Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate

message: I changed some numbers and my edit was reverted because Kansas Bear felt I did "unexplained changes to figures". I will explain now.
I changed the low estimate of 300-700 to 700 because that's what the Encyclopaedia Iranica says. Whoever put up 300 was drawing his own conclusions. Iranica says "Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." It only mentions Diodorus's addition of 300 cavalry to Curtius estimation of 25000 Persian infantry. It does NOT interpret that as 300 total. Only the 700 from Arrian. Please read it.
Also that very same source mentions that the ancient scholars (Arrian, Curtius, Diodrus) AND their (I'm quoting the Iranica) "modern successors" have other estimates. I take that as admission that a lot of modern scholars (if not the majority) take 25000-40000 as a "proper" (if biased) estimate so it must be noted in the infobox, right? Personally I think Ariobarzanes led a forward contingent to the ambush site (around 4000) and the rest of the army was inside the city. But later when he was flanked and surrounded he was denied access to the city so that Alexander would spare it and its population and he was killed or forced to surrender or something. There's no reason to suspect he couldn't raise that much for a last defence of the city when even his remnants from the Gaugamela battle was probably around that alone. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Also, the battle outcome needs to change; The victory came at a great cost for Alexander. A Pyrrhic victory. By far, this is the battle where Quintus Curtius Rufus is emphasizing Graeco-Macedonian inability and Iranian martial ardour. The battle of Thermopylae bears this badge, and so does the battle of Hydaspes."
Well I checked and neither "bears this badge". Only the Battle of the Persian Gate says "Pyrrhic Macedonian victory." The Battle of Thermopylae says "Decisive Persian victory." The Battle of Hydaspes says "Macedonian victory." So I think we should change this article too. There is nothing Pyrrhic about it. The victory of Alexander did not cost him so dearly as to compromise his overall campaign and strategic position which is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. He was delayed, but not critically so as his following conquest of the entire Persian Empire showed. His ability to project military power wasn't hampered like Pyrrhus of Epirus's was following his battle with the Romans. This was a clear decisive victory. At least at Thermopylae the time delay proved critical for the Persians since the Greeks were able to amass their full armies for the following great battle. And also they gained a psychological advantage while at the Persian Gate nothing much happened. Does anyone object to this? 89.210.189.119 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to numbers according to their own sources

message: Does anyone agree to changing the title name to "Battle of the Persian Gates." Isn't that what historians generally call it. Perhaps I'm being too picky?--Arsenous Commodore 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Article Title 

message: This article has very few citations and seems to generally paint a one-sided picture. It would improve its credibility to add the appropriate citations.I have marked a few major points. For example, the Battle is mentioned as starting in January 330 BC (no exact date is mentioned) and as ending on the 20th of the same month, yet the duration claimed is 48 days which seems contradictory. Do let me know if I can help hunt down the facts. -- Ajaypp (I am here..) 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: that he held them for 48 days. just google "ariobarzan" + "48 days"
it was taken from this article however the link is now dead
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/4/9026/printer
Here is a site claiming that Ariobarzanes held back the Macedonians for 48 days. Unfortunately, I'm not strong with how Wiki functions especially regarding footnotes. Anyone want to include it? I'm putting forty-eight days back in the article.--Arsenous Commodore 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is ridiculously POV. I'll sort it out in a few days.--NeroDrusus 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say about as POV as the Thermopylae article, LOL. What part of the article particularly bugs you, the lead?--Arsenous Commodore 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The style here is not neutral. It's extremely laudatory of the persians at every turn. Neutral terms need to replace POV termenology, like massacre, patriotic, etc. Furthermore, It's a narrative and not an encyclopedia article. That needs to change too. Thanatosimii 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thermopylae used to be a bad written article, but it never contained as much POV as this one. Nowadays it's been improved. Miskin 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  its common knowledge 

