Talk:Battle of Plataea

Untitled

the casualty figures seem a little suspect - has any historian made a better estimate?

legends

Aren't there any legends or points of interest concerning this battle?

A day-runner (Pheideppide's job) brought news to the Oracle at Delphi and from there sacred fire, doing the 100+ km trip on the same day Ikokki 23:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

contradiction

it says the number of persians was probably under 80 000 but then it says that the persains suffered 200 000 casualties. It doesn't make sense.

The >200,000 figure was from Herodotus. But that is beside the point. I think these numbers are all inflated. It's impossible to imagine even 80,000 Persians at the battle, and the 110,000 Greek figure is also almost certainly massively inflated. Countries at that time simply were not capable of fielding, equipping, and supplying armies of that size, especially over long lines of communications (like from Anatolia to Greece). The largest army Rome ever fielded was the one at Cannae, around 87,000, and Rome was far more capable of fielding large armies that Greece or Persia (especially at long distance).

---

Herodotus actually gives 300.000 as the number of the Persian forces in Plataea of which 40.000 under Artavazus did not take part in the battle because their leader disagreed with Mardonius's strategy and left, forming the mass of the survivors. This detachment however was later defeated by the forces of Alexander I at the delta of the Strymon river. J.A.R. Munro and Macan at Cambridge Ancient History volume IV confirm the 300.000 figure by noting that under Mardonius the where 6 superior military commanders (one of whom was Artavazus) and 29 "μυριαρχοι" that is literally leaders of 10.000 soldiers. The Persian Empire under Xerxes had a population of over 20.000.000 inhabitants, meaning 300.000 soldiers is only 1,5% of its population when historically under war at least 5% of a state's population get drafted. The preparations for the campaign took some 4 years and that Herodotus mentions 46 different nations and that includes peoples as far as modern-day Afghanistan. The wealth of the Persian treasury was such that it fueled and paid for wars for 50 years after Alexander the Great's death. Also among the preparations was having food and supplies stored all the way to the edge of the Persian empire of 480 BC, that is the border of the kingdom of Macedonia. Thus I don't understand why the Persians could not have fielded such a large army. Rome had a much smaller population base than Persia and thus could gather a smaller army. Let us not forget however that Polybius give a high 6-number figure as the size of the whole army Rome was capable of rallying in the 2nd century BC.

As for the Greeks Herodotus gives a field army of 38.700 hoplites and 71.300 light troops. He goes on and breaks down the hoplites by city-state giving very realistic numbers, which are quite consistant with the army numbers given by Thucydides for the Peloponesian War 50 years later considering the rise in population and wealth in that these fifty years. For the light troop armies the only number that can be honestly debates is the 35.000 helots, that is 7 helots for every Lacedemonian. If however every helot was drafted (something understandable since you don't want a fifth column lying around at home) that number is consistent with the male population of helots as can be implied from archeological data. For the losses Herodotus might give 156 but Plutarch gives a more realistic 1360. I think the page out to be revised to show at least arguements why the armies were that big.Ikokki 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)ikokki

---

Herodotus was innaccurate at best and frequently inflated numbers. I think this page should be revised to show this. Also, what is this about Alexander?

---

Good question about Alexader, I'm confused by this too. But don't mistake it with Alexader III the great. This may be the Alexander I of Macedonia, which was conquered along with Thrace during the second expedition of Xerxes.

---

As for the sub 80,000 estimates, here are some of the modern estimates: One of them even gives the Persians only around 50,000. http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/plataea.htm http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/battle/plataea.html http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=1503 http://www.geocities.com/caesarkevin/battles/Greekbattles2.html

This site gives 120,000 http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/plataea/default.aspx

There seems to be greater agreement on modern estimates of a Persian force between 70,000 to 80,000. There are some estimates as low as 50,000 as I showed and there is also one high source I found 120,000. Anyway, averaged out the Persian force indeed was about 70,000 to 80,000. Making the casualties now make sense.

