Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Greco-Persian Wars. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Brilliant

Brilliantly succinct. Even too succinct for such a great subject! User:Wetman

Thanks - I'm sure it will expand. It's usually better for article architecture to develop top-down, plus the poor reader would rather link to additional articles for depth instead of being subjected to 5,000 word narratives. :-) We are, after all, an encyclopedia and not a history book! Stan 15:23, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Battle of Thermopylae was never meant to stop thep persian advance, it was meant to slow it down. King Leonidas chose his the 300 with great care: They were all older men, who had already raised families. They were going there to die. And I don't think 300 men holding off a quarter million for a few days counts as a failure.

Thats actually a matter of debate. Herodotus mentions in passing that the original plan was to halt the Persian advance north of Boetia and thereby include Athens, but its clear that this was bullcrap the Spartans fed to the Athenians to get them to join. After the battle of Themopylae, which became little more than a delay tactic, the Pellopensians fortified the Isthmus and prepared to fight there, abandoning Attika. pookster11 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Greco-Persian Wars"?

Who calls these the "Greco-Persian Wars?" anyway? I don't think I've ever seen it written that way before. Let's not go inventing nonstandard terminology here. Stan 03:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Greco-Persian". My reasoning went like this: it would be nice to have "Persian Wars" as a disambiguation page for the various sets of Persian Wars (Greco-Persian, Romano-Persian, Byzantine-Persian, etc). Also, "Persian Wars" is of course from the POV of the Greek and we try to avoid POV here. But on reflection, I think I was too bold, and I should have made the redirect the othre way, with the disambiguation page at Persian Wars (disambiguation). Sorry. Gdr 10:50, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I of course never look at EB so as to keep from being tainted. :-) It's a good point about the other Persian wars, but the disambig page seems like a good idea, plus avoids editing all those links! Stan 14:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Moved here from User talk:Gdr) Hi...what is the use of moving Persian Wars to Greco-Persian Wars? Has this been discussed anywhere? Are there plans to write articles about other (Roman/Byzantine) Persian Wars? (Just curious since I know nearly everything links to "Persian Wars".) Adam Bishop 22:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are those who spell it "Graeco-", too! :-) Noel 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greco-Persian is the historically correct term used to reference the time period in historical articles, books, et alia. pookster11 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You can always use term "Helladic-" as well. Al Fallujah

I do not know if this term is being used widely, but I find it misleading. There were many different nations involved in these wars and even Spartans of Athenians took side with Persia during this era.

i was not expecting some people to be ignorant like this. who has called this greco-persian wars? these wars, as far as history books are concerned, are called persian wars. i have the feeling that this article is written mostly by greek or greek-loving people and as such do not want to be honest when things are related to middle eastern countries like iran. any way, this like many other things is, sadly, an example of cultural and scientific war of west against (mainly middle) east. i am not happy with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

If you read the above secions both Persian Wars and Greco-Persian Wars acceptable, look at Britannica [1] or simply type in both names and you'll get the same results. It shouldn't be something to get riled about or make accusations about. Best of luck - Patman2648 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

militaristic and expansionary policy of Xerxes

"if we shall subdue these and the neighbours of these, who dwell in the land of Pelops the Phrygian, we shall cause the Persian land to have the same boundaries as the heaven of Zeus; since in truth upon no land will the sun look down which borders ours, but I with your help shall make all the lands into one land, having passed through the whole extent of Europe. For I am informed that things are so, namely that there is no city of men nor any race of human beings remaining, which will be able to come to a contest with us, when those whom I just now mentioned have been removed out of the way. Thus both those who have committed wrong against us will have the yoke of slavery, and also those who have not committed wrong."

Herodotus, BOOK VII, 8 c alternate translation MATIA 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

> PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

Where are all the Thebians?

I read on this site that the Thebians were also involved in the battle of Thermopylae. If you look near the ned, it states that the Thebians were granted the task of guarding the goat path. Can someone back me up here?--Giraman 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I added it in.--Giraman 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thebes had already capitulated and remained a Persian ally even after the war. Herodotus records that Leonidas held onto the Thebans as hostages, to force the Thebans into fighting the Persians. He also records that, the lines having broken and the force having been flanked on the third day, the Thebans surrendered and presented themselves as allies to the Persians. pookster11 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Thebes surrendered to the Persians and actually helped them with armed forces in battles. Gates of Fire states that 700 Thebians traveled with the 300 to Thermopalyae, but the book is not historically accurate. KnightHospitaller 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was the Phocians who guarded the goat path (but obviously didn't do all that well, IMO) Spartan198 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Number of Troops?

What is the source for 720,000 total? All the sources I know of (Bengston, Briant, Burn, etc) put the upper limit at about 250,000, with the main force being about 60-120,000 and the remaining support staff (exceptionally large because the king was present, and Xerxes enjoyed travelling in style). All of this is based on resources, especially water, available along the route and estimates of the population of the Persian empire and what they could muster. Can anyone give a source for the numbers given in the 2nd invasion? pookster11 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There were not 1200 ships; this is a mythological number drawn from the Illiad. According to Pierre Briant and AR Burn, both referenced in the bibliography section, as well as Bengston and Hignett, Persia could have deployed a maximum of 600 ships into the Aegean, the Persian fleet having been decimated during the Ionian rebellion and rebuilt over the next 4 years. While the fleet could have supplied food to the moving army, the big problem fo both the fleet and the army was water; estimates of available fresh water sources along possible routes into Greece show a maximum combined force of around 250,000, including the fleet, combatants, and the large number of non-combatant retainers that accompanied the king. Pease do research before putting your own personal opinion in the article. pookster11 21:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my format. The current format was my original intention. I am not that good yet with the wiki-format Ikokki 10:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The greek numbers are wrong in the mention of thermoplyae. It says 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian and 900 Laconian Helots but alot of the online articles ive read and shows ive seen (no encyclopedias around here :D) state that there was another 500 or so made up of small detachments from the other city states who wouldn't retreat. 195.171.111.194 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

also its hilarious some of the comments here. Id say more but I have a world history conference to host (by someone called pookey no less :D) is one of them. well not to be outdone, I would say more but Im halfway through curing cancer and I cant be held back by this drivel :D

New Additions

Cleaned up the section on the size of the army and army movements. No one contests the idea (except maybe Olmstead, but he's not here) that the Persian force was large; an argument that it was in fact large is unnecessary. Also, several areas that were placed in there seem more argumentative than factual; the consensus within the field is upper limit of 250,000 ground and 600 naval, and personal belief otherwise is beside the point. Wikipedia is strictly "no original research". More to come. pookster11 04:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the bibliography section deleted? pookster11 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ---

If in the English-speaking literature the number 250,000 is not contested, this does not mean that the rest of the world accepts it. After all the English language Wikipedia is supposed to be from a NEUTRAL point of view, not an english-speaking countries point of view. There is a large number of historians that do not accept the 250,000 number, some of them are even British (Munro and Macan). No original research was ever added to this page, hence the references. Personal belief is beside the point.

After all 60,000 Persians sounds like a joke. Alexander the Great drafted 50,000 from Macedonia and Thrace alone during his reign. How many did Xerxes draft from each of the 46 nations? 1,200? Why would he send an army that was smaller or slightly larger than the 100-110,000 army that the Corinthian League manage to gather in Plataea when he could draft more? And if he did, did he seriously believe he had a chance to win with a force that small?

As for the fleet that he could not trust the Ionians was a reason why he gathered a force from all of his maritime dominions. 600 had been tried twice in 492 BC and 490 BC, it wasn't enough.

I'd love to hear why the concesus in the English-speaking part of the field was that the force was that small.Ikokki 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... I think you need to look at the sources cited. Briant is French, Bengston is German, and I believe Olmstead is Belgian but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no sure why you've decided to throw a it about "english only sources", but so far the sources you've cited are all from non-historical journals and are from the 1930's. As for the historians you have cited, Munro wrote over 100 years ago now, and while Macan's edition of Herodotus was only 98 years ago, it doesn't improve. I've corrected the article to show that there is a difference in opinion over time, but the problem is you have poor sources that have since become dated. Please realize that new analysis of ancient history is published every year, and that something published 100 years ago may not have the same data available today. This is what we do in ancient historiography. Simply because someone wrote a book does not mean that that work becomes citeable for the next century, in fact in the entire field of ancient history, only Mommsen has that distinction of still being credibly cited today. Basically put you're coming at this with a lack of knowledge in historiography, and all I ask is that you please recognize this. Please don't take this as a dismissal your additions to the article and expanion of details has been excellent, despite your insistance on entering a debate about numbers into the article. Second, I'm not going to argue the numbers, I'm just reporting on the concensus that is present in the sources. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Burn, Briant, Hignett, and Green (though I think Hignett may have passed on). This isnot the place for a detailed debate about how and why the Persians deployed so many troops; no original research means you read a secondary source and put in the article what it says, not what you think makes sense. Also, nowhere does Herodotus call the alliance the "Corinthian League", stop trying to put that in the article. They are simply the Greeks or the allied Greeks; the Corinthian League occurs later under Phillip. Once again, I and I'm sure all other readers absolutely appreciate your contributions, which have definitely improved the article. Thank you. pookster11 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that historiography changes opinion over time but that does not mean that the large number estimates cited in the past do not deserve mention especially since they are accepted still in some circles. Herodotus does not call the alliance the Corinthian league but neither does any ancient historian call that of Phillip and Alexander either the Corinthian League. It is called "Οι Έλληνες", Corinthian league being a modern historical term. Since both are modern fabrications, why should the one term not be based on the other. I would love to see more arguement over the 600 fleet number, perhaps not in the main text but here is fine. Oh, I do quote from Greek language historical journals. Ikokki 09:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct that all points of view should be represented, and the larger numbers are included in the text, though if you could provide some modern sources that accept the larger figures it would be appreciated. As far as the Corinthian League, I have no problem leaving any mention of it out of the article altogether if that is the case; I do however take exception to the alliance during the second invasion being referred to as the Corinthian League, as no work to my knowledge, ancient or modern, does so. Briant's work and Burn's article in Cambridge are the best places to look for the discussion as to the size of te fleet, especially as both look at the war and the preparations and size of the army deployed from a "Persian" point of view in terms of sources. As far as Herodotus and other Greek authors as a historical source, Burn's introduction and commentary in the de Selincourt translation from Penguin is excellent, and may shed some light as to why Herodotus contains some erroneous information and numbering. J. Wells Commentary on Herodotus is good as well, though once again it is a bit dated (1923), especially in comparison to Burn. Similiar discussions can be found in Olmstead, though overall he is a poor source, as his argument is that the Persian wars with Greece were little more than border skirmishes and meant little to the Persians, something that other sources are virtually unanimous in condemning.pookster11 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pausanias

Besides what appears to be a general history book or encyclopedia, do you have any authors that pin Pausanius's removal on anything other than capitulation with Persia? pookster11 09:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add in a few hours when I go home. The history of the greek nation can be seen as the semi-official book on Greek history according to the Greeks. It was published over thirty years ago (the first 16 volumes, the last one in 2000) and thus does not include findings from that time (like Vergina, more Oxyrhynchus fragments, καταστιχά discovered in the 1980's in Macedonia written in the Macedonian dialect of Greek proving it was a dialect and not a separate language etc.) but is usually the book of reference whenever one tries to find out about Greek history, at least in Greece. It was written by the more emminent professors of the Greek University (and some non-Greek Universities) of the time and I think it is available in English since the modern Greece volumes of it are or were used as textbook in some American Universities. I will put up later more references on Pausanias and the large number hypothesis, though I cannot promise that they will be English-language references.Ikokki 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the index and bibliography but it only states the writer's name (Athena Kalogeropoulou). On her bio there are no publications exclusively for Pausanias. Also I have erred in saying that the sources that I cite are historical journals. They are not of the type of Magazines like "Science" or "Nature" are for the natural sciences. They are more like "Scientific American", magazines written by qualified experts but intended for the general public. I've added Hammond and I'll try to find other recent publications. Ikokki 16:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Xerxes left with 2/3 of his force

Where does it say that? Herodotus only says that Mardonius managed to convince Xerxes to leave him with 300,000 soldiers and depart. Anyway if 1/3 of the surviving force was left with Mardonius he fielded in Plataea what? 15-30,000 archers? Mention of this usually is enough to discredit all of the critical school. And anyway the Penios river in Thessaly is capable today of providing drinking water to 1,000,000 inhabitants plus even more for irrigating all that cotton (albeit with the use of modern technology). I am uncapable of finding the sources mentioned on why Herodotus is so wrong. My university library's English books are usually on the expression of transcriptase in the arabidiopsis genome and such, while the Herodotus edition avaible is usually the Kaktos edition with the original text on the left hand side, modern tradition on the right hand side and an introduction that says that basically Herodotus is more credible that he takes credit for.Ikokki 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See James Allen Evans, Herodotus, 1982, R. P. Lister, The Travels of Herodotus, 1979, as well as the Burn articles cited before, "Herodotus in his own Words" and "The Biographical Tradition about Herodotus", which can be found in the 1972 de Selincourt translation from Penguin books. J. Wells also has a commentary from 1923 which still has some concepts considered valid. Who wrote the introduction to your version? Anyway, I was trying to go through my notes yesterday as far as numbers at Platea and such, and have been unable to find them yet. I have a World History conference I'm presenting at this weekend, so a bit on the busy side, but when I find them I'll try to answer your questions, but please realize you have to do some of this reading on your own. pookster11 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will read these books when I get my hand on them. The full book is always better than the executive summary. The introduction was written by Odysseas Hantzopoulos, the publisher, not somebody important. The Kaktos edition however is not the finest available. It is on a soft cover, printed in very thin newspaper quality paper. It includes the ancient text (probably copied from Loeb or Cambridge or Dresden) with a modern translation that is public domain. But for 10 Euros per volume, don't expect something better. It was given away with coupons once by a newspaper. Considering that another Sunday paper has begun giving away ancient books startin with Homer, I think another edition of Herodotus will be given free along with that newspaper soon too. Ikokki 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's always Perseus (prseus.tufts.edu) as well, which has the original text (OCT version) as well as a rough translation and I believe Wells's commentary. Obviously you have modern Greek down pat, you may be able to pick up some from the Attic-Ionian dialect in Herodotus. pookster11 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We did do two years of ancient Greek in high school. Xenophon and Sophocles were relatively easy, Lysias had too many loops in his speaches, Thucydides was easy to understand but with very difficult syntax. Herodotus we did not do much, we only did Attic. Easiest of all are the fathers of the Church, since they wrote in a time when ancient Greek was dead, they are simple and expected. As for Ctesias, I know he is lost. I read the online edition of Myriobiblon at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#72 . There it says:

Read the Persica of Ctesias1 of Cnidus in twenty-three books. In the first six he treats of Assyrian affairs and of events before the foundation of the Persian empire, and only begins to treat of Persian affairs in the seventh book. In books 7-13 he gives an account of Cyrus, Cambyses, the Magian, Darius, and Xerxes, in which he differs almost entirely from Herodotus, whom he accuses of falsehood in many passages and calls an inventor of fables. Ctesias is later than Herodotus, and says that he was an eyewitness of most of what he describes, and that, where this was not the case, he obtained his information directly from Persians, and in this manner he composed his history. He not only disagrees with Herodotus, but also in some respects with Xenophon the son of Gryllus. Ctesias flourished in the time of Cyrus, son of Darius and Parysatis, brother of Artoxerxes2 who succeeded to the throne.

It doesn't have the original text though. On Herodotus though that site's text of Photius does not have something derogatory Ikokki 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow thats completely and totally wrong. First off, only fragments of Ctesias's actual text survive, and almost all of these are suspect for a variety of factors, but the one most often cited as a general condemnation is mention of a satrap of Cappadocia doing battle with the Scythians some ten years before the Persian records indicate that Cappadocia is a sepparate satrapy. Most of what you'll find as "Ctesias" is actually drawn from Photius and... well another author whose name escapes me, but both of him mock Ctesias as a liar. Ctesias was a contemporary of Herodotus, and Herodotus actually cites a text of Ctesias in some areas. That text is lost; what remains is either a different text or a corruption of an original. The article you cite here is actually based off a secondary hypothesis that there are two Ctesias-es, one slightly before and contemporary to Herodotus, and one later contemporary with Xenophon who is the source of the text with anachronisms. Most works you'll find will mention Ctesias in a historiographical section where he is dismissed as too much of an unkown to be credible. Anyway, as far as Greek, Herodotus is cake, though his word choice is a little off in some areas, and some areas are just plain ungrammatical. The Attic with Ionian forms randomly thrown in is a bit confusing at first, but you'd probably recognize it immediately. Anyway, I'm supposed to present on the Amarna Age this weekend, I gotta pull my head out of the Persian Wars. pookster11 09:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did see the English translation of Herodotus at www.bostonleadershipbuilder.com/herodotus/index.htm, made a search in all the books for Ctesias and Ktesias, and found nothing. Also the site previously mentioned whose front page is http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ is not an article but a site with various Christian texts. In the Wikipedia article on Ctesias it says he wrote down Persian history until 398 BC. Considering that Herodotus wrote his history after the peace of Callias but definitely in the 5th century BC I think he is earlier. When I go home I'll look up my encyclopedia on him. I think the other writer you are referring is either Tzetzes or Porphyrogenitos. Do focus on your conference. It's like everybody in the world has finished his job before his due time and is thus paid now to do nothing... Ikokki 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually its Diodorus. You can look up on Ctesias at http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/ctesias/ctesias_overview.html but do focus on your conference. Wikipedia classical dictionnary article also has him later than Herodotus http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Ctesias Ikokki 13:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nea Domi Encyclopedia (1993 edition though this part was probably written in the 1960's says Ctesias wrote his book in Sparta after 398 BC when he was sent there as ambassador. Ikokki 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

54 kb

After my recent additions on the Athenian counterattack it is now 54 kb long. I think by now it is fully covered, but if it needs pruning, anyone please write it here.Ikokki 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review and/or FAC push?

I think this article is of core importance to the military history of ancient Greece, and as such, should probably be brought up to FAC status. It may not be far from that now, and just require "tweaking" and minor cleanup. It certainly seems to be comprehensive, well footnoted, and well illustrated - I'm very impressed. - Vedexent 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already put it at Peer Review, the biggest stumbling block is that there aren't enough direct in-line references. I have actually started reading Herodotus on my spare time and taking notes. I intend to add a few more in line references within the week.Ikokki 22:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

This article is almost certainly above B-Class now; however, the remaining levels have more formal processes involved. I would suggest either (or both) of:

Nominating this for GA status at WP:GAC.
Nominating this for A-Class status at the (new) A-Class review process.

Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure

I would hold off on that A-Class status thing until you take care of the problems that have led me to fail this GA nom:

Tone We've got a lot of self-referentialism and frequent use of the first person plural, both of which are against policy. I will be tagging the article as such for cleanup.

Inconsistent referencing. Despite 155 footnotes, we still have some Harvard-style citations inline. Everything should be the same way.

Confusing organization The article starts off by going into great detail about the problems inherent in the historical sources. Is it too much to ask that an article about the Greco-Persian Wars start off by telling us about ... how the wars started? The historiography can come later.

Length It comes in at 72K, not the longest GA candidate I've reviewed lately but certainly up there. Is it really necessary to have such detailed discussions of which historian was right about how many ships were in the Persian fleet and why? With tables? It seems to me that these discussions are an excellent candidate for a daughter article, to be named something like Historiography of the Greco-Persian Wars, along with the general problems with the sources referred to above.
Likewise, is it really necessary to have all those pictures? The Byzantium from space image in particular is not helpful in illustrating the nearby text, and seems to have been included because somebody was trying to find a place for it.
I bet you could really trim it up.

But when you do, consider a section on the not-inconsiderable impact of the war on ancient Greek culture. There are some bits on this floating around that could be combined into a section.

Overall, this article's main problem is that it seems at time to want to be a scholarly mongraph rather than an encyclopedia article. We need to remember who we're writing for. Daniel Case 01:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the A class status was granted a few weeks ago, as can be seen in the nomination log. I would counter these things to your comments:

Thanks for your commentary on tone, I have removed the 2 impersonal "we" that were left. If the issue is see map below more neutral wording suggestions will be aprecciated.
Referencing is indeed an issue and efforts will be made to improve them
As it says at the help pages a good article must not create questions to a non-expert on what it says. It would be wrong IMO to constantly reference in the text, not just the notes, to Herodotus or Ctesias without saying first who Herodotus or Ctesias was.
An article should be of proper length to a subject and, as it is of "core importance" to Greek history it should be complete without, of course going into many details. The only battles here with information on tactics are Marathon and Prosoptis, the main articles have the details. The size of Xerxes' army is of core importance to the conflict, rather than have Niebuhr's mocking of Herodotus or Raptis' mocking of his Western critics it is best if we have their arguements here. After all we are talking about 3 paragraphs in a 50+ paragraph article.
I feel that there is an article that talks about this conflict's impact on Greek culture, the Ancient Greece article. While it is proper to mention them here the focus of this article should be on the military conflict.

Overall the comments have been helpful and will help towards FA status Ikokki 11:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Size

This article now appears to be 74Kb, which is huge. I'm willing to take the time to split the article into "First Persian War", "Second Persian War," and "Subsequent Actions," or however it should be split, with associated pages being created (and writing a few paragraph summary of the most important actions). There's no way this page should remain this long. I'd like to see people's thoughts on how the page should be divided. --Jackson 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a very bad habit in some humanities circles to end the history of the conflict with Mycale rather than the peace of Kallias. The article is definitely long, perhaps longer than is advisable (the 74 kb includes all of the references hence it is a bit illusional) but it covers the entire conflict. I believe that a summarisation of the article would be the more apropriate course, if it has to be cut. There are however some themes/principles that should be kept (in my opinion always):

* Shortening should not remove NPOV

* The debate over the size of the armies ought to be preserved, including Herodotus' bloated claim, even if in a shortened form

* The fate of the principal characters should be noted

My general idea is that it would be better to split the article in campaigns. A possible listing would be:

# Croesus' campaign

# Darius' campaigns (conquest of Lydia, Scythian campaign and Ionian revolt)

# Datis and Artaphernes' campaign

# Xerxes' campaign

# Kimon's campaigns (from Byzantium to the peace of Kallias)

These should be included in succession boxes like at the end of the articles on kings. Beyond the major conflict here we could continue in the sucsession box with other Greco-Persian conflicts like the March of the 10,000 and Agesilaus' campaign, Alexander of Feres' efforts and Philip's precampaign to end the sucsession box with Alexander the Great's campaign with which ended the Greco-Persian conflict of antiquity. Ikokki 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the splitting up the article, at the moment it seems very very long which makes it hard to check for inaccuracies, I mean c'mon the template siad "Result: Greek victory, Persian empire destroyed"..what is that all about? --Rayis 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the results section. In my opinion it is a good idea to keep it as one big article, so the reader has an overview. Size has nothing to do with checking for inaccuracies since you can always pick out small sections for this task. Wandalstouring 08:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for reducing the size is to make use of internal links. For example "The Ionian Revolt" has an internal link to another article therefore there is no need to go into such detail in this article. Lets just summarize it here and if people want the detail they have a link to it. I will proceed on this basis. It can be reverted later if there is strong objection. Xtrump 18:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus

I think Herodotus has been used directly an awfully too many times in this article. Interestingly enough, it has been used as a "primary source", even though it is well known that much of what he wrote was based on secondary sources to begin with. Secondly, when writing articles Wikipedia encourages users to use third-party sources, in order to get neutral point of view which has not been the case in this article --Rayis 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrian also relied on other sources but, thanks to the crusaders of the 4th crusade, they have not survived so he is also considered a primary source although he is a secondary source. It is true that Herodotus did not take part personally in the events, unlike Thucydides who is a bit player in his story. However he is our primary source because nothing else of great substance survived the g.d. crusaders and that damned Errico Dandolo. I do not know if you have read Herodotus but I have and I do agree with the comentators of my edition that he did try to be unbiased (but fails at times). He praises the Persians for their organisation, strength and great cavalry, the Phoenicians for their skill at sea, the Egyptians for the antiquity of its culture. Still I did try to include here Ctesias who is writing from a Persian POV, Diodorus Siculus who copied Ephorus, Thucydides who was very NPOV and Plutarch who claims that Herodotus is pro-barbarian. There has been a major effort when I expanded this article NOT to rely on primary sources. I consulted the History of the Greek nation and quite a large number of magazine article while Pookster11 consulted and added a large number of western sources. When I started sourcing sentences to primary sources last year in preparation for the A-class review I preferred to source to primary sources in order to increase availability and reliability thoug, as you can see if you read it, the primary sources are not always taken as true. Do not add a POV and factual accuracy tags, these are for articles that include wholescale nonsense. This article is accurate else it would not have passed an A-class review. Ikokki 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the point is that surely since 500 BC we have had more historians who have studied the matter and herdotous's writings and have a more neutral stand over the wars rather than an ancient Greek historian. These sources would include a much more recent findings, as well as being more neutral and factual with less exaggerations. Plus, this A-class review you speak of was some time a go, since then it has changed, and it is very long which makes it hard to check for accuracy. --Rayis 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"What is known today is derived primarily from Greek sources (mainly Herodotus)", and then using herdotous directly as reference over a 100 times as reference is the problem --Rayis 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The A-class review took place some eight months ago and the page has NOT changed significantly since. All historians are forced to depend on Herodotus as their primary source for this war. The Cambridge history of ancient Greek has 3 or 4 references to Herodotus on every page in which it talks about the conflict. Actually they copy him down to the wording. If you read the A-class review log above it is considered a plus that this page refers directly to Herodotus rather than the secondary source. Is it not better if it refers to a paragraph of Herodotus in the ref directly rather than to refer to a page in say Cambridge ancient history that gives a reference to Herodotus? Basically I don't see what the problem is to refereing to Herodotus, while he does make mistakes he is far more unbiased than Ctesias, Diodorus or Pmutarch and he does not lie on purpose. Why is it better to say that the siege of Potidea is in page 300 of Cambridge ancient history rather than book IX of Herodotus? Ikokki 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup tag is up there to signify the split proposal. 7 or 8 reviewers (I'm not sure of the number) decided that the article is accurate and NPOV. The one who disagreed (as you can see when you read the discussion) did not like the wording, not the neutrality. Do not add the tag. Try to form a concessus first. Go at the Classical Warfare Task Force page first to find more editors to back up your opinion and then come back. Ikokki 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of 175 references 98 are to Herdotus, 15 to Thucydides, 7 to Diodorus Siculus, 8 to Plutarch, 4 to Cornelius Nepos, 2 to Plato, 2 to Pausanias, 2 to Ctesias (and I think 1 more is necessary), 2 to Justin, 3 to Isocrates, Demosthenes, Cicero, Lucian, Aristotle, Lysias and Dionysios Halicarnassus have one while 34 are to modern hostorians, mostly references telling us why they think primary sources are wrong or right. I think we have a great ration here, 81% to primary sources and 19% to modern sources supporting or debunking them. Ikokki 13:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read a modern historians work, he does work with primary sources and uses secondary ones to tell whether he thinks them right or wrong, or even adds his personal opinion only. Pray tell what is factually inaccurate or what is presented differently from the article by a modern historian. If you are able to prove this point, maintain your NPOV, if not you failed to verify the reason for this tag. Wandalstouring 14:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you were responding to me or Rayis Wandalstouring but modern historians are cited in the article when it talks of the numbers of the Persian troops in Marathon, the name of the messanger of the Athenian victory, the number of the troops accompanying Xerxes and the size of the fleet accompanying him. Without direct citations they are mentioned in the text about the impact of Marathon and the conflict after Plataea (when we are thin on primary sources) and a few other cases to refute the ancient historians. Ikokki 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article looks NPOV most of the time and is cited incredibly well. The Grade A rating too only supports this thus I don't believe it has trouble with factual inaccuracies or POV problems so those tags are unneccessary. - Patman2648 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Steccchini on Xerxes' army

In response to Ikokki's message about Steccchini's view on the Persian army, I would like to highlight the following sentence from Steccchini's article:

In my opinion, the King decided to double the normal table of organization of the Persian army, which was 300,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry, plus about one non-combatant for each combatant.

It seems to me that Steccchini is arguing for 300,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry in the Persian army. What the article is discussing is the size of the Persian fighting forces. I don't see any reason why his estimates for non-combatants should be included in his estimate for the fighting forces. Jagged 85 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that the normal army was 300,000 infantry + 50,000 cavalry that he doubled for this particular campaign to 800,000. If you read all of his 8 articles he argues that there were 300,000 Persians at Plataea, which is a number accepted by a large number of historians. more specifically he says at [2] :

Mardonios had urged the King not to abandon the enterprise even after the debacle at Salamis. According to Mardonios there was a way to invade the Peloponnese even without a ferry and he argued with the King that he could proceed to that invasion the following year if he had 300,000 men, that is, half of the army that had come to Greece in 380 B.C.

Ikokki 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've searched through his articles and haven't found 800,000 mentioned anywhere. It sounds to me like he is suggesting there were 350,000 combatants and 350,000 non-combatants in the Persian army in the sentence I gave above. It's possible he might mean the number of combatants was doubled but I'm not too sure. Either way, doubling it would be 700,000, not 800,000. The second sentence you mentioned suggests 600,000 but doesn't indicate how many of them were combatants. I'm leaving his estimate between 300,000 to 700,000 for now, since it's not very clear what he meant. Jagged 85 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you do a page search you indeed won't find the 800,000 figure. If you read all 8 articles carefully (something that takes over an hour) you will come to the conclusion that he argues that Xerxes came to Greece with twice the normal size of his army and thus 600,000 infantry, 100,000 cavalry/chariots on land and 80,000 epivates (marines fighting on ships) and left 300,000 combat troops to finish the job after the battle of Salamis. Ikokki 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from [3]

The King withdrew to Asia Minor, leaving his general Mardonios in Greece. The King took with him half of the army plus a contingent under the command of Artabazos drawn from the other half.

and

The positive result of the King's retreat with the army was that he was forced to realize that he could not keep more than 300,000 landfighters in Greece, a force that the Greeks could hope to match once they were able to gather together 100,000 of their own soldiers.Ikokki 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is your figure of 800,000 fighting men at the start of the campaign 480BC denoted to Thermopylae? As most historians remark a figure much lower, from 200,000-250,000 for that battle?

Introduction

Does anyone agree the intro is much too long? My opinion it should be reduced to 2 or 3 para's and any battles etc. mentioned in the intro either deleted or shifted to the main body if not already covered there. Xtrump 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I Say the intro is far to long comared with other wiki pages

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.219.42 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I like the new form now, besides there was too much edit-war going on in the intro before because of the statistic.--Arsenous Commodore 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The current intro is quite short, let's sandbox your new intro here first. Wandalstouring 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous intro nearly covered the entire 50 years war..... then the main body covered the same ground again except in more detail. I prefer to leave it as it is now. If other editors feel something that should be in the intro is missing it can easily be added.Xtrump 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of terms?

When talking about the (Greco-)Persian Wars, scholars mean the Persian invasions in 490 and 480 under Darius and Xerxes, respectively. The Persian Wars effectively ended with the Battle of Plataea. Obviously, there were later hostilities, but historians don't include these in the Persian Wars. The official peace didn't come until (maybe) 449, but still: the proper dates are from 490-479. Think of the Korean War -- it's never been officially concluded, but is said to have run from 1950 to 1953. Most of the stuff afterward belongs in an article on the Delian League/Athenian Empire. Since the intro recognizes this, why all the post-Plataea stuff? The Peace of Callias warrants a mention, I suppose. But Eion, Byzantium, Eurymedon, etc. should go. That'd take care of the length problem.

P.S. since the Macedonians were neither Greek nor Persian, they have no place in this article. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They were GreekNW greeks Megistias (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. While it may not be NPOV, a number of reputable scholars (e.g., Ernst Badian, Thomas Martin) consider the ancient Macedonians and Greeks to be two separate cultures. The Ancient Greeks themselves didn't consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. In any event, they don't warrant mention in this article, because it's off topic. Ifnkovhg (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They were greek and we have provided the sources and the quotes for it.Megistias (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Macedonians considered themselves occasionally as a special ethnic group of the Greeks. The Greeks considered them half-Greeks and thus didn't allow them to participate in the Olympic games, except the royal house of Macedonia that was considered fully Greek. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We know from archaeologists,historians and linguists that they were as Greek as any Athenian.Megistias (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Megistias, are you conflating the issue of modern Macedonia/Greece with their ancient equivalents? This is where I'm coming from: an article titled "The Persian Wars" should only cover the events of 490-479. The Macedonians, whatever their Greekness, played no part in those events, and hence have no place in this article. All the Delian League stuff, etc. should also go. An article titled "Greco-Persian Wars" treating all conflicts that fall under that rubric strikes me as ludicrous as an article called "American-German Wars" that combines WWI & II. Anyway. I'm not hating on the Macedonians or calling them Albanians or anything like that. Ifnkovhg (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Macedonians were Greeks and played part in the Greco-Persian war.You dont belong here.Megistias (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. The war in Macedonia is connected with the war in Greece. Firstly Macedonia came under Persian rule because of this war and secondly it liberated itself because of this war. Thirdly the royal house of Macedonia was considered Greek. Fourth it was later on Macedonia that organized an official revenge for this war and conquered the Persian empire. Are this enough reasons? Wandalstouring (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And the founding of the Delian League does also qualify since part of their members were liberated from Persian rule and the Persians did conclude a peace treaty to stop these liberations of Persian provinces and towns. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, you seem reasonable. I see your point, but there is such a thing as being too comprehensive. I'll put it this way: if you ask any random Classics PhD when the Persian Wars were, 100 times out of 100, you'll get the answer, "490 to 479." The participants in this war were (essentially) the Greek city-states south of Thessaly on side, and the Persians on the other. I know about the Peace of Callias, Egypt, Alexander the Great, yadda yadda, but the Persian Wars are conventionally defined as the stuff that happened from 490 to 479. See, e.g., other encyclopedias such as World Book and Britannica.

Background on the Ionian Revolt is a necessary component of this article, and the Delian League should be referenced, but it has it's own article. We don't need all the detail here. Again, hasn't length been identified as a problem? I'm just saying. Merry Christmas. Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this short version misses important points of the whole war. Greeks crush Persian agressors. Persian despot goes home to mummy. Here is not the real reason given why the whole war stopped, more important what the total outcome was and it misses the Persian victories. The problem is that this war is usually seen as essential for the European civilization and for this reason it is reduced to a number of victories against all odds. That goes back to the renaissance and how fond educated people were of the ancient Greeks. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

removing the cleanup template

Are there any reasons why there is still a cleanup template or can I remove it and submit this article to FA review? Wandalstouring (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there wandelstouring. Yes, I can see a good reason. This article is 71kb. I would estimate about half of it repeats material from other articles, mainly on the battles themselves. This means there is inadequate cross-referencing between articles. Battle of Thermopylae is similarly swollen by discussions of forces. The discussion of forces in this article evidences considerable confusion and repetition as well as inadequate footnoting and variable formatting. I suspect the problem is, there was not room for this material in Battle of Thermopylae so people have been slipping it in here. Well, one answer is to create an article for the Persian forces and then put all the material on that in the article and take it all out from elsewhere, but that is not enough. It all needs a unifying hand to make sure the sources and topics all get considered, evaluated, formatted, woven into continuous text according to one scheme and can come of the other articles. This is a big project but two weeks ago I proposed creating an article "Persian Forces at Thermopylae." in the discussion of Battle of Thermopylae. As no one has commented at all I was going to do it today but in making preparations I saw this article. I now propose an article Persian forces in Xerxes' invasion of Greece. Since my development of the topic in Battle of Thermopylae right now is the most polished I would start with that and then work in the material that is here. I note also Military History of Iran is starting a growing section and it uses Iranian terms, which is valuable and interesting. But a search needs to be conducted for all articles that contain this material. Once that is done and this article has been reduced accordingly this entire article needs to be checked against the articles on individual battles to make sure it does not waste space repeating topics. Once the topic has been organized and the articles pared by cutting out repetition then I for one would consider taking off the template. Until then I would not. I look forward to the comments of other persons, approvals, disapprovals, suggestions, especialy other possible names for the forces article. Also take a look at Achaemenid Empire, which wants to cover the same material. I will wait a decent interval for comments before I start work on this proposal.Dave (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Place comments here:

I was invited to take a look at the article for any cleanup/copyediting issues, and have found myself launching into a minor peer review which hopefully some users will find helpful.

I would venture to say that there are still some minor issues. Most noticeably, while there are a couple of confused uses of semi-colons/comma combinations, the main issue is a extremely varied use of sentence structure. For instance, the section The Greeks, the Lydians, and the Persians' utilizes short, sharp tapping sentences which in places can be quite confusing and damn the flow of the prose, whereas Darius' Invasions uses what is, in my opinion, better sentence structure. Merging some of these sentences might be beneficial.
There are also some plural-issues, I've corrected one in the first section but there may be others.
There are also a lot of one line paragraphs which I feel should be merged.
"The numbers regarding the land and sea force Xerxes mustered for the invasion against Greece have been a subject of endless dispute." needs a citation.
"The following spring (479)," ought to be "the following spring of 479, or of 479" as it improves flow.
The sentence following the above is also ordered a bit confusingly.
Formation of the Delian League WP:MOS states we should avoid wikilinks in section headings.
Athens Fights in the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece and Athens Defeated in Egypt but Victorious in Cyprus is there a reason which there are capital Fs, Ds and Vs? In fact a large number of section headings have capitalized second words when they perhaps ought not to.
"an estimate that has been rejected by modern historians." in the discussion of force size needs a citation.
The last paragraph of this section, right above "see also" also needs a citation.

