Talk:Battle of Thermopylae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 3 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angerine01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

CN tags

The two "Citation Needed" tags in the lead have now been removed three separate times, with no attempt to actually provide citations. For anyone who may be unaware, the burden for demonstrating verifiability falls on the editors who support inclusion of material.

Am I missing something? Or is this an implicit admission that the content in question cannot in fact be sourced, and should therefore be removed instead? Sunrise (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, since there's been (much more than) enough time for a response, I've gone ahead and removed the text in question. Sunrise (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Good. Very proper - I've had to do the same thing many times in other articles, often to have them restored by nationalists but still without reference!!! 50.111.15.21 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this statement in the article correct?

This article states "Following Thermopylae, the Persian army proceeded to sack and burn Plataea", and the article Battle of Plataea states "Result: Greek victory". Could someone clarify? Thank you --152.165.121.116 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Platea is just a central Greek city that was sacked and burned by the Persians after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE, during their advance to Athens. It just happens that the great Battle of Plataea took place in the plains in front of Platea during the Greek counter-attack one year later in 479 BCE. There was a lot of back and forth in a rather short period of time... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) --152.165.121.116 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Herodotus and Holland

I am concerned by this articles, heavy reliance on citing Herodotus and Holland in the Aftermath section and indeed the broader article. To an almost exclusive degree the two are leaned upon.

No disrespect to Holland, but there are many more qualified historians on this area of Greco-Persian history, he is not a specialist in this topic. As for Herodotus, his ambiguous status as a primary source should surely invalidate him from being cited so heavily. There are many historians, who have dedicated themselves to Greco-Persian conflict who have synthesised the useful aspects of Herodotus' work, and separated it from the specious elements (such as Xerxes errr, 'whipping the sea' which I just had to remove) let them speak instead. Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"A flow map of the battle"

The image with the above label is quantitatively incorrect. The scale at the top of the image seems to indicate each dot represents 5,000 soldiers. (I say "seems", because the Persian total as written--210,000-- would require one more dot if each dot is 5,000.) The Greek army, shown with 5 dots on the first day and seven subsequently, was nowhere near 25-35,000 men at any point in the battle. MayerG (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:POV

I have reverted this recent addition [1] on the grounds that it is revisionist POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and makes WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims from a source that does not meet the level required for such claims. Specifically:

• The views presented are clearly WP:FRINGE, as they contradict all the sources on subject. The claim that the battles of Marathon and Salamis were "minor skirmishes" is total nonsense, contradicted by every source on the subject, by the size of the Persian armies and navies, and by the presence of Xerxes himself at Salamis. Such claims reveal poor scholarship and knowledge of military history by the author, who as it happens is not a military historian.
• Strongly revisionist and ethnocentric POV, especially with the old guilt-by-association trick by trying to associate the battle with European imperialism. I can't help but get the impression that this is revisionist ethnocentric POV disguised in the language of the recent "decolonize knowledge" fad.
• Dabashi is professor of Comparative Literature, with a Ph.D. in sociology, not a historian, much less a military historian. The claims he makes about the significance of the battle both in its time and later are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. For instance, as the literature makes clear, the battle had a huge morale boost for the Greeks at the time and bought valuable time for them. It was thus both of psychological as well as tangible military importance. To thus describe it as a minor, insignificant skirmish that was not significant in its time is an absolutely extraordinary claim, which requires top notch sourcing, which this isn't. I'd be more charitably inclined if this were sourced to a military historian, but sourcing such claims to a comp lit prof is out of the question.
• This is minor, but placing something like this at the top of the "Legacy" section is also extremely WP:UNDUE.

In summary, there is an enormous body of military history literature on the subject (e.g. [2] [3] to name but a few), and these additions contradict pretty much all of it. The claims made are extraordinary, the source does not measure up, the scholarship is demonstrably poor, and the revisionist and ethnocentric POV is strong. Again, I'd be more charitably inclined to keep some of these additions if this were at least a military history source, perhaps in a separate "revisionist view" section, but seeing as this is not the case, I can't agree to keep any of this. Khirurg (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's interesting to have the Iranian POV, even if it's fringe when confronted with the rest of the world scholarship. The question is whether this addition is prevalent in Iranian scholarship. T8612 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As a start:

• Dabashi holds the highest chair in Iranian Studies in the US
• He lives in the US (40+ years?), not Iran
• The book is published by Harvard University Press

Makes me wonder about claims such as "Iranian POV" and "Fringe". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Dabashi is professor of Comparative Literature, with a Ph.D. in sociology, not a historian, much less a military historian. The claims he makes about the significance of the battle both in its time and later are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims."

I agree about the fact that he's not a military historian; his remarks about those battles being "minor skirmishes" are probably out of his scope.

Of equal importance: this entire article, at least 70-80% of it, is based on Herodotus, a 2,500 y/o primary source, and Tom Holland, a writer with a degree in English literature (not even "comparative literature/sociology). Yet I don't see many, including you, being bothered about that. But when the head of Iranian Studies in the US, with degrees in sociology/comparative literature, talks about Thermopylae's ahistorical glorification in later Western literary history and conscious (with...wait for it... literary examples!) he gets labeled with all kinds of rash WP policies?

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've already explained, the problem is, his claims about the battle not being significant in its own time, and basically dismissing the whole Greco-Persian wars as "minor skirmishes" are ahistorical, show poor knowledge of the subject, and contradict all the literature on the subject (not just Herodotus and Tom Holland). This shows poor scholarship, period. The fact that he is highly credentialed doesn't make it less poor. The rest, about the "ahistorical glorification" of the battle in the West and the guilt-by-association with imperialism is just revisionist POV and hand-waving. Anyone can make claims like that. And it all falls apart when we know the battle was significant in its own time - it's glorification in later centuries is thus not ahistorical. His whole thesis is built on the false premise that the battle was not significant in its own time. Regarding ethnocentric POV, it doesn't matter where one lives in order to do so, and neither does possessing credentials make it less ethnocentric. I do agree with you regarding the sourcing of the article, but that is easily remedied given the vast literature on the subject (some of which I have linked in my previous post), and is anyway a separate matter from the criticism of Dabashi's thesis. Khirurg (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples of this vast, contradicting literature? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, it took me less than 5 minutes to find texts not that dissimilar to Dabashi. I wonder if there is more;

"First, we might note the enduring interest in specific and singular defeats such as Thermopylae, Cannae, or Teutoburg.21 These defeats may mark turning points—in hindsight—but they also tend to be glorified, or presented with a focus upon the glory of suffering defeat and yet recovering to fight another day. It is important to remember that these battles are all presented as defeats because they are usually viewed from the position of the defeated and as part of some sort of “Western” heritage. But Thermopylae, Cannae, and Teutoburg were also victories. One problem with the selection of a “canon” of defeats is that it excludes the opposing perspective; another is that it creates an artificial set in which the common denominator is modern self-identification, not any ancient historical reality." Brill's Companion to Military Defeat in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Brill. p. 8. ISBN 978-9004298583.

"The passage is remarkable for many reasons. On the one hand, it reveals a specific lieu de mémoire where the Persian Wars (actually the “Median [Wars]”: tois Medikois ̄ ) still had some relevance during the Roman Empire. On the other hand, at least in our text, this relevance is of somewhat reduced significance. Whereas from a modern perspective a battle at the famous site of Thermopylae would above all call to mind the celebrated event of 480BCE, the Roman perspective of the third century CE is a rather different one.2 To be sure, Thermopylae is still a battlefield that recalls the invasion by the Achaemenid Persian Empire, but this is just one event among others, and, as it appears, not the most important one. Thermopylae seems to be about equally significant as the location of a comparable event during the Lamian War (323–322BCE), and both occurrences are far outstripped by the Syrian War (192–188BCE): this was the war that Rome fought against the Seleucid king Antiochus III (223–187BCE), and it is Antiochus – and not primarily the Persians – who is introduced as the ultimate representative of Asian hubris, threat, and outreach." - In Jacobs, Bruno; Rollinger, Robert (eds.). A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire. John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 978-1119174288.

"From the very beginning, reconstruction of the history of the Achaemenid Persian Empire was affected by a point of view that focused primarily on two events: the first was the Persian Wars at the beginning of the fifth century BCE and the second the downfall of the empire at the end of the fourth century BCE. Both events became part of well‐designed master narratives that presented the empire as a colossus with feet of clay, and the empire’s defeats were celebrated as the heroic deeds of opponents fighting for freedom against an Asian craze for the huge and spectacular. Thus, the Persian Wars became a climax in the conflict between Greek (and European) liberty and Asian despotism, and Alexander III was staged as “Alexander the Great,” a heroic conqueror king, while other relevant aspects of his “career” such as aggression, violence, and destruction moved entirely into the background. The sources that established these master narratives originated without exception from the western fringes of the empire, but this did not impair their success. On the contrary, such narratives became an integral part of classical and later European history, one that shaped perception not only of the “oriental” Other and of Asia but also of their purported European antithesis. Although, as we have seen, the importance of the Persian Wars within the general course of history was somewhat relativized during the Roman Empire (cf. Spawforth 1994; Rollinger 2019), our view of the Achaemenid Persian Empire remained primarily determined by other sources and their presentation of the impressive defeats suffered by the Persians in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (cf. Wiesehöfer 1992, 2002, 2003, 2013)." - In Jacobs, Bruno; Rollinger, Robert (eds.). A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire. John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 978-1119174288.

"Dio Chrysostom, a Greek philosopher and orator of the 1st century CE, relays that the Persians rejected outright the Greek version of events and had their own take: Xerxes invaded Greece and on the one hand defeated the Spartans at Thermopylae and killed their king, Leonidas, and on the other hand he captured the city of the Athenians and demolished it, and those who did not escape he sold into slavery. After he accomplished this he imposed tribute on the Greeks and returned to Asia. (11.149) The reliability of this report must also remain open to question, as has been the case with Herodotus and other accounts datable much closer to the events. But it seems reasonable enough as a Persian perspective – it echoes in outline what one would expect from a royal inscription (such as Bisitun) about a successful campaign. In the final analysis it is correct to view Thermopylae and Artemisium as Persian victories: the Greeks were slaughtered or routed and the Persian advance continued. The punishment of Athens (sacked twice) was one point of the campaign, and Xerxes could view that mission as accomplished." - Waters, Matt (2014). Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 BCE. Cambridge University Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0521253697.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what you are citing is very different from Dabashi. First, I don't see any of the ahistorical nonsense about the Greco-Persian wars as a series of "minor skirmishes", and about the battle not being significant in its own time. In fact, the sources you posted contradict Dabashi's these that the battle was not significant. Nor do I see the postmoderist POV about the legacy of the battle contributing to European Imperialism. That the battle was commemorated in subsequent centuries is not controversial and already in the article (that's what the legacy section is all about). Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources literally point out the overglorification and questionable point of view of of the battle, not that much different from Dabashi. The legacy section is heavily messy, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. This should be delisted from GA indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your first source says that battle was "glorified", but not overly so. It also describes it as a "turning point", directly contradicting Dabashi. The second source merely states that the Romans viewed the importance of the location of Thermopylae differently form the way we do. The third says literally nothing about Thermopylae, and the fourth just relays the view of Dio Chrysostom that the Persian POV was that Thermopylae was a victory (which is non-controversial and already in the infobox by the way). Nothing about the battle being insignificant in its own time, or contributing to European Imperialism. And nothing anywhere about the Greco-Persian wars being a series of "minor skirmishes on the periphery of the Empire". So, very different from Dabashi. Khirurg (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your first source says that battle was "glorified", but not overly so. It also describes it as a "turning point", directly contradicting Dabashi.

You can't just take bits from a sentence, leaving out important details that encompass the line "may mark turning points—in hindsight—but they also tend to be glorified, or presented with a focus upon the glory of suffering defeat and yet recovering to fight another day." That is—with all due respect—cherry picking. And perhaps not overly glorified, but simply "glorified" is not a small matter either. -HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The second source merely states that the Romans viewed the importance of the location of Thermopylae differently form the way we do.

So 13 lines and that is all it says? This is a heavy simplification to be put it mildly, not to mention (a convenient) disregard of information that once again goes against you. This particular bit I'm not gonna summarize as well, please read it again - everyone can see what it says.

The third says literally nothing about Thermopylae, and the fourth just relays the view of Dio Chrysostom that the Persian POV was that Thermopylae was a victory (which is non-controversial and already in the infobox by the way). Nothing about the battle being insignificant in its own time, or contributing to European Imperialism. And nothing anywhere about the Greco-Persian wars being a series of "minor skirmishes on the periphery of the Empire".

Not at all, it shows that the battle wasn't near so significant from a Persian POV, but once again, you disregarded convinent information and simplificied it to the last bit. But yeah, very different from Dabashi indeed.

Can another editor please review these citations? Meanwhile Khirug can find those "vast, contradicting literature" which I requested from him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And can you point out where the sources you have posted make the case that battle was not significant in its own time, and the the whole Greco-Persian wars were a series of "minor skirmishes"? And that the legacy of the battle contributed to "European imperialism" and the view of "ahistorical, prophetic and even divine signifiance in furthering the myth of “the West” as the presumed center of the universe and the Christian God’s gift to humanity" as Dabashi writes? Because I can't find that anywhere else. Whole books have been written about the battle, two of which I have linked in my first post. You can start with those. Khirurg (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

My attempt is to show that Dabashi's view about the battle of Thermopylae doesn't sound so far fetched as you claim per the sources above. All the citations I posted mostly focuses on Thermopylae, and which highlights the overglorifcation of the battle, especially in Europe, being solely from a Greek POV, as well as its less significant importance from a Persian POV, etc - all which suggests that the information given by Dabashi doesn't exactly sound outrageous. Also, two sources =/= vast literature. Please at least cite some stuff from the books, like I did. If you're so confident on what you're saying, then we can conclude this discussion quickly. And if what you're saying is indeed correct, then fair play. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well then in that case your attempt was unsuccessful, to say the least. Specifically, you have failed to demonstrate support for his claims that a) the battle was not significant in its own time, b) the whole Greco-Persian wars were nothing more than some minor skirmishes, c) that Thermopylae contributed to European imperialism, and d) that it contributed to furthering the myth of “the West” as the presumed center of the universe and the Christian God’s gift to humanity. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on those claiming the battle was not significant, and not the other way around, but I will note that Holland, Bradford and Cartledge consider it a battle "that changed the course of world history", so yeah, I think we can conclude this discussion quickly. In fact, I think we just concluded it right now. Khirurg (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already clearly stated what I am trying to demonstrate here, yet the very next comment you try to twist those words. It's interesting that you cite Holland who is not even WP:RS, but consider Dabashi to be unqualified. Please be a bit more cooperative (see also WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, number 4), so far you have shown nothing that supports that Dabashi is "WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and makes WP:EXTRAORDINARY", which makes all this look like your personal opinion, rather than what scholarly sources states. Please properly cite excerpts from this "vast, contradicting, literature" (this is the third time I'm asking you), with page numbers and all that. If nothing is shown in a week, then I will restore the Dabashi text. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That Dabashi text should certainly not be restored as it was - it is absurd and undue to have that much revisionist content at the start of the legacy section. If there's more extensive literature to support the idea cited then fine, but nothing you've suggested so far supports Dabashi at all. Unbh (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. @HistoryofIran: I've already explained to you many times how Dabashi fails WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and is ethnocentric POV, and you have failed to rebut my points, instead you keep to reverse the burden of proof. There is simple no way Dabashi's fringe ethnocentric revisionist claims are going in the article, and that's that. Khirurg (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it noted elsewhere recently by @LouisAragon that all these Greco-Persian War articles have a massive over reliance on Herodotus and Holland. That the former is the case is no surprise, it was his object in writing it and he is by orders of magnitude the greatest source. Holland is the most accessible modern popular history. He's not an academic, but to claim he's not RS is pretty harsh, the general quality of his research stands up to inspection. Finding other sources to support and corroborate Holland would be easy. Sources agreeing with Dabashi may exist but I've not seen the,

I think the actual issue here is that the legacy and reception section is infect woefully under developed and would certainly withstand scrutiny for the development of it's own article, let alone the better development of the section here. Unbh (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree on all points. Holland's publishers meet the WP:RS criterion for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also agree regarding the Legacy section in its entirety. Khirurg (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Holland is still not a very good source, when compared to the wealth of good secondary sources on the subject.

As an aside, Robert Graves wrote a poem, The Persian Version (giving the Persian POV on the battle of Marathon), where he too mentions " The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon." T8612 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Persian Version is a critique of war and the way it's presented by those in power when they fail in their aims, it's not really about Marathon. I could see discussion of it being useful in a "Legacy of ..." article but it's not particularly relevant here (maybe Gallipoli!) Unbh (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khirurg: That's the issue. You haven't explained anything. You have stated some stuff, however, without any form of evidence. You have now been asked multiple times to demonstrate this so called "vast" and "contradicting" "literature", yet you can't even cite a single page of a book, let alone several books. Frankly, this is now entering the realm of WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:JDLI and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it has. I have repeatedly shown you how Dabashi is WP:FRINGE, and you have failed to make the case that he isn't. WP:IDHT is disruptive, as is trying to reverse the burden of proof. Anyway, it does appear that there is no support for including Dabashi besides you, so I advise against trying to ram it through by brute force. Have a nice day. Khirurg (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)