Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 2

message: I thin that the article generally is pretty good but there are soe things which i think should either be added or given attention at an earlier stage in the article. The fact that the reason why Leonidas chose to go of to battle and fight for his life was that he had been told that if he did not die in battle against the persians sparta would be destroyed. I also think that it should be made clear that the naval forces was under command of a spartan, which is quite odd since the spartan did not have a naval tradition but the purpose of giving a spartan comman was that the navy needed to hold their ground, which is something spartans were good at. I like the comment which one of the others made about comparing the battle at Thermopylae with other historical battles. But if you want to ompare it to other military mistakes (the spartans effort on the first couple of days) i think that a good example would be the forrest where three roman legions were pretty much massacered in a forest i the Present Germany. I think that the forrest was named Teutenbeg or something
I must apoligize for the mistakes in grammar and  spelling, but english is only my second language. 
Danskov 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortune of Leonidas

message: I'm a bit skeptical about the claim that this battle occured on August 11. For one thing, the Julian calander wasn't invented until the reign of Julius Ceasar, several hundred years later. For another thing the month of August wasn't named 'August' until the reign of Ceasar Augustus. I'm not sure what system the Greeks used, but prior to the Julian system, the Romans used a lunar calander with randomly inserted intercalary months, making it extremely difficult to figure out exact dates of events, beyond a guess at the year. I'm extremely skeptical that any historian would seriously claim to have narrowed down the exact date to "August 11" according to our calander system.--LunaCity 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing applies with other dates prior to the implementation of the Julian calendar. However, the formula of the Julian day allows historians to pinpoint dates according to the Gregorian calendar. --Scottie theNerd 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know about that. Are there any other examples of historians pinpointing the exact month and day, according to the Gregorian calander, of an event five centuries BCE? Even the date of the birth of Christ is pretty foggy, and that was after the Julian calender (after the collapse of the Roman empire the calender got out of whack again). Even supposing there are historical records that give a date according to the calender in use at the time, we don't have a complete record of calendrical adjustments to make the conversion to that kind of exactness. Even if it took place in "August" - or whatever month corresponds to "August" on the earlier Greek calander - because the lunar year was shifting relative to the solar year, the "August" of 480 BCE might be in the middle of winter.--LunaCity 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, conversion to the Julian calendar is independent of time measurement used at that time. --Scottie theNerd 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Impossible. You need the Julian date to do the conversion. And since modern astronomers weren't around at the time, there's no way we have the julian date of the event. The only thing we could possibly have is a calendrical date according to the system in use at the time. Which can't be converted to the Julian date, or any other system, without knowing what calendrical adjustements were made subsequently. More seriously, your argument would imply that we ought to be able to pinpioint the exact month and day of any historial event that has ever occured, and we obviously can't. --LunaCity 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no expert in the system. I'm sure someone else more familiar with the topic can provide a more helpful answer. --Scottie theNerd 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 11? 

message: I want to remove the "see also" section here because every country has its lists of battles which it likes to compare to Thermopylae and I don't think that such as list is enlightening. Unless there is realy strong objections I shall remove the two in the see also section. If there is to be one (sigh!) then I suggest that it is kept to one per country.  --Philip Baird Shearer 07:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with those, but I don't think they are particularly relevant either. Adam Bishop 16:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Battles compared to Thermopylae

