Talk:Battle of Thermopylae/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Subheadings

Is it just me or are almost all of the subheadings in the article extremely vague? They are more like chapter names in a novel. --134.88.190.217 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Numbers

I'm re-adding the numbers from ancient sources to the infobox. I could understand the objection to doing so if no modern estimates were given...but they are, so I fail to see the harm. The information is authentic and relevent, and I don't think there are legit grounds for removal. Of course the ancient figures are too high, but that is apparent to readers by the stark contrast to modern figures. --Xiaphias 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is that secondary especially modern sources are more welcome than primary ones when they lack POV. What you say is reasonable, yes Herodotus' numbers need mention but they do not belong in the infobox. The warbox's figures need as tight a range as possible and should be consensus. No modern historian can give credit to any of the ancient estimates. Besides placing 200,000 to 800,000+ is a sheer violation of undo weigh measures. Since the warbox does not mention the various sources below under 100,000 there is no need to go above 300,000+ as anything above 300,000 and below 200,000 are minority views and not consensus. The alternative would be creating a nasty range in the warbox of 60,000 - 2,000,000. This is simply ridiculous, thus keep the warbox for the consensus and allow the actual article content (linked from the "See Below") do the whole story with all estimate ranges, below and above consensus.--Arsenous Commodore 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cited text for Herodotus on the casualties of the Persians states the Persians lost 20,000, not 0. Changing this. C.wrinn (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Type of Victory

Should the line for "Result" in the Infobox read "Persian victory" or "Pyrrhic Persian victory", as it can easily be argued that the victory was pyrrhic? Mmace91 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be simply a Persian victory. Maybe it shouldn't be labelled a Persian victory at all. The Spartans and Thespians who stayed and died knew full well that they were going to be killed, however eventually. Their entire purpose in staying was to delay the Persian army. By all accounts, the Greeks won an astounding victory if one is to judge the battle's importance in the overall scheme of the Greco-Persian war. Thermapylae allowed the Greeks time to marshal their forces and prepare for the battle, and the morale damage the Spartans and Thespians inflicted on the entire Persian army simply can't be calculated. I imagine the knowledge that the 1,000 they fought (and bled rivers of blood against) were a mere fraction of the actual Greek army was frightening to many soldiers in the Persian army. It would seem to me that a Pyrrhic victory is exactly what this was, if we must label it as a victory at all. I think I'll log in and change this now. 151.151.21.100 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The battle was a Persian military victory and a Greek moral victory, kind of like the second siege of Messolonghi in 1827. Problem is there is no such thing as moral victory for the Wikipedia warbox Ikokki 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate actually went on for quite a while earlier, however it was unanimously agreed by Wiki users (except for one aggressive anon) that this battle cannot be classified as a Pyrrhic victory. Losing anywhere from a low of 1% to a high of 10% of your army (from Xerxes' perspective) according to the strength (200,000-2,000,000) listed above, does not at all constitute a pyrrhic victory. One of the errors repeated on this article is that we are using costly on a small scale synonymously with pyrrhic. Xerxes could have sustained 10-100 more similar battles. Even from a strategic standpoint the Persians were successful. It was the result of this battle that ensured Persian occupation of Greece and the razing of Athens. There isn't a doubt that in terms of a comparative tactical figure ratio to the Greeks, it was costly for the Persians; but that's all. This wasn't the case for Persian army's perspective. Also the whole crushing of morale, well with all sincerity that's probably not more than speculation. And the other point is like Ikkoki mentioned, "moral" or even "costly" are not standard Wiki descriptions for result. I am changing it back to the originally agreed upon result. I welcome any comments on the issue, just please post your reasoning before you make the changes. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a moral victory meaning that the Spartans at the end demonstrated moral superiority, not that Persian morale was affected very negatively. Greek morale was actually seriously weakened by the outcome Ikokki 09:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered this: Now that we have spoken at sufficient length of the valour of these men we shall resume the course of our narrative. Xerxes, now that he had gained the passes in the manner we have described and had won, as the proverb runs, a "Cadmeian victory,"1 had destroyed only a few of the enemy, while he had lost great numbers of his own troops Diodorus Siculus 11.12.1 Like I said earlier I do not agree Ikokki 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article covers the military battle. As far as the military battle is concerned the Persians defeated the Spartan army. This is something that is verifiable from Herodotus and other sources. Whether there was a moral or strategic victory over the Persians is irrelevant to the military result and is not verifiable.Klymen 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is: as far as military battle is concerned, isn't meeting military objectives that define victory in the battle? Battle of Kursk of the WWII for example: both sides suffered equally, no territorial gain, so you could argue that the result was a draw. However it was a "strategical" victory for the Soviets as they met their objective of stopping Nazi offensive.

I tend to think that Leonidas's objective wasn't defeating enormous Persian army with his 300 men. It was delaying its advance and inflicting great casualties. And in that he obviously succeeded.

I like "Pyrrhic Persian victory" or "tactical Persian victory and strategic Greek victory." --Zealander 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a simple, narrow, battle result question, "Persian victory" is correct. As a question of war, "successful Greek delaying action" is correct, and ought to be mentioned, not in the battle box but in the "Aftermath" section. As a demonstration of military devotion, it seems the most successful military demostration in all history, since its legend has lasted thousands of years and produced more movies and other modern media attention than all other ancient battles put together. I mean, is anyone still dismayed or delighted by Cannae or Actium? Jim.henderson 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case the simple designation "Persian Victory" is quite unsatisfactory. Persia lost a chance to catch major Greek forces in open terrain and force a major battle with much better chances of success than at Thermopylae, the Greeks got time to evacuate Athens and prepare for defense of the Isthmus or an attack to expel the Persian army. Not to mention that the Greeks achieved a monumental kill ratio, regardless which side is right in the numbers discussion. Thermopylae was a Greek victory in every way apart from holding the field after the battle. I don't see how anyone can argue against calling this a Pyrrhic Persian victory. Sakkura 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, this article is about the battle as an event. AFAIK, the main Perisan goal was to sack Athens, which is what happened after the battle. Whilst they did miss the opportunity to catch the rest of the Greek forces, it was not their immediate objective. A Pyrrhic victory is a "victory with devastating cost to the victor" (wiki's definition)- this is not the case here, as the Persian army was able to continue their campaign with little in the way of reduced effectiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.138.2 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That i snot the definition of a Pyrrhic victory; it is whe the winner suffers more than the loser. By all acounts, the Persians suffered about 18,000 more. Tourskin (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

as some people said about how the persians goal was to sack athans this really didnt harm the greeks cause 1 it was evaculated and 2 if the persians would not have sacked athens they never would have rebuilt athens and it wouldnt have ever made the parthanon or many of famouse greek scientists and philosifurs would not have done what they did so the sack of athens help the athenians i belive its a pyrrhic victory because the spartans 1 delayed them so the greeks could evacuate athens and asseble the greek army and very much incressed the moral of the greeks and i dont see how the persains could NOT be discoraged by this ecspally when the immortals were beatin also if the spatans had no done this then there was a large chance the spartans would not have been fully commited to the battle theres a greek saying " its easyer to get 30000 atheians to fight then it is to get 1 spartan to fight" even though the spartans were the best fighters in greece they had a 'avoid war at all cost' adittude witch is really ironic witch is why the spatans only had 300 spatans at the battle cause each of the 2 spartan kings had 300 of the strongest spartan warriors as there bodyguard and leonides simply took a walk north and his bodyguard followed..... anyway if the spatans didnt die at thermoplyea the spartans might not have joined the greek war effort. and also to add even though there was 7000 greeks there during most of the battle the spartans orderd the greeks to stay back during the fight so only the 300 spartans were fighting but this was not true for the fight with the immortals thats when the spartans got help also the kill death ratio from spartan to persian is 1:66 so thats got to hurt your moral this deffenatly is a pyrrhic victory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.210.218 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ikokki has IMO the most accurate version: it was a military victory for the Persians but a moral victory for the Greeks. However, I would suggest that this is applying hindsight to the event. The Greeks did not know, immediately after Thermopylae, that they would go on to defeat the Persians at Salamis and Plataea, and I suggest that at least some of the Greeks perceived Thermopylae as a disaster. The Spartans may have considered Thermopylae a moral victory at the time, but then they always thought that dying in battle was glorious. I doubt that most of their more pragmatic allies would have agreed; it may have been only after the victory at Salamis had restored Greek confidence, that the majority of Sparta's allies started thinking of Thermopylae as a moral victory. Lexo (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The size of Xerxes' army in infobox

The lowest estimate is not 200,000, there are many modern sources that report 40,000 or 60,000. --Mardavich 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The highest estimate is not 2M either, the range is not going for the extremes. What sources mention 40,000 and 60,000? None is mentioned in the article. Credibility has to be taken into account, many foreign language articles provide a 400,000-500,000 figure as a modern estimation. Miskin 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is practically impossible to have less people at Thermopylae than at the battle of Plataea. Miskin 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are absolutely hilarious. No serious contemporary salaried historian would take 400,000-500,000 as realistic figures. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about all the scholars cited in the size of the Persian army section? I don't think your word is more credible than theirs. The Persian army was in reality "the armies of the kingdoms of the Persian Empire", which at a time expanded from Northern Africa to India. If a handful of Greek cities were able to gather over 100,000 soldiers, then it's only natural that Persia would have been able to gather many times that number. Now whether they she actually did, is a whole different story. Miskin 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Figures in article are just laughable. Any idea what it takes to organize the logistics for just 20,000 for a short expedition, never mind keep it in order? No "scholar" would take any kind of figure above 200,000 seriously, and yet that's apparently the article's minimun figure. Oh, if you believe 300 Spartans could have held off that kind of numbers for any period of time, you might as well believe that Zeus was there helping them. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell this to Hannibal who crossed the Alps with 50,000 men, or was he aided by Zeus as well? Your argumentation reaches the other extreme. The Art of War does speak of massive armies well in the hundreds of thousands, and those Chinese Empires were much comparable to if not smaller than Persia. Anything above 100,000 is exaggerated for medieval but not for ancient warfare. Persia could easily gather a large army, whether she could control it and send it all the way to Greece is a whole different story. If you can improve the article by citing some contemporary estimates then be my guest, otherwise don't make free criticism. Never in the article it was stated that 2M was the actual Persian number, it is clearly stated that they were Herodotus' numbers. If it were up to me I'd remove the 'numbers' field from that infobox altogether. Miskin 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that at one point Herodotus himself betrays some suspicion at his numbers of the Persian army. At 7.187, as he wraps up his estimate of the Persian host (admitting that the number of camp-followers were many & uncountable), he states that he is "not at all surprised that the water of the rivers was fount too scant for the army in some instances; rather it is a marvel to me how the provision did not fail, when the numbers were so great. For I find on calculation that if each man consumed no more than a choenix of corn a day, there must have been used daily by the army 110,340 medimni, and this without counting what was eaten by the women, the eunuchs, the pack-animals, and the hounds."

An army travels on its stomach, & after they crossed the Hellespont, the Persian army was forced to live off of what it could forage -- i.e. steal at spearpoint from the local peasants. Herodotus had a good sense of just how many soldiers that part of Greece & Thrace could support, & I suspect at this point in his narrative he was beginning to doubt his own calculations. Based on what I know of Ethiopian military history, the effective maximum size of an army living of the land is not much more than 100,000; since I doubt few Greeks had seen more than 10,000 people gathered in once place, to them even 100,000 was indistinguishable from 2.5 million. -- llywrch 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Persian army was well supplied not until the Hellespont but until Therme, which is the site where 200 years later Cassandrus founded Thessaloniki. Food had been sent over several years from Asia and Egypt to fill five major food depots (last of which was Therme). Thassos actually was forced to pay 400 talants of silver to sustain Xerxes's army (see VI.118). From Therme to Thermopylae it only took them 10 days to arrive. Lack of food was not the determining factor is the size of the army. Ikokki 10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look instead of criticising you might as well try to help by citing some sources. Everywhere I've looked scholars avoid giving numbers, they only say that Herotodus' figures are exaggerated, which is already taken for granted. As long as there is such a field infobox, Herodotus' estimates _must_ remain as the maximum range. Miskin 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? I'm merely pointing out obvious problems in Herodotus' estimate -- which, from the passage I quoted even Herodotus was aware of. Estimates for the number of combatants are notoriously unreliable for ancient battles, as a specialist's discussion of almost any battle will state. To say that Herodotus was wrong about the size of the Persian army & it had a specific number of soldiers is original research: pointing out that there are problems with Herodotus' estimate, then offering a list of modern estimates is a responsible discussion of the problem. If you want to quote Herodotus in the infobox, then make it clear (maybe in a footnote) that he's the source, & that modern scholars disagree with him (whose estimates will be presented in the appropriate section). -- llywrch 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to take Herodotus' account of numbers seriously; besides the totally impossible figure, he had absolutely no way of knowing whether the Persian army was 2000 or 2 million (was he there? did he go around counting them?). Some people act like he had access to reuters news service or drew on goverment figures. Hilarious! His "estimates" shouldn't even be brought into consideration. As far as I remember, all serious estimates put it between 40,000 and 100, 000, but as all my classics books are packed away in a far away place (I no longer do these subjects), I won't be giving you any references any time soon. Maybe you yourself should consult some serious books for proper figures. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In my edition of Herodotus the commentator (whose name is Gabriel Syntomoros) comes to the conclusion that Herodotus came with the 1,7 million figure because during the counting and reorganisation of the army that took place in Ennea Odoi (later Amphipolis) the box that was built there and could hold one baivabaram filled 170 times. He assumes that all 1,7 million were infantry and, adding cavalry and fleet multiplies his numbers by 2 and comes with the 5 million figure. Ctesias of Cnidus who had access to the Achemenid Persian archives ("vasiliki diftheira" is Tzetzes' exact wording) wrote 150 years later that the army Xerxes sent numbered 800,000 battle troops. Considering that indeed at least as many troops are necessary for support as for battle Stecchini (who was a professor at Harvard if I remember correctly) believed that indeed 800,000 were the battle troops and 1,7 million their entire number. Beyond that Dr. Kampouris argues that it if for arguements sake there were 25,000-30,000 Persians (he is more inclined to believe there were 60,000 and he is not alone) at Marathon then with a double fleet during Xerxes' invasion the fleet carried troop should be 50-60,000 alone since Xerxes had twice the fleet that Datis had 10 years earlier. It is totally irrational (in his arguement) that 250,000+ rowers would be mobilized to carry that many battle troops by sea that accompany only 100,000 land based troops. Then he continues to argue why Stecchini is right; Ikokki 10:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us try avoiding original research for the moment, we cannot assume what Herodotus may have or have not known. The Cambridge companion to Herodotus states that an estimation of 210,000 land troops is the modern consensus. This is based on the theory that an error in Herodotus' calculations (having to do with Persian military units) resulted in multiplying the real number by 10. This excludes the huge number of "personnel" that came with the Persian fleet (where btw Herodotus' estimates are considered reliable). Miskin 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, stop trashing Herodotus, never in the article nor in discussion it is mentioned that his estimates were correct, that's a given fact, but he remains the primary source on the issue and has to be cited. Miskin 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would go far to alleviate the criticisms if the 1.7 million figure was asterisked and very clearly marked as considered inaccurate. Tables of the sort are very eye-catching and this one clearly states 1.7 million infantry. This article has too many editors and contributors for me to do this change. Alatari 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page has drawn too many attentions thanks to the movie 300. While it's good that people renew their interest in history, it's also bad that many want to edit this page according to their wishes and NOT according to factual accuracy. I see hilarious and fictionous figures all over this article, for example: 5,000,000 inhabitants of Greece at the time; 200,000 persian soldiers; and so on and so on. There are better and more informed users than me that have already said what are the problems with ancient history, i'll repeat them. 1) Historians had to work on oral tradition. 2) Inflating enemies' numbers was a common practice (Caius Julius Caeasar did the same in the "Commentarii de Bello Gallico"). 3) History was regarded as a literary exercise more than a factual research- although this is an exxageration, ancient historians seemed to take everything they heard for good, included long and pointless diversions, invented parts to fill up holes. 4) Comparison with other battles is important: watch for example the size of the Roman Republic expeditions in Africa during the Poenic Wars. Sir Dante 11:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Err CALGACUS there's nothing like utterly contradicting yourself. On one hand you comletely dismiss Herodotus estimations because he wasn't there counting everyone by hand yet you base your meagre guess of 40,000 on what your classics tell you. No-one will ever know how many persians fought at the battle but considering the massive rescources they commanded I am finding it hard to believe your estimation of 40-100,000. Xerses controlled a vast empire with a population of millions, each of them would have been expected to send troops and all they could muster was about the same amount of people as supporters at a premiership game in Sunderland! Give Miskin a break, he's tried to give a balanced figure based on the many sources of which Herodotus may be well wrong but his history was written relatively close to the event not 2,500 years after. GD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.253.3.200 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How many Spartans?

If I remember correctly there were about and average of 3 slaves to each Spartan in this battle, they carried;armor, weapons, cared for horses, and other menial tasks. They did not leave their Spartan masters and also had to fight for their live as well--Co1dLP1anet 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While I think it probably was true that the spartans brought Helots to the battle, unless we can find a source it would be original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When he talks of the 300 (after the description of the batle) he says that one of them had so bad eyesight he was led into battle by his helot who immediately fled. He does not give a helot ratio or number though Ikokki 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Undoubtedly all the soldiers involved must have had slaves.Helots to carry their gear, take care of horses, and others most of the basics of life. They would have had a minor city of helots. While there is no research that i have found, i haven't looked, that would point to there not being helots present. Also some of these undoubtedly would have been enemy soldiers captured in other battles.This might pan out to be upwards of about 900-1200 slaves. --Co1dLP1anet 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

It is true that usually Spartans had 3 to 5 hillots for each Spartan fighter in the Battle. Hillots were participating actively in the battle usually carrying out tasks such as removing dead bodies from the frontlines, providing with weapon replacement, providing with water and in general doing any helpfull task. They were also fighting, sometimes in the frontline if that was really necessary. It was an opportunity for them to get their freedom back. Spartans rarely were giving freedom to those hillots that were showing exceptional bravery in battle. It is unlikely that Sparta deployed only 300 men. It should have deployed a number between 1200 to 1800 but only 300 of them were free Spartan citizens.

I'm amazed that this is in dispute. I've read several academic sources that say 900 Helots died fighting alongside Leonidas' men and they went to battle as volunteers not slaves so it's definately not OR. Wayne 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The only ratio, given by Herodotus I believe, is that of seven helots to each Spartan at Platea, although numerous theories have been advanced as to this high number being atypical. It is probable, based on other Greek states and a handful of mentions by Xenophon in the Anabasis and Hellenica, that a single helot would have accompanied each Spartan. There were, however, certainly a number of helots at Thermopylae; Herodotus states (Book 8, 25) 'some of the corpses were helots, although many imagined they were all Spartans and Thespians.' Have no idea where '900' has come from though, if you have the sources, I'd love to give them a check. Unsigned User 3:26 GMT. May 8th 2007.

