trying to make should go in another article, such as Democracy or Graeco-Persian Wars or Ancient Greece, but a battle article is usually about the battle, not the war. American slavery, or Russian Communism, for example, should be mentioned in an article about the civil wars that destroyed the former and established the latter, but not in one about the taking of Vicksburg or Kiev, which should concentrate on immediate and technical questions. Jim.henderson 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The Spartans lost this battle, so I guess democracy must have been destroyed for ever. This was a shame, as the Spartans kept most of the population it ruled under abject slavery subject continually to random violence. It really is a terrible tragedy that these freedom loving proto-liberals experienced this setback ... but they did indeed recover I can happily inform you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
pndapetzin, what i was refering to was the fact that because the persians lost so many men at the battle and were so demoralised they were never quite the same after the battle. the spartans were there to hold the persians up not to destroy them. and i would disagree with your harsh description of spartan life. their customs were different from ours. lets just say that if i had to choose whether to live under the persians in the acient world or athenes, with a pan greek army for protection i would gladly choose the later.

This is totally wrong, the Spartans did NOT believe in democracy,they were ruled by a small aristocracy making them more of a Fascist government.The Persians WERE enlightened basically all the Persians demanded of their conquered enemies was a tax. The conquered nations kept all their leaders who were only responsible to the Persian emperor.--Co1dLP1anet 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2w

[edit] GA nom

Please source the section Battle of Thermopylae#Date of the battle, and format ref#14 — Jack · talk · 10:09, Monday, 26 March 2007

[edit] Numbers in the warbox AGAIN

PLEASE, Wikipedia is NPOV. Wikipedia does not express the concessus reached at Cambridge or at Athens or Tehran, it expresses all POVs by all authors without taking position. To have a 50,000-100,000 estimate on the warbox destroys Wikipedia's neutrality, express everything. There ARE authors who accept Ctesias' 800,000 number as realistic, others who think it was more like 400,000, others that say it was 200,000, there was even a Turk who claimed it was only 18,000 Persians that accompanied Xerxes. Because every source one has read claim there were only 50-100,000 Persian combattants with Xerxes that does not mean that he has the right to change the warbox no more than I have the right to change it to 400,000 to 2,000,000. Please respect that and do not POV-push the size debate. And BTW IMO we do not need an extra article discussing the number of the troops at Thermopylae since there is an article already that does that: Greco-Persian Wars especially if it is to be split into campaigns as I have suggested. An article discussing Xerxes' campaign is the bext place to discuss the size of his army. Ikokki 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I can only recommend adding a question mark, since even the very broad range of 50,000 to 500,000 is somewhat uncertain. Jim.henderson 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically for infoboxes, this field becomes the subject of extensive POV-pushing. The 15,000 is just laughable, we might as well say that the battle is a product of Greek mythology. Any figure that doesn't meet modern consensus should be avoided, and that includes mainly figures lower than 100,000 and higher than a certain figure. In brief, the field should remain empty and let the reader find his information in the corresponding section. Miskin 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible date problem?

No problems with the dates given, there just seems to be a logic problem. In the opening paragraph the date of the battle is given as 480BC. Then under "Greek Preparations" it is implied that the Athenians knew that a smaller force could hold off a larger force, by referencing a battle that occurred 130 years AFTER the Battle of Thermopylae.

Some have argued that the Athenians were confident that a small Greek force led by Leonidas would be enough to hold back the Persians; otherwise, they would have already vacated their city and sent their whole army to Thermopylae.[10] There is one known case in which a small force did stop a larger invading force from the north: in 353 BC/352 BC the Athenians managed to stop the forces of Philip II of Macedon by deploying 5,000 hoplites and 400 horsemen.[13]

Did I misread this? If it is just an example of another David-vs-Goliath-type battle, that's cool. It just seems to read as if the Athenians had crystal balls. It's probably better if a regular editor fix this ambiguity. -- Bakarocket 11:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert

I just reverted to an older version because Jagger 85's edits had massacred the article. Not only did he remove sourced meterial, but he also changed the numbers provided in various sources to those that pleased him the most - this could be possibly identified as vandalism. My revert removed various references concerning the Persian armies under "other views". Although this removal was an accident, I think it is a good idea. The article should stick to the most mainstream views and avoid extreme ones e.g. estimates lower than 100,000 and higher than 500,000. Otherwise the section simply won't make any sense. The current version of the section describes in detail what academic consensus thinks, there's no reason to complicate things by adding every individual view we can find. If someone disagrees with the consensus mention in the section then please do find a source which states otherwise. Oh, and please let's try to protect this article from similar pov-pushing. Miskin 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jagger 85, in case you haven't noticed, you've been changing material that was directly taken from credible sources. This edit [8] for instance does by no means "confirm" your claim. This alleged consensus is the result of your own original research. If you want to claim that a view meets consensus then you need to cite a source which explicitely states "current consensus rests on..." or something along those lines. You can't just draw conclusions based on your hand-picked sources (which clearly do NOT meet consensus) and present them as a consensus. The reference you presented as a "consensus" view does not have one single google result[9]. The rest of the sources that claim consensus in that section (whose material you chose to remove) are all modern publication from credible publishers. See also my suggestions above. Miskin 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your edits, because I thought they were quite outrageous in my opinion. I suspect you may be POV-pushing for an agenda, because not only did you revert my edits, but you even went as far as to remove all the dozens of scholarly evidence I've provided which clearly point to Persian numbers below 100,000. Although Ikokki also disagreed with my earlier edits, his response above in #Numbers in the warbox AGAIN was a lot more reasonable, and I probably agree with him that Wikipedia is not the place to be POV-pushing no matter how ridiculously large some of the Persian estimates might be. The article should mention both the lower numbers and higher numbers given by modern scholars (not ancient scholars) to give an overall view of the debate.
If you want to know what the consensus is among many scholars, this is what Livio Catullo Stecchini stated (who was himself arguing for a larger number):
"In conclusion, since the beginning of this century there has been among scholars a substantial agreement to the effect that the army that King Xerxes brought across the Hellespont for the invasion of Greece numbered between 50,000 and 100,000 combatants."[10]
This is why I was pushing for the 50,000 to 100,000 range earlier, but now I don't really mind including larger and smaller numbers in the article either. Jagged 85 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah-huh, Livio says that this was is argued to be the number of troops coming crossing the Hellespont, not the number assembled finally a Thermopylae, there's a huge difference. The consensus claimed in the books from the Cambridge University Press refer explicitely to the events of Thermopylae, and are by far more credible than anything I've seen so far. Miskin 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Boss, I couldn't care any less whether you think I've got an agenda or not, this is not an argument for reversion. Then again I've been editing this article since long before you watched a hollywood movie. Your edits are massacring the article and you keep replacing the information provided in credible sources by information you get in random websites and 19th century sources (yet to be verified). You didn't answer any of my querries regarding your "sources" with zero google result. I've already said that the reversion removed some individual views from both extremes, and not just lower numbers. Also those sources are 19th century estimates, clearly not what wikipedia regards as credible. Miskin 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea of 50-100,000 I find absurd. Why pile up food in Europe for 10 years to feed them? Why build up two bridges to have them cross the Hellespont? Why dig a canal in Athos? Why split them in three columns when they marched across Thrace considering that the 80,000 of Mardonius proved a vulnerable target to night attck by Vrygians? Why not send them on the fleet, they definitely fit if they were that few. Most absurdly of all, since the Greeks did manage to gather 110,000 in Plataea and another 40,000 were campaining in the Aegean why invade with so few. Thucydides who double and triple checked his numbers talks of a 150,000 men Thracian invasion in Macedon in book II paragraph 99. The 100,000 limit for pre-modern armies is too artificial. Procopius who had access to the official archives talks of a 140,000 men Byzantine invasian force sent by Leo the Thracian that failed to conquer the Vandal kingdom. But my opinion is irrelevant in Wikipedia. There is a large number of repectable historians who argued that there were 300,000 Persians at Plataea and thus there were more invading earlier with Xerxes. Since the box will cause too much trouble I am removing completely the the strength and casualties boxes. Ikokki 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have _never_ yet run into a source which claims that mainstream views places the Persian numbers at 50,000-100,000. Jagged's sources for that alleged consensus were a book which gives "zero" results in a web search. Also Stecchini's website, even if we were to regard it representative of consensus, it talks about the force that came with Xerxes from the Asia and the one that was assembled at Thermopylea, there's a huge different. But in any case, Stecchini himself supports a 350K figure a Thermopylae, so Jagged 85's claims become moot. Miskin 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In brief, Jagged 85 cites unreliable 19th century sources that he hasn't even verified himself. He got them from Stecchini's website, ignoring the fact that its authors argue for a figure of 350,000. There's no question about "consensus" here, there's only a question about including unreliable sources which supports extreme views (too high or too low), or sticking to the credible mainstream opinions. For the obvious reasons I vote for the second. Miskin 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stecchini argues for 800,000. Read his articles betterIkokki 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Miskin:

  1. Most of the references I've given are 20th century sources referenced in Livio Catullo Stecchini's article, which you can find online: [11] If you actually read the article, you'll see that most of the references I've given are references he mentioned in order to point out that the most common agreement is 50,000 to 100,000 and why he is arguing against that consensus.
  2. I've not seen the movie 300 yet. What does that have to do with anything?
  3. Since I doubt you've even read the Wikipedia guidelines, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia, which is clearly what you are doing by trying to make up your own imaginary consensus and not providing any references which support your claim.
  4. Another Wikipedia guideline is attribution: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. Every claim you make needs to be attributed to another scholar or institution which you need to cite. Since you have failed to do so, I will have to assume there is no consensus agreeing on numbers above 100,000. Since the only source we have that mentions anything close to a consensus is Stecchini, I will assume 50,000 to 100,000 is the consensus until you can find another source which gives a different consensus. If you can't even do that, then please stop reverting and vandalising the article with your unsourced POV.

Re: Ikokki: I've responded in the Greco-Persian Wars talk page.

Jagged 85 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Boss, your accusations are laughable. Like I said 10 times already, there are at least two modern sources already linked in the article that speak of a "general consensus". They have been there for a long time, until you came and modified their content to your personal "assumptions". If you think that the consensus provided is original research then I invite you to follow WP:V procedures and verify the sources linked in the reference tags. Until you have done so, do not revert again. Your sources are old and outdated and did not reflect any consensus in the first place, this is your personal conslusion, i.e. original research. Some of them do not get any google results, please read WP:CITE to get an idea on credible references. All your information comes from a website which support the opposite from what you're trying to prove here. Stecchini article talks about the army crossing the Hellespont, not the army assembled at Thermopylae, please do read my answers every now and then. Also the author supports a figure of 350,000, so citing this cite is rather as a source for lower numbers is manipulatory and desperate. And for the last time, stop changing the information provided in referenced material. Miskin 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for you: The Cambridge companion to Herodotus (linked in the article) speaks about a consensus of 210,000, based on Herotodus' calculation error (already detailed in the article). The Greek and Persian Wars 499-386 by Philip De Souza claims a consensus of nearly 200,000 as well. Literally all modern sources, many of which are already linked in the article, speak about a consensus around 200,000. It's time you stopped replacing those figures with your personal POV. Figures lower than 100,000 are as unpopular and outdated as figures over 500,000, so I suggest avoiding them both. The 15,000 figure is just laughable, If we are to mention this then we might as well stick to 2,000,000 or claim that the battle might be product of Greek mythology (actually suggested by extremists). Miskin 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Cambridge Companion to Herodotus and it does not speak of any consensus among scholars agreeing on 210,000, but just gives 210,000 as a likely figure. Consensus is not just a few scholars giving their own estimates, but an actual agreement among many scholars on certain estimates, which the Cambridge Companion to Herodotus does not mention. On the other hand, Stecchini specifically stated that there is a substantial agreement among many scholars (which he gave a list of) for figures between 50,000 to 100,000. Now that is certainly a consensus. For someone like Stecchini who is arguing for larger numbers to actually state something like that in itself shows that the consensus (up to the late 20th century) is 50,000 to 100,000. Most of the references I gave was from his research paper. Are you suggesting Stecchini is a liar giving false references? If so, why would someone who is actually arguing for larger numbers want to give false references supporting his opposition? If Stecchini can be considered reliable, then so can his references. Now I haven't yet got hold of de Souza's book yet, but when I do, I'll get back to you on it. Although I doubt it will mention anything about a consensus (like you tried to suggest with the Cambridge reference), I'll take your word for it that there is a consensus among other scholars who agree on 200,000 (for now). If that is the case, then both consenses should be presented in the article as two schools of thought, which the article was already doing before you reverted it. Anyway, I'll try to rewrite the article presenting all three schools of thought. If you disagree on anything, why don't you at least try to co-operate and actually edit the parts you disagree with instead of just reverting everything to suit your own POV? Capiche? Jagged 85 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I need to point out that Stecchini talks about the armies crossing the Hellespont, NOT the army present at Thermopylae, there's a huge difference. The guy supports a figure of 350,000 at Thermopylae and admits a consensus of >100K crossing into Greece, so either he's trying to look stupid, or you haven't understood what he said. I'll cite quotes from different sources which explicitely specify the "consensus" on the topic, although the most popular view does rest on the error of the calculations. Miskin 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted you if you had actually taken the time to consider the reference tags provided in the article before replacing their content with your POV. It really is ironic that after such poor editing and sourcing you call those edits a POV. Miskin 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I couldn't help but noticing that you chose the sources from Stecchini's site selectively, ignoring the fact that Sctecchini roots for a 300,000 figure. Some of them are even manipulated, and I'm planning to correct this soon. The Cambridge guy to Herodotus does not mention the word "consensus" but it does present 210K as the most popular view, as do many others. Souza speaks of a consensus between 150K-200K and other sources linked in the article about 180K. Souza ellaborates on why Xerxes lead a massive army in person, imitating the likes of Cyrus and Darius, the book is not available to me right now otherwise I'd quote directly. Steccchini whom you've been constantly quoting has brought up many sources which support higher numbers than 200K, without refusing the initial 50-100K figure crossing the Hellespont. Please become more familiar with the actual historical event before passing judgement. After the army crossed into Europe it received substantial reinforcements. Miskin 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the debate's over. There's no need for any personal attacks, although I do find your childish rants amusing. Jagged 85 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was the personal attack boss? This ranting is called "discussion", as opposed to disruptive editing. I'm amused by your selective edits, you hand-picked Stecchini's citations which mentions numbers equal or lower than 100K, completely ignoring Stecchini's point of view, along with his citation on larger numbers. Ludicrous figures of 15,000 will be removed. You are trying to imply a fake consensus by naming all scholars you can find who have given the numbers you prefer. Those are manipulative edits for a topic which is by definition controversial, implying a non-existent consensus. I'm going to add more sources from Stecchini's article when I've got more time to spend. So long. Miskin 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're still not finished arguing yet? Wow, you really are persistent (but still amusing). Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. EVERY POV will be mentioned here, not just the ones that suit your own POV. Capiche? Jagged 85 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not quote policies that you have clearly not understood yourself. Your POV-pushing and poor understanding of the sources and the subject at hand nearly massacred the article. You put the figure of 15,000 in the infobox for crying out loud, you might as well add a "Science Fiction" category to the article. I'm of the opinion that in controversial topics the consensus view should take precedence and minority views of both extremes should be ignored. I didn't try to favour any POV, I was willing to remove both extreme figures (high and low) and stick to the consensus of 200K. The problem is that what you considered too high a figure, happened to be the consensus of western scholarship, i.e. what wikipedia labels 'credible'. I could flood the section (as you did) with countless sources supporting 150-300K but this would be silly since the currect consensus is already mentioned. Miskin 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that does not sound like a discussion, but a blatant personal attack. You're just sounding more immature with each response you make. I don't care what you think of me, nor do I care what your opinion is. EVERY POV will be mentioned here, regardless of whether you think its much higher or much lower than your "consensus". In fact, I think I'll just stop responding to you and just let you have the last word if that makes you feel happy. Jagged 85 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually spoke to a Professor of mine a few days ago on this very subject, he claims that the consensus at Thermopylae is of around 200,000 troops. Persians and other Asians are just bitter because Alexander delivered the Hellenic revenge (we hellenes will always gain vengeance on our enemies - never forget this) on them.

Jagged 85 before complaining about the edits I'm going to make, please consult WP:UNDUE in order to get a better understanding of the NPOV policy. There are already two sources in the article claiming a general consensus near 200,000 (not including the Cambridge guide to Herodotus). What you're doing by adding so many individual sources which support your POV, while intentionally ignoring other sources from Stecchini's article, including Stecchini's POV, falls under undue weigh. You're simply putting emphasis on a minority view by trying to introduce terms such as "Western consensus" vs "global consensus" etc. I'll give you some times to improve the neutrality of all those edits and adjust it to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If you fail to do so I'll proceed with the adjustments myself, and if you keep POV-pushing and reverting I'll ask for a third opinion. Miskin 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just realised that you selectively restored information on my initial revert. You chose to create a large section on the vies of your POV but left out many of Ikkoki's sources on larger numbers, i.e. the opposite view. Furthermore I removed all undue weigh put on non-consensus and minority views including suggestions on large figures, per WP:UNDUE. There's no reason to have such a large section on something that can be explained in few lines. I also had a look at Britannica 2006's article, it treats the subject in literally one line. If you don't agree then I'm going to ask for a third opinion. If you decide to revert, I would advise you to restore all of kokki's previous edits that were removed during the reverted, and not selectively as you did last time. I would also advise you to include Stecchini's POV along with the modern scholars he cites. If despite this warning you fail to do so, it's just going to show to the mediator that NPOV is not exactly your priority. Miskin 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Livio C. Stecchini. The Size of the Persian Army, The Persian Wars.

To the people involved in this article: Stecchini is arguing about double the normal Persian army (300,000 infantry + 50,000 cavalry= normal size) analysing the use of 2 bridges, the delay of the army for reaching Thermopylae and then Athens, the force left to Mardonius for Plataea and other parameters hence giving a fighting force of about 700,000 combatants. To that figure he adds (about) one non-combatant for each soldier thus suggesting a figure of about 1.4 million people. Just wanted to clear that out.

I am in the process of gathering literature (have access to 3 University libraries), so if you can recommend a good source please do so. In the mean time, if I can get access to the books cited as references, I will try to verify some figures. This article provides a very good analysis and decent, reliable sources for the Persian forces but others just simply lack 'sound' academic sources and instead 'rely' in websites or online bloggers with historical interests (e.g. N. Welman, eventhough I enjoy and value his writings). I do not dismiss them just because they publish their work on the web (after all we are in an online open project) but I would prefer to see cited articles published in reputable journals, books published by academic presses or other respectable/reliable publishing houses i.e. sources that went through scholarly, scrutinised peer review. After all, one can also use google.books and google.scholar...Regards --Zippocar (can not log-in)16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I removed all non-consensus views which violate the WP:UNDUE concept of the NPOV policy. Most of those sources are old and outdated, and their view is already mentioned in the article, there's no reason to flood the section with handpicked sources of questionable credibility. Besides, all of that info is already POV-pushed in Greco-Persian War. I would prefer to keep the emphasis on larger figures restricted as well, for the time being it has only provoked POV-pushing similar to jabber's. Miskin 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I will try to remain as clear and faithful to the secondary sources as possible. Here's some books that I manage to gather so far:

  • Lazenby, J.F. (1993) The defence of Greece 490-479 B.C., England:Aris & Phillips Ltd., ISBN 0 85668 591 7
  • Cartledge, Paul (2006) Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World., London:Macmillan ISBN 1-4050-3289-8.
  • Grundy, G. B. (1901) The Great Persian War and its preliminaries; A study of evidence, literary and topography, London: John Murray (No ISBN obviously) - Ground work.
  • Hignett C. (1963) Xerxes' Invasion of Greece., Oxford: Oxford University Press (Very important work, extensive analysis and criticism of Delbruck's work)
  • Wallinga H. T. (2005) Xerxes' Greek adventure: the naval perspective, The Netherlands, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 90 04 14140 5, ISSN 0169-8958
  • Burn A. R. (1984) , Persia and the Greeks, the defence of the West, c. 546-478 B.C., second ed., Stanford: Stanford University Press, ISBN 0-8047-1235-2
  • Green, Peter, (1998) The Greco-Persian Wars, Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, Ltd. ISBN 0-520-20313-5

--Zippocar 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Zippocar. If you think that one of the views receives undue weigh then it should be revised by collecting proper references. Miskin 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing

To editors: Please stop adding hand-picked, outdated sources which give undue weigh to a certain POV. As you can see I removed both sources which support non-consensus views, including modern views such as Stecch's. We don't need to list individual names of scholars, it can only become subject to POV-pushing. Plus we shouldn't be repeating information from other articles. I won't allow one view to be favoured over the others, such as for example ignoring Stecchini's view and using his refercing in such a manipulative manner. For a non-consensus view to receive special treatment, it needs to be proved explicitely. Miskin 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also concerning this edit: "Not wishing to be delayed by having to carry out a full-scale assault, Hydarnes resorted to a tactic that later turned out to be a victorious one: he fired showers of arrows at them". Such claims cannot stay in an article without a reference. As you said it jabber, wp is not a publisher of original thought, it's time to pass from theory to practice. Miskin 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is ridiculous! Talk about outdated, why is Herodotus in this article then? Not only are his figures, according to modern scholars, heavily exaggerated, but Herodotus is known to be highly biased. I will readd my sourced information in the future. The only POV pushing is when people try to keep out information they obviously do not like. And I listed the names of the scholars to make it more NPOV, incase someone like you tried to do what your doing right now, but evidently, that didnt stop you. Also, I dont understand what your talking about when you say "non-consensus" view. Most scholars generally accept the 100-200 thousand figure, but as this article includes figures well above 200,000, its only fair to also show figures that estimate the numbers below 100,000. Make this article neutral by either removing all mention of the estimates above 200,000, or leave in the estimates that are below 100,000. Remember, this is all by your logic, dont be a hypocrite.Azerbaijani 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I re-added the sourced information which you took out. Your argument makes no sense. Again, the generally accepted figure today is 100 thousand to 200 thousand, if your going to show figures above 200,000, then you must also be willing to show figures below 100,000, its only fair! Either show all of them or none of them. Not to mention, all the sources giving figures above 200,000 are also outdated and also stray from the general consensus of modern scholars! See Wikipedia NPOV, if you cannot keep neutral on such an issue, then I suggest you leave the editing to other users. Thanks.Azerbaijani 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Thermopylae_dd24.html"