Actually there's only 2 sources there, not four. The first site says that some 80,000 was left behing, while Herodotus claimed 120,000. Since Herodotus claimed 300,000 in total, the article's 80,000 is not about the total Persian force. The fourth source doesn't claim less than 300,000 at all, it just states that probably 70,000 Persians fell in the battle. Miskin 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I read Ctesias's account at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#72 .I'm not sure that he refers to this battle of Plataea since he puts it with Xerxes present and before Salamis Ikokki 08:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Where are the sources for a modern source saying 300,000. I am only aware of that figure said by the Herodotus the "exaggerater". Modern sources claim from a low of 60,000 to a high of 120,000. PLease site source Mishkin, the former range of 70,000-80,000 was mor accurate in an unbiased opinion. Thanks for the link Ikkoki, quite interesting. And its still me anonymous.

Hammond gives 300,000 and so does the history of the greek nation. You're welcome mr Canadian (at least that is what your IP adress says)Ikokki 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's strage, I've never seen claims below 120,000 anywhere but those two websites. I've removed the exaggerated figure of Diodorus' 500,000 so it's fair to remove also the non-mainstream estimations. We keep the realistic mentions of antiquity and the consensus of modern times. Miskin 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that the anon had also been edit-warring in the Battle of Mycale. He delivered me a personal attack because he couldn't take the truth, I think we can't expect a lot of neutrality from him. Miskin 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This has to be one of the most respectable internet source I have seen from a Greeks. Though the name of the site is Hellas.net and that means it definitely should have some bias, it does a remarkable job of keeping all patriotism out of the events of history. http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/index.html#history

It gives no more than 250,000 Persians for thermopylae, no more than 50,000 at Plataea for the strength. So Miskin this isn't one source right it's probably 0.5, the way you supposed the previous four sources were only 2. Tell me where are you from Miskin?

As for 60,000 Persians at Mycale, I will continue looking because for all I know a not so popular book with a not so popular author is not as good as a reasonable link to a site. For all I know Miskin could be making up bull. I mean in his quote in the Mycale discussion "The Persian inferiority" interesting I wonder who that author is routing for.

Also Hammond's estimates of 300,000 were straight ripped of from Herodotus, he did not do his own investigation on the issue. As for true Persian numbers at Plataea. Consider this:

We can agree that by modern estimates Xerxes'troops in the grand scale invasion numbered anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 and almost all of them were present at Thermopylae because it was the first battle of the 480 BCE invasion. Herodotus exaggerates when he gives numbers, but he doesn't lie when he says after Salamis Xerxes takes approximately two thirds of his army away and leaves one third in command of General Mardonius. one third of the original 250,000 to 500,000 (in addition, the dividing number should be even smaller because heavy casualties were sustained by the Persians between the battles of Thermopylae until Salamis, but I will give you the credit because you let bigotory ideas get in the way of your perception of history). So one third of the original figures (just divide by three, Miskin) and you get a range of 83,000 - 166,000.

So I appologize Miskin but 300,000 is way off and utter Greek patriotism BS.

No, we don't agree that Xerxes came with no more than 250,000 in Greece. It was over 400,000. What is accepted in the West is not necessarily what is true. After all, before Ventris decifered linear B Mycenians were believed to be non-Greeks. At a time when there was no data on the flow of Greek rivers Maurice claimed that no more than 175,000 could have come. The same river that according to Maurice could not support 4 liters of water per day for more than 175,000 (Pineios) today supports 800,000 inhabitants using 100+ liters per day and, with the help of the groundwater of Thessaly, waters tens of thousands of hectares of cotton. I know, this is my training, water resources managment. 3 to 1 was a very realistic ratio because the Persians could not defeat the Greeks without numerical superiority. Also when the Persians attacked the Spartans and Tegeans on the hill they had numerical superiority, else they could not hope to win through arrow volleys. Marathon proved that. Hammond did do his homework, which is why he accepts that. If anything it is certain that the Greek hoplites were not the main body of the Persian force since they proved unreliable, and Mardonius knew it. He needed more Persians than Greeks to police the Greeks some of whom had fought against him already (Phocians), some of whom had murdered Persian emissaries (Macedonians). Only the Thebans in the end fought for Persia. When the Spartans and Tegeans defended, the faced a superior numeically force than theirs (ie over 60,000). I am not motivated by nationalism, no thanks. Nationalism died in 1974 when it failed Cyprus. Ethnic states are dead, is what the talking heads in this country say, multicultural societies is the way. That site BTW that you point does not give how it came on these numbers. Oh, and Miskin, let the small number show. Wikipedia is NPOV and those of the critical school can make fools of themselves with small numbers.Ikokki