message: The article seems to incorporate information from Livius.org , which is a reliable source, however, much of this information is taken selectively. For example in the "death" section the article states: "On the 20th of January 330 BC, Ariobarzan was killed in combat along with his 80 companions after weeks of fighting." Livius.org explicitely mentions that Ariobarzanes abandoned his post and fled to Persepolis, where entrance was denied, and was "most likely" killed by the Macedonians. The heroic death of the defenders does not meet scholarly consensus, depite what the article claims. Overall lots of work needs to be done regarding WP:NPOV and WP:ATT violations. This is why I added the tags. Miskin 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up some good points Miskin. Lets first discuss the strength count. One would naturally think that yes, the troop count of the Persians would have been large to defend Persepolis. However, the reason this wasn't the case is because Darius III already knew that he wouldn't be ready for a battle so logistically close to his previous decisive loss. Darius needed a further distance both for time and logistical safety from Alexander's initial route to build up another sizable force that could rival the Macedonians. That's why he fled to Afghanistan (modern-day). Darius fighting in Persepolis was out of the question and would have been suicide. Darius along with one of his notable commanders Bessus had no intention of fighting Alexander in Persepolis. They moved as many of their troops including the Greek mercenaries commanded by Patron to the northeastern frontier. Of course as you probably know, Darius is killed by Bessus himself before he can launch another battle. Thus being that Persepolis was abandoned is was really only left to a patriotic Persian of nobility class which gathered as many volunteers as possible from the neighbouring towns and called for an ambush.Now as you mentioned some Greek sources such as Arrian suggest the Persian force would have been tens of thousands, but this has already been believed to be a blatant exaggeration as he twice previously did for Issus and Guagemala. Modern critical schools don't accept this figure such as Encyclopedia Iranica, and have given that the source should be interpreted as 700. The bottom "80" is rubbish that should also be changed to 700.Furthermore, regarding Greek casualties, even Curtius whom would have been naturally biased towards the Greeks said that the Macedonians lost "platoons of men at a time." Do you believe that an ambitious Alexander would have sat and only merely once attacked the battle zone. Why would he have called for negotiations and offer to make Ariobarzanes a supreme commander after merely one failed attempt. There were several failed attempts, which led to more than one ambush. Alexander initially failed at the siege of Tyre and Granicus, did that stop him from attacking again. And finally Ariobarzanes did not flee as soon as the first ambush concluded, he retreated when a Persian shepperd betrayed the forces and then Abz. asked to garrison his force a nearby city, when they refused he went and died in the fight against Alexander, alongside his force. And its like you said, if the intention was an ambush, why then would he have such a massive force in the tens of thousands, besides Ariobarzanes was no Spithridates or Bessus of Achaemenid Persia, he would have not have such access to such large number, these are generally exaggeratted claims from Greek antiquarian sources. This is just of course my take, I wish other people would also add their input.--Arsenous Commodore 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you say, I see no reliable sources supporting those claims and numbers. Irannica may be generally reliable, but when it comes to Persian history (notably the Greco-Persian wars) Western scholarship tends to consider it biased. The proof of this is the numerous sources I have discovered. Everything I said above is drained from reliable sources, it's not my personal opinion, so if you want to refute it you need to cite something. Nothing personal, those are the rules. I replaced Irannica's laughable estimates with the numbers that appear to be the western consensus, and in my opinion, the real side of the story. Please abide by WP:ATT before making changes. Miskin 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't quite understand, are you suggesting, The Romance of Alexander and Roxana - p. 265, Marshall Monroe Kirkman suggests 40,000 but the rest do not, so then why have such undo weigh. Modern Western consensus (which is what the warbox should generally include) dismiss Arrian's 40,000 figure. Out of curiosity what would make Ephialtes at Thermopylae historically accurate and make a Persian shepperd fictitious folklore. Kind of seems like a double standard, Livius also suggests that Herodotus' Ephialtes is just as suspicious and dubious, should we remove that from the Thermopylae article too?--Arsenous Commodore 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Can you give me some names, book titles, links, a few so that I can see for myself 40,000 is a consensus of modern Western scholarship. So far all I have seen is that it is a primary source, which is generally dismissed as an exaggeration. I apologize regarding the shepperd issue, it appears I had misinterpreted the article. Thanks. Regarding the 700 figure, it was because I knew of no other modern source and was thus for the moment forced to accept the Iranica source given by the original author of this Wiki article. Even 25,000 is a Greek primary source figure from Diodorus whom even to Will Durant was always generous with numbers. I think that represents the fairest figure. And careful just because modern scholarship cites a primary source figure, doesn't necessarily mean that they accept it many a times they cite and suggest the figure cant have been that high.--Arsenous Commodore 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody said 40,000 was a consensus but... WP:NPOV explicitely mentions that all significant viewpoints need to be mentioned, apart from fringe views that is. Arrian's figure is by no means a fringe view, the only fringe view is Irannica's 700. The more I read this article the move I realise how badly wikipedia suffers from POV-pushing in certain occasions. I only came here by accident, imagine how many more articles are in a similar condition. Miskin 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just included both Western and Iranian views for NPOV and to counter systemic bias. Maybe this should (hopefully) settle a few issues? Jagged 85 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV-Check