message: I think the intro section needs some tweaking. It is a bit misleading to flatly say the Persians were "defeated". I would have used the word stopped. Especially considering that:
#Leonidas and his Spartans were eventually defeated despite the heroic stand.
#Leonidas was beheaded and crucified by Xerxes, according to Herodotus.
#Xerxes' troops eventually advanced into Southern Greece, despite the heavy losses dealt by the 300 Spartans.
#The history of this event was written by Greek authors. The article treats it like unquestionable fact however. 
Improvement is requested. Thanks.--Zereshk 07:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Mr. Zereshk. The Persians weren't stopped by the battle, were they? So, we can't say stopped. Moreover, quit slandering the Greeks. We aren't interested in ethnic hate around here. OK, so the Persians weren't defeated or stopped at Thermopylae. But they were defeated and stopped at Salamis and other places. Moreover, Alexander took all of Persia and made it into Greek kingdoms. Live with it. But why get feisty about the Greeks? A lot of other people took Persia as well. We need the wide view here, not the narrow. As for the sources being Greek, gee, they were the only ones who cared to write about it. So, we have no way of knowing if they told the truth, do we? It seems as though everyone who writes about the past wants to clean it up or make it look good or make it favorable to them. But, that isn't the scientific tradition, which seeks the truth. If you look at the full truth, the Persians were pretty good people, as good as anyone. It is just that their king felt he had to extend his domain over Greece. The Greeks objected. Is there something wrong with that? But generally you are right, the article can stand some improvement. To be able to describe an emotional event in objective language, that is a goal worth striving for. Does it really matter what you personally think? Don't think, Zereshk!Dave 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you jumping at Zereshk for a minor fix suggestion a month after it's actually been fixed? "Stopped" would be inaccurate, but Zereshk has made every effort to suggest an NPOV rewording. Stop throwing anti-Greek sentiments towards anyone who whispers a word in the wrong direction. --Scottie theNerd 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro is misleading

message: "A note on translation: This should not be read in the imperative mood, but rather as an indirect appeal through an advanced, thankful, salutation to a visitor. What is hoped for in the language of the appeal is that the visitor, once leaving the place, will go and announce to the Spartans that, indeed, the dead lie still at Thermopylae, remaining faithful until the end, in accordance to commands of their king and people. It was not important to the Spartan warriors that they would die, or that their fellow citizens knew that they had in fact died. Rather, the stress of the language is that until their death they had remained faithful. 
“Visitor, please confirm to the Spartans that we indeed remained faithful to them until the very end …just in case someone else tells them otherwise.”"
The article suffers from this hoaky over-exegesis. In the first place, none of that stuff is true. The epitaph just means that the Spartans obeyed orders, because that is what they were all about, obeying orders. The individual was totally subordinate to the state. If he assumed that mission he became glorious. With the shield or on it. In the second place, this is one of the best of the Laconic sayings. It needs no exegesis at all. Exegesis detracts from it. In the third place, we aren't interested in the author's 10th rate personal opinions. Learn some Greek. Get some experience of life. In any case the article is not for original work, such as personal exegesis. Awfully sorry, it needed to be said. Study it more and then come back to it if you are still interested. Best wishes. "A" work needs to be "A" work.Dave 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoaky exegesis

message: The article really has developed into three sections. First, there is the battle and its attendant circumstances. Second, there is the epitaph of Simonides, which seems to have a life of its own. As molon labe has been broken out, I would like to break the epitaph out as "Thermopylae(epitaph of Simonides)" or something similar. Third, there are cultural references, many of which have not much to do with the battle. Sylvia Plath had an interesting view of her Thermopylae but it hasn't much to do with the historical Thermopylae. I'm suggesting this breakup because the article is too long. I thought the tables might help, but it is still too long. If anyone disagrees, speak up. Otherwise after a decent interval I make three articles out of it, unless stopped by someone. For the third one I had in mind "Thermopylae (cultural references)".Dave 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. The article is substantially long, and articles with this much depth usually are split. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean about this much depth. The starred Wikipedia articles are generally shorter and more concise. However, take a look at Charles II of England, which has one star. This present article is rated hugh in importance and in fact look at all the interest and emotion it generates. I have no doubt most all the students of Greek history have looked or will look at it, and then you've got the military, and the persons of Greek heritage as well as any Iranians that use Wikipedia. So, I have no problem with the detail as long as it is accurate and to the point. So much has been written about the battle, it is important not to descend into endless theories worked up over the centuries by perfectly good people wanting to hitch themselves to the Thermopylae star by illuminating (or darkening) obscure points. However by the customs of Wikipedia we have to work with what we got unless there are reasons to change it. In general I would say it reflects public interest. By the way the heated discussion with the irascible Greek is most unusual. I never met a Greek person who felt he or she was getting bad press from the ENGLISH! Relations between English- and Greek-speakers have been pretty good. The former Greeks in America seem pretty delighted to be here and I don't know of any ethnic conflict at all.Dave 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split-up time

