Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page protection

I've reprotected this page, as the edit war has started right back up again. You're attempting to discuss it on the talk page, whilst persisting in changing each other's edits on the article. If you can't come to an agreement here, made a Request for Comment for other editors to get involved. GedUK  09:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What was the result of the wars?

There is a dispute as to the outcome of the Graeco Persian wars as it should appear in the infobox of the article. The page is currently protected, because it is constantly edited back and forth from

As suggested by Ged UK, I have made a request for comment regarding this issue. Everybody is welcome to comment on the arguments presented on whether the outcome should be :

A. Greek victory
B. stalemate

Greek victory. No question. The Persian goal was to conquer Greece--they utterly failed. The Greek goal was to survive--they succeeded by decisively defeating and repulsing the invading Persian army twice. I utterly fail to see any logic whatsoever in the "arguments" for a stalemate. (Taivo (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Greek victory. I Agree with Taivo´s position. The Greek not only accomplished their objective (to resist the invasion) but also freed some states from Persian rule. The Persians not only failed their objective (to extend their control over Greece) as well as lost the control of some of its territories. Also, reliable sources were presented in favor of the victory position. Uirauna (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. My opinion from the start (see arguments above and below). GK1973 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. Per the above. Athenean (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate: Per Encyclopaedia Britannica the result was "Greek gained independence from Achaemenid rule". The war was 1. To get the Greek states under Achaemenid rule (phase 1, successful for Persians) 2. To get Greeks their independence back. (phase 2, successful for Greeks). Therefore the result of wars was: Stalemate. Xashaiar (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. I utterly fail to see the rationale behind "stalemate". When state A attacks B and is thoroughly repulsed, it counts as a victory for B, regardless of the details. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. I understand that when the wars ended, it was in a stalemate; i.e. the final campaign in Cyprus was stalemated. However, taking into account the situation at the beginning and the end of the wars, the only logical conclusion is that of a Greek victory. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. Stalemate: I argued all my points above. By the way, campaign in Cyprus was actually - decisive Persian victory.--93.142.128.9 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate: Both sides won some of the wars and lost some of them, the eventually neither sides managed to win the whole thing, the outcome was indecisive.

Comment: The 93.142 editor is running around canvassing his fellow Iranian ultra-nationalists [1]. This must be taken into account when closing the discussion. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. Comment:This voting started by representing only pro-Greek arguments, three out of four first voters are Greek. Coincidence? I think not, so this information alo must be taken into account when closing the discussion. --93.142.128.9 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "pro-Greek" arguments unless one is a fanatical Iranian nationalist who sees everything in terms of black and white. There is clear, disruptive canvassing on the part of the IP, and this needs to be addressed. Athenean (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment:3 out of 4 Greeks? First mistake (lie?)... representing pro-Greek arguments? This is the second day of this poll and it is your responsibility to present your arguments not mine. Nevertheless, I had made a comment guiding the commentators to the discussions above until the arguments of Side B were presented, a comment I needn't have made. Lastly, there was no canvassing on my part as can be easily checked. I only notified Brad, the editor who initiated this discussion, no one else. All others are just concerned editors, who pay attention to Wikipedia needs, as far as I am concerned. The poll is being monitored by admins and it is them who will decide on the issue, not us. It may last a week, may last two weeks... GK1973 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory I mean, is this still a question? We could be working on more important issues here than this! Come on.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts 1. The GP wars as defined in our article lasted from 499 (before the rebellion of the Ionian city states)to 449 BC (Peace of Callias).

2. The GP wars as defined in our article encompass multiple engagements and campaigns :

a. The Ionian Revolt (499-493 BC)
b. The First Persian invasion (492-490 BC)
c. The second Persian invasion (480-479 BC)
d. The Greek counter attack (479-478 BC)
e. The Wars of the Delian League (477-449 BC)

3. Many battles were fought, some were won by the Greeks others by the Persians

4. The whole Greek world (apart from most Greeks inhabiting the West Mediterranean)and the Persian Empire in its totality took part in the wars.

5. Greeks fought (most as Persian tributaries) for the Persian king.

6. Greek and Persian lands exchanged hands during the war but it is the territorial state directly before and after the wars that matters towards the end result.

Arguments in favor of option A. Greek Victory

1. The end of the war found the Persian Empire with the loss of many dependencies (territorial loss)

A. Ionia gained independence when at the start of the wars it was fully controlled by Persia

B. Thrace (along with its Greek colonies) was lost to the Persians, when at the start of the wars it was a dependency of Persia (gaining independence only for a very short time during the Ionian revolt).

C. Macedon was lost as an unwilling ally to the Persians (having been placed under control during the wars)

2. The end of the war found the Persian Empire acknowledging its territorial losses in exchange for peace.

3. Bibliography

i). John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. He might be referring only to 479.