message: I personally added the "estimates vary - see below"-formula in Battle of Thermopylae because it's a recognisably controversial topic, and it was the only way to avoid edit-warring. This is not the case with Iranica's author. His view has no support nor mention whatsoever in other sources, and is extremely contradictory to the undisputed consensus. That would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE - I even pasted the paragraph above. In addition if we were to follow his logic, we would have to change to zero all infantry estimates on all Greco-Persian battles. Why would the Greco-Roman estimate be equal to zero (valueless) in this battle specifically and accepted everywhere else? Those are questions which partisans editors do not bother with. To me it's evident that the Iranica author makes a deliberate attempt in order to draw a parallel between Thermopylae and the Persian Gate due to his personal agenda. There's a clear bias in his conclusion, hence why it has no support. WP:NPOV exists in order for wikipedia to defend itself from such bias. As it is stated in WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another". Miskin 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also sources stating that the size of Persian army was 4000 like . I think we should mention all sources in the article. Your idea that Iranica is biased is a personal view. (Arash the Archer 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Iranica is addressing a book of a Charles Hignett that is known author of Greek history ! --Alborz Fallah 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A very small note on Rollin: 1) the Rollin number is 99% a press typo; 2) the work was not written in 1851, but in French in the early 18th century, so I doubt it can be considered WP:RS.--Aldux 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, I am going to ignore the rude slanderous words you just shot at me, and I'm going to consider that you just got overheated (which happens to all) because Alexander nearly seemingly had a very costly victory. LOL. I am wasting everyone's time, a POV-pusher and I lack any respect for the whatever you meant, "have some respect." Well Miskin I saw you differently before this. I don't understand why you suddenly made this discussion hostile, but I can see that I am not needed, for I am wasting everyone's time. So I'll leave the article to for now, I suppose; but I am going to speak to an Admin and ask him/her whether my behaviour really deserved this outlash. Perhaps I was being unintentionally disrespectful, I will have to go check I suppose.But most of all don't lie in front of Wikipedians who want to make this article better and say that my views are not accepted by western scholarship. What previously wanted from you on the discussion board (which I don't care fore now) is an example of what I will give you below. My view was not 80 or even 700, but rather ca. 25,000.My book below suggests that Ariobarzanes had no more than 25,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. Below is the bibliographic detail: Title: Envy of the Gods.Author: John Prevas.Da Capo Press Edition 2004. Pg. 217 ISBN: 0-306-81268-1.
Since I am still learning Wiki basics I don't know how to footnote properly, so I will leave this here in case someone wants to use it in the article and footnote, or I may come back later and do it once I know. Interestingly enough this source also like Heckel compares it to Thermopylae and suggests that the Persians were outnumbered, so I don't quite understand how this manipulation of numbers has led to at least a 2:1 ratio for Ariobarzanes. I will quote for you, but find me another source other than Arrian which states Alexander was outnumbered, for I have never seen or heard that. But hey I'm a POV pusher. What does that matter. 
"...some sixty kilometres from the city, the loyal Persian satrap Ariobarzanes with a contingent of infantry and cavalry had attempted to defend Persepolis by holding Alexander's army in a narrow defile called the Persian Gates. That battle where a small force held a much larger invading army at bay in a narrow space, was an uncanny replay of the famous battle of thermopylae in 480 BC, except this time the sides were reversed."
But I am satisfied to see that you have chosen to stick to simply modern western sources, check your talk page, I am happy for this cooperation, perhaps we have some work for many more Greco-Persian battles, Thermopylae and Plataea for examples. I may bring more periodically add sources here to the dicussion board or the article (once I learn) that show different figures all arguing for 25,000 and below, and showing why Arrian's figures cannot be accurate. Goodbye for now.--Arsenous Commodore 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if you feel agressed, but I think you misunderstood what I said. I only said to you "I mean come on, show some respect", and then "I'm sorry, I guess I get a little upset when I discover POV-pushing like this at random", referring to the fact that I ran into this page by accident - not at you being a POV-pusher. I don't see how this can be interpreted as "rude slanderous words shot at somebody" You misunderstood my tone. You've been assuming that I was angry or intense since the beginning but you're wrong. If I were upset at someone that would be at people who use double standards between this and other articles. And as I said above I find that Iranica's opposition to consensus on the current subject is a deliberate distortion of history. I find it disturbing that such POV can be injected so easily in wikipedia and remain unnoticed for such a long time. This is not about the 700 horsemen, it's about how easily a false figure caused such a massive historical distortion. In any case, I didn't call you a POV-pusher, and "show some respect" was a figure of speech referring to the injustice that this article had been doing all this time to NPOV, or whatever was in my mind at that moment. I really think there's no reason for you to feel upset. Miskin 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the Persian army

message: :*Is it correct ?
there is no consensual agreement among scholars on Arrian's 40,000 figure, noone can prove that there is
:Which is why we are stating 25,000-40,000 - it does cover the range of mainstream scholarly view. The 700 figure meanwhile is supported by only one secondary publication and no primary sources (and anyway, one shouldn't ever cite from an encylopedia). --RaiderAspect 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, Heckel is the source of the 25,000 figure. Heckel has never suggested there were only 700 Persians, as the version you insist on declares. The only source of that claims admits that it's view is not held by the majority of modern scholars. Be aware that you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. --RaiderAspect 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Heckel's statement in no way supports your position that there were 700 Persians. It merely suggests that 40,000 is not undisputed. The version I am reverting too does not claim that there were 40,000, it notes that mainstream opinion ranges from 25,000-40,000. Be aware you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. --RaiderAspect 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I've reported him for the 3RR violation. Anyway, regarding the 700 figure, I'm considering if it might be best to acknowledge it with a footnote saying something like "The Encyclopedia Iranica states that there were only 700 Persians at the battle, but by it's own admission this view is reject by most scholarship." --RaiderAspect 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates ?

message: I was asked by RaiderAspect to look into the talk page of the Persian Gate article. To be honest, neither the 700 figure nor the 40,000 figure appear correct to me. Why don't we just leave the box blank or go with something like "estimates vary"? AlexanderPar 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think there is a consensus that Arrian has exaggerated. But sisnce it  has been repeated in many old sources we can mention it and also say in parentheses that it is exaggerated.(Arash the Archer 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 700 figure has to be noted, it's from a modern academic source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmender6767 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should be more polite when addressing other users. I see no clear consensus on Arrian's and Curtius' figures. I think the 40,000 is obsolete, if we're mentioning that, then we should also mention the 700 figure. AlexanderPar 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ignoring Dharmender (how can I take seriously an editor who utterly shows contempt for one of the most elementary rules of wikipedia?) and awnsering to Arash and Alexander, please note that Heckel only says that Arrian is exaggerated, not Curtius, and our range covers both. Also keep in mind that this number is upholded by Lane Fox, Bagnell Bury, Partha Sarathi Bose (Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy), Vance Cummings (who rights "posted nearly fifty thousand men"), Agness Savill and Charles Alexander Robinson. Just to diminish your doubts that 25,000-40,000 is the consensus range.--Aldux 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, please don't do too many changes in one edit like you did here can you be more patient and let us discuss changes step by step? (Arash the Archer 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, please be polite and respectful, to make your points heard. My expertise are international law, but from what I gather here, the 40,000 figure is contested by several reputable sources, so if we're including such controversial estimate, then we should also include the 700 figure to balance things out. AlexanderPar 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miskin, Please be civil and don't attack personally if you are familiar with Wiki policies as you claim. I don't have the time to contribute more than this in Wikipedia and sometimes it is a big help if you just keep the articles safe from POV pushers. I once laughed on your joke about complaining to Wikipedia community but it is not funny anymore when you repeat it. Can you tell me what is the reason of your haste in changing the article without trying to convince other editors? You even replace the shepherd story (which is widely reported) with its opposing opinion. It is the most obvious sign of POV to only mention the denying expression without explaining the subject of dipute!(Arash the Archer 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers  

