# Talk:Battle of Salamis

I removed this text, since I found it not very informative (when did it take place) and hardly an encylopedia entry ("most stupendous moment in history"). The second part of the article isn't actually  that bad, but I removed it anyway. I replaced it with a short article, which needs a lot of work, perhaps with some of this text in edited form. jheijmans
"From the Story of the Greatest Nations and the World's Famous Events (1913).
The Greek Victory of Salamis is on of the most stupendous moments of history, a battle which was to decide the fate of all the future ages. Greece overthrew Persia. Europe snatched from Asia that rulership of the world which Europe has held ever since.Asia had been the first home of all wealth and splendor and empire; but Asia had surrendered itself to the power of one man, the Persian tyrant Xerxes I. His people were his servants, almost his slaves. Had he conquered the Greeks also, mankind might have continued slaves forever. 
But the Greeks, though few in number, were free men and strong of soul, and they defied the tyrant. Xerxes sent his whole mighty navy to crush them. So sure was he of victory that he had a throne erected on the sea-shore in order that he might watch, like a theatrical performance, the downfall of the Greeks. He also brought with him the lords and ladies of his court to enjoy the spectacle. But the ships of the Greeks, with their sharp prows, crushed the Persian vessels. The Greeks said their gods fought for them, and that these visionary gods hovered in the air directing the strife, while priests offered sacrifice to them, and the Greek commander, Themistocles, stood above his men with folded arms, in triumph. Xerxes, in despair and fury, beholds the unforeseen destruction of his navy. He fled back to Persia, and shutting himself in his palace spent the rest of his life in idle pleasure. Never again did he appear in battle."

I know nothing of greek history, and was just browsing when under "preparations" I noted this apparent contradiction: 
"The Spartans had no ships and only hoplites to contribute [...]", and further down
"There were 180 ships from Athens, 40 from Corinth, 30 from Aegina, 20 from Chalcis, 20 from Megara, 16 from Sparta, 15 from Sicyon, [...]" 
Maybe I misunderstood?  --Teeks 13:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Herodotus says Sparta had 16 ships, so I assume the anon who added that sentence was just mistaken. Maybe Herodotus isn't 100% trustworthy but there must have been a tradition of Sparta having ships for him to report (I don't think he would have made it up entirely). Whatever Sparta's military dominance, I doubt the rest of the city-states would have agreed to let them be in charge if they didn't have any ships at all. The rest of that sentence was "The Spartans had no ships and only hoplites to contribute (who would not be of much use on board a trireme)," which is also not true, because, as mentioned later, "The Greek and Persian ships rammed each other and something similar to a land battle ensued." The Greeks (and Romans) tended to fight naval battles like land battles with ships. It's fixed now. Adam Bishop 18:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Spartans did contribute some triremes; they maintained a nominal fleet merely out of obligation, as Spartan territory was contiguous w/ the sea.  The original statement, that they had merely hoplites to contribute, is an exaggeration based on the fact that the Spartans valued infantrymen over naval ships.

Before the Persians attacked Greece, Xerxes send messengers. First the Messengers arrived in Athens and announced that Xerxes 
and the Persians wanted only "earth and water" , after this request the Athenias brute smacked them and send them away. 
Then the messengers visited the city of Sparta , the Spartans where not so polite as the Athenians and the next thing 
they did was to throw them in a water well so that the messengers could from now on receive "as much earth and water" they need.

The oars of the greek ships where operated by free men in contrast to the persian ships which where operated by slaves. So after the battle the remaining persian ships had tried to flee in the coasts of Asia over the Aegean see. The rage of the greeks was so huge that they hunted them over the Aegean sea so that "no one left alive".
Note: In the specific battle nowhere is mentioned the word "prisoners", because simply there where none. All persians should die 
because of the aggresive policy of Persia those days to attack Greece every 2 to 5 years.

The persian fleeing fleets would also atempt to flee to the island of psyttalea, where a persian garrison was station there. Luckily Aristides (the Athenian exile) assembled hoplites to siege to fort and eliminated the persian resistance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.44.36 (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 

I read on a site called Hellas:net that the Persians only had 450-485 Triremes.  Are you talking about all ships not just Triremes and is their claim historically accurate? --Ben Goldman 15:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's the number Herodotus gives, and it should probably be mentioned more explicitly that there was probably not that many (for me, it is always implicit that numbers given by Herodotus are exaggerated). I've never been to the Saronic Gulf but I can't imagine 1600 ships would fit in there :) I don't think all 1200 Persian ships were triremes, according to Herodotus, but neither were the 400 Greek ships - he just says "ships", at least in the English translation. Adam Bishop 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know I have some problems with the barbaric view of Perisa. People continue to call citizens of Peria servants or slaves. Under the Cyrus cylinder arguably the first charter of rights. Everyone in Persia had the right to compensation for work. Persepolis was built with paid labour unlike Athens which was made by slaves. Ironic how Persia is undemocratic while we have the charter and Sparta has the Helots and Athens' in 430 BCE has 80 000 slaves of their total 150 000 population, 53% of population (JUST DISGUSTING) [By the way Greeks will be furious, I know, but I'm English I don't mind].
Oh yeah, also in Athens that does include 60 000 women which were treated like garbage. Unlike in Persia, my good friends.

Hey Adam, that site you show looks believable (professional) however, from the best of my knowledge, the persians never deployed triremes. I thought they had larger and harder to maneuver ships by the phoenecians. But the numbers make more sense, in terms of battleships I think that after Artemisium and the storms Xerxes could not have that many ships. Because Herodotus I think claims 2000 ships were on xerxes' exhbedition, however modern historians claim roughly 1200, coincidentally the same amount at salamis, catch  my drift this does not seem to work. Also if we think logically if xerxes truely had 1200 ships at the seige, and 200 casualties (17% of starting fleet) would not seem like a lot to cocky xerxes considering Greece losing 40 ships to 370 making a 11% loss of fleet. xerxes would have continued the assault. However had the number of battleships been near 400 like you said then half of his fleet would have been wiped out. This makes more sense because he needs a few ships to get back to persia along with a small regiment. Also this would show that salamis was a lot more catastrophic for xerxes.

 As a Greek, I can say this. The word 'Barbarian' used by the ancient Greeks to describe more or
 less everybody else, did not at the time have the meaning that it does today. Because their 
 language sounded in the ears of the Greeks like 'bar bar bar', the terms barbarian was used for 
 those speaking other languages (I know Greek might sound the same to you too). Therefore, it did 
 not have the meaning it has today. Of course when somebody is attacking you, you will use all you 
 bitterness against them. All races use their own arguments (mostly to justify their actions) to 
 describe their enemies.But I do not think that anybody can argue that the Persian civilization and
 empire was not an important civilization in history. On the contrary. 
 Other than that, the use of slaves was widespread at the time. Everybody used them, although some
 (slaves) were more lucky than others. In Athens for example the slaves had better treatment, it 
 was not allowed to their masters to mistreat them or kill them and in general they had it ok for 
 slaves. In Sparta on the other hand it was not so good. Let us not forget that this was almost 
 2.500 years ago. Slaves existed in other parts of the world less than 200 years ago.

According to Strauss's account ("The Battle of Salamis"), the Greeks stayed within the narrows because their ships were heavier, and would be less affected by the wind than the lighter Persian triremes.  For this reason I am deleting the terms "heavier" and "lighter" from the description of "the battle" on the main page.  Correct me if I'm wrong???