ΒΤW who says 2/3 left? Herodotus only says that Mardonius could finish the job without navy and with only 30 myriads (that would be baivabaram). The whole army accompanied Xerxes until Thessaly, Artabazus attacked the cities of Halkidiki that had rebelled and later returned. Who says 2/3? Ikokki 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right lkokki, let the poor guy have it his way, after all he's bitter from a battle that took place 2500 years ago so he probably needs it. Do you think we should add Diodorus' figure of 500K, or should we leave it out so that he won't start crying? Miskin 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

My numbers were for a range of 250,000 to 500,000 Ikkoki (not only the lowest end of the scale), 2/3 making it anywhere from 80,000-160,000. Do you not see the large amount of ridicule in the fact that every source you express that inflates the Persian numbers are Greek. Whether it was marathon or Thermopylae, whenever you cannot find a logical contemporary source showing a large Persian force you return to obvious miscalculated figures from antiquity. Guess where those numbers unfortunately come from again, Greece. You want proof 2/3 left here, just wait. "whats accepted from the west is not always true, guess what buddy who happens to be Greek, almost everything flying out of the mouths of ancient Greek historians is either exaggerated or false. A Greek will obviously have bias, on such issues, so much to say their historians, an english or westerner need not be bias because they are nor Persian nor Greek. Then you go and talk about water suport from the river, so you are going to talk about how much water can be reserved and extracted by ancient methods and modern technology, this does not help your case. At the bottom of this page it says, Xerxes left with the bulk of his army. http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/salamis.htm

Well even when we take your higher end no. of 400,000 consider 20,000 deaths at Thermopylae and possible the same amount if not more by at Salamis since 200 Persian ships were sunk (say 150 on a ship and that's another 30,000 Persians, because they rarely new how to swim). When it says bulk I am pretty sure he left less than 300,000 soldiers. Beacause "the bulk" would not mean 50,000 of an original 350,000.

Can you tell me why this even Greek source doesn't claim a larger Persian force than 50,000 http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/battle/plataea.html

Even at the top of this site it says that the Persians were 120,000 at best, another author claims on the site claims 70,000. http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/plataea.htm#Post%20Salamis Now I never asked for such a low range but I think that 80,000-160,000 should do it simply because this site says that Herodotus claims the Persians had 120,000 including the Immortals.

Yet another source here that claims 120,000 by a contemporary historian. Oops it maay be a Brit though, watch out they always take the side of the Persians. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/plataea/default.aspx

Yet another source that says 120,000 http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/B_xerxes.html

Another site that doubts Herodotus' exaggerated claim of 300,000. This one puts the Persian strength at 70,000. http://www.geocities.com/caesarkevin/battles/Greekbattles2.html

This site says that most of the Persian force retreated with Xerxes after Salamis http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis

There are more sources, but honestly I cannot take the time to show them all. Perhaps this 2/3 thing was something I read in a book because I cannot find it anymore, I will keep looking though.

You asked for my source and I provided them. I bet the phrase "inferiority of the Persians" hit a weak spot, but it was part of the citation and whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. If you edit-war because you think that someone's source is not real, it will eventually get you blocked. You have shown hostile and chauvinist behaviour, therefore you no longer deserve any respect from my part. I'm adding the maxima numbers provided by Diodorus and if you continue rv-warring, I'll report you both for edit-warring as an anon (which is frowned upon) and for making personal attacks. Miskin 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead, infact talk to Adam Bishop, he's an admin right here usuallytaking care of roman and greek battles. If 300,000 is a source already availbale in the warbox by Herodotus then the contemporary sources I linked to have just as much right to be in the war box. I don't care how many exaggerated sources you wish to put as long as the name is given, I will ensure however that the modern estimaes which I have provided more than enough links to stay, majority estimates between 80,000 to 120,000. Plus I will give you guys a 40,000 persian soldier credit (by adding the higher end of the range to 160,000) because it makes Greek bigots feel warm in side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.91.176 (talk • contribs)

