# Talk:Battle of Artemisium

Hopefully the anonymous user reads this...why is this a Persian victory? Adam Bishop 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the links and added some explanatory text. The Greeks also took a beating during the battle, and once Thermopylae fell, there was no purpose in maintaining station at Artemisium, so they fell back towards Salamis. Choess 23:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello,
I am the anonymous writer.
You tell me, at the battle of Marathon perisa had something like 20 000 soldiers, with of course some Herodotus exageration, Persia lost 6 400 men that was not the entire regiment however because they fled (retreat) we consider it a Greek victory. 
The very same scenario consitutes a victory in for Persia at Artemisium, Greek's fleet was not wiped out but it fled, (WHEN AN ARMY OR NAVY RETREATS IT IS THEIR LOSS) following the bad news at thermopylae. Even so when the Greeks went, Artemisium was sacked.
Please reply to this

I guess so...but in the overall scheme of the war, it is as indecisive as Marathon is a victory, wouldn't you say? (Or we could say Marathon is just as indecisive as Artemisium.) Adam Bishop 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you Adam Bishop, I like some of your discussions, you seem quite knowledgable on the subject of Greco-Persian war, I like to think I'm am too, by the way are you Canadian? I am too, nice Though I am a much younger than you think, if you don't mind please give your email. By the way at the matter at hand, you are right in that you agree with me. You are absolutely correct if we consider Marathon a Greek victory then the same features made Artemisium a Perisan victory. But like you say if Marathon was indecisive that applies to Artemisium as well. Greeks have a monopoly over the Greco-Persian Wars accounts. I just wish the Persians had at least one account of the war. No thanks to Alexander and the more brutal Arab invasion which burned atll of persian libraries.

By the way Adam have you read this new book called Persian fire, its a great book it is written by Tim Holland I highly suggest it.

Well I'm not that knowledgeable, it's just a side interest. You can find my e-mail from "e-mail this user" on my user page, if you want. Adam Bishop 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is going to make changes to the article, please state why in the discussion category. When an army or navy retreats it is a loss. Why because with this not only was it a tactical loss but also because now Persia marched to Athens unstopped and sacked the city. Besides which madmax myself and an admin already agreed on the result, what is your evidence. Don't edit war, without an explanation. --Arsenous Commodore 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because a side retreats doesn't necessarily mean they lost. I have always held that the Battle of Marathon was a Greek victory not just because the Persians were routed but also because the Greeks benefited tremendously from the morale boost etc.However, I do not see the Persians as the victor of Artemisium as, although the battle was indecisive and it was the greeks who fled, it was this battle which shaped the tactics employed by the Greeks against the Persians in the future - especially at Salamis, which was definitely one of the most important battles of the war(s). I recently did a dicitation on the importance of the battles of Marathon, Artemisium and Thermopylae which I concluded with a somewhat controversial judgement that Thermopylae was actually relatively insignificant but that both Marathon and Artemisium were very important to the outcome of the war (I know this is original research so I'm not going to cite it for the article). Incidentally, Tom Holland's 'Persian Fire' is very good, but perhaps not a good source. Peter green's book (the Greco-Persian Wars) is also interesting but if you want to cite something for defeat/victtory then I really think you need find a more analytical source as Tom holland, as he freely admitted when I once talked to him, does make some rather bold assumptions 172.142.222.62 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No sources yet the History Channel (a source I would trust over any internet source, with all their scholars in hand) stated a 6:1 or 5:1 advantage of the Persians and also stated the Athenians doubled their fleet size from 100 (to 200). That means it was 200 vs 1200 (or perhaps 1000) at the beginning, 200 of Xerxes ships were destroyed when they tried to flank around Euboea. Themistocles destroyed or captured another 200 over the two day battle. Whatever the exact case it wasn't 333 vs 500. --ProdigySportsman 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Persians had some 1207 ships to begin with, but even after the storms they could muster a little over 800 ships. I'll change it to 1207.--Arsenous Commodore 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the Strength to 927, since they started with 1,327 ships (I forgot to add the European ships earlier) and about 400 were destroyed before Artemisium (according to Herodotus) I got the 927 figure.--Arsenous Commodore 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since by the end of the battle the Athenians had some 180 ships and half of the according to Herodotus were destroyed (near the final day of engagement), I added the Greek casualties to 90. Furthermore, it is noted that five Greek ships were captured by the Egyptian contingent. Thus 95 would be a minimum estimate. Therefore I placed their warbox casualties to 95+.The Persians on the other hand are a little bit more difficult to postulate. Peter Green reckons 100+ in his book (The Greco-Persian Wars). And Herodotus implies a similar amount judging by the remainder of the Persian fleet he discusses.--Arsenous Commodore 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What strikes me as odd is that there is relatively no information about the joint effort between ground and naval forces.
It is widely suggested that Themistocles the Naval Greek General was the actual mastermind of the plot.
Lying to the Greek governors about why he wanted an increased naval capacity.

Have you ever read Plutarch's de malignitate (of the malice of Herodotus)? There's widespread consensus that Herodotus's treatment of the Persian wars is massively obscured by spin and bias: please remember that H was from Halicarnassus, and not the Greek mainland. Read his account of the various actions on both sides before Salamis. And his account of the Ionian revolt, which he makes out to last six months when in fact it last nigh on a decade. And his account of the accession of Darius. Accusations of Herodotus favouring the Persians are as old as The Histories themselves. And don't you think it's a bit odd that H has this massive storm deplete the Persian ranks just after Artemisium? Might that not be an invention to get the Persian numbers down to a reasonable level before Salamis, and that H is obscuring the fact that at Artemisium the Persians got a very bloody nose? Moreschi (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially this article needs a rewrite, it's far too credulous about Herodotus and the claims he makes. Moreschi (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Herodotus was born in Greek part of Anatolia and was Greek. So, I was surprized when you said that he was bias in favor of Persians. Moreover, the source is Britannica which is a reliable source. I do not think that you argue Britannica? However, I don't insist if you find that majority of scholars do not agree with Britannica acounts on this battle--Larno (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do argue with Britannica. It's a tertiary source, and the edition and article are not specified. If this is 1986 Britannica, OK. If it's the public domain 1911, then it is most definitely not a reliable source. But, since you will insist, I shall drag out some secondary sources to the contrary. BTW, you clearly know little about Herodotus. Only some Greek states get a good write-up in Herodotus (usually oligarchies), and the Persians in general get a good press. He even gives Xerxes some "wise leader" moments. Moreschi (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
So, you mean that anywhere he has written in favor of Persians we should reject it and we should accept his accounts without question if anywhere he has accounts in favor of Greeks . BTW, what do you mean by "He even gives Xerxes some "wise leader" moments." History is not fiction movies like 300.  History is not hero vs. baddies! There is no black and white.--Larno (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean nothing of the sort. We just need to be clever about Herodotus's biases. The Samians, Chians, and Lesbians all get very good PR from Herodotus - far more than they probably deserved (read his account of the Battle of Lade): also true for the Spartan and Athenian oligarchy. In general, it's fair to say that H disliked democracy, if you look at what Demaratus says to Xerxes about Spartan governance and the (completely non-historical) debate the Persian toffs have amongst themselves once they've dealt with the revolt of the Magi (that's in Book 4, I think). Further, if you look at his account of Salamis (Book 8) the Peleponnesians have to be tricked into fighting (plausibly true), while the Persians have a democratic-style debate among themselves about to what do, in which Xerxes peaceably accepts the decision of the majority! Even if this pre-Salamis Persian debate were historical - which I, and I think most scholars, find very hard to believe - there's no way H could have known about it. He just uses the debate as a vehicle to make Halicarnassian Artemisia look good.
The point of all this is that Herodotus is a source we have to use with extreme caution, and that any article which uses him uncritically, as this does, is going to be pretty broken. Moreschi (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I,ve read Llewelyn Jones "Persians", with no doubts the Marathon WAS Greeks massacre, so they didn't won ! At Marathon Persians encircled them, went across higher level and rocks and ranges, so, the battle was end in sacrifice of Leonidas and his people. Only in retreat of rest greeks they found chances to fight later with Kserkses. Sinuhe1234 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
What do Leonidas I and Xerxes I have to do with the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE)? Neither of them was a king at that point. Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The article currently (February 2014) uses the term "the Allies" everywhere to refer to the alliance of Greek city states that confronted the Persian invasion. Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to simply refer to "the Greeks" as English historiography has traditionally done? Yes, technically some Greeks fought on the Persian side (Ionian cities by force, Thebes by choice or by fear), but even ancient Greek historiography typically overlooked this and referred to "the Greeks" as such. Also, directly translating the Greek term "σύμμαχοι" becomes confusing because "the Allies" in English overwhelmingly brings to mind World War II... While reading, I expect the Axis to pop up at any minute! At the very least "the Greek allies" would make more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.158.9 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Artemisium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References needed:
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comment
There are some POV and coverage issues. I advice you to use chapters 5 to 6 from Lazenby, The Defence of Greece, to broaden your coverage of modern sources and to include all points.
In the structure you should better point out that the battle consists of several different engagements with more detail about tactics(diekplous) like in Battle of Yarmouk.
That the Athenians had been building a fleet of 200 ships for three years for their war with Aigina should be included since they and the Aiginetes are armed up to their teeth in naval matters. The different storms should be highlighted and the different signal systems at work. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the delay in getting round to this. I don't have access to a copy of Lazenby at this moment, although I'm hoping to get one soon. As soon as I do, I will revise this to include any extra points.
As far as the different engagements, I've now divided this into sections based on the days. I'm not sure there's much more I can say about tactics; I'm not sure anymore is known. What there is comes from Herodotus (for instance, the 'hedgehog' tactic on the first day).
I will add in the point about the Athenian fleet and the Aeginatans, and see if I can add any more about the storms and signalling. Oh, and I will add the references for the chronology later today. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can send you a copy of Lazenby via email. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, I now have a copy of Lazenby, and I have started adding details, as suggested, to the article. If there's anything I've missed, please let me know. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the considerations section very much. You should go to MILHIST A-class review with this article. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I really do not understand why references for simple and clear facts such as the fate of Persian ambassadors in Athens and Sparta (No 18), have to be done to Holland and not to Herodotus.  By the way, is there any source about their trial in Athens ? Because Herodotus (VII, 133) does not mention trial. It would be necessary to justify that horrible ’’simply’’ (i.e. without trial) of Holland. Furthermore, the last reference of the text, concerning the Pindar’s verses (No 96), is not made to Plutarch (Themistocles, VIII), but to… Lazenby. Unbelievable ! ---Pagaeos (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And it has some mistakes in Greek names. For example, the article uses the name Abronchius, but Herodotus (Urania, 21) said Ἀβρώνιχος ὁ Λυσικλέος Ἀθηναῖος, so it' s not Abronchius but Avronichos the son of Lysicleos the Athenian (or Avronichus the son of Lysicleus from Athens - it' s based in English translation of Ancient Greek names). Nataly8 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. So whilst they overran, or conquered (whatever once's formulation is more pleasing) Euboea, is it possible to add this to the infobox, or shouldnt we add it because they lost it relatively quickly thereafter in the Battle of Salamis? Any imput/comment would be appreciated. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)