Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate

Untitled
ok i have cut the battle section from article "ariobarzan" and pasted it in this article

Timing of attacks
This article says that the first attack was led by Craterus, or the attack that was led from the front. In reality, the first attack was led by Alexander, or at least according to Arrian.

“… When he [Alexander ascertained that this road was rough and narrow, he left Craterus there in command of the camp with his own brigade and that of Meleager, as well as a few archers and 500 cavalry, with orders that when he ascertained that he himself had got right round and was approaching the camp of the Persians (which he would easily ascertain, because the trumpets would give him the signal) he should then assault the wall. “ Arrian 162

and

“ Falling upon the first guard of the barbarians before daylingt, he destroyed them, and so he did most of the second; but the majority of the third guard escaped, not indeed by fleeing into the camp of Ariobarzanes, but into the mountains as they were, being seized with a sudden panic. Consequently he fell upon the enemy’s camp at the approach of dawn without being observed. At the very time he began to assault the trenth, the trumpets gave the signal to Craterus, who at once attacked the advanced fortification.” Arrian 163

The picture depicts this also, that the first attack was made from the front, by Craterus, when it was in fact, made from behind by Alexander. Craterus did not even know to attack until the horns for attacking were blown by the Agemas that were traveling with Alexander. This error should be corrected.

(talk) April, 9, 2011 5:43 PM (EST)

Changes to numbers according to their own sources
I changed some numbers and my edit was reverted because Kansas Bear felt I did "unexplained changes to figures". I will explain now. I changed the low estimate of 300-700 to 700 because that's what the Encyclopaedia Iranica says. Whoever put up 300 was drawing his own conclusions. Iranica says "Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." It only mentions Diodorus's addition of 300 cavalry to Curtius estimation of 25000 Persian infantry. It does NOT interpret that as 300 total. Only the 700 from Arrian. Please read it. Also that very same source mentions that the ancient scholars (Arrian, Curtius, Diodrus) AND their (I'm quoting the Iranica) "modern successors" have other estimates. I take that as admission that a lot of modern scholars (if not the majority) take 25000-40000 as a "proper" (if biased) estimate so it must be noted in the infobox, right? Personally I think Ariobarzanes led a forward contingent to the ambush site (around 4000) and the rest of the army was inside the city. But later when he was flanked and surrounded he was denied access to the city so that Alexander would spare it and its population and he was killed or forced to surrender or something. There's no reason to suspect he couldn't raise that much for a last defence of the city when even his remnants from the Gaugamela battle was probably around that alone. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My next change is to a deplorable lie in the article. It says: "According to historian Arrian, Ariobarzanes had a force of 700 men who faced a much larger Macedonian force of 10,000." That's not according to Arrian. It's according to Encyclopaedia Iranica. Then the following paragraph is also misleading in keeping with this theme so I will add to it the entire text of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Normally I would wait for consensus before making changes to an article, but these changes are too obvious to need any. I'm only removing original research and adding info from the very same reference so why would anyone object? Do not revert my changes unless you also explain yourself here on the talk page please. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to fix the Persian casualties too in the infobox. 400-674 is misleading. It should probably say "total" or some other word that is more appropriate. Everybody agrees that at the end the entire Persian force was killed or captured, right? If no one object I will correct that tomorrow. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that near the end of this discussion page it is said by The Persian Cataphract (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Also, the battle outcome needs to change; The victory came at a great cost for Alexander. A Pyrrhic victory. By far, this is the battle where Quintus Curtius Rufus is emphasizing Graeco-Macedonian inability and Iranian martial ardour. The battle of Thermopylae bears this badge, and so does the battle of Hydaspes."

Well I checked and neither "bears this badge". Only the Battle of the Persian Gate says "Pyrrhic Macedonian victory." The Battle of Thermopylae says "Decisive Persian victory." The Battle of Hydaspes says "Macedonian victory." So I think we should change this article too. There is nothing Pyrrhic about it. The victory of Alexander did not cost him so dearly as to compromise his overall campaign and strategic position which is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. He was delayed, but not critically so as his following conquest of the entire Persian Empire showed. His ability to project military power wasn't hampered like Pyrrhus of Epirus's was following his battle with the Romans. This was a clear decisive victory. At least at Thermopylae the time delay proved critical for the Persians since the Greeks were able to amass their full armies for the following great battle. And also they gained a psychological advantage while at the Persian Gate nothing much happened. Does anyone object to this? 89.210.189.119 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of Article Title
Does anyone agree to changing the title name to "Battle of the Persian Gates." Isn't that what historians generally call it. Perhaps I'm being too picky?--Arsenous Commodore 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

um im not sure we should because there was 1 Persian gate. lol.

Citations Needed
This article has very few citations and seems to generally paint a one-sided picture. It would improve its credibility to add the appropriate citations.I have marked a few major points. For example, the Battle is mentioned as starting in January 330 BC (no exact date is mentioned) and as ending on the 20th of the same month, yet the duration claimed is 48 days which seems contradictory. Do let me know if I can help hunt down the facts. -- Ajaypp (I am here..) 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

its common knowledge
that he held them for 48 days. just google "ariobarzan" + "48 days" it was taken from this article however the link is now dead http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/4/9026/printer

Here is a site claiming that Ariobarzanes held back the Macedonians for 48 days. Unfortunately, I'm not strong with how Wiki functions especially regarding footnotes. Anyone want to include it? I'm putting forty-eight days back in the article.--Arsenous Commodore 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/9026

also of those 700 only 80 were armed.

Alexander reaches the gates in late November/early December of 331BC. some confuse 331bc with 299bc.


 * This article is ridiculously POV. I'll sort it out in a few days.--NeroDrusus 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say about as POV as the Thermopylae article, LOL. What part of the article particularly bugs you, the lead?--Arsenous Commodore 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The style here is not neutral. It's extremely laudatory of the persians at every turn. Neutral terms need to replace POV termenology, like massacre, patriotic, etc. Furthermore, It's a narrative and not an encyclopedia article. That needs to change too. Thanatosimii 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this looks like one of the worst POV-pushing I've ever seen. As a response to Arvand, I enforce you to challenge any unsourced or dubious edit in Thermopylae. If your only argument for this POV is the alleged bad state of another article, then you're way off the wp spirit. Miskin 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the undisputedly most popular name is Ariobarzanes. Miskin 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Miskin I was only kidding around, though I do think that some of the terminology in the Thermopylae lead is not very neutral either. I didn't mean anything too seriously LOL. I agree that this article needs significant improvement, especially on sourcing, however, the problem will be that most writers/historians leave this battle out too many a time. I agree with the name though, even I use that, I believe it is the Hellenized version.--Arsenous Commodore 23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thermopylae used to be a bad written article, but it never contained as much POV as this one. Nowadays it's been improved. Miskin 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-Check
The article seems to incorporate information from Livius.org, which is a reliable source, however, much of this information is taken selectively. For example in the "death" section the article states: "On the 20th of January 330 BC, Ariobarzan was killed in combat along with his 80 companions after weeks of fighting." Livius.org explicitely mentions that Ariobarzanes abandoned his post and fled to Persepolis, where entrance was denied, and was "most likely" killed by the Macedonians. The heroic death of the defenders does not meet scholarly consensus, depite what the article claims. Overall lots of work needs to be done regarding WP:NPOV and WP:ATT violations. This is why I added the tags. Miskin 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the infobox fields should be blanked until reliable sources can be provided. The article claims that this battle has been compared to Thermopylae. The article provides sufficient historical manipulation in order to draw this parallel between the two, though in reality there's too little in common. On the true commonalities: On the fabricated commonalities: In addition, I think that "Battle of the Persian Gate" is a very misleading name for this article, possibly the result of original thought since it has zero results in google scholarly search. I'm not sure if the event qualifies as a "battle" at all. Miskin 12:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thermopylae was the entrance to "central Greece", Persepolis was the heart of Persia.
 * Both Hot Gates and Persian Gate contain the word "gate".
 * Both events involve Greeks and Persians
 * The Persian defenders were under siege, they didn't make a stand as the article states
 * The defenders were not extremely outnumbered, if at all outnumbered - this was after all the capital of Persia
 * That the Greeks lost thousands is unverified and misleading. There was only one Persian attack which inflicted great damage to the Greek army, yet this was the result of "mercilessly raining down boulders and stones on the Macedonians", and not of an actual encounter. This ambush attack was Ariobarzanes' only shot at glory, the rest is just fabrications. Following this failed attempt he tried to escape but failed.
 * To claim that Ariobarzanes defended the Persian capital with a handful of men is only laughable. Ariobarzanes had gathered an army of max 40,000 for his ambush to Alexander (I've got different accounts on this). After his failed attempt he fled to the city "with but few horsemen" i.e. 40 horsemen and 5,000 infantry (sourced), where he intended to "rob the citadel of its treasures and effect his escape", but was killed by Alexander instead.

On second thought, this does qualify as a battle, it's just that a great deal of POV cleanup needs to be done in order to reflect what actually happened. Miskin 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You bring up some good points Miskin. Lets first discuss the strength count. One would naturally think that yes, the troop count of the Persians would have been large to defend Persepolis. However, the reason this wasn't the case is because Darius III already knew that he wouldn't be ready for a battle so logistically close to his previous decisive loss. Darius needed a further distance both for time and logistical safety from Alexander's initial route to build up another sizable force that could rival the Macedonians. That's why he fled to Afghanistan (modern-day). Darius fighting in Persepolis was out of the question and would have been suicide. Darius along with one of his notable commanders Bessus had no intention of fighting Alexander in Persepolis. They moved as many of their troops including the Greek mercenaries commanded by Patron to the northeastern frontier. Of course as you probably know, Darius is killed by Bessus himself before he can launch another battle. Thus being that Persepolis was abandoned is was really only left to a patriotic Persian of nobility class which gathered as many volunteers as possible from the neighbouring towns and called for an ambush. Now as you mentioned some Greek sources such as Arrian suggest the Persian force would have been tens of thousands, but this has already been believed to be a blatant exaggeration as he twice previously did for Issus and Guagemala. Modern critical schools don't accept this figure such as Encyclopedia Iranica, and have given that the source should be interpreted as 700. The bottom "80" is rubbish that should also be changed to 700. Furthermore, regarding Greek casualties, even Curtius whom would have been naturally biased towards the Greeks said that the Macedonians lost "platoons of men at a time." Do you believe that an ambitious Alexander would have sat and only merely once attacked the battle zone. Why would he have called for negotiations and offer to make Ariobarzanes a supreme commander after merely one failed attempt. There were several failed attempts, which led to more than one ambush. Alexander initially failed at the siege of Tyre and Granicus, did that stop him from attacking again. And finally Ariobarzanes did not flee as soon as the first ambush concluded, he retreated when a Persian shepperd betrayed the forces and then Abz. asked to garrison his force a nearby city, when they refused he went and died in the fight against Alexander, alongside his force. And its like you said, if the intention was an ambush, why then would he have such a massive force in the tens of thousands, besides Ariobarzanes was no Spithridates or Bessus of Achaemenid Persia, he would have not have such access to such large number, these are generally exaggeratted claims from Greek antiquarian sources. This is just of course my take, I wish other people would also add their input.--Arsenous Commodore 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite what you say, I see no reliable sources supporting those claims and numbers. Irannica may be generally reliable, but when it comes to Persian history (notably the Greco-Persian wars) Western scholarship tends to consider it biased. The proof of this is the numerous sources I have discovered. Everything I said above is drained from reliable sources, it's not my personal opinion, so if you want to refute it you need to cite something. Nothing personal, those are the rules. I replaced Irannica's laughable estimates with the numbers that appear to be the western consensus, and in my opinion, the real side of the story. Please abide by WP:ATT before making changes. Miskin 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also just for the record, one of the sources I cited, does regard 40,000 an exaggeration, and for that it explicitely mentions 25,000 as a "realistic" number. Many other modern sources take 40,000 for granted. I've never seen any lower numbers. As for the shepperd's betrayal, please read the article at Livius.org (linked above). This is kind of information is today regarded as folklore, not history. Miskin 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand, are you suggesting, The Romance of Alexander and Roxana - p. 265, Marshall Monroe Kirkman suggests 40,000 but the rest do not, so then why have such undo weigh. Modern Western consensus (which is what the warbox should generally include) dismiss Arrian's 40,000 figure. Out of curiosity what would make Ephialtes at Thermopylae historically accurate and make a Persian shepperd fictitious folklore. Kind of seems like a double standard, Livius also suggests that Herodotus' Ephialtes is just as suspicious and dubious, should we remove that from the Thermopylae article too?--Arsenous Commodore 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The 40,000 figure is a primary source estimation and it is cited in more than many modern sources, so it has to stay as the max figure. I don't know how realiable the Ephialtes story is, but the shepperd story is clearly a myth because of its great resemblance to the former (according to this [). They could both be myths, but for the obvious reason the second version has more chances to be a myth than the first. If you prove that a consensus of scholars consider the Ephialtes story as a myth, then by all means do make the necessary edits. For all I know the story of Ephialtes is generally cited as something factual. No double standards there, only abiding by wp:att. I would have no problem to admit on both being myths. [[User:Miskin|Miskin]] 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at Livius.org and it doesn't seem to question the validity of the Ephialtes story. Miskin 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also in my opinion, just for the sake of being fair to WP:NPOV, you should have let the 40,000 max range in the article. After all, all this time the ludicrous figure of 700 was posing as factual. Adding the real estimates is the least you could do in order to compensate for all this time of biased edits. After all the primary sources give 25,000 and 40,000 (Diodorus and Arrian), many scholars cite Arrian, one so far prefers Diodorus. That doesn't mean that Arrian's figure is Sci&Fi, please try to abide by the NPOV policy. Your edit summary already states something false, i.e. that only one historian prefers Arrian. This not true. Miskin 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Can you give me some names, book titles, links, a few so that I can see for myself 40,000 is a consensus of modern Western scholarship. So far all I have seen is that it is a primary source, which is generally dismissed as an exaggeration. I apologize regarding the shepperd issue, it appears I had misinterpreted the article. Thanks. Regarding the 700 figure, it was because I knew of no other modern source and was thus for the moment forced to accept the Iranica source given by the original author of this Wiki article. Even 25,000 is a Greek primary source figure from Diodorus whom even to Will Durant was always generous with numbers. I think that represents the fairest figure. And careful just because modern scholarship cites a primary source figure, doesn't necessarily mean that they accept it many a times they cite and suggest the figure cant have been that high.--Arsenous Commodore 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also all I meant regarding the history page brief of change was that from my understanding of your added footnote only one modern scholar accpets the figure, if there are others please footnote them first, otherwise I believe I'm safe in saying it is not a consensus figure.--Arsenous Commodore 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I noticed you put the 40,000 back in, I suppose you missed my earlier comment here. Can you list some modern western scholarship (books, authors, links) that show a consensual agreement on Arrian's 40,000 figure. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody said 40,000 was a consensus but... WP:NPOV explicitely mentions that all significant viewpoints need to be mentioned, apart from fringe views that is. Arrian's figure is by no means a fringe view, the only fringe view is Irannica's 700. The more I read this article the move I realise how badly wikipedia suffers from POV-pushing in certain occasions. I only came here by accident, imagine how many more articles are in a similar condition. Miskin 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited two modern sources which consider Arrian's figure reliable, how can you still complain about that? The article has been worse than an Iranian school book for months, and you suddenly care about how many scholars choose Diodorus over Arrian? I mean come on, show some respect. Miskin 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I get a little upset when I discover POV-pushing like this at random. Miskin 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just included both Western and Iranian views for NPOV and to counter systemic bias. Maybe this should (hopefully) settle a few issues? Jagged 85 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jagged you of all people should know that I'm of the opinion that partisan sources should be restricted. I thought you as well had agreed that in Thermopylae both modern Greek and Iranian scholarship should be limited. Now you're violating WP:UNDUE by giving Irannica the same weigh as western scholarship, despite the criticism the former has received by the latter. Knowing your editing practices I'm disappointed to see such a double standard logic from your part. Irannica's 700 is a fringe view which according to WP:NPOV does not deserve to be mentioned. If there can be found one credible western scholar who regards Irannica's figure as plausible, then it should be mentioned in the article (albeit not the infobox) as a minority view. Right now it has no place in the article at all, let alone the infobox. This is the equivalent of applying the same weigh to the estimates of Herodotus and the estimates of modern scholars at Thermopylae. You're not being neutral Jagged and I'm sorry. Miskin 10:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvand your edit-summary has no basis, WP:ATT is official policy and it's an editor's obligation to replace unsourced POV with attributed text. Please let's avoid WP:DR for such a straight-forward matter. You know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time. I know it can be hard to accept that your preferred opinion is a fringe view by western standards, but you have to put this aside and respect wikipedia's rules. Miskin 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica
Iranica is a reliable Western modern source. It is an Amercian encylopdia based in Columbia University and mostly written by Western academics. Since the name is Iranica it doesn’t mean it is an Iranian reference. Miskin, I realized that you have removed many cited information (which is considered vandalism). I am reverting all your edits and encourage you to participate in a constructive discussion instead of pushing your personal view that Iranica is not reliable. Iranica is in no way comparable to Herodotus. (Arash the Archer 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Fair enough, I'll play along. Let's just ignore the fact that you removed three speciliased sources to replace them with an encyclopaedic one, and let's just assume that Iranica is the only source available at the moment (contradicted by nobody). Let us even ignore that Iranica's reliability receives frequent criticism from western sources. Can you personally quote for me the part where Iranica speaks about 700 Persians? If you claim that Iranica says so, then you need to be able to back it up yourself. Can you verify that Iranica claim which is contradictory to both ancient and modern estimates? This dispute will put the many things about disruptive nationalist editors to the test. Miskin 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This of course was a trap question, as the article is already linked, but I doubt you or anybody else who cited had ever read it. Let's see what Iranica says on the subject: Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.) Do you expect anyone to believe that this was written by a western author? Citing a guy who claims that "Greek estimates on infantry are generally valueless", therefore equal to zero, therefore Ario came down with cavalry only. This is honestly laughable, just be neutral for a moment and think that Persepolis was the capital city of the Persian Empire. What about Curtius' claim on 25,000? He was Roman not Greek, hence the 25,000-40,000 figure supported by modern sources. The article does admit that mainstream opinion cites Arrian and Curtius, the author's original thought is a fringe view which has no support in western sources and is violating NPOV. You removed all the sources to replace them with this fringe view, speaking of systematic biased, what an irony. How about Starting an RfC on this? I think it's time the Iranian-related article POV-pushers came to the attention of the wikipedia community. What's most hilarious is that you didn't even revert to Jagged version, but you chose to completely remove all reference and keep the Iranian "patriot" [sic] POV. Your edit-summary made the perfect irony. Miskin 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all you removed my un-encyclopaedic reference here fisrt without an explanation. Iranica says:  Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes here. If you want to add new information it is welcome but do not remove cited information and put your text in it's appropriate place with NPOV tone and without trying to make a point. And please stop accusing others of being nationalist. Your behaviour only in this page is more questionable. At last I am not here to play I am here to help to make an encyclopedia.(Arash the Archer 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Excuse me but have you ever read WP:NPOV, WP:RS or WP:UNDUE? Please do so. I know what Iranica claims and it is its author's personal opinion, you can read it for yourself above. If that's the case then it is a fringe view which should not be mentioned, if for no good reason because its claim is so contradictory to the established consensus (also verified by Iranica). Iranica maybe reliable in some aspects, but is unreliable in others; no source is reliable for everything. Iranica has often received criticism from western scholarship and it is not a western project, it's an Iranian one. Now, can you find any reliable sources apart from Iranica which support the 700 estimate? This estimate is so absurd that I keep thinking I have misunderstood the article. Can you somehow prove that this can qualify as a minority view worthy of being mentioned (abiding by WP:UNDUE)? Miskin 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't point any finger, but you know what they say... In any case, read NPOV and read WP:UNDUE, don't make me cite it for you. Wikipedia is not supposed to include all sources unconditionally, you must prove that your theory has a minimum support by other scholars other than the author of the Iranica article. Miskin 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

hello i am from punjab india.. I came here because Miskin keeps  removing this battle from the article 'last stand', i have alerady explained to him that Iranica is a western project, but he talks as if he's the all-knowing God of wikipedia or something, and dismisses oppsing views that clash with his  nationalistic view point  under different pretexts  by citing various irrelevant rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

I understand that you're a new user but you have broken WP:3RR in last stand. I'm taking this to RfC. Miskin 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Arash there are countless of reliable modern sources accepting the 40,000 and/or 25,000 figures given by Arrian and Curtius. See also "Sources for Alexander the Great: An Analysis of Plutarch's 'Life' and Arrian's 'Anabasis Alexandrou'" by N. G. L. Hammond, cited in Iranica (Cambridge University Press). I can't think a more reliable source. It accepts Arrian's account on 10,000 Greeks (6000 with Alexander and 3500 with Craterus) "were attacking 40,000 Persian infantry and 400 cavalry". Do you have a source to support the Iranian POV of 700 cavalry and zero infantry? Do you have an excuse as to why you completely removed the consensus view? Is that your "caring about wikipedia"? Miskin 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not, Iranica is a reliabale non-Iranian, Western project that worth to be mentioned together with other measures(go ahead and add others). My personal viewpoint(which I try not to affect me in WP) is that it is more shamefull not to be able to provide a 10,000 troops against the enemy than loosing a battle even if you outnumber the enemy. ps Iranica doesn't indicate that there was 700 cavalry and zero infantry. It only says the total number was 700. (Arash the Archer 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

You can repeat that as many times as you want but it won't change the fact that the Iranica article's author's view is not supported by any western sources whatsover. You are responsible of restoring the edits you removed, if you want to prove your being a neutral editor that is. Also there's a little policy called WP:UNDUE. If you want to avoid NPOV violation you must restore my version and add the Iranica view separately. It is absurd to base the entire article on Iranica rather than the western consensus. Read Iranica's article again (pasted above), the 700 figure derives from Arrian's account on the cavalry, but the infantry counts for zero because someone once said that Greek estimates are "valueless". Yes, the word "valueless" was taken by Iranica literally, as in with "no value". I wonder what Iranica says on the battles of Persians against Greek infantry only. Were the Persians fighting at Thermopylae and Plataea against ghosts? At the end of the day the problem is not that Iranica gives a different estimate. If it gave 20,000 instead the accepted 25,000-40,000 range, heck even if it gave 10,000, it could have been easily passed as a minority view. However, it gives the shameless figure of 700, followed by a ludicrous justification. Due all the respect but this piece of information was IMHO added in order to please partisan readers, and not for the sake of neutrality. The most ironic thing is that the western consensus in mentioned ten lines above - implying that they may believe this, but you can believe that. This is just pure propaganda and from what I see it works pretty well. According to WP:NPOV, of course, such an extreme and unsupported claim - so distant from the established consensus - cannot even qualify as an alternative view. Miskin 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Iranica is an Iranian project, supervised by Iranians. This is the conclusion made from the wikipedia article. It often receives criticism in western sources. Miskin 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Irania reasonign seems rather bizarre. It seems to be "Greek historians were inaccurate, so we'll ignore their infantry figure and assume the cavalry figure refers to the total strength". If you cant see the problems in that logic there's something wrong. --RaiderAspect 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * not our job to evaluate the reasonings of a reliable source and scholarly journal. We are not academics, we are not historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