Please don't revert more than three times in a 24-hour period. Try to resolve the issue by polite discussion, it will get you farther. Perhaps you could add a sidenote that so-and-so contradicts so-and-so or something. I'm sure it can be worked out with a little cooperation. But reverting is edit warring and the one who reverts to three first can be blocked from editing for a short time. --DanielCD 01:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this page, the number of Spartan troops numbered 10,000. However, according to my historical textbooks, the total male population of Sparta at this time numbered 8,000, of which 5,000 were at this battle (A Brief History of Greece, Pomeroy et. al., 101 and others). I would suggest a clarification that Spartan figures were possibly exaggerated or this figure includes non-native Spartans in the Spartan force. 128.61.53.58 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

We do not need an edit war over this issue. Let us set up a section on what was the size of Persian army, or better yet an article. BTW that Hellas NET site you put up mr Canadian anonymous is maintained by a Dutch. Ikokki 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Very well Ikkoki, I am ready to discuss with you politely on this issue, I am not however in that mood with Miskin has he has proven I am not worth it. Since we have a 300,000 figure already there by an ancient source (Herodotus, I think it would be wise not to repeat it, especially when I have shown several in my previous posts sites that show a range of 80,000 to 120,000 for the Persian strength. We have the 300,000 figure already there by Herodotus, I have no intentions of changing that but I would like to add the modern estimates to the range of 80,000-120,000 because that is the bulk of many contemporary estimates. With exception to few who get most of their info from ancinet sources like Hammond. So can I ask you is it fair that we already have a 300,000 and you increase the range I put 80,000-120,000 when I have given so many sources they can't all be wrong Ikkoki. Still don't agree?

If you were to remove the 300,000 from the upper end that would mean that no modern historian accepts this. You can put up something more neutral that others accept Herodotus and others estimate it there, but in the main body, not a note Ikokki 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So would you agree to writing in the war box, "modern estimates are as low as 80,000"?

---

Excellent job Ikkoki, I like the organization of the box now, it gives both numbers/ranges, I am satisfied with this one and if you are too, I say we keep like this. Hey, I guess the admins were right huh, talking certainly got us further than edit warrng. Now we are 2/2 Ikkoki, we have agreed on Marathon and Thermopylae, without it getting too hot tempered, wouldn't you agree.

But for historical purposes perhaps, you can clear me up a bit, that was the fact didn't Herodotus say that Xerxes left 300,000 in total before he left back, and weren't only 250,000 in the control of Mardonius and only 50,000 were in command of Artabazus. Didn't Artabazus and his troops refuse to fight at Plataea because he was unsure that just beacause the persian army could win because of numerical superiority. So wouldn't that put Herodotus' more accurate number for the troops fighting at Plataea, the ones that were only under Mardonius, 250,000 of which.

In the battle of Salamis 200 or so Egyptian ships were not in Aegaleo fighting but in Faneromeni keeping the straight colsed. 20 or so Corinthian ships were on the look out for them and did not engage the Persian fleet. Yet both are in the sum. Why should Artabazus's force be any different? In any case Artabazus had an important role in the third phase of the battle, he let the doors open in the fortified camp. Keep him there Ikokki 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On the reliability of ancient sources and modern historians

When discussing about enemy army sizes in Plataea in the end boils down to how reliable are ancient sources compared to modern historians. Because the fighting earlier took place when I was asleep I did not have time to elaborate on my position. In general, even modern Western historians, start from what is given out of ancient sources. In the Cambridge History of Ancient Greece (which is given away in leaflets by the newspaper Ta Nea) the text gives constant references to ancient Greek sources. Bury or Bengtson or Champollion, when they were first writing that the numbers are small also had a great knowledge of ancient sources. This however does not mean that we must agree with their conclusions. All historians start by listing numbers by ancient sources. Greek historians who have to publish articles in scholarly journals if they want to get promoted in their universities. Anyway most are socialists, leading to freakish statements like the one calling EOKA an organisation of ultraconservatism. In describing the Persian army ancient sources are consistent that it was huge. Herodotus gives huge numbers, Xenophon gives huge numbers, Arrian gives huge numbers, Ctesias (who was thought to be writting Persian propaganda) gives huge numbers, Justinus gives huge numbers, Cornelius Nepos gives huge numbers etc. Either every historian of antiquity was lying or the Persians did field large armies. That does not mean I accept the numbers they give because they do exaggerate at times, but it does not mean that I do not think they were large. How large were the armies fielded? Lets talk about Herodotus. He gives 700,000 as the force that invaded Scythia and 80,000 as that under Mardomius that stayed behind to finish the job. Did Darius invade with 700,000? Most probably not. This is the number given to him by the Scythians, when he visited them 70 or so years later, enlargened by the fear it produced. 80,000 staying behind under Mardonius is realistic. Herodotus probably talked to someone close to Mardonius. On the battle of Plataea, which is what interests us here, Herodotus gives at least twice the Persian army as 300,000. He also gives us info on what happened inside Mardonius's staff. Obviously he had talked to someone on Mardonius staff. Even if the one who gave Herodotus the 80,000 number does not exist and I made a bad assumption earlier, he most definitely talked to Alexander of Macedon whose propaganda he repeats. Anyway, the only time Iphicrates managed to defeat with lighter troops a phallanx he had a 7 to 1 numerical advantage. 3 to one for archers seems realistic. Ikokki 08:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ikkoki, I didn't quite grasp what you were trying to conclude there, are you saying that 80,000 is a more reasonable number than most thought, or is it that this 80,000 no. was propoganda, can you please elaborate or clarify.

---

What basically I am saying is that Herodotus should not be rejected lightly. It is better to attempt to reconstruct the truth using Herodotus than by outright rejecting him. Mardonius probably commanded 80,000 in the Thracian/Scythian campaign. Darius probably invaded with these 80,000 plus the Imortals and 1 or 2 baivabarams more. But then again this is my conclusion. I know from my experience that changing someone's formed opinion is very difficult.Ikokki 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or did this article just get significantly shorter, did an admin do that, I hope Miskin was not adding false stuff into the article that led to an almost deletion of half the article. --Arsenous Commodore 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone must have screwed it accidentaly. I'll fix it back.Should have checked it out earlier...Ikokki 21:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

I think it would be beneficial to include a second opinion on the Persian Warbox numbers, let's try Diodorus. He claims only 100,000 Persians died. I will input this stat in the casualties with his name in brackets and write beside "Only 43,000 survived..." I will write Herodotus. I will also include Diodorus' figure in the article itself. Thus my changes to the article are as stated in the discussion board. Anyone agree, diagree etc.?--Arsenous Commodore 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

strange

why is there a cross next to Mardonius' name ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B-rat (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Because he died Ikokki 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

uh

mistake in the first paragraph: "and with it the Persians were expelled from Greece forever."

persia continued to play athens against sparta, supporting one side then the other, for years to ensure that both would remain weak by fighting each other. King's Peace, anyone? the quoted part above is stupid and now you know that it is.

I think maybe that referred to further Persian conquest of Greece, rather than political influence. Spartan198 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Will remove detail of 'mixed' Spartan army

The statement in the article, that Spartan armies always included 'few actual Spartans,' is subject to intensive, and by no means resolved historical debate, several of the figures include; Anderson (1970), Gomme (1970), Lazenby (1985), Cartledge (1987) and, recently, Singor (2002). There are many historical occurences of 'mixed' forces, as opponents will be aware, but there is intense debate as to whether these were the norm or exceptions. Will therefore remove the reference and will ask for it to stay removed unless someone solves this debate once and for all for the wider world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.26.169 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Figures in General

Some of the sourcing for the figures are very weak. Having spoken to Miskin, he agrees also that Wikipedia English should be composed of mainly Western scholarship consensus, especially when it comes to something as headline as the warbox. All other minority sources can be included in article text or footnoting. But ostensibly Herodotus 300,000 figure is a blatant exaggeration which does not even need to be in the warbox. Cteisas can stay because more modern estimates back that as the maximum range. Many sources argue that the best way to calculate how many Persians there were at this battle, was to analyze from the 2,000 squared metre stockade (I'm not sure of the dimension but I can get back on this). But the conclusion comes to an estimate of 70,000-120,000. Besides there are plenty of sourced citations in the actual article. Why aren't they given the same weigh in the warbox. Asides from Hammond, no modern scholar accepts anymore than 120,000 for the Persian strength. And even NGL is dubious because he claims that their were only 242,000 in Thermopylae and the invasion force. Reading NGL Cambridge work thoroughly shows that he does not independently suggest 300,000, but merely points out without his own established comments that, that was Herodotus' claim, without supporting or rejecting it. JAR Munro and Macan merely note what Herodotus had said, regarding the baivarabam. They make no independent estimate of the Persian force, thus cannot be counted as an advocator. Besides Macan and Munro, merely state double what Gobineau did (which was 180,000 for the original invasion force). Since they suggested 350,000 Persians at the invasion. There is no way they can be used to back 300,000 at Plataea, considering the casualties in attrition, Artemisium, Thermopylae, Salamis and the forces which accompanied Xerxes back. The conclusion is that Herodotus' 300,000 is given much too much undo weigh, and should be replaced in the warbox. Besides, with these figures the whole flow of the Greco Persian Wars on Wiki won't make sense, there was already an agreement that by modern western scholarship, the original invasion force was about 200,000. Below I will give a list of authors who support different figures, which I will then put in the warbox.--Arsenous Commodore 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The following is a list of sources for the Persian strength at Plataea.

Jona Lendering From Livius: 120,000
Peter Connolly From Military History Online: No larger than 120,000.http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/plataea/default.aspx
Peter Green: 50,000+ (Including 20,000+ Medizing Greeks). http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/plataea/default.aspx
Burn: 60,000-70,000 (Based on Stockade) http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/plataea.htm
Mark Drury: 120,000. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/B_xerxes.html
Tom Holland in his book "Persian Fire:" 70,000-120,000.
Hellas.Net "Monolith:" 48,000.
Beloch and De Sanctis: 70,000 (50,000 Persian + 20,000 Greek allies)

I think what seems most suitable for the warbox is 70,000-120,000 (Modern Consensus). We can leave Herodotus in the paragraph text, and also note near it that Cteisas gives a reasonable primary source estimate.--Arsenous Commodore 16:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also realized that much of the references in this page are in Greek, doesn't that sort of create a conflict of interest, since naturally Greek and Persian sources will be giving polar extremes on figures and events. I'll try to neutralize it with some Western Scholarship. But if anyone can help me out, it would be nice, I'm still a bit of a novice at sourcing. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Categorization

I've added only three of the above sources to the warbox consensus figure range. I think it would be best if the rest were included in a separate headline known as "Size of the Opposing Armies". And there we could incorporate both the remaining modern sources and those figures given by a few ancient primary source scholars, such as Herodotus, Plutarch and Cteisas. To do this I suppose all army estimations are going to have to be re-located I suppose. I'd like to hear other views too.--Arsenous Commodore 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Illustration

Why the inclusion of the Macedonian phalanx illustration? This particular variation of the phalanx with it's use of the sarissa was invented more than a century after the battle of Platea. It should to be eliminated. Alcmaeonid 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

excellent point. I was gonna say it but u r first. I suggest rewording the long paragraph. In fact i will. Tourskin 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Trojan army use of the formation? Is there any proof of that in the Iliad, or did somebody just take that from the movie and assume it to be historical? Spartan198 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

5000 Spartans?

I was just looking over the figures provided in regard to the battle and I see that it says there were 10,000 Spartans present at the battle. I can't actually find a source for these given numbers. I'm reading figures recorded by Herodotus and he gives the same overall force number of 38,700 heavy-armed infantry but he states there were 5,000 Spartans present (and several other figures differ too) I think there were only 5,000 Spartans present, as there were apparently 35,000 light-armed Helots present since the Ephors were said to have given seven helots for each Spartan. This number is given in the actual article too, so there is a discrepancy somewhere. I'll list the numbers I have and you can see for yourself that they differ from the listed ones (Mine I believe are the Herodotus recorded numbers) 5000 spartans 5000 other Lacedaemonians (most likely Perioki) 1500 Tegea 5300 Corinth 600 Arcadia 3000 Sicyon 800 Epidaurus 2900 combined from Troezen, Lepreum, Mycenae, Tiryns, Phlius and Hermion

These were all Peloponnesians Also: 8000 Athens 3000 Megara 600 Plataea 500 Aegina 600 Eretria 400 Chalcis 1500 from the islands of western Greece. Total: 38700

If someone could help me primarily work out the Spartan discrepancy I would be much obliged, I also would like it if we could source the given numbers? The numbers I have provided come from Herodotus and since he is sourced and credited throughout the article heavily I feel his numbers should be the ones we rely on.