message: There's a couple of vandals persistently at work on this article. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes subtle. Paragraphs or sections get deleted, tables get broken, numbers get changed, strange numbers or letters appear, irrelevant statements appear, wording gets changed. So, if your material gets changed without reason by unknown users, or things just plain disappear, don't take it personally. Take a careful look and restore it. You can find out how it was in case you did not know by going back in the history. The article was good, then it got bad and lost its reputation. I suggest the vandals were at work even then. After that I made it much better but now I notice it is being destroyed again. En guarde! If you want a good article you have to fight for it! It is a shame some people cannot behave in public but they are definitely out there and this is an emotional topic.Dave 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VANDAL WARNING!

message: I'm surprised to see no merger topic. There was one because I contributed to it. I vote for the merger. They are in fact the same topic. If we want to have two articles let's get the cultural references out of here.Dave 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: These citations were not in the article when I left it. I'm the classicist who worked on it. I had a long discussion with a national of a related foreign nation who wanted to alter the story as Herodotus told it to make the Persians look substantially different from the ones the Greek related seeing. Then I left the article. Now I find these Herodotean paragraphs in here. For those who do not know any Greek they may seem legitimate. Here they are:
:On the one hand these men in this way had intended to make this; on the other hand the Greeks were in Thermopylae fearing this.  When Xerxes was near the pass, the Greeks were planning an escape.  He knew that the Peloponnesians having come to Peloponnesus were guarding the Isthmus.  Leonidas with the Phocians and Locrians having been very much angered by the opinion of the man himself was voting to both remain and send messengers to the city ordering them (Peloponnesians) to come to aid, since they themselves were too few to ward off the army of the Medes.  With the Greeks planning these things, Xerxes was sending a rider(scout) to see how many there were and what they might do.  He, still being in Thessaly had heard how the small army having collected might still be there, and that the leaders might both be the Lacedemonians(Spartans) and Leonidas of the race of Heracles. And when the horseman rode to the camp, he was looking down and was not seeing the whole camp, for he was not able to look down upon those having been stationed within the wall, which they having built were guarding. This was known as the Phocian Wall. He was noticing them outside, and their weapons were lying in front of the wall.
:The Spartans happened to have been stationed outside at the time. He was indeed seeing some of the men exercising and some of the men combing their hair. The men were wrestling because they were preparing for battle. This was their form of stretching before going to fight. They were also combing their hair because they did not want to be pulled down by their hair while fighting in battle. Clearly the scout running was admiring these things and noticed the number of men. Having seen everything exactly he departed back to Xerxes undisturbed; for no one exhibited concern or found him as a threat.  He having gone away was speaking to Xerxes all the very things which he had seen. Xerxes, hearing this, did not hold the ability to comprehend the facts, that the Spartans were preparing both to be killed and to kill to the best of one's ability. Since they were seeming to cause laughter to him (it was humorous to Xerxes to find out that the Spartans were preparing for battle by wrestling and combing hair), Xerxes sent for Demaratus the son of Ariston, being in the Persian camp.  Xerxes was asking him having come to each of these things, wishing to know what the Spartans were doing.
For lack of a better word I use the term attempted translation of Herodotus Book 7 Paragraph 207 and part of 208, which begins "Houtoi men de ..." 1) This is a very poor translation; in fact, I hesitate to call it a translation. A translation is expected to be good English, which this is not. Neither is it good Greek. The translator misinterprets most of it. No sincere English speaker who has studied Greek would offer these passages as a translation of Herodotus. This raises the question of sincerity. The passages are inserted without connective sentences or explanation after their content already has been summarized above. They are, in other words, out of place. They repeat what has already been summarized. As they are out of place and are mistranslations and bad English I have concluded that they are either vandalism or the efforts of a speaker whose first language is not English and does not speak it very well but who is very persistent. They already have found some adverse mention in the comments of others above, who know, perhaps, no Greek, but know that something is wrong. Since this has been an article much vandalized I propose that we take out the additions, which I have done, listing them here for future reference.Dave 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Probable phony citations

message: The 300 men led by King Leonadis were not fighting a last stand. They were buying time for the rest of Sparta and the Greeks to assemble their armies.--the preceding unsigned comment was left by 68.3.29.2 (Talk) 01:42, 9 April 2007 
:As I've heard it, they were buying time to evacuate surrounding area, especially Athens.  Either way, they were fighting a 'last stand', in that they didn't actually expect to win.--Xiaphias 07:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: This is quite possibly the worst article I've seen anywhere on the internet in a long time. I would make suggestions of how to improve it but the whole damn things needs a re-write, this time maybe with some accurate information instead of nonsense. Even the cited info is usually from unreliable sources. If I handed in an article written like this at my university, my history professor would laugh at it and stamp with an F on the spot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.188.60 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Article I've Ever Seen On Wikipedia 

message: Under 'Size of the Persian Empire army':
Regarding the total number of forces Xerxes I assembled to invade Greece (land army, fleet crew, air force, etc), this number needs to be nearly doubled in order to account for support troops
Air force?
:Trained falcons?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why yes, the Persians employed vast numbers of Aviation squads, the 101st to the 115th, to be exact. They were all SU-37's, with the exception of the 115th, which was newer, and therefore, had the then experimental F-14. The Greeks countered this with A FUCKING STONEHENGE. Zero R 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Question

message: One of the worst. Fix it.
-G
Well "G" if you feel that strongly and know something that isn't in the article then I encourage you to contribute. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
:Yeah, I suppose "View Source" means you can edit, right?
::Well, you could register for an account; or you could write a revision and post in on this talk-page, if you'd prefer. --Xiaphias 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very poor article

message: Please discuss any further number debates on this board before editing the article. It is prudent to include both the historic views of Herodotus et al and the modern mainstream views and label them as such in the article. Endless feuding edits in the article do not improve the quality of the information or your reputations.JohnGaltJr 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless Numbers Debate 

message: The insertion of references to the modern Greek army are superfluous. This is trivia, and should be placed in a "contemporary references" section. These references have no place in the main body of the article. The following should be removed:
"Today Dienekes's phrase is the motto of the Greek 20th Armored Division.[13]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolethead (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Greek Army

message: For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Herodotus' citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Herodotus' citations

message: For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Probable phony citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Probable phony citations

message: For recent discussions on this subject see Archive 2: Fortune of Leonidas --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortune of Leonidas

