Talk:Battle of Gaugamela

message: Will someone please link me to a page containing a decisive Persian victory? It seems like the entire history of that empire is fielding huge armies and getting butchered by smaller ones (Thermopylae, Salamis, Gaugamela, Plataea, etc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.161.27 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness of the Persian Army

message: If I recall the conventions of classical military history, Hoplites specifically refer to the citizen-soldiers of the Greek city-states who fought with spear and shield, not Macedonian professionals fighting with pikes and smaller shields.  I'm pretty damn sure that John Warry's Warfare in the Classical World will back me up here, so I'm going to change the designation of the Macedonian infantry.
Wilhelm Ritter 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hoplites"

message: I moved the page back to the original name. See  Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles no need for date in name unless as a disambiguation.
If you wish the page name to include the year and it is not for disambiguation, please discuss it under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#Dates in battle page names
--Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates in battle page names

message: I know this may not be the most pressing of questions, but how are the vowels of 'Gaugamela' pronounced?
I (English) always thought it was pronounced the same as 'cow cammeller', but the narrator of a history programme (American) pronounced it 'gwagameela'. I think he was wrong, but I can not think of any other time I have heard it said (not something most people have conversations about!). Oswax 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it's  (/gô'gə-mē'lə/ in their notation). —Simetrical (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The Brueghel painting on this page comes from the commons, where it is also identified as Gaugamela, but there's a lot info on the web suggesting that it might depict the Battle of Issus.
Google gives far more English results for "Battle of Issus" + Brueghel than for Arbela or Gaugamela, and there are some sites    that list both Issus and Arbella as the title.  I suspect that the subject of the painting might really not be known, or might be disputed, but if anyone has access to a reputable source (like the title the Louvre displays), it would be nice to make sure that our caption is accurate. ×Meegs 08:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this photo credit: "The Battle of Arbelles, or the Battle of Issus, 1602 (oil on canvas), Brueghel, Jan the Elder (1568-1625)  /  Louvre, Paris, France,   /  Bridgeman Art Library" from .  I think the painter may have confused the two battles -- I don't see any reference to "the battle of Arbelles" anywhere except in the name of this painting, but assume it means "the battle of Arbela".  I think the photo can stay.  What do you think? --Jeffrey Henning 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we can keep the image, but there's no reason to hide this detail. What do you think about changing the caption to something like the credit you found? ×Meegs 14:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes total sense to me. But should probably add a note to the effect "Painter may have confused the separate battles of Arbela and Issus." --Jeffrey Henning 03:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't know that for sure, and such detail probably doesn't belong in a caption anyway.  If the painting's subject is truly unknown, or was somehow confused, then it probably doesn't belong at the top of this article; I'll leave that decision to others. I'm happy enough now that it's labeled properly. ×Meegs 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that Gaugamela or Issus? 

message: Aelian (Var. Hist. 2.25) has the date as the 6th of Thargelion, roughly the beginning of May. Haiduc 03:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date wrong: 

message: The battle of Gaugamela took place 11 days after a lunar eclipse. This is reported both by Arrian and Plutarch.  From astronomical calculations we know that a lunar eclipse occurred on the night of September 20, 331 BC.  Therefore the battle took place on October 1.  The date of this battle is actually one of the few firm dates that we have in Alexander's career.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.136.146 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date is correct: 

message: The article says, "The battle is also inaccurately called the Battle of Arbela." In which sense is this incorrect? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Would be modern historians of the caliber of Fox, Green, Bosworth etc, not Lendering. Wikipedia's guidelines say this about reliable sources:
"In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable"
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."''
:Look that Lendering awnsers perfectly WP:RS: she is a respected Dutch scholar, and the piece in question compares also in the biography of Alexander she pubblished. This I know by the BMCR, a scholarly journal that reviws the book and mentions exactly this passage.--Aldux 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The review of Lendering can be found here. I haven't been following this dispute closely but I agree with Aldux: Lendering meets WP:RS. (note that Lendering is male, however.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative Sources 

message: Perhaps a piece on the discussion on the night(or dusk) preceding the battle, specifically the discussion between Alexander, Parmenio et al. about whether to launch a night attack could be included. It is, in my view, an important aspect on the battle, and shows a lot about Alexander's character and his feelings about the battle ahead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.185.65 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Night Attack

message: Demoted to "Start", as citations are needed in the Location section.  Ejosse1 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPMilHist assessment 

message: This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup6. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
* :Battle of Gaugamela: 
Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: In the article I find this line:" During the battle Alexander used an unusual strategy which has been duplicated only a few times throughout history. While the infantry battled the Persian troops in the center, Alexander began to ride all the way to the edge of the right flank, accompanied by his Companion Cavalry."
Can somebody clarify this, preferably with sources?
# "An unusual strategy only a few times used troughout history." When and by whom?
# "Alexander began to ride all the way to the edge of the right flank, accompanied by his Companion Cavalry." This line doesn't correspond with the images included in the article. In the images one can see that the Companion Cavalry didn't ride all the way to the edge of the right flank. It is almost in the center. Again, is there anyone who can clarify this for me, and again preferably with sources.
Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification asked 