Thanks Akaricloud (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I cropped this part of the article. I felt 6 lines talking about the last scene of 300 was much too much and was more a review then reference to popular culture. Feel free to revert it if you wish, but I hope it sticks Akaricloud (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I enjoyed the movie, I definitely agree with you. It has no place in this article. Spartan198 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Maths

If you do simple math its easy, concerning Herodotus saying 43,000 casaulties for the Persians, its then 77,000-257,000 KIA, so I mean by 43+77=120, and 43+257=300, or in thousands I mean 300,000 which Herodotus gives for the Persian numbers so there is no debate here, now if he is right or wrong I do not know, but I know basic math, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Article flow / backpedaling

This article doesn't flow well due to too much quibbling over numbers being injected right into the article. Right when the reader starts to get a feel for what's going on, he is immediately bogged down in an ongoing debate over the numbers with a lot of hemming and hawing over sources and accusations of bias. It would read a lot better if we could put all the accusations of bias and disputes into some other section and turn the rest of it into something readable. --128.222.37.21 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have removed this section for a few reasons:

1. If the reader cares about this subject he will go here and if further inquiry is warranted, here.
2. The section is very weak and does not cover all the bases.
3. It is dismissive of the primary source thus characterizing the article as invention. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm open to discussion. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you. Personally, I think this kind of section is important for Ancient battles; especially if throughout the article it is necessary to explain why we believe some bits of a story, but not others (this obviously applies more widely than Herodotus). And I think a cautionary note at the start is also wise when we only have one major source. However, I agree that the section in this article is weak, as it stands. I don't think it is dismissive of Herodotus; it was an attempt to be balanced about him (since he does get a lot of criticism); personally I have no issue with Herodotus.

It is on my to do list to extend that section to include the other sources; whilst I am at it, I will reword it to see if it can be made more useful. However, for the time being, I am happy for the section to be left out of the article. Cheers MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I await your re-write. I hope you will agree, though, that it does not belong as the opening section of the article proper. The general reader cares little about source evaluations and is entitled to the goods up front. Later on (if he's interested in such) should come the encounter with technical matters like sources and critical evaluations of their veracity. Placing these things up front makes them into a kind of warning/qualifier. Btw, kudos on your good work. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, agreed. I take your point about undermining an article before it's even begun! I was following the arrangement of sections I used in Battle of Salamis, which I think I originally borrowed from Battle of Thermopylae. I will write a longer, more exhaustive 'sources' section which can be inserted into many of the Greco-Persian Wars articles, but for the time being I'll remove them from some other pages (Mycale, Artemisium, and so on). And thanks! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's standard usage in all classical battles to discuss the sources first. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, it's getting silly. That's misuse of the template. Take Battle of Salamis, Battle of Cannae or Battle of Strasbourg. High ranking articles about ancient battles discuss the sources. Else take academic works like Lazenby The Defence of Greece or Daly Cannae and you'll also find a discussion of source. Of course, in a high school history book such things probably aren't discussed. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is not about whether to discuss sources but where to place said discussions in the article. I've made my point above. I'd like you to address it rather than mention some non-specific "standard usage" which the template asks to be identified and elaborated on.~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check this statement against the reference: "However, there are still some historians who believe Herodotus made up much of story." It does not make apparent sense as it stands. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

References Need Updating

The site linked to in the majority of the references throws up an error. It appears the page has moved, and can now be found at this link. CWardUSC (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Persian Casualties Modern References needed explanation

What are the references that the modern consensus is that only 10,000 out of the 70-120,000 Persians died? Simanos (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can no one answer this? I'm going to change it soon then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) 10:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Motivation for delay in fighting

