Talk:Battle of Salamis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Minor error? 

message: 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)
thread_title: After the Battle of Salamis

message: 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)
thread_title:  What was the Number of Ships? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Persians had heavier ships? 

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: 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)
thread_title: Who Bumped up the Casualty Figures

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spectheintro you must be joking 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mmm...

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your thorough review, Victor.  I will get on it right away. Argos'Dad 06:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
thread_title: Verifying Herodotus citations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appropriate to have picture of Serpentine Column? 

message: "Lysias II, 27" has not any mean. What speech of Lysias or at least what edition ? ---Pagaeos (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysias 

message: 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.:, 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)
thread_title:  Scyllias of Scione 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dispute

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Image "Depiction of the naval battle" 

message: The article has reference errors.  Can someone try to fix them?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distinguish template added on a 25 July edit