Talk:Battle of Artemisium

message: Hopefully the anonymous user reads this...why is this a Persian victory? Adam Bishop 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the links and added some explanatory text. The Greeks also took a beating during the battle, and once Thermopylae fell, there was no purpose in maintaining station at Artemisium, so they fell back towards Salamis. Choess 23:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess so...but in the overall scheme of the war, it is as indecisive as Marathon is a victory, wouldn't you say? (Or we could say Marathon is just as indecisive as Artemisium.) Adam Bishop 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'm not that knowledgeable, it's just a side interest. You can find my e-mail from "e-mail this user" on my user page, if you want. Adam Bishop 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian victory? 

message: No sources yet the History Channel (a source I would trust over any internet source, with all their scholars in hand) stated a 6:1 or 5:1 advantage of the Persians and also stated the Athenians doubled their fleet size from 100 (to 200). That means it was 200 vs 1200 (or perhaps 1000) at the beginning, 200 of Xerxes ships were destroyed when they tried to flank around Euboea. Themistocles destroyed or captured another 200 over the two day battle. Whatever the exact case it wasn't 333 vs 500. --ProdigySportsman 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Persians had some 1207 ships to begin with, but even after the storms they could muster a little over 800 ships. I'll change it to 1207.--Arsenous Commodore 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the Strength to 927, since they started with 1,327 ships (I forgot to add the European ships earlier) and about 400 were destroyed before Artemisium (according to Herodotus) I got the 927 figure.--Arsenous Commodore 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did these "Strength" numbers come from? 

message: Since by the end of the battle the Athenians had some 180 ships and half of the according to Herodotus were destroyed (near the final day of engagement), I added the Greek casualties to 90. Furthermore, it is noted that five Greek ships were captured by the Egyptian contingent. Thus 95 would be a minimum estimate. Therefore I placed their warbox casualties to 95+.The Persians on the other hand are a little bit more difficult to postulate. Peter Green reckons 100+ in his book (The Greco-Persian Wars). And Herodotus implies a similar amount judging by the remainder of the Persian fleet he discusses.--Arsenous Commodore 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: The article currently (February 2014) uses the term "the Allies" everywhere to refer to the alliance of Greek city states that confronted the Persian invasion. Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to simply refer to "the Greeks" as English historiography has traditionally done? Yes, technically some Greeks fought on the Persian side (Ionian cities by force, Thebes by choice or by fear), but even ancient Greek historiography typically overlooked this and referred to "the Greeks" as such. Also, directly translating the Greek term "σύμμαχοι" becomes confusing because "the Allies" in English overwhelmingly brings to mind World War II... While reading, I expect the Axis to pop up at any minute! At the very least "the Greek allies" would make more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.158.9 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Allies? 

message: Hello. So whilst they overran, or conquered (whatever once's formulation is more pleasing) Euboea, is it possible to add this to the infobox, or shouldnt we add it because they lost it relatively quickly thereafter in the Battle of Salamis? Any imput/comment would be appreciated. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capture of Euboea?