The reason for the stand-off between armies before the battle is given as being 'primarily tactical'. It should probably be mentioned that that is a modern interpretation. Herodotus, our main source, emphasizes bad omens and oracles. It seems to unduly secularize the motivations of the men involved to describe the battle as if we 'really know' that the interpretation of oracles was symbolic of rational military strategizing. This seems to risk anachronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.200.245 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek Casualty Figures

"although they paid a high price by losing most of their men"

The article needs a better source than Holland to support this conclusion. First time I have ever come across this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.43.101 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Plataea/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Class B rating== This article is good, but the opening paragraph needs to be expanded and clairified to indicate the importance of this battle to Greece and the conduct of that war. Argos'Dad 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Plataea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026061231/http://www.livius.org:80/a/battlefields/plataea/plataea.html to http://www.livius.org/a/battlefields/plataea/plataea.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Persian Fire

I'm concerned that this article relies so heavily on Tom Holland's book Persian Fire. Holland is not a professional scholar, and while his historical books have been generally well reviewed as popular works, they have also been criticized for tending to fictionalization and anachronism. This isn't to say that book can't be used as a source, but the article would be stronger if it relied more on scholarly works. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

About Backgrounds and Beligerents

I feel that "before (Achaemenid Persia) taking possession of the now-evacuated city of Athens." sound too soft, especially since later on, Athens is mentioned as a destroyed city in the next paragraph.

About Beligerents, I believe it's best to put the names the Greek city states that fought with Persia in that blue box. -- I know it has been mentioned multiple times that some Greeks fought with/under Persia and I'm sure they can technically be counted as Persians like other nations under Persia, but people might still get the wrong idea that all of Greek unite against Persia since they are called either "Greek army" or "the Allies". Allslsl (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of the orange "relies on primary sources" banner that was added in October. Does the article still have this concern? Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of Plataea

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, just checking in with your rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, will need 10-20 days more because I am finding some newly published sources, like Konecny 2022, hard to access. Matarisvan (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking up again Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in 5 days max. My apologies for asking for a second postponement. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I've reduced the number of citations of Herodotus to 18 and of Holland to 15, now a total of 30% of the total citations, earlier these were about 80% of the total citations. However, I've not converted these citations to sfn like the other main citations and will be removing them soon. Would you consider keeping now while I continue removing these citations, or would you have to wait till all of these citations are removed? Matarisvan (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I can see progress here, but I'm not sure we're moving entirely in the right direction. We've replaced an overreliance on Tom Holland with an overreliance on a single article by Roel Konijnendijk -- that's unquestionably an improvement, but still leaves major concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT. Between him and Konecny, we've got nearly the whole article, and two citations is not great for a GA about a very heavily studied part of history. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist, I am working on adding more from sources like Burn, Connolly, Lazenby, etc. I have around 30 other sources I've bookmarked in the bibliography of Konijnendijk and Konecny, and I'm working on getting access to these, since around half are not on TWL. However, I cannot request for all of them on RX at once; I've purchased some of these but their delivery will take 5-10 days, and then incorporating them will take the same amount of time for each one. I asked the GA be kept because this reassessment has been open for 3 months now; even though I began working 2 months ago, I lost one full month because my laptop was not working.

I don't think a GAR can be open for so long, and I acknowledge it's partly because of a fault of my own, but I think it should be closed within a few days, by which time I would've removed all the citations to Herodotus and Holland, and added more material from sources other than the 2 I've used. Also, I counted the citations to Konijnendijk and Konecny, they're 46 in total, so only 40% of the total refs. By the time I've finished adding all the other sources, I guess this %age would be around 10-20%. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

My view would be that there is no deadline as long as progress is being made: I don't see a reason to close a GAR that hasn't stalled or reached consensus, but others may disagree. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, there is no deadline. Progress has been made. If there is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to be made then why would we want to prevent that? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There have in the past been problems with GARs remaining open near-indefinitely while people say that they will work on the article without actually doing so, which is why the normal time limit is set at three months; however, as Matarisvan has a good track record with working on GARs and has made significant efforts on this one I see no reason to place a hard limit here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)