All in all, a very good article though. However, it does need a final prune, copyedit wise. Anyone with English as a first language should be able to go through and fix flow/prose issues. I'd be happy to take a crack if anyone wants me to. Regards, SGGH ^speak! 09:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

market theory

This conquest increased discontent with the Persians due to a reduction in trade because Phoenicians, who had willingly joined the Persian empire earlier^[1] took part of the market. Furthermore the fall of the Greek colony Sybaris in Southern Italy in 510 BC closed the western markets for the Ionian city states.^[2]

sorry, I couldn't find any proof of this market theory in the sources. If none else finds it, I will reword this section to reflect the sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

--Ariobarza (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)==use the talk page== please take a look at the talk page of Greco-Persian Wars and tell others when you intent to massively edit an article. I do absolutely object that you moved the table with the number of Persian troops down in the article, while the Greek tables are left in place. All the numbers are from one source and must thus be treated equally. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, since there has been a request to clean up this article and I clearly stated the purpose of my edit was to attempt to clean up I thought additional comment was redundant. As for moving the other tables please be patient. The cleanup is not complete. All tables will be treated equally and there will be NO DISCRIMANATION. Just what that form of treatment is (whether to leave the discussions, disputes etc. of all the learned scholars/historians in the article but under knew heading as I am attempting or to follow the suggestion of User:Botteville and put them in a new article. I do believe one or the other must be done. The article as originally written was much too cluttered up with detail to make good reading.Xtrump (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I've used the talk page before and never seem to get any comment, for or against my suggestions.Xtrump (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Help, Please

Could someone tell me how I could make a new article, or if that is up to Wikipedia, I want to make a new thing its called Siege of Sardis, which against the Lydian Croessus and first Emperor of Peria, Cyrus the Great. I also which I am currently doing as this is not part of the question is editing and adding new information of the Battles of Pteria, and Thymbra. And so I want to know this so I can make new articles about his forgotten battles, which can be known if someone tells me how to create an article, just the first parts and last areas of making, thanks!--Ariobarza (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)(User talk:Ariobarza) 11:48 p.m, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: Siege of Sardis. 07:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs)

The result

It is stated that "Result: Greek victory". Please explain this. Twice invasion of greece by persians ,..., and then suddenly the result... please explain me this term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.24.167 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The Persian advance was ultimately repelled. Just because someone invades multiple times doesn't mean they end up victorious. See e.g. Battle of Plataea das 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed "repelled Persian advance" to "advancess" because there were multiple as it clearly states below, I hope this isn't a problem and if so please notify me. Also by definition to repel an army military you would have had to defeated them or then they would continued forward. In the basic understanding of this, the Persians invaded several times, were repelled all these times and never conquered Greece, wouldn't this be considered a Greek victory.

The French in WW1 repelled the German armies although never invading and conquering Germany but we say the French were victorious. When Napoleon invaded Russia and was repelled we say it was a Russian victory although Russia just repelled Napoleon. When the British repelled the Spanish Armada we say its a British victory. In conclusion it is basic military sense to say "Greek victory" because it repeatedly repelled Persian advances. Also, if the cause of the war and Persian motive was "Persian expansion" and in fact by the peace treaty there was Persian withdrawal/weakening then it would again make sense for Greek victory. It seems like there is an effort to weasel out a "victory" in this article. - Patman2648 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If we take 500 BC as the beginning of the war and the peace of Kallias as the end then we do have a Greek victory, Persia shrunk somewhat. On the other hand if we take Croesus' reign as the beginning we can claim stalemate or Persian victory since the Persians at the end of the war controlled Cyprus, which they did not do so earlier. In most books I read this conflict is a Greek victory but not a decisive greek victory. Ikokki 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the result section, still keeping the stalemate to be discusse, but removing refernces to cities being invaded, etc. In the end Greece (as a whole) gained territories while Persia lost them, so I guess it qualifies as Greek Victory. Uirauna (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I also reverted you edit and call it vandalism. Before editing please ask here and wait for answer.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, I just tried to keep the result simple, showing only the changes of land ownership by Greece and Persia, instead of having a 10 line information that mentions events that happened during the war, but had no effect on its outcome. Burning a city is not a result of the war, is part of it, so it should not be mentioned. If we follow your reasoning, we should mention every battle and city burned. If you look at other war templates, it only has a brief description, such as Roman–Syrian War, Third Macedonian War, Battle of Lake Regillus, Samnite Wars, Latin War, Roman–Parthian Wars, Roman–Persian Wars (if you need more examples, I can show them). So, my suggestion is, keep "Result: Stalemate", and add "Territorial Changes: Persia loses control over the western coast of Asia Minor but keeps Cyprus and Egypt", this way we keep it simple, without bloating the article. What do you think? If you dont agree, please make a suggestion for the territorial changes so we can reach an agreement. And other editors, please say what you think. Uirauna (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree?? Uirauna (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I possible even wrote that part of the article.

I modified it. That Athens and Eretria were razed is significant because this was the Persian objective of the wars right from the start. All other destruction is just non-noteable. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wandalstouring, how about we put it under "Territorial Changes"? Uirauna (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the stalemate result seems not quite clear to me as I've read quite the opposite. Many sources, including Britannica and Hutchinson Encyclopedia, point to Greek victory even if the Peace of Callias is questioned. This is confirmed by secondary source on Herodotus, The Cambridge companion to Herodotus. Brandt 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Victory does not mean conquest but victorious conclusion of one's ends. If one side is defending and another ine attacking, then if the attacker is repelled victory is awarded to the defender. It can be decisive, marginal but still a victory. Thus, there is no other way to describe the outcome of the Persian Wars (both of them) of classical Greece than a Greek victory. "Stalemate" is really a funny word to use here and militarily wrong. Should you wish to describe other campaigns of the Persians against Greek states (such as the Ionian cities, Cyprus and Macedonia), a Persian victory would of course be declared, BUT if talking about the 1st and 2nd Persian Wars, as are the Persian invasions ending in Marathon and Plataeai respectively, then the only outcome can be "Greek victory". GK1973 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary Style

This article seems seriously unwieldy to me. There is far too much specific information about some of the battles, which would be better covered in the articles for the battles themselves. The enormous discussion of numbers doesn't belong here, and again, should accompany the articles of the battles, or perhaps should be placed in specific articles on the different campaigns.

I propose that this article be reduced in size, simplified and cleaned-up, as per WP:SS, with new articles split off to cover the major campaigns. These campaign articles will be a suitable place for discussion of numbers for each campaign, and be a more suitable place to discuss in-depth the events of each campaign.

In the Greco-Persian Wars campaign box, there are also some battles with no wikipedia article (presumably since very little is known about them). These can also be described within the new campaign-specific articles, thus avoiding producing a series of new stub articles; the major battles will of course retain their main articles.

If no-one onjects to this, I will proceed with this plan shortly. Cheers MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. However, you should limit yourself to moving content first, no deletions. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will set up the new articles first; if people are happy with them, then this article can be pruned back as necessary.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New title

the current title greco-persian wars is a term which does not reflect 1. the origin of the wars, 2. the name used by others. also 1. greek themselves, e.g. herodotus in his book uses "persian wars" and the article says Herodotus is the main source for this conflict (Bust at the Stoa of Attalus), and 2. many of the history books published recently use the term "persian wars". e.g many times in cambridge history of greek and roman warfare. so what about moving the page to persian wars? we can have greco-persian wars redirected to that (but not vise versa). --Xashaiar (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This move needs to be backed up by more sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

how many sources are needed? I will list them here.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this page used to be called Persian Wars, but was moved because there are several wars that might be called "Persian". GPW is far less ambiguous than just "Persian Wars". Also, you need consensus from other editors that the move should go ahead, not just a list of sources. There are plenty of books which call these conflicts the "Greco-Persian Wars". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then why not Perso-Greek wars?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's WP:OR and therefore forbidden unless you provide sources calling it that way. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

what OR? the following books call it perso-greek wars and the books call it persian-greek wars. So maybe Persian-Greek wars (=perso-greek wars) are acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On English-language Wikipedia, the article titles have to reflect what most English speakers would recognise. On that basis, it's either Persian Wars (which I admit a lot of sources do call it) or Greco-Persian Wars. I favour Greco-Persian Wars because it is less ambiguous. I could be persuaded otherwise, if the consensus is for change. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

we should either call it Persian and Greek wars or again persian wars.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Persian and Greek Wars" sounds good. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There are books that call it "Persian Greek wars", but the number of books that call it "greco-persian wars" is overwhelmingly larger (639 on google book search, against 100), I think we should keep it the way it is, unless there is a real reason to change it, or a vote is called. Uirauna (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are both large numbers. Which materials are more academic? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from academic book the history books by Ancient Greek works (I gave link to it in my earlier comments) do not call these wars "Greco-Persian wars". Also this book with its few first pages available here (page 7) explains this.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Naming. There are clear rules for chosing an article name and so far none has made a valid argument against the current title. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(Moving back over this side) Google books is not a reliable academic source. You can't simply google a phrase and say "This appears in more books, therefore it should be the title". The only appropriate way to decide on the title for this article is to ask what the English-language (this being the English language wikipedia) scholars who work on these wars call them. Of the books specifically written about these wars in the last century

Hignett (1963) calls them the "Persian Wars"

Green (1970) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"

Burn (1984) calls them the "Persian Wars"

Lazenby (1993) calls them the "Persian Wars"

De Souza (2003) calls them the "Greek & Persian Wars"

Holland (2005) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"

Perso-Greek Wars and Persian-Greek Wars are not used, and should not be considered. As far as I can see, the only options are the current title or "Persian Wars". But, as has already been pointed out, Persian Wars is ambiguous, and presents the wars from a Greek point of view. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And who told you to pick the worst sources up? You seem to have a bit of problem in understanding the meaning of sources (RS & V) and keeping (NPOV). Any term like "greco-Persian wars" is from european point of view therefore should be replaced by neutral ones. This is explained in the link I posted here. If you read a bit from Wikipedia help pages you see that a NPOV should be follwed no matter how well sourced are the POV's. Is that clear or should I use simlper language? --Xashaiar (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so the mask slips and reveals you as a POV pusher. You have been outvoted and you have little evidence to support your claims, so you resort to insulting me. Well, now I'm convinced by your arguments! Please explain to me:

a) In what way Greco-Persian Wars is POV?

b) In what way Persian-Greek Wars would be a more neutral POV?!?

c) Which sources you would like me to use? Am I only allowed to use sources that support your POV??

And please, use as "simlper" language as you like. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised by your questions. Did you read my previous comments? I am tired of repeating. I gave my reasoning and my sources. They all all academic or else Greek-fictional (the only sources used). --Xashaiar (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:Naming and WP:Reliable sources and use it for your argumentation. Anything else isn't valid and can be completely disregarded like User:Xashaiar's statement above. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

amazing! some people will find ethnic pride even in the naming of wiki articles: "not greco-persian, perso-greek or persian. 85.74.233.181 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes even more interesting is the similarity between the edits/edit summary of User:85.74.233.181 and someone else (a newcomer anyway)!--Xashaiar (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you making WP:PUPPET accusations Xashaiar? If you are, against who and based on what evidence? If not keep your comments to yourself and behave. This is not a forum. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I would like to revert this edit. The info "The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." as well as "result=Stalemate" were sourced and quite well-known statements. It suddenly changed to something unpopular. The official end also was by a "peace treaty". Any objection? The point on territory seems to me unjustified, as subjugating Macedon/Ionia was itself the result of parts of "Greco-Persian Wars", so loosing it again in later conflicts in the same GPW would be called "Stalemate". --Xashaiar (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that there has been much debate as to the content of the infobox, and I am not seeking to cause any antagonism. In response to your four points, I would say:

"The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." — whilst this is true, it was only one incident in a very long conflict. I don't think the infobox should mention specific events in the war - if the reader wants to know what happened, they can actually read the article. There's no point in trying to list all the events of the war (I did actually try this, and it made the infobox look ridiculous).
Stalemate — I would be prepared to concede this point. I think that the loss of Ionia makes this not a stalemate, but the way the conflict petered out is itself more suggestive of a stalemate.
Treaty — this should definitely not be mentioned in the infobox, since both modern and ancient opinion are divided on whether it was real (this is now discussed further in the article). To present it in the infobox makes it look like a fact, when it is not. Besides which, the terms of the alleged treaty would undermine your suggestion that it was a stalemate, since they are harsh on Persia.
Territory — I didn't mention Macedon. I agree that the gain and loss of Macedon would be a stalemate. However, Thrace was part of the Persian empire from 513 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC; similarly, Ionia was part of the Persian empire from ca. 550 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC. Persia thus lost control of these regions during the conflict. That is why I don't think this conflict was a stalemate, but as I said above, I'm prepared to concede this point.

In short, I will change the result to stalemate, but leave the rest as it is. I hope you will find this formulation acceptable, based on my reasoning. If not, I am happy to discuss further. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but I also think "stalemate" is off the mark. Look at the perspective of the Persian Empire's goals: to absorb not only the Ionian Greek city-states, but those in the Aegean and on the mainland, as well. They failed. Persia's only real victory came in Egypt in 454. Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as "Xexes" is concerned, he did what he really wanted. nothing more, nothing less.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ. Another true believer. You're patently wrong. Xerxes wanted to establish satrapies throughout Greece and collect tribute. He failed. They did sack Athens. Congratulations on that. But Xerxes got spanked. Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends who is saying what. Xerxes himself stated and in his swearword he said "I am going to punish them". Nothing like adding an extra satrap to Achaemenid as the empire had already reached the exact borders Darius wanted. I will never believe that Achaemenids ever wanted to expand further.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we attempt to draw a conclusion as to the outcome of any ONE GrecoPersian war, our task would be easy. Yet, even mentioning a final outcome is absurd when we are talking about the totality of any war between the Persians and the Greeks. Of course the Persians successfully subjugated Ionia and Macedon for decades, even more than a century. They subjugated Cyprus for even longer as well as countless Greek cities in Pontus, Ciicia, Lydia, Mysia etc. Of course the Greeks successfully beat both massive attempts of the Achaemenids to subjugate Greece (as a geographical entity) and of course Alexander destroyed the Empire. It all boils down to what we want to include in this article. If this article is about all Greco-Persian wars then no outcome should be given. If it is only about the 2 Persian Wars then Greek victory is the only acceptable outcome. So, we have to decide on the focus. According to this decision, more info should be given on the agreed conflicts. As to Xerxes' goals, these were clearly the subjugation of mainland Greece, as is adequately stated by all historians who wrote about the matter. His goal was as much to punish the Greeks as was Alexander's goal some time later... Alexander conquered lands as Xerxes demanded (earth and water) before him. It is absurd to claim that his expedition to Greece was successful because he sacked Athens... So, choose what this article is about and then write the appropriate outcome or none at all! GK1973 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, be a bit more careful with your statements. There were several Persian kings launching campaigns. Did they all have the same scope? Did they all have one defined scope from the start. Do we have any other sources than Greek aristocrats? How far were these Greek sources able to reflect Persian motives? Did you find any scholarly work about the Greco-Persian Wars that includes Alexander as part of the struggle? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Result again

Judging by the article's history, there is a consensus on Greek defensive victory since AT LEAST December 2009. In addition to multiply sources here is what Encarta 2003 writes in the relevant article: The outcome of the wars shifted the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians to the Greeks... The Persians were never again able to threaten another invasion. The Greeks moved to the offensive and over the next decades liberated the islands of the Aegean and large areas along the western and northern coasts from Persian control. The most important direct result of the wars was to establish Athens as the dominant Greek naval power. We don't need a new lame edit war on that. Brand[t] 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2. And Encarta is anything but what we are allowed to use. 1. Do not do OR as "shifted the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians to the Greeks" is not a "victory" in any sense. Xashaiar (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? The scholar consensus is Greek victory, what you do is synthesis. Give me some reliable sources that indicate a stalemate result, otherwise refrain from disrupting the article. Brand[t] 08:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user Indeed it was "Greek defensive victory" but just for 480-479 BC period, so you can put that result for Second Persian Invasion, but not at global war which lasted till 450/449 BC. Remember that Greek forces invaded Cyprus and Egypt, but their expedition was disaster. You should also notice that Encarta speaks just about 480-479 BC period, not after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.134.114 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In a defensive war, repulsing the aggresor is universally considered a victory and NOT stalemate. Especially when the defender pushes forward into the aggresor's territory... It is really unacademic to describe the result as a stalemate and unsupported by ALL academic sources. I really do not understand why a Persian defeat is in anyway considered by some as national shame. The Greeks have been beaten multiple times too by the Persians in Ionia and Cyprus, in Macedonia and Thrace, but these engagements are not part of what is commonly known the Persian Wars... GK1973 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GK1973 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I still wonder why Xashaiar mentions OR when the article itself explains the result. The wars have a definite time span and the final stage, the Wars of the Delian League, were victorious for Greeks. This is not a place for Pan-Iranist notions. Even if there are some sources favouring the stalemate outcome, that would be a minority view per WP:UNDUE. Brand[t] 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The key point is the policy wp:nor which you fail to respect. Your comment "This is not a place for Pan-Iranist notions" is not fine, but it is good to remember that 1. do read wo:battle 2. should I respond to you? Xashaiar (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the one conducting an OR here is you. GK1973 explained the result a few strings above. A defensive victory is a more narrow term than victory, it means that Greece scored a victory as defending side, in response to external circumstances. Above I have asked you for some sources, which claim a stalemate result, but currently see nothing. Brand[t] 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Xashaiar is partly correct. The term "defensive victory" is indeed awkward. We should substitute it with plain "victory". Maybe Xashaiar could set up some new articles on the submission of Macedonia, Ionia and Cyprus to the Persians and there we could as straightforwardly state a Persian victory... GK1973 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since I see that no sources have been presented as required, I will start by giving one (John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. More can be cited, but now, I see the burden of source production shifted. GK1973 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

More modern sources (I guess ancient ones will justly be seen as biased...)

1. Emma Bridges, Edith Hall and P.J. Rhodes, Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars (Antiquity to the Third Millennium), p.123 "The responsibility of the Greek victory over Persia becomes a much contested question of the 4th century."
(not contested in its essence as to the auestion of who was responsible for it. Was it the Athenians, the Spartans or another Greek state?)
2. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare, p.249 "The Greek victory stemmed the tide of Persian conquest and ushered the great days of Classical Greece"
(this is about the outcome of the totality of the Persian Wars. Not about a battle or a single campaign)

and many more... GK1973 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to go into these sources but honestly the result was "Macedon, Thrace and Ionia gain independence from Persia" (another word for this is Stalemate) because these wars started with "taking those greek city states under Achaemenid rule" and then ended with "getting the independent back". Note that all of these are called Greco-Persian wars and not only the second part "struggle of Greeks for independence". You seem not to understand these. Xashaiar (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should go into these sources and present more supporting your proposal. Your understanding of the word "stalemate" is unusual, yet this is why we resort to sources when we have a problem achieving consensus. Whenever there is war, victory is not measured by territorial gains only, although in this situation even this is in favor of a Greek victory. The Vietnam War was a North Vietnamese victory and the North Vietnamese just made the US withdraw and win a civil war. The Gulf War was a coalition victory, yet the coalition did not gain lands, nor did Iraq lose any (Kuwait was not annexed by Iraq)... Victory is all about the end result. And the end result here was the liberation of many Persian dependencies and two Persian invasions repulsed. The fact that the Greeks did not push into Persia has nothing to do with a stalemate. The Persians lost the wars and signed a treaty which surrendered Persian rights to the Greeks. That is all. That in the interim there had been Persian victories is an indisputable fact, but we are only occupying ourselves here with the end result.

And as far as your arguments regarding the "territorial gains" (I do think of them as irrelevant, but I will answer to them also), if we place the Ionian revolt in the Persian Wars as we do in this article, then the war started with the revolt of the Ionian states under Achaemenid rule. This means that the war started wit the Ionian states being Persian dependencies, so the end result of their independence was a territorial loss. Macedonia did not even revolt, so this is an indisputable loss as is the case with Thrace. So, the war actually established the victory conditions set by the Ionians. Even if we did not count Ionia as a part of the Persian wars, the end result remains territorial loss for the Persian Empire, since the Ionian revolt was crushed before the first invasion. GK1973 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user You're talking about period 480-479 BC, but it was fought till 449 BC. War was fought in Mainland Greece, Thrace, Aegean Islands, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Egypt. Delian League attempted to take control of Egypt, Cyprus and southern Asia Minor, but they also failed. So it's obivusly - stalemate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.134.114 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously an OR, as far as I know the stalemate result is not even a fringe theory to mention per WP:FRINGE. Brand[t] 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user If you are talking about Encarta, I should remind you that Encarta article is talking mostly about Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BC) including first Datis' & Artaphrenes' invasion (490 BC), not about Greco-Persian Wars in global (499-449 BC). Remember citation: The Greeks moved to the offensive and over the next decades liberated the islands of the Aegean and large areas along the western and northern coasts from Persian control.? They talked about Delian League wars, which means their article refers just to Darius & Xerxes expeditions is Greece, not after 479 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the Delian league? Why is the outcome of its exploits compared with the starting point of the war (before or after the Ionian Revolt) a stalemate? Your deductions are indeed peculiar apart from unsupported... Things are as simple as I presented them above. The Greeks of Ionia wanted ro free themselves... they did it. The Persians invaded Greece twice, they were bloodily repulsed (after having some temporary successes - Thermopylae, sacking of Athens etc), the Macedonians stopped being vassals, the Thracians too, the Greeks brought the war over to Asia, they again beat the Persians in some battles, lost (or didn't give) some others, a peace was at last accepted in which the Persians gave up many rights. So, please.. stop this little crusade, unless you have more compelling arguments than just a question on why the Greeks did not conquer Persia if they were truly victorious... By the way, editing as an IP is not "polite"... GK1973 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user Seems like you're not much into the issue... First Ionians started their revolt by support with Athens and Eretria, but they were badly beaten. After Persians regain it's sovereignty over Ionia, Persian general Mardonius allowed Ionians to establish democracy so Ionians changed their side and participated on Persian side during Xerxes invasion. When Darius sent his satraps Datis and Artaphrenes with their regional army from Asia Minor to punish Athens and Eretria, they did razed Eretria but Athenians defeated them at Marathon. Note: it wasn't Persian man army but regional satrap force, so even term "invasion" is quite nonsense. Then Xerxes personally led main Persian army which razed Athens, and then gone back to Asia, leaving again regional army which was beaten at Platea year later. Persians weren't able to strike again due to revolts in Babylonia, Egypt and India, but they still repelled Greek armies at Cyprus and Egypt (siege of Memphis). So, Persians didn't succeeded in Europe and Aegean Sea, and Greeks didn't succeeded in Africa and Eastern Mediterranean. Result - stalemate. I didn't make profile, but it isn't "polite" from you as Greek to be so one-sided (I'm not Greek or Persian, or even related). All issue about the result began with Encarta article which refers to wrong period (Xerxes invasion only). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I had enough with your source distortion: Britannica, which you inserted to confirm alleged stalemate result, says: Although the Persian empire was at the peak of its strength, the collective defense mounted by the Greeks overcame seemingly impossible odds and even succeeded in liberating Greek city-states on the fringe of Persia itself. The Greek triumph ensured the survival of Greek culture and political structures long after the demise of the Persian empire. Brand[t] 07:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user That is about Xerxes' Second Persian invasion of Greece, but not about whole war. Please notice the last sentence which refers to period till 449 BC: Although the Persian invasion was ended by the battles at Plataea and Mycale, fighting between Greece and Persia continued for another 30 years. Led by the Athenians, the newly formed Delian League went on the offensive to free the Ionian city-states on the Anatolian coast. The league had mixed success, and in 449 bc the Peace of Callias finally ended the hostilities between Athens and its allies and Persia. LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have to repost... SOURCES

1. John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. More can be cited, but now, I see the burden of source production shifted.

2. Emma Bridges, Edith Hall and P.J. Rhodes, Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars (Antiquity to the Third Millennium), p.123 "The responsibility of the Greek victory over Persia becomes a much contested question of the 4th century."
(not contested in its essence as to the auestion of who was responsible for it. Was it the Athenians, the Spartans or another Greek state?)

3. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare, p.249 "The Greek victory stemmed the tide of Persian conquest and ushered the great days of Classical Greece"
(this is about the outcome of the totality of the Persian Wars. Not about a battle or a single campaign)

and many more... (I will bring more forward if there is any need...) So, any sources as to this famed "stalemate"? GK1973 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Britannica, the time range in corresponding article about GPW is roughly the same (492–449 BC), while the Second Persian invasion is of 480-479 BC. So the outcome, described in Britannica, is still valid. The continued fight for another 30 years and Delian League's mixed success do not indicate a stalemate, such conclusion is ORish and I believe that Britannica nowhere in its article uses that term and that would naturally contradict Britannica's own notion above about Greek victory. Brand[t] 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user ~~You're or a liar or you don't understand chronology.~~

Anyone can open Hutchinson Dictionary on Googlebooks (page 249.) and see this first sentence: Series of conflicts between Greece and Persia 499-479 BC. Also; article is finishing with battle of Platea (479 BC). Perhaps you didn't noticed, but this Wikipedia article is about 499-449 BC period. I'll also check your first two sources, because seems like you extract them from wrong context.

~~Sources about stalemate: I put relevant link from encyclopedia Britannica, which is written and reviewed by dozens of academic scholars and clearly refers to whole period (till 449 BC).~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Greco-Persian wars (according to contemporary and Britannica's chronology) end in 449 BC when Delian League was defeated on east. This is what Britannica says: League policy entered a new phase as relations between Athens and Sparta broke down in 461. The Athenians committed themselves to war with the Peloponnesian League (460–446), at the same time launching a large-scale eastern offensive that attempted to secure control of Cyprus, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean. While the Athenians and allies were campaigning successfully against the Spartans, subjugating Aegina, Boeotia, and central Greece, further expansion was checked when the league fleet was virtually destroyed in (Persian) Egypt. Fearing the Persians would mount an offensive following such a naval defeat, the Athenians transferred the league treasury to Athens (454). Within the next five years, with the resolution of difficulties with Sparta (five-year truce, 451) and Persia (Peace of Callias, c. 449/448), the league became an acknowledged Athenian empire.

I don't think this is a good idea to disrupt the good article, honestly your bold text is nothing but original research and synthesis. Again, your Britannica link also supports the victory result, not the draw. GPW's lead meanwhile mentions the expulsion of the remaining Persian garrisons from Europe, while the article's body says, that the wars of the Delian League shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks. Not a single source, that I met, mentions a stalemate. Maybe your Hutchinson Dictionary? The Persians did not achieve their goal in subjugating Greece, the Greeks themselves managed to launch a counter-attack. The existence of the peace treaty is also challenged, but even if the treaty did exist, its terms were humiliating for Persia, as the article says. Brand[t] 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user Well you have to notice in older changes that during last three years result was "Stalemate", referring to Peace of Callias. There were always been few Greek nationalists or 300 movie fans who tried to change it in favor of Greece, but always unsuccessfully. This article was awarded with Good Article status when there was a impartially result - "Stalemate", not "Greek victory" or anything similar. By changing it's result, article becomes one-sided so GA-status actually loses itself. As I said at least 10 times before, Britannica refers to Second Persian invasion, and after it mentions "30 years of later conflicts". Delian League shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks shortly after 479 BC (second invasion), but it was changed in 449 BC when their fleet at Cyprus and garrisons in Egypt were destroyed (other Britannica link about Delian League which I cited). I put link of Hutchinson Dictionary because GK1973 refers to it saying it's about whole war (499-449 BC) but text is explicitly talking about conflicts till 479 BC. All sources which mention "Greek victory" refers to Second Persian invasion of Greece (even this internal wiki article), but can you name me just one which mention "Greek victory" in 449 BC? Of course not. It isn't for us to resolve which was Persian goals; you said it was "attempt to conquer Greece", and I can say it was Persian expedition to punish Athens (which they actually succeeded) for Ionian revolt support - so I can even name second invasion as "Persian victory". But, it is irrelevant personal conclusion, like your is. Again, you're referring to Greek counter-attack which lasted till 449 BC and their defeat in Eastern Mediterranean. If there was treaty or not, fact is that Athens gone home after Cimon died (or being killed) at Salamis on Cyprus. Talking about "humiliating treaty for Persia" is personal conclusion of some unknown Wiki editor, and there is no any relevant source which calls it "humiliating". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hutchinson Dictionary just applies another dating, the article is the same as could be seen. We are not speaking about impartiality, but factual accuracy. In addition to the aforementioned sources, one may add The Cambridge companion to Herodotus, The encyclopedia of warfare: from earliest time to the present day, AncientGreece.com, "The Status of Ancient Military History: Traditional Work, Recent Research, and On-going Controversies" and Philip De Souza. The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 B.C., Taylor & Francis, 2003, p. 70 (League victory ended the Persian threat to the mainland of Greece). As far as I can see, Encyclopedia Iranica somehow does not have an article on GPW, but even Ancient Persia.com writes: Although a treaty was not signed until 30 years later, the threat of Persian domination was ended. The stalemate result remains unsourced, being a manifest synthesis, not even a fringe theory from at least one scholar. Brand[t] 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see it's completely useless to talk with you because despite all my explanation you're still focused on the wrong chronological period. Can you understand that periods till 479 and 449 can not be the same? It's like talking about World War 2 and apply "Hitler's victory" for period till 1941. Nonsense.

1. Again... When do we place the commencement of the Persian Wars?

A. At the moment the Ionians rebelled...

Ionia was still a part of the Persian Empire. The rebellion was crushed by the Persians, the lands remained under Persian rule, thus after any end of hostilities the freedom gained by the Ionians is surely a major Persian setback. They lost control over Ionia.

B. At the moment before the 1st Persian invasion.

Ionia was again a part of the Persian Empire, its rebellion having been crushed some years ago. After the end of the wars, Ionia had gained its freedom. Again, a Persian setback and territorial loss.

Both possible starting points (in this article we are supposed to support A.) have Ionia being a part of the Persian Empire. Would you consider calling a successful rebellion a "stalemate", because you would choose an argument like "since the rebelled lands were not a part of the Persian Empire when they declared independence and also were not a part of the Persian Empire at the end of the rebellion, so we have no territorial exchange and so the result can only be a "stalemate"??????

So, whatever your objections, arguments etc, the Persians did lose Ionia...