message: descriptions of the battle are derived solely from the
Greeks, thus they are naturally fabricated and are extremely out of proportion.
This battle would be more aptly filed under Greek mythology.  If anyone read
recent research and commentary of this battle they would arrive at the
same conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.213.84 (talk) 
:Erm, if the Greeks wanted to glorify their history, wouldn't they have used the six-digit figures of Herodotus rather than remarkably smaller figures? --Scottie theNerd 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RevertOnly a fool who lacks comprehension of numbers would believe the hoaxes of herodotus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon1190 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I get the impression that Jon1190 is the sock puppet of the person who has been vandalizing this and every other article related to this battle (300 (film), 300 (comic), Leonidas I etc). Miskin 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Scottie don't you mean the seven figure digits?--Arsenous Commodore 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *slap* I suck =( --Scottie theNerd 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually what the first guy's comment is correct.  If you look at the Persian Grecian war article it explains that the current statistical knowledge is based on pretty much on only Herodotus's findings (he wasnt even alive at the time of the battles)and that his results were based on interviews that were influenced by political slants and other biases.  Other than that the article needs to point out that the size of the Persian Army was somewhat irrelevant tactically because of the geographic conditions (equally sized forces on both sides were actually in combat at the same time).  The valley was "50 feet wide" (just enough room for the Spartans but not enough for the Persian army to utilize their numbers).  Another item that needs emphasis is the equipment and the method of combat: the hopolites had spears with very far reach therefore they only needed to stand back in formation and protect their niche in the canyon (they fought extremely defensive unlike their portrayal as "heroic", aggressive combatants in the comic and film 300). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diddy2100 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Diddy2100 you have a point. Since the mountainous terrain was selected by the Spartans as the choke hold, it gave them two opportunities to capitalize. Firstly the 80,000 cavalry that both Herodotus and Kampouris claim would not have been employable. By all accounts these particular Persian units were most effective against Greek phalanx, it took much discipline to stand against a cavalry charge. Secondly as you stated the Persians would not have been able to use their full force, but obviously this was the Greeks alliance's plan. Had this battle been fought on an open field; rather than take 3 days, this battle probably would have been done in 3 hours. Leaving no time for the for the Athenians to flee or even plan the next strategy. There is no doubt that Herodotus exaggerated an at times employed rather false premises. After all he was an author an to publish and make famous his work he would have needed the assistance of the wealthy. So in many ways if you sponsored him, he would put you and your family in history, even if you were irrelevant. That being said, Herodotus is our almost only significant source, so rather than completely bash him, it would probably be best if we could extrapolate what seems most truthful, neutral and realistic from his writings, that would be most useful. Did he exaggerate? No frigging doubt about it, but if we can carefully wander around the poetic bias we can unravel many truths as well.--Arsenous Commodore 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's retarded to believe whichever historian said about that battle, especially someone as biased as Herodotus. We've all heard of the statement that history is written by the victors, and this is no different; majority of information we in the West have of that or any battle of the Greeks, is from the Greeks themselves, and it is rather obvious that they would skew history in their own favor. Frankly people still argue about what happened 10 years ago history, much less 2000+ yrs ago or so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article does state right beside the table where the numbers are quoted from, and there is a section on more modern (and hopefully accurate) estimates right below it.  So I think we're covered :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy?

message: The CoDominion series by Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, especially the one called "Go Tell the Spartans"
the late David Gemmell wrote about a group of soldiers called the immortals in his series on the Drenai, the character called Druss and a small group of Drenai soldiers held them at a pass until there navy was sunk by the Drenais
: Gemmell also made much mention of Thermopylae in his "Lion of Macedon" novel. The historical accuracy of all of his books is pretty lacking though, and shouldn't be used in any discussion of real events. Hakikev 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Book references

message: "Rambling Rose" in 1991
After Rose (Laura Dern) attempts to make a pass at the character Daddy (Robert Duvall), Daddy says:
DADDY - Goddamn you, girl! You've made me make a fool out of myself, damn your hide, but let me tell you I am standing at the pass of Thermopile and I won't budge! The very idea, my own home with children in the house, to say nothing of my wife -- oh-h, you had better believe I am standing at Thermopylae, you little nut, you had better believe it! What are you, crazy? A man is supposed to be a fool like this, but a woman is supposed to have some control and sense! Are you a nitwit? What's the matter with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluechao (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Reference 

message: I removed the 120,000 figure for the Persian strength. It is the minimum figure and doesn't reflect any more consensus than Herodotus' 5,000,000 (max value). In other words there's no point on putting the minimum estimate above the maximum. I replaced it with 200K-2M, it seems to be an average range of the estimates given by both primary and secondary sources (120K-5M as a raw figure). Miskin 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: I think that things should only be included if they have a strong link to the battle - it is in popular culture to such an extent that references can be found in quite a few places. Some of the section is in danger of veering into this area - the book 'Halo: the Fall of Reach' has almost no connection to Thermopylae, whereas 'Gates of Fire' does, for example. As I am a fairly new user, however, I wouldn't want to upset the status quo by meddling with the article. What do other people think? Andyana 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration section 

message: Please note that Tom Cruises (Capt. Algren) character in the movie "Last Samurai" also references the battle at Thermopylae at length.
I am not sure if this is a relevant reference, but it does bring the Greeks in a pseudo-heroic light again.
Sincerely
Richard OHm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.230.109.21 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional movie reference 

message: Why is this article protected?  It would seem more accurately placed in the greek propoganda/myth project.  Throughout the article only the information of herodatos, the father of lies, is used.  The article never addresses the arguments of other prominent, modern historians.  The article never mentions alternate theories, explanations, or information.  The article never mentions that some historians believe the battle is complete fiction.  Many improvements could be made to this article, but some ass who totally believes the hoax of herodatus chose to block modifications.
:Why Relocate?
:The battle itself is a part of historical fact. Archaeologists have found evidence of arrow barrages, et al. Remember something else: all history is technically lies (written by the winners no less) so don't get too proud of yours unless you were there to witness it personally. That's the idea your presenting carried to it's logical fallacy. Furthermore, pages are protected to keep random people from vandalizing them because they either disagree with the view presented or are simply changing it maliciously for the thrill.
:Complain about it all you want. When it comes to history, especially early histories, there are very few concrete sources. Do you want to do something constructive (I hope so). Did the Persians keep a better history? Log in and present sources under the aspect title of "Persian Accounts" or something similar. Remember, complaining does little, presenting verifiable fact goes further. --Inglix the Mad - Killing all hope. 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something should be done about people with (baselessly assumed) vested interests who comment in an uninformed manner about wiki entries. One immediate evidence of our "commentator's" ignorance is his spelling of "Herodotus". The Gnome 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocate?

message: Simonides wrote after the battle this epitaph:
   "Here four thousand from the Peloponnese Once fought three thousand thousands."
Were there 4000 Spartans?
No, there were only 300 Spartans. However, the Spartans were joined by 6,700 other Greeks. Kyriakos 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah kriak knows for sure because he was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.247 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There were 300 omoioi (full citizen soldiers), some perioikoi and the helot servants of the omoioi. In Plataea there were 7 helots for every omoios. In Thermopylae we do not know Ikokki 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poet Simonides Comment

message: 
It's been a month, I think it's time to remove protection.
:Yes, done.  If the vandalism starts right back up again, though, don't be surprised if it goes back on, and stays on for a lot longer. Proto ► 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: The article could keep the fairy tale version, but it definitely needs modern estimates by modern historians while emphasizing that the ancient greeks fabricated these ridiculous statistics.  According to the capacity, number, and size of the invading ships some scholars estimate 40,000 Persian Soldiers tops while the spartans had about 10,000.  I have read on a few encyclopedias that some modern historians doubt that the battle even existed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
::I expressed some reservations about the size of the Persian army further up this talk page.  These reservations are not the result of any "nationalist insecurities", and neither were they "denialist comments against western scholarship".  There is never going to be, to borrow a horrible expression from wikilore, a NPOV account of this battle simply because history has only handed down to us accounts from one side.  To fully accept the account of Herodotus, without question, is not good historical practice. Lianachan 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no vested interest in this, very little interest at all actually, and no axe to grind.  I am just deeply suspicious of the reported size of the Persian army, as it is reminiscent of similar (although smaller) exaggerations in the accounts of historians such as Tacitus, with which I am more familiar. As a Scot, I'm not even sure who "the Iranian crowd" are!  Lianachan 01:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "The Athenians indeed, convinced [by Aristagoras], voted to dispatch twenty ships as succors for the Ionians and appointed as general Melanthius, who was a man among the townsmen esteemed in all respects. And those ships proved the beginning of evils for both the Greeks and the barbarians." Histories (5.97)
Many historian (e.g. Plutarch) believe that Herodotus's praise (in other passages e.g., in 5.78) for Athenian "democracy" is rather sarcastic (see "On the Malignity of Herodotus" of Plurach).
There is probably no good compromise between the 'mythical'/propaganda account and likely historical fact. I suggest two sections wherein the essential facts of each account are briefly summarized. Begin with the popular form and describe it as it is understood, then proceed to criticize it where it is likely to be exaggerated and made up, presenting as you go more realistic figures. This should satisfy the people who want the traditional account to be represented while not misinforming readers as to the probable reality.--Sorpigal 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythology/History