message: It may be a little off-track, but does anyone accept if I change all the mention of the Persian general's name to "Ariobarzanes." If I have not mistaken this is the most common usage? I see at times, Ario or Ariobarzan or Ario barzan, do all agree if I make the changes, I just want consistency in the naming. I'll make the changes, but if anyone disapproves, please let me know. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: User:Miskin has been soliciting the help of other Greek editors who are on the record with a specific opinion in order to influence the discussions and the edits here . This is a violation of WP:CANVASSING. AlexanderPar 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:CANVASSING before citing it, it speaks about votestacking, not about defending NPOV. Of course this desperate accusation stays in the record. Miskin 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my goodness, Miskin, why? No offence, but why not just let Wiki be Wiki, whoever stumbles upon it can voluntarily add their input. Why intentionally ask only Greek users, I thought your perception was the rightful one, which stated no POV of any nationalities. Its probably best to allow those who voluntarily come to this article to add insight, don't you think?--Arsenous Commodore 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. And he is accusing other editors for pushing POV. he has also been fishing on "friendly" admin's talk pages"  . Ploutarchos's edits were a revert to Miskin's version in 3 edits, he's acting as the meatpuppet of Miskin, so I am reverting the edits. Once again if you realy want to improve the article lets go step by step. This approch is not going to work. (Arash the Archer 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I apologize, I was simply relying on the info AlexanderPar gave me. I guess I made a mistake. Furthermore, I do agree that Aldux has been quite reasonable with his edits. I also do not think this battle was Pyrrhic.--Arsenous Commodore 18:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ploutarchos, you don't have to be Greek to have a pro-Greek POV. The people who have been  solicited here by User:Miskin all appearer to be pro-Greek from their edits, so this is a classic case of canvassing. AlexanderPar 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I am entitled to give my opinion and edit the article. However the article was brought to my attention, when I explain my edits I expect a rationale to be provided if/when they are reverted. Common sense and good manners require this...Ploutarchos 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common sense and good manners also require that we don't solicit "third opinion" of friends and relatives whose opinions we already know.  AlexanderPar 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Miskin, I have to warn you again for civility. Your tone of talking is getting worse each time. It is shameful that you are projecting your own faults onto others, you're the one going around requesting help from your friendly users. If you really wanted a neutral opinion, why  you didn't go to one of the WP's history projects? Anyway, all I ask you is that chillout and lets dicuss everything step by step. Is that too much. Just look what you have done. You entred an stable article and tried to change everything instantly and when you were invited to enter a discussion you called your friends and expanded the edit war.  (Arash the Archer 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing alert 

message: "It is generally regarded as a myth today, especially due its great resemblance to the story of Ephialtes" according to whom? Only Livius,org? The story is mentioned in many reputable sources, Livius could be considered a fringe source, the websites' owner is an editor on Wikipedia. --Mardavich 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right, livius.org is a fringe view, while the absurdities of Iranica are given more weigh than the western consensus. Funny that livius.org is a fringe view only for this edit, and not for example for the fact that "The Persians fought bravely". One would call this hypocrisy and irony. Miskin 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easy there, calm down. Are you seriously comparing livius.org to Iranica? And if livius.org is the only source for "the Persians fought bravely", then that phrase should be reworked as well. I never said anything to the contrary, OK? --Mardavich 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much you know about Livius.org but there's a very credible scholar behind it. Iranica is mainly edited by Iranians, and the claim in question contains a clear bias which contradicts western consensus. Do read the Iranica article Mardavich, you may understand where I'm coming from. It acknowledges that 25,000-40,000 is the western consensus, yet chooses to replace it with "zero" because it's based on Greek infantry estimates i.e. "valueless". Miskin 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who said Iranica is mainly edited by Iranians? Iranica is edited by famous Iranologists    most of whom are not Iranian. --Mardavich 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse my ignorance, but could you please give the names of these "many reputable sources" and how they endorse the position. Thanks.Ploutarchos 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed Mardavich. The very least we can do is provide both sides of the story and back each of them up with their sources in that paragraph. We can have one commentary describing how it is a legend using the Livius source and then list the opposing viewpoint with I believe one of the sources Arash provided some time ago. As long as there are sources for both, both of them should stay.--Arsenous Commodore 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ploutarchos, here is one of the sources:http://books.google.com/books?id=49Tc7jRSBrIC&pg=PA134&sig=eDovq-sg07hIjlybUlh2ARcRSUI
There are some others, and I will summarily post them here from time to time as I re-collect them. The above one was retrieved by Arash, I believe.--Arsenous Commodore 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of shephered is quite acceptable. Alexander was informed about the road from someone that was by great chance a local who knew the area. He just didn't take another road to find Ariobarzane by luck. It is widely reported also. ,,,,,. And of course the story resembles thermopylae and it is not a good reason for calling it a myth just because it is similar to thermopylea.(Arash the Archer 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shepherd's betrayal 

message: :*When we use the Superscripts in a text and address to the footnotes, that generally means the footnote is going to support the text, but I can't understand why in the information-box (Strength section) the text and the footnotes are opposite! And the footnote itself is against the reference (Iranica), without mentioning the reference itself: 
"Irannica claims that Ariobarzanes' army was only 700 horsemen on the grounds that "Greek estimates of infantry are generally valueless" - a view with no support or mentions in mainstream scholarship. "
::Is it in support of 40000 or against it? If is it against it, then why it appears that it's a reference for 40000?  --Alborz Fallah 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the text and the reference are opposite ?  

message: I'm going to come out and say it--I am Iranian, I'm a huge Iranian history buff, and even I can see that this article is heavily pro-Persian. I'm going to go through and take out words like "heroic last stand" and "fought bravely" because they're amounting to Persian propaganda.
As far as the troop estimates go, I like the idea of separating the cavalry and infantry numbers. Everyone can agree that the Persians had between 300 and 700 cavalry. EI's infantry levels seem to be rather low, and I can understand the hesitance to include them here. However, it strikes me (at least from my limited experience with this topic) that the amount of research done regarding this battle is fairly small. The consensus surrounding Thermopylae, before modern historians began investigating it, was that the Persians fielded over 2 million men. Now, I don't mean to say then that we can invalidate all Hellenistic claims of Persian strength because of this--but it does lead me to believe that perhaps the scholarship surrounding this battle is fresh enough that we might see dramatic reductions in Persian troop numbers.
Anyhow, I hope everyone's had enough time to cool off so we can approach this article for what it should be: encyclopedic. Spectheintro 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just completed the edits. Let me know what you think--I yanked the shepherd story because it came from a business book, not an academic source.Spectheintro 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you deleted the shepherd betrayal part? Arash the Archer 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it was mentioned earlier, the shepherd story is mentioned in several sources. I am restoring the previous version. This is a highly controversial topic, and subject of a dispute, spectheintro should get consensus for his edits. AlexanderPar 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is still in violation of NPOV

message: this article doesn't violate any pov rules. please provide sufficient evidence of your allegations. Again inocent until proven guilty. The fact that you are Iranian or not is irelevant to me and or any other wikipedia member. Unless you have suffient evidence it is advised that you express your charactristics (race, sexual orientation, etc.) elsewhere and not on talk page.
thank you
:If you are speaking to me, I provided plenty of evidence showing how un-academic this article had become. I rewrote most of it so it stopped reading like a storybook and started sounding like a respectable historical event. Judging from the basis of your edits (including below, where you decide to "let the viewers decide for themselves") I do not think you understand Wikipedia's purpose. It is not here so that we can push our individual beliefs; unless a claim has a reputable source, it doesn't make it into the article, period. Further, anything described in a Wikipedia article needs to be as neutral as possible: we're not here to play favorites. It does not matter if you do not believe a certain claim: if it has a reputable source, the claim gets included, unless many other claims contradict it. Similarly, if a source for a particular claim is not reliable, then the claim gets removed. The shepherd story was taken from a book on business practices; that is not verifiable enough to warrant a citation in Wikipedia.
I would also advise you to check your posts for grammar and spelling. This is not a message board; if you want to discuss something, you should use complete sentences and spell your words correctly. By not doing so, you cast your own ability as a contributor into doubt. Spectheintro (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  its OK 

message: ok the figure of 40'000 men under ariobarzan is simply ridiculous. ariobarzan did not even command 40'000 men in Gaugamela. Let alone having 40'000 survivors fighting in here.
 " At the battle of Gaugamela some Persian units were led by Ariobarzanes; others, together with contingents from the neighboring Persian Gulf area were under Orontabates; the overall command of Persian troops was with Orxines, a descendant of Cyrus the Great (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5; Curtius 4.12.8), presumably the satrap of the province (cf. Arrian 6.30.1; Curtius 10.1.37). The Persian troops were stationed in the center of the army, near Darius, and suffered heavily in the ensuing battle (details in E. W. Marsdan, The Campaign of Gaugamela, Liverpool, 1964). The total strength of the forces from Persis is estimated at 5,000 horsemen, 1,000 infantry and 1,000 Mardian archers (ibid., p. 36 and diagram II, col. 2, nos. 6 and 9). The units under Ariobarzanes, therefore, could not have comprised more than 2,000 men. After the defeat at Gaugamela, Darius fled eastwards and the defense of each province was left to its governor. Alexander seized Babylon and Susa, and having gathered intelligence on Persis, its roads, resources and climate, he set out with a picked force of 17,000 men for Persepolis, the national and dynastic center of the empire (D. W. Engles, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, Berkeley and London, 1978, pp. 70ff.)" 
please use common sense here, there was no army in persian gates but some poorly armed peasents and civilians under the command of some surviving nobles. Remember at this time Darius and his army had fled far away north to Bactria and no army is close by.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Sorry, but Hammond says 40,000, while Heckel places Persian forces at 25,000, and most historians endorse these numbers, as Iranica itself reluctantly recognizes.--Aldux 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well if the persian forces were 50-90 thousands in gaugamela there is no way there were 40,000 men im gonna seperate these to let viewers decide for themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 01:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
Which is the source for 100 Persians? I can't find it in 'Notes'.. Lysandros (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurate numbers 

message: Anybody know the Turkish name of this battle? Need it for a project... --Armanalp (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Name? 

message: As 93.142... has been dodging blocks and targeting this page, I have semi-protected the page for one month. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semiprotected the talk page as well, for the same reason.  It is unusual, but not prohibited, to protect talk pages.  As this abuse is longstanding and ongoing and fairly vehement, it's unfortunately appropriate here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: There are numerous problems in the ref section...
Marsden was written as Marsdan, Prevas is improperly given, no book name, no nothing (what is a Prevas 33 ?????) etc etc etc, Engels' account was the wrong page, two numbers are being given from the same source (700 and under 2000), when according to the same source the academically acceptable number is another, for some inexplicable reason the relevant text of Encyclopedia Iranica was given within the text etc etc etc...
There is a lot of work to be done here in order to make this article readable... GK1973 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's a mess, but the Prevas reference is ok, ie the book is there under sources, Prevas 33 is presumably p.33. However, 'sources' should be 'References' and only include books and articles cited in the text. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the google links in citations should be replaced with proper references. I'm not at all convinced we should use Farrokh's Osprey press book. Footnote 5 has no page number, probably shouldn't be used. Footnote 29 has a similar problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should remove 700 and 2000 from the infobox then if it's a fringe theory. Or at least keep one of them if it's the same source for both (how can a respectable source contradict itself?) Simanos (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you going to remove fringe theory from infobox or shall I do it? Simanos (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This is not as easy. First we have to check out Marsden, for he is also given as a source for the 2.000 figure. I will remove the 700 figure - WHOEVER WANTS TO NOT TREAT THIS FIGURE AS FRINGE PLEASE BRING FORWARD MORE SOURCES!!! -. We can, though, mention it in the text as we do now, so no one should be unhappy (Encyclopedia Iranica should be treated as a respectful source)  GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As I see it, Encyclopedia Iranica is not actually an encyclopedia in the traditional sense. It is a collection of articles and any reference to it is (by EI itself) expected to quote the name of the author of the article in question . GK1973 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref problems

message: I think someone should check what Hammond really says about those 30 days, because no other source or book says that. The closest I found was Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army, which says it probably took Alexander 30 days to march from Susa to Persepolis (including halts), and that the battle took several days. No other book mentions anything like that. Moreover, Peter Green says in Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: a historical biography that says Alexander left Susa for Persepolis in mid January, and that he reached the city on 31 January, making the 30 day last stand impossible.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the battle 

message: The article indicates Alexander split his force in half - Parmenion leading one half along the Royal Road, while Alexander took the other half towards Persepolis.  From Susa, the Royal Road went to Persepolis - are we to infer that Aprmenion was taking the branch of the royal Road leading to Ecbatana? Also - the inset lists Parmenion as one of three Macedonian commanders at the Persian Gates, yet he is not mentioned in the article. Suggest that the article clarify where Parmenion was leading his force after Susa and either state his role in the attle of the Persian Gates or remove him from the list of Macedonian commanders.DavisGL (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was Parmenion?

message: *
*
* 
*
The page needs clean up. J8079s (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  new sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Persian Gate. 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/20071019225808/http://www.iranica.com:80/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it possible that the basis for the Encyclopaedia Iranica to call the infantry numbers amongst the persian army to be valueless is because it was composed at least in part if not in majority by untrained and unequipped civilians, who wouldn't stand a chance against a well trained, equipped and experienced macédonian army (which can be without much problems be called the most powerful army of its time) ? Leaving aside the exact numbers, I think everyone actually agree that the persian forces here would stand no chance against Alexandre's forces on an actual battlefield... ?
From what I gathered, the forces lead here by Ariobarzanes were whatever forces he could muster to come and ambush the macedonians, not a ready-to-fight army of professionals. ISoulend (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is 'valueless' ? 

message: Care to explain how using only what you want from the Iranica source, while removing (700), also supported by Iranica is not cherry-picking information?
Did you miss this part?
*""However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes."
These are the sentences following the statement you took from Iranica, "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly. So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry-picking information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Persian Gate. 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/20031018213726/http://www.gaugamela.com/ to http://www.gaugamela.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f308.html
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) 07:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Certain users, who I will not name, as they know who they are, have been engaging in disruptive editing by repeatedly removing thoroughly sourced material and otherwise altering the war box.  Furthermore, after reviewing this talk page, it seems that one of these users has been violating Wikipedia's policies by leveling personal attacks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) at those who revert or question these edits.  Be warned that if either of these behaviors continue, you will be reported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransparentEye (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive Editing