Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:51, 11 May 2007 editRaiderAspect (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,352 edits →Coordinates ?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:10, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,640 editsm Archiving 27 discussion(s) to Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 2, Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 1) (botTag: Replaced
(228 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|1=
			{{WikiProject Iran\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Greece\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=Start\|B-Class-1=no\|B-Class-2=yes\|B-Class-3=yes\|B-Class-4=yes\|B-Class-5=yes\|Classical=yes\|Middle-Eastern=yes}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
			\|algo = old(365d)
			\|maxarchivesize = 75K
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|counter = 2
			\|archive = Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			==Untitled==
	ok i have cut the battle section from article "ariobarzan" and pasted it in this article		ok i have cut the battle section from article "ariobarzan" and pasted it in this article

	== ~~Change~~ of ~~Article Title~~ ==		== Timing of attacks==
			This article says that the first attack was led by Craterus, or the attack that was led from the front. In reality, the first attack was led by Alexander, or at least according to Arrian.
	Does anyone agree to changing the title name to "Battle of the Persian Gates." Isn't that what historians generally call it. Perhaps I'm being too picky?--] 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

			“… When he [Alexander ascertained that this road was rough and narrow, he left Craterus there in command of the camp with his own brigade and that of Meleager, as well as a few archers and 500 cavalry, with orders that when he ascertained that he himself had got right round and was approaching the camp of the Persians (which he would easily ascertain, because the trumpets would give him the signal) he should then assault the wall. “ Arrian 162
	um im not sure we should because there was 1 Persian gate. lol.

			and
	==Citations Needed==

			“ Falling upon the first guard of the barbarians before daylingt, he destroyed them, and so he did most of the second; but the majority of the third guard escaped, not indeed by fleeing into the camp of Ariobarzanes, but into the mountains as they were, being seized with a sudden panic. Consequently he fell upon the enemy’s camp at the approach of dawn without being observed. At the very time he began to assault the trenth, the trumpets gave the signal to Craterus, who at once attacked the advanced fortification.” Arrian 163
	This article has very few citations and seems to generally paint a one-sided picture. It would improve its credibility to add the appropriate citations.I have marked a few major points. For example, the Battle is mentioned as starting in January 330 BC (no exact date is mentioned) and as ending on the 20th of the same month, yet the duration claimed is 48 days which seems contradictory. Do let me know if I can help hunt down the facts. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

			The picture depicts this also, that the first attack was made from the front, by Craterus, when it was in fact, made from behind by Alexander. Craterus did not even know to attack until the horns for attacking were blown by the Agemas that were traveling with Alexander. This error should be corrected.

			(]) April, 9, 2011 5:43 PM (EST)
	== its common knowledge ==

			== Cherry-picking information ==
	that he held them for 48 days. just google "ariobarzan" + "48 days"
	it was taken from this article however the link is now dead
	http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/4/9026/printer

			Care to explain how using only what you want from the Iranica source, while removing (700), also supported by Iranica is not cherry-picking information?
	Here is a site claiming that Ariobarzanes held back the Macedonians for 48 days. Unfortunately, I'm not strong with how Wiki functions especially regarding footnotes. Anyone want to include it? I'm putting forty-eight days back in the article.--] 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
	http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/9026

			Did you miss this part?<br>
	also of those 700 only 80 were armed.
			*"''"However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.''"

	Alexander reaches the gates in late November/early December of 331BC. some confuse 331bc with 299bc.

	:This article is ridiculously POV. I'll sort it out in a few days.--] 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I'd say about as POV as the Thermopylae article, LOL. What part of the article particularly bugs you, the lead?--] 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::The style here is not neutral. It's extremely laudatory of the persians at every turn. Neutral terms need to replace POV termenology, like massacre, patriotic, etc. Furthermore, It's a narrative and not an encyclopedia article. That needs to change too. ] 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

	Wow, this looks like one of the worst POV-pushing I've ever seen. As a response to Arvand, I enforce you to challenge any unsourced or dubious edit in Thermopylae. If your only argument for this POV is the alleged bad state of another article, then you're way off the wp spirit. ] 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	Just for the record, the undisputedly most popular name is Ariobarzanes. ] 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	Relax, Miskin I was only kidding around, though I do think that some of the terminology in the Thermopylae lead is not very neutral either. I didn't mean anything too seriously LOL. I agree that this article needs significant improvement, especially on sourcing, however, the problem will be that most writers/historians leave this battle out too many a time. I agree with the name though, even I use that, I believe it is the Hellenized version.--] 23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Thermopylae used to be a bad written article, but it never contained as much POV as this one. Nowadays it's been improved. ] 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