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

iii). Thomas Harrison, Greeks and Barbarians, p.5 "...one which sees the Greeks' victory as due to their innate freedom, the pattern of Persian error as the result of their monarchy, and their lack of proper reverence for the gods. The end of the Persian Wars (possibly formalised in a treaty of 449), and the end of a series..." (many historians regard 479 as the end of the war, Harrison here clearly speaks of 449)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. FALSE CITATION: It is not personal author conclusion, but his referring to Herodotus' Histories (he even says so in footnote number 28.). Harrison later says: "The end of the Persian Wars (possibly formalised in a treaty of 499), and the end of a series of subsequent conflicts with the Persians in the eastern Mediterranean and in Egypt, did not lead to disappearance of the Persians." This is second time I've catch your manipulating with citations! --93.142.128.9 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpreting again? These are the words of the author, not of Herodotus. The author is ACCEPTING the fact that there was a Greek victory and he informs us on how Herodot explained it... You should know better than that.... GK1973 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. Why do you LIE? Anyone can open link to googlebooks and read on 5. page what did author wrote: Herodotus in many ways undercuts the assumption of Greek cultural superiority, mocking the Greeks, for example, as children in their knowledge of the gods by comparison with the Egyptians; his account of the Persian Wars envisages Greek victory as in large part the result of consistent Persian mistakes. Nevertheless, he also reflects a much more celebratory tradition of the Persian Wars, one which sees the Greeks' victory as due to their innate freedom, the pattern of Persian error as the result of their monarchy, and their lack of proper reverence for the gods. In whole this part of book he speaks just about historical sources like Herodotus, Aeschylus, Thucydides, etc. Perhaps you didn't know, but Herodotus' Histories ends with Xerxes' invasion (479 BC). So, you did not just misinterpret his words, but AGAIN made chronological mistake. Later in his text, Harrison speaks about Peace of Callias which previously quoted. --93.142.128.9 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The author clearly accepts Greek victory as the outcome of the Persian Wars and ends the wars in 449.... You might play with words as to why the author connects the word "victory" with Herodot. (Everybody here knows where Herodot ends his account) but you yourself give the comment he makes about the peace of 449 (did not lead to the DISAPPEARANCE of the Persians) I understand the author's approach (to me the two paragraphs are connected as text and meaning, you could argue that they do not) as directly supporting my opinion but you can of course argue that he only acknowledges Greek victory up to 479 and then for some reason, immediately after, talks about how the Persians did not disappear after 449 (since he obviously according to you considers Persian might to be as it was BEFORE the Ionian revolt...). You may continue with your accusations and complete lack of counter arguments but you should clearly and honestly state here : Do you believe that the author does not ascribe Greek victory to the totality of the Persian Wars ending in 449, after reading the text? Or are you just disputing again out of habit? GK1973 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. Author does NOT say that, stop lying! Harrison says: "The end of the Persian Wars (possibly formalised in a treaty of 499), and the end of a series of subsequent conflicts with the Persians in the eastern Mediterranean and in Egypt, did not lead to disappearance of the Persians.". Later, he just speaks about Peloponnesian Wars. There is no single personal claim about outcome of Greco-Persian wars; he only speaks about historical sources. Obviously, you see what you want to see. As I said, anyone can check his words on googlebooks. --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again...bold accusations and an effort to deprive me of my right to interpret sources... This is why we produce them... in order to interpret them. If the other commentators agree with you then they will just go to the next source and evaluate it too... Of course if you provide none, then, you will most probably be characterized as a disrupting IP. My advice is to stop playing with words and start producing some sources yourself. You have made your interpretation, I have made mine, you think that the comment about the non-disappearance of the Persians points to a stalemate, I support that it points to their defeat. Yet, you again did not answer a very direct question as to how YOU interpret the source... GK1973 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

iv). Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: a portrait of self and others, "Chronological Reference Points...449 - Greek victory in Cyprus; Persia forced to abandon control over Asiatic Greeks"

The following comments are by a block-evading user. Another one: Below author says: 448. Peace of Callias (notice; this is third GK1973's manipulation with sources) --93.142.128.9 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. This is to certify that the Persians were FORCED to abandon control over Asiatic Greeks and clearly supports my point... GK1973 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. He offers only chronology which ends with Peace of Callias, without any furher explanations so don't start with your own synthesis.--93.142.128.9 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to synthesize... I just offered one more (out of many) reference for the commentators to draw their conclusions from. You think that the word "forced" has nothing to do with the peace of Callias....OK... I guess that others would disagree.. but of course you are entitled to your own opinion. GK1973 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following comments are by a block-evading user. All I know is that author is talking about "forcing Persians out", but historical facts were otherwise: Greeks retreated home and Cimon has died (perhaps even killed). --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So... you again just dispute the sources as nonsense and bring forward your authority as an alternative... I especially like the way you connect how the author "forces" the Persians out of Ionia (some of the lands whose independence they acknowledge with the Treaty of Callias) with your dispute as to the "victory of the Greeks in Cyprus"... GIVE A SOURCE!!! GK1973 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

v). Max Pohlenz, Freedom in Greek life and thought: the history of an ideal, p.18 "The immediate objective of the alliance was to liberate the Greeks who were still subject to the Persians, and this objective was gained after long fighting, An agreement with the Persians was reached in the year 449 whereby, for practical purposes at least, the exercise of sovereign rights over the Greek coastal cities was waived, and the spheres of influence at sea were also clearly defined."

vi). Encyclopedia Britannica: League policy entered a new phase as relations between Athens and Sparta broke down in 461. The Athenians committed themselves to war with the Peloponnesian League (460–446), at the same time launching a large-scale eastern offensive that attempted to secure control of Cyprus, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean. While the Athenians and allies were campaigning successfully against the Spartans, subjugating Aegina, Boeotia, and central Greece, further expansion was checked when the league fleet was virtually destroyed in (Persian) Egypt. Fearing the Persians would mount an offensive following such a naval defeat, the Athenians transferred the league treasury to Athens (454). Within the next five years, with the resolution of difficulties with Sparta (five-year truce, 451) and Persia (Peace of Callias, c. 449/448), the league became an acknowledged Athenian empire. - Britannica is written by dozens of academic scholars.

The following comments are by a block-evading user. As Britannica claims, AFTER the peace of Callias, THE LEAGUE BECAME AN ACKNOWLEDGED ATHENIAN EMPIRE, comprising lands which before the wars were subjects to the Persians in Thrace, Ionia AND Macedonia.

See the map of their allies/colonies, and compare it with maps of Thrace. After peace of Callias, Delian League did gained some previously Persian parts, but Persians also gained Athenian colonies in Cyprus and Egypt. Is it so hard to understand that's mean - stalemate? --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I am sure that you cannot be an historian... Athenian colonies in Egypt and Cyprus????? If you mean that they gave up Cyprus and they left Egypt, then I have to remind you that both were Persian at the beginning of the war. The Persians did not gain anything new, and of course no Athenian colonies... GK1973 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

vii). Donald Lateiner,G. C. Macaulay, The histories, p.12 In their chronological table, the translators state : "449 - The Greek navy defeats the Persians at Salamis, a city in Cyprus. The Persian Wars end with the Peace of Callias, in which Persia recognizes the independence of Greek cities, especially those of Asia Minor.

viii). William Cooke Taylor,Caleb Sprague Henry, A manual of ancient and modern history, p.113 "The articles were soon arranged and they were worthy of the valor that the Greeks had shown in this great struggle (BC 449). It was stipulated that the independence of the cities in lower Asia should be restored, that no Persian vessel should appear between the Cyanean rocks and the Chelidonian islands, that is between the northern extremity of the Thracian Bosphorus and the southern promontory of Lycia, that no Persian army should come within three days' journey of the seacoast, and that the Athenians should withdraw their fleets and armies from the island of Cyprus. Thus gloriously were terminated the Persian wars, which reckoning from the burning of Sardis had lasted, with little intermission, during fifty-one years."

ix). Samuel Shirley,James S. Romm, On the war for Greek freedom: selections from the Histories, p.16 "Persia had ceased to be a threat to European Greece and had even been decisively beaten in Asia during the 460's, after 449 not even the Ionian cities that had always been Persia's prey had anything to fear from it."

(more references can be provided if necessary) GK1973 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of option B. Stalemate

The following arguments were made by a block-evading, banned user. The whole debate had been struck out. 1. Not even a single Persian territory was lost in favor of their enemies Athenians or Spartans.

A. It was Greece (Athens and Eretria) who started the war (Ionian revolt), not Persia. Persians revenged to both Athens and Eretria by razing their polis (I. and II. invasion) --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

objectionAgain, you are trying to persuade us and against all sources, that the sole purpose of the Persian kings was to punish two Greek cities. All sources accept that the Persians wanted - demanded the surrender of the whole of Greece, give us ONE source which claims that the Persians did not mean to ask the Greek cities for "earth and water" or that they gave the battles of Salamis and Plataea by mistake, since they would anyways retreat victorious from sacked Athens... GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact one: Did first Persian expedition involved any other polis beside Eretria (success) and Athens (defeat)? No.

You must be kidding... Thasos (6.44)? Aegina (6.49)? Macedonia (6.44)? many unnamed islanders (6.49)? Naxos (6.95) etc etc etc... again no sources but your own "authority"... Is it a coincidence that you are again completely mistaken? GK1973 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact two: Did army of Xerxes go any further on south after Athens was razed? No, Xerxes and his main inland army gone home. True, Athenians achieved naval victory at Salamis but Persian inland army was still in position to advance further, but they did not go to Peloponnese. Xerxes left small part of his army to Mardonius, who was later defeated at Platea.

If you look at any map, you will easily see that there is no place to go south of Athens... Xerxes could only go WEST through the Isthmus... where the Greeks had built yet another wall and awaited the Persian host. Had Xerxes won Salamis, he would have proceeded west. He lost and so, with no secure supply lines anymore he decided to retreat, leaving a sizeable force to continue operations. Had Xerxes not wanted to proceed, there would be no reason for him to give the battle of Salamis... He had Athens...(and of course all bibliography supports these words...). Your interpretation of Xerxes decision is unique and again no sources to back it other than your own "authority"... GK1973 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

B. and C. Ionia, Macedonia and Thrace participated on Persian side during Xerxes invasion, so it isn't matter they gain their independence after wars. Persian enemies Athens and Sparta didn't subjected that territories.

objectionIrrelevant... Ionia, Macedonia, Thrace AND the Greek cities of Thrace participated as subjected people, NOT as allies and it matters a lot that they gained their independence, for it was made possible by the Persian Wars and the loss was formally accepted by the Persians with the peace of Callias. Also, the Athenians incorporated areas in Thrace, Macedonia and Ionia in their Empire. GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. During Darius' expeditions in Europe (against Scythians, not Greeks) Macedonia volunteered at Persian side, and Darius actually didn't even led his army there. After Ionian revolt, Mardonius enabled democracy in Ionian cities so they also willingly participated on Persian side during Xerxes' invasion. One of the major Xerxes' adviser and admiral in Persian navy was Greek woman called Artemisia. How's that possible, if "Greeks were subjected"? Greeks from Asia Minor in 493 BC started to favor Persians rather then Athens because Darius forbided slavery, built temples, and make free-tax zones around every Apollo's temples. Athens DID NOT subjected Macedonia or Thrace, even Ionia was not subjected.

???What are you talking about? Macedon was an unwilling ally (many instances of resistance against the Persians are mentioned, especially by Alexander I both before and during the wars. As all "allies"-dependencies, they had to supply the King with manpower in order for him to conduct his campaigns), as for the Ionians, I already gave sources as to whether they were considered trustworthy or not (and I can produce more, ancient and modern). I guess that you only use Wikipedia as a source (this Mardonius argument was very characteristic), but please.... try to find some reference as to how the Persians felt towards the Ionians... Do you know what Xerxes said to Artabanus when the latter warned him not to use the Ionians? Do you know the argument he used to convince him that he did not fear the Ionians? Also, it is funny that you mentioned Artemisia, since she was a queen and no parliamentary member... GK1973 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you can't stand fact that Greeks participated on Persian side by their own will. Macedonia joined Persian Empire during reign of Amyntas I, father of Alexander I. What is about Artemisia being Carian queen? Didn't even famous Athenian Themistocles later joined to Persian military by his free will? Face the facts! --93.142.128.9 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not the "facts". These are again your own interpretations... Amyntas was a Persian ally but the Persians were hated by the Macedonians (5.20), (9.44). Artemisia was a Persian backed queen... so were many other Ionian monarchs appointed or backed by the Persians. Yet, I have provided bibliography below, you again have us rely on your authority... As for Themistocles, you could have found much better examples than a great Greek who according to Plutarch preferred death by poison to going against Greece... You seem to mix up personal interests of leading personnas with the sentiment of the masses who fight the wars... And of course you did obviously not find the answer to my question regarding why Xerxes was so sure about the Ionian loyalty...GK1973 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following arguments were made by a block-evading, banned user. The whole debate had been struck out. 2. The end of the war did not found the Persian Empire acknowledging its territorial losses in exchange for peace; Persia agreed not to involve in Aegean Sea, while Athens agreed not to involve in Eastern Mediterranean. Peace of Callias was arranged after Athens was defeated in Cyprus and Egypt.

objection The end of the war found Persia acknowledging its territorial losses. It acknowledged the independence of Ionia, Thrace (and the Greek colonies in Thrace) and Macedon in exchange for the Athenians to stop interfering in the Persian Empire. GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact: The end of war found the Athenian-led Delian League acknowledging its territorial losses in Cyprus and Egypt also, which they previously won. You are constantly ignorning fact that the same as Greeks did repulse Mardonius' army from Mainland Greece, on the same way Persians repulsed Greek forces from Egypt and Cyprus. --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

???Was Egypt (there were no Greek losses in Egypt, they went there to support a rebellion) or Cyprus Greek before the war? Was there any territorial loss of any Greek state at the end of the war when compared to the situation before the war? Can you claim the same for the Persians? The Persians lost territories larger in size than the whole of Greece... GK1973 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following arguments were made by a block-evading, banned user. The whole debate had been struck out. 3. During a whole period of Greco-Persian Wars, Greeks didn't win a single inland battle against main Persian army (just naval battles and satrapic local armies).

objection Fully irrelevant as to the outcome plus there is no logic in referring to any "main" Persian army. The provinces were defended by provincial armies. If the Persian king did not order a full muster of forces again, it cannot be held against the Greeks!!!! GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant in context of "First Persian invasion of Greece", because it contracts with fairy-tales that small army and navy of Datis & Artaphernes tried to "conquer all Greece", as you claimed.--93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So..ancient and modern historians tell "fairy tales" and you are the one who will save us all from them... again no sources, just bold claims... And why does it seem logical to you that the Persian needed "a small army" to defeat the Greeks all the way to Athens but a "large army" to defeat the Greeks with the Peloponnesians? And why then did the Lacedaemonians come to the Athenians' assistance if they were not threatened by the Asiatic "punishers"? Come on... you may have your own opinion, but you should at least admit that there are not many who share it with you... As an iranologist... can you bring us some examples of historians who support that the 1st Invasion of Greece had nothing to do with subjugating the Greeks? That it was just a badly prepared expedition to "punish" Athens and Eretria and nothing more? It is up to you to show that it is not you who are all about "fairy tales"...GK1973 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, just ancient historians tell fairy tales, and you are referring to them. Modern historians reduced Datis' army from ancient number of 600,000 to just 20,000. That's the fact I'm talking about. I've asked you a question; did Persian army (490 BC) attacked any other Greek polis beside Eretria and Athens? --93.142.128.9 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered above... "You must be kidding... Thasos (6.44)? Aegina (6.49)? Macedonia (6.44)? many unnamed islanders (6.49)? Naxos (6.95) etc etc etc... again no sources but your own "authority"... Is it a coincidence that you are again completely mistaken?" Is there any modern historian supporting your claims? Again OR?

The following arguments were made by a block-evading, banned user. The whole debate had been struck out. 4. Bibliography:

i) Encyclopedia Britannica: League policy entered a new phase as relations between Athens and Sparta broke down in 461. The Athenians committed themselves to war with the Peloponnesian League (460–446), at the same time launching a large-scale eastern offensive that attempted to secure control of Cyprus, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean. While the Athenians and allies were campaigning successfully against the Spartans, subjugating Aegina, Boeotia, and central Greece, further expansion was checked when the league fleet was virtually destroyed in (Persian) Egypt. Fearing the Persians would mount an offensive following such a naval defeat, the Athenians transferred the league treasury to Athens (454). Within the next five years, with the resolution of difficulties with Sparta (five-year truce, 451) and Persia (Peace of Callias, c. 449/448), the league became an acknowledged Athenian empire. - Britannica is written by dozens of academic scholars and it's actually ONLY source which reffers Greco-Persian wars from 499 to 449 BC, while most others refers just to Darius' and Xerxes' expeditions (490-479 BC).

objectionThis has nothing to do with a stalemate. What Britannica claims is correct but does clearly not support your claims. A simple glance at any map of the Athenian Empire as mentioned in your source, will immediately show that it comprised lands which AT THE START OF THE WARS belonged to Persia... oh... and there goes your claim that the Athenians did not "subject" these territories (actually lands in THRACE, IONIA and MACEDONIA...). And this is what YOUR SOURCE claims, so I will also add it as my source... Oh.. and of course it is not the ONLY source which places the end of the Persian wars after the peace of Callias, as I have clearly shown above. GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It refers to Peace of Callias, which is signed by both sides. You claimed that only Persia "lost" due to treaty, but fact is that Greeks also lost their rights in Eastern Mediterranean. Is it hard to understand? Or more precisely; does Britannica refers to any kind of "Greek victory" in 449 BC? No. You are constantly mentioning your personal syntax that whole war was fought about Ionia, but "Location" in article clearly mentions: Mainland Greece, Thrace, Aegean Islands, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Egypt. Even if we accept your claim about Ionia, it doesn't change fact that Greeks lost at Cyprus and in Egypt (nearly at the end of war). --93.142.128.9 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Greeks did not lose any rights to Eastern Mediterrranean. They left from Cyprus (which they did not have at the beginning of the war anyways) and promised not to interfere in the Persian affairs as long as the Persians kept their side of the treaty (to ACKNOWLEDGE the independence of Ionia, Thrace and Macedon, all these lands west of the toponymes mentioned, most of which they POSSESSED at the beginning of the war). Most of the surrendered states were/became members of the "Athenian Empire"... GK1973 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ii) All given sources in favor of Greek victory refers to different period of time, and they're obviously one-sided kind of informations (note name of Harrison's book: "Greeks and Barbarians")

objectionYou should know better than to just try to devalue existing sources as "one-sided". As an iranologist, you should be able to produce sources of the "other side". GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

iii) Greco-Persian Wars have finished with ends of Dealian Leauge expeditions in 449 BC, and there is no single source with mention their victory against Persians.

objectionAlthough you are again mistaken, we are not occupied with the wars of the Delian league but with the Persian Wars as a whole. You seem to also ignore that the last battles given before the end of the war in Cyprus were won by the Athenians, NOT the Persians. As for who won the Delian War against Persia, look again at the references I gave above... GK1973 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll return soon as I have been inactive for some time. RfC supported the Greek victory outcome and the article should be semi-protected (maybe permanently) IMO. Brand[t] 08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should let the people vote for couple of more weeks, because our dear Greek GK1973 started voting without mentioning even single pro-Persian argument, and he actually misinformed people that "most of Greeks in Persian army was forced to serve", which is notorious lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.128.9 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think you can (and think you should) assign a single word result to the outcome of a series of complicated conflicts fought 2,500 years ago by long-gone empires and city-states? I'm waiting for Wikipedia editors to produce a "yes" or "no" answer to "does God exist?" - let's RfC that! Meowy 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have another proposal, we will be happy to give it a thought. Yet, an outcome has to be added in the infobox as is customary and because else we will see this article keep being edited back and forth. We have an opportunity to end this now, so that we can at last stabilize this article GK1973 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Greeks Defeat Xerxes' Entire Land Army

The notion that the Greeks never defeated the entire Persian army is utterly false. The victory at Salamis was a victory over the land army. Xerxes' army was entirely dependent on supply by sea. Thus, destroying the supply line was definitely a defeat of the land army. Xerxes had absolutely no choice after the battle other than to retreat. The notion that he could have continued on through Greece is utterly absurd, unless he wanted to start losing massive numbers of soldiers to starvation and desertion. All the reliable military histories state that fact quite clearly and unambiguously. (Taivo (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Removing comment from block-avoiding userIt's a your personal statement. First, even according to Herodotus, Persians still had far lager navy even after defeat at Salamis. Second, Greece was quite rich of food supplies, so Persians could use Greek civilian stock. Whatever, we already have article First Persian invasion of Greece which says "Greek victory" as result (due to defeat of Mardonius' army of 479 BC). Please check it. --93.142.162.53 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't about the Second Persian invasion of Greece (the first ended with Persian defeat at Marathon) specifically, it is about your absurd manipulation and misunderstanding of sources in claiming that the Greeks never defeated the main Persian force. "480, September-October. Persian Retreat. Xerxes' army, largely dependent upon supply by sea, could no longer hold Athens. With about half of his army and the remnants of his fleet, he marched back to the Hellespont, leaving Mardonius with the remainder in northern Greece." (R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, 1993, The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, From 3500 B.C. to the Present, 4th edition, HarperCollins Publishers, pg. 31). There is a reliable source quoted and cited that clearly states the opposite of your claims that Xerxes just wandered back home after Salamis because he was bored with Greece. Greek destruction of Xerxes' supply lines, forcing the bulk of his army to leave Greece is a victory over the "whole Persian army". Two entire armies do not need to clash in the field in order for one to be victorious in the war. Compare this with the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese Army never victoriously confronted the bulk of the American army there, but they still won the war. If you are twisting this argument for your claim of a "stalemate", then all your other claims fall under suspicion as well. Since you have yet to cite a single solitary source for your claims, we have to wonder. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Here's another quote (talking about the state of supply in Xerxes' army during the retreat without the fleet to support it): "The Persians planned to 'live off the land'...The Persians were reduced in some places to eating grass, herbs, leaves, and bark. Dysentery struck, and some men were sick and had to be left behind, while others died." (Barry Strauss, 2004, The Battle of Salamis, The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece--and Western Civilization, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, pg. 224). I'm sure I can find more quite easily (I've only looked in two books and found quotes in each of them testifying to the supply state of the Persian army without the fleet.) (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Sources

I've considered reviewing this article for GA-class several times. I found the article performing well in prose and neutrality. As a person not very knowledgeable on this period of history, I found that the article was comprehensive and broad enough. However, I felt uncomfortable about was the article's references. Being a rookie reviewer, I didn't know how to discuss this issue, and decided against starting a review.

Nevertheless, and seeing that someone has opted to be the article reviewer, I've decided to state my concerns. Aren't sources like those of Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, viewed by Wikipedia as primary sources under WP:RS? The Sources section explains that these historians are held as reliable by modern scholars, but it is a policy in this encyclopaedia that secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. It's the opposite here, as the majority of the citations use primary sources, particularly Herodotus. Why is that so? I'm sure secondary sources would be of greater benefit to the article. At any rate, even if these primary sources are not a problem for the article to reach GA-class, it will probably be so if this article is to make it to FA-class. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer and I will check whether the primary sources are taken at face value or whether they are balanced with secondary works. I'm one of the guys who believes it's a good idea to provide references to the primary sources all secondary works use. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors of secondary sources are (mostly) academics and scholars capable of handling primary sources. We're not professionals, which is why these wikipedia policies exist. Secondary works are best for wikipedia because they allow us to include analysis in articles without making original research, and because they relieve us of the need of evaluating the neutrality and reliability of primary sources.