I agree with you completely. Where we disagree is on whether we should utterly reject the vast majority of 2300 years of scholarship because it is contradicted by Iranica. --RaiderAspect 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * modern scholarship, is more useful and valuable than the older works by the ancient Greek historians and storytellers who thought everything that was best and civilized was Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Iranica is only one example of modern scholarship. I am far, far, far from convinced that it demonstrates the modern consensus. --RaiderAspect 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me just quote the paragraph in question as it is seen in the Iranica article Ario Barzan: Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Put the accent on this sentence: "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly". This is the consensus of modern scholarship, Iranica admits it but prefers to ignore this. The justification and conclusion provided is absurd. Iranica is published by an american house but is a largely Iranian encyclopaedia, ran and edited by Iranians. It is only normal that it contains some pro-Iranian POV every now and then, and it's normal for wikipedia to ignore it. I'm going to revert to my version and add Iranica's claim in a note, along with the fact that it's unsupported - per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. And please new red user (whose name escapes me), sign your name using four tildes. Also read about WP:3RR that you've already violated. You have been warned twice about this rule so there won't be an excuse for further edit-warring. Miskin 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderestanding the concept of being bold. you can not easily revert stable articles without having patience to participate in a discussion. Iranica says :
 * At the battle of Gaugamela some Persian units were led by Ariobarzanes; ... The total strength of the forces from Persis is estimated at 5,000 horsemen, 1,000 infantry and 1,000 Mardian archers (ibid., p. 36 and diagram II, col. 2, nos. 6 and 9). The units under Ariobarzanes, therefore, could not have comprised more than 2,000 men.

And then it continues:
 * However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.
 * This is quite reasonable and should be mentioned as an argument in the article. ps. New users should not be blamed for edit wars. But what is your excuse? (Arash the Archer 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC))


 * "Stable article"? Your personal perception on how edits are made seems to be contradictory to wp:policy and Jimbo Wales' comments. Secondly, where was I edit-warring? Can you provide some diffs with my reverts and the time gap between them? If you want to make accusations you should make sure you can back them up. Last but not least, for the 10th time, please read WP:UNDUE, another official policy in the english wikipedia that you seem to be ignorant of. Iranica's claims are apparently "quite reasonable" only to the partisan reader. Those claims are absurd. This logic suggests that the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Plataea were fought between Greeks and an army of ghosts - zero soldiers and a handful of cavalry. By this "stable article"'s conclusions and Iranica's assumptions, Thermopylae, Plateae and countless other battles should be regarded all as Persian last stands against "overwhelming Greek armies" - whose estimates are considered valueless. Miskin 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Ariobarzan was Satrap of Persis, surely the entire contingent from Persis would have been under his command at Gaugamela? Not to mention that Gaugamela was three months before the Persian Gate, so Ariobarzan had time to raise/gather new troops. And even then, this assumes that the entire army of Persis, the centre of the Persian empire, a) consisted of about 6000 me and b) was committed in it's entirity to Gaugamela. Hell, Iranica itself declares that it's espousing a minority viewpoint! --RaiderAspect 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This POV should be temporarily added in a note, until it can be proved that it has minimal support in mainstream scholarship, so it can qualify as a minority view. If this is not proved, then it should be completely removed. To quote from WP:UNDUE: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Please notice the highlighted text - this view does not qualify as a minority view (yet). However I agree to be patient and put it inside a note until someone proves that it qualifies as a minority view. In the meantime, western consensus must be applied. Miskin 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (multiple edit conflict)Hello all. If I can add just a few notes, the 40,000 number must absolutely be added in the warbox, because it has been endorsed by many modern historians; and while Iranica disagrees, this appears to be only a minority opinion in western scholarship. I've controlled Lane Fox's biog. of Alexander: also he mentions the 40,000 number. That this is the truth or not is of absolutely no importance, because were not searching That, but simply to obey to WP:ATT. The Iranica can in my opinion be acceptable as a WP:RS, but on the same ground we should accept that it's a minority opinion, and this seems to me to be clearly stated by the same author of the Iranica article, as quoted by Miskin, i.e. "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly". I think we cann add Iranica's opinion that this estimate is wrong, but is must be stated clearly it's his opinion: sort of "Against these Mr. xxxxx (is a name given?) argues in the Iranica Encyclopedia that the forces Ariobarzanes disposed of in the battle could not be more than 2,000 men, further arguing, like Highnett had previously done regarding the Persian Wars, that Greek estimates on the Persian infantries were in most cases valueless. Thus the author argues for ignoring Arrian's estimate of the Iranian infantry and instead taking in account only the number he provides for the cavalry, i.e. 700 men." This is an example of how it could be written in my view.--Aldux 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just made some changes and added Irannica athor's view inside a note. We can include the name of Highnett but I think that it also needs to be verified that the word "valueless" is interpreted correctly. In my opinion it is irrational to interpret valueless as "zero". Valueless can mean "unreliable", which does not equal to a figure of zero. This isolated statement is clearly badly interpreted. In other words it's highly unlikely that Highnett himself would have the same conclusion as the Iranica author. Thanks for your input Aldux. Miskin 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding what you say concerning Highnett, I agree: one thing is to say that the infantry estimates can't be trusted, completely another is: any infantry number given = 0. As for the final conclusion, that obviously regards only the Iranica authour; while both Highnett and Iranica agree that in general infantry numbers can't be provided, it's only Iranica that equals unreliability with zero.--Aldux 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to mention the Iranica's view in the box : That's a good and professional source and in other similar pages they have mentioned both sources. --Alborz Fallah 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean something like this :

Size of the Persian army
Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.).Iranica.com.

I personally added the "estimates vary - see below"-formula in Battle of Thermopylae because it's a recognisably controversial topic, and it was the only way to avoid edit-warring. This is not the case with Iranica's author. His view has no support nor mention whatsoever in other sources, and is extremely contradictory to the undisputed consensus. That would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE - I even pasted the paragraph above. In addition if we were to follow his logic, we would have to change to zero all infantry estimates on all Greco-Persian battles. Why would the Greco-Roman estimate be equal to zero (valueless) in this battle specifically and accepted everywhere else? Those are questions which partisans editors do not bother with. To me it's evident that the Iranica author makes a deliberate attempt in order to draw a parallel between Thermopylae and the Persian Gate due to his personal agenda. There's a clear bias in his conclusion, hence why it has no support. WP:NPOV exists in order for wikipedia to defend itself from such bias. As it is stated in WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another". Miskin 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also sources stating that the size of Persian army was 4000 like . I think we should mention all sources in the article. Your idea that Iranica is biased is a personal view. (Arash the Archer 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Iranica is addressing a book of a Charles Hignett that is known author of Greek history ! --Alborz Fallah 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a 1851 source which calls the Persians "barbarians" in a scholarly context. Are you sure it deserves to have the same weigh as the modern consensus? 4000 foot and 700 is also a figure cited by Arrian, this is the force Ariobarzanes took with him during his escape. How is this any relevant to Iranica author's view about "valueless" estimates? The point is that there is an undisputed consensus on this 25,000-40,000 figure. This is not at all a controversial matter, nor it has any pragmatic link to Thermopylae, this must become clear. I'm taking no sides Arash, in battle of Thermopylae I proposed to exclude all Greco-Iranian sources and stick to the western consensus. Along with that I also suggested to exclude the western estimates that were larger than 300,000 and stick to consensus range. Miskin 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A very small note on Rollin: 1) the Rollin number is 99% a press typo; 2) the work was not written in 1851, but in French in the early 18th century, so I doubt it can be considered WP:RS.--Aldux 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Miskin, I am going to ignore the rude slanderous words you just shot at me, and I'm going to consider that you just got overheated (which happens to all) because Alexander nearly seemingly had a very costly victory. LOL. I am wasting everyone's time, a POV-pusher and I lack any respect for the whatever you meant, "have some respect." Well Miskin I saw you differently before this. I don't understand why you suddenly made this discussion hostile, but I can see that I am not needed, for I am wasting everyone's time. So I'll leave the article to for now, I suppose; but I am going to speak to an Admin and ask him/her whether my behaviour really deserved this outlash. Perhaps I was being unintentionally disrespectful, I will have to go check I suppose. But most of all don't lie in front of Wikipedians who want to make this article better and say that my views are not accepted by western scholarship. What previously wanted from you on the discussion board (which I don't care fore now) is an example of what I will give you below. My view was not 80 or even 700, but rather ca. 25,000. My book below suggests that Ariobarzanes had no more than 25,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. Below is the bibliographic detail: Title: Envy of the Gods. Author: John Prevas. Da Capo Press Edition 2004. Pg. 217 ISBN: 0-306-81268-1.

Since I am still learning Wiki basics I don't know how to footnote properly, so I will leave this here in case someone wants to use it in the article and footnote, or I may come back later and do it once I know. Interestingly enough this source also like Heckel compares it to Thermopylae and suggests that the Persians were outnumbered, so I don't quite understand how this manipulation of numbers has led to at least a 2:1 ratio for Ariobarzanes. I will quote for you, but find me another source other than Arrian which states Alexander was outnumbered, for I have never seen or heard that. But hey I'm a POV pusher. What does that matter.

"'...some sixty kilometres from the city, the loyal Persian satrap Ariobarzanes with a contingent of infantry and cavalry had attempted to defend Persepolis by holding Alexander's army in a narrow defile called the Persian Gates. That battle where a small force held a much larger invading army at bay in a narrow space, was an uncanny replay of the famous battle of thermopylae in 480 BC, except this time the sides were reversed.'"

But I am satisfied to see that you have chosen to stick to simply modern western sources, check your talk page, I am happy for this cooperation, perhaps we have some work for many more Greco-Persian battles, Thermopylae and Plataea for examples. I may bring more periodically add sources here to the dicussion board or the article (once I learn) that show different figures all arguing for 25,000 and below, and showing why Arrian's figures cannot be accurate. Goodbye for now.--Arsenous Commodore 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you feel agressed, but I think you misunderstood what I said. I only said to you "I mean come on, show some respect", and then "I'm sorry, I guess I get a little upset when I discover POV-pushing like this at random", referring to the fact that I ran into this page by accident - not at you being a POV-pusher. I don't see how this can be interpreted as "rude slanderous words shot at somebody" You misunderstood my tone. You've been assuming that I was angry or intense since the beginning but you're wrong. If I were upset at someone that would be at people who use double standards between this and other articles. And as I said above I find that Iranica's opposition to consensus on the current subject is a deliberate distortion of history. I find it disturbing that such POV can be injected so easily in wikipedia and remain unnoticed for such a long time. This is not about the 700 horsemen, it's about how easily a false figure caused such a massive historical distortion. In any case, I didn't call you a POV-pusher, and "show some respect" was a figure of speech referring to the injustice that this article had been doing all this time to NPOV, or whatever was in my mind at that moment. I really think there's no reason for you to feel upset. Miskin 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the dispute at hand and the paragraph you just quoted, Heckel prefers the Curtius/Diodorus figure to Arrian's. This 25,000 figure still makes Alexander's army vastly outnumbered. You say that you've never heard that Alexander's army was outnumbered in this battle, well, I had never heard of the opposite before running into this article. Maybe your view on this was affected by the article's previous version that put so much emphasis on an apparently false interpretation: the allegedly outnumbered Persians (instigated by the Iranica author - though never explicitely mentioned). Therefore it becomes apparent that Heckel's "sides becoming reversed" statement refers to the Greeks being the invaders and the Persians the defenders - and not to the proportions of their armies. Otherwise he wouldn't be accepting Curtius' numbers which imply that the Macedonians were outnumbered by over 2:1. Miskin 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates ?
30.708°N, 51.62237°W


 * Is it correct ?

there is no consensual agreement among scholars on Arrian's 40,000 figure, noone can prove that there is


 * Which is why we are stating 25,000-40,000 - it does cover the range of mainstream scholarly view. The 700 figure meanwhile is supported by only one secondary publication and no primary sources (and anyway, one shouldn't ever cite from an encylopedia). --RaiderAspect 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

not true, there is no consensual agreement about 40,000 figure being 'mainstream scholarly view". you haven't proved that yet, not by a long shot. Renowned Professor of ancient history Waldemar Heckel in his book 'Who's Who In The Age Of Alexander The Great' says that 40000 figure is exaggerated.


 * From what I understand, Heckel is the source of the 25,000 figure. Heckel has never suggested there were only 700 Persians, as the version you insist on declares. The only source of that claims admits that it's view is not held by the majority of modern scholars. Be aware that you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. --RaiderAspect 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heckel says that 40000 figure is exaggerated, that refutes your argument that '25,000-40,000 is mainstream scholarly view'


 * Heckel's statement in no way supports your position that there were 700 Persians. It merely suggests that 40,000 is not undisputed. The version I am reverting too does not claim that there were 40,000, it notes that mainstream opinion ranges from 25,000-40,000. Be aware you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. --RaiderAspect 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heckel clearly says '40000 figure is exaggerated' —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly with RaiderAspect. 40,000 is the figure of Arrian and 25,000 is the figure of Diodorus. Both of those figures are widely accepted today, scholars like Heckel prefer the figure of Diodorus while scholars like Hammond, (who is an extremely RS), cites Arrian. The fact that both of those figures are accepted by modern consensus is also verified by Iranica, hence "25,000-40,000" is our only choice in the article. I don't understand on what grounds some people continue to complain about this. Red user, please do sign your name with for tildes. Miskin 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He has been warned for 3RR at least 5 times and he has violated it here and in last stand. Miskin 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've reported him for the 3RR violation. Anyway, regarding the 700 figure, I'm considering if it might be best to acknowledge it with a footnote saying something like "The Encyclopedia Iranica states that there were only 700 Persians at the battle, but by it's own admission this view is reject by most scholarship." --RaiderAspect 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This exact footnote has been there for a while now, and to be honest I thought of it as a compromise when I added it. Apparently this is not about the numbers of Diodorus/Curius vs Arrian's, this is about the fact that some people prefer the older original-thought version which presented this battle as a last stand. Miskin 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers
I was asked by RaiderAspect to look into the talk page of the Persian Gate article. To be honest, neither the 700 figure nor the 40,000 figure appear correct to me. Why don't we just leave the box blank or go with something like "estimates vary"? AlexanderPar 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think there is a consensus that Arrian has exaggerated. But sisnce it has been repeated in many old sources we can mention it and also say in parentheses that it is exaggerated.(Arash the Archer 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
 * The 700 figure has to be noted, it's from a modern academic source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmender6767 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

The 700 figure is already mentioned inside a footnote, and is in my opinion already given more weigh than it deserves. Maybe you should all be checking other people's edits before reverting them. We can't say that "estimates vary" simply because estimates do not vary, there's a clear consensus on Arrian's and Curtius' figures. We cannot pretend that this is a controversial subject because some people would like to imagine it so (under the blessings of an Iranica author). Miskin 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dharmender is so blocked... Miskin 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should be more polite when addressing other users. I see no clear consensus on Arrian's and Curtius' figures. I think the 40,000 is obsolete, if we're mentioning that, then we should also mention the 700 figure. AlexanderPar 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but so far you've shown the image of a disruptive editor. You started making reverts before participating in discussion and now that you supposedly do participate, it's evident that you haven't read what's been discussed in the past. So what do you expect from me? Copy-edit the previous discussions into this section? Read up the Iranica article, it's already linked in the main article and it's even pasted in this talk page. It does acknowledge that a consensus between those figures exist, and this was pointed out to you several times, including by Aldux in an edit-summary. Miskin 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring Dharmender (how can I take seriously an editor who utterly shows contempt for one of the most elementary rules of wikipedia?) and awnsering to Arash and Alexander, please note that Heckel only says that Arrian is exaggerated, not Curtius, and our range covers both. Also keep in mind that this number is upholded by Lane Fox, Bagnell Bury, Partha Sarathi Bose (Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy), Vance Cummings (who rights "posted nearly fifty thousand men"), Agness Savill and Charles Alexander Robinson. Just to diminish your doubts that 25,000-40,000 is the consensus range.--Aldux 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you read WP:UNDUE you'll find out that under the given circumstances, the footnote assigned to that view is already a lenient approach. Miskin 15:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. So instead of replying to us in here, AlexanderPar chooses to go on and make his own version of the article, taking advantage of the fact that we've been reverting Dharmender, and hence he goes on to make edits on the article. What can I say, this is for laughs. Miskin 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin, please don't do too many changes in one edit like you did here can you be more patient and let us discuss changes step by step? (Arash the Archer 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I have nothing to discuss anymore. You're not blatantly interested in making contributions, you're only interested in passing partisan POV. Since you don't respect wikipedia's policies, there's no common ground for argumentation, therefore there's nothing to talk about at the moment. The problem has proved itself to be much more than a content dispute, and in my opinion it deserves the attention of the wikipedia community. And of course I'm not basing this on the current article (though it can serve as a good example), this is a much more general phenomenon. Catch you later. Miskin 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin, please be polite and respectful, to make your points heard. My expertise are international law, but from what I gather here, the 40,000 figure is contested by several reputable sources, so if we're including such controversial estimate, then we should also include the 700 figure to balance things out. AlexanderPar 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin, Please be civil and don't attack personally if you are familiar with Wiki policies as you claim. I don't have the time to contribute more than this in Wikipedia and sometimes it is a big help if you just keep the articles safe from POV pushers. I once laughed on your joke about complaining to Wikipedia community but it is not funny anymore when you repeat it. Can you tell me what is the reason of your haste in changing the article without trying to convince other editors? You even replace the shepherd story (which is widely reported) with its opposing opinion. It is the most obvious sign of POV to only mention the denying expression without explaining the subject of dipute!(Arash the Archer 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Naming
It may be a little off-track, but does anyone accept if I change all the mention of the Persian general's name to "Ariobarzanes." If I have not mistaken this is the most common usage? I see at times, Ario or Ariobarzan or Ario barzan, do all agree if I make the changes, I just want consistency in the naming. I'll make the changes, but if anyone disapproves, please let me know. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing alert
User:Miskin has been soliciting the help of other Greek editors who are on the record with a specific opinion in order to influence the discussions and the edits here . This is a violation of WP:CANVASSING. AlexanderPar 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CANVASSING before citing it, it speaks about votestacking, not about defending NPOV. Of course this desperate accusation stays in the record. Miskin 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but why not just let Wiki be Wiki, whoever stumbles upon it can voluntarily add their input. Why intentionally ask only Greek users, I thought your perception was the rightful one, which stated no POV of any nationalities. Its probably best to allow those who voluntarily come to this article to add insight, don't you think? --Arsenous Commodore 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent it being implied that I am incapable of being neutral or reasonable. Miskin also asked a German and an Italian - this would raise doubts as to the credibility of your allegations (canvassing with that particular purpose in mind).--Ploutarchos 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. And he is accusing other editors for pushing POV. he has also been fishing on "friendly" admin's talk pages" . Ploutarchos's edits were a revert to Miskin's version in 3 edits, he's acting as the meatpuppet of Miskin, so I am reverting the edits. Once again if you realy want to improve the article lets go step by step. This approch is not going to work. (Arash the Archer 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I think you'll find Aldux has a mind of his own and Miskin is entitled to express an opinion. Also, AlexanderPar and Arvand say "other Greek editors" and "only Greek users". Apart from me, who else is there?--Ploutarchos 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I apologize, I was simply relying on the info AlexanderPar gave me. I guess I made a mistake. Furthermore, I do agree that Aldux has been quite reasonable with his edits. I also do not think this battle was Pyrrhic.--Arsenous Commodore 18:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this may sound pretty lame, but I think we all need to calm down and relax, were getting a little overexcited I think. How about we just discuss all important changes and see if we can come up with a consensus that both satisfies Wiki rules and all of us here. Let's not make any big changes until we discuss everything. Anyone agree?--Arsenous Commodore 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ploutarchos, you don't have to be Greek to have a pro-Greek POV. The people who have been solicited here by User:Miskin all appearer to be pro-Greek from their edits, so this is a classic case of canvassing. AlexanderPar 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I am entitled to give my opinion and edit the article. However the article was brought to my attention, when I explain my edits I expect a rationale to be provided if/when they are reverted. Common sense and good manners require this...Ploutarchos 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Common sense and good manners also require that we don't solicit "third opinion" of friends and relatives whose opinions we already know. AlexanderPar 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. How is it canvassing to alert wikipedia against a group of partisan users? The editors who are causing the edit wars and violate NPOV are a coalition of Iranian and/or Indian partisan users who communicate by email in order to push their POV in several different articles. This campaign is only one out of many, although the NPOV violation happening here is probably the worst I've seen so far. I've only asked help from editors who I know for a fact to be neutral, albeit familiar and interested in topics of that kind. I want to continue the dispute in presence of neutral editors - I have nothing more to say to people who do not respect wikipedia's rules. "More" neutral editors that is, because apparently the neutral participants tend to find themselves outnumbered by partisans at an exponential rate. Miskin 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I initially asked for a third opinion only from Aldux. I referred to more editors when I smelled a rat behind the pro-Iranica coalition, which instead of replying to our points, chose to force its version by means of numerical superiority. Miskin 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin, I have to warn you again for civility. Your tone of talking is getting worse each time. It is shameful that you are projecting your own faults onto others, you're the one going around requesting help from your friendly users. If you really wanted a neutral opinion, why you didn't go to one of the WP's history projects? Anyway, all I ask you is that chillout and lets dicuss everything step by step. Is that too much. Just look what you have done. You entred an stable article and tried to change everything instantly and when you were invited to enter a discussion you called your friends and expanded the edit war.  (Arash the Archer 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Right, so now you're implying that Aldux, FPS and Plutarchos are "my friends" therefore not neutral? On the other hand, Mardavich, yourself, AlexPar are all neutral, in no way connected to each other? What's next? Hammond, Lane Fox and the Western consensus of scholar giving 25,000-40,000 are my friends too? Maybe this is why you've been ignoring them so far. Don't let your imagination run wild, if I had wanted to be cunning I could have used email, but I deliberately used wikipedia because I've got nothing to hide. Save those accusations for a more official level, when the time comes we'll let the wikipedia community judge us. For now we should take this to WP:DR - I was thinking for calling more of what you call "my friends" in mediation cabal or RFC. Miskin

PS: WP:CANVASSING is about votestacking, not about about asking for third opinions on edit disputes. You probably knew that already, I guess you spoke too fast because you felt that this dispute should remain undercover - for the obvious NPOV reasons. But it's not gonna work. Miskin 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shepherd's betrayal
"It is generally regarded as a myth today, especially due its great resemblance to the story of Ephialtes" according to whom? Only Livius,org? The story is mentioned in many reputable sources, Livius could be considered a fringe source, the websites' owner is an editor on Wikipedia. --Mardavich 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah right, livius.org is a fringe view, while the absurdities of Iranica are given more weigh than the western consensus. Funny that livius.org is a fringe view only for this edit, and not for example for the fact that "The Persians fought bravely". One would call this hypocrisy and irony. Miskin 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy there, calm down. Are you seriously comparing livius.org to Iranica? And if livius.org is the only source for "the Persians fought bravely", then that phrase should be reworked as well. I never said anything to the contrary, OK? --Mardavich 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much you know about Livius.org but there's a very credible scholar behind it. Iranica is mainly edited by Iranians, and the claim in question contains a clear bias which contradicts western consensus. Do read the Iranica article Mardavich, you may understand where I'm coming from. It acknowledges that 25,000-40,000 is the western consensus, yet chooses to replace it with "zero" because it's based on Greek infantry estimates i.e. "valueless". Miskin 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said Iranica is mainly edited by Iranians? Iranica is edited by famous Iranologists   most of whom are not Iranian. --Mardavich 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse my ignorance, but could you please give the names of these "many reputable sources" and how they endorse the position. Thanks.Ploutarchos 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed Mardavich. The very least we can do is provide both sides of the story and back each of them up with their sources in that paragraph. We can have one commentary describing how it is a legend using the Livius source and then list the opposing viewpoint with I believe one of the sources Arash provided some time ago. As long as there are sources for both, both of them should stay.--Arsenous Commodore 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ploutarchos, here is one of the sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=49Tc7jRSBrIC&pg=PA134&sig=eDovq-sg07hIjlybUlh2ARcRSUI

There are some others, and I will summarily post them here from time to time as I re-collect them. The above one was retrieved by Arash, I believe.--Arsenous Commodore 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The story of shephered is quite acceptable. Alexander was informed about the road from someone that was by great chance a local who knew the area. He just didn't take another road to find Ariobarzane by luck. It is widely reported also. ,,,,,. And of course the story resembles thermopylae and it is not a good reason for calling it a myth just because it is similar to thermopylea.(Arash the Archer 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Why the text and the reference are opposite ?

 * When we use the Superscripts in a text and address to the footnotes, that generally means the footnote is going to support the text, but I can't understand why in the information-box (Strength section) the text and the footnotes are opposite! And the footnote itself is against the reference (Iranica), without mentioning the reference itself:

"Irannica claims that Ariobarzanes' army was only 700 horsemen on the grounds that "Greek estimates of infantry are generally valueless" - a view with no support or mentions in mainstream scholarship. "
 * Is it in support of 40000 or against it? If is it against it, then why it appears that it's a reference for 40000? --Alborz Fallah 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simple to explain. The footnote was created in order to contain the Iranica author claim of 700 horsemen + zero infantry. This is a tiny minority view (Iranica author) and according to WP:UNDUE it deserves little or no mention. However, a group of editors reverted this because they think the view of the Iranica author should take precedence over western consensus (25,000-40,000). This is where the dispute lies. Miskin 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, Iranica acknowledges that western consensus supports 25,000 and 40,000 infantry, cited by Arrian and Curtius, along with 700 cavalry. Yet Iranica author claims that since Greek estimates on infantry cannot be trusted, he only considers 700 cavalry as a trustworthy figure. This logic of course is alien to the practices of mainstream scholarship. See also the Iranica article, it's linked in the article. Miskin 14:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go through this one more time
WP:NPOV states: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Isn't it obvious that the article violates NPOV by giving Iranica author's tiny minority view the same weight as the undisputed western consensus? This PNOV violation takes place in the infobox at "estimates vary from 700-40,000". Vary between whom? The consensus of western scholars and the fringe opinion of an Iranian scholar? The most ironic thing is that a certain group of editors here have constantly reverted to the version which presents the Iranica minority view as the dominant view. Miskin 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Iranica is the most authoritative source on Iranic culture, history, geography, etc... This is undisputed. Many of the most famous Western scholars have contributed to the encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia Iranica is infact itself a Western source. Miskin, you have been making biased edits on several articles. First of all, what makes you think that Western sources have precedence over non-Western sources? Your violating NPOV by removing SOURCED information on the basis that the links may not be "Western". Everything in that Iranica article is based on Western sources, and I'm sure the author himself/herself is Western.Azerbaijani 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're accusing me for having made biased or anti-Iranian edits [sic], then you must also be accusing all those non-Iranian editors and scholars that you keep confronting in several different Greco-Roman articles related to ancient Persia. This article serves as a good example. I never removed sourced information from this article, I added Iranica's view in a note, which is more than the weight it deserves according to the UNDUE weight part of NPOV (pasted above). So please don't be accusing me for things you ave abviously been doing yourself (see last stand). Not only you removed the 40,000 figure which meets wide support in mainstream scholarship, but you also insisted on presenting Iranica's fringe view as a consensus view - constantly giving it priority over the real consensus. And as always, yourself, Mardavich et al are the only ones having difficulties to understand what seems to be obvious to other editors. Miskin 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Azerbaijani, the logic that is applied by the author of the Iranica article certainly looks a bit shaky. He says:
 * Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (...). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela [i.e. 2,000 men]. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.
 * I honestly can't see how he reaches that conclusion from the information above. On what grounds does he single out Arrian's cavalry of 700 as the strength of the entire army, instead of giving a rough estimate of his own? It looks very much as if he is saying "Greek estimates for infantry are generally valueless, so there must have been none". Iblardi 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All Iranica articles are written by professionals. Like I said, some of the world greatest scholars have written for Iranica. Iranica is not something to be taken lightly. Certainly Miskin is not one to say what can and cannot be used as a source.Azerbaijani 17:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but a scholar's line of reasoning may also be questioned by others when it appears to be flawed, no matter if that scholar is Iranian or western. But perhaps things could be clarified if someone checked out Hignett's book. Unfortunately I don't have access to it. Iblardi 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless, Iranica does admit that scholarsly consensus accepts the 25,000-40,000 figure, therefore the arguable claim that "Iranica is the most authoritative source on Iranic culture" becomes moot. Iranica author says that "Greek infrantry estimates generally tend to be valueless", he doesn't specify that they should be valueless for this battle alone. Therefore it is implied that all Greek estimates, on all Greco-Persian battles, should be accountable to 'zero'. If we were to apply Iranica aguthor's logic to every article of Greco-Persian battles, then we should changes the numbers in Thermopylae, Plataea and countless of other articles to "zero". How come this isn't applied anywhere Mardavich? Maybe because it's absurd? Miskin 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, this expression(Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless) is not Iranica's claim. It is a quote from C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f. It means that we should be suspicious when those estimates are not ligical(like here). Moreover, There is no place for OR in Wikipedia. This sentence in the footnote is a complete OR :This view is not supported in mainstream scholarship. Iranica is a very important source in Iranian stuidies and citing it can help to improve the quality of this article. The Iranica's  estimate should be mentioned with the same weight as other sources in the article.  BTW this source also states that In the battle of persian gates ... a small force held a much greater invading army ...  (Arash the Archer 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

my dear fellow editors. These "700 Persians" send quite some ripples through Wikipedia. In my view, what all of this shows is that using infoboxes for historical battles isn't always a good idea. If I understand correctly, we have the following facts: Now, if you look at Battle of Kadesh or any other battle article, we don't give simple totals of troop strength, we list e.g. "2,000 chariots; ca. 16,000 infantry". In the present case, this would yield: That would about cover it all as far as I can see. The EI phrasing is sloppy. It doesn't actually claim that the Persian infantry strength was zero (as Miskin rightly protested). It dodges the issue by saying more or less "all that we can take for granted is the cavalry strength", being agnostic about infantry. I don't think EI editors would be pleased to find themselves quoted as claiming "zero infantry" here. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrian: 700 cavalry, 40,000 infantry
 * Diodorus: 300 cavalry, 25,000 infantry
 * Hignett: Greek infantry estimates are valueless
 * cavalry: 300[Diodorus]-700[Arrian]
 * infantry: uncertain["Greek infantry estimates are valueless"], estimated at 25,000[Diodorus] to 40,000[Arrian]
 * doh, re-reading EI, the EI estimate is clearly "below 2,000" not "zero" for infantry. That sounds half-reasonable at least. 2,000-40,000 is still a 1000% margin of error, but that's probably how much estimates in fact differ. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which would mean that the infobox figure should be 2700-40000. Ridiculous, yes, but unsurprising in a way. The 1000% figure is not so strange, really; I once briefly wished there was an article titled The Largest Army Seen In Europe about the number of different medieval estimates of the strength of Xerxes, the Huns, the adversaries of Charlemagne and so on. Not to mention how 19th c discussions of the Campaign of 1812 frequently declare that the French army was the Largest Army Seen In Europe since X, where X is widely divergent. Hornplease 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe I am misinterpreting the text at EI, but I still don't see were it says that the total strength of Ariobarzanes' army is anything other than 700. Help me out on this. Iblardi 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is still in violation of NPOV
I'm going to come out and say it--I am Iranian, I'm a huge Iranian history buff, and even I can see that this article is heavily pro-Persian. I'm going to go through and take out words like "heroic last stand" and "fought bravely" because they're amounting to Persian propaganda.

As far as the troop estimates go, I like the idea of separating the cavalry and infantry numbers. Everyone can agree that the Persians had between 300 and 700 cavalry. EI's infantry levels seem to be rather low, and I can understand the hesitance to include them here. However, it strikes me (at least from my limited experience with this topic) that the amount of research done regarding this battle is fairly small. The consensus surrounding Thermopylae, before modern historians began investigating it, was that the Persians fielded over 2 million men. Now, I don't mean to say then that we can invalidate all Hellenistic claims of Persian strength because of this--but it does lead me to believe that perhaps the scholarship surrounding this battle is fresh enough that we might see dramatic reductions in Persian troop numbers.

Anyhow, I hope everyone's had enough time to cool off so we can approach this article for what it should be: encyclopedic. Spectheintro 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro


 * I have just completed the edits. Let me know what you think--I yanked the shepherd story because it came from a business book, not an academic source.Spectheintro 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro
 * Why did you deleted the shepherd betrayal part? Arash the Archer 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As it was mentioned earlier, the shepherd story is mentioned in several sources. I am restoring the previous version. This is a highly controversial topic, and subject of a dispute, spectheintro should get consensus for his edits. AlexanderPar 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AlexanderPar: That doesn't make any sense at all. That section was *totally disputed*, and furthermore, inclusion of it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of my edits, which sought to correct the blatantly POV tone of the article. You completely undid a swath of edits that removed much of the pro-Persian sentiment in the writing. The article is extremely un-academic and generally poorly written. For example, "But Ariobarzanes knew what he was doing," or "Alexander obviously wanted the treasures of Persepolis for himself," and "Alexander walked into the trap with his eyes wide open." The tone of the article itself resembles a storybook as opposed to a factual article. I am going to incorporate some of the changes you made, but the shepherd story is still highly suspect. I left the story of the prisoner betrayal in because it has verifiable sources; the shepherd story is little more than a legend and the reference cited is from a business book. I've put it back in the article, but if we cannot get a more suitable reference it really needs to be pulled.Spectheintro 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immortals (talk • contribs).

its OK
this article doesn't violate any pov rules. please provide sufficient evidence of your allegations. Again inocent until proven guilty. The fact that you are Iranian or not is irelevant to me and or any other wikipedia member. Unless you have suffient evidence it is advised that you express your charactristics (race, sexual orientation, etc.) elsewhere and not on talk page.

thank you


 * If you are speaking to me, I provided plenty of evidence showing how un-academic this article had become. I rewrote most of it so it stopped reading like a storybook and started sounding like a respectable historical event. Judging from the basis of your edits (including below, where you decide to "let the viewers decide for themselves") I do not think you understand Wikipedia's purpose. It is not here so that we can push our individual beliefs; unless a claim has a reputable source, it doesn't make it into the article, period. Further, anything described in a Wikipedia article needs to be as neutral as possible: we're not here to play favorites. It does not matter if you do not believe a certain claim: if it has a reputable source, the claim gets included, unless many other claims contradict it. Similarly, if a source for a particular claim is not reliable, then the claim gets removed. The shepherd story was taken from a book on business practices; that is not verifiable enough to warrant a citation in Wikipedia.

I would also advise you to check your posts for grammar and spelling. This is not a message board; if you want to discuss something, you should use complete sentences and spell your words correctly. By not doing so, you cast your own ability as a contributor into doubt. Spectheintro (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

accurate numbers
ok the figure of 40'000 men under ariobarzan is simply ridiculous. ariobarzan did not even command 40'000 men in Gaugamela. Let alone having 40'000 survivors fighting in here.

'' " At the battle of Gaugamela some Persian units were led by Ariobarzanes; others, together with contingents from the neighboring Persian Gulf area were under Orontabates; the overall command of Persian troops was with Orxines, a descendant of Cyrus the Great (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5; Curtius 4.12.8), presumably the satrap of the province (cf. Arrian 6.30.1; Curtius 10.1.37). The Persian troops were stationed in the center of the army, near Darius, and suffered heavily in the ensuing battle (details in E. W. Marsdan, The Campaign of Gaugamela, Liverpool, 1964). The total strength of the forces from Persis is estimated at 5,000 horsemen, 1,000 infantry and 1,000 Mardian archers (ibid., p. 36 and diagram II, col. 2, nos. 6 and 9). The units under Ariobarzanes, therefore, could not have comprised more than 2,000 men. After the defeat at Gaugamela, Darius fled eastwards and the defense of each province was left to its governor. Alexander seized Babylon and Susa, and having gathered intelligence on Persis, its roads, resources and climate, he set out with a picked force of 17,000 men for Persepolis, the national and dynastic center of the empire (D. W. Engles, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, Berkeley and London, 1978, pp. 70ff.)" ''

please use common sense here, there was no army in persian gates but some poorly armed peasents and civilians under the command of some surviving nobles. Remember at this time Darius and his army had fled far away north to Bactria and no army is close by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Hammond says 40,000, while Heckel places Persian forces at 25,000, and most historians endorse these numbers, as Iranica itself reluctantly recognizes.--Aldux 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * well if the persian forces were 50-90 thousands in gaugamela there is no way there were 40,000 men im gonna seperate these to let viewers decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 01:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Which is the source for 100 Persians? I can't find it in 'Notes'.. Lysandros (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is expired but i have managed to find it in google cache: http://72.14.209.104/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-06%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=cache%3Ahttp://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f4/v2f4a058.html

"Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.)"

It is ridiculous how people here get away with argumentum ad verecundiam; The late Hammond, like his colleague Robin Lane Fox are specialists on the Graeco-Macedonians of Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian eras, but are typically ignorant on the mechanics of Iranian armies, and quoting them without questioning the veracity of their claims (Did Hammond for instance visit the site near Chêshm-î Chênâr or Yâsûj before giving a completely baseless estimate?) is fallacious and indicates unability to conduct a personal investigation of matters. Darius III Codomannus assembled a force of 30,000 men in Ecbatana, according to Quintus Curtius Rufus, and a lesser figure is given by Arrian; How does then a satrap who lead a few thousands of troops at Gaugamela then muster a force of 40,000 soldiers, or better yet, how does Ariobarzanes succeed in concealing this huge army from the Macedonians?

I'll tell you all a secret; The late Nicholas Hammond, may the Jägermeister gods bring his soul peace, probably smoked something he needed to share. Heckel's estimate is based on the lower end of the spectrum as given by Quintus Curtius Rufus, which appears reasonable, and somewhat accepted by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh in his own summary of the battle; I'd say Heckel's estimate is more accepted within Iranology, however given the conditions, it is also disputed, though not as disputed as Hammond who hux-flux copied his figures from Curtius Rufus. Given the geographical disposition of the area, and the fact that the country-side was enduring a winter, I'd say that Ariobarzanes was better off with a compact force. I am therefore in agreement with the article in Iranica.

Also, the battle outcome needs to change; The victory came at a great cost for Alexander. A Pyrrhic victory. By far, this is the battle where Quintus Curtius Rufus is emphasizing Graeco-Macedonian inability and Iranian martial ardour. The battle of Thermopylae bears this badge, and so does the battle of Hydaspes. In no uncertain terms, Curtius Rufus in passage 5:3 is quoted;

The greatest source of anguish for Alexander's courageous men was [...] their inability to strike back, their being caught and slaughtered like animals in a pit.

That even wrestling and grappling is mentioned truly gives another picture of the ability of Iranian warriors. This is the Thermopylae no one knows about, and these are the forgotten Spartans of Iran, so quite frankly Hammond's estimate can be mentioned, though it is clearly discredited and obsolete. 25,000 men, at most, and that is to take it to the most extreme stretch considering that it is almost as large as Darius' force assembled in Ecbatana. 2,000 men appears to me a very well-rounded figure, small enough to conceal, and far much simpler to divide into satâbam formations. Having twenty hundred-men battalions than twenty-five thousand-men divisions sounds not only more sensible and more rational, but it also sounds much more likely.--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Name?
Anybody know the Turkish name of this battle? Need it for a project... --Armanalp (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy losses ≠ Pyrrhic victory
I changed the description to "Macedonian victory, though with heavy losses". Even though that's not a standard wording, it describes the Alexander's victory (defined as advancing his strategic goals) accurately, and also expresses what I think some of the editors want to point out, that the Persians inflicted heavy casualties in the process. Heavy, unnecessarily, or disproportionate losses don't make a victory Pyrrhic - that requires the overall effect to be negative for the victor's campaign and goals due to these losses. Here, Alexander was able to achieve his objectives soon afterward in finishing resistance in the Persian Empire. If you call this a Pyrrhic victory you may as well call Russia's ending of WWII by taking Berlin a Pyrrhic victory due to the losses it sustained, or all of the larger battles in Virginia from 1864-5 for the Union before the Confederacy surrendered, "Pyrrhic" also. Finally, heroic last stands and inflicting high costs are not sufficient to create a Pyrrhic victory, just like the Alamo, Thermopylae, Isandlwana, the Foreign Legion at Camerone, etc. are just normal victories for their bloodied opponents. If there's a counter-argument about how Alexander was less able to achieve his goals after this battle, then I'm all for discussing that, but until then I'm going to take out the "Pyrrhic" as plain inaccurate. Wilytilt (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rarely can there have been a less Pyrric victory. The Persian army was annhilated, Alexander captured the enemy capital and carried on campaigning for another 7 years. I think Pyrrus himself would have been a lot happier if he could have won some battles like this.


 * This was a decisive victory, no matter what the cost in lives, since it finished off the Persian resistance. And the Persian capital was captured. That is about as decisive as it gets. It is quite adequately pointed out in the infobox already that Macedonian losses were heavy. This is why I have changed the 'result' to 'Decisive Macedonian Victory', which is standard wording.


 * I realise that this will annoy some Persio-philes out there, so I would like to point out that a) I am not Greek and that b) I have previously changed the result of Battle of Thermopylae to 'Decisive Persian Victory', because that is what it was. I have no bias towards either side, but the facts are the facts... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, well said. I think universally people want to root for the besieged defenders in any last stand, but by definition, "last stands" don't win battles, and usually don't cause Pyrrhic victories for the other side either... Wilytilt (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::I reverted to "Macedonian victory, though with heavy losses", put relevant picture, divided battles to first and second attack, edited and organized links, and then some low-life comes and change it all (?!). This historical adventure is actually consisted of two battles (one month span); first one was won by Persians, second one by Macedonians, so generally it CAN NOT be considered as "decisive". Thermopylae is something different, because even according Herodotus claims Persians lost just 0.3% of their troops, while Macedonians at Persian Gates lost more then 50% according all sources. --93.143.43.119 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic as to whether it's: "Macedonian victory" ; "Macedonian victory with heavy losses"; or "Decisive Macedonian victory" - those are all gradations of a victory and hence can be correct based on various historical interpretations. But "Pyrrhic victory", which does not imply a victory but rather a defeat, was simply incorrect.  I just wanted to make sure that wasn't there anymore to potentially confuse people who just wanted some quick facts about this battle without being draw into the historiography.  Everything else is cool by me, and I won't be making any more changes here likely.  Article looks good :)  Wilytilt (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user :::::Well, it can be see as "Pyrrhic" only in context of the battle (victory with heavy casualties), but of course not in the context of whole Alexander's campaign. Glad you like it, not bad for non-named "vandal"? ;) --93.142.147.100 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 93.143.xx.xx is a blocked user that keeps making new accounts and his edits should be reversed. Look at Battle for Thermopylae which is a Decisive Persian Victory and the Persians lost that war. Why should the Battle of the Persian Gate not be a Decisive Macedonian Victory? It makes no sense and it's obvious POV pushing. I'm boldly changing this. Also keep in mind that you can't have it both ways. Either this was a brave last stand that failed since the Persian empire was conquered or its significance was not that big as it says in the Aftermath section:

Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.
 * See 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.


 * Also you say Thermopylae is something different, because even according Herodotus claims Persians lost just 0.3% of their troops, while Macedonians at Persian Gates lost more then 50% according all sources. How do you figure the 0.3%? You don't really put any stock in the 5 million number do you? And anyway Herodotus says 1,800,000 (so 20,000 dead more like 1%) not 5 million for Thermopylae. 5 million is the total of men who crossed the Dardanels. And who are these all sources that (you claim) say that Macedonians lost more than 50%? Please uneducate us... Simanos (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add this stuff from the Iranian IPs POV pushers: (Undid revision 331538374 by Plot Spoiler (talk) Maybe only for you JEWS, but not for other civilized people.) (→2009 Quds Day: NONE of people believe in your Jewish BS about "holocaust denial".) and various stuff like that which discredit our IP hoping Iranian editor. Simanos (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 20:24, 15 December 2009 (hist | diff) Quds Day ‎ (STOP WITH YOUR DIRTY JEWISH LIES!!!! BASTARD!!!)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::I'm Croatian and Roman-Catholic, you FOOL. --93.142.157.127 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless you seem only interested in Iranian articles. Who cares, you keep insulting people (instead of discusing) and that means your credibility is zero in wikipedia. And you keep trying to evade your BANS! Get a life Simanos (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think I feel offended by someone who is below my level of education, look and financial status? :) Of course not.


 * You didn't quote other part of Decisive victory article, like:
 * 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.

Removing comment from block-avoiding userI ::::So, it's just matter of opinion. I argued that "Battle at the Persian Gate" is actually two battles (one month span) in one article, so there is no any logic to call this outcome as "decisive" victory, because it's simply not. --93.143.2.52 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How many banned IPs will it take for you to get a life and go away? Besides your logic is flawed. "The term has also been used" means that the previous definition is not wrong, but in fact dominating. So this battle for Persian Gate is much more a decisive victory for Macedonians than Thermopylae was for Persians. And Thermopylae is listed as decisive victory so this must be one too. Go change Thermopylae first and then try to change Persian Gate. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time /Monty Python Simanos (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::::::I have my life unlike you, because I'm not ugly, uneducated and poor like you. Saying "battle for Persian Gate is much more a decisive victory for Macedonians than Thermopylae was for Persians" is your pro-Greek completely nonsense. Persians won the battle of Thermopylae easily, and Alexander was almost defeated at Persian Gates - first Macedonian attack was repelled, and second one caused heavy casualties on Macedonian side. I know your mommy told you stories about "brave unbeatable Alexander" before you gone to bed, but this article is not about Greek fairy tales, but about history. Thank you. --93.142.189.185 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As has already been said after the Persian Gate battle the Persian Empire crumbled and that is a decisive victory (regardless of casualties). After Thermopylae the Greeks simply retreated and fought on at a different place later and eventually beat the Persians solidly in land and sea. Yet Thermopylae can be considered a decisive victory for Persians if for no other reason then because if they had lost it then their army would not be able to move and starve. There's a lot of anti-hellenism on wikipedia. Just look at the Battle of Hydaspis. There the pro-Indian folk claim that one was the hardest battle Alexander fought and not the one at Persian Gates. Others probably claim the hardest part of Alexander's conquest was the Afghan campaign. So much hate for the Ancient Greeks (on wikipedia) lol it's actually ironic that you call my edits pro-Greek nonsense. The reality is that Alexander did conquer Persia and parts of India and the Persians never conquered Greece, nor did the Indians ever care to visit. And it doesn't even matter cause that was 2 millenniums ago and does not reflect on us today in any way. So calm down and stop vandalising and causing IPs to get blocked. This is the last thing I will say to you until you apologise. I will not feed Trolls. Simanos (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not precisely. You can say Persian Empire crumbled after battle of Gaugamela when Mesopotamia was taken, or after Bessus killed Codomannus, but battle at Persian Gates is completely irrelevant in context of Achaemenid fall. You're right, part of Greeks have leaved Thermopylae, part of them surrendered, one of them collaborated, and part of them fought till death. You can't accuse me for anti-Hellenism because I've edited many Greek pages. Battle against Porus was Macedonian victory, but also not "decisive victory".

Removing comment from block-avoiding user :It's nonsense to say "Alexander did conquered Persia, but Persians didn't conquered Greece" - fact is, Persia fought wars only against Athens and Sparta (and their minor allies), and they razed Athens during Xerxes' invasion. Perhaps you didn't know, but Macedonians sided Persians during that expedition. Alexander is not Greek in ancient sense, but Macedonian (also not in modern sense, but ancient). Sparta didn't participated in Macedonian invasions of Persia, while Athens and other south Greek polises were just Macedonian vassals (part of Corinthian league). --93.142.189.185 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way then I dare you to remove the part of the article that says that "Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.", but you won't... Stop behaving like a vandal or I'll put the article under protection. You are evading your blocks. You should not edit wikipedia until your blocks expire Simanos (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Various unpleasant conversations collapsed above. 93.142.189.185, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia: please post an unblock request on your account instead of evading your block. henrik  • talk  19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection
As 93.142... has been dodging blocks and targeting this page, I have semi-protected the page for one month. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have semiprotected the talk page as well, for the same reason. It is unusual, but not prohibited, to protect talk pages.  As this abuse is longstanding and ongoing and fairly vehement, it's unfortunately appropriate here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref problems
There are numerous problems in the ref section...

Marsden was written as Marsdan, Prevas is improperly given, no book name, no nothing (what is a Prevas 33 ?????) etc etc etc, Engels' account was the wrong page, two numbers are being given from the same source (700 and under 2000), when according to the same source the academically acceptable number is another, for some inexplicable reason the relevant text of Encyclopedia Iranica was given within the text etc etc etc...

There is a lot of work to be done here in order to make this article readable... GK1973 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's a mess, but the Prevas reference is ok, ie the book is there under sources, Prevas 33 is presumably p.33. However, 'sources' should be 'References' and only include books and articles cited in the text. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And the google links in citations should be replaced with proper references. I'm not at all convinced we should use Farrokh's Osprey press book. Footnote 5 has no page number, probably shouldn't be used. Footnote 29 has a similar problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should remove 700 and 2000 from the infobox then if it's a fringe theory. Or at least keep one of them if it's the same source for both (how can a respectable source contradict itself?) Simanos (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So are you going to remove fringe theory from infobox or shall I do it? Simanos (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not as easy. First we have to check out Marsden, for he is also given as a source for the 2.000 figure. I will remove the 700 figure - WHOEVER WANTS TO NOT TREAT THIS FIGURE AS FRINGE PLEASE BRING FORWARD MORE SOURCES!!! -. We can, though, mention it in the text as we do now, so no one should be unhappy (Encyclopedia Iranica should be treated as a respectful source) GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, Encyclopedia Iranica is not actually an encyclopedia in the traditional sense. It is a collection of articles and any reference to it is (by EI itself) expected to quote the name of the author of the article in question . GK1973 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Describing the victory as decisive or whatever
It isn't up to editors to make judgements like this. We should rely on what reliable sources have to say, and if they disagree, describe that disagreement. This is policy and there shouldn't be edit warring in info boxes about this. Only if the article itself can find clear cut academic sources to label it should the infobox label it. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We've also had a similar discussion at Talk:Battle of Thermopylae where the infobox now also simply says victory without editors labelling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you want is a source with this battle and the word decisive in it? It's not like we're doing OR of fusion energy. We're putting 2 and 2 together here (in a bad article). See what MinisterForBadTimes said:

''   Rarely can there have been a less Pyrric victory. The Persian army was annhilated, Alexander captured the enemy capital and carried on campaigning for another 7 years. I think Pyrrus himself would have been a lot happier if he could have won some battles like this.''

''   This was a decisive victory, no matter what the cost in lives, since it finished off the Persian resistance. And the Persian capital was captured. That is about as decisive as it gets. It is quite adequately pointed out in the infobox already that Macedonian losses were heavy. This is why I have changed the 'result' to 'Decisive Macedonian Victory', which is standard wording.''

''   I realise that this will annoy some Persio-philes out there, so I would like to point out that a) I am not Greek and that b) I have previously changed the result of Battle of Thermopylae to 'Decisive Persian Victory', because that is what it was. I have no bias towards either side, but the facts are the facts... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)''


 * I know you're trying to be "fair" in some way, but this battle's result was nothing like Thermopylae actually. That battle didn't end the resistance of Greeks. It was only the first (albeit failed) step. OK maybe scholars have not used the word decisive, but they do say:

"The defeat of Ariobarzanes's forces at the Persian Gate removed the last military obstacle between Alexander and Persepolis. Upon his arrival at the city of Persepolis, Alexander appointed a general named Phrasaortes as successor of Ariobarzanes. Alexander seized the treasury of Persepolis, which at the time held the largest concentration of wealth in the world, and guaranteed himself financial independence from the Greek states."
 * Or how about:

"Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.[15][16]"
 * You can't have it both ways. Either this battle was not that important or the victory was indeed decisive. I'm gonna be bold and change it again, but I'm closing to 3RR so I'll hope I convinced you and leave the policing of the page to you for the next day friend. Simanos (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what a decisive victory actually is. A decisive victory is a victory where there is a shift in power or where the victor completely overwhelms the losing side. While the Battle of the Persian Gates gave the most losses to Alexander's troops, it did not shift the power to Alexander and his troops, as he already had it. This battle was just the final obstacle for Alexander which he overcame, but it was in no way decisive. warrior  4321   01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to say something like that but I've been busy and I'm glad someone else what. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, this battle did not give the most losses to Alexander's army according to all sources. A lot of scholars talk about the Afghan or the Indian campaigns. Secondly according to most sources an army of 25000-40000 Persians was annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Alexander in his tracks. Therefore the victory was indeed decisive since it saved his entire campaign and gave him the richest capital of the world. Or you can go by the other opinion that is that this battle was only of minor significance and the Persian empire had already fallen, it was a foregone conclusion. However the article as is states how important this victory was it bloody says "Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia." You can't have that and then claim the battle wasn't decisive. It was the last act, the end-piece. I'm not trying to push either view, but as it is the article is contradicting itself. So you tell me. How important was it? If the opinions that claim it was the most serious challenge to Alexander are fringe opinions then FIRST mark them as that (or remove them) and THEN remove the decisive part from the infobox. See? I'm reasonable with compromises. Simanos (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Until you find reliable sources describing this as decisive, your comments are original research and don't even belong on this talk page. It isn't up to us to decide. This is policy, not guideline, policy. Find your sources and we can discuss them. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do have "reliable" sources describing the battle as the most important obstacle Alexander faced so you're wrong. What you want a source that spells it out for you "this battle was a decisive victory"? Learn to read between the lines. I don't see one ounce of original research on my part. Also the consensus on the talk page is not against me. You and the Iranian POV pushers (some of them already banned) do not make a consensus. Read what MFBT said. I'm gonna do a different change this time and I hope you will compromise. Simanos (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's take this down, one by one.


 * Oh, lets...


 * First of all, this battle did not give the most losses to Alexander's army according to all sources. A lot of scholars talk about the Afghan or the Indian campaigns.


 * I was talking about the Persian campaign as this battle belongs to Alexander's Persian conquest.


 * Even so, the losses of this battle are unknown, they were probably heavy for the first platoons to reach the gate, but overall I think there is no proof they were heavier than in the previous battles like Issus or others. Let me change the article on that too.


 * Secondly according to most sources an army of 25000-40000 Persians was annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Alexander in his tracks.


 * All of the Greek soldiers that stayed on the third day of the Battle of Thermopylae were annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Xerxes in his tracks. Is the Battle of Thermopylae decisive? Of course not, for the same reason, this battle isn't as well.


 * All of the Greek soldiers that stayed on the third day were not the entire Greek army though. You argument fails. All the Greek army in Thermopylae was not the entire Greek army either, as shown later at Plataea. Thermopylae was the first line of defense, the Persian Gate was the failed last stand. Hmm I should add that to the article too, no?


 * Therefore the victory was indeed decisive since it saved his entire campaign and gave him the richest capital of the world. Or you can go by the other opinion that is that this battle was only of minor significance and the Persian empire had already fallen, it was a foregone conclusion.


 * You still don't understand what a decisive victory actually is. A decisive victory is not the final battle or "the endpiece". It did not "save" his campaign as the power had never shifted to the Persian side. Attaining the richest capital in the world is again not decisive.


 * Then how could it be the biggest challenge to his conquest? If the Persian army held the pass and also had the smarts to hold the other pass north too, it would be pretty disruptive to Alexander's campaign (he was already low on supplies). If the Persian army retreated (perhaps with the riches) after a few successful days of defense, perhaps it could unite with Darius and help raise another defense elsewhere creating problems for the Greeks. Again, you can't have it both ways.


 * Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.


 * Don't you mean one?


 * One historian or one of the most serious challenges? Again, I said if this is a fringe opinion then remove it from the article, undue weight and all. I'm waiting...


 * See? I'm reasonable with compromises


 * We don't have to compromise. We'll follow the guidelines and policies.


 * Compromising is in the guidelines actually... /facepalm


 * What you want a source that spells it out for you "this battle was a decisive victory"?


 * Yes, it shouldn't be to hard to find if it is the consensus among historians.


 * Well since it probably is a fringe opinion that this battle was a serious challenge to the Greeks, you may be right. However, my point still stands that if a writer says things like "this battle would alter the course of the war" (for example, not about this battle), we don't have to actually have him say the word "decisive" or whatever. We can use some reading comprehension. That's all I mean. What was said about this battle also screams decisive victory (after some hardships).


 * Thanks, warrior  4321   23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.


 * And asking us to learn to 'read between the lines' is asking us to accept original research, that's what 'read between the lines' is. My only pov here is our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe read between the lines isn't the right term. I should have said read the actual lines. They say this was the BIGGEST challenge to Alexander. Therefore, winning it in such a total and decisive manner (entire enemy army destroyed (killed or captured, last Persian army defending capital, biggest treasure of the world, etc) even after initial setbacks is definetely in decisive victory territory. Do you think it is a fringe opinion that this was the biggest obstacle in Alexander's campaign? Since you like policies so much, how about you do and RfC now? You said consensus was against me, but I showed you that it was not so (MFBT for instance)... Simanos (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Doug, now that you added the references to it being a decisive victory, can we change the infobox to show it? Also a sentence you changed seems not to make complete sense now. "During his advance, Alexander subdued the Uxians, a local hill-tribe. As he passed into the Persian Gates he met with no resistance, confirming his earlier suspicions." you removed the earlier suspicions stuff so it doesn't make much sense now, no? Remove it too? I think historians agree that we don't know why Alexander had no proper scouting of the Gates, we're puzzled by it. Simanos (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Length of the battle
I think someone should check what Hammond really says about those 30 days, because no other source or book says that. The closest I found was Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army, which says it probably took Alexander 30 days to march from Susa to Persepolis (including halts), and that the battle took several days. No other book mentions anything like that. Moreover, Peter Green says in Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: a historical biography that says Alexander left Susa for Persepolis in mid January, and that he reached the city on 31 January, making the 30 day last stand impossible.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey asshole.
Stop putting in the redundant phrase "a claim unsupported by other modern or ancient sources", shitface. The Encyclopedia Iranica does indeed find support in the ancient sources (considering how many troops Ariobarzanes brought with himself to the battle of Gaugamela, and the nature of the location of the battle of the Persian Gates which could IMPOSSIBLY house any of the estimates given by Hammond or Waldemar Heckel) The Greek numbers given are obviously inflated and have no root in historical reality. How can Ariobarzanes magically summon more troops than Darius III Codomannus at Ecbatana (where the greater part of the nobility followed him)? Explain that to me, cuntface.

Let me guess, you're probably one of those schmucks who believes the Persians fielded million-men armies just because Arrian says so. What would you think of Hans Delbrück who single-handedly cut down the Persian forces at that battle to a mere 52,000 men?

So stop being a shithead, pretty please? I know it's a lot to ask from you, but I will not relent in removing that phrase. It is stupid on so many levels and serves only as an attempt to discredit the Encyclopedia Iranica, when in fact it does a better job at cutting down customarily inflated Greek estimates than Hammond who takes his numbers straight from the Imperial Roman author Curtius-Rufus (Which was a thinly veiled political exaltation of emperor Vespasian).

The Encyclopedia Iranica has a peer reviewal board that approves the submission of articles, so this down-watered public-for-all armchair-historian lair known as Wikipedia doesn't need to expend extra energy to skew perspectives to curious readers.

Fucking idiot. The Persian Cataphract (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * NPA
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks
 * A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.
 * Apologize please or face the consequences. Also stop pushing your POV over consensus. Simanos (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in no obligation to apologize. You are mistaken if you think otherwise. I do not recognize the "consensus" presented by amateurs, especially when the data is published in the Internet's most accessed encyclopedic resources. I do not accept the non-professional assessment of a perfectly valid numerical estimate in an article published (and peer-reviewed by a professional board) by one of the most credible resources used within Iranistics today.


 * You must keep it civil in wikipedia. Iranica is hardly unbiased. It's mostly a good source, but some of its arguments are laughable. It's also a tertiary source. Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, saying that the source is "unsupported by other sources" when the article indeed does justify its figures is pushing POV. I will remove it as I see it fit. It has no place nor relevance, furthermore it is not Wikipedia's role to audit recognized academic sources or engage in refutations.


 * The very text of Iranica says that "Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army, and their modern successors follow them unreservedly". It bloody admits it on its own that it espouses a fringe theory, contradicted by most ancient and modern historians. Also the argument that "Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless" and "Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." is laughable (as people have already explained in this talk page), historians do not work that way (nationalists do). The argument that "Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela" has some merit, but it's hardly convincing. The 2000 (or 6000 actually for whole Persepolis troop at Gaugamela) need not have been the entire army reserves of the capital. The whole paragraph in Iranica is written in a nationalistic style to praise the Persians ("Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men"). Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you push my buttons, I will make a public embarrassment of you to my buddies at Sasanika and subject this whole article to my own personal scrutiny. It will be scathing and better yet, you will bear no influence of it in any shape or form. I choose; you lose.--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Making threats like that will get you blocked. For a month it seems :p Feel free to use that time to reflect on your attitude, or to make scathing diatribes to show to your buddies at Sasanika or whatever Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was Parmenion?
The article indicates Alexander split his force in half - Parmenion leading one half along the Royal Road, while Alexander took the other half towards Persepolis. From Susa, the Royal Road went to Persepolis - are we to infer that Aprmenion was taking the branch of the royal Road leading to Ecbatana? Also - the inset lists Parmenion as one of three Macedonian commanders at the Persian Gates, yet he is not mentioned in the article. Suggest that the article clarify where Parmenion was leading his force after Susa and either state his role in the attle of the Persian Gates or remove him from the list of Macedonian commanders.DavisGL (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is correct, Parmenion was not present at the battle.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

new sources
The page needs clean up. J8079s (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of the Persian Gate. 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/20071019225808/http://www.iranica.com:80/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html

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) 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What is 'valueless' ?
Is it possible that the basis for the Encyclopaedia Iranica to call the infantry numbers amongst the persian army to be valueless is because it was composed at least in part if not in majority by untrained and unequipped civilians, who wouldn't stand a chance against a well trained, equipped and experienced macédonian army (which can be without much problems be called the most powerful army of its time) ? Leaving aside the exact numbers, I think everyone actually agree that the persian forces here would stand no chance against Alexandre's forces on an actual battlefield... ? From what I gathered, the forces lead here by Ariobarzanes were whatever forces he could muster to come and ambush the macedonians, not a ready-to-fight army of professionals. ISoulend (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cherry-picking information
Care to explain how using only what you want from the Iranica source, while removing (700), also supported by Iranica is not cherry-picking information?

Did you miss this part?
 * ""However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes."

These are the sentences following the statement you took from Iranica, "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly. So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Simanos, "I don't use Iranica to push my POV.";
 * Their edit;"Encyclopædia Iranica suggests a number of defenders of just 700 (or 2000 elsewhere) men, but it admits that the modern historians follow Arrian Curtius and Diodorus unreservedly."


 * Iranica;"Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly."

So just WHERE are you getting your information if you are NOT using Iranica? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Farrokh is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also note that there is no serious support for Alexander being delayed for a WHOLE MONTH in this battle.Simanos (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to remove Iranica completely as a fringe view be my guest. I'm using Iranica's own text as clarification of its self-admitted fringe views. People didn't want to remove it completely so this compromise was reached years ago.Simanos (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also note, that your sentence "So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe" does not make sense. If Iranica talks about an event and it says that there were 10k soldiers there, but then it says that modern consensus say there were 300k then if I remove it from infobox as fringe I'm not using it to support my own views, I'm using its own words. It is just wikipedia policy not to use fringe views in the infobox and to explain why a view is fringe if you mention it in the article body. Why is this so hard for you to understand?Simanos (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear please use talk page and stop aiding 7 year old POV pushers
Just read the section in this very talkpage where the POV pusher attacks :[] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate#Hey_asshole. Hey_asshole.] Simanos (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears the figures for Arrian, Curtius, et.al. need exaggerated next to them.


 * The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia, Mehrdad Kia, page 97;"Curtius claimed that Ariobarzanes had occupied the pass "with 25,000 infantry," while Arrian stated that Ariobarzanes commanded an infantry force of 40,000 supported by 700 cavalrymen. These numbers are not only grossly exaggerated but are also laughable."


 * Alexander the Great: A Very Short Introduction, by Hugh Bowden,;"Like Leonidas at the Hot Gates, Ariobarzanes had built a wall across the pass to protect his forces, but his forces were much greater, at 25000 infantry according to Diodorus, and 40,000 according to Arrian-although as always these figures are unreliable and implausibly high."


 * Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire, edited by Waldemar Heckel, "..he attempted to block Alexander's passage at the so-called Persian, or Susian, Gates with a force of 25,000 (C 5.3.17, D 17.61.1, adding 300 cavalry; A.3.18.2:40,000 and 700, exaggerated)."


 * Ancient Historiography on War and Empire, by Timothy Howe, Sabine Müller, Richard Stoneman, page 170;"A majority of modern scholars agree that the transmitted numbers of Persian troops are exaggerated many times over." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two more that proves the numbers given by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, et.al. are exaggerated throughout Alexander's campaign.


 * From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation, by A. B. Bosworth, page 5, "...prove Callisthenes' incompetence, and indeed Polybius does isolate real faults in his account--gross exaggeration of Persian numbers and a eulogistic bias towards Alexander..."
 * Alexander The Great: Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius, edited by James S. Romm, Pamela Mensch, page 48, "A huge force--Arrian says more than six hundred thousand, though this is undoubtedly an exaggeration...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice cherry picking of some biased sources, at least a couple are obvious and some are on other battles/topics. Also exaggeration doesn't mean it wasn't 25k, it means it wasn't 40k in one source, in other it's not said that it was 2000 or 700 like Iranica. In others it's not clear. It could also mean that while the Persians had a big army at their Capital, they had only part of it guarding the pass and more at the rear and at the city gates. They just don't describe what. If you want to do some original research on what is meant go ahead. All I added was what the Encyclopedia Iranica ACTUALLY states: "Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly"Simanos (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also if you want to talk about Iranica being Fringe, read what it says. It admits modern historians disagree with Iranica UNRESERVEDLY and it also uses a weird rationale for the number. They don't use any other sources or make logistical calculations. They only say: "Arrian's 700 (cavalry) can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." THAT'S IT! It's like complete nonsense POV pushing. I'm not going to remove Iranica from the sources, but be fair and label it for what it is: FRINGE. Other people may doubt how many soldiers Persians had at their capital, but it's like to say less than 40k (or less 25k). They do not claim to know they had only 700. You do know the Greeks had 7k to 11k soldiers at Thermopylae right? The 300 were slaughtered when they were left behind (and there were 700 Thespians too, and maybe 400 Thebans). This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets. Several have been banned already. LOOK AT THE ARCHIVES Simanos (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence for your accusation...


 * "Nice cherry picking of some biased sources..."
 * These so-called biased sources being Waldemar Heckel, A.B. Bosworth, Oxford University Press, Hugh Bowden, et.al.


 * "This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets."
 * And clearly some other nationalists that make blind accusations when confronted by facts that they don't like.
 * Clearly you will continue to ignore and libel sources that state facts you do not like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Persian Gate. 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/20031018213726/http://www.gaugamela.com/ to http://www.gaugamela.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Certain users, who I will not name, as they know who they are, have been engaging in disruptive editing by repeatedly removing thoroughly sourced material and otherwise altering the war box. Furthermore, after reviewing this talk page, it seems that one of these users has been violating Wikipedia's policies by leveling personal attacks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) at those who revert or question these edits. Be warned that if either of these behaviors continue, you will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransparentEye (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)