Talk:Battle of Pelusium

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Iran Mid‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / Classical C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Untitled

I updated the article with sources, and still I'm in the process of expanding it.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

egyptians didnt fight because the persians had cats painted on their shields! come off it! fanciful ancient myth doesnt mean it was like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.121.219 (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pelusium (525 BC)

I like to propose to move the page from "Battle of Pelusium (525 BC) to simply "Battle of Pelusium." Most other pages dealing with historical conflicts often just denote the name of the conflict and leave such details as date, participants, etc. to the content. I like to get a general consensus on how many people feel this is a warranted move? Dr. Persi (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep title) Hi there Persi, I would first like to thank you for noting the issue about the title of this article, I think for the time being we should keep the title of Battle of Pelusium (525 BC or B.C.E.), this is for the simple reason that at least one or two conflicts took place in Pelusium before the one involving the Persians. So this would not be the first battle of Pelusium. That is why I think the creator of the article added the date to it. If you go on the Pelusium article, it has a long list of battles that took place there. So if we just make it Battle of Pelusium, than to other readers, we would be ignoring the first battle and later battles of Pelusium that took place throughout history. Therefore, since this has not been a pressing issue, as other users have not had strong opinions about it, I think for the time being we should focus our efforts on improving this article and other campaigns related to Cambyses and what not. This would then be a unwarranted move, however I am open to the possibility. There are many other articles that have this issue, like there are multiple battles of Thermopylae out there too, with some having dates attached to their titles. Anyways, if you have any questions or comments, you may respond here (which is better) or on my talk page, thanks. Eirione (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I agree. Lets keep it. Thanks for the detailed explanation! Makes sense! Dr. Persi (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I would first like to apologize for responding here. I read what you wrote on my page and decided to respond here so my talk page would not fill up. I am also glad that we agree about the title. Now I read your user profile, and think that it is great that you care about the environment and love sharing knowledge, which is what I like also, and think it is splendid, so keep up the good work (especially in Achaemenid related areas). Now back to the siege of Gaza issue, I was not sure to directly add a source for that, since I had planned to reference every sentence in the near future, to make the article complete and ready for peer reviewing, possibly even for a good grade. The siege of Gaza was a little known event, and it was noted by the Greek historian Polybius (XVI.22a) or (XVI, 40), it seems as a border town between Persia and Egypt, it was ripe for rebellion. When Cambyses got to the town, the town may have revolted or that they had resisted the Persian troops, and Cambyses besieged it for awhile until it fell to the Persians. It was noteworthy by Polybius because it was the only town in that area to fight back before the battle of Pelusium and siege of Memphis. So that is what I know about. Plus I found eight books that mention it. So here it goes. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. For some of the books you have to look in the middle or bottom of the page, the first one is located in footnote three, at the bottom, so a little searching would be good. Therefore, I would like to thank you for reading. All the best. Eirione (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a polite, constructive, and source oriented response like that I have nothing to say but I agree. I like Herodotus because his writings are usually more inclusive and it seems that the accounts of Polybius is not corroborated by Herodotus but they were both great historians and it seems they both had written their "The History." It also seems that Alexander the Great also had his own Siege in his battle to take contorl of Egypt, which complicated the issue further. No matter, yes there is certainly a plausibility nay factuality to this claim and so it will stay in the article. Cheers and thanks for the response! Dr. Persi (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Persi, I can't agree more and really thank you for your great response. You know, when I first started editing, I took nearly a half year break, and only now I have started to resume my major editing. And so I am glad it has got to a good start. I much appreciated and hope we can converse later. Best of thanks! Eirione (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Arabian Kingdom?

The Arabic language was not even in use back then. The only reason they were ever referred to as Arabian Kings was because they were situated in what we today refer to as the Arabian Peninsula, and no other reasons

The term 'Arab' is misleading, since to the reader they will imagine a different culture.

Therefore, I ask who were the Kings which gave the Persians safe-passage? Or at least, which unique culture did they come from?

I would like to note that after the time of these aforementioned Kings -- were the Nabateans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8227 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]