# Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece

This article is still under-construction. At the moment it is mostly lifted from the article Greco-Persian Wars, but it will be expanded (and the latter article contracted) soon. Please do not delete! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is replace all 61 references to Tom Holland with his sources (which I assume will mostly be Herodotus). Until then this article is worthless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.52.128 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC) 

The citation of Holland is the first thing that struck me in the text. What on earth is Holland's novel doing here as a source of history? Has 'reliable sources' policy been suspended? Replacing Holland with Herodotus would hardly be better though. A 2500 year old primary source is by definition non-WP:RS. This also applies to Xenophon, Aeschylus, Diodorus Siculus, Lysia, Ephorus, etc, all of whom are also "cited" in this article. -- 217.51.70.2 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
As someone had already indicated (in 2011) on the talk page, the article depends extensively on Tom Holland's Persian Fire. The citation of Holland is the first thing that struck me in the text. Holland's text is a novel, not a history book. The 2011 comment suggests Holland should be replaced by Holland's sources, i.e. Herodotus. However, this article is already primarily based on Herodotus, which is a 2500 year old primary source, and requires considerable skill to interpret correctly. Ditto the citations of Xenophon, Aeschylus, Diodorus Siculus, Lysia, Ephorus, ad nauseum. "Good articles" should conform to WP:RS, not depend on novels and ancient primary sources. -- 217.51.70.2 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

After the Peloponesian War there were abundant Greek mercenaries leading to an attempted coup in Persia. So that can't be directly refered to as an outcome of this invasion. Please point out the gap in time. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)  Done

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece/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: 

Comments:
A section on the different armour and fighting sytles is missing. To a certain degree you can defend yourself against all missiles with an aspis(had a reenactor trying and Lazenby also writes that) and if it fails, the hoplite had still rather arrowproof bodyarmour. Furthermore, this Greek armour wasn't only excellent against the hail of missiles, but formidable for close combat with spears. The Persians had lighter armour and for this reason, as Herodotus points out, the close-combat was on rather unequal terms with fear soon striking the Persian troops. To balance this the Egyptian marines should be highlighted because they were up to the Greeks in close combat with spears.
 Done
Naturally, after the different combat styles have been highlighted, the question arises why the Persians didn't fight the Greeks with Greeks and Egyptians because they had quite a lot of hoplites in their conquered territories. The political changes in the occupied Greek settlements should be highlighted and how durable these were. Plus there must sure be some analyses why the Persian in many of their inscriptions mention all the people from their empire, never putting too much reliance on one group.
Mostly  Done. I have addressed the issue, though not quite how you described here. I have raised the issue of Ionian reliability/the recent Egyptian revolt, but pointed out that they still served in the navy, so the Persians can't have mistrusted them that much. I think I have covered this in sufficient detail - I don't want to labour the point too much.
Wandalstouring (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well done, I'll find more issues in a few days. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a second language speaker and stylistic issues give me a hard time, but I think your article is totally in need of a copyedit because of repeated similar sentence structure one after another and lots of uses of however, however, however where it could be omitted. It doesn't fail GA for this reason, but still, before admitting it to any further review, try this. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is strongly one sided (pro-Greek). Lets see some historical facts:

Second Persian expedition started as a response to partial success of first expedition: Datis and Artaphernes managed to punish Eretria for supporting Ionian revolt, but not Athens (at Marathon).
Xerxes goal was punishing Athens, NOT conquer all Greece.
Only polis who sided Athens was Sparta.
When Persians marched across Europe, Greeks didn't even try to match their army (except at Thermopylae, where they were defeated and Spartan king Leonidas was killed).
Expedition ended with burning Athens, followed by Xerxes and main army retreat to Asia which practically ended invasion.
Can you explain me where do you see "Greek victory" at all?! Greeks managed to won naval victory at Salamis against main Persian navy, and later they did defeated satrapic army led by Mardonius at, NOT main Persian army. Is it such a hard for pro-Greeks to admit that Greece had NEVER defeated main Persian army in their history? Greek victories at Sardis, Marathon, Plataea, etc. were victories against auxiliary armies led by local satraps. Greeks tried to face main Persian army only twice in their history; at Thermopylae and Cunaxa, and in both cases Persians won. Now you can believe in pathetic Herodotus's fairy tales about 5 million Persians fighting at 14 meters wide pass or Xenophon's jokes about one Greek loss against army of Artaxerxes II., but note this is historical article. Thank you. --Orijentolog (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I too think this article to be one-sided and the response is rather petulant and personal...

I'm not sure I can even be bothered be arguing with you, but here goes nothing.
What are you basing your account on? Which source, other than Herodotus, describes these campaigns in detail? If you are explicitly rejecting what Herodotus says, you need to provided reliable references to cite your alleged facts. Every account written by modern historians that I have read broadly agrees with the content of this article.
This article covers the Persian invasion of Greece, 480 BC-479 BC. There is no historical basis for your claim that there was a "main army" and a "subordinate army". Herodotus clearly says that Mardonius took the elite troops from the main army. Again, what is your reference here? It doesn't really matter anyway, because this article is not making any claim that the Greeks beat the Persian's "main army" - therefore starting an argument about this is totally irrelevant. The Greeks still defeated the Persians at Plataea and the Persians still evacuated Greece. This is, by any standards, a Greek victory; the Persian invasion was ended.
You, of course, will argue that Xerxes only intended to punish Athens, and everything else is irrelevant. This is a WP:FRINGE theory, which is not accepted by any modern account I have seen.
As regarding your other "facts":
Second Persian expedition started as a response to partial success of first expedition: Datis and Artaphernes managed to punish Eretria for supporting Ionian revolt, but not Athens (at Marathon).
I agree that this inspired the invasion
Xerxes goal was punishing Athens, NOT conquer all Greece.
There is no evidence I know of to support this point of view
Only polis who sided Athens was Sparta.
This is just plain wrong: Herodotus lists the cities that supported Athens. The Serpent Column independently lists the same cities.
When Persians marched across Europe, Greeks didn't even try to match their army (except at Thermopylae, where they were defeated and Spartan king Leonidas was killed).
I basically agree with this.
Expedition ended with burning Athens, followed by Xerxes and main army retreat to Asia which practically ended invasion.
If the invasion ended with the burning of Athens, why did Xerxes allow the Battle of Salamis to occur? Why did he try and capture Salamis? Why did he leave Mardonius to fight at Plataea?
And now some procedural items. Firstly, just because YOU dispute the neutrality of the article, does not mean the article should be tagged in this way. There is no consensus that the article is wrong; only you think that. Secondly, on the subject of neutrality; please note that the article has had a Good Article review, which it passed, and which assessed the article was indeed neutral. This review was performed by an independent editor, who is NOT greek, or pro-greek. You can go and ask him, if you like. Thirdly, I strongly recommend that you do not engage in personal attacks on me, or any other editor. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You are obviously not going to agree with my response. I suggest that EITHER you tag the article, OR you make changes to the text, with references. If you just revert again, we are not going to get anywhere. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Salamis was (unsuccessful) Persian attempt to destroy Athenian fleet which was still threat at Aegean Sea. He leaved Mardonius to protect their allies and taken territories in northern Greece, not to fight. Remember, Persians and their Greek allies didn't attack southern alliance, situation was opposite. Reasons why Xerxes and main army gone away are doubtful:
Satisfaction of burning Athens.
New revolt in Babylonia.
Greek naval threat to destroying pontoon bridges at Hellespont.
Author of text mentioned only last solution, which is obviously one-side statement. Why? Two pontoon bridges were made of Persian ships, which they used later in battles, implicating that bridges were dismantled after crossing into Europe. Also, Greek last goal was to isolated Persians on their land because they couldn't match them on land. Also note that even after defeat at battle of Salamis Persians still held twice larger navy then Greeks. I'll recommend removal this article from "Good Articles" status, it doesn't deserve it. --Orijentolog (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact the Persian army retreated from Greece indicates a Greek victory. If the Persians still held naval 'superioty' after the Battle of Salamis, that didn't last too long considered they were thoroughly defeated at the Battle of Mycale. Kyriakos (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The statement that Xerxes sole intention was to punish Athens is rather questionable. Certainly it was partially motivated by some desire to punish Athens for involvement in Ionian revolt and for Marathon. Xerxes does appear to have intended conquest of all Greece, c.f conversation with Demaratus stating that if Xerxes defeats Spartans no other people will oppose him, also offer of regency of Greece to Leonidas implying Xerxes will be in position to do so, showing intent to campaign throughout Greece not just Attica. Following the loss of the fleet at Salamis it becomes impossible for Persians to continue to supply such a large army(at Thermopylae persian forces were 2-3 days away from running out of supplies due to size of army), there is also
very real danger of Persian forces being trapped in Greek mainland if bridge over Hellespont is lost. Xerxes leaves Mardonius in command for reasons of political expediency realising he needs to be in control at the center of the persian empire. The burning of Athens acheives very little as is shown by Athenian dominance in the Aegean in the following decades. Is a clear Greek victory given that the war aims were the removal of the Persian forces from Greece and that these were clearly reached. One further note, under the hoplite warfare section it classifies all hoplites as being part of the class called Zeugites, this is only applicable to Athens, other cities did not have a Zeugitai class e.g Sparta only Spartiates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.143.243 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 

