# Talk:Themistocles

The position decrying described as 'decrying the arrogance of veterancy' pertains to the receivership/extirpation problem of institutional generational advance. The antagonist 'Bureaucratic agents' are deliberate actors in this respect, if through statecraft roles and responsibilities are truly respected. The problem describes the willing parties participating within a position set and defined in role and fulfillment of government typically. The means and ability of the previous enforcer to submit to new leadership is hence problematic to both parties and the tensions should be expected to impact similarly as Julius Caesar was executed by his Senate, or King Charles I absolving his Commons, and or similar differentiation between hard and soft-power transitions within authority.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.135.41 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 

Furthermore, whilst these unknown casual economic agents acted to vilify the veteran Themistocles, it was the very same issue for which Socrates was charged, but on a more wide-scale. Look at the situation with USA today, a former-current diplomat to China for example, there's no organizational order which allows vilification within the institution, as was here apparent in the City-State. All of Greece fell in fat due to this disgruntled refusal to fortify Athens as Themistocles enacted.Which is just young people wanting bohemian lifestyles instead of rankophile duty to protect their State, in which their dessert tray is the most import matter 220.240.135.41 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Not really sure if it's worth engaging with this, but I'll give it one singular shot: we write tertiary analysis based on what the cited sources say, and we do not provide our own exegesis or even what we feel to be much-needed commentary or inflection on this or any subject. Please speak in terms of actionable references to reliable sources, and not extemporaneously. Thanks. Remsense诉 05:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
But you have no reference for 'perceived arrogance', but presume this? Based on what, a South Indian holiday? 220.240.135.41 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to peruse the sources already cited. If at any time the prose does not conform, you're free to adjust it until it does, or supply additional citations to reliable sources as needed. Remsense诉 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh no, It isn't prose, that is the matter to contest hereby; it's motivation and cause, motive, and so law and order. 220.240.135.41 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Edited the first 2 paragraphs for style so far.
References needed.
--Ste175 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited the rest for style. It would be good to check some of the facts (i.e. incorporate more sources), and add a picture to break up the text. Njál 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section on his time in Asia. Previously it had said: "He was well received by the Persians and was allowed to settle in Magnesia in Thessaly. Thessaly was an ally of Persia, having supported Persia during the invasion by Xerxes." I changed that to: "He was well received by the Persians and was made governor of Magnesia on the Maeander River in Asia Minor (modern Turkey)." On the edit page from February 2007 Dave2K says "Removed reference to Maeander River in Magnesia. The river is in Asia Minor, Magnesia is in Thessaly." That is incorrect. While there may well have been a Magnesia in Thessaly, there's also a Magnesia on the Maeander River in Asia Minor and that's the Magnesia where Themistocles was made governor by Artaxerxes. See Thucydides 1.138 ("There is a monument to him in the market-place of Magnesia in Asia. This was the district over which he ruled; for the King gave him Magnesia for his bread . . .") and the Oxford Classical Dictionary s.v. Themistocles: "Artaxerxes I . . . made him governor of Magnesia on the Maeander." Thessaly did indeed collaborate with the Persians when they invaded, but they stopped collaborating with Persia after the Persians were driven out.  --MiloD 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a recent revert, changing Themistocles' date of birth from 525 to 523 BC is of course not vandalism, but more likely a matter of somebody having consulted a different source. I changed the dates from 525-460 BC to 524-459 BC and cited The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, an abridged version of the Oxford Classical Dictionary which I assume gives the same dates. These are certainly reliable sources for classical studies and following them beats a pointless revert war. I suggest that discussion of other dates be confined to the footnote. --D. Webb 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was done in the way of a vandal; half-witted.  There were two places to make the change in that one sentence and there was no comment on why the edit was made and no source, and so someone somewhere on the planet popped in and changed a 5 to a 3.  I say a vandal.  But the footnote would be great if indeed there is knowledge for a footnote. -BiancaOfHell 01:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are acts of vandalism on wikipedia, not "vandals".  This is a very important distinction.  Assume good faith.  This means that if someone moves a date one year, especially when it is "Themistocles was born in 524 BC" there is no reason to suspect it is vandalism.  If there was a specified month, it might be a different action.  avoiding accusation is a good course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A bust exists of Themistocles, certainly it should be added to this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeacusHaerus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 

Try to keep in mind that if this guy could tell his side of the story he would probably have some kind of explanation for his actions.  We have very little evidence about him at all and not nearly enough to assume that he went over to the Persians as part of some evil premeditated plot to betray his nation to the enemy.  There's no way we can possibly know what his motives really were.
If you believe that some "clash of civilizations" between Europe and Iran is the most important thing in the world that's fine but you can't get on wikipedia and write that some guy 2500 years ago was a terrible person because our very limited evidence suggests he didn't agree with you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu America (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 

Which particular sentences do you think show a POV problem? I think the discussion is pretty well cited. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that comment was left just before I completely re-wrote the article. It was probably not that inaccurate at the time! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I misread the year in the signature! So much for attention to detail :) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've recently given this article a major re-write & expansion. It has passed GA, and I think I would like to get it up to FA if possible. So - what could be done to improve the article? Is there anything missing? Any comments would be welcome!  MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


#### Yannismarou
Trivia, but WP:MoS needs "&nbsp;" between any number and unit, symbol or abbreviation that it goes with, such as 493 BC.
Done
"undoubtedly". I am not sure if such strong words add anything useful. You could say simply that he was a populist.
Removed
""the man most instrumental in achieving the salvation of Greece". Source?
Added
I am not sure about the copyright status of File:Temistocle.jpg. Technical reviews are now strict in WP:FAC. Make sure all your photos have the proper copyright status.
"Herodotus's work was probably published in 425 BC, when he was approximately 60; Herodotus thus lived through the second half of Themistocles's career.[4] Herodotus lived". A bit choppy the prose here. Why don't you ask a good copy-editor to have a look at your article?
Fixed this example. I will find a copy-editor once I've worked through suggestions from this review.
You don't have to have a source for each sentence. Especially, if the source is the same for two or three consecutive sentence, you could just use the citation once.
This is true. However, following some tough GA reviews, I started adopting a 'reference everything' policy.
Something I saw in your writing of Epaminondas as well. Sometimes, you overuse "however". Again a fresh eye in the prose would help.
I admit that this is a habit of mine. The basic use isn't wrong, and is intended to maintain a sense of narrative drama. However, it can get repetitive, and I need to find other ways of phrasing!
"which qualified him to become archon". Do we know what archon?
Added
I would alphabetize the sources.
Done
Again, have a look at WP:MoS about the use of dashes (–, —, -).
Maybe you overexpand a bit in "First Persian invasion of Greece", since Themistocles had no major role in the strategic planning of the battle. He was probably one of the ten generals. ok! Anything else?
True that Themistocles had little apparent role. However, I think that this is all important background for explaining the second Persian invasion, the fall of Miltiades, the reason that Athenian policy after 490 BC was the way it was. But I'll see if I can trim it somewhat.
Take other opinions as well. Do nor rely only on what I say!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Themistocles, with his power-base firmly established amongst the power, moved naturally to fill the power vacuum". Again the prose.
Typo in there - power/poor. Reworded anyway
"Plutarch suggests that the rivalry between the two had more sordid beginnings, when they competed over the love of a boy: "... they were rivals for the affection of the beautiful Stesilaus of Ceos, and were passionate beyond all moderation." What do secondary sources say about that?
"It seems clear that, towards the end of the decade, Themistocles had begun to accrue enemies, and had become "incommensurate with true democratic equality"; he had become arrogant, and his fellow citizens jealous." For these assertions, it would be nice, if you could provide secondary sources as well.
"It is possible, based on the ancient sources, to draw ". A bit weasel.
"He also appears to have been corrupt (at least by modern standards), and was known for his fondness of bribes". This assertion could have some further analysis and fact-backing.
"to draw some conclusions about Themistocles's character. Perhaps his most evident trait was his massive ambition; "In his ambition..." I don't like the wording in general, and especially the "perhaps"!
"In popular culture" is listy. In FAC they disgust this kind of sections. If you want to keep it, then turn it into prose, and expand it. Something more about Themistocles in literature (ancient, medieval, and modern; if there is something! I have not searched this topic at all).
This was leftover from the old-article. I nearly deleted it, but then couldn't quite bring myself to do it. Themistocles does seem to be strangely absent from popular culture, and it's possible I should just get rid of it.
"A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history." Ok, but can you offer us some further information either here either in "Military legacy" about the role, strategy and tactics of Themistocles? A more thorough analysis of his military skills? Was he innovative during the Battle of Salamis? Is he important and in what way for the world navy military history?
Excellent point. I will work on adding this.
Just a question not only for the article but for me as well! Did you find anything, any comment in your sources for his oration skills? Is he lauded at all as an orator?
I'm not really sure. There are allusions to his skill, but nothing which concretely says that he was. He seems to have been the generation before the really famous orators. I will research further.
The article is nice, but I am not sure is ready for FAC. MoS, and prose issues should be taken care of. And it would be nice if you could vary a bit your sec. sources. You rely a lot on Holland. Great job, anyway!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all absolutely valid. I wasn't planning to go to FAC yet, just looking for advice on how to improve the article, and this is all very helpful. I have struggled to find a modern biography of Themistocles; and it's difficult to know which other books might contain assessments of him. If you have any recommendations, please let me know! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You can do what I do here from Brussels, where I have no access to my library in Athens: googlebooking and googlescholar-searching. If you want to sacrifice a few dollars to the universal knowledge, then you can immediately purchase an article from jstor (or ask somebody having access to provide you with what you want), or order a book through Amazon. Besides that, you may find some material in Questia or Project Gutenberg as well, but mainly old books. I'll add some additional comments to the review now that I am back from my lunch! But, honestly, I am really happy I see this article much improved, because Themistocles is one of the personalities which always intrigued me, and I had also thought about rewriting it in the past. But you're doing a great job!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


#### Cplakidas
Aside from the points Yannis rased above, a few other issues:

You give quotes of Thucydides and Plutarch in the lead section. These should be cited.
It might be interesting for the reader to add a note why Thucydides was paired with Camillus, given that Plutarch usually chose his pairs on the basis of common traits or a similar historical role.
There are too many parentheses. Try to work more of them into the text.
"in that decade became the most influential politician in Athens." is followed shortly after by "Themistocles had thus become the foremost politician in Athens". This reiteration looks a bit awkward, perhaps the first instance should be rephrased to something like "in that decade rose in prominence"?
"It is clear from Herodotus, however, that Themistocles would be the real leader of the fleet." the cited passage does not make this entirely clear. Perhaps this assertion should be supported by a couple of more modern scholars?
""fastened the city [Athens] to the Piraeus, and the land to the sea" This, i assume, is a reference to the Long Walls? If so, that should be clearly noted.
"Furthermore, after the treason and disgrace of the Spartan general Pausanias, the Spartans tried to implicate Themistocles in the plot" elaborate please a bit on the what the plot was.
A major concern that will be certainly pointed out if you choose to forward this article for A or FA candidacy are the sources. You rely very much on primary sources, not only for the events (which is understandable), but also for interpretations, and when you use modern scholarship, it is mostly Holland. It is not as if the subject is obscure, so I strongly suggest that you should try to diversify your sources a bit more, esp. with modern scholarship.
I've also fixed a few minor points myself. Otherwise very comprehensive and, apart from the noted concerns, the prose is rather good and easy to follow. Well done! Constantine   ✍  11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul August please do not delete the popular culture section, it is a consensus part of a lot of wiki articles. Pohick2 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the list of Themistocles 10 children gave me a headache.  First we have three sons listed, then two more who are older, one of whom seems to either have the same mother, or a mother who is the sister of the mother of the first three.  The passage seems antequated and is hard to follow at times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article, but I noticed you have some information that can be tightened up in the background section.
You stated that it was Cleisthenes who rallied the spartans to over throw Hippias. This is not exactly the case, the Spartans weren't directly influenced to over throw Hippias by Cleisthenes. this would have been something completely unprecedented in the Greek world and would have probably resulted in Cleisthenes being laughed out of Sparta or possibly killed. In stead his clan, the Alcmaeonidae, cleverly bribed the oracle of Delphi to persuade the Spartans to over throw Hippias. It was, in fact, Isagoras who shortly after directly requested help from the Spartans to expel Cleisthenes and his clan and to acquire Athens as a tributary state in which Isagoras would be the head of. The Spartans, along with Isagoras, invaded Athens and set up shop a top of the Acropolis, this was just as unprecedented as the idea of Cleisthenes asking the Spartans for help, but the main difference was Isagoras was a friend of the Spartans, he was even rumored to have shared his wife with the Spartan king Cleomenes, making this extraordinary event possible. in the article you simply say Isagoras had the "support" of Cleomenes. Which is true, but it down plays, even ignores a hugely significant incident in Athenian History. you then state " The Athenian people thus overthrew Isagoras, repelled a Spartan attack under Cleomenes". the Athenians did not repel the spartan attack. the Spartans took over for a long enough time to violently exile 700 hundred families including the Alcmaeonidae, and seize control of the Acropolis.  but what the Athenians did do was revolt against Spartan occupation of Athens, in fact it was the the first revolution in recorded history. after a two day battle Isagoras and the Spartans finally surrendered to the angry mob of citizens. Not much of what you've written is exactly wrong, except for the Athenians repelling the Spartan attack, and claiming that the other Noble families rejected Cleisthenes in favor of electing Isagoras, It was actually only the most conservative of the the Athenian elites who supported Isagoras and furthermore there was no election to be had, Cleisthenes was banished, and Athens was not yet a democracy, but it is however misleading or at least lacking in key points, and implies a slightly different course of events. basically if i were a student reading this article i wouldn't have a very accurate idea of the huge political events that took place during Themistocles child hood that would bring about democracy.  reading the article it feels as if it gets a little lazy here. because it is so skimpy compared to the rich details provided in the other sections. i know it's just the back ground and the article isn't about these events specifically but because these were unprecedented, and revolutionary events which birthed an extraordinary man and political system i don't think it can afford any liberties to be taken with it, including the omission of key details. not mentioning the Alcmaeonidae's hand in the oracle of Delphi convincing the Spartans to over throw Hippias is barely forgivable, but with out the inclusion of the exact extent of the support of Isagoras by the Spartans coupled with the few instances of false information i would unfortunately render the background section obsolete, and i would ask students to skip over it. i think if these points were included it would have the potential to be a really excellent article. i would suggest though that someone with an even better knowledge of Themistocles life go over the entire article for facts before i would recommend this to anyone. if i got so stuck in the back ground section alone i wouldn't be surprised if the entire article was riddled with slight inaccuracies such as the ones in the background.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.202 (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Statue de Thémistocle.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 14 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimbrellaz (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Kimbrellaz (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

> A move counter to Spartan and Persian regional interests, usurpers initated a casus belli; his fore-bearers detractors amassing, and the democratic circle declared corrupted without singular authoritarian overseeing to cleanse the adjudication of maligned authority.
Can anyone please clarify this passage in the article for me? This is too hard to understand and seems like an unnecessarily complicated way of saying something. May also need to edit the article itself to make it simpler as well as correct typos like "initated". Klamactocrat (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)