	==POV-Check==

	The article seems to incorporate information from Livius.org , which is a reliable source, however, much of this information is taken selectively. For example in the "death" section the article states: "''On the 20th of January 330 BC, Ariobarzan was killed in combat along with his 80 companions after weeks of fighting.''" Livius.org explicitely mentions that Ariobarzanes abandoned his post and fled to Persepolis, where entrance was denied, and was "most likely" killed by the Macedonians. The heroic death of the defenders does not meet scholarly consensus, depite what the article claims. Overall lots of work needs to be done regarding ] and ] violations. This is why I added the tags. ] 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	Also the infobox fields should be blanked until reliable sources can be provided. The article claims that this battle has been compared to Thermopylae. The article provides sufficient historical manipulation in order to draw this parallel between the two, though in reality there's too little in common.
	On the true commonalities:
	*Thermopylae was the entrance to "central Greece", Persepolis was the heart of Persia.
	*Both Hot Gates and Persian Gate contain the word "gate".
	*Both events involve Greeks and Persians
	On the fabricated commonalities:
	*The Persian defenders were under ], they didn't make a stand as the article states
	*The defenders were not extremely outnumbered, if at all outnumbered - this was after all the capital of Persia
	*That the Greeks lost thousands is unverified and misleading. There was only one Persian attack which inflicted great damage to the Greek army, yet this was the result of "mercilessly raining down boulders and stones on the Macedonians", and not of an actual encounter. This ambush attack was Ariobarzanes' only shot at glory, the rest is just fabrications. Following this failed attempt he tried to escape but failed.
	*To claim that Ariobarzanes defended the Persian capital with a handful of men is only laughable. Ariobarzanes had gathered an army of max 40,000 for his ambush to Alexander (I've got different accounts on this). After his failed attempt he fled to the city "with but few horsemen" i.e. 40 horsemen and 5,000 infantry (sourced), where he intended to "rob the citadel of its treasures and effect his escape", but was killed by Alexander instead.
	In addition, I think that "Battle of the Persian Gate" is a very misleading name for this article, possibly the result of original thought since it has zero results in google scholarly search. I'm not sure if the event qualifies as a "battle" at all. ] 12:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	On second thought, this does qualify as a battle, it's just that a great deal of POV cleanup needs to be done in order to reflect what actually happened. ] 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	:You bring up some good points Miskin. Lets first discuss the strength count. One would naturally think that yes, the troop count of the Persians would have been large to defend Persepolis. However, the reason this wasn't the case is because Darius III already knew that he wouldn't be ready for a battle so logistically close to his previous decisive loss. Darius needed a further distance both for time and logistical safety from Alexander's initial route to build up another sizable force that could rival the Macedonians. That's why he fled to Afghanistan (modern-day). Darius fighting in Persepolis was out of the question and would have been suicide. Darius along with one of his notable commanders Bessus had no intention of fighting Alexander in Persepolis. They moved as many of their troops including the Greek mercenaries commanded by Patron to the northeastern frontier. Of course as you probably know, Darius is killed by Bessus himself before he can launch another battle. Thus being that Persepolis was abandoned is was really only left to a patriotic Persian of nobility class which gathered as many volunteers as possible from the neighbouring towns and called for an ambush.<br>Now as you mentioned some Greek sources such as Arrian suggest the Persian force would have been tens of thousands, but this has already been believed to be a blatant exaggeration as he twice previously did for Issus and Guagemala. Modern critical schools don't accept this figure such as Encyclopedia Iranica, and have given that the source should be interpreted as 700. The bottom "80" is rubbish that should also be changed to 700.<br>Furthermore, regarding Greek casualties, even Curtius whom would have been naturally biased towards the Greeks said that the Macedonians lost "platoons of men at a time." Do you believe that an ambitious Alexander would have sat and only merely once attacked the battle zone. Why would he have called for negotiations and offer to make Ariobarzanes a supreme commander after merely one failed attempt. There were several failed attempts, which led to more than one ambush. Alexander initially failed at the siege of Tyre and Granicus, did that stop him from attacking again.<br> And finally Ariobarzanes did not flee as soon as the first ambush concluded, he retreated when a Persian shepperd betrayed the forces and then Abz. asked to garrison his force a nearby city, when they refused he went and died in the fight against Alexander, alongside his force. And its like you said, if the intention was an ambush, why then would he have such a massive force in the tens of thousands, besides Ariobarzanes was no Spithridates or Bessus of Achaemenid Persia, he would have not have such access to such large number, these are generally exaggeratted claims from Greek antiquarian sources. This is just of course my take, I wish other people would also add their input.--] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Despite what you say, I see no reliable sources supporting those claims and numbers. Irannica may be generally reliable, but when it comes to Persian history (notably the Greco-Persian wars) Western scholarship tends to consider it biased. The proof of this is the numerous sources I have discovered. Everything I said above is drained from reliable sources, it's not my personal opinion, so if you want to refute it you need to cite something. Nothing personal, those are the rules. I replaced Irannica's laughable estimates with the numbers that appear to be the western consensus, and in my opinion, the real side of the story. Please abide by ] before making changes. ] 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	Also just for the record, one of the sources I cited, does regard 40,000 an exaggeration, and for that it explicitely mentions 25,000 as a "realistic" number. Many other modern sources take 40,000 for granted. I've never seen any lower numbers. As for the shepperd's betrayal, please read the article at Livius.org (linked above). This is kind of information is today regarded as folklore, not history. ] 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I don't quite understand, are you suggesting, The Romance of Alexander and Roxana - p. 265, Marshall Monroe Kirkman suggests 40,000 but the rest do not, so then why have such undo weigh. Modern Western consensus (which is what the warbox should generally include) dismiss Arrian's 40,000 figure. Out of curiosity what would make Ephialtes at Thermopylae historically accurate and make a Persian shepperd fictitious folklore. Kind of seems like a double standard, Livius also suggests that Herodotus' Ephialtes is just as suspicious and dubious, should we remove that from the Thermopylae article too?--] 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	The 40,000 figure is a primary source estimation and it is cited in more than many modern sources, so it has to stay as the max figure. I don't know how realiable the Ephialtes story is, but the shepperd story is clearly a myth because of its great resemblance to the former (according to this ). They could both be myths, but for the obvious reason the second version has more chances to be a myth than the first. If you prove that a consensus of scholars consider the Ephialtes story as a myth, then by all means do make the necessary edits. For all I know the story of Ephialtes is generally cited as something factual. No double standards there, only abiding by wp:att. I would have no problem to admit on both being myths. ] 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	I just had a look at Livius.org and it doesn't seem to question the validity of the Ephialtes story. ] 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

