Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

• Battle of the Alamo Texan/American
• Battle of the Tennis Court British/Indian (turning point of Burma campaing).

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

• Battle of Wizna
• Battle of Zadwórze

--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)

comment

The 300 men led by King Leonadis were not fighting a last stand. They were buying time for the rest of Sparta and the Greeks to assemble their armies.--the preceding unsigned comment was left by 68.3.29.2 (Talk) 01:42, 9 April 2007

As I've heard it, they were buying time to evacuate surrounding area, especially Athens. Either way, they were fighting a 'last stand', in that they didn't actually expect to win.--Xiaphias 07:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst Article I've Ever Seen On Wikipedia

This is quite possibly the worst article I've seen anywhere on the internet in a long time. I would make suggestions of how to improve it but the whole damn things needs a re-write, this time maybe with some accurate information instead of nonsense. Even the cited info is usually from unreliable sources. If I handed in an article written like this at my university, my history professor would laugh at it and stamp with an F on the spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.188.60 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably one of the worst articles ever

This article is a very poor article that needs to be reviewed! This article is spreading lies to the people and giving the Iranians a bad name. This is why wikipedia never works because everyone who wants write something, and the administrators go with their own opinion! We demand a change!

The Iranians are not the Persians. The ancient Egyptians are not the modern Egyptians. One hardly needs to add that the same applies to all the peoples of the planet -- including the Greeks. It is one thing to learn about and from History; it's quite another thing to be obsessed by it. The article is fine. (If you think it's not, please point out specific weaknesses, instead of dismissing it in such general terms.) The Gnome 06:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran has always been Iran, it's you people that call them Persia or Persians. This article is poor, and it wouldn't be worth if I mentioned what was so bad about it because then again, the administrators here do whatever they want, and everyone can write what they want on wiki, therefore, that's why I dislike wiki. :) FYI, Xerxes was Iranian.

Modern day Greeks bear more resemblance to the Byzantine Empire's inhabitants, than to the Ancient Greeks. Likewise, modern day Iranian's are very different to Ancient Iranians: ethnically, the Arab conquests changed the population (and I believe 10% of Iranian's are Sunni, which reflects direct Arab lineage - lets not forget about the Kurds and the Azeri's that are also "Iranian") - Islam itself replaced the religion of the Ancient Iranians. The Persian Empire is a historically to separate different periods of the history of the Iranian people - it's not about what people at the time called themselves, it's what we in the present day classify them as. Culturally and geographically, present day Iran is the inheritor of the Persian Empire, but modern day Iran is very different from Ancient Iran. As for you comments about not liking wikis, this is precisely the reason why I love wikis - content control is decentralized, which prevents nationalistic and uneducated editors controlling the interpretation of information for the rest of the world. Elias 06:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki's loyal gnomes try their best to ensure that the material is worthy of an encyclopedia. The fact that Wiki articles are widely cited online and in written works proves the excellent quality of the articles, a result of the effort of Wiki's contributors.The other points you raised have already been addressed by Elias, above. Please also look up the entry on the Iran naming dispute. The Gnome 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I realize that this article touches on a culturally sensitive issue of West vs. East and Europeans vs. Persians, which has lasted for over a couple thousand years. On a sensitive issue like this, one side's heroes are the other side's villains, and one side's pride is the other side's disgrace, and one side's monument is an insult to the other side. I think this article is extremely well-written and informative. Perhaps you feel indignified by this article because of your heritage? For your information, I am neither European nor Persian (or Arab.) I am Chinese, so I neither care for the European or Persian point-of-view on this matter. I read it as it is, with a cold and distant objectivity. ktchong

Why I agree with your characterization of "West vs. East" article, it doesn't have to biased if it has first hand information from both sides. See the (certainly biased in its tone) article about Charles Martel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.67.168 (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why yes, the Persians employed vast numbers of Aviation squads, the 101st to the 115th, to be exact. They were all SU-37's, with the exception of the 115th, which was newer, and therefore, had the then experimental F-14. The Greeks countered this with A FUCKING STONEHENGE. Zero R 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You actually believe 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,Imagen this,7000k Greek soldiers in a mountain cliff killing over 10k Persians,what happened 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 slaughtered.

You seems to think 300 Spartans stormed 250k or 1 million Persians for 3 days.

Quezcatol 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Yeah, I suppose "View Source" means you can edit, right?

Well, you could register for an account; or you could write a revision and post in on this talk-page, if you'd prefer. --Xiaphias 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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) i thought this was in retaliation for the Athenians supporting a revolt against the Persian empire in modern day turkey

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).

Herodotus' citations

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

Probable phony citations

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

Fortune of Leonidas

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

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 exaggerated 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 shit. 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 exaggerated, 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 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)

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 expeditionary 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}

I think we are forgetting the significence of this battle regardless of the numbers it is quite obvious that the greeks were out numbered and they stood there ground. Instead of spending time arguing i think you should respect the fact that alot of brave men died for honour and glory and in my opinion king Leanidus and his men are a role model to us all and how we should lead our lives.

What you've ogt to remember that the boats in the fleets of about 1,000 ships usually conatin between 50-1000 men (round about) and that not alot of people could count very well, well at least persians after all almost ALL of the persian army ways slaves. So they wouldn't recieve any education and there fore the number could be exaggarated to either add more troops or take away troops. At that moment in time Xerxes was the most powerful person in the world and had the biggest empire, so getting soldiers of that scale wouldn't b much of a problem. Also we don't know anyone from that time and i dought that many pieces of parchment from those days would survive untill now, so lets work with the numbers we're given. BTW this was a good debate/discussion :)

Accuracy?

descriptions of the battle are derived solely from the Greeks, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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 sock puppet of the person who has been vandalizing 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)

• slap* I suck =( --Scottie theNerd 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually what the first guy's comment is correct. If you look at the Persian Grecian war article it explains that the current statistical knowledge is based on pretty much on only Herodotus's findings (he wasnt even alive at the time of the battles)and that his results were based on interviews 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 portrayal as "heroic", 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 opportunities 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. After all 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 frigging 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)

Everyone pretty much thinks the 2 million number is exaggerated, but there is no reason for the reference to be removed, its a reference to the only historical text available, by one of the few people to be considered the father of history. Although his accounts were not of the same historical accuracy of lets say :Thoukidedes, it is information on a historical text pertaining to the battle and by no means should it be removed. Thelveres 07:49, 04 0ctomber 2007 (UTC)

The article does state right beside the table where the numbers are quoted from, and there is a section on more modern (and hopefully accurate) estimates right below it. So I think we're covered :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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 until 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 discussion of real events. Hakikev 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Thermopile 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."

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)

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)

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).

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. Archaeologists 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)

Perhaps something should be done about people with (baselessly assumed) vested interests who comment in an uninformed manner about wiki entries. One immediate evidence of our "commentator's" ignorance is his spelling of "Herodotus". The Gnome 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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 [4] 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 [5] [6] 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.37.85 (talk • contribs)

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)

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.

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)

There is actually an incorrect fact in the lead that needs to be fixed.
The subsequent Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis left much of the Persian Empire's navy destroyed and Xerxes I was forced to retreat back to Asia.
Xerxes was forced to camp over the winter so he could renew the offensive. He then got word that there was trouble in Babylon and took his army home to prevent a revolt. Wayne 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the final paragraph of the Lead needs some work, as the phrasing is generally appalling. Instead of: "There is also a large political significance of the Battle of Thermopylae, in that it was the first defining moment in which the disunified Greek city states first came together to form a significant alliance. It also possibly signified the beginning of the end for the Persian empire - drawing strength from the Battle, the Greeks began forming assaults against the Persian Empire, as a national body rather than small city states."

I suggest : "The Battle of Thermopylae also had great political significance, in that it was the first instance of disunified Greek city-states coming together to form an alliance. It was also a possible indicator of the decline of the Persian Empire. Gaining morale from the battle, the Greeks began assaulting the Persians as a national body rather than as individual city states."

However, that is just a rewording. Anyone else who thinks they can do better should consider these points: That the first sentence doesn't make grammatical sense ("...a large political significance of the...", "the first defining moment in which the disunified Greek city states*should be hyphenated* first came together...", "a significant alliance.") That the Persians won the battle. It was definitely a loss in terms of casualties etc. But is it really fair to say it signalled 'the beginning of the end" for the Persian Empire? Did the Greeks really draw strength from the loss at Thermopylae? It sounds like the wrong word to me. And if this strength was indeed drawn from Thermopylae, does it have anything to do with the Greeks beginning to fight the Persians as a national body, and is it accuurate to use the term 'national body'? Additionally, should the word 'Battle' be capitalised in the last sentence, and are assaults formed or launched? (Or some other verb) PartyAtMothers 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The tags you added[7] 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 {{Fact}} tags wherever the reference is unknown and 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 [8]. 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 [9], Ctesias Persica (it is paragraph 26 that refers to the battle) [10]. 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)