Evidently, the primary sources are not taken at face-value; the opening section of the article contains considerable background information on Herodotus, Thucydides and others, and their reputation among modern scholars. I still think however that this article would make far better use of secondary sources. On the other hand, it would be a good idea if the references to primary sources are supported by secondary sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who included a lot of those references, I should mention my justification here. I have used primary sources only when they are essentially unchallengeable (I hope, it was my intention anyway...). So if the article says "Herodotus says that blah blah blah", the reference is to the primary source; it is incontestable that Herodotus does say it, regardless of whether it is true or not. Note that most of the citations directly link to online copies, so that the reader can check whether Herodotus does in fact say what I have claimed!

Where there is any kind of discussion, interpretation, alternative views etc. etc., I used secondary sources. So a typical sentence might be "Herodotus says this (ref to herodotus); modern historians generally agree this was the case (ref to secondary sources). The article might need more secondary sources, but I would argue that it doesn't need less primary sources! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources should always be used above and beyond secondary sources, because secondary sources interpret rather than give information. Just look at the long list of secondary source views on the 'Peace of Callas' or anything dealing with chronology for the Pentakontanea. Also, since I'm on the topic of sourcing, on paper's at the university level NEVER SOURCE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.231.148 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that all the Perseus links are dead. This is very annoying indeed - they were still valid when I submitted the article. I will gradually fix them, but it will take ages... Grrrrr. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, in spite of the source issues, this article deserves GA status. Peltimikko (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and Wandalstouring (talk)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments from Nikkimaria

Most of the following comments deal with prose/MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• this tool finds several disambiguation links and double redirects.
• Ref 7 is a dead link
  •  Done. Removed, it wasn't particularly important anyway.
• Should be consistent in calling the opponents of the Greeks either the "Persian Empire" or the "Achaemenid Empire"
  • The problem here is that the formal name is 'Achaemenid Empire', but 'Achaemenids' would refer to the family, not the people, who were 'Persians' (at least theoretically). It is therefore necessary to switch between the two as appropriate. But I can certainly remove references to the 'Persian Empire'.
• Caption for Battle of Salamis picture?
  •  Done. Whoops. Added one.
• What do the symbols next to certain commanders in the infobox represent?
  • That they were killed in action - this is pretty standard in military history infoboxes.
• Section headings should not start with "The" (The Hellenic Alliance -> Hellenic Alliance). They should also not use characters like "&". Under Bibliography, only the first letter of each subheading should be capitalized
  •  Done
• "See also" is meant to be for links that are not included in the main article text
  •  Done
• Caption of infobox picture is unclear - do you mean "on" instead of "of"?
  •  Done
• Should consistently use either American or British spelling
  •  Done I think
• Avoid using redundant words: "many", "any", "some", "all" are often not required and may interrupt the flow of the passage
  •  Done At least where they disrupted the flow.
• Should avoid using personal pronouns like "we"
• Comma not needed in first sentence
  •  Done Removed.
• Try to maintain a strict encyclopedic tone at all times - avoid colloquialisms, conversational language, WP:WTA, etc.
  •  Done Amended inappropriate passages
• Should avoid wikilinking the same term more than once or twice
  •  Done
• The use of passive voice should be minimized
  • This use of the passive is not in any sense incorrect. It is purely a choice issue. It certainly shouldn't prevent this article becoming a GA.
• Some problems with inclusion/lack of commas - commas are usually included at natural breaks in the sentence, and comma use in this article should be checked
  •  Done Sorted.
• Words like "despatched" and "whilst" are often considered to be deprecated - consider "dispatched" and "while"
  •  Done Changed.
• Check use of "that" versus "which" - grammar issue
  •  Done Changed as appropriate; though note that it is not incorrect to use 'which' for 'that'; this is, again, a personal choice.
• Missing/misusing hyphens for some terms, for example "city states" -> "city-states".
  •  Done I think.
• I would suggest reading through the article out loud looking for potential problems with clarity and flow - there are several instances of poorly worded phrases and unclear sentences. This is not strictly a grammar check (although that would help), but deals with word order and word choice
  •  Done
• The article also needs some copy-editing for grammar - trying running it through a MS Word grammar & style check, or try to recruit a "grammar Nazi"
  •  Done I think.
• "With the completion of the pacification of Ionia, the Persians began planning their next moves; to..." - should use a colon instead of a semi-colon here
  •  Done
• A couple errors in spelling and choice of homophones (uses "there" when it should be "their", "sacrificied", etc)
  •  Done
• The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
  •  Done Sorted these out.

Comments from Wandalstouring

• Siege of Sestos in the first chapter links back to this article. Needs to link to more specific information.
  •  Done
• The minor authors merit a tad more information on bias and reliability.
  • I agree - to be done.
    •  Done
• There are too many sections solely referenced with primary sources. I support refering to primary sources, but you must also point out which secondary source you use for your statements. For example the story about the Ionian migration to Asia Minor is contested, there are also source for a Ionian migration to Greece and new evidence is unearthed for migrations during the Bronze Age and not just during the Dark Age.
  • I agree in general about sections referenced only with primary sources.
    • For this "movement" in the dark ages I want more than Herodot as a source. Any such immigration theory must have an accepted archeological basis or it's nonsense. Also this idea about the temple for Ionian cities needs some backup other than Herodot. there are more primary and secondary works on the topic.
      •  Done I have added some secondary sources to this, and changed the it to a "Herodotus suggests..." type of paragraph. I don't think any further detail is needed for this article. Obviously, if you want to add any, then that's fine; you probably have better access to information than me on this one.
• Military equipment and tactics merit mention because the Greek victory is mainly attributed to them while the Persians were definetly able to conquer Greek Asia Minor. The Persian system of combining archers and spearmen (sparabara) reminds me of Assyrian warfare with the addition of better cavalry, at least the Assyrians were quite influential for the military development in the region of the Persian Empire. For the Greeks you have during this time the switch to the hoplite from looser formations and the introduction of the trireme instead of the double-deck penteconters. There's also a difference between Phoenician and Greek triremes that should briefly be highlighted.
  • This is clearly beyond the scope of the article. This is a summary style article; to discuss these kind of details is just not necessary. Details of tactics and military units etc. can be included in the sub-articles (like we did in Second Persian invasion of Greece, but do not make sense in a primarily narrative article like this.
    • I don't think it's beyond the scope if you write briefly that the Greeks had bodyarmour that was arrowproof, heavy shields and attacked in phalanxes with longer spears than the Persians. The Persians had a large force of drafted soldiers from all over their Empire who fought with bows, shorter spears, wicker shields and only few had bodyarmour. Thus the fighting was very much a Greek affair on land and at sea where the Greek marines played an important role. You get an extra bonus if you point out how recent the introduction of these weapons in Greece was. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright then, if there are bonus points on offer, I'll give it a go...
        •  Done
          • The Greek light armed are missing, they were half the army. Just mention them once. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Added the Greek light troops, and the Sparabara, as requested.
• the "bubbling cauldron of discontent" needs to be more balanced. There are no reports that the Ionians revolted during the regime change from Cyrus's dynasty to Darius's dynasty, unlike elsewhere in the empire.
  • Agreed - I will look into it.
    •  Done
• way too much detail about Miltiades, Themistokles and Aristides. Cut that paragraph and provide only a summary of the important facts for this war. Like for the Persians you left out most of their politics do the same for the Greeks.
  • Agreed - I have already cut this a bit, and will look to remove more.
    •  Done
• You cite Holland too much. That Themistocles wanted a GREEK navy, not an Athenian is not supported by the primary sources and should be backed up by another historian. Also the statement that for the Greeks to survive things were needed is questionable. There were Greeks living in the Persian Empire. You could argue for the independence of Athens some things were needed, but that he thought national and not in political units needs more historians agreeing on this.
  • Agree about citing Holland too much (but see below). Regarding this paragraph, I will look into modifying it away from Holland's interpretation.
    •  Done
• the stories connected with the battle of Marathon can be moved to the article about that battle, they totally distract in the overview of the war.
  • Agreed, and will look at. However, I think a brief mention of the Marathon race is called for, since that is what Marathon is now most famous for.
    •  Done
• "In what Holland characterises as, in essence, the world's first referendum," is a questionable claim. Does Holland write "this was the world's first referendum" or is this your summary? If he doesn't write it remove this claim and just state it's a referendum because we have no idea who in this world held a referendum and whether it was before or after this event.
  • Holland does claim exactly this. I make no such claim. The exact text is:"but the ostracism of 482 BC was, in effect, the first referendum in history".
• the construction of ships needs more backup for the interpretation than just Holland writing a general history and a primary historian. Was it only because of the Persians or was it voted for by the poor, the majority of the voters, who wanted to earn money rowing warships?
  •  Done
• The section about Sparta needs more than one historian for the interpretation. Do all historians agree that the Persians let this message pass because the expected it to fulfill their purpose or was it a backdoor to go back to Sparta in case something went wrong with the Persians?
  •  Done I've cleaned this up; it seems this anecdote is probably an insertion into Herodotus anyway.
• "On the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, Herodotus tells us that rumour of the Greek victory reached the Allied navy," is doubted very much by Lazenby. Please use secondary sources to present information critically.
  • I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
    •  Done + Citation
• more to come...

Wandalstouring (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wandalstouring, I am very glad that you are back reviewing articles. You never let me get away with lazy writing! You are, of course, mostly right about all of the above points. There are some general points I want to make though.

• Firstly, please remember that this is a summary style article WP:SS. If some aspects are passed over with little detail, then that is deliberate. We cannot discuss everything to do with the Greco-Persian Wars here.
• Secondly, this article was created mainly by condensing the various individual articles into as small a space as possible. This does not excuse the problems with referencing in much of the article, but I hope it explains it. So for instance, a statement in the article Battle of Thermopylae that read: "Herodotus says X happened.[ref] Modern historians think that Y.[ref]" has generally been condensed to "X happened.[ref]". This is why there are so many passages that only use primary sources; I did not deliberately set out to do it this way. However, I agree that there are points were a secondary source should be used to back this up. This is also why there are so many references to Holland; in the articles I re-wrote early on, I used Holland a lot (as you know). When I condensed those articles, the references to Holland also became condensed; again, I did not set out to deliberately include lots of Holland references. However, I am not going to spend my time replacing these references, if they do represent a general consensus amongst historians. I am of course happy to replace/add new references where Holland is presenting one of his non-representative views.

I have addressed your specific comments above. Many thanks for a thorough review so far. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• What's the status on the review from both sides? Nice progress so far, but since this is the oldest GAN in the backlog hopefully things could be sped up a bit :) Wizardman 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On hold. Replied on talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I am working on it. Apologies for the slow progress, but real life calls! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On dealing with block-evading users

I've struck a load of stuff above. Unfortunately my display software keeps losing its place so there's still some stuff left which I encourage people to strike. This will make it a lot easier for whoever closes the rfc to see what should be ignored and for others to follow the thread. However, what I recommend for the future is that you delete this user's comments when they appear rather than reply. As long as he is blocked or banned this is a legitimate action within Wikipedia's policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this whole debacle was started by a banned user, I think it should be entirely stricken from the record as if it never happened. WP:DENY. Athenean (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the two threads that had been initiated by the block-evading editor. I won't take it personal if a named editor who was involved in those threads wants to put them back. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Should we get the Talk page semi-protected since that banned anon IP doesn't get the message? (Taivo (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

I've semi-protected the talk page for a few days and blocked the latest sock IP. If he turns up again here or elsewhere, anything he does can be rolled back on sight, without regard to 3RR and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that the sock's "contributions" are considered to be null and void, what's the chance of finishing this discussion and marking the Greco-Persian Wars as a Greek victory? (Taivo (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

I've changed the protection on this page to semi, as the RfC seems to have generated a pretty clear consensus, and to protect it from the IP. GedUK  16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AN thread that may be of interest

I have used recent events here as an example at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_handling_of_page_protection_involving_banned_users_with_IP_sockpuppets. I don't know whether any of the regular peoplehere would care to comment there.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Article to be merged

A new user has created History of the Greco-Persian Wars. Can someone familiar with this topic make sure anything in the new article not already in this article is merged into this article, and then simply redirect the new article here? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This new article should be erased. It looks like a test or something some days ago. As I see, its creator has been banned indefinitely for disruptive editing, so we cannot urge him to try and improve the existent article, which he might not be aware of. GK (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect to this article (the previous content is available from the article history). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This new user seems to know his stuff, but does his article contain the information from the new one? Should there be two different articles? If they convey two different stories, we might need to REALLY check the sources. -- Pumanike (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (CST)

The article exists and this user most possibly did not check before he started compiling. The existent article is much larger and better reviewed, so we definitely have to keep the old one. It would be nice to be able to have this editor contribute here too but he is indefinitely banned for some reason. I doubt that there is any piece of information we need here but if you'd like you could check it out. GK (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

black skin soldier that there is thier picture in artecle arenot persian they are Eylamyan that were in persian army(217.219.46.5 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)).

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: withdrawn by requester after clarification of relevant guideline — kwami (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Greco-Persian Wars → Greco–Persian Wars —

• MOS:ENDASH #1. CWenger (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There's no reqmove on Talk:Greco-Persian Wars as there should be, so I'm posting this here. ENDASH #says specifically, in its last bullet "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)." Added bold for emphasis.Skookum1 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I didn't expect any opposition to this move so I posted it here as the instructions specify. I could be misunderstanding MOS:ENDASH #1, but all the other similarly named articles linked at List of battles by casualties#Classical formation battles use an en dash as the main article title, with the hyphenated form as a redirect, e.g. Roman–Persian Wars, Goguryeo–Sui Wars, Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, etc. I suggested this move for consistency. –CWenger (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Ah, I think I understand your point now. Because 'Greco' is not a valid word by itself it should be hyphenated and not en dashed. For all the other examples I gave this was not the case. My bad! –CWenger (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I"m not familiar with the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War, but if it was a war between the Teutonic Knights and Poland-Lithuania and not a tripartite war between the Knights, Poland and Lithuania as mutual enemies, use of the dash betweeen "Polish" and "Lithuania" is not acceptable as they are not "lexically independent" and are derived from the term Poland-Lithuania, on the talkpage of which, and now at MOSTALK, there is a discussion about. If it's Poland-Lithuania that was at war with the Teutonic Knights, then Polish-Lithuanian–Teutonic War is the mandated result; clumsy and unsightly perhaps, but then from my perspective so is the rule mandating the dash in so many places it's not found in ordinary English. My feedback is I think the EMDASH "typographic style" concoctions were come up with by those not aware of the many complications their style guide was going to cause, nor aware of a lot of the history and of the names they were going to be affecting; thanks for understanding (unlike others who refuse to see) that MOSDASH doesn't call for the eradication of the hyphen, which is how it's being treated by too many people who actually know little about the subjects whose titles they are affecting/changing.Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – this is a clear case of a connection of two names, not one compound names (unlike the less clear Poland-Lithuania); it's wars between the Greek and Persian empires. Some sources do clearly prefer the en dash in such contexts (like this dictionary), indicating that this interpretation is not unprecedented in works that choose hyphen or en dash depending on the relationship of the connected terms. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; the prefix "Greco-" is not lexically independent and so this compound takes a hyphen, just like "Sino-Japanese", the example given in WP:ENDASH. I expect this opposition will come as a surprise to Skookum1. Powers ^T 13:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Just to be clear I originally proposed this move but oppose it now. –CWenger (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tom Holland a reliable Source?

He never studied history at university. he writes novels about vampires and of the genre. when you go down to the references section you only see herodotus and this guy. what noob made this page? his version of events isn't even accepted by most historians!!!! plz different BETTER sources!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.71.84 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I second. Tom Holland is NOT a reliable source. There are countless academic works on the subject, and far better. Domusaurea (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Holland isn't reliable source, neither is Britannica. Herodotus is primary source, so considering 90% of sources are Holland or Herodotus this article represents 19th-century view on Greco-Persian Wars. I can't believe that article has GA status. There are tons of free-acess academic sources related to subject so it's possible to improve it. --HistorNE (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Stats on names

I had always heard these conflicts referred to as the Persian Wars, and indeed that already redirects here. So I was going to go ahead and put in an WP:RM. The main obstacle I could see to that was the potential confusion for other Persian Wars, especially the Roman–Persian Wars. But if that's seen as a major problem, perhaps Persian Wars should be a dab. As such, I think the status quo WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is quite correct. Some of the searches below for "Persian Wars" do refer to the Roman wars, but the majority do not. The current form is somewhat more common in a general Google search, but much less in more focused searches:

	"persian wars" -wikipedia	"greco-persian wars" -wikipedia
Google	365,000	525,000
Google Books	200,000	33,500
Google Scholar	11,800	641
JSTOR	3794	100

That said, it's logical that the shorter form would return more hits since it's included within the longer one—which is why the general Google hits are especially confusing. While I still suspect "Persian Wars" is the WP:COMMONNAME, factors like this give me enough pause to not formally request a move at this point. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"the Allies"

Throughout much of the article, the alliance of Greek city-states is referred to as the "Allies". I find this rather odd, as it is reminiscent of World War 2 terminology, and moreover, the alliance of Greek city-states is not referred to as the "Allies" in the literature. Terms such as "Greek city-states", "Greeks", or "allied Greek city-states" are used, but I have never seen a source that refers to them simply as the "Allies" with a capital A. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)................

I made the exact same comment for the Battle of Artemisium article, which is replete with references to "the Allies"--is that a Tom Holland term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.249.17 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)