Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legend/myth?

Could this possibly be just a legend. Simply thinking about it logically 200 000 soldiers no matter how weak, unprepared, unarmed, malnourished, strategically screwed would be able to crush a measly 4000 soldiers (50:1 odds). However herodutus (responsible for much of the information) claimed that there were not 200 000 persians but 2.5 million, as stated by the historians this is quite impossible. So, if he made such a huge mistake in the number of the persians how is anything he wrote credible? According to the story, the Persians however had a powerful army of immortals. To me there is very little evidence on this 'event' and its just too far fetched. 90% of the info on this article is based on a GREEK historian. Propaganda and nationalism is quite common.

All I'm saying is that this story should stay in comic books (and movies) and out of the history books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.188.102 (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you are saying is the modern pattern of reading history. You automatically assume that everything that seems to grand to be true is. There are many accounts of vastly outnumbered armies who withstood amazing odds. Things like terrain, preparation, and valor play a large account in wars. Most anceint historial accounts are found in writers who were themselves of the nationality in which the account is about. We would have to deny most ancient historical accounts if we used your standard. I think you make a mistake in assuming that people of the past were so much more gullable than we are. They understood the odds the same as you do, but yet the contemporaries of the time still found it to be a credible account. This is likely because of eye-witnesses, relatives who died at the battle and the sight of the dead soldiers on the field.

The truth of the matter is the Spartans were known for their amazing military state and preparation, and it was enough so that people of the day took the account as credible. Likely it wasn't as great as odds as has often been said but it was an amazing last stand nevertheless. You have shown nothing to simply discredit the entire account from happening.

Be careful in disrespecting ancient heroes and valiant men simply because of your default skepticism of anything that you deem too great to be true based on your modern day arm-chair analysis. I have found historians and archeologists are not as precise and credible as is popularly believed. They too often put their own spin and interpretation on data, do not agree on conclusions, give greater weight to certain data then to others, and often create human error.

I don't automatically discredit the ancients just because they were ancient. Nor do I accept modern day accounts just because they're modern. The article is fine as it is: A depiction of an ancient battle that took place which is a mixture of legend, myth, and reality. No one can of a certainty know what aspects of the account are fully true and false. The article clearly says this as it presents the information with hesitation and has an entire section on the legendary aspects of it. --70.136.84.179 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I know that this may be out of place due to the insanely large archived talk pages, but many parts of this page are suspect. the sources they cite are mostly accurate history, but some of it is dramatized, and I don't believe that its safe to assume that simply because the book is "mostly" accurate that it can be cited with any authority.

for example, a book often cited is Persian Fire by Holland. This book is not 100% factual, and thus I have concerns using it as a source. I mean, really? Earth and water tributes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.17.141 (talk • contribs)

Almost everything in the article comes ultimately from Herodotus. Since he is by far and away the major source of information for the Greco-Persian Wars, what other option do we have? Of course some things should be taken with a pinch of salt, for instance, as is made clear, Herodotus's numbers.

Also, what on earth do you mean by "I don't believe that its safe to assume that simply because the book is "mostly" accurate that it can be cited with any authority."?? If we are not allowed to use works of history to write articles, what are we supposed to cite then? As for Persian Fire - what do you mean by "not 100% factual"?? Everything in the book can be traced back to the ancient sources - so it is as factual as the ancient sources are. Just because it is a work of narrative history does not mean it is a work of fiction.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for inclusion of "Symbolic Greek victory"

Even though the Battle of Thermopylae was a Persian victory in strategic sense, I would dare to suggest an inclusion of "Symbolic Greek victory" into the battle box. I don't think anyone can deny that the Battle of Thermopylae served as something of a rallying cry for Greeks in the wake of the Persian advance. Certainly, the Greeks were defeated, but the battle was not one sided, as the numerically inferior Greek army - with a core force of the 300 Spartans - inflicted great casualties for the Persians, which quite certainly played part in the battle's role as something of a rallying cry for Greeks against the Persians. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In some terms yes, particularly of slowing down the Persian incursion. The narrow pass fits good for that and the Greeks occupied it beforehand. That was one of the reasons why the Persians attacked from the Greek rear. Xerxes was initially unaware of the pass guarded by Phocians and was informed only by traitor. According to George Cawkwell, The Greek Wars, the penetration of Thermopylae was a serious disadvantage and presented a most difficult strategic problem.[1] The choice of that pass absolutely precluded the use of Persian cavalry. The Persians even hired some Greek infantry.[2] Brandt 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "victory" has a simple meaning and what you are doing is WP:OR. See this example which shows what victory means.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we can add a referenced note to the result in the infobox, specifying the situation. I cited two sources above, so don't see any OR. Please don't compare this issue with Armenia-Azerbaijan, that's completely another tale. Brandt 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about exactly? war is war, though the difference of the example with this ancient war is that the example was a "liberating war". On comparison, you made a mistake. The tale is the same though the tail is different. The "result of a war" does not need wikipedia editors OR. An ongoing discussion is just above this section: that some people want to remove "decisive" which has to be put there again.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the victory was decisive. Just to cite one of the sources, M. A. Dandamaev, W. J. Vogelsang, A political history of the Achaemenid empire:

According to Herodotus, Xerxes waited four days, in the hope that the Greeks would withdraw... After these four days he sent in his troops for a frontal attack. [...] For the whole day the troops of Xerxes attacked the Greek positions. The places of the fallen were taken over by replacements, but the attack remained without success and eventually the Persians were forced to withdraw after suffering heavy losses. Xerxes sent his Immortals, headed by their general Hydarnes. These troops could not spread out their ranks in the small gorge, and found themselves in the same hopeless position as their predecessors. In addition, their lances were shorter than those of the Greeks. As a result the attack was thrown back.

The same source testifies that there were frontal attacks for three consecutive days with no effect until external aid. So certainly not a decisive victory, just a victory. I also support the insertion of superlinear note to the result string, clarifying the circumstances. Brandt 14:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not know what you are talking about. You are copy-pasting. So what? Read it. Maybe twice. Maybe you compare the issue with the example above. Maybe you just visit "Wictionary". And no you do not add. The result was indeed decisive. Moreover read WP:OR carefully. You, as a wikipedean, are not entitled to deduce any conclusion even if seemingly true. WP:RS is what works here. Re/|\writing history is of course a common practice but not in an encyclopedia whose purpose is a bit different. Read the article which is indeed based on Herodotus. After reading and seeing what "over all" happened, then come back.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So the battle lasted 3 or four days, and? at the end of the battle the Persians were in possession of the field, and the Greeks were not in a position to stop their continued advance. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already read the article and currently there is no "decisive" Persian victory because even the intro says, that "during two full days of battle, the small force led by King Leonidas I of Sparta blocked the only road by which the massive Persian army could pass". However I am just offering a note for the result as above. We don't need an "entitling to deduce any conclusion", it's just an editorial judgment. The Persians, unaware of alternate route, were in possession of the field because of well-sourced enemy guidance - even the frontal attack of Immortals was fruitless. There was a certain tactical Greek advantage. Brandt 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why infobox does not say where? Maybe you did not notice it right below the underline: "For the details of the result see the third day". Brandt 14:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See manual of style. And who told you that "the third day" is the section on "results"? I do not see this practised in other War pages.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Scource needed.

I came across this line

"300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans and perhaps a few hundred others, the vast majority of whom were killed."

While every source i know of says the 300 Spartan royal guard 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans where the rear guard- i have never seen anything say that there where others. The part i have trouble with is "and perhaps a few hundred others" No citation, and its very unprofessional to say it like that.

75.185.110.253 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat

The statement in the WP:LEAD of the article is explained more fully in the rest of the text. Almost certainly, the Helots that the Spartans brought to the battle remained with the rearguard. Herodotus does not explicitly say that they came to Thermopylae with the Spartans, nor does he say that they remained with the rearguard. But he does admit at one point that there were dead Helots on the battlefield after the Persian victory. Most authors accept their presence at the battle and amongst the rearguard. There's no citation in the lead because it is properly explained and cited elsewhere in the article. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Allied Greek

"Allied Greeks block the advance of the Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae," having introduced the phrase there I suggest that for the rest of the article the word "Greek" is used instead of "Allied", Because of its use in the first and second world wars, the term "Allied" carries a cultural bias and in my opinion looks odd in this article because the term Greek is usually used when describing the Greek participation in the battle. A fact easily shown with a Google Book search which returns

• "776 on Thermopylae Allied." and the first book returned is "The Second World War: A Complete History" by Sir Martin Gilbert, and which contains "their evacuation made possible by the determined defence of Thermopylae by British, Australian and New Zealand units"
• "2,690 on Thermopylae Greek" and the first book returned is "The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories‎" by Robert B. Strassler

--PBS (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Loses

What were the losses on the Persian side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.140.226 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xashaiar and "decisive" victory

Stop changing it to a "decisive" victory. It is not. --Taraborn (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed decisive.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not unless the reliable sources say it was. How many then, say it wasn't? --Izno (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not decisive, the vast bulk of the Greek army withdrew before the Immortals swung around to the rear. When a army withdraws it can no longer be decisive. If anything it was a Persian pyrrhic victory- moral was shattered, Xerxes was unnerved, and much time was lost- part of his fleet was destroyed, rations where down, and he lost 10 men of his own army for every Greek killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.110.253 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and maybe you wanted to add...and that was the beginning of world democratic civilisation.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that when you lose 60% of a country to the enemy, as the Greeks did after Thermopylae, that might just be classed a decisive victory. I therefore agree with Xashaiar. 'Decisive' is not about how many people got killed, or what proportion got killed. There have been many decisive victories in history where very few people died (e.g. Battles of Saratoga) - a victory is judged by its results. In the case of Thermopylae, even if the Greeks had withdrawn with no losses, they had lost the only place their small army could defend outside the Peloponnesus. As a result of this (even if they were all alive) they still would have lost all of Boeotia, Phocia, Locris, Attica etc. That is a decisive defeat. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Persia2099 strikes again. He tries to add "desicive"[sic] to the Persian victory. See the article for the Battle of the Persian Gate. There he tries to push his POV by adding Pyrrhic to the Macedonian victory. Let's see, Alexander loses some troops and conquers a fully stocked Persepolis, the capital of Persia. Darius dies soon after and Alexander never faces a big Persian army again. On the other hand at Thermopylae, the Persian army is demoralised, suffers a lot more disproportionate losses, the navy suffers losses too. The Greek army makes gains in morale and in the knowledge that they can fight off the Persians eventually when they gather their forces. The rearguard saves the bulk of the Greek army from annihilation. The Persians march on an empty Athens and gain little. Eventually they are defeated. Yet this is a Decisive Persian victory while the Battle of the Persian Gate, according to Persia2099, is a Phyrrhic[sic] Macedonian victory. Two things are obvious. He needs to get a spell-checker and stop pushing his POV bias. Right now the Persian Gate says "Macedonian victory, though with heavy losses" and Thermopylae should say at least the same. At least! 89.210.162.151 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, your last comment needs to be read through do not do things just because you need a retaliatory act. Xashaiar (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What? I made a serious point. Please show me how there was consensus to make this a decisive victory? I also proved Persia2099 is pushing POV here and in similar articles. Unless you are a sock-puppet of his please provide some counter arguments. Also I just noticed that someone sneaked in the incorrect 80,000 figure by Ctesias. I read the article it references and it doesn't say 80,000. It says 800,000 and then it describes the various waves that supposedly attacked. And even those total way more than 80,000. So I'm removing that too until there's a proper reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.162.151 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Warrior4321, please respect the talk page and the consensus and do not revert to POV pushers. I wouldn't mind you removing the heavy casualties bit if you had the courage and honour to also remove it from the Battle of Persian Gate article, which deserves it even less. But you don't. Also you undid the Ctesias number correction without offering any reason at all. I read the page at Livius org and it gives the Persian force at 800,000 men and 1000 ships and some chariots. The account is garbled. It later gives the Persian force at Plataea at 120,000 so there had to be much more at Thermopylae. Ctesias also numbers the Greeks at Plataea at "only 300 Spartiates, 1000 perioeci, and 6000 from the other cities". Obviously there's some confusion with Thermopylae going on here, supported also by the fact that Plataea took place after Salamis and not before as the text of Ctesias seems to indicate. The best interpretation imo is that Ctesias is talking about Thermopylae when he says 120,000 Persians and not Plataea. Even that is more than 80,000, a number that was reached by some POV pushing (now banned! look at archives) wiki editor by adding up the waves of attack. Even that was done poorly. Here's the entire text for those really interested, it's clear that he was doing OR...

[§27] Then Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, 800,000 men and 1000 triremes without reckoning the chariots, set out against Greece, having first thrown a bridge across at Abydus. Demaratus the Spartan, who arrived there first and accompanied Xerxes across, dissuaded him from invading Sparta. His general Artapanus, with 10,000 men, fought an engagement with Leonidas, the Spartan general, at Thermopylae; the Persian host was cut to pieces, while only two or three of the Spartans were slain. The king then ordered an attack with 20,000, but these were defeated, and although flogged to the battle, were routed again. The next day he ordered an attack with 50,000, but without success, and accordingly ceased operations. 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.

[§28] Xerxes sent another army of 120,000 men against Plataea under the command of Mardonius, at the instigation of the Thebans. He was opposed by Pausanias the Spartan, with only 300 Spartiates, 1000 perioeci, and 6000 from the other cities. The Persians suffered a severe defeat, Mardonius being wounded and obliged to take to flight. 89.210.162.151 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also remember that the size of the Persian army should include reserves. It doesn't matter if only part of it actually fought. What matters is how big their camp was on their side of the Hot Gates. This was precisely what the Greek tactic was meant to accomplish. And for what it's worth the Persians didn't lose the war because they were inferior men (they had strong and proud warriors), or slaves fighting free men or any other lame excuse. They lost because their advantages were neutralized. Their cavalry and chariots, their numbers, their archers. Bow and arrow was a very important weapon in the Persian army (the Greeks had very few skirmishers, mostly with slings and javelins), but it proved ineffective against the disciplined phalanx. I've seen a documentary where researchers reconstructed the Spartan linothorax (which is lighter and less encumbering than metal armor) and fired arrows at it at short range (point blank) at nearly perpendicular angles and they could barely produce mild wounding results. Imagine how ineffective arrows would be at long range and low angles of impact (leading to deflections). They also did tests on helmets and that's not even counting the big and heavy composite (wood, leather, metal) shield of the hoplites. In the end technology played as much role as tactics and if anyone would like a good historical fiction account I recommend Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield 89.210.162.151 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because another article has it is no reason that this article should. Don't use WP:OTHERS to justify your claims. "Decisive Persian victory" is the result of this battle, please leave it. warrior4321 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you not only reverted my change in this article against consensus, you also vandalized the article of the Battle of the Persian Gate to spite me (which is not just "another article" as you say but a supposedly similar battle article). I can no longer assume good faith from you in these matters. If you revert this again I will report you for vandalism and ask that you be blocked. If you want to discuss it please do so here (and at the other article). BTW WP:OTHERS doesn't seem to have any relevance here, perhaps you meant something else. Again read the archives of this talk page. There was no consensus to put "decisive" in. Persia2099 simply "vandalized" this page a while ago and attempts to correct him have been undone by other pov pushers such as yourself. Simanos (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

whats is this.....

hey wht a crap it is ? do u people live in 21st century or in 200 B.C. Dont tell me u guys still believe in those exeggrated early sources that says 500,000 troops ! How could on earth they gathered 500,000 troops ? do u guys have any concept of logistics ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Errrrrr...come again?

Who exactly are you addressing as "you guys"? Where have pulled the figure of 500,000 from? Why does it matter whether we have any concept of logisitics? Are you suggesting that it would be more reliable if we just made a figure up?

What any editor who has worked on this article believes is immaterial. Modern authors agree that the ancient estimates are over-exaggerated, but most of them still think the Persian force numbered around 200,000. If you don't believe that, then that's fine. But the numbers in the article reflect scholarly consensus, so there's not a lot to argue about.

Also, you might want to adopt a slightly more WP:CIVIL tone in future. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warrring

Is that how you want to play it? Call your buddies and start Wikipedia:Canvassing and edit warring attempts while not engaging in the talk page and falsely claiming of existing consensus? Simanos (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you can explain, GlassCobra, why you think the Battle of the Persian Gate was a Pyrrhic Macedonian Victory while the Battle of Thermopylae was a Decisive Persian victory. You made both changes yourself. It should be easy to explain it, go on. Give us the(your) definition of Pyrrhic Victory while you're at it. I'd love to hear all of this. Simanos (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

to BC or to BCE ? ;p

I foresee another edit war, but let's hope not. An editor with IP 81.232.69.135 changed all the BC to BCE. What is the wikipedia policy about this? Personally I prefer to use BCE for my stuff, but I vaguely recall that the consensus was to use whatever the original creator of an article used at the beginning or something like that. In any case the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Date#Year_numbering_systems says to use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article and there's a few BC left now. It also says do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors so... what does everybody think? Simanos (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to change the dates. They are back to BC. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ctesias

As I showed before at this talk page here's the entire text for the reference to Ctesias

[§27] Then Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, 800,000 men and 1000 triremes without reckoning the chariots, set out against Greece, having first thrown a bridge across at Abydus. Demaratus the Spartan, who arrived there first and accompanied Xerxes across, dissuaded him from invading Sparta. His general Artapanus, with 10,000 men, fought an engagement with Leonidas, the Spartan general, at Thermopylae; the Persian host was cut to pieces, while only two or three of the Spartans were slain. The king then ordered an attack with 20,000, but these were defeated, and although flogged to the battle, were routed again. The next day he ordered an attack with 50,000, but without success, and accordingly ceased operations. 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.

[§28] Xerxes sent another army of 120,000 men against Plataea under the command of Mardonius, at the instigation of the Thebans. He was opposed by Pausanias the Spartan, with only 300 Spartiates, 1000 perioeci, and 6000 from the other cities. The Persians suffered a severe defeat, Mardonius being wounded and obliged to take to flight.

It gives the Persian force at 800,000 men and 1000 ships and some chariots. The account is garbled. It later gives the Persian force at Plataea at 120,000 so there had to be much more at Thermopylae. Ctesias also numbers the Greeks at Plataea at "only 300 Spartiates, 1000 perioeci, and 6000 from the other cities". Obviously there's some confusion with Thermopylae going on here, supported also by the fact that Plataea took place after Salamis and not before as the text of Ctesias seems to indicate. The best interpretation imo is that Ctesias is talking about Thermopylae when he says 120,000 Persians and not Plataea. Even that is more than 80,000, a number that was reached by some POV pushing (now banned! look at archives) wiki editor by adding up the waves of attack. Even that was done poorly. Here's the entire text for those really interested, it's clear that he was doing OR... Also remember that the size of the Persian army should include reserves. It doesn't matter if only part of it actually fought. What matters is how big their camp was on their side of the Hot Gates. This was precisely what the Greek tactic was meant to accomplish. Simanos (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's just delete the paragraph then. It's a boring point anyway. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ctesias's description of the waves is dealt with in the Battle section where it belongs.Simanos (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions on significance and branding

Some questions that I think deserve to be answered in the article: (1) In the section Significance wouldn't the loss of 20,000 Persians be significant to future actions (or was the army so large that the fatalies were insignificant?) (2) Quoting "The king later had the Theban prisoners branded with the royal mark." The article also says "Persians ... had the habit of treating "valiant warriors" with great honor." So, what does the branding mean? WikiParker (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. You make 2 good points. That whole section is ridiculously POV imo. It says "However, within the context of the Persian invasion, Thermopylae was undoubtedly a defeat for the Allies, and one with disastrous consequences.[108] Whatever the Allies may have intended, it was presumably not their strategy to surrender all of Boeotia and Attica to the Persians." when it's clear that while important to the Greeks they also had follow-up strategies and used it as a delaying and demoralising action (and attrition). Proven by the fact that they eventually won the war. Later it says "Militarily, although the battle was actually rather negligible in the context of the Persian invasion, Thermopylae is also of some significance, on the basis of the first two days of fighting. The performance of the defenders is used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers." which is also an incorrect wording. The battle can't be thought of as negligible. It was an important victory for the Persians. It could have been much worse for them as is pointed elsewhere in the article. They could have failed completely. Also the Persian dead were significant. How can the battle be rather negligible in the context of the Persian invasion? It's like half the war(/battles). After this battle and the naval battle that happened concurrently the Persians fought like one more, maybe 2 if you count Mycale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Some Vandalism

Hello everyone. I just wanted to let you know that I removed some vandalism from the main page. Some idiot thought it would be funny to make mention of the KISS Army and Dr. Spock.150.203.111.98 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

The most important for infobox estimates of size of Persian army is to put:
1) Largest ancient estimates
2) Smallest ancient estimates
3) Largest modern estimates
4) Smallest modern estimates
...which I did. I don't force ALL estimates because I can name you at least ten historians who estimated it about 100,000 troops, so I request MinisterForBadTimes not to do the same with forcing "200,000" as sole number of modern estimates, because most historians estimated far smaller numbers. --93.143.43.119 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's look at this issue of numbers. Now, when we add all the sources you missed out of your table, things look a little different. Not all the estimates are lower that 100,000.

Now, if you sort the table by date (click on the top of the 'Year' column), you can see that......the most modern estimates revolve around a figure of 200,000. Just like it says in the article.

Not all sources are equal. Wikipedia requires use of the most up-to-date, reliable sources. This is why we can safely discount Herodotus, for instance. Similarly, modern historians (let us say, those active since the 1960's, for the sake of argument) generally discount Delbruck and Fischer's very low estimates.

Historian	Number	Year	Notes
Claudio Stecchini	600,000	1960	"In my opinion, the King decided to double the normal table of organization of the Persian army, which was 300,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry, plus about one non-combatant for each combatant." Stecchini
J.R. Munro	300,000	1929	"When Gobineau questioned the figures cited by Herodotos and other ancient writers, he submitted a solid argument that was accepted by Macan and fully developed by J. A. R. Munro in 1902." - Stecchini
J.M. Cook	300,000	1983
NGL Hammond	242,000	1988
Peter Green	210,000	1996
Frederick Maurice	200,000	1930
J. B. Bury	180,000	1963
Ulrich Wilcken	100,000	1924
Eduard Meyer	100,000	1900
Helmut Berve	100,000	1951
Gaetano De Sanctis	100,000	1940
J.F. Lazenby	93,000	1993
Ernst Obst	90,000	1914
Karl Julius Beloch	60,000	1893
W. W. Tarn	60,000	1908
Hans Delbrück	55,000	1887	"Later he was so encouraged by the praise bestowed upon him as a pioneer by Eduard Meyer and Beloch, that he reduced the maximum to 25,000, adding that the correct figure probably was between 15,000 and 20,000." - Stecchini
Robert von Fischer	40,000	1900
Hans Delbrück	15-25,000	1920	"Later he was so encouraged by the praise bestowed upon him as a pioneer by Eduard Meyer and Beloch, that he reduced the maximum to 25,000, adding that the correct figure probably was between 15,000 and 20,000." - Stecchini

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No modern estimates revolve around a figure of 200,000, but 50-100,000. You are constantly reffering to Tom Holland POV who is actually NOT historian, but fiction author who writes about vampires. Only 19th century scholars estimates number over 200,000, but 20th & 21th century scholars estimates it 50-100 thousand. By the way, did you read ANY of those books you had refereed, or you just put it randomly, ha? I read it ALL, so I confirm you're a LIAR. --93.143.28.5 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read them at all - you just copy and pasted them from Stecchini's on-line essay (conveniently ignoring Stecchini's own estimate). Unless of course you are fluent in German, French, Italian and English. As well, presumably as Croatian? MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You should understand that term "modern historian" is not the same as "modern cell phone" or "modern car" - all of those listed historians are considered as "modern" in academic circles. I personally as a historian also discount Delbruck and Fischer's low estimates, but that's just my personal opinion like your (200,000). As I said, you're forcing Holland' citation which is absolutely historical irrelevant. P.S. Interesting thing is, if you add together all those eighteen estimates and divide it with 18, you'll get little more then 141,000 troops. --93.143.28.5 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Is it also conventional in academic circles to call people who disagree with you 'moronic' and a 'liar'? 2) Even if we do average the numbers (not a particularly academic method), it still not the same as 50-100,000, is it? MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two sources there from within the last 20 years: Green and Lazenby. Lazenby's figure agrees with 93.143.28.5's assertion, while Green's figure (the most recent one given by MFBT) is around 200,000. 93.143.28.5, it would be useful to list some of the people who agree with 50,000 to 100,000 and the works those numbers are given in.

On the issue of Holland: in fairness, he isn't mentioned in the above table at all. However, he is used in the article, and if he's the same person that the Tom Holland (author) article is on, I would suggest that better sources are found. He may fit within Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, but there are better books out there written by people with qualifications in ancient history which Holland does not have. On a different note, using sources as old as the 19th century is not ideal as the discipline of ancient history has moved on a lot in over 100 years. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose unsurprisingly, I don't find the use of Holland problematic here. He merely states that modern historians generally plump for figures around 200,000. He makes no assertion of his own. In coming to this conclusion, he considers at least the last 4 books/chapters published on the subject, other than his own (Cook, Hammond, Lazenby and Green). What better sources do you want me to find - the last four academic works published on the subject - as cited above?

Even if you consider only the last two books published as Nev1 suggests, then the range of estimates is clearly 93,000-210,000, and NOT the 50,000-100,000 proposed by [Special:Contributions/93.143.28.5|93.143.28.5]]. However, if you consider, the last 30 years and last four books (say), you get something like 93,000-300,000. If the middle of this range is NOT 200,000, then I'm a very confused person indeed. We can go back as far as you like, but the range will just get bigger and more pointless. The most modern authors clearly do not say 50,000-100,000. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see:

Revision as of 00:06, 14 December 2009 (edit) 93.143.43.119 (talk) (If you are favoring 5.2 million rather then 20.000 people who had fought in FOURTEEN METERS WIDE pass, then you have some serious issues!)

14 meters wide. Doesn't it say about 100 meters wide in the article? Not to mention that it doesn't matter how wide the pass was. What matters is how big the armies were on either side of it. Of course not all fought at the same time. Many people went through a battle without firing a single shot in recent wars. Go away please. I see you are a sock puppet and blocked. MFBT does a good job people (even when I disagree with him). Simanos (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In Regards to Greek numbers, Lacedaemonians are Spartans, so they should be listed as one. Helots were their slaves and Perioeci were basically free peasants. It's a small issue but I do not like misinformation being passed around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwwalters2002 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha that link you gave says: It is based on material from the Wikipedia article "Battle of Thermopylae"., good going dude, you made me laugh. Epic Fail on source finding. Evenyour own link though contradicts your claim of 15000 Persians. Read it. Again, it doesn't matter how many actually fought, but how big the encampments were. That's the whole point of a choke-point. I normally talk with IPs, but you've proven to be an insulting IP hoper of a banned user so until you create an account in wikipedia I will assume you're a sock-puppet and revert your changes. If anyone else reads this and doubts me just go and check the IP talk pages and contributions. As I showed above you'll find ample evidence this one is not wikipedia editor material. End of contact. Simanos (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the (actual) road may have been big enough for 1 chariot only, but the whole pass and the walls (fortrifications) were bigger. And epic fail on your math skills too. Let's see you say 50 soldiers for 14 meter wide pass, by 5 days. 30 seconds for its soldier means 24x60x2=2880 multiplied by 5 days that's 14400 (this is probably where you drew your number of 15000). But you said 50 soldiers at a time which means 720.000 total (14400x50). Get a life please. Simanos (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not active in discussion in this article, i was just passing by and saw a troops size with reference to modern "estimates" to be 100,000-250,000 ! and i said like "crap".

100,000 sounds possible but who said that 250,000 ? i wonder he was a historian or just a 300 fan. I mean do we understand technology here ??? 2300 years back were they able to concentrate this large gathering of living things ?

Its not actually about wht so called mighty persian empire could raise depending upon its vast population its about were they actually logistically capable of doing so ?

you dont just gather 200,000 men, you pay them, you feed them, they piss and shit as well, they drink water they need maintainance they need encampments and their camps need to be carried away by carts or animals while on march so thats an additional load, who will do all this ? who will organize this mega event in the age of "no technology". From where they will get 400 tons of food every day for their 200,000 men and 1 million gallons of water for men, (animals might need more then that) okey we have rivers for water but wht about food ? will they carry with them food for 3 months ? did they had refrigerators ? or were they using canned food ? and try calculating how many tons of shit will they do every day (sorry for slang) i mean you will hv 150 tons of shit every day spreading along their way of march or around their encampment ... its funny isnt it but its a fact, and think about a swimming pool that will be created by 1 million gallons od human and animal urine .... now try finding out wht could be possilbe conditions of their encampment with 150 ton shit and a million gallon urine, no its not funny, these are facts, dont you think there would have been an epidemic in their camp ? which could heavily effect their 1/3 fighting force and mildly whole of their fighting men.

The ancient army commanders were obviously not a** H***s who will take this risk only to capture a small Balkan region with population less then a million, were they ? when this could happen by taking with them 20,000 or so excellently trained troops then why 200,000 ?

I mean only 15,000 muslim troops captured Byzantine egypt in 641 which was garrisoned by 25,000 byzantine troops. Sassanid Persia a region 10 time the size of balkan was captured by less then 30,000 Muslim troops and all these are modern estimates. (obviously they were regularly reinforced by fresh troops but their core strength never exceeded that figure)

see mongol conquest, less then 100,000 mongols captured middle east. It might have needed only 12,000-20,000 mongols to capture balkans if they had reached their 1500 years earlier at the time of spartans. Dont take ,e wrong i have great respect for all the warriors of the ages but my point of saying is that When greeks mentioned 200,000 troops they intended to glorify their vigor and military prowess because it makes no sense for Persians to take such a large force across 500 Km just to capture a small region of the size of a 1000 football grounds.

So try finding some neutral and third party academic sources which have a sense-able estimate.

And by the way do ponder over wht i said about those shit and piss estimates they really make a point they are not funny... dont laugh.

Regards...

I have good experience writing articles on battles, when i was new i also use to stick to numbers like 200,000 Romans vs 24,000 Muslims but with my knowledge improved i saw no logic in those arguments and now its 80,000 vs 40,000. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As shown above, historians have a wide range of estimates but they are in the region of an order of magnitude less than the figure give by Herodotus. Herodotus' number (1,800,000 if you read the article, not 200,000) is not taken as the gospel truth. There are obviously questions about logistics etc with an army as large as 200,000, but I'm sure that the academics who have considered these numbers have thought about that. Wikipedia insists on using reliable sources, so our own opinions have no place in the article. Neutral third-party sources are already used in the article, there's no need to change that. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All the arguments above are WP:OR. What Mohammad Adil thinks is irrelevant. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wht about academics opinion ? it matters right

Well did some search, and i found this Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300 By Nic Fields and Steve Noon. Its a trusted publication. on page 44 it says 60,000-70,000.

Another was this one The Native population of the Americas in 1492 By William M. Denevan. Though not a book it self on thermopylae but quote an academic carlos beloch in foot notes who says the persian force never exceeded 50,000. It make no sense to me that those who said 200,000 had some thing in their mind, that they come up with this figure, check if they are reliable or not because u will agree tht there are authors who hv an axe to grind, or just are simply FAN of sparta. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

and yes some guy above was saying Holland was a novel writer ? is tht true ? is he reliable, a novel writer ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to Denevan, he may be a good scholar, but an article on the native population of the Amaericas in 1492 is far from reliable regarding the Battle of Thermopylae. The opinion of academics is explained in the table above; the three most recent studies listed (NGL Hammond 1988, J.F. Lazenby 1993, and Peter Green 1996,) give figures of 242,000, 93,000 and 210,000: an average of over 180,000. Hammond at least was a Professor and contributed to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and you don't get much more serious than that. I'm afraid you haven't proven that the sources used by the article are unreliable. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

you saw the wrong one did you saw the one by Osprey Publishing ??? And i wasnt refering to Denevan but the scholar carlos beloch whom he was quoting. any ways leave him, do you want other sources that say 100,000 ??? there are plenty of them available.

Moreover the most trusted military history publication osprey publisher's book says 60,000-70,000 wht you thoughts about it ?

Osprey publications are generally NOT considered reliable sources. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

as for the reliability of current sources, i will check it shortly. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not that there aren't people who say the Persian army was about 60,000, but Holland says that most historians pick a figure around the 250,000 mark. Those who choose around 60,000 are a minority. The article has to reflect academic consensus, and if most historians choose around 250,000 that is what the article should say. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

so lets make them a majority....

Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: a history of the Persian Empire‎

page.527 says 60,000

Nic Fields, Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300‎

page 44 says 60000 to 70000

Mortimer Chambers, The Western experience‎

Page 61‎ says 60,000

William Ledyard Rodgers, Greek and Roman naval warfare: a study of strategy, tactics, and ship design‎

Page 110 says 60000 to 70000

Ernle Bradford, Thermopylae: the battle for the West‎

Page 226 says 60000 to 70000

Paul Cartledge, Thermopylae: the battle that changed the world‎

Page 110 says 80000

Raphael Sealey, A history of the Greek city states, ca. 700-338 B.C.‎

Page 208 says 80,000-100,000

Rupert Matthews, The Battle of Thermopylae: a campaign in context

Page 211 says 100,000

While there are a same number of sources that says 100,000 troops (at least 15, i foind).

And yet again a same number of writer can be found that says 200,000 ! its hard to prove the intentions of such pathetic writers who go against the establish norms of modern military history. So it will be better to give a long range of estimates for the Persian army and leave it to a reader to believe any one of them i.e if he is a fantasy fan 200,000 will make him happy and if he is a serious student of military history then a more realistic estimate will at least calm him down.

Any thoughts ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're cherry picking sources to support your position. We have a source saying that the majority pick around 250,000; the author doesn't give his own opinion on numbers but sums up what other people think. If you have reason to doubt his assessment fine, provide a source where someone else states something contrary, because what you're doing is synthesising your own answer. And what evidence do you have that writers who choose 250,000 have an axe to grind? By asserting that the likes of Hammond are "pathetic", it sounds as if you have an axe of your own. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First u said its minority view but when i made it a majority view by giving academic sources (no matter if they are cherry picked they are reliable and give a clear cut estimate and that wht matter on wikipedia can u prove them unreliable ? if not then just accept them. ) You said i hv my own axe to grind, yes i have my axe to grind but its in the name of NPOV and nothing else, u hv checked my contibution history do i look like i have any sympathetic relation to persians ? I am pakistani and both persia and pakistan starts with P and thts the relation i have with persians :)

I already said, (try reading my post carefully i hate repeating myself) that its hard to prove wht intention a writer hv when he says 200,000 So tht was end of story regarding Hammond i dont know he is reliable or not nor did i hv any right to give a verdict, but i have a right to correct a thing if its wrong, and tht i will inshallah.

As for tht i am synthesizing my answer, so are you buddy ! u apparently ignored all other sources and picked the one tht satisfied you a 200,000 men source ! (it means 150 tons of shit a day i.e equal to 75 elephants or some thing like 10 F-16 jet fighters plans lolzz.)

Any ways try being a neutral dude pick a consensus of sources i.e give a whole range of estimates from the lowest to the highest.

25,000 can be consider as a minority case similarly the 50,000 estimate, give a range wht most scholar give i.e they starts from 60,000 and till 200,000 ( try giving a sold reference other then holland, novel writer ! ) make it some thing like 60,000-200,000. We can have a 3rd opinion in case you disagree. Happy editing .... i am going to watch Unborn did you watched it :) ... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia, synthesis is when editors read sources and draw their own conclusions from them. This is what you have done; you have found a dozen sources and tried to refute Holland's statement. It is not allowed for editors to do this as we are not experts in a subject (we may be neglecting some sources etc) and Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing new ideas; Wikipedia's policy on verifiability insists that everything is cited. Your conclusion that the majority of people support a figure of below 100,000 should therefore not be part of the article. If you disagree with Holland, you need to either 1) produce another reliable source or equal or higher standing which says that the majority of academics hover support a figure below 100,000 as you claim or 2) prove that Holland is not a reliable source for summarising the opinions of either side.

While I agree that 200,000 is a large number (not necessarily one I think is likely), your opinion that it is wrong or that those supporting it are wrong is am assertion that doesn't belong in the article; encyclopaedias do not editorialise. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So here it is, which give a new range of estimate for persians after logically discussing the context,,,, Nic Fields, Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300‎' wht u gonna do now ?

careful examination of topography logistics (especially the essential matter of water supply) organization of the spada and official battle order enable historians to arrive at a reasonable figure for the persian forces thus xerxes 1700000 fighting men that crossed the hellespont are whittled down to 60,000-70,000 troops including 10,000 horsemen to which can be added 10,000-20,000 for thracian and greek allies picked up en route. similarly 1200000 strong royal army of Artaxerxes II Mnemon at cunaxa was in reality no more then 60,000. (Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300, page 44.)

There you go now wht ?

Lets see wht wikiboard decides of holland. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's still not addressing what the majority of historians think. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

now dont be childish you are arguing for sake of argument grow up okey dude !

Can i speak on behalf of whole of united states ? can i ?

So how can a historian speak on behalf of others ?

By the way do u understand english ? whts this one mean tell me ...

enable historians to arrive at a reasonable figure for the persian forces

I though you were a native speaker but ur english seems worst then mine, or r u doing it intentionally ??

Dont act like a jerk put some effort and weight to your argument buddy ! الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A historian can summarise other people's opinions if he reads them, it's really quite simple. The source you provided does not talk about majorities. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

lolz it isnt making sense dude try something else or lets have a 3rd opinion !

Can i say me and user:Nev1 are going to watch Unborn ???? (who knows u may watch it any day but is it right to pull u along my side if only i am willing to watch the movie unborn ! ) الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You can take the matter to WP:3O if you wish. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about as fruitless an argument as it's possible to have. It really doesn't matter what ANYONE says, we still won't know how many men there were. I imagine several historians have driven themselves mad trying to prove that their view of Thermopylae is correct. I'm tempted just to put "a lot" in the infobox, and have done with it.

HOWEVER - Sealey, Cartledge, Briant and Chambers are all professors of ancient history from the last half century, and so their estimates should be taken into account. I will lower the figure in the infobox accordingly. In my opinion this somewhat devalues the point of having a figure, but it might keep people happy.

I will also remove the third opinion banner - If anyone is unhappy that this a third opinion, feel free to put it back. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Adil was indeed POV pushing, cherry picking, and the rest of it. I have just read Briant, and the figure of 60,000 he gives is for the Battle of Plataea...not Thermopylae. I don't really know whether we should trust any of his other figures either, though I haven't been to check the others out. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL where is Warrior4321 to issue NPA warnings when you really need them? What Adil did to Nev1 was certainly equal to what I did to the sock-puppet. Anyway, if you want to understand ancient history Adil remember that it is very vague. The ancients did indeed make grand plans many orders of magnitude bigger than what was going on in the middle-ages and dark-ages. Even poor historians like Herodotus give details of many years of planning and storing of supplies along the way (in Greece) the Persians did. The huge numbers are not completely discountable. Ancient Greeks were at their time one of the more numerous people around when you consider that they had colonized the entire Mediterranean and more. The Persian Empire had sent huge armies at other places too, you can't discount those as Greek elaborations. Even in civil wars Persian armies were reported to be huge. Now I won't tell you that there were 5 million that crossed over from Asia and 1,800,000 that reached Thermopylae, not even if you count all the settlers that came with the army and all the whores and children and servants and slaves. But if you include all those (on ship or land) it probably does amount to over a million. My opinion is that this was the plan to conquer Greece and the plan failed because they couldn't capture Athens's population. The Persian army couldn't stay for a long time to protect the conquering and resettling of the area and when it would leave the settled population would be open to attack from the Greeks. So after losing their naval superiority (and naval supply system) they had to turn tail and abandon all plans of conquest. So how many soldiers did the Persians have? I would say a lot :p especially if you include the navy. Certainly numbers unmatched in Byzantine times. Simanos (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I dropped tht source earlies, wht about Thermopylae 480 BC: last stand of the 300, page 44.) preview is available u cab check الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nic Fields bases his estimate on Lazenby's earlier work and comes up with a figure of 70,000–90,000, not 60,000–70,000 as you state above. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@User:MinisterForBadTimes

u should read again, Briant actually was trying to give the same figure for both the battles, like wise he estimates the size of naval fleet. So i wasnt POV buddy...

@Nev1 70-90,000 is by adding greek allies. by all means its still far below then 250,000 الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

i say sorry if i hurt some one...... i tend to be frank and this should not be taken as personal attack.

@user simanos

Hv ever saw any early muslim source ???? like Al-Tabari or Al-Waqidi for instance ???

They give 250,000 byzantine troops for Battle of Yarmouk. I dont know wht type of historians are writing greek history but i happen to find some serious historians on byzantine arab wars and they all are logical when it comes to numbers and primary sources.

Usually primary sources are simply discarded in case of numbers and i wonder why u guys still even naming them !

Muslim historians gave 200,000 persian troops at Battle of Qadisiyah, persia tht time had almost the same men power as it had during 480 BC no persian expeditionary army during zenith of Sassanid empire (when it was indeed larger then persian empire of 489 BC) reached more then 30,000 men. (modern estimates)

During those 1000 years between thermopolyae and Qadisiyah technology had advance a lot and if going your way persian must have been able to field an army larger then may be 500,000 !

Have you ever ponder who use to clear that 300 tons of human and animal feces and a million gallon urine from around the persian camp of 200,000 buddies ?

Oh epidemic didnt exit in those days right ? no bacteria or any thing......

These were my personal views just for sake of OPENING your vision of thoughts.

and by the way did they had canned food ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please do something with the placement of your sig, it's distracting. Why don't you place it at the end like other editors? Do you want to feel special?

During those 1000 years technology did not advance a lot. It probably degraded. The early Romans built marvellous things that the decadent empire of later years could not even imagine. From super-ships to complicated machines, the logistics of ancient armies were not worse than dark-ages armies sorry. The example you give of feces and urine is irrelevant. The countryside can swallow up that and more easily and with so many men the workload is spread around (each his own mostly).

Epidemics did exist, but also the health conditions were mostly better than what the dark-age xian armies had. Also the Persian army travelled in ethnic groups so each group wasn't bigger than 10-40 thousands.

Your personal views are welcome, but my (our) vision and thoughts does not need OPENING, especially not with caps. Why did you use capital letters? Maybe it's yours that needs "opening".

And BTW they didn't have canned food, but they did have other ways of preserving food (and most of the pre-campaign provisions included securing water supplies anyway). Why do you use such a lame sarcastic joke (canned food) to make your point? It only makes you appear childish when it falls apart instead of simply in error. Simanos (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are new to military history buddy because your views are still not mature enough to sense the diffuculties of management of armies specially with logistics and salaries.

lolz country side can swallow all the feces it mean u would go travelling miles away from camp side just to shit ! wht a brilliant idea for an alert troop, and then u will be clearing it lolz... who will fight ?

and did you said technology worsened ? if going your way then by 2050 we shell be using ice coolers instead of ACs hahaha.... grow up buddy science isnt like wht goes up comes down, when it goes up it stays up !

So your 2500 years old buddies didnt had the tecnhnologies that you seem to claim.

It make no sense that they were more able then medieval armies in terms of technology and methods its like ur new born is more good at football then you .... try some thing else to support your claims, be scientific and go read some military books or some thing ........ come out of fiction !

And btw do u have any military historian backing your childish VIEWS (bite me ... i am using caps again) on a new doctrine of ancient military capabilities or you are just shooting in the dark.

I hv my historians do you hv yours ? OR (take it again) you are all in one ...historian/scientist/archeologist/jerk/soldier/writer etc !

Next time come up with some sources to back yourself or for me its like talking to a 6th grade student who thinks Hercules was Heraclius ! الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All your arguments (the few that aren't childish insults) here are easily countered logically, but I will not waste my time to do so until you apologise Simanos (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad adil, I am officially warning you not to make personal attacks if you persist you will be blocked; please comment on the edit not the editor. I will also leave a note to the same effect on your talk page.

On a different note, Simanos is quite correct that technology went into decline towards the Dark Ages. Nev1 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

user simanos used harsh language against me first, so will plz u bother warning him as well,

As for dark ages, dark ages belong to europe specially western europe, it dosnt belong to medieval middle east (including persia) and Asia. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Simanos' post was fine, you were being deliberately antagonistic. Try to edit constructively. Nev1 (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It may look fine to you but for me it was crossing a civil limit in a literary discussion making it competitive rather then constructive. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, show us 1 false statement I made to attack you. I'm being frank, you're the one attacking people openly and veiled. Discuss like an adult or be treated like a child. Your edits to the article aren't bad, but you're ridiculing yourself in the talk-page. Simanos (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: (1) There are five six editors involved in the dispute (93.143.43.119 / Mohammad adil / MinisterForBadTimes / Nev1 / Cwwalters2002 / Simanos), but the guidelines at WP:3O limit it to disputes between two editors. (2) WP:30 guidelines limit its use to disputes being carried on with civility and good faith. (3) I would presume that MinisterForBadTimes's removal of the {{3O}} banner was meant by all disputants to be a withdrawal of the 3O request (it's not; the request must be manually removed from the WP:3O page, the banner's really just a notice that the request has been made) since no objections or reverts to his removal were made. Any one of those, but especially the first, is enough to disqualify this dispute for a WP:3O Third Opinion. If the dispute continues, then you might want to consider moving on to an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [Corrected by TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)]

I have added a long range of estimates for Persian army, just to make it more NPOV and that a reader could decide him self which figure sounds reasonable to him. I hope there would be no opposition to this.

I recommend using some other solid source for 200,000 figure other then holland, as suggested in this reliable source noticeboard [3], his prose may be excellent but he have no related academic degree in military history or some thing to be considered reliable at least in terms of figures.

I hope some one here have a back up references for 200,000 figure.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Thermopylae was a military confrontation

I think this edit needs to be discussed. It's pretty obvious that the Battle of Thermopylae was a military confrontation. Surely that's the definition of the word "battle". It's clumsy phrasing and unnecessary, so I suggest it is removed. Warrior4321, who made the edit, refers to the articles on the Battle of Greece and Battle of Musa Qala. While Battle of Greece is a Featured Article, that doesn't stop "The Battle of Greece was a World War II battle" from being repetitious and poorly written. The was promoted over two years ago, and from the evidence of the first sentence it needs a thorough copy edit. Battle of Musa Qala isn't so bad (at least it doesn't use the word "battle" twice in the very first sentence), but it's still clumsy and unnecessary. And it too was promoted nearly two years ago. Nev1 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about articles that need copy edit take a look at what was linked recently in the see also section of the Battle of Thermopylae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavan_Khind , now that is one crappy article imo Simanos (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First sentences of a lead shoud begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

The Battle of Thermopylae (pronounced /θərˈmɒpɨliː/, thər-MOP-i-lee; Greek: Θερμοπύλαι) lasted three days during the second Persian invasion of Greece does not tell the reader a quick summary of the battle. However, The Battle of Thermopylae (pronounced /θərˈmɒpɨliː/, thər-MOP-i-lee; Greek: Θερμοπύλαι) was a military confrontation in the second Persian invasion of Greece which was fought between an alliance of Greek city-states, led by Sparta, and the Persian Empire of Xerxes I which lasted three days. does inform the reader a quick summary of the entire article.

My objection isn't to summarising the battle, but to explaining that a battle is a military confrontation as if the reader won't understand the concept. How about this instead? It retains the summary, but ditches the "military confrontation" bit. Nev1 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm glad we could reach an agreement so quickly. warrior4321 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I think this version is better. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Battle of Thermopylae

In 190 BC the Roman Hegemony fought a fleet-battle at Thermopylae against Antioch III and the Seleucid Empire. This ultimately led to the peace at Aponea (Syria) and preluded the Roman active involvement in the the entire region. It also indicated a change in Roman policy, before this battle the Romans fought and left afterwards. After Thermopylae however, they remained and redistributed the area between Pergamon and Rhodos. This is believed to be the changing point from a defensive politic (Rome fought enemies that threatened Rome) to an Expansionist politic (start of Imperialism). This battle is part of the Third (3rd) Macedonian War. --Cardolan (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ctesias' 120,000 for Thermopylae and Plataea

Hi, just saw a documentary on these battles, and was checking the numbers and I found an error. Herodotus say's 2,641,610 total invaded Greece with a possibility of 5,283,220, and for the battle only 1,800,000 fought. Now Ctesias say's 800,000 total invaded Greece, and the numbers he gives for the battle add up to 120,000, then he say's: "Xerxes sent another army of 120,000 men against Plataea under the command of Mardonius, at the instigation of the Thebans." Now we know the Persian navy did not fight in either of these battles, so we can ignore the numbers of men and ships.

"A" documentary isn't really giving a proper reference. Try again. Also look at first section of this talk page. Simanos (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ctesias' Persica from Livius.org

[§27] "Then Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, 800,000 men and 1000 triremes without reckoning the chariots, set out against Greece, having first thrown a bridge across at Abydus. Demaratus the Spartan, who arrived there first and accompanied Xerxes across, dissuaded him from invading Sparta. His general Artapanus, with 10,000 men, fought an engagement with Leonidas, the Spartan general, at Thermopylae; the Persian host was cut to pieces, while only two or three of the Spartans were slain. The king then ordered an attack with 20,000, but these were defeated, and although flogged to the battle, were routed again. The next day he ordered an attack with 50,000, but without success, and accordingly ceased operations. 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."

The numbers specifically for Thermopylae add up to 120,000, then Ctesias say's...

[§28] "Xerxes sent another army of 120,000 men against Plataea under the command of Mardonius, at the instigation of the Thebans. He was opposed by Pausanias the Spartan, with only 300 Spartiates, 1000 perioeci, and 6000 from the other cities. The Persians suffered a severe defeat, Mardonius being wounded and obliged to take to flight."

Now some historians have theorized Herodotus' Greek terms for the numbers may have been originally ten not a hundred (because they sound so familiar, an error in translation), so his total would fall to more than 750,000, interestingly close to Ctesias' 800,000 total. Also, on the article it currently say's 70,000-250,000 is the range of estimates for a never ending consensus, the average for the battle is thus around 160,000, again interestingly close to Ctesias' 120,000. When once one adds again the final disputed (because other historians give 10,000-20,000) 40,000 which encircle the remaining Greek army on the last day. However, in conclusion I would like to make clear that based on what is written by Ctesias, is that 120,000 (the disputed last 40,000 could be included in a sentence that theorizes about it somewhere in the article, but the 120,000 has to remain the same because it is stated by the historian), and not more than 800,000 (which he gives for the total invasion force) fought at the Battle of Thermopylae. Any thoughts? Thanks.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some" historians is a weasel term. Give proper references. Also the problem with Ctesias as I show in the top section of this talk page is his numbers for the Greek army at Plataea is very small and looks like it was supposed to be for Thermopylae. Ctesias is a bit garbled to make sense of. And you didn't actually make clear what actual change to this article you are proposing. Simanos (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding, you say "supposed" to be for Thermopylae (we can make endless theories about back up or support troops), but he explicitly states that another 120,000 meaning again 120,000 was sent for Plataea, I am sure though (because of the higher estimates) a higher number of Persian troops fought at Thermopylae. Even if Ctesias is mixing up the chronology of Thermopylae and Plataea, then 120,000 would go for Thermopylae. See, we have to go by the numbers the historians give to the events, I think you mistaking the invasion force with how many were sent, notice Ctesias does not say how many fought or decided the wield a sword with a Greek, because one would think he meant the 800,000. Therefore he say's 120,000 were sent against the Greeks at Thermopylae (so we would not get confused with the 800,000, however some do). We can add a plus or minus, or even an approximate sign to the numbers, but by the end of the day 120,000 is 120,000, editors should not make interpretations. Plus, if we want interpretations, we should cite them in a separate area that investigates Ctesias' numbers. However, for a common person reading the article we should include the exact numbers given by the historians with no POV or bias for or against them, plus we now live more than 2,500 after the events, so we could be really wrong about our interpretation of the data. Also, I already made the change to the article, I replaced the 800,000 with 120,000 that fought in the battle (then you reverted my edits). Think about it or this, if Ctesias say's to you that 120,000 fought at Plataea, would you then say, "no Ctesias you said 800,000, so I am just going to put 800,000 for the Battle of Plataea," Ctesias would then flip his lips up and down with his horizontally positioned right index finger. We can discuss the numbers for Plataea in its talk page, but its best to resolve the numbers for this article first. So is this okay? Regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV and OR please. And please try and avoid multiposting, there's a preview button next to the save button. And get an account name please if you're only going to edit a few select articles. As for your arguments they've been dealt with before. The problem with Ctesias is the small number he gives for Greek army at Plataea. For Thermopylae he does not give a number at all, only for the actual waves that participated in combat. It doesn't matter how many actually fight, what matters is how big their army camp is. Many soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam took part in a battle and didn't fire a single shot or see any action, but we still count em on the army size. It's called reserves for a reason. Simanos (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be lazy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#Ctesias Simanos (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From Simanos (talk)s talkpage: You said don't be lazy, what about this? The best interpretation imo is that Ctesias is talking about Thermopylae when he says 120,000 Persians and not Plataea. These are your last words you said in that section, I am not pov pushing, When Ctesias say's Another 120,000 fought at Plataea, then he is talking about how many fought. Why can you know the difference, The camp of the Persians was according to Herodotus 2.7 million, but only 1.8 possible could have fought in Thermopylae. Why don't you change the number to 2.7 million? Because Herodotus names who fought, and it is exactly the same as Ctesias, the Cissians, Medes, and other Asians, plus the last force of Immortals and others on the fourth day is in all 120,000. Your stuck in one mindset, Ctesias description matches that of Herodotus for Thermopylae, how could mix up the numbers? Not only do they add up to 120,000, but Ctesias states that number too. I am barely POV pushing and I am not doing OR, OR is what that banned user I read about did when he said 80,000 and OR'd the last 40,000 to his own POV. Again, your mixing up invasion camp force (which he said 800,000 invaded), with how many Xerxes actually sent to fight in Thermopylae, like you said, not all sent actually fought, but all sent is 120,000 according to Ctesias. By the way, you already know modern estimates are close to Ctesias' number, so why don't you accept that? This is POV pushing. Please don't make accusations, I suggest you ask others about this problem (not just one) that other users have created based on their poor understanding of basic English and how to read common sense sentences.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.124.21 (talk)

Sorry dude, your English is not really understandable (or maybe it's your logic that's skewed) and not worth the time to decipher. Maybe if you type when you calm down a bit. BTW, why did you post this in my talkpage too? Simanos (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I looked over this again and your writing style is awful. Learn to use paragraphs and quotation marks ("") and stuff. BTW those are not my last words in that section though it doesn't really matter. What I said was my own OR and can't be used either. What we do have is an account by Ctesias that is completely garbled (even the chronology is wrong) and no expert source on it that we could use. About Herodotus 2.7 vs 1.8 I'm not sure, but you could be right from the little I read of the references given here. The 1.8 million doesn't include the Greek (and other) allies, right? But about Ctesias I think 800,000 is the best number. He doesn't seem to mention any resistance for Persians at all until they reached Thermopylae, right? Herodotus says they even picked up more allies on the way. Simanos (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, if you look at the message on your talk page I use (""), but here I did not include that if your concerned about using proper English. Back to the point, I understand what you say, that is why currently I am looking for expert reputable sources that seem to agree about the 120,000. Finally then, my only question is that... What should we do about the 120,000 figure Ctesias' numbers add up to, which he explicitly states, and should we just omit that number? Best regards.--67.188.124.21 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_victory

A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. It does not always coincide with the end of combat. The Battle of Midway, for example, is considered "decisive" despite the fact that the Pacific War ended more than three years later because it represented a shift of power in the emerging Pacific naval conflict—one the Empire of Japan was unable to reverse.

In Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory, Gray (2002, p. 11) defined an operational decisive victory as "a victory which decides the outcome to a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole".

The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor is sometimes described as a decisive victory for the Japanese, even though it did not decide the ultimate outcome of the war in the Pacific.

Let's see. The Persians lost the war despite their eventual victory at Thermopylae. Perhaps if they had "utterly overwhelmed the losing side" it would have "decided the outcome to the campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole". But what really happened was that the majority of the Greek army escaped and could regroup in the South to block Persian entry into Peloponesos. They also had time to evacuate Athens and that made the Persian conquest of it nearly meaningless (in matters of combat power). If the Persians had crushed the Allied force from day 1 it would have been a decisive victory. If they had encircled and crushed the entire Greek force on day 5 it would have been decisive victory. If they had crushed the rear guard and given chase to the retreating Greek army, not allowing it to warn Athens and evacuate it and prepare defenses at Corinth (and elsewhere) it would have been a decisive victory. But they didn't and it was not. I'm not saying it was a Pyrrhic Victory, but saying it was a Decisive Victory is not right either. The sources do not support it (do they?) and pure common sense does not support it. Simanos (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Being able to find a small consolation (that the rear guard managed to run away) in an otherwise crushing defeat does not mean it wasn't still a decisive victory for Persia. Every man defending the Hot Gates was killed. No matter what came later, the result of this battle was a decisive Persian victory. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the rear guard did not manage to run away. The rear guard stayed and died, while the main army withdrew safely (run away is such a bloated term). I'm afraid you don't seem to have a good grasp of the facts there. Otherwise we might start calling every single victory decisive if we lower our standards that much.

BTW the IP-hoping user that keeps changing it is a banned user (Orijentolog) as you can easily check (he even admits it in another user's talk page). Simanos (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I misspoke, but my point remains (is, in fact, strengthened) by the correction: The entire army retreated, everyone who didn't retreat was killed, and the Persian army continued on. That, my friend, is a decisive victory.

Ad hominem arguments against that IP editor are not useful here. If we're just talking about editing rights, then it would be. And by all means feel free to pursue it through the proper channels. But you're the one who insisted on this discussion thread; you can't start the discussion and then claim he has no right to participate. One or the other. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What is it with admins and inability to admit that you are wrong? You didn't mispoke, you made an error. And now you make another one. Your point is not strengthened. It is weakend. If the small rear guard of an army is the only part that survives that means it was almost annhilated (like 90% dead). Here we have the opposite. 90% survived, plus the Persian army was delayed and demoralised (at least its leaders were). The Greek army left with higher moral than it went there and it had time to evacuate Athens and save the population and mount a new defense at Corinth. Seriously that is not how a decisive victory is supposed to be. So the Persian army continued on, well so what? After most victories the victorious army marches on, we don't call them all decisive.

What is it with admins and false ad hom accussations? I started the discussion because he made unexplained edits (no summary). Later I noticed the editor admited he is a sock-puppet and investigated it a bit (less than 5 minutes) and noticed other admins have found out he is the banned user I named and he keeps hoping IPs. He even admits he is an admin's "favorite sock-puppet" in his talk page. Have a look please. So yeah, I initially called an IP to discuss, but later I realised it was a banned sock-puppet and I had fallen for his trolling, like you did (but you had it worse since you supported him). Why is that? Simanos (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So in your expert opinion as an admin, does a banned user have the right to participate with a new sock-puppet of his? Please let us know and sorry for the sarcasm, but I hope you realise how disingeneous your comment was by now. Simanos (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be getting quite bent out of shape over this, and it seems that a large part of the cause is a minor language gap. Evidently English is not your native language - which is perfectly fine - but you are getting hung up on semantics. My error was that I misspoke (by saying "rear guard" rather than "the guys in the rear"). From the point of view of the Persians (the victors) the men in front didn't retreat; the ones behind them did. That's how a retreat works. The fact that I hurriedly used the wrong turn of phrase absolutely does not mean my entire point is incorrect, so just get past it.

And I'm not supporting the IP editor. I'm supporting the facts. As you quoted, The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side. No definition of "victory" requires killing everyone, so I'm not sure why that's your only standard for victory. Forcing the entire defending force into retreat is a victory as well. If 100% of your enemy has either retreated or been killed, that's a decisive victory. If the force that retreated is able to regroup and later win a different battle (or the entire war), hey, that's great. But for this battle, they lose. Decisively.

In my expert admin opinion, no, the IP editor does not have a right to edit. That's why I didn't warn you about edit warring on the article, since reverting contributions of a banned user is fine. And you'll notice I haven't reverted you, either. I'm participating in the discussion which you started. I'm allowed to do that. What I said was arguing about him in this discussion is not helpful; just because my opinion happens to coincide with that of a blocked user, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're trying to weasel your way out of your obvious error with that "rear" thing and you have the nerve to comment on my use of English. Also I didn't say your entire point was incorrect because of that. I said that it weakened and not strengthened your argument. I argued against your entire point then with my own arguments which you simply ignore and fail to answer, choosing to instead use ad hom on me (my English is at fault that you clearly used the wrong terms? what gives?). Your terminology "men in front" and the rest is highly amateurish in a historical article. I'm sorry to say that you neither provide any sources to back you up. I'm not bent out of shape over this. I started a civil discussion (even though I was trolled by a banned IP) and you seem to be the one with the chip on the shoulder here and a reluctance to admit mistakes and compromise.

Moving on, I didn't say you support the IP about this issue, but in general, by falsely accusing me of personal attacks. You then move on to another strawman (I never said "killing everyone"), falsely stating my opinion and trying to counter it. I'm pretty sure your standard for decisive victories is illogical. If you check the various victories in historic battles you will start to see a pattern that the winners take the field and the losers retreat, yes 100% of them retreat. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of historical battles can be classified as decisive victories for one side or another. There are obviously other considerations, as I showed already. What exactly is your claim to the decisiveness of this victory? What would possibly consitute a non decisive victory for the Persians here? Give us your exact criteria please.

It's good that you admit that the IP has no right to edit. But then why did you chastise me by saying "you can't start the discussion and then claim he has no right to participate". Aren't those your very words just a few lines above? You seem to contradict yourself. I was not doing any personal attacks or posting spam irrelevant to the topic being discussed. I was merely making clear my concern that I was trolled into starting this discussion by a banned user and I realised it afterwards. I didn't even call him a POV pushing idiot or something offensive like that. I'd also like to add that when you say "I'm participating in the discussion which you started. I'm allowed to do that." is also a bit of a weasel sentence. I never objected to your right to participate here. I objected to your erroneous chastisement of my actions. And then I countered your arguments with my own arguments. Or did you expect/want me to say nothing in response and keep silent? (see how my last sentence was a weasel attempt by me?). Arguing about him is not helpful indeed. But it seems to me that you are the one who did all the arguing. I merely posted a fact, but you chose to dispute it and then grudgingly accept it (I hope). BTW I never once said you were wrong because you agreed with a banned user. Why do you again (veiled thinly) accuse me of something I didn't do? I only used arguments against your arguments and defended myself from your false accusations. I did not say you're an idiot for agreeing with a sock IP or anything offensive like that. You're the only one who even mentioned it. So since you're a responsible admin, how about you do something about this sock? It's much easier for you than me and you've been alerted to the problem now, right? Simanos (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want someone to do something about it, go through the proper channels. I'm really not concerned about it, and I'm not required to be. Admins have no particular responsibility to use the tools if we choose not to. In this case, there's no point in blocking an often-changing IP address, and I'm not going to semi-protect the article because it isn't being vandalized. It's a content dispute.

Furthermore, an ad hominem argument is not the same as a personal attack. In fact, the two have almost nothing to do with one another. One is against policy, the other is simply poor form. Ad hominem simply means that you are arguing about the person rather than the issue, which you most certainly are. First talking about him, now about me, and very little about the issue itself. Whether you're speaking in a negative or positive way doesn't matter; all that matters is that you are not talking about the issue. Enough about that IP. Enough about me. Just discuss the merits of your position as it pertains to the article.

You've said nothing to refute my original statement that the defeat was decisive. The objective, as stated by Themistocles, was to stop the Persian advance at Thermopylae, not simply to slow them down a bit. That they failed is hardly at issue, and what happened after their defeat doesn't matter. Most of the force ran away—yes, ran (they didn't fly away, or ride on trucks, or take a leisurely stroll - they ran) away (in the opposite direction of the ongoing battle) and those who did not were killed. Whether by retreat or by death, 100% of the force was defeated and failed to stop the advance of the Persian army. That failure changed the course of the entire campaign, rendering Artemisium's defense useless and ultimately allowing the Persians to sack Athens. Again, it doesn't matter that Xerxes later decided to withdraw; for all intents and purposes, the defeat at Thermopylae was total. To again use the example you quoted above, let's look at Pearl Harbor. The U.S. naval force in Pearl Harbor was not utterly destroyed. And they got word to the mainland that they were being attacked, alerting the rest of America to prepare for war. But dropping atomic bombs to win the war 4 years later doesn't change the fact that the battle was a decisive Japanese victory. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I thought you were accusing me of ad hom fallacy and personal attack, not simply a correctly applied ad hom argument. You still don't explain why you said to me "you can't start the discussion and then claim he has no right to participate". Sure you're not required to use your admin powers, but since you took an interest here, I assumed it wouldn't hurt you... BTW someone just vandalised the article again. I think it should be semi-protected from IPs.

I'm not speaking about him and you and little about the issue. I wrote a lot on the issue and this disparaging comment of yours offends me. If anything you brought this whole issue up. I only wrote one sentence (that he was a banned sock, to excuse my reverting him). The objective was indeed to stop them probably, but objectives change as situations arise and once again I'm not saying it was a victory for the Greeks or even a Pyrrhic victory for the Persians. I'm only saying it was clearly not decisive. Usually in victories 100% of the force is defeated (unless it's a raid) and withdraws. That doesn't help us decide which are decisive victories. In the Pearl Harbor example the Japanese destroyed a major naval base and port and a major part of the USA Pacific fleet. (In fact some people argue that it wasn't that bad, the port was repaired fast and the ships were mostly old or were salvaged). The Persians failed to destroy the major part of the Greek armies, they were demoralised, the Greek moral was raised, Athens was evacuated, etc etc etc... Simanos (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because someone posted some falsehoods that were deleted I will counter them from the history pages hehe. At the Battle of the Persian Gate Alexander crushed the Persian army, it did not escape to fight another day. The Persian capital was not evacuated like Athens. It was captured whole with its population and with the biggest treasury in the world. It was the last defence of the Persians, kind of like if the Persians had beaten the Greek army at the Isthmus at Corinth, which they did not. Your numbers are wrong, a lot more than 1/3 escaped and much fewer than 2/3 were killed or surrendered at Thermopylae. Pretty much the reverse. Also at Salamis Herodotus does not say that 1/5 of the Persian fleet was destroyed. He only says there were 1200 Persian ships there and next year at Mycale there were only 300. Stop lying please, I can see why you were banned. Simanos (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research

It is pretty clear that we have a banned user here, but also that this discussion is all original research, WP:OR. None of the above should even be on this page, if you want to call it decisive you'd need multiple reliable sources describing it with that word (not just one in this case, it would have to be clear that it was a consensus of academics). So the word 'decisive' has no place in the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because nobody has cited sources in this discussion doesn't mean they don't exist. Editors determining that there is a "clear consensus" among academics, on the other hand, would be original research. There's nothing in particular about this article that would require a higher level of verifiability than any other; if the article can state that it wasn't decisive without multiple sources (which it does, in the last paragraph of the "significance" section) then it can present the counterargument in the same way. There are sources for it.

However, while I disagree with your reasoning, I agree with the end result. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Any clear consensus would include using sources that say there is a consensus, I guess I should have made that explicit. Part of the problem is using the word in an infobox. There's nothing wrong with a statement that a well known source (I'd say that's important) has called the battle decisive or even said that there is a consensus among academics. Or using multiple reliable sources to call it decisive. But the infobox, like the lead, needs to clearly reflect the sources in the article. If sources exist I admit I'm a bit suprised no one has used them, but that happens. By the way, the significance section uses a reference to historynet, which is a very short article by a 'David Frye', neither is, I think, a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)