I've seen the 3:1 ratio between helots and Spartans elsewhere. I'll see if I can relocate it and determine whether or not it's credible. Spartan198 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Last stand

Cut from intro:

A small force led by King Leonidas of Sparta blocked the only road through which the massive army of Xerxes I could pass. After three days of battle, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines. Dismissing the rest of the army, King Leonidas stayed behind with 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers. Though they knew it meant their own deaths, they held their position and secured the retreat of the other Greek forces. The Persians succeeded in taking the pass but sustained heavy losses, extremely disproportionate to those of the Greeks.

This fascinating description of the last stand, which presumably is a favorite scene of 300 (film) fans, should go somewhere. --Uncle Ed 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

but this is exaclty what happened ...at least according to the sources.....Tbere 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what sources say happened. The movie actually showed only the Spartans in the last stand, with no mention of the Thespian allies or Theban hostages. Spartan198 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

2 questions

1. How do you pronounce "Thermopylae"?
2. How come their was only 300 Spartans in the battle? Surely they could have brought more of their own troops to fight, especially since the battle took 3 days.

--Ted87 08:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1. [θə(r)'mɒpəli]
2. Read the article, it explains why. At the Battle of Plataea the Greeks fielded something like 100,000 troops, and Sparta alone around 10,000.

Sakkura 16:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[θə(r)'mɒpəli] <-- That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you break down the syllable use? Like Therm-opyl-ae or Ther-mopl-ae, etc. I look at the spelling and think Ther-mop-a-ly or Ther-mop-a-lay. --Ted87 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Breaking down the syllable use" actually doesn't work for many words and languages. See the International Phonetic Alphabet article to learn how to read Sakkura's pronunciation above. It's a useful thing to know, too! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. --Ted87 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ted87, since you are a native English speaker, you will know what I mean if I say that it's pronounced something like "ther-MOP-ill-ee", with the stress on the second syllable. The International Phonetic Alphabet is becoming a bit of wikipedia standard and I think it's a shame, as there are still plenty of professional linguists who disapprove of it. It takes a while to learn and it is less than accurate when representing certain languages. Lexo (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greko Roman Accounts Only

This accounts for battle is primarily from Greek and Roman sources and in fact more precisely from Greek historians. So it is important to note that at the beginning of the article. I have added a sentence as such at the beginning. Please improve the wording but do not remove it just because you do not like it. If you have evidence and reason for removing it, please discuss it here first. Thanks Persian Magi 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranians usually lie about things, so I wouldn't count on using Persian sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantcalledgrawp (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the unconstructive racism for now, are there any surviving Persian sources on the subject? If so, we should have a look at them. Same goes for any uninterested-party accounts! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Grey Knight. If possible, a Persian account of the battle should be referenced. Spartan198 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Article messed up again

I was just looking at the numbers seriously for the first time since I did the tables and I noticed that nobody else apparently has been following them either because now they are all messed up. For example, the list of Greeks is over 10,000 men but somehow 7000 is being used and this is said without ref to be Herodotus'. And of the casualties this is pretty much off the wall. The 1000 Phocians were not casualties, they hid out in the mountains, and I doubt there were 400 Theban casualties as they were being pressed into service and surrendered when they had the chance. I will have to take a look at this but meanwhile I notice the juveniles and the advertisers continue to provide an endless stream of vandalism and confusion. However the basic article has somehow been kept due to the vigilance of some us. At my first chance I will go over those numbers. I'd like to know where that supposed 7000 of Herodotus comes from. Out of someone's imagination I think now. If you'd like to edit seriously unless you are willing to read the article, check out the sources and do the reference work, it might be best if you did not try to take a hand here. We've been over this pretty carefully. Your personal opinions might be interesting but we aren;t putting in original contributions.Dave (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Well, it's as I thought. There is no greater a miscreant than an educated man (or boy) when he decides to go wrong. Great is the repentance later but until that happens they sure do a lot of damage. There's a school of subtle vandalism that reverses all the article's good features under the guise of making needed improvements, so it isn't perceptible for a while. The editor thinks, well, this is just disagreement, and we have to live with it. But it isn't, it's vandalism and after a while as the article degrades it becomes obvious. This article somehow is a target for reasoms I explained in earlier discussions. Since it is very widely read I am going back to the original version and checking everything out. Maybe I can pick up some original mistakes. What tipped me off is that the numbers are now totally off the wall, and if you try to check them against the sources you find no correspondance and no reasons for the discrepancy.Dave (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PPS. This is turning into a major project. Part of the problem is, there is so much checking to do and so many have written and there are so many aspects that editors after a while just generalize or guess and that turns out to be wrong. The only answer really is to do it right, but the size has to be kept down. There are other similar articles on Wikipedia so it can be done and since it is so widely read should be.Dave (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dave, I've been away from the article for some time, and apparently much has changed. Glad to see you're still here with the article though. On some of the issues you brought up you're quite correct, the Phocians ran off, and the Persians side stepped them without deciding to attack them, taking another route (as the story goes) so they are not casualties. On the other hand do you not think that maintaining the 400 Theban casualties there in the box is most prudent. Many battle articles include KIA but also WIA and captured figures in their boxes. Perhaps to the box there should be added 400 Thebans captured as opposed to the rest which were KIA. I'm just trying to work out some sort of standardization with other articles, which appear this way. As for the Greek strength estimates, why not consider a range (like the Persian one), I'd have to double-check all my figures but perhaps something like 6,000-11,000.--Arsenous Commodore (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arsenious, I keep trying to break away from this thing but all the issues drag me back in. It is an important article; everyone has heard of the Battle of Thermopylae. Under casualties I never considered anything more than KIA. Now you propose another plan. I'm amenable. As for the 7000 I never did like that figure. The right number is clearly the one proposed by Pausanias, the 11200. Early on in this article someone threw in a small number of Locrians and that seemed to stick even though completely wrong. No one ever checks these things. Locris is right in the path of the Persians and they put in 6000 men. So I'm amenable to what you say provided you back it up and make it clear. As for the Thebans, no one has yet cited the passage which explains how they GOT there in the first place and why they did not retreat. Thebes was going Medize and the Spartans stepped in to stop it. They insisted on taking some Thebans whom they kept almost under guard. That is why the Thebans were there at all. Then when it came to the last the Thebans all put their hands up. A few were killed. The king did not trust them either so he branded them, presumably in case they showed up later. So I cannot really understand all this falderall about the poor Theban casualties who sold out the first chance they got any more than I can undertand the falderall about the poor heroic Phocians who, far from being heroic, were asleep on the job and then hid on a hill, letting the Persians go by. How could they possibly NOT know where the Persians were going, as that is what they had been stationed there to prevent? And now I see this baloney about the 300th Spartan NOT committing suicide but living in great honor to fight another day. This, my friends, is how history gets to be mythology. It's disgusting. Someone also took out the fate of Ephialtes who no longer had a home and was finally assassinated. What is this, clean up life for the kiddies hour? Anyway all this stuff is going right back in as soon as I can track it all down. The television it seems is allowed any amount of putrid rot while we cannot even present history here. See below on the space.Dave (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Split-up is in the stars again

I have tried many times to say general things that will fit into reasonable space but so great is the public interest in this article that they absolutely INSIST that the very material I did NOT select be in there. Or, they want to cut out other essential things. In order to simplify they want to falsify so it no longer has to be dealt with. In order to present this article the way the public wants it presented we need more space! (again). My recommendation is that we break out two articles, "Perisan army at the battle of Thermopylae" and "Greek army at the battle of Thermopylae." I would appreciate your comments or better yet if you just did it then I would not have to do it. If you don't respond I will just get everything together required for new articles and do it. If we have separate articles then we have more space for discussion of arms and armor, commanders, and some of the politics. Right now those things are out of the question. As an apologia for this view, I'd like to note the Persian Empire at that time was bigger than the later Roman Empire and that this war and this battle were major events in world history. Because of it we do not speak reflexes of Old Persian or look back to the great old days when good king Xerxes saved the world by unifying it.Dave (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has commented on this and I was going to start work today but in the process I saw Greco-Persian Wars and realized why there have been no edits of Persian forces here. There is a large subsection there, which is repetitive and has not been carefully checked and polished as has this material here. I made another proposal there to which I now refer you for an article Persian forces in Xerxes' invasion of Greece.Dave (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What did Xerxes do with Leonidas when he died? Xerxes beheaded Leonidas and put his head on a stack and made the Spratans look at it. When the spartans captured The Presian Empire and the Spartans to the ashs back to sparta and put the ashs in the ground.Evevnting1Girl (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Eventing1GirlEvevnting1Girl (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the article too much of a story/original research??

For example, the "We shall fight in the shade" comment is given its own passage. Herodotus is a weak (albeit our best available) secondary source on this event, so it appears odd that he would be aware of such intricate details (like conversations that took place). Herodotus, after all, did not understand history in the terms that we define it today; his book is filled with hyperbole, wit, and an elaborate narrative. The overdependency on him as a source, however, seems a little dishonest, particularly since he didn't even live in Greece; he was from Anatolia, and if I'm not mistaken, he wasn't even alive when this battle occurred. I think the article should be checked over for things like this (e.g. fighting in the shade), since they are more a matter of Greek legend and lore than verifiable fact. This article has had issues like this before (e.g. speculation over the "Greeks defending democracy" or "the West," which are, of course, being retrospectively applied). Keep in mind that for Wikipedia's purposes, blind posting of ancient sources from Herodotus appears as if it is WP:original research, even if the material is cited. Correct me if I am wrong, but very few of the editors here are in a position to properly analyze Herodotus's own work. Secondary sources from scholars are usually preferable for wikipedia; the reason we have historians in the first place is so they can go through and weed out questionable material. It's called source critique. This article uses practically hundreds of quotations from Herodotus's account; yet, significantly less sourcing is attributed to actual historians. Is that not OR? I think we should make sure we are referencing scholars and historians; not forming our own articles based on our own analysis of Herodotus's account. -Rosywounds (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, this article reads like mythology more than an encyclopedic article (which should use contemporary sources)

Thisglad (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still amazed that the Battle of Thermapylae IS treated as an historical reference point when it's quite obvious that Herodetus' account cannot be verified or checked. Since it's politically unpopular to criticize this story as compared to other historical accounts which fall under much more scrutiny and doubt (because of the LACK of evidence) I wonder if this article will ever be titled "Herodetus' account of the Battle of Thermopylae". I just came from the 300 page where the tone and positioning of the movie is clearly biased towards "historical fact".--208.179.153.163 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did major changes!

Hi, I have been reading this article for a long time and wanted to contribute my knowledge to it, so you'l notice the changes, but don't change it back yet. Tommorow I will have the full explanation to why I did such a thing, I'm busy now and you can say I want people to know the truth about the battle so please understand. This is one of my first edits because I'm new here, I became a member of Wikipedia just today. Some of the information in this article is already here for me to show you how people are missing important facts and must therefore if haven't, realize it. --Ariobarza (talk) 10:28 p.m, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again

I did major changes that are right, required, and accurate, I unbiasedly(UNLIKE YOU GUYS THAT ONLY PREFER TO BELIEVE IN HERODOTUS) put the total possible number of greeks, based on the historians themeselves, that how many greeks were there! I DID NOT MAKE ANYTHING UP ITS JUST THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GREEKS FROM ALL THE VIEW POINTS OF THE HISTORIANS THAT I LISTED THERE! SO DONT CHANGE MY HARDWORKED CHANGE, ITS TIME FOR CHANGE, BECAUSE THE TIMES ARE A CHANGING!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

More Theban information, please.

How did 300 Spartans hold 400 Thebans hostage AND hold off however many thousands or millions of Persians? We know that the Athenians and Thebans didn't like each other very much. It seems very likely to me that the notion that the Thebans were "anxious" to surrender and needed to be kept captive at the battlefield sounds like typical after the fact "trash talk" of one Greek city-state against another. In any case, the article barely mentions the Thebans at all. 70.20.149.174 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you know about the Delian League which occurred after the first(possibly later) Persian attack on Greece but It shows that even though the different polis didn't like each other they came together at times of war. Also the Greeks believed that they should show their very best in battle. This is probably why the Thebans stayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burmie (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More Info!

For those who have wondered if anyone else talked about this battle, it was Ctesias and he exactly said what the number of Persians there were, which was 80,000, which 20,000 may have died, and the Greeks if you read all of the historians account there were ACTUALLY 16,000 Greeks, with 300+400+700+900+1,000=3,300 Greek casualties, or possibly 4,000, and concerning the reliability of Ctesias he says there was 800,000+ Persians or people of Persian empire army that invaded Greece falling between todays modern estimates of 750,000-1,000,000 total total troops of which less that half actually fought in battles, and if we accept Herodotus and others misplace the zero digits. But I only added Ctesias' 80,000, mostly because if you add the number of people who fought in Thermoplyae is, day one, 20,000, day two, 10,000, day three, 50,000, and then the RECYCLED 40,000 to soround the Greeks in the end. It equals 120,000, but i omitted the extra 40,000, because Ctesias himself says that they were the same troops who fought in the previous days. For example you would not add an extra 300 Spartans every day of each battle, you would keep it at 300, because they were RECYCLED for the next days battle, most likely they were survivors of the three days previous battles. He says 10,000 Immortals and 30,000 survivors was what the 40,000 composed of. Also Ctesias is a historian that lived at the time of Herodotus and had personal access to the Persian archives, and may have written more books than him, which some fragments remain and most are lost. So to leave his account out, is simply biased and stupid, and if were only going to listen to Herodotus on thermoplyae, than we should remove all other accounts of other historians for all other battles to be as biased as this article. Thank you, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

This is WP:OR. Worse, it's flawed OR. You can't determine the size of Xerxes army by adding the number of people he threw at the Spartans. Did he have no reserves? Were the 40,000 that went round the back an entirely different army? There are too many questions. Besides, even if Ctesias said 80,000 (which he didn't) using that figure in the infobox is POV. There's no reason to suppose he's more accurate than any other RS and 80K would be misleading as a single choice as it is so much lower than the other estimates.

In summary:

a) Ctesias does not say "80,000" and it is a breach of WP:OR to say he does

b) Even if he did, you shouldn't use it in the infobox.

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not up to us to "reinterpret" the writings of Ctesias by applying our own original reasearch to it. To quote Ctesias, "Then Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, 800,000 men and 1000 triremes without reckoning the chariots..." Please don't apply your own thoughts as to how writers may "misplace the zero digits". As Dweller says, this is WP:OR and should be avoided. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

DWELLER, please go to your discussions page for a better response, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Repost from Dweller's talkpage:

PLEASE, CAREFULLY READ EVERY SENTENCE TO THE END: (I'm not yelling, I'm sorry if you think so)

(There is a difference to how many invaded and how many fought in a single battle.)

For those who have wondered if anyone else talked about this battle, it was Ctesias of Cnidus, and he exactly said what the number of Persians there were, which was 80,000, which 20,000 may have died, according to Herodotus, and the Greeks if you read all of the historians accounts, there were ACTUALLY 16,000 Greeks, with 300+400+700+900+1,000+Unknown=3,300 Greek casualties, or possibly 4,000. Anyways, TO GET TO THE REAL ISSUE, first of all, concerning the reliability of Ctesias he says there was 800,000+ Persians or people of Persian empire army that invaded Greece falling between todays modern estimates of 750,000-1,000,000 total total troops of which less that half actually fought in battles, and this would be right, if we accept Herodotus and others misplace the zero digits. But I only added Ctesias' 80,000, mostly because if you add the number of people who fought in Thermoplyae is, day one, 20,000, day two, 10,000, day three, 50,000, and then the [RECYCLED] 40,000 to soround the Greeks in the end. It equals 120,000, but I omit the extra 40,000, because Ctesias himself says that they were the same troops who fought in the previous days. For example, you would not add an extra 300 Spartans every day of each battle, you would keep it at 300, because they were [RECYCLED] for the next days battle, most likely they were survivors of the three days previous battles. He says 10,000 Immortals, (WE KNOW that at least 1,000 Immortals may have died in the begining) and 30,000 survivors was what the 40,000 composed of. Also, from what we know, Ctesias is a historian that lived at the time of Herodotus and had personal access to the Persian archives, and may have written more books than him, which some fragments remain and most are lost. So to leave his account out, is simply biased, and if were only going to rely on making UP numbers for the battle today, then should we just ignore all other battle numbers from all ancient historians? My main point is, if Ctesias says 80,000 were sent against the Greeks of Thermoplyae, than why do we replace that with 800,000, comman sense says TODAYS historians are more willing to accept a figure of 80,000, than a figure of 800,000, regardless the original research. So please explain to me how this would be original research, if all I am doing is putting down what Ctesias is telling us? And that Herodotus says 2,000,000+ army invaded Greece, but for example in Plataea he says 300,000 fought, SO then their is a difference between how many invaded as part of the reserves, and how many fought. Personally I don't endorse the idea that some users are taking the law to there own hands by exaggerating what others do. And I'm open to putting the estimates at 80,000-800,000 for the main battle, but I suggest we don't jump into conclusions that are not satisfactory. I WONDER why if we are going put 800,000 of Ctesias for Thermoplyae, than WHY NOT ALSO put Herodotus' 2,000,000!? YOU are choosing the numbers, not ME! Thank you for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Secondly Even if I' WRONG on the theory of zero diget displacement which I first heard about on WIKIPEDIA, I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR of the theory! So again, even if I'm wrong, the numbers again for the battle add up to 80,000, I'm sorry that is at least something I can't deny, when it says it, it says it. Secondly, for the Battle of Artemisium or I think another that currently escapes me, Herodotus says, for example, this many ships fought the first day, and this many ships fought the second day, should we NOT then add them up together for the total number of naval ships that fought that battle? The users who edit that article and many others DO, so how is that original research? I think users give more protection to certian articles, and leave others out, so if I use original research, then many others must be wrong too?--Ariobarza (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

No, this is the talk page for the article. We're discussing the article, so people (not just you and me) need to see discussion here.

You're getting very heated. Stay calm. The discussion is very simple, but your replies are all over the place, making it difficult for you to make your point.

Keep things simple: you want to cite Ctesias in the infobox. Fine. How many men does Ctesias say Xerxes had in his army?

The answer can only be one of two options: "800,000", or "we don't know". You cannot tot up the figures in the way you're doing, that's OR and a breach of Wikipedia guidelines.

Perhaps the answer is not to cite Ctesias in the infobox. There are a selection of RS you could use. I'd suggest you actually cite two different ones. Cite Herodotus's ridiculous one and one of the modern RS too. This will excellently fulfil NPOV as it will straight away demonstrate to the reader that we don't really know the answer and that there's been wild speculation in the past. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, 299-300!

As some people think 298 Spartans died, this might be wrong, Herodotus says and I'll find this later, that Leonidas picked 300 of his best soldiers, (and there is a tradition of Sparta to only send 300 soldiers with no commanders were sent to fight in 300 of the best battles which were fought with other city-states of Greece)so in this case thats 300+Leonidas=301 Spartans, two Spartans were sent home with an eye injury, which one turned back and died in battle, or as another story says one Spartan commited suicide right after the battle, or before the battles end, if it was the second one. Then that's not -2 but -1 Spartans, so out of the 3 problematic Spartans, 2 died in battle, 1 died at Plataea, so if there were 301 Spartans, and 1 survived, thats 301-1=300 Spartans actually died in the Battle of Thermoplyae not 298, but if there were only 300, and one survived, then 299 died in Thermoplyae, thats an average of 299-300 Spartans died there, so we will never know. 299+300=599÷2=299.5 if rounded equals 300, NOW RETHINK WHAT POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE, AND THEN IGNORE ME, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Popularity

It seems like ALOT of people have edited this article AFTER the feature film "300" came out. Please remember: Hollywood movies are _not_ a substitute for knowledge in historical background. If your ONLY source is the said movie, please don't add facts based on it, as it is grossly simplifying and certainly not a viable source for an encyclopedia. Also, there is NO WAY that _exact_ numbers of casualties can be given on a conflict the is almost 2500 years past, so please do not embarass yourselves trying. With the best of intensions — —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANarc (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, there, for some reason, because of popularity by the Greeks, THIS battle has a protective shield of sacredness around it, as for Marathon, the Herodotus says 600,000 invaded, users say it was 60,000, so why not say 80,000 not the 800,000 invading force that fought, because Ctesias says exactly how many fought out of the invasion force? Which is 80,000, that is why reforming this article is offensive, because users are influenced by unreliable wishfull sources, and don't use comman sense, and what the evidence is actually presenting. Therefore for the CASUALTIES we can't say Pyhrric, because the numbers may have been changed, and both forces lost 1/4 of there soldiers.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ctesias's numbers

Sorry, but I really don't think they can be trusted. From Ctesias As Historian Of The Persian Wars by J. M. Bigwood, Phoenix, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 19-41

Few, however, would be tempted by Ctesias' remaining innovations. We can never trust him over the size of armies, although occasionally he reduces Herodotus' vast hordes to more plausible dimensions.26 Obviously we cannot believe the statistics of the present passage. Xerxes initially attempts to force the pass with 10,000 men, then with 20,000, and finally with 50,000 (cf. the climax-1,000, 2,000, 4,000 men-in the folk-tale of Darius' capture of Babylon-Hdt. 3.157). Herodotus' half-legendary account of Thermopylae has degenerated into total legend. A second attempt to provide statistics which are lacking in Herodotus' account, i.e., the size attributed to the contingent which turned Leonidas' position, is equally misguided. Herodotus' narrative (7.215 and 7.83) suggests that he believed that all 10,000 Immortals accompanied Hydarnes along the Anopaia path and topographical discussions often accept this number.27 It may be an exaggeration. At any rate Ctesias' figure of 40,000 is ludicrous. It betrays perhaps a desire to embroider upon the glories of the Spartan stand. Clearly there is no knowledge of the military situation or of the terrain.
Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And further, the point here, surely, is that none of the sources have stats that are actually reliable, ie dependable "Truth". The sources are just (just!) notable. The infobox should be amended to state that the Persian numbers are disputed, rather than including one arbitrarily chosen (and OR for that matter, Ctesias doesn't say 80,000) figure. --Dweller (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Agreed. To make this clear, I do not trust either Herodotus and Ctesias, as they both make horrible mistakes in their histories, and it is fact Herodotus makes more mistakes, because his book is longer than Ctesias. Anyways, on the other hand, WE can not really question their numbers because WE were not there, AND just because a guy with or without a PhD says that is unreliable, WE can not ASSUME he is correct. Which my advice to Doug is personally not look at one source against Ctesias, but to look at many historians that are for his numbers, which there are, as I will glady provide them for you if you ask me, and again for good reason I am for his small numbers, but I also question him. So my main point is that if we are going to question small numbers that Ctesias provides for us, as even the source you proved here, which CONSIDERS Ctesias more reliable, and that if you ask any historian they will tell you that super powers would not use ALL their invasion force for the first battle of a certain invasion, but chose a well selected few at first to get a good job done, for the waves of troops at first that Xerxes sends against the Spartans are few, and increase over time, as he gets desperate. And, as even Herodotus implies, Xerxes wanted to pass the Thermopylae pass ASAP, and not even to fight there, that is why, when he is forced, he sends waves of armies of 10-50,000. Anyways, I am just saying if we are going question small numbers, than for other major battles of the ancient world we should just PUT Unknown, EVEN if the numbers are provided for us?

We can never trust him over the size of armies, although occasionally he reduces Herodotus' vast hordes to more plausible dimensions.26 Obviously we cannot believe the statistics of the present passage. THIS why I said historians generally accept smaller numbers, and if one asks them, they well confirm this notion.

Herodotus' half-legendary account of Thermopylae has degenerated into total legend. THIS is the reason why this battle article has become SACRED to people, which is mostly based on legendary motifs provided by Herodotus and Frank Miller as they try exemplify the Spartans to a higher degree than the other Greeks.

Herodotus' narrative (7.215 and 7.83) suggests that he believed that all 10,000 Immortals accompanied Hydarnes along the Anopaia path and topographical discussions often accept this number.27 It may be an exaggeration. At any rate Ctesias' figure of 40,000 is ludicrous. THIS exerpt from above further confirms a figure of AROUND 80,000, and not 120,000 as Dweller once told me to put, which his question was that why I had omitted the 40,000 (which were ANYWAYS 10,000 Persian Immortals+30,000 other infantry RECYCLED from the previous days fighting). But, for example if there were 9,000 Persian Immortals left+31,000 other infantry RECYCLED from the previous days fighting, a figure of 40,000 could still work, but again, this just is a theory, which leaves it to be equally obscure.

I am worried and glad this is happening here, as it shows, 'certain' users that are OVER protective of 'certain' battle articles are realizing and or I am realizing how hard it is to CONFIRM history! So now take a deep breath, and slowly review this paragraph I wrote, and if you want, give me a WORTHY response, thank you all. Here is the link that caused all the problems here, [1] READ TO THE END.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Erm, I may not be joining in, but I'm still reading. I never said to put 120,000. That would be OR. Don't misquote people. I told you not to make up numbers based on trying to read into the sources what they may or may not be saying. The fact that you're now doing that to me is too ironic for words. --Dweller (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me what it is that your not joining in, and I am sorry if I misqouted you, but anyways just to know, and I read this in other places, that some historians think that Phiotus that copied the work of Ctesias wrongly, and which has led to Ctesias being critized for that. I now for a fact know that 75% of the Herodotus works and Ctesias works agree with each other, nevertheless, they were good historians, but not the best. I am also open to the fact that they were bad historians, but that seem a little unlikely because most of they said is confirmed by others and archaeologists. Which I think that shows that their works were changed by others as time went on, which by now shows them as not good historians, when in fact they might have been. Anyways this is just a theory from me and a few historians, so I think lets leave it to that, thanks for responding, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Infobox - Persian strength

Currently reads:

10,000 Persian Immortals, 20,000 Median and Cissian cavalry, 50,000 other infantry (Ctesias)

That's not the size of the Persian army, according to Ctesias, so it's OR. Worse, it's POV because even if Ctesias did say that (which, as I said, he doesn't) his figures are much lower than other ancient accounts. Citing one of the ancient accounts is unjustified and choosing the one that is by far the lowest is POV. All of which is academic, because, as I said, that's not what Ctesias says, that's what you're reading into the text. Which is OR. Best solution - put no figure in infobox, just "disputed", with a link to the relevant section. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll change it soon, but I suggest we add a section after Herodotus's numbers, that is concerning Ctesias's numbers too (with commentary of historians, and theories of other academics on 10k mistake factors, plus plagarism of the original work, etc...) only to be fair and balanced toward the reader, and to be fair to both and the only historians that give numbers for the Achaemenid Empires reserves and army during the Greco-Persian Wars, do you agree?--Ariobarza (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Sourced information that critiques the numbers of any and all of the ancient (and modern) sources is A Good Thing. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but try not to be vague, I'm just wondering if you agree to make a seperate section for Ctesias, thats all, so do you agree, a simple yes or no is will do, thank you buddy'l pow, ah jollies, shucks (sorry, I can't get more cute than that). Goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me what it is that your not joining in, and I am sorry if I misqouted you, but anyways just to know, and I read this in other places, that some historians think that Phiotus that copied the work of Ctesias wrongly, and which has led to Ctesias being critized for that. I now for a fact know that 75% of the Herodotus works and Ctesias works agree with each other, nevertheless, they were good historians, but not the best. I am also open to the fact that they were bad historians, but that seem a little unlikely because most of they said is confirmed by others and archaeologists. Which I think that shows that their works were changed by others as time went on, which by now shows them as not good historians, when in fact they might have been. Anyways this is just a theory from me and a few historians, so I think lets leave it to that, thanks for responding, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Why 15-16,000 Greeks might have fought in Thermopylae-1st Edition