message: Umm, why did 202.177.214.172 change it to say there were only 61 Persians?  Is that supposed to be a joke or something?  :-o  I'm putting back numbers from an earlier revision... -- MyrddinEmrys 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a somewhat different suggestion for the warbox. I find the inclusion of "the entire Persian presence" of 5M+ to be somewhat unnecessary. After all, it is a warbox, and the strength category is located just below the combatants. Wouldn't it be far more accurate and reasonably logical to maintain the warbox for war (or combat) units only; rather than to sum is value with support troops. It is pretty strange to up the Persian presence with the inclusion of maids, mistresses, musicians, treasure carriers, many ceremonial nobles etc; that all don't fight or make any military difference in the battle, in the warbox. Shouldn't Herodotus' claim of 2,641,610 military presence only be listed in the warbox footnote instead? I think this is a good idea, because the doubling of Persian troops is already done and explained in the article. Does anyone agree with the idea to change the footnote’s wording to imply only military unit figures and thus list the 2M+ number? I guess my point is that the battle box sould solely be reserved for battling and potentially battling units, not support troops too. I’ll make the change and be happy to hear others’ opinions.--Arsenous Commodore 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, an excellent argument against calling it Pyrrhic is made by User:Vawarner2000 on the Pyrrhic victory talk page... -- MyrddinEmrys 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the phrase "Pyrrhic Victory" is that it does not only relate to the size of an army vs. the number of casualties, but also to the number of casualties to what was gained from the victory. I think that in this case, the traditional view is that the casualty figure was somewhat unproportional to the eventual payoff.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand I don't wish to be seen as completely advocating the traditional view of the battle. I doubt that Xerxes army even exceeded 100,000 but still I find it believable that the persian dead outnumbered the Greek casualties many times over.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the Persian army 

message: Anyone know why Adeebkasem duplicated this article just to claim that only 10,000 Persian immortals fought at Themopylae? This is his only edit to Wikipedia under this name. I'm changing that article to a redirect. -- llywrch 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate article 

message: :Category:Battle of Thermopylae
EnviroGranny 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (The article is only semi-protected).  --ElKevbo 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add when article lockdown is over

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephialtes_of_Trachis
according to this article among the 300 spartans and 700 thespis was also a small theban force that was hold hostage by he Spartan that surrender to xerxes.Can someone please provide me with more information about them ?For example how many they were,why the were hold hostage etc...
Tbere 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thebans

message: I think the lead of article should be rewrite because it is an overview to all of the battles among Xerxes I and Greeks. The subsequent Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis left much of the Persian navy destroyed and Xerxes was forced to retreat back to Asia, leaving his army in Greece under Mardonius, who was to meet the Greeks in battle one last time. The Spartans assembled at full strength and led a pan-Greek army that defeated the Persians decisively at the Battle of Plataea, ending the Greco-Persian War and with it Persian expansion into Europe.[2]Sa.vakilian(t-c)--18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this part isn't appropriate for the lead:The performance of the defenders at the battle of Thermopylae is often used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain to maximize an army's potential, and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds. The heroic sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians has captured the minds of many throughout the ages and has given birth to many cultural references as a resultSa.vakilian(t-c)--18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good summary for the lead of Greco-Persian Wars article but it's not good one for this article. We should write about "Battle of Thermopylae" in the lead instead of the other battles.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is actually an incorrect fact in the lead that needs to be fixed.The subsequent Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis left much of the Persian Empire's navy destroyed and Xerxes I was forced to retreat back to Asia. Xerxes was forced to camp over the winter so he could renew the offensive. He then got word that there was trouble in Babylon and took his army home to prevent a revolt. Wayne 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead