Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Fortune of Leonidas

I thin that the article generally is pretty good but there are soe things which i think should either be added or given attention at an earlier stage in the article. The fact that the reason why Leonidas chose to go of to battle and fight for his life was that he had been told that if he did not die in battle against the persians sparta would be destroyed. I also think that it should be made clear that the naval forces was under command of a spartan, which is quite odd since the spartan did not have a naval tradition but the purpose of giving a spartan comman was that the navy needed to hold their ground, which is something spartans were good at. I like the comment which one of the others made about comparing the battle at Thermopylae with other historical battles. But if you want to ompare it to other military mistakes (the spartans effort on the first couple of days) i think that a good example would be the forrest where three roman legions were pretty much massacered in a forest i the Present Germany. I think that the forrest was named Teutenbeg or something

I must apoligize for the mistakes in grammar and spelling, but english is only my second language.

Danskov 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


People, This article reads like a train wreck. It's awful, i couldn't even finish reading it, i had to go over the the 300 Spartans article to understand what was going on. There is a movie coming out soon about this entire thing so wouldn't it be nice to clean it up becuase i'm sure there is going to be a big increase in traffic to this article. -just a thought 154.5.207.91 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)JS

Another user comments: "What JS said."


August 11?

I'm a bit skeptical about the claim that this battle occured on August 11. For one thing, the Julian calander wasn't invented until the reign of Julius Ceasar, several hundred years later. For another thing the month of August wasn't named 'August' until the reign of Ceasar Augustus. I'm not sure what system the Greeks used, but prior to the Julian system, the Romans used a lunar calander with randomly inserted intercalary months, making it extremely difficult to figure out exact dates of events, beyond a guess at the year. I'm extremely skeptical that any historian would seriously claim to have narrowed down the exact date to "August 11" according to our calander system.--LunaCity 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Same thing applies with other dates prior to the implementation of the Julian calendar. However, the formula of the Julian day allows historians to pinpoint dates according to the Gregorian calendar. --Scottie theNerd 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about that. Are there any other examples of historians pinpointing the exact month and day, according to the Gregorian calander, of an event five centuries BCE? Even the date of the birth of Christ is pretty foggy, and that was after the Julian calender (after the collapse of the Roman empire the calender got out of whack again). Even supposing there are historical records that give a date according to the calender in use at the time, we don't have a complete record of calendrical adjustments to make the conversion to that kind of exactness. Even if it took place in "August" - or whatever month corresponds to "August" on the earlier Greek calander - because the lunar year was shifting relative to the solar year, the "August" of 480 BCE might be in the middle of winter.--LunaCity 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I understand, conversion to the Julian calendar is independent of time measurement used at that time. --Scottie theNerd 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Impossible. You need the Julian date to do the conversion. And since modern astronomers weren't around at the time, there's no way we have the julian date of the event. The only thing we could possibly have is a calendrical date according to the system in use at the time. Which can't be converted to the Julian date, or any other system, without knowing what calendrical adjustements were made subsequently. More seriously, your argument would imply that we ought to be able to pinpioint the exact month and day of any historial event that has ever occured, and we obviously can't. --LunaCity 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert in the system. I'm sure someone else more familiar with the topic can provide a more helpful answer. --Scottie theNerd 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo

  • The Halo 2 Volume 2 Soundtack has a song titled "Finale: Thermopylae Soon." Also the book, "Halo: The Fall of Reach" by Eric Nylund refers to the Thermopylae battle, in [[Media:book the Spartans come out victorious, as Nylund has used the battle as propoganda in a brain-washing program. Having the Spartans lose would not be satisfactory to the purporse of conditioning the perfect soldiers.

I can't really word this properly, but Nylund doesn't make a mistake about the battle, he does it purposely to show that ONI (something from his book) is willing to lie to the Spartan IIs to train them.

The allusion to Thermopylae in the soundtrack probably refers to the battle over Earth, similar ot the historical battle. That track is the one that plays during the annoying cliffhanger cinematic at the end. Mindgiver 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

== Poem by Lord Byron ==]]I don't know if this is relevant enough, so I won't add it to the article myself. Never the less it's a striking poem about the battle of Thermopylae.

Earth! render back from out thy breast
A remnant of our Spartan dead!
Of the three hundred grant but three,
To make a new Thermopylae!
(Don Juan. Canto iii. Stanza 86. 7)

--BeSherman 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Its gives me the impression that HALO will not end on Earth. Perhaps Master Chief will take the place of King Leonidas and turn the tide in favour of UNSC, much like the original spartans. Master Chief may fall in the final conflict. InvincNerd 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More Anti Greek Lies

Every time I check this page, I see an English or Turk has tried to lower the number of Persian Soldiers in the Box. There are NO estimates as low as 170,000 - Every Historian I have read has given the estimation of their own at a quarter of a million, perhaps a little lower, perhaps a little higher. Stop lying, as my dad says, the english will never forgive us for inventing civilization.

^LOL Obviously not a history major -- the greeks did not "invent" civilization nor were they the first to form one.

Is it not equally possible that you are just blindly pro-Greek? Adam Bishop 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Blindly anti-Eastern

There are estimates 170 000 and lower, so I've restored it, but I've also kept the new maximum of 250 000. This is something there is a lot of uncertainty on, and we really need to provide some discussion and references, instead of just throwing out a number. Josh

Ok, maybe you are not anti-Greek. But I have never read anything which cites 170,000 as an estimate, that is why I Wondered, all of the books I have read (and I will admit I have only read about 6 or 7 on the subject and the wider Persian Wars), say that most probably there were a quarter of a million Persians.

Will you PLEASE stop badmouthing the English? Bloody hell. I may not be English (American) but I do know that the British studied Greek battles like these for Hundreds of years including names like Nelson, Wellington and Mongomery. I doubt that anyone is really anti-Greek enough to try and change them. Second, even though I am severly not fond of Hitler's Germany, I don't try to go around changing numbers until suddenly the blitzkreig was conducted by 180 million Germans, so please state your problems in a reasonable voice, ok? Cannot use Sig. Not Registered. Is there a reference for this number? 280,000 seems excessive.

40 times 7000?

"...an army of some 7000 Greeks, led by 300 Spartans, stood to receive the full force of the Persian army, numbering perhaps some forty times its size."


A brisson 22:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of references, none of them particularly reliable. I believe Herodotus tries to claim that there were two million men, that they drank entire rivers dry, blah, blah. Most historians nowdays believe that the numbers were around a quarter million or so the article is reasonable. ChrisU 08:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Houman 03:04, 10 December 2006 (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 Spartan soldiers had mastered the phalanx formation

I really don't like this sentence at all..

One: it's misleading - it makes phalanx formations seem like a tactic particular to the Spartans, which is untrue. Phalanx warfare was a hallmark of all Greek warfare of the time, and had been for centuries. Also, I'm not debating that the Spartans were masters of phalanx warfare, but the other city states of the time were far from novices either; Athens in particular had a long history of giving Sparta a run for its money.

Two: The sentence feels clumsy and breaks the flow of the narrative. I'm not questioning that more emphasis needs to be placed on the fact the the Greeks met the enemy in a phalanx, it was the major reason that so much carnage was inflicted and that the Greeks lasted as long as they did against a so much larger force, but I think that that needs to be done elsewhere.

This article is reaching a level of maturity that makes me hesitant to arbitrarily change it without checking to see if others agree with me. Unless anyone raises any major objections, I'll take this sentence out and perhaps see if I can work in a better mention of phalanges elsewhere.


---Phalanx.

At the time, the Spartans were the best. The only other armies that could (if matched) hold their own agianst them (from what I read) were thebes, and macadonia. Although they were of differnt time periods completely.

Most Greek armies are skilled in the Phalanx but the Spartan's hard training probably gave them the strength to hold the formation against the persians for the longest time possible.

Battles compared to Thermopylae

I want to remove the "see also" section here because every country has its lists of battles which it likes to compare to Thermopylae and I don't think that such as list is enlightening. Unless there is realy strong objections I shall remove the two in the see also section. If there is to be one (sigh!) then I suggest that it is kept to one per country. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with those, but I don't think they are particularly relevant either. Adam Bishop 16:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removed See also

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other various issues

This page probably will eventually need disambiguation from the other Battles of Thermopylae (notably that of 279 BC). I might have a go at writing a page about the 279 BC battle when I have a moment free.

Secondly, about the epitaph:

ἀγγέλλειν should read ἀγγέιλον (angeilon), if I can remember my Greek correctly. A quick check on Perseus should solve this.

Not really. All the Greek history books that I've read speel this as ἀγγέλλειν (aggelein). I'll ask someone who is more proficient with ancient Greek though and post a followup here. Keramida 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, Keramida, aggelein transliterates the Greek letters into Roman letters, but does not recapture the sounds. The user with no Greek would think there was a double g in there, which there is not. Gamma-gamma is a nasal, like the ng in anger. So, I made it that way. Thanks.Dave 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The "literal" translation isn't particularly literal either. Following the text closely, you would get:

O foreigner, tell the Lacedaemonians that here we lie, obeying those words.

ξεῖν' carries more the connotation of "foreigner" rather than "stranger" here (remember they've just lost everything North of the Isthmus of Corinth to the Persians). It definitely does NOT mean "traveller" (that would be "hodoiporos")! ὅτι τῇδε κείμεθα can only mean "that here we lie". There is no relative pronoun to make it "that we who lie here" (and that would mess up the hexameter anyway). Likewise πειθόμενοι is a Present Middle Pariciple. κείνων literally means "those" not "their", although it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference here - "those" puts the emphasis more upon the words being Leonidas's, "their" attributes


Herodotus 7.228.9:

Ὦ ξεῖν’, ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι. (10) Λακεδαιμονίοισι μὲν δὴ τοῦτο, τῷ δὲ μάντι τόδε· Μνῆμα τόδε κλεινοῖο Μεγιστία, ὅν ποτε Μῆδοι Σπερχειὸν ποταμὸν κτεῖναν ἀμειψάμενοι,

Miskin 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does contain many mistakes, but what you mentioned is not one of them. Miskin 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that I hate the dominance of video-game and internet sub-culture in wikipedia, but do we really have to mention that the "21st level of Marathon 2: Durandal, called 'My own Private Thermopylae'"? I mean besides the fact that no-one could care less about something as insignificant, it gives a bad image to the article and wikipedia in general. Miskin 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottie, I am deeply depressed at what you have to put up with, all in the sake of neutrality. Wouldn't it be best if we contacted an admin on the anon's edit war. He's nothing more than a chauvinist which is shown brilliantly by the fact he classifies victories in ways that are completely unique to wikipedia "costly" for solely Greek battles. Buddy if you need satisfaction in a biased war set over 2000 years ago how about you keep your bias to the Greek language sites where they describe the persian wars. --Arsenous Commodore 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from name-calling and generalising. You're speaking for the Grecophone wikipedia and websites in a ridiculously degrading manner, which makes you look rather ignorant. The dispute is on the term "pyrrhic", which does not currently appear in the article, and not on the term "costly". The fact that the victory was indeed 'costly' is acknowledged by any person of basic historical and warfare knowledge. And the anon you're bashing belongs to this category. Miskin 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the anonymous editor's last proposal was to compromise and call it a "costly Persian victory". As it isn't a standard classification, and has already been heavily debated using (incidentally) the same points of valour and sacrifice as we just did, using that as a result goes against the standards for war-related articles on Wikipedia. While the discussion was regarding the use of the term "pyrrhic", Arsenous Commodore's comment on "costly" is not irrelevant. --Scottie theNerd 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case I'll openly take the anon's side, as it was me who put that word in the box in the first place. In my opinion whoever does not realise that this battle was 'costly' to the Persians, should not be editing the article. Whoever realises it but doesn't want to admit it, is different story. This battle indirectly cost the war, or at least that's what the vast majority of sources point out. It's plain silly to pretend that this was just another common "Persian victory". But I'm not gonna bother myself with that, frankly I worry more about removing the "My personal Thermopylae" reference. Miskin 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, this isn't an issue over interpreting the significance of Thermopylae; this is a point of classification. History articles on Wikipedia only recognise three types of victory (victory, decisive, pyrrhic) and as the term "costly" can be hugely subjective, I presume that is the reason why it is not used as a classification. As for communicating the extent of the losses incurred by the Persians, let another controversial element of the databox do the talking: the casualty figures. --Scottie theNerd 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This comes from this guys's user page:

I have been on Wikipedia for several decades now and I have seen much bias in my lifetime. However, nothing is even nearly comparable to the amount of bias, especially Greek bias I have seen on this site. But with my neutral views I dare to right the bias wrongs from such individuals as Miskin and other Greek anons.

Been to wikipedia for several decades - I guess that says it all. Well you can forget what I just said, I actually took you for a normal editor. I don't know who you are and how you know me, but I really do feel sorry that wikipedia has to put up with people like you. Miskin 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I can imagine who you are, one of those anons who have occasionally edit-warred and POV-pushed in the Persian war articles, until they finally decided to sign up. Vive la liberté! Enjoy it while you can. Miskin 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the prime example of Greek chauvinist bias. When you disagree strongly with the idea this was a pyrric victory you magically become a past anonymous who has done much the same thing as this pro-Greek troll. Miskin's comments merely legitimize my satirical talk page. However I realize that I may have been too crude with my talkpage because I now understand I probably shouldn't be naming names. So Miskin, I will remove my talkpage (but there is a catch, you have to promise to show me how to make a good one, you see I am quite the noob at making talkpages), for I too now realize it was the wrong thing to do, and I appologize for that. Now, back to the idea of a pyrric victory. I notice that Persian strength has been updated to 1,700,000, so with casualties of 20,000 for the Persians, which do seem reasonable for today's standard's. So statistically, Xerxes lost anywhere from 10% to 1.17% of his force in Thermopylae. Hardly something that would bug him and make him ill-prepared to sack Athens, and face off in Salamis in a rushed battle. By definition "One more of these victories and I will be lost" does not fit into this category for Xerxes could have still wanted to keep winning such battles, but the reason he never conquered all of Hellas was because he then suffered a couple of decisive losses. That's what ended his campaign, of course along with his rush to personally leave the unhospitable lands of Greece. As for the nuber of days it stalled, well it wasn't the original 7 days the Pro-Greek anon was saying, but rather the last of the Spartans and Thespians were mopped by the 3rd day. And as a result Athens would be sacked, why because Athens had not used this time to mobilize like the Anon said they fought at Artemisium to the last hour and when news realized that Leonias was to fall the Athenian navy diengaged. So by no means was this Pyrric, even the anon excepted this. The argument has been over whether or not this battle should be classified as costly, which indeed both Scottie and myself did admit to. Of course it was costly, this was the Spartan royal guard vs. mostly unfit conscripts. However the problem is Wiki does not classify such or any battles as "costly". They are either "regular victory", "decisive victory" and pyrric victory. No other article has in the warbox costly "x" victory and this should not be adopted for this article the Greeks are no special than the others, and therefore a whole new policy must be written on how to classify all battles that occurred like this one and heck there is a lot of them. Miskin I surprisingly do agree with you, on the my personal Thermopylae though. And Miskin for your imagination of me, I will simply let you refer to the words attributd to Voltaire. Think whatever you wish of me, I don't quite mind, afterall what a world we'd live in if opinion distorted reality. But I'm happy you're keeping thebias out of the article unlike the Greek anon. Sorry for the somewhat long post fellas, and I too won't post much, but I will continue to change whatever the Greek anon reverts the article back to. I also am depressed to see two Greeks that think Thermopylae cost the war. That was Salamis. Remember if Mardonius didn't keep egging Xerxes on for a quick battle and listened to Artemisia he would have sat in Athens and starved them out. Furthermore the spartans to the south would have been quickly finished if Xerxes decided to challenge them in an open field, for Xerxes greatly outnumbered them. But part of this problem was Xerxes did not want to stay in Hellas for too long because conspirators were back home and he couldn't bear having to live in the unhospitable lands of Hellas for one more winter. He wanted out and quick, and this is what caused the war, his decison to negligently and quickly face of with strategized athenians off in Salamis. Therefore Salamis tilted the favour into Greek hands and cost the war. What I've noticed is you Greeks often over credit the Spartans and undercredit the couragous Athenians for their part in the war. Remember Athens' navy won this war not Greek infantry. And finally thanks Scottie for your support on this. --Arsenous Commodore 14:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Then, just remeber you two brought this on yourselves!!!! I did not abandon the belief that it was a Pyrric Victory, because even through your definitions, Pyrrus' classic Pyrric victories are not pyrric. Firstoff, if you cannot accept what nationality I am, I have no hope of you becoming even a novice in Military History. FOR THE LAST TIME I AM NOT GREEK! I am an AMERICAN!!!! SAY IT WITH ME, AUH-MER-I-CAN (and YES, I spelled that wrong on purpose so that you can become familiar with how it SOUNDS, seeing as how from your previous posts I get the impression that you think anyone coming from West of The Turkish Coast to East of the Horn of Africa is A GREEK)!!!! Furthermore, I am a Chauvenist???? Pot Kettle Black. Milage may vary. I Did not abandon the idea of a Pyrric victory, it just seems that if we cannot agree on wheter or not it is pyrric, I though about a compromise, since EVERYONE Agrees that it was costly. Including your Aide-de-camp Scotty theNerd. It seems as though YOU are the one who is trying to use opinion to distort reality! I give you as through an analyisis of the situation between the Greek Allies and the Persian Empire as we can hope for in this day and age, from training to oberall strategy to numbers to logistical and morale factors, and you and Scotty theNerd just brush me off like I was writing a lengthy ad for toothpaste! Though, to be absolutly fair, at least Scotty admitted I had a point. Believe me, with that sort of name-calling, had this been a site seriously dedicated to military history, that kind of language without justification would lead to the digital-forum-version of being verbally tarred,featherd,pillored, and twacked around with a large wooden stick. From BOTH sides. I AM NOT exaggerating. I have seen it happen many,many,many times and it is NOT pleasant to hear about. As for another of your accusations, I do NOT undercredit Athens. As a matter of fact, I DID say that they to a great extent decided the war with Marathon and Salamis. However, the difference with those two battles and Thermopylae is that on Marathon and Salamis we do not have members who are seemingly-mindlessly pro-Persian trying to marginalize the difficulties those two battles caused for Persia. Indeed, part of the reason for his departure was, as you mentioned, Xerxes' paranoid (but not terribly unjustified) belief that people at home were plotting to steal his throne. However, you neglect to mention that had the Greek Campaign worked like it should have, he could with relative safty have stayed in Greece longer, as the victory would have added the Balkens to the Persian Empire and strenghted Xerxes' popularity while simulatniously weakening that of his opponents at home. However, as I mentioned in my previous posts, things did NOT work out as planned. The best comparison I can possibly think of is the Serbian 1914 Campaign of WWI; in which Austria-Hungary suffered unbelivable human and supply losses and yet failed to seize Serbia. And with the "Russian Steamroller" gearing up in the East, the Dual Monarchy could not afford to fight in Serbia any longer. However, the Palace was already filled to the brim with anti-Xerxes intruige before he launched campaign, as you have said, but it was dormant, and was waiting because when Xerxes and his massive host crossed the Bosporus, but after campaigning, he had suffered extreme losses, and though he had taken some Greek cities, and even some capitals, like Athens, he faced a tired, overstreched, undersupplied and weak-willed force that he called his own, and with the news of the defeats, the Palace conspiritors saw Xerxes' star lower in the ring of public opinion, and since even the most autocratic and absolute rulers cannot reign without at least some public support, they saw the chance to eliminate him. And Xerxes had a good sense that that was what they were going to try, and after a final attempt to conquer Greece, he could delay heading back no further and had to leave, leaving Maridonius to his fate at Plataea. I can understand how costly can be subject to seprate inerpretation, and if you Really do not see its use, fine by me. Though your claim that there are only those three is rediculous, as I have seen "eventual victories," "debatable victories" and even (especially in the Sept. 1939 Polish War at the beginning of WWII) " 'X' defeats", so I find that hard to belive. It that is indeed the real critea, than you guys have some catching up to do. ELV


Why are you associating me with Arseneus? If you're going to bring yourself down to the ad hominem level of Arseneus, at least direct your remarks at the right person. If either of you continue this behaviour, this will be reported to the administrators. Frankly, I've seen enough of this Talk page being flooded with direct attacks. This is simply going back to where we started from. --Scottie theNerd 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As for being connected to Arsenous, when someone calls you "My Friend Scottie" What am I supposed to think? That you to have never heard of eachother? But I must say that at least you had the decency to actually engage in a debate, unlike him, and for that I must credit you for it. I am launching personal atrtacks? Yes, to an extent, but I am only human and do not have infinate tolerance for personal attacks myself, and given the fact that Arsenous has claimed that any arguments in favor of Termopaylae being Pyrric, no matter the quality or depth, are "pro-Greek Bullshit," he has repiditly called me a Greek, which for the first time I can understand. Mildly. I announced that I am in fact an American, who TECHNICALLY is of Greek decsent, but not a lot, and most of my heritage comes from the "Boot" of Europe: The Italian Pennensula, and my family tree was in America since the French-Indian War, and despite this announcement, he has continued to call me a Greek, despite my repeated announcements that I am an American. And that is not counting calling the case I pieced together is "Meaningless." Yes, Scottie, I do have some respect for you because at least you bothered debating, while Arsenous has just been sitting back making random snipes to a large extent. As I have said before, I am more than willing to agree to a debate on the issue that is conducted calmly and diplomatically, on BOTH sides, myself included. However, in order to work, both sides must be willing, and so far, due to actions on both sides of the playing field, that has not been happening. If anyone can suggust a "Referee" or "Moderater" for such a debate, I would be gateful. ELV. PS, Yes, I actually have seen the outcry against such actions on a professional history website, and it is NOT pretty for the target.
You need to get a grip of reality. I never supported the 'pyrrhic victory' view because it's unsourced, and because I don't think that this term can apply here anyway. I support the description 'costly victory' for reasons that I find straight forward. If other editors don't agree then just don't put it in the box, I'm not willing to waste my time disputing over such a minor issue. If you think that I'm the same person as the anon from above, then you can ask an admin to perform an IP check, but I'm afraid you'll find yourself in disappointment. You don't have to apologise to me for what's in your "talkpage", it's your personal space and you can write anything you want (and I can critise it in any way I want). So you can keep bashing me there for as long as you like, frankly, I couldn't care less. Miskin 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The casualty figures in the databox convey the implication better than a subjective and non-standard "costly victory"; hence why the term is never used. --Scottie theNerd 18:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert on the issue, but for convenience to the average reader, these two articles could be merged, provided that the warnings on the latter, (300 Spartans) remain, as it is important for the reader to note that whoever made that page didn't cite any sources, and that the factual accuracy is disputed.

Did this page shrink?

Something like 80% of the page is gone without being archived. What happened?Ikokki 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor blanked all the discussion from the past week. --Scottie theNerd 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No I Did not. At least not intentionally, and I doubt that case. I think someone else did it. ELV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.158.221 (talk • contribs)
Nope, it was you [1]. Anyway, why don't you create a user account for yourself? Signing talk page posts "ELV" is not correct Wikipedia signing. Gsd2000 22:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page history, it was most certainly you. I find it hard to believe that you could accidentally blank three quarters of a talk page without noticing. As Gsd2000 said, you should serious make an account for yourself. Unregistered editors aren't looked highly upon, which is why you've been greeted with much contempt. --Scottie theNerd 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory

This is getting ridiculous. We've been debating this issue for months, and more people come to change the result without discussing it. The consensus here is that:

  1. A pyrrhic victory is a crippling result to the victor that prevents them from attaining their objective
  2. While Thermopylae was certainly costly, it did not stop the Persians
  3. We are remaining with the standard victory categories and that "costly" is not an acceptable result; rather the casualty figures and article are better reflections

Drawing on points from the previous debate, put it this way: the Greeks may have killed ten times their number, but at best the Persians only lost 10% of their total force. As far as battles go, that's a drop in the ocean, and a commander can hardly ask for a better outcome. Yes, this is a phenomenal outcome by the Greeks. Yes, it is significant, and no one is arguing that it wasn't costly. However, a pyrrhic victory isn't about numbers alone.

If you would like to discuss the issue, do so here. Otherwise, Wiki administrators will need to be called in to prevent an edit war.--Scottie theNerd 03:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Persians' victory was 'pyrrhic' or not in the sense defined in dictionaries, it is not, in my opinion, correct to use the word in question for events happened before Pyrrhus and his costly victories over the Romans. What would be OK for a half-educated journalist should not be acceptable in an encyclopaedia article. Dixi—Barbatus 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

... speaking about:

I'm sorry if I missed this earlier debate, so you'll forgive me if I'm missing something, but if a army does not achieve their objectives in battle, isn't that considered a "defeat?" I see no mention of "objectives" in any description of pyrrhic victory. In fact, using your criteria, it sounds like there has never been a pyrrhic victory -- Pyrrhus of Epirus himself lost less than 10% of his force at Asculum and Heraclea. And at the most oft-cited example of a pyrrhic victory, Bunker Hill, the British, again, lost less than 10% of their attacking force. You're right, this is ridiculous -- according to your criteria, there has never been a pyrrhic victory, and there never could be (because victors are considered "victorious" because of the completion of their objectives). Doesn't the fact that Xerxes army was held up for days by a force the fraction of his size -- a group that managed to defeat his most elite soldiers as well as two of Xerxes' brothers -- in a battle that most likely ruined his army's morale, his own reputation as a general, and emboldened his enemy all at the cost of 300 Spartan soldiers (and 20,000-80,000 is 100x their number, not 10x)...does that not make this a text-book pyrrhic victory? Yes, Xerxes continued on after Thermopylae to sack Athens (which had been deserted thanks, in part, to the delaying tactics at Thermopylae), but was eventually defeated and run out of Greece. I guess the question I have is: what do you consider a pyrrhic victory?--ColorOfSuffering 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, victories aren't about numbers alone, and hence why the victories of Pyrrhus and Bunker Hill can be considered pyrrhic victories. Also, I refer to campaign objectives rather than battle objectives. In regards to Thermopylae, while the victory of the Persians may have cost them what you prescribed, the problem is that it may not have. Given the very ambigious nature of the battle's consequences, it isn't a textbook pyrrhic victory as far as I interpret it, and either way it would be best represented as a simple "Persian victory". As of current, arguments on the other side emphasise the bravery and sacrifice of the Greeks, which has nothing to do with pyrrhic victory categorisation. --Scottie theNerd 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I could see how you'd need to consider campaign objectives to determine a pyrrhic victory. However, I would consider Xerxes' Greek Campaign objective to be to "subjugate Greece" (as stated in the Greco-Persian Wars entry), and I would say that he failed, as Athens had been evacuated prior to his arrival...and the Persian fleet was defeated at the battle of Salamis shortly after Thermopylae forcing Xerxes to retreat to Asia Minor. However, if you consider his campaign objective to get through the pass at Thermopylae and sack Athens (a modest goal for Xerxes), then you are correct when you say this battle did not prevent that. Of course this is not only about numbers, which is why I attached additional criteria (the decimation of Xerxes elite troops, the deaths of his brothers, the emboldening of his enemy, the destruction of his army's morale) which would make this, in my opinion, a pyrrhic victory for the Persians. An army of up to 1 million soldiers should never have sustained the casualties that it did against an army of 300 -- even if the original numbers are inflated by Greek sources this victory came at too high of a cost for the Persians. I don't see a problem with the use of "pyrrhic victory" here. It was a victory achieved at great cost (both in terms of lives and morale -- Xerxes massive army was stopped by 300 men for 3 days, certainly detrimental to the Persian morale).--ColorOfSuffering 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Salamis stopped the Persians, not Thermopylae. Campaign-wise, Thermopylae did very little in the long run. I agree that the victory was costly to the Persians (who fought against approx. 5000 Greeks, not 300), but aspects such as morale are questionable and sources tend to be biased towards the Greek side, as is popular culture. Xerxes' army shouldn't have sustained that many losses, but for an army that could afford to do so, I don't think labelling it as 'costly' is representative of the strategic situation. --Scottie theNerd 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It has to be remembered, however, that the Persian expected little from the Greeks in this battle and look forward to an easy victory. as is stated in the article, Xerses was more amused by the Greeks, due to their relativley relaxed pre-battle preperations, then he was afraid. Therefore, the morale of his army, and that of himself, was nothing but confident, or else they would not have fought the battle upon such unfavorable grounds for themselves. However, the stunning casualties they suffered in what was supposed to be an effortless victory had several reprecussions upon Xerses' army.
   1. The battle not only weakened the morale of the Persians, but emboldened the Greeks, which would play a major factor in battles to come.
   2. The delay of the Persian forces allowed for the mobilization of other Greek forces that would eventually repel the Persian onslaught.

The fact of the matter remains that this persian "victory" was the turning point for the Greeks, after which they rallied and attained victory. If a victory for one side ultimatley aids the other, there is no better description of a pyrrhic victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.66.85 (talk)

Until you provide a credible source that states that Thermopylae was a blow to Persian morale and increased Greek morale, your claims are merely repetitions of what has already been discussed. Just because the Persians would later lose the war does not necessarily make Thermopylae a pyrrhic victory. --Scottie theNerd 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Were the Greeks betrayed?

Many years ago, I read (in original Russian) A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire by M.A. Dandamaev, who dismissed the whole story of Ephialtes as legend, saying that Persians, who were, after all, a mountain people, could have found a path around Thermopylae without any help. Unfortunately, I don't have neither original book, nor its English translation (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1989, ISBN 9004091726). Does anyone here have access to that book? (I'm somewhat surprised, though, that Paul Cartledge, whose Thermopylae has just been published, doesn't even mention any possibility of an 'outside' version of events.)—Barbatus 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In Herodotus description the path it is so small that outsiders could not have possibly found it. Ctesias, who wrote (among other reasons) to please his Persian sponsors and invents events in order to please them writes:
Thorax the Thessalian and Calliades and Timaphernes, the leaders of the Trachinians, who were present with their forces, were summoned by Xerxes together with Demaratus and Hegias the Ephesian, who told him that the Spartans could never be defeated unless they were surrounded. A Persian army of 40,000 men was conducted by the two leaders of the Trachinians over an almost inaccessible mountain-path to the rear of the Lacedaemonians, who were surrounded and died bravely to a man.
I do not have the book mentioned but it seems highly unlikely the Hellenes were not betrayed. Alexander the Great, 150+ years later found himself at a similar situation in Persian gates (if I remember) and, despite certainly having many mountain troops (as the Sogdian Rock battle shows) he could not have passed without the betrayal of a Persian sheppard. Ikokki 11:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but betrayal of what and whom? Hellenes were not united, they were warring among themselves all the time, and many, actually, recognized authority of the King (hence presense of a Thessalian and other Greeks in the King's army). Ctesias doesn't mention Ephialtes, is this because he doesn't know about him, or because that traytor was invented by Herodotus (along with many other things)? The problem is, the story we have represents predominantly Greek point of view.—Barbatus 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the Congress of Corinth the Hellenes were united (at least in theory) against the Great King, thus if any member of that alliance (and Ephialtes, being a Malian, was a member of the alliance) was to help the other side he would be a traitor. Herodotus (book VII paragraph 215? I'm not sure) makes a discussion over who was the traitor and concludes it was Ephialtes.
Kakridis wrote some forty years ago that today (that would be 1964) most historians generally agree that Herodotus does not invent tales and is not biased himself but rather repeats carelessly what is told to him without subjecting it to critical control (from Maronotis, Herodotus, Introduction, comments and translation of book 1). Considering that some of Herodotus' most outrageous tales turned out to have true origins (tow examples follow) it is considered that Ctesias invented stuff (since his tales disagree with assyrian and babylonian chronicles among other sources) rather than Herodotus.
Two of Herodotus' "outrageous" tales that have turned out to have true origins:
1. According to Herodotus when the Persians landed in Lesbos and Chios they formed a huge circle of people like a net around the island, walking towards the center of the respective island, slowly closing the circle and not allowing anyone to escape. Turns out Ala'iddin Ata-ul-Mulk Juvayni, the principal historian of the Mongol conquest mentions this formation of circles as a Mongol hunting method, the nerge.
2. Again Herodotus mentions that in India gold is mined from some hills by ants. Some 10 years ago a French adventurer and ethnologist named Michel Peissel gave confirmation of his report, turns out the "ants" are marmots (see [2]) Ikokki 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which modern estimates suggest explicitly 80,000 Persian casualties. The most accurate I ancient source must be Ctesias which suggests 50,000. Therefore I included it. Modern critical estimates for casualties are about 20,000, so I left it there. Heck even the prevailing theory in modern Greece is approximately 400,000 strength and a range of 10,000 to 30,000 casualties (And these are numbers from Greece the wesern ones will most certainly be lower. Modern school of thought in Greece also suggests no higher than 30,000 casualties. 80,000 seems to inflated. The "No more than 10%" isn't bad it may certainly go up into controversy though. As estimates for the strength increase though as will the casualties, and at times would make the Spartans and Thespians more heroic and God-like than some may think. Anyone diagree with holding the max casualties rate at Ctesias' ancient estimate. --Arsenous Commodore 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro is misleading

I think the intro section needs some tweaking. It is a bit misleading to flatly say the Persians were "defeated". I would have used the word stopped. Especially considering that:

  1. Leonidas and his Spartans were eventually defeated despite the heroic stand.
  2. Leonidas was beheaded and crucified by Xerxes, according to Herodotus.
  3. Xerxes' troops eventually advanced into Southern Greece, despite the heavy losses dealt by the 300 Spartans.
  4. The history of this event was written by Greek authors. The article treats it like unquestionable fact however.

Improvement is requested. Thanks.--Zereshk 07:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Zereshk. The Persians weren't stopped by the battle, were they? So, we can't say stopped. Moreover, quit slandering the Greeks. We aren't interested in ethnic hate around here. OK, so the Persians weren't defeated or stopped at Thermopylae. But they were defeated and stopped at Salamis and other places. Moreover, Alexander took all of Persia and made it into Greek kingdoms. Live with it. But why get feisty about the Greeks? A lot of other people took Persia as well. We need the wide view here, not the narrow. As for the sources being Greek, gee, they were the only ones who cared to write about it. So, we have no way of knowing if they told the truth, do we? It seems as though everyone who writes about the past wants to clean it up or make it look good or make it favorable to them. But, that isn't the scientific tradition, which seeks the truth. If you look at the full truth, the Persians were pretty good people, as good as anyone. It is just that their king felt he had to extend his domain over Greece. The Greeks objected. Is there something wrong with that? But generally you are right, the article can stand some improvement. To be able to describe an emotional event in objective language, that is a goal worth striving for. Does it really matter what you personally think? Don't think, Zereshk!Dave 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you jumping at Zereshk for a minor fix suggestion a month after it's actually been fixed? "Stopped" would be inaccurate, but Zereshk has made every effort to suggest an NPOV rewording. Stop throwing anti-Greek sentiments towards anyone who whispers a word in the wrong direction. --Scottie theNerd 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoaky exegesis

"A note on translation: This should not be read in the imperative mood, but rather as an indirect appeal through an advanced, thankful, salutation to a visitor. What is hoped for in the language of the appeal is that the visitor, once leaving the place, will go and announce to the Spartans that, indeed, the dead lie still at Thermopylae, remaining faithful until the end, in accordance to commands of their king and people. It was not important to the Spartan warriors that they would die, or that their fellow citizens knew that they had in fact died. Rather, the stress of the language is that until their death they had remained faithful.

“Visitor, please confirm to the Spartans that we indeed remained faithful to them until the very end …just in case someone else tells them otherwise.”"

The article suffers from this hoaky over-exegesis. In the first place, none of that stuff is true. The epitaph just means that the Spartans obeyed orders, because that is what they were all about, obeying orders. The individual was totally subordinate to the state. If he assumed that mission he became glorious. With the shield or on it. In the second place, this is one of the best of the Laconic sayings. It needs no exegesis at all. Exegesis detracts from it. In the third place, we aren't interested in the author's 10th rate personal opinions. Learn some Greek. Get some experience of life. In any case the article is not for original work, such as personal exegesis. Awfully sorry, it needed to be said. Study it more and then come back to it if you are still interested. Best wishes. "A" work needs to be "A" work.Dave 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

i thought that there was an actual obelisk found with about 300 names that is believed to be from the time these soldiers died. i might be totally wrong, or i might be confusing it with a different battle. anyway, if anyone knows anything please let me know. thanks.

Split-up time

The article really has developed into three sections. First, there is the battle and its attendant circumstances. Second, there is the epitaph of Simonides, which seems to have a life of its own. As molon labe has been broken out, I would like to break the epitaph out as "Thermopylae(epitaph of Simonides)" or something similar. Third, there are cultural references, many of which have not much to do with the battle. Sylvia Plath had an interesting view of her Thermopylae but it hasn't much to do with the historical Thermopylae. I'm suggesting this breakup because the article is too long. I thought the tables might help, but it is still too long. If anyone disagrees, speak up. Otherwise after a decent interval I make three articles out of it, unless stopped by someone. For the third one I had in mind "Thermopylae (cultural references)".Dave 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. The article is substantially long, and articles with this much depth usually are split. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean about this much depth. The starred Wikipedia articles are generally shorter and more concise. However, take a look at Charles II of England, which has one star. This present article is rated hugh in importance and in fact look at all the interest and emotion it generates. I have no doubt most all the students of Greek history have looked or will look at it, and then you've got the military, and the persons of Greek heritage as well as any Iranians that use Wikipedia. So, I have no problem with the detail as long as it is accurate and to the point. So much has been written about the battle, it is important not to descend into endless theories worked up over the centuries by perfectly good people wanting to hitch themselves to the Thermopylae star by illuminating (or darkening) obscure points. However by the customs of Wikipedia we have to work with what we got unless there are reasons to change it. In general I would say it reflects public interest. By the way the heated discussion with the irascible Greek is most unusual. I never met a Greek person who felt he or she was getting bad press from the ENGLISH! Relations between English- and Greek-speakers have been pretty good. The former Greeks in America seem pretty delighted to be here and I don't know of any ethnic conflict at all.Dave 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Anons Fumbling With the Warbox Numbers Again?

No matter how far I try to stay from this article, it's useless, I always notice somebody fumbling with it . Who made all these unwarranted and innacurate revisions. Looking at the History module I found the sheer bulk of them are anons with only IP's present, can you folks please write your thinking before making edits as significant as in the warbox, PLEASE. I am going to try to come up with a consensus here. I think the original problem here was caused by a wave of pro-Persian bias that was then countered with pro-Greek bias The revert the article's warbox to its prior status. Firstly, Cteisas does not at all claim that the Persian casualties were a mere 5,000 he suggests 50,000. Change number two, Herodotus never gives a casualty figure for the Persians as 2,000. Next, the modern estimates for the Persian's range between 10,000-30,000 for the battle, that's why I originally edited it to a 20,000 average. Furthermore, no modern historian gives a casualty figure for the Persians that exceeds Cteisas, meaning 40,000 and anything above it for the modern estimate figure is plain lunacy.
Now let's get to the Persian strength numbers. The prevailing theory in the west is 200,000-250,000. But to be fair the range should also include what is prevailing theory in Greece, which currently stands at 400,000. While we can even further the range by incorporating even more historians' critical analysis, so I will bump the max. to 500,000 range. A range of 200,000-500,000 seems fair to me since we already included Herodotus' no doubt exaggerated figure as a footnote. The former figure range seems valid for modern estimates. If anyone has any disagreements, please write here in the discussion board before making changes. I have now made the implied changes.
Ikkoki, I know you for one try to balance a NPOV on the site, do these figures seem reasonable to you?--Arsenous Commodore 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On numbers: The 20,000 Persian dead actually comes from Herodotus as I have seen someone has added. It is defeinitely from book VI, I'm not sure of the paragraph but I think it is 34. Ctesias talks of 10,000 soldiers sent first to attack which were killed with the loss of 2 or 3 Spartans, then 20,000 sent but defeated (though in this case he or at least Photius does not tell that they were cut down to pieces, it is probale they had survivors) then of 50,000 the next day sent that were similarly defeated though like the 20,000 earlier but probably not cut down to pieces like the first 10,000. So far we have 80,000 soldiers sent, mostly dead. On the third day 40,000 are sent through the Anopaia Odos and parto of the rest of the army attacks from the front. Where the Ctesias 50,000 dead number comes from I do not know, it is not mentioned at least by Photius in paragraph 27 that you can read in the link that follows [3]. This is why I originally put 80,000 though I do have a vague recollection of reading an article claiming over 100,000 Persian dead in Greek sometime in the past.
As for Xerxes original army size Kampouris and Stecchini who are (or were, Stecchini is dead) holders of PhDs both claim 800,000 battle troops and 1,700,000 overall hence I had put the upper range at 1,700,000 overall since the 200,000 in the minimum range is with support troops. The warbox is a favorite target for vandalism since it is very visible and easy to change. I have not been able to work on this article as much as I like since I am studying in France, do not have much time and put more effort at Marathon which is now nearing A-class status.Ikokki 14:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that seems quite fine to me, infact I like how the article is currently. I'm going to however remove the "citation needed" for the modern estimates (Persian casualties). I will cite right here in the discussion board because I don't know how to input it in the article (Perhaps someone who knows how and is more comp. savvy can help out?). A book written by the always amusing Will Durant entitled: The Life of Greece. The ISBN is 0-671-41800-9. Will and Arial Durant accept and write 20,000 Persian casualties, and he is modern source. I agree Ikkoki, it appears the warbox is too constantly ravaged by vandals and others who dont provide evidence before making cahnges, to turn a blind eye. I will be one to certainly be watching this article more closely.--Arsenous Commodore 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

VANDAL WARNING!

There's a couple of vandals persistently at work on this article. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes subtle. Paragraphs or sections get deleted, tables get broken, numbers get changed, strange numbers or letters appear, irrelevant statements appear, wording gets changed. So, if your material gets changed without reason by unknown users, or things just plain disappear, don't take it personally. Take a careful look and restore it. You can find out how it was in case you did not know by going back in the history. The article was good, then it got bad and lost its reputation. I suggest the vandals were at work even then. After that I made it much better but now I notice it is being destroyed again. En guarde! If you want a good article you have to fight for it! It is a shame some people cannot behave in public but they are definitely out there and this is an emotional topic.Dave 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

"[edit] Aftermath When the body of Leonidas was recovered by the Persians, Xerxes, in a rage picked up the ancient Necronomican and unleashed the undead ninjas he later used to destroy the pathetic Greek army in a violent bloodbath in which at least four Greek men were separated limb by limb at the hands of the zombie martial artists. Two other Greeks were killed in the middle of typical Spartan bonding rituals (anal sex). This was very uncommon for the Persians: they had the habit of treating enemies that fought bravely against them with great honor, as the example of Asonides captured earlier off Skyros shows.[35] Xerxes was known for his rages, as when he had the Hellespont whipped because it would not obey him.[36] "

I think this needs to be dealt with Rexregum 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I'm surprised to see no merger topic. There was one because I contributed to it. I vote for the merger. They are in fact the same topic. If we want to have two articles let's get the cultural references out of here.Dave 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus' citations

With all due respect to the Father of History, are these long citations needed in an encyclopedia article?--Barbatus 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

cus its wikipedia policy? --InvincNerd 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. 'Cuz of the nature of an encyclopaedia article, which should be short and informative. We can cite the whole Herodotus' Histories here, but what's the point? --Barbatus 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello barbatus. I think your assessment is the correct one. In the first place the citations mentioned by the Invincnerd are not citations but are quotes. We do not need to quote so much of Herodotus. Anyone can read it online or off. He's not an unknown author but a very famous one. Furthermore the insertions were made by a user without a user page and therefore unknown, despite the login. Looking over this unknown user's changes it seems to me they make the article worse, not better. Therefore I took the liberty of removing the long quote. A second approach would be to put it in but in the section above. Here is the section:
From Herodotus, Book VII
"When the Medes were being roughly handled, they were retreating, and the Persians, whom the king was calling immortals, having shown themselves forth, were advancing, of whom the first was Hydarnes. It was thought that they would accomplish victory. But when they were battling the Greeks, they were bearing no more sucess than the Medes, but the same results. For fighting in a small passage, they could not make use of their numbers, and using smaller spears, could not engage the Greeks with success. And turning their backs, the Greeks would flee convincingly, and the Persians would advance with a shout and a din. The triumphing ones would turn to be the Greeks, and the ones having turned themselves were holind off the greater number of Persians. A few of the Spartans were falling due to the superiority of the Persian force, but the Persians were not able to take hold of the pass. It is said that Xerxes, looking on, jumped from his seat three times in fear for his army. On the following day, the Persians were contending no more successfully. With some of the Greeks surviving, (the Persians) hoping that they (The Greeks), having been covered in wounds, would not be able to raise their hands (to fight), attacked again; but having been arranged by clan and company, the Greeks were surviving, and each one was fighting in share, except for the Phocians, who were guarding the other pass."
As far as the translation is concerned it is slightly better than the others I removed and placed below but still is in deficit. English speakers do not use English in that way. If someone wants to put it in English, let it be in English; if in Greek, in Greek. For example, English does not use the past continuous for narrative of past events the way Herodotus is using the imperfect. We wouldn't say, "the Persians were contending no more successfully". This leads me to think the translator is not a native English speaker and should not be translating into bad English. Copyright allows you to quote short passages I do believe and anyway the copyright has run out on most of the standard translations. But I vote with barbatus. Herodotus is so readily available we do not need to quote him here. We've already cited him.Dave 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is more of the same with a supposed ref to Knittel. I doubt if such a man exists. If I were a professor I certainly wouldn't release this translation and if I did I would hang my head in shame. There is in fact no Knittel. The translation is bad and pads the article with unnecessary quotes, as barbarus says.

During The Battle (Part II) After several days of fighting, Magistias, a Greek "seer", inspected the entrails of an animal sacrifice. It was custom of the Greeks to slice an animals underside and inspect its internal organs. By the shape and color of the organs of the sacrifice, the Greeks would determine whether the battle would end favorably for them (or not). On this day, however, Magistias inspected the sacrifice, and he told the Greeks in Thermopylae that death was destined to them at dawn. The Greeks, however, were unfazed by this grim omen. They were less concerned about living or dying, than they were with how many Persians they killed (apparently, this bad omen was referring to Ephialtes and his betrayal of the Greeks). He was leading a large group of Persians through a "cow path" which was really unknown to many. This path would lead the Persians behind the Lacedemonians, ergo allowing the Persians to fight on both sides of the Lacedemonians. Many of the Greeks were arguing not to stay and fight the battle because it was suicidal, so Leonidas himself dismissed them. However the Spartans,the Thespians, and the Thebans alone were staying to fight. The Thebans were not wanting to fight but Leonidas was holding them hostage by their word. The Thespians however, declared that they would not leave Leonidas behind and that they would fight to the death beside him and the Spartans. Demophilius, son of Diadromes, was the general of them. This section has been translated from Herodotus, and then explained by Mr. Gregory J Knittel, Ph.D.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Probable phony citations

These citations were not in the article when I left it. I'm the classicist who worked on it. I had a long discussion with a national of a related foreign nation who wanted to alter the story as Herodotus told it to make the Persians look substantially different from the ones the Greek related seeing. Then I left the article. Now I find these Herodotean paragraphs in here. For those who do not know any Greek they may seem legitimate. Here they are:

On the one hand these men in this way had intended to make this; on the other hand the Greeks were in Thermopylae fearing this. When Xerxes was near the pass, the Greeks were planning an escape. He knew that the Peloponnesians having come to Peloponnesus were guarding the Isthmus. Leonidas with the Phocians and Locrians having been very much angered by the opinion of the man himself was voting to both remain and send messengers to the city ordering them (Peloponnesians) to come to aid, since they themselves were too few to ward off the army of the Medes. With the Greeks planning these things, Xerxes was sending a rider(scout) to see how many there were and what they might do. He, still being in Thessaly had heard how the small army having collected might still be there, and that the leaders might both be the Lacedemonians(Spartans) and Leonidas of the race of Heracles. And when the horseman rode to the camp, he was looking down and was not seeing the whole camp, for he was not able to look down upon those having been stationed within the wall, which they having built were guarding. This was known as the Phocian Wall. He was noticing them outside, and their weapons were lying in front of the wall.
The Spartans happened to have been stationed outside at the time. He was indeed seeing some of the men exercising and some of the men combing their hair. The men were wrestling because they were preparing for battle. This was their form of stretching before going to fight. They were also combing their hair because they did not want to be pulled down by their hair while fighting in battle. Clearly the scout running was admiring these things and noticed the number of men. Having seen everything exactly he departed back to Xerxes undisturbed; for no one exhibited concern or found him as a threat. He having gone away was speaking to Xerxes all the very things which he had seen. Xerxes, hearing this, did not hold the ability to comprehend the facts, that the Spartans were preparing both to be killed and to kill to the best of one's ability. Since they were seeming to cause laughter to him (it was humorous to Xerxes to find out that the Spartans were preparing for battle by wrestling and combing hair), Xerxes sent for Demaratus the son of Ariston, being in the Persian camp. Xerxes was asking him having come to each of these things, wishing to know what the Spartans were doing.

For lack of a better word I use the term attempted translation of Herodotus Book 7 Paragraph 207 and part of 208, which begins "Houtoi men de ..." 1) This is a very poor translation; in fact, I hesitate to call it a translation. A translation is expected to be good English, which this is not. Neither is it good Greek. The translator misinterprets most of it. No sincere English speaker who has studied Greek would offer these passages as a translation of Herodotus. This raises the question of sincerity. The passages are inserted without connective sentences or explanation after their content already has been summarized above. They are, in other words, out of place. They repeat what has already been summarized. As they are out of place and are mistranslations and bad English I have concluded that they are either vandalism or the efforts of a speaker whose first language is not English and does not speak it very well but who is very persistent. They already have found some adverse mention in the comments of others above, who know, perhaps, no Greek, but know that something is wrong. Since this has been an article much vandalized I propose that we take out the additions, which I have done, listing them here for future reference.Dave 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)