In this article I have been approached a few times with the accusation that I am doing original research, but I never realized this Herodotus centric article has original research on it already. Like people choosing how many fought, and ignoring the rest of the information, so if you check how many Greeks are listed by ALL the historians on the battle it ammounts to something around 15-16,000. Now for Marathon almost 10,000 Greeks fought, so we know they could have done it again. Furthermore, it is almost like Herodotus doubles the Persian numbers, as he himself admits, and divides the Greek numbers in two, why? Anyways, please try to review and analyze if the information below, which is not an invention of mine, but in fact, a fact of number probability and (I will be constantly updating information on this section, so you might want to watchlisted for more breaking news) possibility. Thank you

Here are the total Greek peoples that I copy pasted from the battle article itself;

Spartans= 300. Lacedaemonians= 1,000. Mantineans= 500. Tegeans= 500. Arcadian Orchomenos= 120. Other Arcadians= 1,000. Corinthians= 400. Phlians= 200. Mycenaeans= 80. Total Peloponnesians= 4,100. Thespians= 700. Melians= 1,000. Thebans= 400. Phocians= 1,000. Opuntian Locrians= ±6,000. Helots= If 3 Helots per Spartan= 900 Helots/ But in Plataea there were 5 Helots per Spartan, which if were the same in Thermoplyae would equal= 1,500 Helots, and 4 Helots per Spartan should be included as a possibility too, which equals= 1,200 Helots.

And I remember somewhere in the Greco-Persian Wars article, though now I think it was removed, it said there were 800-1,000 Auxillary troops from other Greek cities, please tell me if one remembers such a line from last year, I may be able to find it.

Just to know before counting the Helots and Auxillaries, the total number of troops after Opuntian Locrains= 13,200 Greeks.

So this is how to find the average of 900-1,500 Helots+800-1,000 Auxillaries;

800+900= 1,700 900+800= 1,700 800+1,200= 2,000 900+900= 1,800 800+1,500= 1,300 900+1,000= 1,900

900+900= 1,800 1,200+800= 2,000 900+1,200= 2,000 1,200+900= 2,100 900+1,500= 1,400 1,200+1,000= 2,200

1,000+900= 1,900 1,500+800= 1,300 1,000+1,200= 2,200 1,500+900= 1,400 1,000+1,500= 2,500 1,500+1,000= 2,500

As one can see, there are 18 possibilities. But what we can do is to average them all, and find the most possible number out of all the possiblities. As this is just a simple math problem, I think its mathematically sound, its just a probability question;

1,700+2,000+1,300+1,800+2,000+1,400+1,900+2,200+2,500+1,700+1,800+1,900+2,000+2,100+2,200+1,300+1,400+2,500=33,700/ 18= 1,875;

Then we take the original number and add it to our average and we get, 13,200+1,875= 15,075 as the total troops of the Greek army, but there are two catches;

Of course this is not a real number, just the most probable, other than that if we were to accept the the lowest and highest numbers, the average of that will equal close to our probable number, which is 15,075 Greeks.

The lowest possible is, 14,900 Greeks.

The highest possible is, 15,700 Greeks, or minutely 16,000.

Which the average of both is 15,300 Greeks.

BUT, finally to find the average of the most probable possible number is, 15,075+15,300= 30,375/ 2= 15,187.5 as the total, total Greeks.

So for our best average, and final answer that is most probable and possible, it is that 15,187.5 GREEKS FOUGHT AT THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE. For the users reading this message, I know it is hard to accept such a number. I am neither claiming this is the right or wrong number, I am simply stating that it is the most probable. And just to know, I have read in certain places, that some historians do what I just did to these numbers, so it is not my original research. I just wonder why the users of Wikipedia would pick 7,000 Greeks as the standard number, when they know there could have been double as much?

Here is the best example of what I mean, as the bottom passage was taken out of this articles section about the Greek numbers, read carefully;

"Pausanias' account agrees with that of Herodotus (whom he probably read) except that he gives the number of Locrians, which Herodotus declined to estimate. Residing in the direct path of the Persian advance, they gave all the fighting men they had to the number of 6,000 men, which, added to Herodotus' 5,200, amounts to a force of 11,200.[110] Many modern historians, who usually consider Herodotus more reliable,[2] add the 1,000 Lacedaemonians and the 900 Helots to Herodotus' 5,200 to obtain 7,100 or about 7,000 men as a standard number,[111] neglecting Diodorus' Melians and Pausanias' Locrians. That is the approach taken in this article; it is, however, not at all clear that they can reasonably be neglected.

My response: Firstly Pausanias, in his geography of Greece book, which one can find on the internet said that Herodotus says, which he did, that the Opuntian Locrians sent 6,000, because the Locrians in another ancient battleS had said that it is 6,000 which are their standard number, so when Herodotus says that the Locrians sent all there men, then the only possible number is 6,000. Secondly, the next sentence admits that historians for some reason choose (which means original research) how many Greeks they think fought. Thirdly, the last sentence is the most damning, "That is the approach taken in this article; it is, however, not at all clear that they can reasonably be neglected." this shows that the battle article itself is choosing numbers that the historians guessed, and even stats that it is not sure WHY the other numbers are being neglected? Are you kidding me? It is because the articles assumptions are based on original research, and not even willing to take the scientific approach that I am have taken.

To be clear, I do not want to cause a dispute here, as EVEN I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBER. But I want to make aware to my fellow Wikipedians of what is going on here. ALL that I have done here is to theorize, or even you can say find out new things, BASED on the information already given to me, as I am not simply taking numbers out of the sky. I just wanted to find out the most probable number. It should also be added, that if there were 16,000 Greeks and about 4,000 died, and if there were 80,000 Persians and about 20,000 died, then both armies lost about a quarter of their men, which would not make it a Pyhrric victory, but a normal Persian victory (I know this sentence sounds interesting too, but it is just wishfull thinking, so you can totally forget it if you want too). So, If anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I will still respect your opinion. Please respond below, I am open to any comments or suggestions that my fellow Wikipedians give me. But do not worry, I do not really care if my message brings change to this article or not, I just want to make people aware, that is it. Thank you for reading. Goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have to admit I laughed when I read the above. First you criticise original research, then you add together numbers of very dubious reliability to produce a new number which I guarantee nobody has ever published before. This is original research by definition: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor presents a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not reach the same conclusion in direct connection to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." (WP:SYN) The results you've come up with are just silly. I'm intrigued by your figure of 15,187.5, especially the inclusion of .5 of a Greek. I wonder who this half of a Greek was? Maybe he'd lost his legs and had to fight in a wheelchair, jabbing at the Persians' ankles? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, and knew you would say that. You said, "If the sources cited do not reach the same conclusion in direct connection to the topic of the article" How can they reach the same conclusion as me, if they do not know the whole information, for the last time, I am getting my numbers from the article itself. If you read above I said that I do not even trust the numbers that I put above, but it should be noted that this is the best available estimate in existense, if I get my PHD I will just cite myself later. And the .5 if you want to know, was Ephaliates, he was half the size of a Greek, and you could see it in the film 300, but in a deleted scene, Ephaliates actaully fights, so that is the .5, LOL. I am thinking of putting this comment in the fake Wikipedia, I am just saying others are getting away with OR while I am made famous by McCain. McCain has made me famous. Thanks. If you omit my nutjob theories, you still have the original figure of 13,200+900 Helots+1,000 Auxularies=15,100!, NOT the number of Pausanias, which is 11,500, but Puasanias gets 11,500, BECAUSE he forgets to count the 900 Helots and 1,000 Auxularies. THIS IS FACT. Thank you. I am still open to critisim. For a neutral point of view I think we should put a figure of the lowest and highest possible together, which is that 4,000-15,700 fought in Thermoplyae, that is to be fair of course.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Why 15-16,000 Greeks might have fought in Thermopylae-2nd Editon

First lets put all of our bias's behind us, and approach the information below with an open mind, okay then, here it goes.

Lets say the scholars estimate that 900, and not the highest possible 1,500 Helots fought at Thermopylae.

Lets say the scholars estimate that 800, and not the highest possible 1,000 Auxillary troops fought at Thermopylae.

Then lets add these smallest numbers possible, so we can glorify the Spartans, because if I do not glorify the Spartans with small numbers I will be kicked down a hole.

Here are the already sourced numbers from the article itself, please use common sense.

Here are the total Greek peoples that I copy pasted from the battle article itself;

Spartans= 300
Lacedaemonians= 1,000
Mantineans= 500
Tegeans= 500
Arcadian Orchomenos= 120
Other Arcadians= 1,000
Corinthians= 400
Phlians= 200
Mycenaeans= 80
Helots= 900
Total Peloponnesians= 5,000, As one can see if Herodotus tallied all the Greeks that were listed he would get 5,000, which he would later add the 700+400+1,000= 7,100, of which he says fought in the Battle (check the Greek numbers on the article itself it says what I say here) of Thermopylae. But Diodorus, for some mysterious reason would tallies 5,200. I suspect, if Diodorus was correct, then would not there have to be 0-200 extra Greeks of uknown origin at this battle?.
Thespians= 700
Melians= 1,000
Thebans= 400
Phocians= 1,000
Opuntian Locrians= 6,000
Auxillaries= 800
Total Atticans= 9,900.

Okay lets just add them all up in a simple math problem, or we can just add the Total Peloponnesians and Atticans, which is;

5,000+9,900=14,900 or about a standard number of 15,000.

Therefore, in another coincedence, it becomes fact, that if we just double Herodotus' number of just over 7,000, that is most accepted today, we get about 15,000, that we have gotten today! And based on the fact that the Persian army was large enough, they must have used all their men, this is just another common sense folks.

So ±15,000 Greeks fought at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Another dilema has occured to me, after adding all the Peloponnesians together Herodotus gets 4,100, but Diodorus gets 4,300. This means Herodotus is leaving out 200 unkown Greeks. Or that Diodorus has made a mistake, now again for the sake of arguement and neutrality. Lets say both are correct, as if we think both are wrong, then were denying their works the right to be represented, which we can not suppress information. Anyways if both are right will get ±200, or at least 100 and not above 200. as 200/ 2= 100. Now lets add this number to our original Greeks, and we get this. But there are three possibilities;

IF Herodotus wrong, then this 14,900+200=15,100.

IF Diodorus wrong, then this 14,900+0=14,900.

IF both right, then this 14,900+±200 or about 100=15,000.

But know that they both can not be wrong, that is not a option we have, but if we theorize, then we could just say all of them are wrong and the battle did not happen, but again I am saying that is a option we do not have. THEREFORE, only 1 of 3 possibilities are correct. With of course an average of 14,975, further proof of a standard 15,000 number. So even if your not sure about the Auxillaries issue, then lets do this, 14,900-800=14,100, SO even if we were to take out the supposed Auxillaries, then we would still get a figure higher than 14,000, okay then.

Now lets imagine if the highest possible amount of Helots and Auxillaries fought, which is 1,500+1,000=2,500, which if we add to our reliable number of the original 13,200 other Greeks, it would equal, 15,700. BUT that nots the end of it, do you remember the above issue about the 200 unknown Greeks? I will not show the three possibilities because I know I will lose your faith, but I will show you the average which is, 15,700+100=15,800! NOW if Herodotus is wrong that he forgot to mention the name of the 200 missing Greeks, then it would be, 15,700+200=15,900!!! Imagine that, that would mean that almost 16,000 Greeks fought at the Battle of Thermopylae, a figure that even I have trouble believing. But remember EVERY number presented here comes from reliable sources and the original sources themselves, but for some biased reason, they choose to omit their own numbers that THEY (the ancient historians) put forth, this is what has led me to be troubled in the first place, and no one has ever adressed this problem.

The lowest number is given by Simonides, which is 4,000, but I think it should be the 7,000 of Herodotus there. Secondly, as I pointed out, the highest number could be 15,900 or about 16,000. So for the article, TO BE NEUTRAL, after putting the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians, under that I replaced the 6,000 other Greeks, with 3,000 to 15,700 other Greeks, TO represent to the reader that even for the GREEK numbers WE do not know how many exactly fought. IF your still wondering were I got the whole Auxillary thing go to Greco-Persian Wars article scroll down to Discussion on size of forces, and go down to the Thermoplyae section, where it says more auxillaries were sent, but for some reason I do not see that 800 to 1,000 number for the Auxillaries there anymore, someone has removed it when changing the sentence. If all the Greeks mentioned fought, it would be 14,900, but if the Auxillaries did not exist, it would be 14,100, so my personal estimation for myself is 14,100 to 14,900 Greeks fought, if all that were listed fought.

Am I right, or is this one of my other loony-nutjob cospiracy theories? Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

You should be writing essays, you can do this in an essay. In the article, we can present what other writers say. In the Infobox, we can place a large bomb and get rid of it because they too often lead to problems such as this. Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I asked you what you think of this proposal that I am making here, and not how good my essay writing is. This sentence is the backbone of our problems, and remember what is in parenthesis is my commentary;

Many modern historians, who usually consider Herodotus more reliable,[5] add the 1,000 Lacedaemonians and the 900 Helots to Herodotus' 5,200 to obtain 7,100 or about 7,000 men as a standard number,[110] (1. I can see why adding the Helots is a wise thing to do, because even Herodotus' mentions them, however WHY would the modern historians do ORIGINAL RESEARCH, or better yet do it falsey, by CHERRY PICKING which number belongs with Herodotus', and what is far worse is why did they, after cherry picking, just add the OTHER Greeks that appear under Diodorus's numbers, [because the 1,000 Lacedaemonians are originally from under Diodorus' numbers] why did they leave those out too?) neglecting Diodorus' Melians and Pausanias' Locrians. That is the approach taken in this article; it is, however, not at all clear (2. In this last sentence' first statement you could even get the sense that WIKIPEDIA or its USERS is criticising what these "modern" historians are doing, and that be assured, when conflict comes between historians, that means one of the historians knows MORE than the other) that they can reasonably be neglected.

If anyone can see what is truly wrong with this article, and how bad it is to included false information (while knowingly criticising it) by just letting it get away is. Then please respond below to what solution we can take. I have (to have a neutral stance) included in the Infobox other than the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians, I put 3,000 to ~15,700 other Greeks. Becuase the lowest number, which is 3,000, comes from Simonides, and the highest number comes from ALL the Greeks that are mentioned to have joined Leonidas at Thermopylae, and confessing to the fact that historians are agreeing that at least 10,000 Greeks could have fought, I do not understand why it is hard for them to believe 5,700 more also fought, because again, ALL the Greeks add to ~15,700. So I finally decided to leave it at a neutral point of view, because I do not want to be criticised for believing all the Greeks fought, which according to how immense the Persian numbers were, every Greek most likely had to fight. And CORRECTION, I now have put ~15,900 because of the whole 200 unknown Greeks issue, if you do not know what I am talking about scroll to the near top of this whole message and find the 200 uknown Greeks thing, therefore if I am right in my meaning, that this (~) means MORE or LESS, then MORE OR LESS 15,900 fought, if you check the Infobox now I just added the 9, to make the 15,700, 15,900. But I still kept it neutral by the leaving Siminodes' 3,000 too, but ANOTHER CORRECTION, now considering we know 900 Helots fought, and if 1,000 Auxillaries fought, then this it would be, 14,900+200(ofAuxif1,000)+200uknown=15,300 or that lets forget 200uknown, then would equal, 15,100 or a standard number of [±14,100], (SORRY i forgot the other 1,000 was already mentioned so it should be 14,000, not 15,000) and finally I now this (±) means more or less, not the wavy sign, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Why no-one cares exactly how many Greeks fought at Thermopylae

If we believe our main source (Herodotus), there were more than 5,200 greeks at the battle. Since he doesn't tell us how many more there were, we don't know AND can't know. If we believe the other two main sources (Diodorus & Pausanias), there were either 6,700 or 11,200 greeks at the battle; there may have been more: we don't know AND can't know. Adding up all possible Greeks from all the sources, and then inventing some more (800 auxillaries from a deleted line in a wikipedia article - highly verifiable - and then 600 helots just because you feel like it) doesn't actually help in the slightest get a more accurate number. Historical sources are mutually exclusive; you can't just mix and match the numbers as you see fit.

What we can do is state the totals given by the ancient sources, and then accept that there may have been more troops than that. i.e. 5,200+, or 6,700+ or 11,200+. Anything else is a misleading waste of time. Incidentally:

~ = Approximately

± = Plus or minus

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Table of Greek forces

Ariobarza, please read these points:

• Point 1: Herodotus gives separate contigents adding up to 3,100 Peloponnesians, but at another point says there were 4,000 Peloponnesians. Since he already says these two things, there is no need to mess up the table by including Simonides or Isocrates.
• Point 2: Should we try and account for the missing 900 Peloponnesians? Probably. Macan, who was the first author to do so, suggested they were either Perioeci or helots. Thus, if we are going to speculate, we have to include both possibilities. If we are not going to speculate, then we should include neither. Either way, this point is discussed sufficiently in the text below the table. It should not be included in the table.
• Point 3: Diodorus[2] says that:

  "Leonidas, when he received the appointment, announced that only one thousand men should follow him on the campaign"

But later in the same passage, he says:

"there were, then, of the Lacedaemonians one thousand, and with them three hundred Spartiates"

That is why, in the table, it says there were 1,000 Lacedaemonians which might (or might not) have included the 300 Spartans. I know you have found a reference that says there were only 700 Lacedaemonians, but since it is not even clear that this is the case in 'the original text, then this reference is not relevant. Again, because it is not clear, the table includes both possibilities.

• Point 4: Pausanias derives his numbers from Herodotus. Therefore, there is no need to put him in the table. His estimation of 6,000 Locrians is generally discounted (especially since Diodorus says there were 1,000), as is discussed in the text accompanying the text.

In summary, the table should be left as it is. A table should be as simple as possible, and should not include discussion where it is not needed.

The edits you have been making today have been confusing and generally not helpful. I know that you disagree with the numbers in the article (see the above pages and pages of your comments). The numbers in the ancient texts may, of course, be wrong. But they say what they say, and that is what the table shows; not what you think the numbers should be.

Please, please, leave the table and infobox alone, unless there is consensus that they are wrong. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected page

The article is protected at the moment to stop the edit warring and to give people a chance to clarify the arguments and perhaps others to chime in to see what the best way forward is. Note Admins can make changes, see the template at the top of the article. dougweller (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been coming. There's been edit warring and breaches of WP:OWN on this article for a long time now. What a shame. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh the humanity! Shame oh Shame, boowho. Best regards.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The Table of Greek forces (Ariobarza's response)

MinisterForBadTimes, please read these points:

• Point 1: Herodotus gives separate contigents adding up to 3,100 Peloponnesians, but at another point says there were 4,000 Peloponnesians. Since he already says these two things, there is no need to include Simonides or Isocrates accounts, because they both agree with the 4,000 number.
• Point 2: Should we try and account for the missing 900 Peloponnesians? Probably. Macan, who was the first author to do so, would therefore make his theories Fringe, suggested they were either Perioeci (actually he say's on the perseus.org it was the Thespians) or (Spartan helots). Thus, if we are going to speculate, we have to include both possibilities. If we are not going to speculate, then we should include neither. Either way, this point is discussed insufficiently (as it is filled with unsourced Original Research and extreme Fringe theories, out of 20 sentences, probably 5 are referenced, AND referenced from a website, and also ONE book) in the text below the table. Therefore this incorrect text should be taken out, and fitted to go in accordance to the CORRECT numbers.
• Point 3: Diodorus[3] says that:

  "Leonidas, when he received the appointment, announced that only one thousand men should follow him on the campaign"

But later in the same passage, he says:

"there were, then, of the Lacedaemonians one thousand, and with them three hundred Spartiates"

PROBABLY meaning, 300 Spartan helots + 700 Lacedaemonians/ Perioeci= total Lacedaemonians 1,000, and with them 300 Spariates, which is a full citizen Spartan, or Leonidas's men.

That is why, in the table, it says there were 1,000 Lacedaemonians which might (or might not) have included the 300 Spartans. You know I have found a MULTIPLE references that say there were only 700 Lacedaemonians, (think about it, their is no need to speculate, the answer is now clear, some writers have missed it, 700+300= 1,000 Lacedaemonians, THAT is why in the site you referenced it says the other Lacedaemonians/Spartans Helots might have been mistaked for the THESPIANS {guess what, there were 700 Thespians, perseus.org agrees with me too!' But since it is (upon further research will be soon) clear that this is the case in the original text, then this reference is relevant. Again, because it is not clear, the table includes both possibilities.

• Point 4: Pausanias does not entirely derive his numbers from Herodotus. Therefore, there is a need to put him in the table. His estimation of 6,000 Locrians is NOT generally discounted (especially since Diodorus says there were 1,000), as is discussed in the text accompanying the wrongtext (READ Pausanias book 10.21 he explains that when Herodotus' say' ALL the Locrians were sent, he did not know the number, that is why he say's all, but the total number that could be sent (according to Pausanias) is 6,000.

In summary, the table should be revised or remain arrogant to the real world/ facts. The table I made is as simple as it could possibly be, and barely includes a few words.

The edits you have been making today have been confusing and generally not helpful. I know that you disagree (as you said yourself, "I don't care how many Greeks fought at Thermopylae") with the numbers in the article (see the above pages and pages of your comments). The numbers in the ancient texts may, of course, be wrong. But they say what they say, and that is what the table shows; not what you think the numbers should be (the main problem is the theory you try to include with a lot of sentences from one book/site.) Try to find more sources for this Fringe theory, and then I'll look into it.

Please, please, leave the table and infobox alone, unless there is consensus (which currently does not exist anywhere, trust me) that they are right or wrong. Here is what I mean;

	Numbers-Herodotus 	Numbers-Diodorus Siculus

Spartans 300 300

Lacedaemonians/

Perioeci - 700

Spartan helots "helots were also there for them to see"

(for reconciliation with most accounts) 200-300? 3,000

                                   (other Peloponnesians sent with Leonidas)

Mantineans 500

Tegeans 500

Arcadian Orchomenos 120

Other Arcadians 1,000

Corinthians 400

Phlians 200

Mycenaeans 80

Total Peloponnesians [3,100] or 4,000 4,000

Thespians 700 -

Melians - 1,000

Thebans 400 400

Phocians 1,000 1,000

Opuntian Locrians "all the men they had" or (according to Pausanias) 6,000 1,000

Grand Total [5,200], or 6,100 plus the Opuntian Locrians, and (by Pausanias number) 11,200 7,400

Please try to follow what I say below, I know it might not make sense, but you might discover something, I deeply thank you.

• As you can see, you already included the 4,000 before I even had edited this table, but I chose to keep it, because it is signifigant, about 4/5 say 4,000, here are their names, Simonides, Isocrates, Pausanias (?), Diodorus.

• All the numbers above are accurate, [4], your welcomed to search for the term I provided in the broader search area for more books, if you want to confirm it. 4,000, is not what the old table adds up too (it adds up to about 5,000), meaning that there is a mistake, the 1,000 Lacedaemonians are not independent, they are;

300 Spartans + 700 Lacedaemonians/ Perioeci(of Diodorus)= [1,000 total Lacedaemonians] 
+The group that starts from the Mantineans to the end for the Peloponnesians= [2,800 other Peloponnesians], add them together= ({3,800} total Peloponnesians for Herodotus).

HERE IS THE PROBLEM; (however, Diodorus gets 4,000 total Peloponnesians, so there is a difference of a factor of 200-300 Greeks unaccounted for IN the Peloponnesian section only). Even without Original Research, your right, they could have mistaked 700 Thespians for 700 Lacedaemonians/ Perioeci, and it could also be true that there was just 1 Spartan helot per Spartan, remember the 200-300 Greeks unaccounted for?! My question is why people have speculated about 900 helots(never appears anywhere else in the ancient world, essentialy non-existent, or 2,100 helots(meaning 7 helots per Spartan, which only occured ONCE in history, in the Battle of Plataea). This is purely even a wrong type of specualtion that is dangerous (because its based on wrong numbers to begin with).

Now because there is a factor of 200 not 300, 200 helots for one Spartan is improbable, but could be possible. So best educated guess one can come by, even if it is up to us or a higher power to decide, is 200-300 Spartan helots. If you add this to Herodotus' {3,800} you get about 4,000, WHICH would then be agreeing with A L L the other accounts (I mean all can be in agreement over the Peloponnese section, the section starting from the Thespians is a entire different matter).

This is what I mean: 3,800 (Herodotus' all other Peloponnesians) + 200-300 (Spartan helots)= 4,000+
(Diodorus' total Peloponnesians)= 4,000
(Simonides' total Peloponnesians)= 4,000
(Isocrates' total Peloponnesians)= 4,000
(Pausanias' total Peloponnesians {he gets the same as Herodotus because he copied it from him, he just added 6,000 Locrians to make his own number})= (3,100) 4,000

Is there a match anyone?

(IMPORTANT NOTE:) Do you remember when I first ran into these 200 unknown Greeks in the article where I talked about the most possible for the Greek numbers? If you do remember answer this question in your response, it is a real mystery.

So finally, I agree with you (MinisterForBadTimes) for I suppose that if we are to include speculative theories, it should be in the section starting with the Thespians(Ignore this statement: Which also has possibility of reconciliation with the other accounts). As much as this sounds bad, it is all we got. Ask yourself, is better to come up with as speculation about 900-2,100 Spartan helots, or to go with 200-300 Spartan helots that text from the historians writings Choose and provide for us. I'm merely doing this on what numbers they have given themselves, I am not making up 1, or 5, or 348, or 7,200 Spartan helots, like some have done. Therefore, what I said before is the best and only estimate we can give for the Spartan helots, I am sorry it is not up to me or you to decide. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ariobarza, this is childish. Copying my post and then turning it around is just stupid. Can't you just reply to my post, like normal? I can see that you haven't even read my post properly.

Regardless of this, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I am willing to compromise on the table. What if we were to remove all speculation from the table; about helots, perioeci, etc. Let's just have in the table the bare numbers given by Herodotus, Diodorus; and, in a new column, Pausanias. These are the only three authors that I am aware of who give complete numbers. All discussion of what these numbers actually mean can be in the accompanying text.

We obviously do not agree on numbers, that is clear. However, I would like to see the table cleaned up. I hope my suggestion about the table will satisfy you, enough for us to re-construct it. If you agree to this, please say below. If you agree, I will apply to have the editing block lifted, and then will edit the table as I have said. If you accept the new table, then hopefully we can have the editing block removed.

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I do not appreciate you calling my response childish and stupid, I have no firm belief in ancient numbers anyway, so stop saying I do not agree with you. I wanted to refute the sentences in your message, so I made the most simple and direct response. The hole thing about 200-300 Spartans was not originally my invention, various authors have complained about these "missing" Greeks. So just so you know, it was not exactly OR. I agree to your proposal, and appreciate that you have spent some time cleaning this article up. I as I see it, there is no dispute between us, so ignore editors that try to indirectly exaggerate things. I want to propose a deal (after we work together to produce a Pausanias table) that to identify the issue, we present theories from different scholars about it (just like the same way theories on the Persian numbers are already on the article, and that those theories are not isolated, so we need a revision). Speculation is not damaging, only if the speculation does not enforce a paticular point of view, then it is harmless. Please, if you could just take a look at these links below, it will take just a few minutes, I think they give proof to what I said before, that the whole HELOT issue is more complicated than we thought, there are a lot of theories out there (that can be presented on Wikipedia, here is a few);

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Therefore, I hope, that after that we make the new table, we present ALL theories for a neutral balance, and include some of these, so it better clarifies the problems. I also want to acknowledge that I might be wrong about Diodorus saying there was 4,000 Peloponnesians, (few) books that the name now escapes me say 4,300, if herodotus gets 3,800, then there is a difference of 500 Greeks, I AM doing research currently to see if I am wrong, or they are wrong, so I just wanted you to know, and suggest we do not jump to conclusion just yet. So finally, we can make this article better, many thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk