Talk:Greco-Persian Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
More information... This article has passed an A-Class review. PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Related task forces... Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified Greco-Persian Wars as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Greco-Persian Wars is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 23 September 2006

Brilliantly succinct. Even too succinct for such a great subject! User:Wetman

Thanks - I'm sure it will expand. It's usually better for article architecture to develop top-down, plus the poor reader would rather link to additional articles for depth instead of being subjected to 5,000 word narratives. :-) We are, after all, an encyclopedia and not a history book! Stan 15:23, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Battle of Thermopylae was never meant to stop thep persian advance, it was meant to slow it down. King Leonidas chose his the 300 with great care: They were all older men, who had already raised families. They were going there to die. And I don't think 300 men holding off a quarter million for a few days counts as a failure.

Thats actually a matter of debate. Herodotus mentions in passing that the original plan was to halt the Persian advance north of Boetia and thereby include Athens, but its clear that this was bullcrap the Spartans fed to the Athenians to get them to join. After the battle of Themopylae, which became little more than a delay tactic, the Pellopensians fortified the Isthmus and prepared to fight there, abandoning Attika. pookster11 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Greco-Persian Wars"? 2 militaristic and expansionary policy of Xerxes 3 Where are all the Thebians? 4 Number of Troops? 5 New Additions 6 Pausanias 6.1 Xerxes left with 2/3 of his force 7 54 kb 8 Peer Review and/or FAC push? 9 Assessment 9.1 GA Failure

[edit] "Greco-Persian Wars"?

Who calls these the "Greco-Persian Wars?" anyway? I don't think I've ever seen it written that way before. Let's not go inventing nonstandard terminology here. Stan 03:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Greco-Persian". My reasoning went like this: it would be nice to have "Persian Wars" as a disambiguation page for the various sets of Persian Wars (Greco-Persian, Romano-Persian, Byzantine-Persian, etc). Also, "Persian Wars" is of course from the POV of the Greek and we try to avoid POV here. But on reflection, I think I was too bold, and I should have made the redirect the othre way, with the disambiguation page at Persian Wars (disambiguation). Sorry. Gdr 10:50, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I of course never look at EB so as to keep from being tainted. :-) It's a good point about the other Persian wars, but the disambig page seems like a good idea, plus avoids editing all those links! Stan 14:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Moved here from User talk:Gdr) Hi...what is the use of moving Persian Wars to Greco-Persian Wars? Has this been discussed anywhere? Are there plans to write articles about other (Roman/Byzantine) Persian Wars? (Just curious since I know nearly everything links to "Persian Wars".) Adam Bishop 22:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are those who spell it "Graeco-", too! :-) Noel 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greco-Persian is the historically correct term used to reference the time period in historical articles, books, et alia. pookster11 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] militaristic and expansionary policy of Xerxes

"if we shall subdue these and the neighbours of these, who dwell in the land of Pelops the Phrygian, we shall cause the Persian land to have the same boundaries as the heaven of Zeus; since in truth upon no land will the sun look down which borders ours, but I with your help shall make all the lands into one land, having passed through the whole extent of Europe. For I am informed that things are so, namely that there is no city of men nor any race of human beings remaining, which will be able to come to a contest with us, when those whom I just now mentioned have been removed out of the way. Thus both those who have committed wrong against us will have the yoke of slavery, and also those who have not committed wrong."

Herodotus, BOOK VII, 8 c alternate translation MATIA 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

> PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

[edit] Where are all the Thebians?

I read on this site that the Thebians were also involved in the battle of Thermopylae. If you look near the ned, it states that the Thebians were granted the task of guarding the goat path. Can someone back me up here?--Giraman 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I added it in.--Giraman 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thebes had already capitulated and remained a Persian ally even after the war. Herodotus records that Leonidas held onto the Thebans as hostages, to force the Thebans into fighting the Persians. He also records that, the lines having broken and the force having been flanked on the third day, the Thebans surrendered and presented themselves as allies to the Persians. pookster11 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Troops?

What is the source for 720,000 total? All the sources I know of (Bengston, Briant, Burn, etc) put the upper limit at about 250,000, with the main force being about 60-120,000 and the remaining support staff (exceptionally large because the king was present, and Xerxes enjoyed travelling in style). All of this is based on resources, especially water, available along the route and estimates of the population of the Persian empire and what they could muster. Can anyone give a source for the numbers given in the 2nd invasion? pookster11 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There were not 1200 ships; this is a mythological number drawn from the Illiad. According to Pierre Briant and AR Burn, both referenced in the bibliography section, as well as Bengston and Hignett, Persia could have deployed a maximum of 600 ships into the Aegean, the Persian fleet having been decimated during the Ionian rebellion and rebuilt over the next 4 years. While the fleet could have supplied food to the moving army, the big problem fo both the fleet and the army was water; estimates of available fresh water sources along possible routes into Greece show a maximum combined force of around 250,000, including the fleet, combatants, and the large number of non-combatant retainers that accompanied the king. Pease do research before putting your own personal opinion in the article. pookster11 21:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for fixing my format. The current format was my original intention. I am not that good yet with the wiki-format Ikokki 10:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Additions

Cleaned up the section on the size of the army and army movements. No one contests the idea (except maybe Olmstead, but he's not here) that the Persian force was large; an argument that it was in fact large is unnecessary. Also, several areas that were placed in there seem more argumentative than factual; the consensus within the field is upper limit of 250,000 ground and 600 naval, and personal belief otherwise is beside the point. Wikipedia is strictly "no original research". More to come. pookster11 04:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the bibliography section deleted? pookster11 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ---

If in the English-speaking literature the number 250,000 is not contested, this does not mean that the rest of the world accepts it. After all the English language Wikipedia is supposed to be from a NEUTRAL point of view, not an english-speaking countries point of view. There is a large number of historians that do not accept the 250,000 number, some of them are even British (Munro and Macan). No original research was ever added to this page, hence the references. Personal belief is beside the point.

After all 60,000 Persians sounds like a joke. Alexander the Great drafted 50,000 from Macedonia and Thrace alone during his reign. How many did Xerxes draft from each of the 46 nations? 1,200? Why would he send an army that was smaller or slightly larger than the 100-110,000 army that the Corinthian League manage to gather in Plataea when he could draft more? And if he did, did he seriously believe he had a chance to win with a force that small?

As for the fleet that he could not trust the Ionians was a reason why he gathered a force from all of his maritime dominions. 600 had been tried twice in 492 BC and 490 BC, it wasn't enough.

I'd love to hear why the concesus in the English-speaking part of the field was that the force was that small.Ikokki 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... I think you need to look at the sources cited. Briant is French, Bengston is German, and I believe Olmstead is Belgian but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no sure why you've decided to throw a it about "english only sources", but so far the sources you've cited are all from non-historical journals and are from the 1930's. As for the historians you have cited, Munro wrote over 100 years ago now, and while Macan's edition of Herodotus was only 98 years ago, it doesn't improve. I've corrected the article to show that there is a difference in opinion over time, but the problem is you have poor sources that have since become dated. Please realize that new analysis of ancient history is published every year, and that something published 100 years ago may not have the same data available today. This is what we do in ancient historiography. Simply because someone wrote a book does not mean that that work becomes citeable for the next century, in fact in the entire field of ancient history, only Mommsen has that distinction of still being credibly cited today. Basically put you're coming at this with a lack of knowledge in historiography, and all I ask is that you please recognize this. Please don't take this as a dismissal your additions to the article and expanion of details has been excellent, despite your insistance on entering a debate about numbers into the article. Second, I'm not going to argue the numbers, I'm just reporting on the concensus that is present in the sources. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Burn, Briant, Hignett, and Green (though I think Hignett may have passed on). This isnot the place for a detailed debate about how and why the Persians deployed so many troops; no original research means you read a secondary source and put in the article what it says, not what you think makes sense. Also, nowhere does Herodotus call the alliance the "Corinthian League", stop trying to put that in the article. They are simply the Greeks or the allied Greeks; the Corinthian League occurs later under Phillip. Once again, I and I'm sure all other readers absolutely appreciate your contributions, which have definitely improved the article. Thank you. pookster11 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that historiography changes opinion over time but that does not mean that the large number estimates cited in the past do not deserve mention especially since they are accepted still in some circles. Herodotus does not call the alliance the Corinthian league but neither does any ancient historian call that of Phillip and Alexander either the Corinthian League. It is called "Οι Έλληνες", Corinthian league being a modern historical term. Since both are modern fabrications, why should the one term not be based on the other. I would love to see more arguement over the 600 fleet number, perhaps not in the main text but here is fine. Oh, I do quote from Greek language historical journals. Ikokki 09:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct that all points of view should be represented, and the larger numbers are included in the text, though if you could provide some modern sources that accept the larger figures it would be appreciated. As far as the Corinthian League, I have no problem leaving any mention of it out of the article altogether if that is the case; I do however take exception to the alliance during the second invasion being referred to as the Corinthian League, as no work to my knowledge, ancient or modern, does so. Briant's work and Burn's article in Cambridge are the best places to look for the discussion as to the size of te fleet, especially as both look at the war and the preparations and size of the army deployed from a "Persian" point of view in terms of sources. As far as Herodotus and other Greek authors as a historical source, Burn's introduction and commentary in the de Selincourt translation from Penguin is excellent, and may shed some light as to why Herodotus contains some erroneous information and numbering. J. Wells Commentary on Herodotus is good as well, though once again it is a bit dated (1923), especially in comparison to Burn. Similiar discussions can be found in Olmstead, though overall he is a poor source, as his argument is that the Persian wars with Greece were little more than border skirmishes and meant little to the Persians, something that other sources are virtually unanimous in condemning.pookster11 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pausanias

Besides what appears to be a general history book or encyclopedia, do you have any authors that pin Pausanius's removal on anything other than capitulation with Persia? pookster11 09:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add in a few hours when I go home. The history of the greek nation can be seen as the semi-official book on Greek history according to the Greeks. It was published over thirty years ago (the first 16 volumes, the last one in 2000) and thus does not include findings from that time (like Vergina, more Oxyrhynchus fragments, καταστιχά discovered in the 1980's in Macedonia written in the Macedonian dialect of Greek proving it was a dialect and not a separate language etc.) but is usually the book of reference whenever one tries to find out about Greek history, at least in Greece. It was written by the more emminent professors of the Greek University (and some non-Greek Universities) of the time and I think it is available in English since the modern Greece volumes of it are or were used as textbook in some American Universities. I will put up later more references on Pausanias and the large number hypothesis, though I cannot promise that they will be English-language references.Ikokki 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the index and bibliography but it only states the writer's name (Athena Kalogeropoulou). On her bio there are no publications exclusively for Pausanias. Also I have erred in saying that the sources that I cite are historical journals. They are not of the type of Magazines like "Science" or "Nature" are for the natural sciences. They are more like "Scientific American", magazines written by qualified experts but intended for the general public. I've added Hammond and I'll try to find other recent publications. Ikokki 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xerxes left with 2/3 of his force

Where does it say that? Herodotus only says that Mardonius managed to convince Xerxes to leave him with 300,000 soldiers and depart. Anyway if 1/3 of the surviving force was left with Mardonius he fielded in Plataea what? 15-30,000 archers? Mention of this usually is enough to discredit all of the critical school. And anyway the Penios river in Thessaly is capable today of providing drinking water to 1,000,000 inhabitants plus even more for irrigating all that cotton (albeit with the use of modern technology). I am uncapable of finding the sources mentioned on why Herodotus is so wrong. My university library's English books are usually on the expression of transcriptase in the arabidiopsis genome and such, while the Herodotus edition avaible is usually the Kaktos edition with the original text on the left hand side, modern tradition on the right hand side and an introduction that says that basically Herodotus is more credible that he takes credit for.Ikokki 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See James Allen Evans, Herodotus, 1982, R. P. Lister, The Travels of Herodotus, 1979, as well as the Burn articles cited before, "Herodotus in his own Words" and "The Biographical Tradition about Herodotus", which can be found in the 1972 de Selincourt translation from Penguin books. J. Wells also has a commentary from 1923 which still has some concepts considered valid. Who wrote the introduction to your version? Anyway, I was trying to go through my notes yesterday as far as numbers at Platea and such, and have been unable to find them yet. I have a World History conference I'm presenting at this weekend, so a bit on the busy side, but when I find them I'll try to answer your questions, but please realize you have to do some of this reading on your own. pookster11 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will read these books when I get my hand on them. The full book is always better than the executive summary. The introduction was written by Odysseas Hantzopoulos, the publisher, not somebody important. The Kaktos edition however is not the finest available. It is on a soft cover, printed in very thin newspaper quality paper. It includes the ancient text (probably copied from Loeb or Cambridge or Dresden) with a modern translation that is public domain. But for 10 Euros per volume, don't expect something better. It was given away with coupons once by a newspaper. Considering that another Sunday paper has begun giving away ancient books startin with Homer, I think another edition of Herodotus will be given free along with that newspaper soon too. Ikokki 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's always Perseus (prseus.tufts.edu) as well, which has the original text (OCT version) as well as a rough translation and I believe Wells's commentary. Obviously you have modern Greek down pat, you may be able to pick up some from the Attic-Ionian dialect in Herodotus. pookster11 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We did do two years of ancient Greek in high school. Xenophon and Sophocles were relatively easy, Lysias had too many loops in his speaches, Thucydides was easy to understand but with very difficult syntax. Herodotus we did not do much, we only did Attic. Easiest of all are the fathers of the Church, since they wrote in a time when ancient Greek was dead, they are simple and expected. As for Ctesias, I know he is lost. I read the online edition of Myriobiblon at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#72 . There it says:

Read the Persica of Ctesias1 of Cnidus in twenty-three books. In the first six he treats of Assyrian affairs and of events before the foundation of the Persian empire, and only begins to treat of Persian affairs in the seventh book. In books 7-13 he gives an account of Cyrus, Cambyses, the Magian, Darius, and Xerxes, in which he differs almost entirely from Herodotus, whom he accuses of falsehood in many passages and calls an inventor of fables. Ctesias is later than Herodotus, and says that he was an eyewitness of most of what he describes, and that, where this was not the case, he obtained his information directly from Persians, and in this manner he composed his history. He not only disagrees with Herodotus, but also in some respects with Xenophon the son of Gryllus. Ctesias flourished in the time of Cyrus, son of Darius and Parysatis, brother of Artoxerxes2 who succeeded to the throne.

It doesn't have the original text though. On Herodotus though that site's text of Photius does not have something derogatory Ikokki 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow thats completely and totally wrong. First off, only fragments of Ctesias's actual text survive, and almost all of these are suspect for a variety of factors, but the one most often cited as a general condemnation is mention of a satrap of Cappadocia doing battle with the Scythians some ten years before the Persian records indicate that Cappadocia is a sepparate satrapy. Most of what you'll find as "Ctesias" is actually drawn from Photius and... well another author whose name escapes me, but both of him mock Ctesias as a liar. Ctesias was a contemporary of Herodotus, and Herodotus actually cites a text of Ctesias in some areas. That text is lost; what remains is either a different text or a corruption of an original. The article you cite here is actually based off a secondary hypothesis that there are two Ctesias-es, one slightly before and contemporary to Herodotus, and one later contemporary with Xenophon who is the source of the text with anachronisms. Most works you'll find will mention Ctesias in a historiographical section where he is dismissed as too much of an unkown to be credible. Anyway, as far as Greek, Herodotus is cake, though his word choice is a little off in some areas, and some areas are just plain ungrammatical. The Attic with Ionian forms randomly thrown in is a bit confusing at first, but you'd probably recognize it immediately. Anyway, I'm supposed to present on the Amarna Age this weekend, I gotta pull my head out of the Persian Wars. pookster11 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did see the English translation of Herodotus at www.bostonleadershipbuilder.com/herodotus/index.htm, made a search in all the books for Ctesias and Ktesias, and found nothing. Also the site previously mentioned whose front page is http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ is not an article but a site with various Christian texts. In the Wikipedia article on Ctesias it says he wrote down Persian history until 398 BC. Considering that Herodotus wrote his history after the peace of Callias but definitely in the 5th century BC I think he is earlier. When I go home I'll look up my encyclopedia on him. I think the other writer you are referring is either Tzetzes or Porphyrogenitos. Do focus on your conference. It's like everybody in the world has finished his job before his due time and is thus paid now to do nothing... Ikokki 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually its Diodorus. You can look up on Ctesias at http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/ctesias/ctesias_overview.html but do focus on your conference. Wikipedia classical dictionnary article also has him later than Herodotus http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Ctesias Ikokki 13:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nea Domi Encyclopedia (1993 edition though this part was probably written in the 1960's says Ctesias wrote his book in Sparta after 398 BC when he was sent there as ambassador. Ikokki 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 54 kb

After my recent additions on the Athenian counterattack it is now 54 kb long. I think by now it is fully covered, but if it needs pruning, anyone please write it here.Ikokki 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review and/or FAC push?

I think this article is of core importance to the military history of ancient Greece, and as such, should probably be brought up to FAC status. It may not be far from that now, and just require "tweaking" and minor cleanup. It certainly seems to be comprehensive, well footnoted, and well illustrated - I'm very impressed. - Vedexent 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already put it at Peer Review, the biggest stumbling block is that there aren't enough direct in-line references. I have actually started reading Herodotus on my spare time and taking notes. I intend to add a few more in line references within the week.Ikokki 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

This article is almost certainly above B-Class now; however, the remaining levels have more formal processes involved. I would suggest either (or both) of:

• Nominating this for GA status at WP:GAC.
• Nominating this for A-Class status at the (new) A-Class review process.

Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failure

I would hold off on that A-Class status thing until you take care of the problems that have led me to fail this GA nom:

• Tone We've got a lot of self-referentialism and frequent use of the first person plural, both of which are against policy. I will be tagging the article as such for cleanup.

• Inconsistent referencing. Despite 155 footnotes, we still have some Harvard-style citations inline. Everything should be the same way.

• Confusing organization The article starts off by going into great detail about the problems inherent in the historical sources. Is it too much to ask that an article about the Greco-Persian Wars start off by telling us about ... how the wars started? The historiography can come later.

• Length It comes in at 72K, not the longest GA candidate I've reviewed lately but certainly up there. Is it really necessary to have such detailed discussions of which historian was right about how many ships were in the Persian fleet and why? With tables? It seems to me that these discussions are an excellent candidate for a daughter article, to be named something like Historiography of the Greco-Persian Wars, along with the general problems with the sources referred to above.

  Likewise, is it really necessary to have all those pictures? The Byzantium from space image in particular is not helpful in illustrating the nearby text, and seems to have been included because somebody was trying to find a place for it.

  I bet you could really trim it up.

• But when you do, consider a section on the not-inconsiderable impact of the war on ancient Greek culture. There are some bits on this floating around that could be combined into a section.

Overall, this article's main problem is that it seems at time to want to be a scholarly mongraph rather than an encyclopedia article. We need to remember who we're writing for. Daniel Case 01:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the A class status was granted a few weeks ago, as can be seen in the nomination log. I would counter these things to your comments:

• Thanks for your commentary on tone, I have removed the 2 impersonal "we" that were left. If the issue is see map below more neutral wording suggestions will be aprecciated.
• Referencing is indeed an issue and efforts will be made to improve them
• As it says at the help pages a good article must not create questions to a non-expert on what it says. It would be wrong IMO to constantly reference in the text, not just the notes, to Herodotus or Ctesias without saying first who Herodotus or Ctesias was.
• An article should be of proper length to a subject and, as it is of "core importance" to Greek history it should be complete without, of course going into many details. The only battles here with information on tactics are Marathon and Prosoptis, the main articles have the details. The size of Xerxes' army is of core importance to the conflict, rather than have Niebuhr's mocking of Herodotus or Raptis' mocking of his Western critics it is best if we have their arguements here. After all we are talking about 3 paragraphs in a 50+ paragraph article.
• I feel that there is an article that talks about this conflict's impact on Greek culture, the Ancient Greece article. While it is proper to mention them here the focus of this article should be on the military conflict.

Overall the comments have been helpful and will help towards FA status Ikokki 11:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)