I edited "hoplite" to link to it's own wiki article in case anyone asks.
Forgot to sign :p --Joshua Torelli (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

--Gho2t993 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)  Liberation does violate NPOV?

Recent changes introduced Herodotus ridiculously over-inflated numbers in the infobox. This implied that these numbers are to be taken seriously which is not the case according to modern scholarship. I decided to be bold and remove this material from the infobox. We need more sensible estimates there.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Persian invasion of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609122813/http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/96summer/eiken.htm to http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96summer/eiken.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Persian invasion of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090216132658/http://victorhanson.com:80/articles/hanson101106.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"direct, if delayed" - no reason for the delay is given. Then it is stated that the first invasion ended Darius' ambitions. Please rewrite the lede with these facts from the first invasion article in mind. Thank you.

"Darius was still fully intent on conquering Greece, to secure the western part of his empire. Moreover, Athens remained unpunished for its role in the Ionian Revolt, and both Athens and Sparta were unpunished for their treatment of the Persian ambassadors.
"Darius therefore began raising a huge new army with which he meant to completely subjugate Greece; however, in 486 BC, his Egyptian subjects revolted, indefinitely postponing any Greek expedition. Darius then died whilst preparing to march on Egypt, and the throne of Persia passed to his son Xerxes I.
Holland, Tom (2006). Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. Abacus. ISBN 0-385-51311-9.
Anarchangel (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that Holland is under a cloud, as a source. Hopefully better can be found. Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: this image has been restored. The image was initially put by User:पाटलिपुत्र and edited by me as well. The image is supported by the references and has validity in this article. Your explanation: "Why are you shoving this picture of an Indian soldier in so many articles? It doesn't make any remote sense." does not explain how the image is invalid. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC))

Yes, we know the image "has been restored". But you haven't explained why this image should be restored? There's already a similar image in the article, showing all the different nations in the Persian army. So why are you showing this image in the article? Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Khirurg: I explained it earlier, the image is well referenced and valid in this article. To go further of your "why" is clear: the image provides the two forces of Greece and Persia and is well referenced. You did not explain why the image is invalid and requires to be removed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC))
You're not explaining anything. You just keep repeating that" the image is well referenced and valid in the article". That doesn't mean anything. Why is the image "valid in the article"? Especially considering there already is a similar (and better) image in the article. Khirurg (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Khirurg: Did you not read? I stated, besides it being well referenced: "the image provides the two forces of Greece and Persia." (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC))
Except the image does not "provides the forces of Greece and Persia". In fact the image provides only an incomplete picture, because the Persian army included many nationalities, not just "Indians". So this image is misleading. There is another image in the article, that shows all the nations of the Persian army. Forget it. Khirurg (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not just about a nationality of the Persian army, but the show of opposing forces. You did not provide any reason to make this image invalid. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC))
"the show of opposing forces" is meaningless. The image is just a pasting of two unrelated images that have nothing to do with each other. So why don't you tell us the real reason you want this image in the article so badly? Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: can you also give your reason for adding this image. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC))

User:Avilich insists on having certain Commanders removed from the list citing "varying importance" as the main reason for not wanting their names to be displayed. Why is he adamant on removing Commanders from one side and not the other? Does he inadvertently then believe that Commanders on other side were all of great importance? And in that case, how does he determine their level of importance? Does he believe these particular Commanders in question should be removed from all articles related to the Greco-Persian Wars? You could invoke the same reasoning for having Commanders removed from the other side as well. In my opinion it is of great importance this list or any other list belonging to the sub-articles be complete so that the reader can get a full picture. Thus his edits are, as already mentioned, unhelpful in this regard. Also, it is quite peculiar how he claims his deletions to be "trivial", yet drags it to the notice board for a biased judging. Common sense doesn't seem to be as common as it seems. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The less important commanders of the other side (if there are any at all) should eventually be removed as well, I just haven't taken the time to research them yet. The Italian, Greek, Russian, and Spanish equivalents of this article all omit the less significant leaders also. Avilich (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Using a select number of other articles written in other languages as a "template" for determining names of Commanders being displayed in an entirely independent (English language) article is an illogical act. If that is your reasoning for removing relevant and useful information then it should be obvious that the reason you cited earlier, "varying importance", was just a cover. Neither are you able to express why and how the Commanders were "less important". Neither have you made a credible argument for why this article only and not the other ones. You can't answer any of these questions it seems. This tells me that you have clearly taken a decision to push a POV on this one, as unfortunate as it is true, and you have a convenient excuse for it. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Some commanders had a significant impact only in specific battles, rather than in the war as a whole. So, for example, Arimnestus, who commanded just a fraction of the army at Plataea, gets to be mentioned in that battle's infobox (as he already is), but not in the war's infobox. His role in the war as a whole was much smaller than that of, say, Themistocles, and thus, in a manner of speaking, less important. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Why would you want to make that distinction? It's a lot more tedious going through all the articles (including the main article) and applying the same arbitrary idea of which one of them were more "important" and then figuring out the same for the opposite side. Because that is what you will have to do. At the end of the day they all participated in the Second Persian invasion of Greece. Your edits were not an improvement, and did nothing but hide away information, which i am convinced you did for other reasons whilst using a clever smokescreen. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Arbitrariness is nugatory. Having it your non-"arbitrary" way, every single person who ever held some sort of command (however you arbitrarily define it), potentially dozens depending on the circumstance, would be included. Aside from being a dumb idea, that contradicts the stated instruction in the infobox guideline: "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven". Never mind what I "will have to do" or how "tedious" it'll be, that's the concern of whoever will actually be doing things. Avilich (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
All these listed commanders are known to have had important and prominent roles in various battles during the Greco-Persian Wars. Defining them by "importance" and letting that be an arbitrary factor for which ones should remain and which ones should not is what is actually pretty dumb. And you know what is more dumb? Calling your own actions "nugatory". "Now it's your turn to arbitrarily define what sort of command is worthy of inclusion", are you being serious? What sort of question is that? The ones you choose to arbitrarily remove actually led contingents on the Greek side into battle, in other words, they played prominent roles. As for the, instruction in the infobox guideline, is that a rule or a recommendation? There's a difference between the two. Would there not be an exception? Yes, it is very much a concern of yours to see to it that these articles regain balance since you have made it your case to decide which Commanders are worthy of inclusion, so indeed, that duty falls squarely on you. It was you who wanted useful information to be removed, was it not?188.148.70.209 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
"led contingents on the Greek side into battle". Exactly: some did just that, ie. played an important role in individual battles but not so much on the war as a whole. The recommendation makes perfect sense here, just as anywhere else. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, it bears repeating... how do you come to the conclusion that they didn't play a role in the war as whole? Common sense should tell you, that as Key figures, playing monumental roles, they had a huge impact on the war as a whole. Individual battles is what decided the outcome of a War. And notice how it says "Commanders and leaders"...yeah, that's what they were. As i already stated, you have made your excuses for why you wanted some of them removed. I'm not going to pursue this any further as it doesn't resolve this issue, which you have created. If the recommendation makes "sense" (it doesn't), then go ahead and do what's supposedly "right", put time into doing the research and restore balance to these articles.188.148.70.209 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
"Key figures, playing monumental roles". Nope, no evidence for that. Avilich (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they were commanders, as such they were. Gosh, how daft could you be.188.148.70.209 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You better get to work. Else there's no reason for your deletion of useful information to stand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.148.70.209 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)