Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 4 January 2025 (Archiving 27 discussion(s) to Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 2, Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 17:10, 4 January 2025 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 27 discussion(s) to Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 2, Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 1) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: