Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 6

Greek for Allied
After the first mention of the "Allied Greeks" future mention should be "Greek" not "Allied" as in "Greek army". This is for two reasons. The first is that the common terms for the belligerents is Greek and Persian, if they are Greeks are "Allies" why is it the Persian army and not the "Imperial army" etc? But the major reason apart from one of common usage is a non neutral point of view introduced by the term Allies (with a capital A), this is traditionally the term used for the Allies of first and second World Wars, and for most English speaking people it carries connotations of "Us" against "Them". -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?
I know that using television and movies is a bad resource, but it has often been instated (most notably in the film 300) that the Persians suffered heavily against the outnumbered Greeks. Is it right to call it this?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the discussion just above on the desire by some to call it a decisive victory. Films are not in any way reliable sources for history, they are, after all, fictional accounts. So the answer is no, all we can do is report what reliable academic sources have to say - books and peer reviewed journals in this case. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

All right man, chill. Just asking a question is all.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At least two sources - Tung, Douglas S.; Tung, Teresa K. (2010). 36 Stratagems Plus: Illustrated by International Cases. Trafford Publishing. p. 239. ISBN 1426928068. - and Marozzi, Justin (2008). The Way of Herodotus: Travels with the Man Who Invented History. Da Capo Press. p. 74. ISBN 0306816210. explicitly state that the outcome of the battle was a Persian pyrrhic victory. MinisterForBadTimes argues that, it is obviously not a Pyrrhic victory (look at the definition)..., that is obviously original research. There also appears to be no major discussions or consensus on this issue in the archives. If there are no reliable sources which state the battle was not a Pyrrhic victory, I see no reason which would not merit it not being included in the article. I will revert its exclusion per WP:Bold if there are no arguments which are based on reliable sources, not original research. Lt.Specht (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first "academic" source says only one sentence about this battle, and second is Herodotus' one - so, both unreliable. Please check discussion archives. --93.143.9.24 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that the sources are unreliable is not justified. The second source is not Herodotus. The book is merely titled The Way of Herodotus: Travels with the Man Who Invented History, its author is Justin Marozzi. The first source is authored by Douglas S. Tung, a scholar and academic who has authored multiple historical books. Just because it does not elaborate much on the battle does nothing to its reliability. If you believe they are indeed somehow unreliable, I suggest you take the issue to WP:RSN. Throughout the archives there is only discussion relating to this which is simply original research and cites no sources (such as the Decisive Victory section above), and no clear consensus as well. The only sources which I believe have been posted so far relating to a type of victory are the ones which I have identified. Going on and on interpreting definitions of victory and making individual conclusions (Decisive Victory section above) is not academic in the least. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, if a reliable source told you to jump of a cliff, would you do it? Just because some authors assert that it is a Pyrrhic does not mean that it was a Pyrrhic victory. We are not slaves to the sources - Wikipedia editors are still allowed to apply critical reasoning when deciding what to write - we don't just have to copy the sources verbatim. If you look at what a Pyrrhic victory is, you will be able to see that the sources you mention are not really correct to call it a Pyrrhic victory. Indeed, even if 100 sources say that it is a Pyrrhic victory, that still doesn't make it one. Whatever the Persians' losses were, it was clearly only a fraction of their army. And they clearly went on with the invasion of Greece afterwards. This is not what happens after Pyrrhic victories.


 * Secondly, you can't make accusations of original research based on omission. The infobox does not say "Persian victory (not Pyrrhic)". It just says "Persian Victory". There is a hidden note in the text asking people not to change it to Pyrrhic Victory (which I notice you decided to ignore); but this is not in the article (or even on the discussion page), and is therefore scarcely promoting original research. Arguing that it is OR to omit something from an article would set a bad precedent; OR should only apply to statements that are actually positively made in the article.


 * Thirdly, does it actually matter? NO. It's just an infobox. It doesn't need to say anything other than "Persian victory". Every month an editor comes along and changes it in some way; it always gets changed back, because everyone can agree that it was a Persian victory, but most people disagree as to whether it was a decisive/pyrrhic/normal Persian victory. The consensus is clear; Persian victory is acceptable by all, and there is no need to add any more to the infobox.

M.F.B.T. Yes, Minister? 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If infoboxs' don't need a more descriptive result, why do countless articles use Pyrrhic, Tactical, Strategic, etc.?
 * Re: Wikipedia editors are still allowed to apply critical reasoning when deciding what to write - we don't just have to copy the sources verbatim.... True, however, in this case we are dealing with just a simple two or three words. WP:OR states, The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly...In short, stick to the sources. In this case multiple sources explicitly state it was a pyrrhic victory. To say these sources are incorrect, one would need a source which makes the statement explicitly.
 * Re: If you look at what a Pyrrhic victory is, you will be able to see that the sources you mention are not really correct to call it a Pyrrhic victory. WP:OR also states, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. (in example, one reliable source defines a pyrrhic victory, the other details the events of the battle - Whatever the Persians' losses were, it was clearly only a fraction of their army. And they clearly went on with the invasion of Greece afterwards. This is not what happens after Pyrrhic victories. - you are joining these together to form a conclusion, which is not explicitly stated in any sources presented so far.
 * Indeed, the infobox does not say something like Persian victory (not Pyrrhic), however, justifying the exclusion of a pyrrhic victory, which is explicitly stated in mutliple sources, by using original research methods as explained above, is hardly acceptable. WP:V states, anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question., it is quite clear that the unsourced phrasing Persian victory has been challenged a magnitude times throughout the talk page, archives, and right now. Finally, I ignored the warning because of this reason, and also per WP:V, unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Incidentally, WP:V also states that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. My inclusion of pyrrhic victory was supported by multiple reliable sources, it was removed and restored to the original, uncited phrasing, by yourself and the banned editor. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not against your (last) change, so it be. BUT, you can not count commercial books which mention battle of Thermopylae in context of "Pyrrhic victory" (possibly confused with Heroic failure or Last stand) in one sentence; there is a huge list of bibliography in both Greco-Persian Wars and Battle of Thermopylae articles, and not even one states it was "Pyrrhic victory".


 * First of all, enough with the wiki-lawyering; I understand the principles of wikipedia, so you don't need to cite them back at me. I restored the words "Persian Victory". Are you seriously challenging the fact that it was, at some level, a Persian victory?? Has anyone actually challenged this "unsourced phrasing"? Or do they just keep trying to add words to it?? Do you really think I should list all the sources that call it a Persian Victory in the infobox? Or might it be better to discuss it in the article?? The question is not whether "Persian Victory" is wrong, the question is whether to add the word "Pyrrhic" (or "decisive", etc.).
 * You keep suggesting that "multiple sources" back-up your view. By which you mean "2". But there are a huge number of sources out there that do not call Thermopylae a Pyrrhic victory. I therefore feel that you are giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE, if we are really going to sit here citing wikipedia rules at each other) to what is basically a fringe view, presented in passing, in two books which are not specifically concerned with the Greco-Persian Wars. As you so fondly point out, "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic". Is Tung's one sentence on Thermopylae really the most reliable source on the topic? Really????? Or are the full length academic works cited in the bibliography better sources?
 * As you also point out, to explicitly contradict your "multiple" sources, I would need to find a source that says the opposite. However, I can still remove the word "Pyrrhic" from the article, (without explicitly stating it was not a Pyrrhic victory), because the majority of academics do not call it a Pyrrhic victory. This is not synthesis; this is just appropriate use of the sources. As I said in the first place, just because two sources say one thing, that does not mean that they are correct; and nor does it does not mean that their views have to be incorporated into Wikipedia. That is essentially your argument: that because someone said it once, it must go into the article, otherwise we are somehow keeping the truth from our readers.
 * Ultimately it comes down to this; I can find lots of sources that don't call Thermopylae a Pyrrhic victory. You can find two that do. A quick google search suggests that you will struggle to find many more sources (please don't bother pointing out that this is not a perfect tool). BUT, if you can find a full academic work on Thermopylae (or the Greco-Persian Wars in general) which calls it a Pyrrhic victory, then we can discuss this again.  M.F.B.T.  Yes, Minister? 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the latest change is an excellent one as it creates a compromise for both parties and an end to a frequently debated topic. warrior  4321   00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Holland as a Source?
His book "Persian Fire" seems more like docudrama or fiction based off of real events than a reliable source for this article.75.68.34.98 (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ancient monument
I'm finding a few 19th-century sources that seem to believe that the ruins of the ancient tomb or memorial to those who fell at Thermopylae had been located and were still viewable in their day. Can any of you who research this topic so diligently clarify? Is this one of those cases of overactive archaeological imagination during that era? The WP article says only that there are "several" monuments at the site, and that one is the modern one to the Thespians. The epigram supposedly by Simonides, by the way, is not universally held to be his work. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ephialtes
I believe that the name 'Ephialtes' is still used in Greek to denote a traitor. Can anybody confirm this?Miletus (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Only in a poetic or metaphoric fashion (referring to the person). The noun "efialtes" means nightmare in modern Greek. Simanos (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources section
The whole section on sources needs to go, or be rewritten so that it's actually about the sources. At the moment it's just a defence of Herodotus's integrity, and belongs in his own article. It's all a bit too coatrackish for my liking. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the whole section, but I've removed the part that was just a commentary on Herodotus, not on his treatment of the Greco-Persian wars. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Revisionism
the pahlavi regime of iran was bribing many historians and researchers in order to fake the history in persians favore, while all of the original references contributed the nombers of persians over 1000000 and nombers of sparthans about 300 now some people say that it is not true! it is a shame, they also have created myths like cyrus's human rights!!! while all references had contributed cyrus as an bloody bastard! or they try to pretend persians as aryans!! and such a thing, why university of chicago is not leting any one approach those 30000 tablets and clues discovered about ancient persia? what are they afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.55 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The number of men in Persian army
Is there any better estimation for the number of men in Persian army available? The article currently reads: "The Persian army, alleged by the ancient sources to have numbered in the millions, arrived at the pass in late August or early September." This is nonsense, citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.30.35 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please spare us you indignation. There are citations for the ancient and modern estimates. Get an account and stop being an anonymous IP if you really want to contribute instead of this flame-bait. Simanos (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tone down the indignation? The question is not only valid, it's good. "Millions" is neither precise nor credible. /roger.duprat.copenhagen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.252.230 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anons: If "millions" is all the sources say, then that's all they say; Wikipedia doesn't try to add its own novel interpretations to the available facts. Simanos: No one has to register a permanent user account to make valid contributions or raise valid questions here. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments
This is truly a great article. It's really well-written and homogeneous in style. I just have a few comments:

1. " * Maps of the region:[62][63] and * Image of the battlefield, from the east[64]"

This looks to me like garbage. It points to 3 links that point to 3 photos. The article might as well have photos inside the article then.

2. "The Greeks killed so many Medes that Xerxes is said to have started up three times off the seat from which he was watching the battle."

I think "Medes" should not be in the sentence, unless accompanied by "men of". Something sounds weird.

3. At the bottom of the box in the top right of the page of the article I read "Thermopylae – Artemisium – Salamis – Potidea – Olynthus – Plataea – Mycale". However, no references to Potidea or Olynthus appear in the article.

ICE77 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. Concerning the Persian Wars, Medes (Μήδοι) and Persians (Πέρσαι) are synonyms. --Pagaeos (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And 99.99% of our readers don't know that and never will. Encyclopedic writing never assumes topical familiarity much less expertise. That's what makes it an encyclopedia instead of an article in an academic specialist journal. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

An addition to the results?
I have heard somewhere (real credible source there) that the battle also a holding action so that the greeks could assemble a large enough force to fend off the persians and that this and the imortals being held off for a little bit at the ramsacking of athens gave the greeks enough time to form up. Thereby being an indirect victory for the spartians/athenians. Is there any validity in this line of thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.120.73 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Date?
The battle of Thermopylae supposedly took place in august or september 480 BC according to this page, 'The following year, however, saw a Greek army decisively defeat the Persians at the Battle of Plataea, thereby ending the Persian invasion.'

When you go to the Battle of Plateaea page however the date says 479 BC ?

If its the following year am i going crazy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.90.210 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 479 follows 480, that's the way our calendar works. It only starts going up again at the second '1', ie countdown to 1 then start up again at 1, no year 0. Notice the way I avoid saying BCE or CE? Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be source-synched with Leonidas I of Sparta, which gives, and sources, a very specific death date. Either the source in that article is authoritative, and one being cited here as casting doubt on the date is not, in which case this article needs fixing, or the one cited for Leonidas' death at his article is contradicted by other reliable sources and his death date is not as certain as that article makes it seem to be. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made some small changes to the 'prelude' paragraph, which isn't very well-written. The expression 'molon labe' means "come and take them" and is unrelated to the famous retort about fighting in the shade (which is discussed here as fact, though it is probably legendary)- aside from this I fixed some typos and changed where the author had "Leonidus" instead of "Leonidas".

Leonidas's guilt?
Whilst not wishing to deny the gallantry of the defence of the pass, Leonidas became king of Sparta after a rather grubby conspiracy which saw the death of his father and older brother.

Considering his wish to fight and die at Thermopylae did he have some feelings of guilt about possibly being involved in the conspiracy?AT Kunene (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We'll never know, and Wikipedia articles do not engage in supposition. See WP:No original research. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Symbol for "killed"
I just reverted, with a desire for discussion, the change of the supposed "cross" symbol to KIA in the infobox. The history of this symbol is murky and debated, but see Theta and particularly Theta, where it explains (though not very well) the old-style theta (see Phoenician teth) as standing for thanatos. This is disputed, but Roman military papyri have a similar mark for a soldier killed in action, as do mosaics depicting fallen gladiators. Somewhere there's a discussion about this mark, and I'll link to it when I find it. I think KIA seems anachronistic for antiquity, but perhaps there's a symbol to use that would be more like that of the Greeks and Romans. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the discussion, and see also Gladiator Mosaic. In the mosaic, there's a single crossbar that extends outside the circle, so it may not actually be a theta; theta for thanatos may be an explanation after the fact. The teth had a cross, and one might compare the pre-Christian use of the Celtic cross, except that our article takes the non-neutral POV that the Christian Celtic cross is unrelated to the sun cross. Sorry to be such a pedant, but my point is that all crosses aren't Christian. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Significance Of the battle
All historical revisionism and comic book fodder aside, Thermopylae is still the stuff of legend. (We should be careful that the current 'Aftermath' section doesn't preclude the readers appreciation of the place this battle has held in the historical imagination:) The subsequent defeat of Xerxses' invasion is widely regarded as one of most important military victories in Western history.

[ Correction: I should have referred to the 'Significance' section, not the 'Aftermath' section Seipjere (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) ]

all the best, ciao Seipjere (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add
In "See also" section please add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.149.8 (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by someone else --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Table Headings
Wouldn't a heading of "Combatants" or "Parties" be less pejorative than "Belligerents"? – 71.229.4.173 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This word is generated by Template:Infobox_military_conflict. I took the liberty of copying your message to Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates
The article has this as its geographic coordinates:

This spot is a broad cultivated field, not the narrow pass one pictures when thinking of the last stand of Leonidas and his men. I understand that the battle occupied a larger area; a hundred thousand Persians wouldn't have in a narrow pass. But the pass is the site most strongly associated with the battle. This agricultural area north of the highway, on the other hand, seems to be part of the reclaimed land described in the photo caption. If that's the case, this would have been underwater at the time of the battle.

The article says that the pass has been discovered to have been on Kolonos Hill. Wouldn't that be a better place to spot this article? TypoBoy (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Image: Battle of Thermopylae - a flow map of the battle
The previous image has been substitute in order to better describe the differences between the two armies and the dynamics of the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoloarena (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Battle of Thermopylae. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Cities/Thermopylae.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dates incorrect?
This article and the article of the Battle of Plataea state that the Battle of Plataea took place after the Battle of Thermopylae. Yet, in the article the Battle of Plataea is stated as taking place in 479 BC, whereas the Battle of Thermopylae is stated as taking place on its page in 480. InfinityBeard (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

this was B.C.E., that means that the smaller the date the later it took place, that means the dates of platea and thermopylae were correct

Pyrrhic Victory
It is already stated in the article that the battle was considered a pyrrhic victory, and it is obviously known today. Should the victory type in the information card be changed to 'Persian Pyrrhic victory'? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, went to edit and it said not to add 'pyrrhic' or 'decisive' to the title. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Thermopylae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319045718/http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219193949/http://www.siu.edu:80/~dfll/classics/Johnson/HTML/Thermopylae/Tmon.jpg to http://www.siu.edu/~dfll/classics/Johnson/HTML/Thermopylae/Tmon.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108192514/http://www.coloradocollege.edu:80/dept/CL/images/thermop.jpg to http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/CL/images/thermop.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Figures
User:Simanos believes that certain numbers represent original research and fringe view(s). Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea has modern consensus of 150k-250k it's ludicrous to consider only 70k as a modern consensus for Thermopylae. In Plataea the Persian King had already left with half the army too. Between Ionia and MAcedonia and the other mainland Greece cities that allied (somewhat) with the Persians there were at least 50k Greeks in the Persian army too.Simanos (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Battle_of_Plataea has modern consensus of 150k-250k it's ludicrous to consider only 70k as a modern consensus for Thermopylae."
 * Yeah, that is original research.
 * FYI, Tom Holland is just a writer, not an academic historian.
 * I would suggest academic source, that is, if you are going to keep edit warring your personal opinion into the article.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal opinion, whoever put in 70k was pushing his POV. You still didn't explain how there were 150k-250k (modern consensus) in the next battle after half the army leaving with the King. Also your formatting here is weird.Simanos (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Holland was the one who you claimed was quoted for the 70k consensus. The reason you undid my previous edit was because we don't change quotes. Those were your words. If you don't like Holland then why did you object to changing a "quote" of his in the infobox (it could still exist in main part of article). I don't think Holland says 70k though. Make up your mind please. Simanos (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This was started when; I said "we do not changed quoted information", since it appear to be a quote but was in fact a quote within a note.
 * "A huge number of estimates have been made since the 19th century, ranging from 15,000 to acceptance of Herodotus' 1,800,000. No real consensus exists; even the most recent estimates by academics vary between 120,000 and 300,000. As Holland puts it, "in short...we will never know." -- Holland, 394
 * As for the 120,000 - 300,000 which is directly referenced by Holland, then later by that exact same quote states, "in short...we will never know.", which further negates his unreliable opinion.
 * "You still didn't explain how there were 150k-250k (modern consensus) in the next battle after half the army leaving with the King."
 * You should try reading the article;
 * "Lazenby, for instance, by comparison with later Roman military camps, calculates the number of troops at 70,000, including 10,000 cavalry.(Lazenby, p.227-228) Meanwhile, Connolly derives a number of 120,000 from the same-sized camp.(Connolly, p.29)"
 * Would appear your opinion of "150k-250k (modern consensus)" appears to be OR and/or fringe.
 * "Make up your mind please."
 * Instead why don't you start using edit summaries to explain your edits. Like here, which started all this. And if you are going to use the excuse "fringe" and "OR" to explain your edits, you should refrain from using a non-academic source like Holland. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You added the unsourced figures to the infobox, without sources or an edit summary. This looks like you have been adding figures to suit your own POV.
 * And judging from this statement, I do not believe you can recognize a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack Cassin-Scott is not an historian either. This source should not be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Lazenby does not represent modern consensus. If you take a look at this talk page 7 or 8 years ago we had the same argument and there was an accounting of the modern sources, which were good and which were on the fringes. You still haven't cleared the matter of you reverting my edit of the infobox because you objected to me removing what you assumed was a quote from Holland, but then you diss Holland in this talkpage for not being a historian. Well he's both a fiction writer and a historian. I don't put my faith in him, but he's not terrible (he's no Encyclopedia Iranica if you catch my drift). 18:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs)
 * Lazenby is a reliable source, compared to Holland, who is simply a writer and not a reliable source.
 * "You still haven't cleared the matter of you reverting my edit of the infobox because you objected to me removing what you assumed was a quote from Holland.."
 * Which is redundant when the entire sentence(s) are referenced by Holland who is not a reliable source.
 * FYI, Iranica is written by academics, if you have an issue with it, I would suggest taking your concerns to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * "If you take a look at this talk page 7 or 8 years ago we had the same argument and there was an accounting of the modern sources, which were good and which were on the fringes."
 * And you continue to change figures without explanation or sources. You added unsourced figures to the infobox, without sources or an edit summary.
 * "Considering wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea has modern consensus of 150k-250k it's ludicrous.."
 * Still waiting for an explanation for this edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're omnislashing a bit too much friend, but I'll try to cope. I made a mistake and did 1 edit without explaining in the summary. Guilty as charged. I didn't say Lazenby is entirely unreliable. I said there was a talk years ago and the limits were set. You say the entire sentence is from Holland and it should be removed, but you were adding it back in yourself. Iranica was investigated and it was indeed pushing POV in several articles (even if as a whole it wasn't extremely biased). Several POV pushers tried to claim that Iranica wasn't even run by Iranians at all, but it quickly surfaced that the "President" was of Iranian decent and so were a lot of others. The explanation for the 150k-250k on the later battle after casualties and after the Persian King leaving with half the army should be obvious

I see you added a reference to 60k now, can you provide the whole "Barkworth, 1993. The Organization of Xerxes' Army. Iranica Antiqua Vol. 27, pp. 149-167" reference? Because I can only find articles that mention it, but not the direct text in my sources. I hope you can see how this is getting ridiculous now. I mean the Greeks had like 50k hoplites and 50k light troops in Plataea and a 50k navy in Salamis and a 50k navy and marines in Mycale at the same time almost. The Persian Army had Greek mercenaries/allies from Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly and Boeotia that numbered in 40k or more and you're going to tell me that the largest Empire in the world at the time, Persia, only added 20k to that number? From its multitude of nations? Unless that 60k number is about the soldiers that took direct action in Thermopylae, while the rest were held in reserve. Which probably isn't off, but the infoboxes count total army makeups including reserves. The reserve nature is explained in the main body of the article, in the battle section.

There has also been tons of discussion on some flawed arguments used by "some" like that the rivers in Macedonia (or else) couldn't support over 100k men using 10 litres a day (claimed they would drink the rivers dry), while same rivers support 2 million using 1000 litres a day now. Or how they hand-wave the Persian civil wars that had 500k soldiers on each side, documented by Persians. And that their. It all reminds me of how similar "historians" simply refused to accept the Myceneans were Greeks and that Linear B was a Greek language, until it was finally deciphered and it was proven to be Greek. Some people just have problems to accept that the Mediterranean was "Mare Greek" for 20 centuries before it became Mare Nostrum. Everything is met with consternation and disparagement by a few people Simanos (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "You say the entire sentence is from Holland and it should be removed.."
 * No. The entire sentence appears to be sourced by Holland. If it is not, then it is unsourced information and should be removed. If it is sourced by Holland it should be removed. Holland is not an academic historian.


 * "but you were adding it back in yourself."
 * It is called assuming good faith, that other editors would use academic sources. I am also AGF with the Barkworth source, which can be found in Xerxes I. Another example of good faith gone wrong. Where the other editor could not state their article concerns, until their last PA-laden sentence mentioned "war crimes". Which oddly, I had mentioned in my second post.
 * So, can you bring academic sources that support numbers? And I will bring sources that support numbers. Sound good?


 * "Some people just have problems to accept that the Mediterranean was "Mare Greek" for 20 centuries before it became Mare Nostrum."
 * OK? I do not have any feelings/concerns about Mare Nostrum, Mare Graeca, or Ελληνική θάλασσα(via google translate). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try and find the archives after the weekend provided I do not die from too much foodSimanos (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference to "Gauls" is from the wrong battle, wrong century
From this Battle of Thermopylae page, referencing the 480 BC invasion by Xerxes of Persia:
 * In a later passage, describing a Gaulish attempt to force the pass,
 * When the Gauls attempted to force the pass, the shallowness of the water gave the Greek fleet great difficulty getting close enough to the fighting to bombard the Gauls with ship-borne missile weapons.

The Gaulish invasion is from 279BC = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_%28279_BC%29

If the text references the equivalent-to-Xerxes difficulties encountered in the centuries-later Gaulish invasion, that should be unambiguously stated as such, but this manner of statement is confusingly / poorly stated.

I'm not going to edit the page itself, because I don't know the events well enough to say things well enough in context, but I did want to make note of this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewwood (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Leonidas at Thermopylae.jpg
 * Θερμοπύλες - panoramio (1).jpg

Ref no. 1
The first reference says "Bradford, 162", without specifying the year, but there are two works by Bradford in the bibliography. Which one is it?--Leptictidium (mt) 18:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it myself, it was the one published in 1980.--Leptictidium (mt) 12:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Date of the Battle
The dates for the battle currently listed are September 8-20, 480BC and August 20, 480BC citing calculations published by Edward Greswell in 1827 and Ernle Bradford in 1980. However, a study from last year conducted at the University of Athens analyzed Herodotus's descriptions of events and compared them to celestial events, old Greek calendars, and concurrent events such as the olympic games, and concluded the most probable date of the battle to actually be July 21-23, 480BC. Perhaps the article ought to be updated to include these more recent calculations? Link to the study:

https://sci-cult.com/wp-content/uploads/7.2/7_2_6_Gongaki_et_al.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1p8Q64yGpmBiNyRbGRD6kXhyjq4XJFgGCWLM1sbJ-YADTnUE0qAhJ0k4I

Spartanguy16 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Spartanguy16

Lack of Source's / Questionable Narrative
I am concerned that some of this article (especially the intro) is not sourced and provides an ahistorical pop narrative about the battle. I think it might rely on ancient sources uncritically. I do not have any direct sources to back my claim, I just listened to the r/askhistorians podcast (ep 116) featuring Dr. Roel Konijnendijk (focus on Classical Greek warfare). He suggests that the narrative often presented is the result of Spartan's post facto justifying their defeat and trying to maintain their position as leaders of the Greek anti-Persian resistance. I am really not qualified to do a thorough revision of this article, but hopefully some history student or phd with better knowledge of the current scholarship can. I think it is important that we do not fall for ancient propaganda and avoid using actual historical events as props for modern messages.

I am specifically referring to the section: "The Persian army arrived at the pass in late August or early September.[...] The performance of the defenders is also used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds." which lacks any apparent sources.

At points it mentions a Greek, who is apparently attested to in ancient sources, that informs the Persians of a route around the pass. Dr. Roel Konijnendijk brought up in the podcast how Greeks in the Persian army were actually from the neighboring area and had made use of the pass ~10 yrs earlier. Given this information, we should still mention the narrative presented in ancient sources, but also include reasons to be skeptical.

Basically I am saying that the Greeks lost the battle in every sense, that the Spartans stayed to die for cultural reasons and to save face (not for strategic reasons of which there were none), and that much of the narrative around the battle is the result of ancient propaganda from the Spartans and other Greeks.

Hopefully someone with a better command of the field sees this and makes the appropriate edits. I woefully under-qualified to do so.

Lolcatskingdom (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Lolcatskingdom


 * Just from being in the position to write the above message, you’re already one of the most qualified people to do this. :-) We ask people to be bold: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and even if you make some mistakes, that just means someone else will correct it later. You clearly have a more than passing knowledge of the subject already, so all you have to ask yourself is whether your edits leave the article better than the previous version.


 * While you have correctly noted that you do need to cite your sources so that others can check your work, finding them doesn’t require any special expertise in itself. If necessary, perhaps the people at the subreddit might have suggestions to help you find reliable sources (or confirm that they do not exist). There is also a list of helpful links at WP:RS. Sunrise (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Herodotos' figures
Why are figures of c. 2.6 million included in the infobox? Herodotos is as close to a primary source in this case, not a modern professional historian. We're rightfully critical of how we use contemporary figures for, say, the battle for Crécy, or other historical evnts.

What modern historians actually agree with Herodotos when it comes to figures?

Peter Isotalo 11:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed the figures by ancient sources from the infobox. I would argue that primary source figures that are considered debunked by modern scholarship is simply not neutral. I creates a false equivalence between ancient and modern historians and feeds into fanciful ideas about the superiority of West over East.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you are out of step with modern scholarship and the disciplines we follow. Wild exaggerations are common in historical accounts in Ancient and Medieval primary sources that any casual modern examination reveals.50.111.15.21 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

CN tags
The two "Citation Needed" tags in the lead have now been removed three separate times, with no attempt to actually provide citations. For anyone who may be unaware, the burden for demonstrating verifiability falls on the editors who support inclusion of material.

Am I missing something? Or is this an implicit admission that the content in question cannot in fact be sourced, and should therefore be removed instead? Sunrise (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, since there's been (much more than) enough time for a response, I've gone ahead and removed the text in question. Sunrise (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. Very proper - I've had to do the same thing many times in other articles, often to have them restored by nationalists but still without reference!!! 50.111.15.21 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this statement in the article correct?
This article states "Following Thermopylae, the Persian army proceeded to sack and burn Plataea", and the article Battle of Plataea states "Result: Greek victory". Could someone clarify? Thank you --152.165.121.116 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Platea is just a central Greek city that was sacked and burned by the Persians after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE, during their advance to Athens. It just happens that the great Battle of Plataea took place in the plains in front of Platea during the Greek counter-attack one year later in 479 BCE. There was a lot of back and forth in a rather short period of time... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) --152.165.121.116 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)