	Also in my opinion, just for the sake of being fair to ], you should have let the 40,000 max range in the article. After all, all this time the ludicrous figure of 700 was posing as factual. Adding the real estimates is the least you could do in order to compensate for all this time of biased edits. After all the primary sources give 25,000 and 40,000 (Diodorus and Arrian), many scholars cite Arrian, one so far prefers Diodorus. That doesn't mean that Arrian's figure is Sci&Fi, please try to abide by the NPOV policy. Your edit summary already states something false, i.e. that only one historian prefers Arrian. This not true. ] 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Can you give me some names, book titles, links, a few so that I can see for myself 40,000 is a consensus of modern Western scholarship. So far all I have seen is that it is a primary source, which is generally dismissed as an exaggeration. I apologize regarding the shepperd issue, it appears I had misinterpreted the article. Thanks. Regarding the 700 figure, it was because I knew of no other modern source and was thus for the moment forced to accept the Iranica source given by the original author of this Wiki article. Even 25,000 is a Greek primary source figure from Diodorus whom even to Will Durant was always generous with numbers. I think that represents the fairest figure. And careful just because modern scholarship cites a primary source figure, doesn't necessarily mean that they accept it many a times they cite and suggest the figure cant have been that high.--] 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	Also all I meant regarding the history page brief of change was that from my understanding of your added footnote only one modern scholar accpets the figure, if there are others please footnote them first, otherwise I believe I'm safe in saying it is not a consensus figure.--] 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	Miskin, I noticed you put the 40,000 back in, I suppose you missed my earlier comment here. Can you list some modern western scholarship (books, authors, links) that show a consensual agreement on Arrian's 40,000 figure. Thanks.--] 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Nobody said 40,000 was a consensus but... ] explicitely mentions that all significant viewpoints need to be mentioned, apart from fringe views that is. Arrian's figure is by no means a fringe view, the only fringe view is Irannica's 700. The more I read this article the move I realise how badly wikipedia suffers from POV-pushing in certain occasions. I only came here by accident, imagine how many more articles are in a similar condition. ] 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	I've already cited two modern sources which consider Arrian's figure reliable, how can you still complain about that? The article has been worse than an Iranian school book for months, and you suddenly care about how many scholars choose Diodorus over Arrian? I mean come on, show some respect. ] 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	I'm sorry, I guess I get a little upset when I discover POV-pushing like this at random. ] 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I've just included both Western and Iranian views for ] and to ]. Maybe this should (hopefully) settle a few issues? ] 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	Jagged you of all people should know that I'm of the opinion that partisan sources should be restricted. I thought you as well had agreed that in Thermopylae both modern Greek and Iranian scholarship should be limited. Now you're violating ] by giving Irannica the same weigh as western scholarship, despite the criticism the former has received by the latter. Knowing your editing practices I'm disappointed to see such a double standard logic from your part. Irannica's 700 is a fringe view which according to ] does not deserve to be mentioned. If there can be found one credible western scholar who regards Irannica's figure as plausible, then it should be mentioned in the article (albeit not the infobox) as a minority view. Right now it has no place in the article at all, let alone the infobox. This is the equivalent of applying the same weigh to the estimates of Herodotus and the estimates of modern scholars at Thermopylae. You're not being neutral Jagged and I'm sorry. ] 10:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	Arvand your edit-summary has no basis, ] is official policy and it's an editor's obligation to replace unsourced POV with attributed text. Please let's avoid ] for such a straight-forward matter. You know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time. I know it can be hard to accept that your preferred opinion is a fringe view by western standards, but you have to put this aside and respect wikipedia's rules. ] 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Iranica==
	] is a reliable Western modern source. It is an Amercian encylopdia based in Columbia University and mostly written by Western academics. Since the name is Iranica it doesn’t mean it is an Iranian reference. Miskin, I realized that you have removed many cited information (which is considered vandalism). I am reverting all your edits and encourage you to participate in a constructive discussion instead of pushing your personal view that Iranica is not reliable. Iranica is in no way comparable to Herodotus. (] 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

	:Fair enough, I'll play along. Let's just ignore the fact that you removed three speciliased sources to replace them with an encyclopaedic one, and let's just assume that Iranica is the only source available at the moment (contradicted by nobody). Let us even ignore that Iranica's reliability receives frequent criticism from western sources. Can you personally quote for me the part where Iranica speaks about 700 Persians? If you claim that Iranica says so, then you need to be able to back it up yourself. Can you verify that Iranica claim which is contradictory to both ancient and modern estimates? This dispute will put the many things about disruptive nationalist editors to the test. ] 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	This of course was a trap question, as the article is already linked, but I doubt you or anybody else who cited had ever read it. Let's see what Iranica says on the subject: <blockquote>
	Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.)</blockquote>
	Do you expect anyone to believe that this was written by a western author? Citing a guy who claims that "Greek estimates on infantry are generally valueless", therefore equal to zero, therefore Ario came down with cavalry only. This is honestly laughable, just be neutral for a moment and think that Persepolis was the capital city of the Persian Empire. What about Curtius' claim on 25,000? He was Roman not Greek, hence the 25,000-40,000 figure supported by modern sources. The article does admit that mainstream opinion cites Arrian and Curtius, the author's original thought is a fringe view which has no support in western sources and is violating NPOV. You removed all the sources to replace them with this fringe view, speaking of systematic biased, what an irony. How about Starting an RfC on this? I think it's time the Iranian-related article POV-pushers came to the attention of the wikipedia community. What's most hilarious is that you didn't even revert to Jagged version, but you chose to completely remove all reference and keep the Iranian "patriot" POV. Your edit-summary made the perfect irony. ] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	::First of all you removed my un-encyclopaedic reference fisrt without an explanation. Iranica says: '' Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes'' . If you want to add new information it is welcome but do not remove cited information and put your text in it's appropriate place with NPOV tone and without trying to make a ]. And please stop accusing others of being nationalist. Your behaviour only in this page is more questionable. At last I am not here to play I am here to help to make an encyclopedia.(] 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

	:::Excuse me but have you ever read ], ] or ]? Please do so. I know what Iranica claims and it is its author's personal opinion, you can read it for yourself above. If that's the case then it is a fringe view which should not be mentioned, if for no good reason because its claim is so contradictory to the established consensus (also verified by Iranica). Iranica maybe reliable in some aspects, but is unreliable in others; no source is reliable for everything. Iranica has often received criticism from western scholarship and it is not a western project, it's an Iranian one. Now, can you find any reliable sources apart from Iranica which support the 700 estimate? This estimate is so absurd that I keep thinking I have misunderstood the article. Can you somehow prove that this can qualify as a minority view worthy of being mentioned (abiding by ])? ] 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	I didn't point any finger, but you know what they say... In any case, read NPOV and read ], don't make me cite it for you. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to include all sources unconditionally, you must prove that your theory has a minimum support by other scholars other than the author of the Iranica article. ] 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	hello i am from punjab india.. I came here because Miskin keeps removing this battle from the article 'last stand', i have alerady explained to him that Iranica is a western project, but he talks as if he's the all-knowing God of wikipedia or something, and dismisses oppsing views that clash with his nationalistic view point under different pretexts by citing various irrelevant rules.{{unsigned}}

	I understand that you're a new user but you have broken ] in ]. I'm taking this to RfC. ] 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	Arash there are countless of reliable modern sources accepting the 40,000 and/or 25,000 figures given by Arrian and Curtius. See also "Sources for Alexander the Great: An Analysis of Plutarch's 'Life' and Arrian's 'Anabasis Alexandrou'" by N. G. L. Hammond, cited in Iranica (Cambridge University Press). I can't think a more reliable source. It accepts Arrian's account on 10,000 Greeks (6000 with Alexander and 3500 with Craterus) "''were attacking 40,000 Persian infantry and 400 cavalry''". Do you have a source to support the Iranian POV of 700 cavalry and zero infantry? Do you have an excuse as to why you completely removed the consensus view? Is that your "caring about wikipedia"? ] 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Whether you like it or not, Iranica is a reliabale non-Iranian, Western project that worth to be mentioned together with other measures(go ahead and add others). My personal viewpoint(which I try not to affect me in WP) is that it is more shamefull not to be able to provide a 10,000 troops against the enemy than loosing a battle even if you outnumber the enemy. ps Iranica doesn't indicate that there was 700 cavalry and zero infantry. It only says the total number was 700. (] 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

	You can repeat that as many times as you want but it won't change the fact that the Iranica article's author's view is not supported by any western sources whatsover. You are responsible of restoring the edits you removed, if you want to prove your being a neutral editor that is. Also there's a little policy called ]. If you want to avoid NPOV violation you must restore my version and add the Iranica view separately. It is absurd to base the entire article on Iranica rather than the western consensus. Read Iranica's article again (pasted above), the 700 figure derives from Arrian's account on the cavalry, but the infantry counts for zero because someone once said that Greek estimates are "valueless". Yes, the word "valueless" was taken by Iranica literally, as in with "no value". I wonder what Iranica says on the battles of Persians against Greek infantry only. Were the Persians fighting at Thermopylae and Plataea against ghosts? At the end of the day the problem is not that Iranica gives a different estimate. If it gave 20,000 instead the accepted 25,000-40,000 range, heck even if it gave 10,000, it could have been easily passed as a minority view. However, it gives the shameless figure of 700, followed by a ludicrous justification. Due all the respect but this piece of information was IMHO added in order to please partisan readers, and not for the sake of neutrality. The most ironic thing is that the western consensus in mentioned ten lines above - implying that ''they'' may believe this, but ''you'' can believe that. This is just pure propaganda and from what I see it works pretty well. According to ], of course, such an extreme and unsupported claim - so distant from the established consensus - cannot even qualify as an alternative view. ] 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	PS: Iranica is an Iranian project, supervised by Iranians. This is the conclusion made from the wikipedia article. It often receives criticism in western sources. ] 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	The Irania reasonign seems rather bizarre. It seems to be "Greek historians were inaccurate, so we'll ignore their infantry figure and assume the cavalry figure refers to the total strength". If you cant see the problems in that logic there's something wrong. --] 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	:not our job to evaluate the reasonings of a reliable source and scholarly journal. We are not academics, we are not historians.{{unsigned}}

	I agree with you completely. Where we disagree is on whether we should utterly reject the vast majority of 2300 years of scholarship because it is contradicted by Iranica. --] 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	:modern scholarship, is more useful and valuable than the older works by the ancient Greek historians and storytellers who thought everything that was best and civilized was Greek.{{unsigned}}

	:Iranica is only one example of modern scholarship. I am far, far, far from convinced that it demonstrates the modern consensus. --] 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	Let me just quote the paragraph in question as it is seen in the Iranica article Ario Barzan:<blockquote>
	Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.</blockquote>
	Put the accent on this sentence: "'''and their modern successors follow them unreservedly'''". This is the consensus of modern scholarship, Iranica admits it but prefers to ignore this. The justification and conclusion provided is absurd. Iranica is published by an american house but is a largely Iranian encyclopaedia, ran and edited by Iranians. It is only normal that it contains some pro-Iranian POV every now and then, and it's normal for wikipedia to ignore it. I'm going to revert to my version and add Iranica's claim in a note, along with the fact that it's unsupported - per ] and ]. And please new red user (whose name escapes me), sign your name using four tildes. Also read about ] that you've already violated. You have been warned twice about this rule so there won't be an excuse for further edit-warring. ] 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	: I think you are misunderestanding the concept of being ]. you can not easily revert stable articles without having patience to participate in a discussion. Iranica says :
	::''At the battle of Gaugamela some Persian units were led by Ariobarzanes; ... The total strength of the forces from Persis is estimated at 5,000 horsemen, 1,000 infantry and 1,000 Mardian archers (ibid., p. 36 and diagram II, col. 2, nos. 6 and 9). The units under Ariobarzanes, therefore, could not have comprised more than 2,000 men.''
	And then it continues:
	::''However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and '''Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela'''. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.''
	:This is quite reasonable and should be mentioned as an argument in the article. ps. New users should not be blamed for edit wars. But what is your excuse? (] 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

	:::"Stable article"? Your personal perception on how edits are made seems to be contradictory to wp:policy and Jimbo Wales' comments. Secondly, where was I edit-warring? Can you provide some diffs with my reverts and the time gap between them? If you want to make accusations you should make sure you can back them up. Last but not least, for the 10th time, please read ], another official policy in the english wikipedia that you seem to be ignorant of. Iranica's claims are apparently "quite reasonable" only to the partisan reader. Those claims are absurd. This logic suggests that the ] and the ] were fought between Greeks and an army of ghosts - zero soldiers and a handful of cavalry. By this "stable article"'s conclusions and Iranica's assumptions, Thermopylae, Plateae and countless other battles should be regarded all as Persian ]s against "overwhelming Greek armies" - whose estimates are considered valueless. ] 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	Given that Ariobarzan was Satrap of Persis, surely the entire contingent from Persis would have been under his command at Gaugamela? Not to mention that Gaugamela was three months before the Persian Gate, so Ariobarzan had time to raise/gather new troops. And even then, this assumes that the entire army of Persis, the centre of the Persian empire, a) consisted of about 6000 me and b) was committed in it's entirity to Gaugamela. Hell, Iranica itself declares that it's espousing a minority viewpoint! --] 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	This POV should be ''temporarily'' added in a note, until it can be proved that it has minimal support in mainstream scholarship, so it can qualify as a minority view. If this is not proved, then it should be completely removed. To quote from ]:<blockquote>
	Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, '''and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views'''.</b></blockquote>
	Please notice the highlighted text - this view does not qualify as a minority view (yet). However I agree to be patient and put it inside a note until someone proves that it qualifies as a minority view. In the meantime, western consensus must be applied. ] 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::(multiple edit conflict)Hello all. If I can add just a few notes, the 40,000 number must absolutely be added in the warbox, because it has been endorsed by many modern historians; and while Iranica disagrees, this appears to be only a minority opinion in western scholarship. I've controlled Lane Fox's biog. of Alexander: also he mentions the 40,000 number. That this is the truth or not is of absolutely no importance, because were not searching That, but simply to obey to ]. The ''Iranica'' can in my opinion be acceptable as a ], but on the same ground we should accept that it's a minority opinion, and this seems to me to be clearly stated by the same author of the ''Iranica'' article, as quoted by Miskin, i.e. "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly". I think we cann add Iranica's opinion that this estimate is wrong, but is must be stated clearly it's his opinion: sort of "Against these Mr. xxxxx (is a name given?) argues in the ''Iranica Encyclopedia'' that the forces Ariobarzanes disposed of in the battle could not be more than 2,000 men, further arguing, like Highnett had previously done regarding the Persian Wars, that Greek estimates on the Persian infantries were in most cases valueless. Thus the author argues for ignoring Arrian's estimate of the Iranian infantry and instead taking in account only the number he provides for the cavalry, i.e. 700 men." This is an example of how it could be written in my view.--] 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	I just made some changes and added Irannica athor's view inside a note. We can include the name of Highnett but I think that it also needs to be verified that the word "valueless" is interpreted correctly. In my opinion it is irrational to interpret valueless as "zero". Valueless can mean "unreliable", which does not equal to a figure of zero. This isolated statement is clearly badly interpreted. In other words it's highly unlikely that Highnett himself would have the same conclusion as the Iranica author. Thanks for your input Aldux. ] 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Regarding what you say concerning Highnett, I agree: one thing is to say that the infantry estimates can't be trusted, completely another is: any infantry number given = 0. As for the final conclusion, that obviously regards only the Iranica authour; while both Highnett and Iranica agree that in general infantry numbers can't be provided, it's only Iranica that equals unreliability with zero.--] 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	:*I think it's reasonable to mention the Iranica's view in the box : That's a good and professional source and in other similar pages they have mentioned both sources. --] 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	::* I mean something like this :

	{{Infobox Military Conflict
	\|conflict=Battle of the Persian Gate
	\|partof=the ]
	\|image=]
	\|date=January ]
	\|place=], near ]
	\|result=]ian victory
	\|combatant1=]
	\|combatant2=]
	\|commander1=]
	\|commander2=] †
	\|strength1=10,000<ref name=Iranica>, ].</ref><ref>D. W. Engles, ''Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army'', Berkeley and London, 1978, p. 70.</ref>
	\|strength2=Estimates vary<br>(See ])
	\|casualties1=unknown
	\|casualties2=unknown
	}}

			These are the sentences following the statement you took from Iranica, "''and their modern successors follow them unreservedly''. So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its ]. --] (]) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

			User:Simanos, "''I don't use Iranica to push my POV.''";
	== Size of the Persian army==
			*Their edit;"''] suggests a number of defenders of just 700 (or 2000 elsewhere) men, '''but it admits that the modern historians follow Arrian Curtius and Diodorus unreservedly.'''''"
	{{cquote\|Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.)..}}

			*Iranica;"''Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), '''and their modern successors follow them unreservedly.'''''"
	<hr>
	I personally added the "estimates vary - see ]"-formula in ] because it's a recognisably controversial topic, and it was the only way to avoid edit-warring. This is not the case with Iranica's author. His view has no support nor mention whatsoever in other sources, and is extremely contradictory to the undisputed consensus. That would be a clear violation of ] - I even pasted the paragraph above. In addition if we were to follow his logic, we would have to change to zero all infantry estimates on all Greco-Persian battles. Why would the Greco-Roman estimate be equal to zero (valueless) in this battle specifically and accepted everywhere else? Those are questions which partisans editors do not bother with. To me it's evident that the Iranica author makes a deliberate attempt in order to draw a parallel between Thermopylae and the Persian Gate due to his personal agenda. There's a clear bias in his conclusion, hence why it has no support. ] exists in order for wikipedia to defend itself from such bias. As it is stated in ]: "''The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another''". ] 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	: There are also sources stating that the size of Persian army was 4000 like . I think we should mention all sources in the article. Your idea that Iranica is biased is a personal view. (] 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
	:*Iranica is addressing a book of a Charles Hignett that is known author of Greek history ! --] 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

			So just WHERE are you getting your information if you are NOT using Iranica? --] (]) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
	This is a 1851 source which calls the Persians "barbarians" in a scholarly context. Are you sure it deserves to have the same weigh as the modern consensus? 4000 foot and 700 is also a figure cited by Arrian, this is the force Ariobarzanes took with him during his escape. How is this any relevant to Iranica author's view about "valueless" estimates? The point is that there is an undisputed consensus on this 25,000-40,000 figure. This is not at all a controversial matter, nor it has any pragmatic link to Thermopylae, this must become clear. I'm taking no sides Arash, in ] I proposed to exclude all Greco-Iranian sources and stick to the western consensus. Along with that I also suggested to exclude the western estimates that were larger than 300,000 and stick to consensus range. ] 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	:A very small note on Rollin: 1) the Rollin number is 99% a press typo; 2) the work was not written in 1851, but in French in the '''early 18th century''', so I doubt it can be considered ].--] 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

			FYI, Farrokh is not a reliable source. --] (]) 20:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

			Also note that there is no serious support for Alexander being delayed for a WHOLE MONTH in this battle.] (]) 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
	:Miskin, I am going to ignore the rude slanderous words you just shot at me, and I'm going to consider that you just got overheated (which happens to all) because Alexander nearly seemingly had a very costly victory. LOL. I am wasting everyone's time, a POV-pusher and I lack any respect for the whatever you meant, "have some respect." Well Miskin I saw you differently before this. I don't understand why you suddenly made this discussion hostile, but I can see that I am not needed, for I am wasting everyone's time. So I'll leave the article to for now, I suppose; but I am going to speak to an Admin and ask him/her whether my behaviour really deserved this outlash. Perhaps I was being unintentionally disrespectful, I will have to go check I suppose.<br>But most of all don't lie in front of Wikipedians who want to make this article better and say that my views are not accepted by western scholarship. What previously wanted from you on the discussion board (which I don't care fore now) is an example of what I will give you below. My view was not 80 or even 700, but rather ca. 25,000.<br>My book below suggests that Ariobarzanes had no more than 25,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. Below is the bibliographic detail:<br> Title: Envy of the Gods.<br>Author: John Prevas.<br>Da Capo Press Edition 2004.<br> Pg. 217<br> ISBN: 0-306-81268-1.<br>
	Since I am still learning Wiki basics I don't know how to footnote properly, so I will leave this here in case someone wants to use it in the article and footnote, or I may come back later and do it once I know. Interestingly enough this source also like Heckel compares it to Thermopylae and suggests that the Persians were outnumbered, so I don't quite understand how this manipulation of numbers has led to at least a 2:1 ratio for Ariobarzanes. I will quote for you, but find me another source other than Arrian which states Alexander was outnumbered, for I have never seen or heard that. But hey I'm a POV pusher. What does that matter.

			If you want to remove Iranica completely as a fringe view be my guest. I'm using Iranica's own text as clarification of its self-admitted fringe views. People didn't want to remove it completely so this compromise was reached years ago.] (]) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
	<blockquote>''"...some sixty kilometres from the city, the loyal Persian satrap Ariobarzanes with a contingent of infantry and cavalry had attempted to defend Persepolis by holding Alexander's army in a narrow defile called the Persian Gates. That battle where a small force held a much larger invading army at bay in a narrow space, was an uncanny replay of the famous battle of thermopylae in 480 BC, except this time the sides were reversed."''
	<br>

			Also note, that your sentence "So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe" does not make sense. If Iranica talks about an event and it says that there were 10k soldiers there, but then it says that modern consensus say there were 300k then if I remove it from infobox as fringe I'm not using it to support my own views, I'm using its own words. It is just wikipedia policy not to use fringe views in the infobox and to explain why a view is fringe if you mention it in the article body. Why is this so hard for you to understand?] (]) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
	But I am satisfied to see that you have chosen to stick to simply modern western sources, check your talk page, I am happy for this cooperation, perhaps we have some work for many more Greco-Persian battles, Thermopylae and Plataea for examples. I may bring more periodically add sources here to the dicussion board or the article (once I learn) that show different figures all arguing for 25,000 and below, and showing why Arrian's figures cannot be accurate. Goodbye for now.--] 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

			== Kansas Bear please use talk page and stop aiding 7 year old POV pushers ==
	:One would think that you take pleasure in victimising yourself. I only said to you ''"I mean come on, show some respect"'', and then "''I'm sorry, I guess I get a little upset when I discover POV-pushing like this at random"'', referring to the fact that I ran into this page by accident - not at you being a POV-pusher. Is this what you interpret as "''rude slanderous words shot at you''"? I think you are being a bit too sensitive, or that you misunderstood my tone. You've been assuming that I was angry or intense since the beginning and you're wrong. If I were upset at someone that would be at people who use double standards between this and other articles. And as I said above I find that Iranica's opposition to consensus on the current subject is a deliberate distortion of history. I find it disturbing that such POV can be injected so easily in wikipedia and remain unnoticed for such a long time. This is not about the 700 horsemen, it's about how easily a false figure caused such a massive historical distortion. You reverted my edits on the grounds that I needed a consensus in order to change the head, I found this irrational when NPOV was so blatantly violated. So don't make it seem as if you were only opposing the 40,000 figure - that is not true. ] 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

			Just read the section in this very talkpage where the POV pusher attacks :]
	== Coordinates ?==

	{{coor dm\|30.7079990636\|00\|N\|51.6223683158\|00\|E\|}}
			] (]) 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

			:It appears the figures for Arrian, Curtius, et.al. need exaggerated next to them.
	:*'''''Is it correct ?'''''
			*''The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia : A Historical Encyclopedia'', , page 97;"''Curtius claimed that Ariobarzanes had occupied the pass "with 25,000 infantry," while Arrian stated that Ariobarzanes commanded an infantry force of 40,000 supported by 700 cavalrymen. These numbers are not only grossly exaggerated but are also laughable.''"

			*''Alexander the Great: A Very Short Introduction'', by Hugh Bowden,;"''Like Leonidas at the Hot Gates, Ariobarzanes had built a wall across the pass to protect his forces, but his forces were much greater, at 25000 infantry according to Diodorus, and 40,000 according to Arrian-although as always these figures are unreliable and implausibly high.''"
	there is no consensual agreement among scholars on Arrian's 40,000 figure, noone can prove that there is

			*''Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire'', edited by Waldemar Heckel, "''..he attempted to block Alexander's passage at the so-called Persian, or Susian, Gates with a force of 25,000 (C 5.3.17, D 17.61.1, adding 300 cavalry; A.3.18.2:40,000 and 700, exaggerated).''"
	:Which is why we are stating 25,000-40,000 - it does cover the range of mainstream scholarly view. The 700 figure meanwhile is supported by only one secondary publication and no primary sources (and anyway, one shouldn't ever cite from an encylopedia). --] 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

			*''Ancient Historiography on War and Empire'', by Timothy Howe, Sabine Müller, Richard Stoneman, page 170;"''A majority of modern scholars agree that the transmitted numbers of Persian troops are exaggerated many times over.''" --] (]) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
	not true, there is no consensual agreement about 40,000 figure being 'mainstream scholarly view". you haven't proved that yet, not by a long shot. Renowned Professor of ancient history Waldemar Heckel in his book 'Who's Who In The Age Of Alexander The Great' says that 40000 figure is exaggerated.
			:Two more that proves the numbers given by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, et.al. are exaggerated throughout Alexander's campaign.
			*''From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation'', by A. B. Bosworth, page 5, "''...prove Callisthenes' incompetence, and indeed Polybius does isolate real faults in his account--gross exaggeration of Persian numbers and a eulogistic bias towards Alexander...''"
			*''Alexander The Great: Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius'', edited by James S. Romm, Pamela Mensch, page 48, "''A huge force--Arrian says more than six hundred thousand, though this is undoubtedly an exaggeration....''" --] (]) 21:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
			::*{{ping\|Simanos}} ] <small>(]/])</small> 18:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
			::: Nice cherry picking of some biased sources, at least a couple are obvious and some are on other battles/topics. Also exaggeration doesn't mean it wasn't 25k, it means it wasn't 40k in one source, in other it's not said that it was 2000 or 700 like Iranica. In others it's not clear. It could also mean that while the Persians had a big army at their Capital, they had only part of it guarding the pass and more at the rear and at the city gates. They just don't describe what. If you want to do some original research on what is meant go ahead. All I added was what the Encyclopedia Iranica '''ACTUALLY''' states: ''"Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them '''unreservedly'''"''] (]) 11:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
			::: Also if you want to talk about Iranica being Fringe, read what it says. It admits modern historians disagree with Iranica UNRESERVEDLY and it also uses a weird rationale for the number. They don't use any other sources or make logistical calculations. They only say: ''"Arrian's 700 (cavalry) can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes."'' THAT'S IT! It's like complete nonsense POV pushing. I'm not going to remove Iranica from the sources, but be fair and label it for what it is: FRINGE. Other people may doubt how many soldiers Persians had at their capital, but it's like to say less than 40k (or less 25k). They do not claim to know they had only 700. You do know the Greeks had 7k to 11k soldiers at Thermopylae right? The 300 were slaughtered when they were left behind (and there were 700 Thespians too, and maybe 400 Thebans). This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets. Several have been banned already. LOOK AT THE ARCHIVES ] (]) 11:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

			::::I see no evidence for your accusation...
	:From what I understand, Heckel is the source of the 25,000 figure. Heckel has '''never''' suggested there were only 700 Persians, as the version you insist on declares. The only source of that claims '''admits''' that it's view is not held by the majority of modern scholars. Be aware that you are in danger of breaching ]. --] 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
			*"''Nice cherry picking of some biased sources...''"
			::::These so-called biased sources being ], , Oxford University Press, , et.al.
			*"''This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets.''"
			::::And clearly some other nationalists that make blind accusations when confronted by facts that they ].
			::::Clearly ] and libel sources that state facts you do not like. --] (]) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

			== Disruptive Editing ==
	Heckel says that 40000 figure is exaggerated, that refutes your argument that '25,000-40,000 is mainstream scholarly view'

			Certain users, who I will not name, as they know who they are, have been engaging in disruptive editing by repeatedly removing thoroughly sourced material and otherwise altering the war box. Furthermore, after reviewing this talk page, it seems that one of these users has been violating Misplaced Pages's policies by leveling personal attacks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) at those who revert or question these edits. Be warned that if either of these behaviors continue, you will be reported. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Heckel's statement in no way supports your position that there were 700 Persians. It merely suggests that 40,000 is not undisputed. The version I am reverting too does not claim that there were 40,000, it notes that mainstream opinion ranges from 25,000-40,000. Be aware you are in danger of breaching ]. --] 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:10, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Persian Gate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran Mid‑importance

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

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Classical C‑class

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

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

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

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

Untitled

ok i have cut the battle section from article "ariobarzan" and pasted it in this article

Timing of attacks

This article says that the first attack was led by Craterus, or the attack that was led from the front. In reality, the first attack was led by Alexander, or at least according to Arrian.

“… When he [Alexander ascertained that this road was rough and narrow, he left Craterus there in command of the camp with his own brigade and that of Meleager, as well as a few archers and 500 cavalry, with orders that when he ascertained that he himself had got right round and was approaching the camp of the Persians (which he would easily ascertain, because the trumpets would give him the signal) he should then assault the wall. “ Arrian 162

and

“ Falling upon the first guard of the barbarians before daylingt, he destroyed them, and so he did most of the second; but the majority of the third guard escaped, not indeed by fleeing into the camp of Ariobarzanes, but into the mountains as they were, being seized with a sudden panic. Consequently he fell upon the enemy’s camp at the approach of dawn without being observed. At the very time he began to assault the trenth, the trumpets gave the signal to Craterus, who at once attacked the advanced fortification.” Arrian 163

The picture depicts this also, that the first attack was made from the front, by Craterus, when it was in fact, made from behind by Alexander. Craterus did not even know to attack until the horns for attacking were blown by the Agemas that were traveling with Alexander. This error should be corrected.

(talk) April, 9, 2011 5:43 PM (EST)

Cherry-picking information

Care to explain how using only what you want from the Iranica source, while removing (700), also supported by Iranica is not cherry-picking information?

Did you miss this part?

""However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes."

These are the sentences following the statement you took from Iranica, "and their modern successors follow them unreservedly. So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Simanos, "I don't use Iranica to push my POV.";

Their edit;"Encyclopædia Iranica suggests a number of defenders of just 700 (or 2000 elsewhere) men, but it admits that the modern historians follow Arrian Curtius and Diodorus unreservedly."

Iranica;"Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly."

So just WHERE are you getting your information if you are NOT using Iranica? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Farrokh is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also note that there is no serious support for Alexander being delayed for a WHOLE MONTH in this battle.Simanos (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to remove Iranica completely as a fringe view be my guest. I'm using Iranica's own text as clarification of its self-admitted fringe views. People didn't want to remove it completely so this compromise was reached years ago.Simanos (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also note, that your sentence "So Iranica is good enough to support what you want, but if you disagree, then its fringe" does not make sense. If Iranica talks about an event and it says that there were 10k soldiers there, but then it says that modern consensus say there were 300k then if I remove it from infobox as fringe I'm not using it to support my own views, I'm using its own words. It is just wikipedia policy not to use fringe views in the infobox and to explain why a view is fringe if you mention it in the article body. Why is this so hard for you to understand?Simanos (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear please use talk page and stop aiding 7 year old POV pushers

Just read the section in this very talkpage where the POV pusher attacks :] Hey_asshole. Simanos (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears the figures for Arrian, Curtius, et.al. need exaggerated next to them.

The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia : A Historical Encyclopedia, Mehrdad Kia, page 97;"Curtius claimed that Ariobarzanes had occupied the pass "with 25,000 infantry," while Arrian stated that Ariobarzanes commanded an infantry force of 40,000 supported by 700 cavalrymen. These numbers are not only grossly exaggerated but are also laughable."

Alexander the Great: A Very Short Introduction, by Hugh Bowden,;"Like Leonidas at the Hot Gates, Ariobarzanes had built a wall across the pass to protect his forces, but his forces were much greater, at 25000 infantry according to Diodorus, and 40,000 according to Arrian-although as always these figures are unreliable and implausibly high."

Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire, edited by Waldemar Heckel, "..he attempted to block Alexander's passage at the so-called Persian, or Susian, Gates with a force of 25,000 (C 5.3.17, D 17.61.1, adding 300 cavalry; A.3.18.2:40,000 and 700, exaggerated)."

Ancient Historiography on War and Empire, by Timothy Howe, Sabine Müller, Richard Stoneman, page 170;"A majority of modern scholars agree that the transmitted numbers of Persian troops are exaggerated many times over." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more that proves the numbers given by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, et.al. are exaggerated throughout Alexander's campaign.

From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation, by A. B. Bosworth, page 5, "...prove Callisthenes' incompetence, and indeed Polybius does isolate real faults in his account--gross exaggeration of Persian numbers and a eulogistic bias towards Alexander..."
Alexander The Great: Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius, edited by James S. Romm, Pamela Mensch, page 48, "A huge force--Arrian says more than six hundred thousand, though this is undoubtedly an exaggeration...." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Simanos: not (talk/contribs) 18:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice cherry picking of some biased sources, at least a couple are obvious and some are on other battles/topics. Also exaggeration doesn't mean it wasn't 25k, it means it wasn't 40k in one source, in other it's not said that it was 2000 or 700 like Iranica. In others it's not clear. It could also mean that while the Persians had a big army at their Capital, they had only part of it guarding the pass and more at the rear and at the city gates. They just don't describe what. If you want to do some original research on what is meant go ahead. All I added was what the Encyclopedia Iranica ACTUALLY states: "Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly"Simanos (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also if you want to talk about Iranica being Fringe, read what it says. It admits modern historians disagree with Iranica UNRESERVEDLY and it also uses a weird rationale for the number. They don't use any other sources or make logistical calculations. They only say: "Arrian's 700 (cavalry) can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." THAT'S IT! It's like complete nonsense POV pushing. I'm not going to remove Iranica from the sources, but be fair and label it for what it is: FRINGE. Other people may doubt how many soldiers Persians had at their capital, but it's like to say less than 40k (or less 25k). They do not claim to know they had only 700. You do know the Greeks had 7k to 11k soldiers at Thermopylae right? The 300 were slaughtered when they were left behind (and there were 700 Thespians too, and maybe 400 Thebans). This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets. Several have been banned already. LOOK AT THE ARCHIVES Simanos (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence for your accusation...

"Nice cherry picking of some biased sources..."

These so-called biased sources being Waldemar Heckel, A.B. Bosworth, Oxford University Press, Hugh Bowden, et.al.

"This page has attracted like every other Iranian nationalist POV pusher and sockpuppets."

And clearly some other nationalists that make blind accusations when confronted by facts that they don't like.

Clearly you will continue to ignore and libel sources that state facts you do not like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Certain users, who I will not name, as they know who they are, have been engaging in disruptive editing by repeatedly removing thoroughly sourced material and otherwise altering the war box. Furthermore, after reviewing this talk page, it seems that one of these users has been violating Misplaced Pages's policies by leveling personal attacks. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) at those who revert or question these edits. Be warned that if either of these behaviors continue, you will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransparentEye (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories: