Talk:Battle of Artemisium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-Class)

Greece Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Battle of Artemisium, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)

???

This article has not yet been prioritized.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Start-Class)
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within classical antiquity.

Military history WikiProject (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

[edit] Persian victory?

Hopefully the anonymous user reads this...why is this a Persian victory? Adam Bishop 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the links and added some explanatory text. The Greeks also took a beating during the battle, and once Thermopylae fell, there was no purpose in maintaining station at Artemisium, so they fell back towards Salamis. Choess 23:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the anonymous writer. You tell me, at the battle of Marathon perisa had something like 20 000 soldiers, with of course some Herodotus exageration, Persia lost 6 400 men that was not the entire regiment however because they fled (retreat) we consider it a Greek victory. The very same scenario consitutes a victory in for Persia at Artemisium, Greek's fleet was not wiped out but it fled, (WHEN AN ARMY OR NAVY RETREATS IT IS THEIR LOSS) following the bad news at thermopylae. Even so when the Greeks went, Artemisium was sacked. Please reply to this

I guess so...but in the overall scheme of the war, it is as indecisive as Marathon is a victory, wouldn't you say? (Or we could say Marathon is just as indecisive as Artemisium.) Adam Bishop 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you Adam Bishop, I like some of your discussions, you seem quite knowledgable on the subject of Greco-Persian war, I like to think I'm am too, by the way are you Canadian? I am too, nice Though I am a much younger than you think, if you don't mind please give your email. By the way at the matter at hand, you are right in that you agree with me. You are absolutely correct if we consider Marathon a Greek victory then the same features made Artemisium a Perisan victory. But like you say if Marathon was indecisive that applies to Artemisium as well. Greeks have a monopoly over the Greco-Persian Wars accounts. I just wish the Persians had at least one account of the war. No thanks to Alexander and the more brutal Arab invasion which burned atll of persian libraries.

By the way Adam have you read this new book called Persian fire, its a great book it is written by Tim Holland I highly suggest it.

Well I'm not that knowledgeable, it's just a side interest. You can find my e-mail from "e-mail this user" on my user page, if you want. Adam Bishop 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is going to make changes to the article, please state why in the discussion category. When an army or navy retreats it is a loss. Why because with this not only was it a tactical loss but also because now Persia marched to Athens unstopped and sacked the city. Besides which madmax myself and an admin already agreed on the result, what is your evidence. Don't edit war, without an explanation. --Arsenous Commodore 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because a side retreats doesn't necessarily mean they lost. I have always held that the Battle of Marathon was a Greek victory not just because the Persians were routed but also because the Greeks benefited tremendously from the morale boost etc.However, I do not see the Persians as the victor of Artemisium as, although the battle was indecisive and it was the greeks who fled, it was this battle which shaped the tactics employed by the Greeks against the Persians in the future - especially at Salamis, which was definitely one of the most important battles of the war(s). I recently did a dicitation on the importance of the battles of Marathon, Artemisium and Thermopylae which I concluded with a somewhat controversial judgement that Thermopylae was actually relatively insignificant but that both Marathon and Artemisium were very important to the outcome of the war (I know this is original research so I'm not going to cite it for the article). Incidentally, Tom Holland's 'Persian Fire' is very good, but perhaps not a good source. Peter green's book (the Greco-Persian Wars) is also interesting but if you want to cite something for defeat/victtory then I really think you need find a more analytical source as Tom holland, as he freely admitted when I once talked to him, does make some rather bold assumptions 172.142.222.62 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where did these "Strength" numbers come from?

No sources yet the History Channel (a source I would trust over any internet source, with all their scholars in hand) stated a 6:1 or 5:1 advantage of the Persians and also stated the Athenians doubled their fleet size from 100 (to 200). That means it was 200 vs 1200 (or perhaps 1000) at the beginning, 200 of Xerxes ships were destroyed when they tried to flank around Euboea. Themistocles destroyed or captured another 200 over the two day battle. Whatever the exact case it wasn't 333 vs 500. --ProdigySportsman 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Persians had some 1207 ships to begin with, but even after the storms they could muster a little over 800 ships. I'll change it to 1207.--Arsenous Commodore 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Strength to 927, since they started with 1,327 ships (I forgot to add the European ships earlier) and about 400 were destroyed before Artemisium (according to Herodotus) I got the 927 figure.--Arsenous Commodore 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Since by the end of the battle the Athenians had some 180 ships and half of the according to Herodotus were destroyed (near the final day of engagement), I added the Greek casualties to 90. Furthermore, it is noted that five Greek ships were captured by the Egyptian contingent. Thus 95 would be a minimum estimate. Therefore I placed their warbox casualties to 95+.
The Persians on the other hand are a little bit more difficult to postulate. Peter Green reckons 100+ in his book (The Greco-Persian Wars). And Herodotus implies a similar amount judging by the remainder of the Persian fleet he discusses.--Arsenous Commodore 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What strikes me as odd is that there is relatively no information about the joint effort between ground and naval forces. It is widely suggested that Themistocles the Naval Greek General was the actual mastermind of the plot. Lying to the Greek governors about why he wanted an increased naval capacity.