I would like to see some evidence or sources for this Persian ship casualties of up to 500. I am not aware of any sources claiming that, how about we keep it at the previous sourced 200 casualties. And when there are some reliable sources presented here we can change it back to a range 200-500. --Arsenous Commodore 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent excellent start. There's an infobox, pictures and maps, and extensive details. I wonder if there is anything more to be added on such an incredibly famous battle? In addition, just a few minor stylistic improvements - (1) the introduction does not state, or even imply, the incredible fame and importance of this battle. If I came across this article, somehow having never heard of Salamis, I'd read the intro and think "oh, this is just another one of those battles from those Greek wars that I never understood anything about", and I'd move on. As it stands now, you have to scroll all the way to the bottom in order to see anything about the importance and fame of the battle. (2) I wonder if there is any better way to organize the listing of the numbers of ships. Obviously, regular paragraph form will look quite confusing and ugly, and a table would likely take up just as much space as the list... can anything be done here? Maybe a table with multiple columns? Otherwise, a very nice article for a very major topic. Not, unfortunately, up to FA status, which is where I think we'd all like to see Salamis, but it's on the way there. LordAmeth 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to ruin feminist revisionist plans - but way it is written is clearly planned to pump Artemisia into some kind of Xena warrior princess. The fact is she wrecklessly smashed ships from both Greek and Persian side - in fact this is in text but not made clear. From http://www.sarissa.org/war/persian_wars/per_fig.php - Artemisia was a Greek princess who ruled Harlicarnassus. She fought at Salamis on behalf of the Persians, but seemed to change allegiances as the situation demanded.
To expand on the previous authors' post, the citation for the Xerxes quote regarding Artemisia is wrong.  It is listed as Herodotus VII, 88.  Herodotus VII only recounts the battle of Thermopolye, not the battle of Salamis.  I think that passage should be removed unless it can be correctly sourced.

I think in the translation of the battle song "motherland" should be "fatherland".  D. Fletcher

C'mon folks the least you could do when adding 300 ships to the Persian casualties is offer a source or reasoning explanation in the discussion board. No one is undermining the importance of Salamis for Hellas, but at Wikipedia we need to try to maintain an NPOV at all times. I'm taking the figure back to its original status until somebody posts a resonable and authoratative source for this significantly higher figure. --Arsenous Commodore 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the significance section because it was inaccurate and extremely biased. "The Greek victory protected the nascent and singular traditions of democracy and individual rights" is inaccurate, as the Persians wrote the first declaration of human rights, and the Greeks were much more guilty of human rights abuses than the Achaemenids. Also, this: " This meant the eventual flowering of Western culture, which would have been snuffed out completely, had the Persians overrun Greece." is without basis. There is no evidence to show that the Persians routinely "snuffed out" cultures: considering their policy of religious tolerance and government through satraps, it is very likely that, had Greece been conquered, Grecian culture would have flourished. (Look, for example, to the Jews, Babylonians, and Egyptians for examples.) And finally: "Due to the enormous and wide-ranging influence of Western culture on all of human civilization, as well as the huge success of Western culture in its own right, some claim that the world today would be fundamentally different had the Greeks lost at Salamis." doesn't have any place in the article: it is one thing to say that the battle fundamentally changed human history (it did) and another to spend a sentence or two glorifying Western civilization. Spectheintro 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Totally agree with this. I suspect that had the Persians won, there would have been no major difference in the development of modern democracy. when they won the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans got rid of Athens' democracy anyway. Granted, their replacement government didn't last long, but I think that illustrates how such a powerful idea can never die. Had Daruius or Cyrus conquered Greece, democracy may have continued, just to a lesser degree. Canislupisbarca 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I updated the Significance section to reflect more accurately the actual significance of the battle, so that the general reader has a proper idea of its meaning and eventual significance. Spectheintro's paragraph was not untrue, but needed a bit more explaining (such as how the Greeks contributed to Western civilization, for instance, which was well understated). Given the importance of Western culture in the world we live in today and in the modern history of the world, it needs to be properly stated and adequately explained how significant this battle is in the grand scheme. While you believe the much earlier article may have overdone it, I believe that Spectheintro's article underdid it, or at the very least failed to explain why the battle was so significant. Fairerversion, 22 November2007.
Significance section contained some broad, unverifiable comments, such as "However, it is equally possible to state the reverse case" - whatever the "reverse" is isn't explained and is unjustifiable.  Another quote: "Even in the case of a Greek defeat at Salamis, the Persian conquest still might not have been completed; and even if it had, Persian domination might have proved fleeting, or might not have had a dramatic effect on Greek culture" - the Significance section should explain the significance of the battle as to how historians believe it may have been significant - that we will never know for 100% sure is self evident - however the significance section should simply point out what many historians believe MAY be the case, which it does, it does not need to say "also this may not be the case after all".  Another quote: "The point has also been made that Persian domination may even have been of benefit to some conquered territories; for instance, the oppressed neighbours of Sparta may have known more 'freedom' under a Persian regime than otherwise" - this misses a subtle but very significant point - that the idea of Greek democracy, rights, and especially freedom, refers to the *individual citizens* of the particular city-states. That the Persians instead of Sparta may have been the overseers of certain city-states doesn't alter the CONCEPT of individual rights and freedoms WITHIN a state, which is what the west has inherited from Ancient Greece.  The main difference of course is that in modern Western democracies there is a much higher portion of the population who are considered citizens with rights, compared to ancient Greek states.   Fairerversion, 16 December 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairerversion (talk • contribs) 
It's not just about long-term military factors (number of armed men etc). Democracy, in the sense of a republic based on suffrage and participation of the free citizens, not monarchy or tyranny, was still very young at the time. Athens had made the decisive shift to a republican constitution about thirty years earlier, same with other key cities, and the Persians were presumably not interested in having city republics as vassals. they would very likely have preferred subject princes who could keep order. So a Persian victory would have led to reinstatement of monarchs or pseudo-monarchs (tyrants) and it would have robbed the Greek cities of control of their own affairs. But besides, Persia was a much more powerful military presence than Sparta once it had been allowed to settle and place its garrisons. Sparta was limited in number of warriors, even though they were an elite company. It's dumb to imagine that battles like Thermopylae or Marathon could have been fought on repeat in an indefinite number of later liberation wars. They could only be fought if the Greeks were still in control of the hinterland and of the support lines.
That side of the argument - the control and confidence of a city in shaping its course and its future- is as vital as a given number of political and literary innovations. If Athens, Thebes, Sparta and others had been ruled by Persian subject kings, if their wealth had been siphoned off into taxes and tributes to Persepolis and their artists, writers and thinkers had not found opportunities and patronage within their own city communities, voicing the concerns of their own societies and their won minds, it would have stifled the confidence they felt in their own work, their power to innovate and rise to new challenges, their own spirit. The point that some Greek sculptoirs (Ionians, already living under Persian control) did work at Persepolis and that we can detect their style is not a counter-argument here: the styling details at some figures there are nowhere near as inventive and far-reaching as the main stream of 5th century Greek sculpture. In the same sense, people like Socrates and Sophocles felt themselves to be articulating the concerns of the Athenian people - they developed in dialogue with their city. Their art and thought are simply not conceivable if they had been living in a city ruled by an autocrat obeying a faraway Great King. You only have to read Phaedo or Antigone to see it.
The view that "Salamis saved Western civilization" has been overstated sometimes but it's actually hard to escape that it was decisive - not the only decisive battle though. You don't have to claim that Athens was a democracy in our sense to see that it is justifiable. Strausszek (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spectheintro ,human rights as we know and mean them is a modern idea,a modern construct.
The origin - among others - of modern western democratic values is ancient greece via renaissance and enlightment.Note the word I used origin.the modern status isn't equivalent to the ancient one,but the former is derived from and founded on the latter.
The post Persian Wars in general and post battle of Salamis in particular, acme of Greece in both geopolitical and cultural sense is crucially relevant and almost totally based on the victory of the Greeks over the Persians in the aforementioned wars.
 " This meant the eventual flowering of Western culture, which would have been snuffed out completely, had the Persians overrun Greece." is without basis
your words above and of your post in general are at least naive.and saying naive is my understatemental way of being polite.
political correctness isn't history.
Thanatos|talk 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

human rights as we know and mean them is a modern idea,a modern construct. The origin - among others - of modern western democratic values is ancient greece via renaissance and enlightment.Note the word I used origin.the modern status isn't equivalent to the ancient one,but the former is derived from and founded on the latter.
Of course ! Human rights is, for us, a great "invention" of humanity but do you have proof, it's a real progress ? No one can be sure of that and no one can be sure that persian victory would have stopped democratic values ! It's history ! On wikipedia we have to write about fact and not to speak about if democratic values are a great progress for humanity or not. political correctness isn't history. Anyway it's a fact that a persian victory would have significatively changed the history. So the use of "important" seems me more correct in this context. :)
Victory of Persians would have been a dramatic loss for democratic values Ok, but not for Xerxes for exemple; so you cannot say "dramatic consequences for the humans" :) The mind of some modern historians can be the truth or not. In these situations we have to write facts ! Only facts. For exemple you can quote "Green Peter" but you have to say that it's his own mind and not every historian's one. :)
Mrpouetpouet 23:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I nowhere used the term progress or regress...In pure objective reasoning ,imo at least, ethics,values,ideas etc are more or less subjective.I cannot see though how is this related to my answer to Spectheintro.So non sequitur dear Mrpouetpouet.
the classical and then hellenistic and grecoroman boom of greek culture and civilisation has such a colosseal importance (something that most modern anglosaxons seem not to have any idea of) in world history that the impact of a persian victory would not be only on democratic values.(in fact imo ancient greek democracy is secondary compared to the birth,acme and perhaps deification,there and then, of reason and science.when I reflect on things such as this I pose my one what ifs and then wheep. :) )
the use of the word important is not wrong .nevertheless it is an understatement.
dramatic consequences seems hyperbolic to you.ok.I simply disagree.
anyway ,you may call me prejudiced but I simply don't like (understatement) the political correctness of modern anglosaxonia.
( the same way I'm totally opposed to a war against the Iranians,the same way I don't like (understatement again :-)) G.W.Bush ,the American Creationist Evangelical Kingdom and God save America and Americans the second chosen people of God.but again nevertheless both the former(political correctness) and the latter, in historical sense have huge impact on modern affairs.)
I simply don't see why  should we not glorify the Western Civilisation.glorifying the west doesn't mean that the Great Persian Empire  wasn't Great.
ci vediamo
Thanatos|talk 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues that need to be addressed before this article can pass its GA nomination:

The lead section needs to be expanded as per Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. An extra paragraph should be enough to meet this requirement.
In the infobox there are two notes. Note "a" refers to the number of ships in the Greek side. Note "b" is not linked to any part of the infobox.
In the "Background" section:
The section lacks background! There's no mention of the Greco-Persian Wars and the wider context of the Battle of Salamis. A reader with little knowledge of the subject will get lost easily in this section.
What's the source is used for the article's account of actions prior to the battle? Currently, this is not clear because the first and second paragraphs (excluding the quote by Herodotus) lack references. This is also the case in the last paragraph of this section
The table of Greek ships by polis lacks a source.
Claims by different historians as to the number of Greek ships should be sourced. Currently only the Hyperides claim is referenced.
Where does the average of 200 men per Persian ship comes from? It needs a reference.
The claim that Persians were so confident of their victory that Xerxes set up a throne on the shore needs a reference
In the "Battle" section:
No sources are provided for the discussion on the date of the battle
The quote from Aeschylus needs to be properly referenced. This also applies to all other quotes in this section, for instance, the words of a female ghost quoted from Herodotus
The use of the word "marines" in the "Battle begins" section seems anachronic
In large parts of the account of the battle it is unclear what sources have been used.
In the "Consequences" section:
There's a citation needed tag
There are no sources for what happened in the aftermath of the battle
In the "Significance" section, the claim that this is the single most significant battle in human history needs to be references to the relevant books including the page numbers where such claims are made.
The quote by Lord Byron seems irrelevant in this section and is not connected to the previous paragraph. It should be removed or relocated.
I think the main problem of the article is sourcing not just because some paragraphs lack references but mainly because of the type of sources used. The article has been written mainly using ancient Greek sources. These are not reliable sources for several reasons. First, they are clearly biased sources as their authors wrote from a Greek POV. For instance, it is widely accepted by historians that numbers from Herodotus should not be taken literally as he tended to exaggerate, specially regarding the size of the Persian armies and navies. Second, this are primary sources, as such, they should be used with care and replaced by modern scholarly books when they are available. Judging from the "Further references" section it seems clear that there are plenty of modern sources on the Battle of Salamis. This should be used to replace primary sources except for direct quotes.
A related point is that the battle is mainly described from a Greek point of view. An effort should be made to make this a more balanced account of the battle
There are seven days to deal with these objections. If you have any doubt or question, please drop me a note. Good luck, --Victor12 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review, Victor.  I will get on it right away. Argos'Dad 06:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Eleven days have passed and most issues are still unresolved. Thus, the article has failed it's GA nomination. Please resubmit the article at WP:GAN after these issues have been resolved. Good luck, --Victor12 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the persians lost in these reasons:
Attack by persians was provoked too easily so persians swarmed to quickly to the narrow cape. there was also a promontory which gave the persians even less space to move. Therefore, all the persian fleet had no manouvrebility in the narrow cape.
The strait had huge waves that drifted the persian fleet apart, disorganising them.
Since the persian fleet could not move they had to fight the marines (hoplites) of the Greeks. Since the Greek hoplite is heavy armored and the persians weren't, the Greeks had easily won.
The persians were so crouded they ran into each other and had also beached to the promontory.
The persians weren't good at tactic movement. I guess they were too confident for success since their numbers. This proves that the excessive amounts of troops or fleet could disbenifit you, since you would be more disorganised.
Am i correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.44.36 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 

I checked these Herodotus citations in this revision - A=article version, G=G. C. Macaulay translation, S=Shlomo Felberbaum translation, Fact=tagged requesting a preciser citation:

Herodotus, VIII, 22 - Themistocles' inscriptions - A="women of Ionia...", G="Ionians...", S="Men of Ionia...". Fact.
Herodotus, VIII, 88 - "My men have become women, and my women men." - fixed the book number and quote.
Herodotus, VIII, 89-90 - Phoenicians beheaded - agrees with Macaulay translation.
I skipped the ship number cites but I added a few extra cites, for example Herodotus VIII, 85 reports the reproach of the ghost of a woman. -Wikianon 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this page still prone to vandalism? I think it would be safe to remove the lock. 24.65.164.230 (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The serpentine column in Constantinople is a monument commemorating the Battle of Plataea.  It doesn't seem to me that an image of this column belongs in an article about Salamis.  143.229.44.127 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Lysias II, 27" has not any mean. What speech of Lysias or at least what edition ? ---Pagaeos (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's Lysias Funeral Oration (I thing is the English translation of Ἐπιτάφιος τοῖς Κορινθίων βοηθοῖς), 27 - where Lysias says that Persians had 1200 ships (διακοσίαις μὲν καὶ χιλίαις ναυσὶν ἀφίκετο) Nataly8 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Although somewhat incidental to the battle, the Greek diver in Persian service named Scyllias, a native of Scione, is mentioned in many "reliable" sources relating to this battle - or more specifically, the aftermath. (e.g.:[1], a Google Scholar search will find many more).   Note: he is briefly mentioned in the Battle of Artemisium article.   Perhaps he deserves a mention here?   (And/or an article: Scyllias of Scione)   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hula Hup has tagged this page with 'neutrality disputed' template, but no attempt to actually state why they believe this to be the case has been made on this page. So I'm removing the template: if the user wants to restore it, please state your arguments here as to why you believe the article is not neutral. 22:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

...is most probably a depiction of the battle between Venetians and Ottomans at Lepanto (see related article, as well as printed sources on the battle of Lepanto, which present the same painting).Ivan Marinov (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has reference errors.  Can someone try to fix them?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Salamina monument.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As of a 25 July edit, the article has a distinguish template directing to the page frot, which is an off-topic link and possibly a joke edit. The name "Battle of Salamis" could be humorously read aloud as a "battle of salamis (cured sausage)" and serve as a euphemism for frotting. So, assuming a good-faith edit, the link would be used to clarify things with shared names. However, despite this reasoning, I do not see any prevalence or noteworthy instances of this euphemism for frotting. Even assuming that the edit is in good faith and not a joke, I do not believe the distinguish template is justified because of lack of notability.
SollenPerry (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)SollenPerry