message: In the second picture of the battle (Alexander's decisive movement and Decisive Attack) one can see that one cavalry unit of the Persians has swerved around the left flank of the Greek and attacks the Greeks from behind. Again, are there any sources that state this. Logic says that if this had really happened, Alexander's left flank would have collapsed. To my recollection, the Persians were only able to breach the Greek falanx in the middle because of a gap that appeared in the lines and the Persians who breached it were dealt with by those who were left in reserve by Alexander. Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the second picture of the battle 

message: Pretty clearly says in the description of the photo itself that it's "Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes (Jhelum)," so totally different battle. Maybe the giant on an elephant should have given that away.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.125.123 (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First picture is wrong 

message: The section pertaining to the contemporary location of the Battle is incorrect, specifically the co-ordinates given for Stein's placement of the battlefield.  When the file opens (I have only tried Google Earth,) the site indicates a location approximately 5 miles due east of the Ruins of Nineveh.  In Notes on Alexander's Crossing Of the Tigris River Stein describes the battlefield as running "by the plain first on a line running approximately from near Qaraqosh in the south past Keramlais to the foot of the Jabal 'Ain-as-Satrah."1  This would place the battlefield farther to the east and west.  The town names have changed.  Keramlais is now Karemlesh, and Qaraqosh is referred to by some as Bakhdida.
Stein also makes note of a large mound just west of Keramlais, which is clearly visible on satellite imaging viewers.2  The rough terrain described by Stein just south of Qaraqosh, Arrian, and Curtius is also evident in any view, or on topographical maps.3<ref><ref>4<ref><ref>5  To the east of Qaraqosh is the high ground mentioned by Curtius that Alexander pressed his men to reach.6
As such, the easternmost part of the battlefield would run on a line from roughly  36°16'09"N, 43°22'04"E (Qaraqosh) to 
36°22'36"N, 43°25'14"E (the base of Jabal 'Ain-as-Satrah,) with the mid-point located at 36°19'38"N, 43°23'50"E.  The center of the battle line would be oriented almost exactly toward Nineveh, which makes logical sense, given Steins argument that Alexander most likely crossed the Tigris near Abu Wajnam,7 and then proceeded towards Nineveh, where he rested his forces for four days.89. 
In light of these observations, I believe that co-ordinates to the battlefield should be changed to accurately reflect Stein's assessment of where the Battle of Gaugamela occurred.  My recommendation would be vicinity of 36°19'38"N, 43°23'50"E, based on his very detailed description in Alexander's Crossing of the Tigris and the Battle of Arbela.
Note: Pardon the clutter, as this is my first Wikipedia post, I am not used to the reference templates.  I am used to the CMS method of annotation, and manually entered all my references, and after several attempts to get my citations done, believe I have finally figured it all out.
Tank0133 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Location of the Battlefield is Wrong 

message: I think that all this fake "history" on Wikipedia is rubbish. It is under a huge influence of modern greek propaganda.
There were NO GREEKS in ancient times. "Greek" is invented word for the invented nation that started to exist in 1830s (only few centuries before it was in preparation and definitely it was not existing in ancient times - in ancient times there were ancient people)
For the sake of ancient Macedonians, please RETURN "Macedonian army" on the places where you totaly unfair to ancient macedonians write "greek army". It is unfair because you are describing something that happened 2300 years ago when there were no greeks with terms invented latter and then rename the older name according to the new name.
And please do not play games with names. :( It is waste of time not only me and you - for generations that will read about this battle....
It will be the best for the future generations if you just translate (but literally - not with changing of names and giving narration) existing REAL books (if any! --- not fake propaganda from before few centuries).
And it will be real benefit for the future generations if you mark that this page (and similar pages) are heavily disputed by the Macedonians of 21st century. Just for the generations that will come to know that this is not black and white page (meaning >nothing< according "black" (Macedonian of 21st century side) and >everything< according "white" (Greek of 21st century side))
88.85.115.130 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Greeks and consider that the word "Greek" is used for the ethnic group in ancient times as well. The scientific sources also use this name. As for referring to the Greek army instead of the Macedonian army, I did so because Alexander led the Greeks since the establishment of the League of Corinth. However, after reading Ancient Macedonians I agree we should consider Greeks and Macedonians to be distinct. Also, because the Macedonians led the army and because the other articles on battles of Alexander's Persian campaign refer to the Macedonian army and victories, we should indeed refer to Macedonians instead of Greeks. I will change it accordingly. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  greek vs macedonian 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Gaugamela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016165147/http://pothos.org/content/index.php?page=major-battles to http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=major-battles
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016165142/http://pothos.org/content/index.php?page=army to http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=army
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can the page be unlocked? It stops a lot of useful contributions. (Per discussion here) 183.83.146.145 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Late answer, but you can ask at WP:RFPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting the page 

message: You should find sources for this kind of information because it changes totally the way this battle is seen. Without sources, i would rather prefer we don't announce fake numbers Dondarderno (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures about army sizes and losses are totally implausibable