2. Was Ionia the only Persian territorial loss?

No... They also lost Thrace (any objections, Thrace was ruled by the Persians before, during and after the Ionian rebellion but not after the Persian Wars...), Macedonia (again a dependency of Persia before, during and after the Ionian revolt but not after the Persian Wars). So.., two populous and large provinces were also lost regardless of how you choose to interpret the Ionian revolt discussed above.

3. Were the Greeks also checked after the last Persian invasion?

The Greeks tried to assist Greek Cyprus and Egypt as allies, sent some contingents had some successes and some failures. They did not succeed in driving the Persians out of those places. So, yes, the Greek endeavors were checked and the Persian Empire did not perish... I guess that would they have succeeded in that, we would call the Greek victory a decisive one...

4. How did the hostilities end ?

Both parties came to an agreement, which, again regardless whether it was the peace of Callias or not and regardless of its exact content, is sure to have contained Persian rights revoked or taken. It also established Persia's new borders and loss of control over its European dominions and Ionia.

5. Conclusions

However you might approach the subject, the Persians did lose control over part of their Empire due to the Persian Wars. They also were repelled twice from Greece and retained dominion over Cyprus and Egypt despite Greek intervention (so they repelled the invading Greeks from Cyprus and Egypt). So, militarily they had some victories and some defeats, YET territorially they lost. This constitutes a Greek victory, yet NOT a decisive one. These are the reasons why most (if not all) sources and academians treat the outcome of this war as a Greek victory. References were given above and more an of course be given if necessary. GK1973 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Eddie Kido > persians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.194.241 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) The following comments are by a block-evading user :1. Are you talking that all war was only about Ionia? It was expedition of punishing Athens and Etetria for suport of Ionian revolt, so main goals were achieved - both polises were razed. Talking about Ionia, I have to remember you that Persians got it back after Peace of Antalcidas.

2. I have to remember you that Greco-Persian wars was fought mostly by Persia and Athens, and both Macedonia and Thrace participated on Persian side during Xerxes' invasion. Also, did Athens (or any former Persian enemy) gain Macedonia or Thrace? No they didn't. So it's irrelevant in context of Greco-Persian wars.
~~3. Indeed, Greeks started to aid rebellions in Persia, but they were repelled from both Egypt and Cyprus.~~
~~4. Continuous hostilities ended in 449 BC when Persia also began to aid Spartans against Delian League in First Peloponnesian War, so Athens were forced to sign Peace of Callias.~~

5. Persia left Athens vs. Sparta fighting in First Peloponnesian, Peloponnesian and Corinthian War, after which they gained Ionia and all lost territories after Peace of Antalcidas. Which means - you can not speak about "Persian territorial losses "especially in 449 BC when there was First Peloponnesian War, in which Athens lost many of it's teritories in favor of Persian-sided Sparta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.31.55 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It does not matter what happened after the peace of Antalcides for this was much much later... If we start talking about future engagements, then I guess that we will start discussing Alexander and Heraclius.... As far as Ionia, Thrace and Macedonia are concerned, these were Persian losses in this war however you approach it. And yes, it does matter. First, because losses are not only these gained by the enemy and secondly, because the Macedonians are counted among the Greeks and because both Macedonia and Thrace were filled with Greek cities which were also Persian dependencies as were those in Ionia. So, their loss to Persia is not at all irrelevant, especially when they were lost because of this war... Athens was sacked, so was Sardis, battles were fought, won and lost, but we are talking about the final outcome, what both sides won or lost after the last day we consider the end of the Persian Wars in this article.

2. The Greco-Persian wars were NOT fought principally by Athens.. The Lacedaemonians have an equally strong presence, as have many other Greek states (fighting for or against the Persians, rebelling and being crushed etc). About Macedonia and Thrace see above (1.).

3. Yes... I agreed to that.

4. And the peace signed was the formal acceptance of Persian losses. They did not get back sovereignty over Ionia, they accepted their independence, nor did Greeks lose any trade rights, while Persians did...

5. AFTER... so, this is what is irrelevant in this article.... and some years later, Alexander conquered the totality of the Persian Empire, but this is also not counted among the Persian Wars according to this article... So, this should be a matter in the respective article, not here (can be mentioned but has no weight regarding the outcome of this specific war...) GK1973 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing.. if you are to really participate in WP, could you set up a profile? It is always awkward to debate with an IP. I really do not know if you are the same person making comments above or not... GK1973 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user :1. & 5. Actually, we can't discuss about Alexander because his Macedonia along with Ionia participated at Persian side during Xerxes' invasion. Yes, Macedonia and Ionia become independent after Persian invasion, but it's irrelevant because they were Persian allies, and later they weren't part of Athenian or Spartan colonies.

~~2. Yes, both Athens and Sparta rejected Persian peace offer, so Persians razed Athens and annihilated Spartan king Leonidas and his royal guard at Thermopylae.~~
~~3. I'm glad to hear that, because without that fact we could talk about Athenian/Delian victory.~~
~~4. I explained you about Ionia at (1.), and about peace: Persians agreed not to get involve in Aegean Sea, while Greeks agreed not to involve in Eastern Mediterranean Sea.~~

~~X. Did you noticed that result was "Stalemate" for more then two years until you came? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.146.167 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)~~

1. It is not irrelevant, because they were Persian dependencies, not just allies and Persian influence/dominion over them ceased because of the Persian Wars. + The war was not between the Spartans and the Athenians and the Persians but between the Greeks and the Persians and this is why the war is called Graeco-Persian and not Athenian-Persian or anything else... The Greek cities of Thrace and Macedon were as involved as any other Greek city. I do not understand your use of the word "colonies", but anyways, the loss of these dominions count towards the war result.

2. ? This has nothing to do with the outcome of the war... Else Napoleon also defeated the Russians since he occupied flaming Moscow... Nor does Leonidas' death mean that the Sparans or the Greeks were defeated. they lost the battle, but they won the war.

3. I have no problm in admitting the historical truth as perceived by the academic community.

4. You did not explain anything like that, nor is this explanation enough. These were absolutely NOT the terms. The terms included the acknowledgement of the independence of Persian dependencies, not just trade rights. And of course, Greek trade rights were not affected as were Persian rights. The Greeks kept on trading in Eastern Mediterranean.

Again... PLEASE... make yourself an account. And as far as the result is concerned, the debate was on long before I involved myself with this article and of course this has nothing to do with academic approach. Yet, you choose to not answer my points. If you are ging to pursue this further I would recommend

A. making an account

B. answer all points and not just the ones you feel more comfortable with.

GK1973 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user :1. It is relevant, because Macedonia, Ionia, Caria and other polises or states participated on Persian side by their own will. War is called "Greco-Persian" because leader on one side was Greek alliance of Athens & Sparta, and Persia was leader of opposite side. It does not mean ALL Greeks participated on Atenian-Spartan side.

2. Again absolute nonsense. Sparta won the war? By 449 BC they were still fighting against Athens, mostly by terrible defeats. It's irrelevant to compare it with Napoleonic Wars because Napoleon's goal was to conquer, not punish Russians.
~~3. Neither do I, but I already explained you that you were referring to wrong period of time.~~
4. This is what Peace of Callias article says: The Peace of Callias gave autonomy to the Ionian states in Asia Minor, prohibited the establishment of Persian satrapies elsewhere on the Aegean coast, and prohibited Persian ships from the Aegean. Athens also agreed not to interfere with Persia's possessions in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Libya or Egypt (Athens had recently lost a fleet aiding an Egyptian revolt against Persia). So you're obviously wrong.
5. I suggest you again to accept terms which was previously agreed by all Wikipedia editors. I'll repeat, result was conventionally accepted as stalemate until you come. Try to contact main editors who have made page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.13.153 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user P.S. Wait until MinisterForBadTimes come and judge what's relevant, I noticed that he made all this article and it was rewarded as part of "Good Articles" series - one of criteria for that status is Neutral Point of View, which you ruined by reverting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.13.153 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again...

1. The war was not between Sparta-Athens and the Persians but between all Greeks and the Persians. The war "started" because the Ionians rebelled and Macedonia and Thrace were far from willing allies of the Persians as is stated in all sources. Herodot is very clear on the sentiments of the Macedonians when he has Alexander I killing Persian envoys, warning the Greek army at Plateae etc and the same applies to the Greek states of Thrace and Macedonia. The war was between ALL Greeks and the Persians and those Greeks who WILLINGLY went to the Persian side (as did the Thebans) were branded for many centuries to come by the rest of Greece. What you say has no logic, for even if we accept that Sparta and Athens provided leadership, most Greek states actively participated in the war. Even the non Greek Thracians "willingly" attacked the Persian army as it was withdrawing from Greece.

2. Absolute nonsense. If the goal of the Persians had been the sacking of Athens, then they would not have given the battle of Salamis nor the one at Plataea. Their goal was to annex Greece as is clearly attested. I wonder why the King of Asia demanded "earth and water" from the Spartans, the Atheneans and the other Greeks... He came and was repulsed... he lost the war and with it many Persian dependencies.

3. What wrong time? What are you talking about?

4. Even what you admit to be the peace of Callias CLEARLY shows that the Greeks had the upper hand in the treaty... They gained independence for Ionia, trade rights and they gave.... PEACE... Is this a treaty of a "stalemate"????? Please....

5. The result was not accepted but many times disputed. I did not take part in these conversations and I was not the one who initiated the one here. Why don't you set up an account before talking about what WIkipedia "accepted" in the past, were you a part of this past as you seem to hint at? And please... give SOURCES... Above I have given proper sources about the totality of the war which you do not like and of course you have not commented on. Your argument is about how many days the unsourced result has stood here??????

I suggest you set up an account (5th time my saying so...). You avoid answering or even commenting on why you do not and I regard this as most suspicious... GK1973 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

^ Herodotus III,17
^ Herodotus VI,21

[1] Herodotus III,17

[2] Herodotus VI,21

[1]

[2]