Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Let's go through this one more time

WP:NPOV#Undue weight states:

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. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Isn't it obvious that the article violates NPOV by giving Iranica author's tiny minority view the same weight as the undisputed western consensus? This PNOV violation takes place in the infobox at "estimates vary from 700-40,000". Vary between whom? The consensus of western scholars and the fringe opinion of an Iranian scholar[1]? The most ironic thing is that a certain group of editors here have constantly reverted to the version which presents the Iranica minority view as the dominant view. Miskin 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica is the most authoritative source on Iranic culture, history, geography, etc... This is undisputed. Many of the most famous Western scholars have contributed to the encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia Iranica is infact itself a Western source. Miskin, you have been making biased edits on several articles. First of all, what makes you think that Western sources have precedence over non-Western sources? Your violating NPOV by removing SOURCED information on the basis that the links may not be "Western". Everything in that Iranica article is based on Western sources, and I'm sure the author himself/herself is Western.Azerbaijani 15:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're accusing me for having made biased or anti-Iranian edits [sic], then you must also be accusing all those non-Iranian editors and scholars that you keep confronting in several different Greco-Roman articles related to ancient Persia. This article serves as a good example. I never removed sourced information from this article, I added Iranica's view in a note, which is more than the weight it deserves according to the UNDUE weight part of NPOV (pasted above). So please don't be accusing me for things you ave abviously been doing yourself (see last stand). Not only you removed the 40,000 figure which meets wide support in mainstream scholarship, but you also insisted on presenting Iranica's fringe view as a consensus view - constantly giving it priority over the real consensus. And as always, yourself, Mardavich et al are the only ones having difficulties to understand what seems to be obvious to other editors. Miskin 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, the logic that is applied by the author of the Iranica article certainly looks a bit shaky. He says:

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 (...). 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 [i.e. 2,000 men]. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes.

I honestly can't see how he reaches that conclusion from the information above. On what grounds does he single out Arrian's cavalry of 700 as the strength of the entire army, instead of giving a rough estimate of his own? It looks very much as if he is saying "Greek estimates for infantry are generally valueless, so there must have been none". Iblardi 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All Iranica articles are written by professionals. Like I said, some of the world greatest scholars have written for Iranica. Iranica is not something to be taken lightly. Certainly Miskin is not one to say what can and cannot be used as a source.Azerbaijani 17:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but a scholar's line of reasoning may also be questioned by others when it appears to be flawed, no matter if that scholar is Iranian or western. But perhaps things could be clarified if someone checked out Hignett's book. Unfortunately I don't have access to it. Iblardi 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, Iranica does admit that scholarsly consensus accepts the 25,000-40,000 figure, therefore the arguable claim that "Iranica is the most authoritative source on Iranic culture" becomes moot. Iranica author says that "Greek infrantry estimates generally tend to be valueless", he doesn't specify that they should be valueless for this battle alone. Therefore it is implied that all Greek estimates, on all Greco-Persian battles, should be accountable to 'zero'. If we were to apply Iranica aguthor's logic to every article of Greco-Persian battles, then we should changes the numbers in Thermopylae, Plataea and countless of other articles to "zero". How come this isn't applied anywhere Mardavich? Maybe because it's absurd? Miskin 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this expression(Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless) is not Iranica's claim. It is a quote from C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f. It means that we should be suspicious when those estimates are not ligical(like here). Moreover, There is no place for OR in Wikipedia. This sentence in the footnote is a complete OR :This view is not supported in mainstream scholarship. Iranica is a very important source in Iranian stuidies and citing it can help to improve the quality of this article. The Iranica's estimate should be mentioned with the same weight as other sources in the article. BTW this source also states that In the battle of persian gates ... a small force held a much greater invading army ... (Arash the Archer 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

my dear fellow editors. These "700 Persians" send quite some ripples through Wikipedia. In my view, what all of this shows is that using infoboxes for historical battles isn't always a good idea. If I understand correctly, we have the following facts:

• Arrian: 700 cavalry, 40,000 infantry
• Diodorus: 300 cavalry, 25,000 infantry
• Hignett: Greek infantry estimates are valueless

Now, if you look at Battle of Kadesh or any other battle article, we don't give simple totals of troop strength, we list e.g. "2,000 chariots; ca. 16,000 infantry". In the present case, this would yield:

• cavalry: 300[Diodorus]-700[Arrian]
• infantry: uncertain["Greek infantry estimates are valueless"], estimated at 25,000[Diodorus] to 40,000[Arrian]

That would about cover it all as far as I can see. The EI phrasing is sloppy. It doesn't actually claim that the Persian infantry strength was zero (as Miskin rightly protested). It dodges the issue by saying more or less "all that we can take for granted is the cavalry strength", being agnostic about infantry. I don't think EI editors would be pleased to find themselves quoted as claiming "zero infantry" here. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

doh, re-reading EI, the EI estimate is clearly "below 2,000" not "zero" for infantry. That sounds half-reasonable at least. 2,000-40,000 is still a 1000% margin of error, but that's probably how much estimates in fact differ. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Which would mean that the infobox figure should be 2700-40000. Ridiculous, yes, but unsurprising in a way. The 1000% figure is not so strange, really; I once briefly wished there was an article titled The Largest Army Seen In Europe about the number of different medieval estimates of the strength of Xerxes, the Huns, the adversaries of Charlemagne and so on. Not to mention how 19th c discussions of the Campaign of 1812 frequently declare that the French army was the Largest Army Seen In Europe since X, where X is widely divergent. Hornplease 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe I am misinterpreting the text at EI, but I still don't see were it says that the total strength of Ariobarzanes' army is anything other than 700. Help me out on this. Iblardi 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is still in violation of NPOV

I'm going to come out and say it--I am Iranian, I'm a huge Iranian history buff, and even I can see that this article is heavily pro-Persian. I'm going to go through and take out words like "heroic last stand" and "fought bravely" because they're amounting to Persian propaganda.

As far as the troop estimates go, I like the idea of separating the cavalry and infantry numbers. Everyone can agree that the Persians had between 300 and 700 cavalry. EI's infantry levels seem to be rather low, and I can understand the hesitance to include them here. However, it strikes me (at least from my limited experience with this topic) that the amount of research done regarding this battle is fairly small. The consensus surrounding Thermopylae, before modern historians began investigating it, was that the Persians fielded over 2 million men. Now, I don't mean to say then that we can invalidate all Hellenistic claims of Persian strength because of this--but it does lead me to believe that perhaps the scholarship surrounding this battle is fresh enough that we might see dramatic reductions in Persian troop numbers.

Anyhow, I hope everyone's had enough time to cool off so we can approach this article for what it should be: encyclopedic. Spectheintro 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I have just completed the edits. Let me know what you think--I yanked the shepherd story because it came from a business book, not an academic source.Spectheintro 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Why did you deleted the shepherd betrayal part? Arash the Archer 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As it was mentioned earlier, the shepherd story is mentioned in several sources. I am restoring the previous version. This is a highly controversial topic, and subject of a dispute, spectheintro should get consensus for his edits. AlexanderPar 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AlexanderPar: That doesn't make any sense at all. That section was *totally disputed*, and furthermore, inclusion of it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of my edits, which sought to correct the blatantly POV tone of the article. You completely undid a swath of edits that removed much of the pro-Persian sentiment in the writing. The article is extremely un-academic and generally poorly written. For example, "But Ariobarzanes knew what he was doing," or "Alexander obviously wanted the treasures of Persepolis for himself," and "Alexander walked into the trap with his eyes wide open." The tone of the article itself resembles a storybook as opposed to a factual article. I am going to incorporate some of the changes you made, but the shepherd story is still highly suspect. I left the story of the prisoner betrayal in because it has verifiable sources; the shepherd story is little more than a legend and the reference cited is from a business book. I've put it back in the article, but if we cannot get a more suitable reference it really needs to be pulled.Spectheintro 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 21:15, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

its OK

this article doesn't violate any pov rules. please provide sufficient evidence of your allegations. Again inocent until proven guilty. The fact that you are Iranian or not is irelevant to me and or any other wikipedia member. Unless you have suffient evidence it is advised that you express your charactristics (race, sexual orientation, etc.) elsewhere and not on talk page.

thank you

If you are speaking to me, I provided plenty of evidence showing how un-academic this article had become. I rewrote most of it so it stopped reading like a storybook and started sounding like a respectable historical event. Judging from the basis of your edits (including below, where you decide to "let the viewers decide for themselves") I do not think you understand Wikipedia's purpose. It is not here so that we can push our individual beliefs; unless a claim has a reputable source, it doesn't make it into the article, period. Further, anything described in a Wikipedia article needs to be as neutral as possible: we're not here to play favorites. It does not matter if you do not believe a certain claim: if it has a reputable source, the claim gets included, unless many other claims contradict it. Similarly, if a source for a particular claim is not reliable, then the claim gets removed. The shepherd story was taken from a book on business practices; that is not verifiable enough to warrant a citation in Wikipedia.

I would also advise you to check your posts for grammar and spelling. This is not a message board; if you want to discuss something, you should use complete sentences and spell your words correctly. By not doing so, you cast your own ability as a contributor into doubt. Spectheintro (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Turkish Name?

Anybody know the Turkish name of this battle? Need it for a project... --Armanalp (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

accurate numbers

ok the figure of 40'000 men under ariobarzan is simply ridiculous. ariobarzan did not even command 40'000 men in Gaugamela. Let alone having 40'000 survivors fighting in here.

" At the battle of Gaugamela some Persian units were led by Ariobarzanes; others, together with contingents from the neighboring Persian Gulf area were under Orontabates; the overall command of Persian troops was with Orxines, a descendant of Cyrus the Great (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5; Curtius 4.12.8), presumably the satrap of the province (cf. Arrian 6.30.1; Curtius 10.1.37). The Persian troops were stationed in the center of the army, near Darius, and suffered heavily in the ensuing battle (details in E. W. Marsdan, The Campaign of Gaugamela, Liverpool, 1964). 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. After the defeat at Gaugamela, Darius fled eastwards and the defense of each province was left to its governor. Alexander seized Babylon and Susa, and having gathered intelligence on Persis, its roads, resources and climate, he set out with a picked force of 17,000 men for Persepolis, the national and dynastic center of the empire (D. W. Engles, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, Berkeley and London, 1978, pp. 70ff.)"

please use common sense here, there was no army in persian gates but some poorly armed peasents and civilians under the command of some surviving nobles. Remember at this time Darius and his army had fled far away north to Bactria and no army is close by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hammond says 40,000, while Heckel places Persian forces at 25,000, and most historians endorse these numbers, as Iranica itself reluctantly recognizes.--Aldux 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

well if the persian forces were 50-90 thousands in gaugamela there is no way there were 40,000 men im gonna seperate these to let viewers decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 01:25, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Which is the source for 100 Persians? I can't find it in 'Notes'.. Lysandros (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is expired but i have managed to find it in google cache: http://72.14.209.104/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-06%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=cache%3Ahttp://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f4/v2f4a058.html

"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.)"

It is ridiculous how people here get away with argumentum ad verecundiam; The late Hammond, like his colleague Robin Lane Fox are specialists on the Graeco-Macedonians of Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian eras, but are typically ignorant on the mechanics of Iranian armies, and quoting them without questioning the veracity of their claims (Did Hammond for instance visit the site near Chêshm-î Chênâr or Yâsûj before giving a completely baseless estimate?) is fallacious and indicates unability to conduct a personal investigation of matters. Darius III Codomannus assembled a force of 30,000 men in Ecbatana, according to Quintus Curtius Rufus, and a lesser figure is given by Arrian; How does then a satrap who lead a few thousands of troops at Gaugamela then muster a force of 40,000 soldiers, or better yet, how does Ariobarzanes succeed in concealing this huge army from the Macedonians?

I'll tell you all a secret; The late Nicholas Hammond, may the Jägermeister gods bring his soul peace, probably smoked something he needed to share. Heckel's estimate is based on the lower end of the spectrum as given by Quintus Curtius Rufus, which appears reasonable, and somewhat accepted by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh in his own summary of the battle; I'd say Heckel's estimate is more accepted within Iranology, however given the conditions, it is also disputed, though not as disputed as Hammond who hux-flux copied his figures from Curtius Rufus. Given the geographical disposition of the area, and the fact that the country-side was enduring a winter, I'd say that Ariobarzanes was better off with a compact force. I am therefore in agreement with the article in Iranica.

Also, the battle outcome needs to change; The victory came at a great cost for Alexander. A Pyrrhic victory. By far, this is the battle where Quintus Curtius Rufus is emphasizing Graeco-Macedonian inability and Iranian martial ardour. The battle of Thermopylae bears this badge, and so does the battle of Hydaspes. In no uncertain terms, Curtius Rufus in passage 5:3 is quoted;

The greatest source of anguish for Alexander's courageous men was [...] their inability to strike back, their being caught and slaughtered like animals in a pit.

That even wrestling and grappling is mentioned truly gives another picture of the ability of Iranian warriors. This is the Thermopylae no one knows about, and these are the forgotten Spartans of Iran, so quite frankly Hammond's estimate can be mentioned, though it is clearly discredited and obsolete. 25,000 men, at most, and that is to take it to the most extreme stretch considering that it is almost as large as Darius' force assembled in Ecbatana. 2,000 men appears to me a very well-rounded figure, small enough to conceal, and far much simpler to divide into satâbam formations. Having twenty hundred-men battalions than twenty-five thousand-men divisions sounds not only more sensible and more rational, but it also sounds much more likely.--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to numbers according to their own sources

I changed some numbers and my edit was reverted because Kansas Bear felt I did "unexplained changes to figures". I will explain now. I changed the low estimate of 300-700 to 700 because that's what the Encyclopaedia Iranica says. Whoever put up 300 was drawing his own conclusions. Iranica says "Arrian’s 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." It only mentions Diodorus's addition of 300 cavalry to Curtius estimation of 25000 Persian infantry. It does NOT interpret that as 300 total. Only the 700 from Arrian. Please read it. Also that very same source mentions that the ancient scholars (Arrian, Curtius, Diodrus) AND their (I'm quoting the Iranica) "modern successors" have other estimates. I take that as admission that a lot of modern scholars (if not the majority) take 25000-40000 as a "proper" (if biased) estimate so it must be noted in the infobox, right? Personally I think Ariobarzanes led a forward contingent to the ambush site (around 4000) and the rest of the army was inside the city. But later when he was flanked and surrounded he was denied access to the city so that Alexander would spare it and its population and he was killed or forced to surrender or something. There's no reason to suspect he couldn't raise that much for a last defence of the city when even his remnants from the Gaugamela battle was probably around that alone. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My next change is to a deplorable lie in the article. It says: "According to historian Arrian, Ariobarzanes had a force of 700 men who faced a much larger Macedonian force of 10,000." That's not according to Arrian. It's according to Encyclopaedia Iranica. Then the following paragraph is also misleading in keeping with this theme so I will add to it the entire text of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Normally I would wait for consensus before making changes to an article, but these changes are too obvious to need any. I'm only removing original research and adding info from the very same reference so why would anyone object? Do not revert my changes unless you also explain yourself here on the talk page please. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to fix the Persian casualties too in the infobox. 400-674 is misleading. It should probably say "total" or some other word that is more appropriate. Everybody agrees that at the end the entire Persian force was killed or captured, right? If no one object I will correct that tomorrow. 89.210.189.119 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I just noticed that near the end of this discussion page it is said by The Persian Cataphract (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Also, the battle outcome needs to change; The victory came at a great cost for Alexander. A Pyrrhic victory. By far, this is the battle where Quintus Curtius Rufus is emphasizing Graeco-Macedonian inability and Iranian martial ardour. The battle of Thermopylae bears this badge, and so does the battle of Hydaspes."

Well I checked and neither "bears this badge". Only the Battle of the Persian Gate says "Pyrrhic Macedonian victory." The Battle of Thermopylae says "Decisive Persian victory." The Battle of Hydaspes says "Macedonian victory." So I think we should change this article too. There is nothing Pyrrhic about it. The victory of Alexander did not cost him so dearly as to compromise his overall campaign and strategic position which is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. He was delayed, but not critically so as his following conquest of the entire Persian Empire showed. His ability to project military power wasn't hampered like Pyrrhus of Epirus's was following his battle with the Romans. This was a clear decisive victory. At least at Thermopylae the time delay proved critical for the Persians since the Greeks were able to amass their full armies for the following great battle. And also they gained a psychological advantage while at the Persian Gate nothing much happened. Does anyone object to this? 89.210.189.119 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heavy losses ≠ Pyrrhic victory

I changed the description to "Macedonian victory, though with heavy losses". Even though that's not a standard wording, it describes the Alexander's victory (defined as advancing his strategic goals) accurately, and also expresses what I think some of the editors want to point out, that the Persians inflicted heavy casualties in the process. Heavy, unnecessarily, or disproportionate losses don't make a victory Pyrrhic - that requires the overall effect to be negative for the victor's campaign and goals due to these losses. Here, Alexander was able to achieve his objectives soon afterward in finishing resistance in the Persian Empire. If you call this a Pyrrhic victory you may as well call Russia's ending of WWII by taking Berlin a Pyrrhic victory due to the losses it sustained, or all of the larger battles in Virginia from 1864-5 for the Union before the Confederacy surrendered, "Pyrrhic" also. Finally, heroic last stands and inflicting high costs are not sufficient to create a Pyrrhic victory, just like the Alamo, Thermopylae, Isandlwana, the Foreign Legion at Camerone, etc. are just normal victories for their bloodied opponents. If there's a counter-argument about how Alexander was less able to achieve his goals after this battle, then I'm all for discussing that, but until then I'm going to take out the "Pyrrhic" as plain inaccurate. Wilytilt (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rarely can there have been a less Pyrric victory. The Persian army was annhilated, Alexander captured the enemy capital and carried on campaigning for another 7 years. I think Pyrrus himself would have been a lot happier if he could have won some battles like this.

This was a decisive victory, no matter what the cost in lives, since it finished off the Persian resistance. And the Persian capital was captured. That is about as decisive as it gets. It is quite adequately pointed out in the infobox already that Macedonian losses were heavy. This is why I have changed the 'result' to 'Decisive Macedonian Victory', which is standard wording.

I realise that this will annoy some Persio-philes out there, so I would like to point out that a) I am not Greek and that b) I have previously changed the result of Battle of Thermopylae to 'Decisive Persian Victory', because that is what it was. I have no bias towards either side, but the facts are the facts... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, well said. I think universally people want to root for the besieged defenders in any last stand, but by definition, "last stands" don't win battles, and usually don't cause Pyrrhic victories for the other side either... Wilytilt (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::I reverted to "Macedonian victory, though with heavy losses", put relevant picture, divided battles to first and second attack, edited and organized links, and then some low-life comes and change it all (?!). This historical adventure is actually consisted of two battles (one month span); first one was won by Persians, second one by Macedonians, so generally it CAN NOT be considered as "decisive". Thermopylae is something different, because even according Herodotus claims Persians lost just 0.3% of their troops, while Macedonians at Persian Gates lost more then 50% according all sources. --93.143.43.119 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm agnostic as to whether it's: "Macedonian victory" ; "Macedonian victory with heavy losses"; or "Decisive Macedonian victory" - those are all gradations of a victory and hence can be correct based on various historical interpretations. But "Pyrrhic victory", which does not imply a victory but rather a defeat, was simply incorrect. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't there anymore to potentially confuse people who just wanted some quick facts about this battle without being draw into the historiography. Everything else is cool by me, and I won't be making any more changes here likely. Article looks good :) Wilytilt (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing comment from block-avoiding user :::::Well, it can be see as "Pyrrhic" only in context of the battle (victory with heavy casualties), but of course not in the context of whole Alexander's campaign. Glad you like it, not bad for non-named "vandal"? ;) --93.142.147.100 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

93.143.xx.xx is a blocked user that keeps making new accounts and his edits should be reversed. Look at Battle for Thermopylae which is a Decisive Persian Victory and the Persians lost that war. Why should the Battle of the Persian Gate not be a Decisive Macedonian Victory? It makes no sense and it's obvious POV pushing. I'm boldly changing this. Also keep in mind that you can't have it both ways. Either this was a brave last stand that failed since the Persian empire was conquered or its significance was not that big as it says in the Aftermath section:

Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_victory A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. It does not always coincide with the end of combat.

Also you say Thermopylae is something different, because even according Herodotus claims Persians lost just 0.3% of their troops, while Macedonians at Persian Gates lost more then 50% according all sources. How do you figure the 0.3%? You don't really put any stock in the 5 million number do you? And anyway Herodotus says 1,800,000 (so 20,000 dead more like 1%) not 5 million for Thermopylae. 5 million is the total of men who crossed the Dardanels. And who are these all sources that (you claim) say that Macedonians lost more than 50%? Please uneducate us... Simanos (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I would like to add this stuff from the Iranian IPs POV pushers: 20:24, 15 December 2009 (hist | diff) Quds Day ‎ (STOP WITH YOUR DIRTY JEWISH LIES!!!! BASTARD!!!) (Undid revision 331538374 by Plot Spoiler (talk) Maybe only for you JEWS, but not for other civilized people.) (→2009 Quds Day: NONE of people believe in your Jewish BS about "holocaust denial".) and various stuff like that which discredit our IP hoping Iranian editor. Simanos (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::I'm Croatian and Roman-Catholic, you FOOL. --93.142.157.127 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Nevertheless you seem only interested in Iranian articles. Who cares, you keep insulting people (instead of discusing) and that means your credibility is zero in wikipedia. And you keep trying to evade your BANS! Get a life Simanos (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Do you think I feel offended by someone who is below my level of education, look and financial status? :) Of course not. You didn't quote other part of Decisive victory article, like: The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor is sometimes described as a decisive victory for the Japanese, even though it did not decide the ultimate outcome of the war in the Pacific. Removing comment from block-avoiding userI ::::So, it's just matter of opinion. I argued that "Battle at the Persian Gate" is actually two battles (one month span) in one article, so there is no any logic to call this outcome as "decisive" victory, because it's simply not. --93.143.2.52 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) How many banned IPs will it take for you to get a life and go away? Besides your logic is flawed. "The term has also been used" means that the previous definition is not wrong, but in fact dominating. So this battle for Persian Gate is much more a decisive victory for Macedonians than Thermopylae was for Persians. And Thermopylae is listed as decisive victory so this must be one too. Go change Thermopylae first and then try to change Persian Gate. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time /Monty Python Simanos (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Removing comment from block-avoiding user ::::::I have my life unlike you, because I'm not ugly, uneducated and poor like you. Saying "battle for Persian Gate is much more a decisive victory for Macedonians than Thermopylae was for Persians" is your pro-Greek completely nonsense. Persians won the battle of Thermopylae easily, and Alexander was almost defeated at Persian Gates - first Macedonian attack was repelled, and second one caused heavy casualties on Macedonian side. I know your mommy told you stories about "brave unbeatable Alexander" before you gone to bed, but this article is not about Greek fairy tales, but about history. Thank you. --93.142.189.185 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC) As has already been said after the Persian Gate battle the Persian Empire crumbled and that is a decisive victory (regardless of casualties). After Thermopylae the Greeks simply retreated and fought on at a different place later and eventually beat the Persians solidly in land and sea. Yet Thermopylae can be considered a decisive victory for Persians if for no other reason then because if they had lost it then their army would not be able to move and starve. There's a lot of anti-hellenism on wikipedia. Just look at the Battle of Hydaspis. There the pro-Indian folk claim that one was the hardest battle Alexander fought and not the one at Persian Gates. Others probably claim the hardest part of Alexander's conquest was the Afghan campaign. So much hate for the Ancient Greeks (on wikipedia) lol it's actually ironic that you call my edits pro-Greek nonsense. The reality is that Alexander did conquer Persia and parts of India and the Persians never conquered Greece, nor did the Indians ever care to visit. And it doesn't even matter cause that was 2 millenniums ago and does not reflect on us today in any way. So calm down and stop vandalising and causing IPs to get blocked. This is the last thing I will say to you until you apologise. I will not feed Trolls. Simanos (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Not precisely. You can say Persian Empire crumbled after battle of Gaugamela when Mesopotamia was taken, or after Bessus killed Codomannus, but battle at Persian Gates is completely irrelevant in context of Achaemenid fall. You're right, part of Greeks have leaved Thermopylae, part of them surrendered, one of them collaborated, and part of them fought till death. You can't accuse me for anti-Hellenism because I've edited many Greek pages. Battle against Porus was Macedonian victory, but also not "decisive victory". Removing comment from block-avoiding user :It's nonsense to say "Alexander did conquered Persia, but Persians didn't conquered Greece" - fact is, Persia fought wars only against Athens and Sparta (and their minor allies), and they razed Athens during Xerxes' invasion. Perhaps you didn't know, but Macedonians sided Persians during that expedition. Alexander is not Greek in ancient sense, but Macedonian (also not in modern sense, but ancient). Sparta didn't participated in Macedonian invasions of Persia, while Athens and other south Greek polises were just Macedonian vassals (part of Corinthian league). --93.142.189.185 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC) If you feel that way then I dare you to remove the part of the article that says that "Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.", but you won't... Stop behaving like a vandal or I'll put the article under protection. You are evading your blocks. You should not edit wikipedia until your blocks expire Simanos (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Various unpleasant conversations collapsed above. 93.142.189.185, if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia: please post an unblock request on your account instead of evading your block. henrik•talk 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As 93.142... has been dodging blocks and targeting this page, I have semi-protected the page for one month. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the talk page as well, for the same reason. It is unusual, but not prohibited, to protect talk pages. As this abuse is longstanding and ongoing and fairly vehement, it's unfortunately appropriate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref problems

There are numerous problems in the ref section...

Marsden was written as Marsdan, Prevas is improperly given, no book name, no nothing (what is a Prevas 33 ?????) etc etc etc, Engels' account was the wrong page, two numbers are being given from the same source (700 and under 2000), when according to the same source the academically acceptable number is another, for some inexplicable reason the relevant text of Encyclopedia Iranica was given within the text etc etc etc...

There is a lot of work to be done here in order to make this article readable... GK1973 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article's a mess, but the Prevas reference is ok, ie the book is there under sources, Prevas 33 is presumably p.33. However, 'sources' should be 'References' and only include books and articles cited in the text. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And the google links in citations should be replaced with proper references. I'm not at all convinced we should use Farrokh's Osprey press book. Footnote 5 has no page number, probably shouldn't be used. Footnote 29 has a similar problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove 700 and 2000 from the infobox then if it's a fringe theory. Or at least keep one of them if it's the same source for both (how can a respectable source contradict itself?) Simanos (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to remove fringe theory from infobox or shall I do it? Simanos (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not as easy. First we have to check out Marsden, for he is also given as a source for the 2.000 figure. I will remove the 700 figure - WHOEVER WANTS TO NOT TREAT THIS FIGURE AS FRINGE PLEASE BRING FORWARD MORE SOURCES!!! -. We can, though, mention it in the text as we do now, so no one should be unhappy (Encyclopedia Iranica should be treated as a respectful source) GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, Encyclopedia Iranica is not actually an encyclopedia in the traditional sense. It is a collection of articles and any reference to it is (by EI itself) expected to quote the name of the author of the article in question [2]. GK1973 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Describing the victory as decisive or whatever

It isn't up to editors to make judgements like this. We should rely on what reliable sources have to say, and if they disagree, describe that disagreement. This is policy and there shouldn't be edit warring in info boxes about this. Only if the article itself can find clear cut academic sources to label it should the infobox label it. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We've also had a similar discussion at Talk:Battle of Thermopylae where the infobox now also simply says victory without editors labelling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you want is a source with this battle and the word decisive in it? It's not like we're doing OR of fusion energy. We're putting 2 and 2 together here (in a bad article). See what MinisterForBadTimes said:

Rarely can there have been a less Pyrric victory. The Persian army was annhilated, Alexander captured the enemy capital and carried on campaigning for another 7 years. I think Pyrrus himself would have been a lot happier if he could have won some battles like this.

This was a decisive victory, no matter what the cost in lives, since it finished off the Persian resistance. And the Persian capital was captured. That is about as decisive as it gets. It is quite adequately pointed out in the infobox already that Macedonian losses were heavy. This is why I have changed the 'result' to 'Decisive Macedonian Victory', which is standard wording.

I realise that this will annoy some Persio-philes out there, so I would like to point out that a) I am not Greek and that b) I have previously changed the result of Battle of Thermopylae to 'Decisive Persian Victory', because that is what it was. I have no bias towards either side, but the facts are the facts... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you're trying to be "fair" in some way, but this battle's result was nothing like Thermopylae actually. That battle didn't end the resistance of Greeks. It was only the first (albeit failed) step. OK maybe scholars have not used the word decisive, but they do say:

"The defeat of Ariobarzanes's forces at the Persian Gate removed the last military obstacle between Alexander and Persepolis. Upon his arrival at the city of Persepolis, Alexander appointed a general named Phrasaortes as successor of Ariobarzanes. Alexander seized the treasury of Persepolis, which at the time held the largest concentration of wealth in the world, and guaranteed himself financial independence from the Greek states."

Or how about:

"Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.[15][16]"

You can't have it both ways. Either this battle was not that important or the victory was indeed decisive. I'm gonna be bold and change it again, but I'm closing to 3RR so I'll hope I convinced you and leave the policing of the page to you for the next day friend. Simanos (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a decisive victory actually is. A decisive victory is a victory where there is a shift in power or where the victor completely overwhelms the losing side. While the Battle of the Persian Gates gave the most losses to Alexander's troops, it did not shift the power to Alexander and his troops, as he already had it. This battle was just the final obstacle for Alexander which he overcame, but it was in no way decisive. warrior4321 01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to say something like that but I've been busy and I'm glad someone else what. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this battle did not give the most losses to Alexander's army according to all sources. A lot of scholars talk about the Afghan or the Indian campaigns. Secondly according to most sources an army of 25000-40000 Persians was annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Alexander in his tracks. Therefore the victory was indeed decisive since it saved his entire campaign and gave him the richest capital of the world. Or you can go by the other opinion that is that this battle was only of minor significance and the Persian empire had already fallen, it was a foregone conclusion. However the article as is states how important this victory was it bloody says "Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia." You can't have that and then claim the battle wasn't decisive. It was the last act, the end-piece. I'm not trying to push either view, but as it is the article is contradicting itself. So you tell me. How important was it? If the opinions that claim it was the most serious challenge to Alexander are fringe opinions then FIRST mark them as that (or remove them) and THEN remove the decisive part from the infobox. See? I'm reasonable with compromises. Simanos (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Until you find reliable sources describing this as decisive, your comments are original research and don't even belong on this talk page. It isn't up to us to decide. This is policy, not guideline, policy. Find your sources and we can discuss them. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have "reliable" sources describing the battle as the most important obstacle Alexander faced so you're wrong. What you want a source that spells it out for you "this battle was a decisive victory"? Learn to read between the lines. I don't see one ounce of original research on my part. Also the consensus on the talk page is not against me. You and the Iranian POV pushers (some of them already banned) do not make a consensus. Read what MFBT said. I'm gonna do a different change this time and I hope you will compromise. Simanos (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's take this down, one by one.

Oh, lets...

First of all, this battle did not give the most losses to Alexander's army according to all sources. A lot of scholars talk about the Afghan or the Indian campaigns.

I was talking about the Persian campaign as this battle belongs to Alexander's Persian conquest.

Even so, the losses of this battle are unknown, they were probably heavy for the first platoons to reach the gate, but overall I think there is no proof they were heavier than in the previous battles like Issus or others. Let me change the article on that too.

Secondly according to most sources an army of 25000-40000 Persians was annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Alexander in his tracks.

All of the Greek soldiers that stayed on the third day of the Battle of Thermopylae were annihilated in what was a failed last stand, that initially looked like it would stop Xerxes in his tracks. Is the Battle of Thermopylae decisive? Of course not, for the same reason, this battle isn't as well.

All of the Greek soldiers that stayed on the third day were not the entire Greek army though. You argument fails. All the Greek army in Thermopylae was not the entire Greek army either, as shown later at Plataea. Thermopylae was the first line of defense, the Persian Gate was the failed last stand. Hmm I should add that to the article too, no?

Therefore the victory was indeed decisive since it saved his entire campaign and gave him the richest capital of the world. Or you can go by the other opinion that is that this battle was only of minor significance and the Persian empire had already fallen, it was a foregone conclusion.

You still don't understand what a decisive victory actually is. A decisive victory is not the final battle or "the endpiece". It did not "save" his campaign as the power had never shifted to the Persian side. Attaining the richest capital in the world is again not decisive.

Then how could it be the biggest challenge to his conquest? If the Persian army held the pass and also had the smarts to hold the other pass north too, it would be pretty disruptive to Alexander's campaign (he was already low on supplies). If the Persian army retreated (perhaps with the riches) after a few successful days of defense, perhaps it could unite with Darius and help raise another defense elsewhere creating problems for the Greeks. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Some historians regard the Battle of the Persian Gate as the most serious challenge to Alexander's conquest of Persia.

Don't you mean one?

One historian or one of the most serious challenges? Again, I said if this is a fringe opinion then remove it from the article, undue weight and all. I'm waiting...

See? I'm reasonable with compromises

We don't have to compromise. We'll follow the guidelines and policies.

Compromising is in the guidelines actually... /facepalm

What you want a source that spells it out for you "this battle was a decisive victory"?

Yes, it shouldn't be to hard to find if it is the consensus among historians.

Well since it probably is a fringe opinion that this battle was a serious challenge to the Greeks, you may be right. However, my point still stands that if a writer says things like "this battle would alter the course of the war" (for example, not about this battle), we don't have to actually have him say the word "decisive" or whatever. We can use some reading comprehension. That's all I mean. What was said about this battle also screams decisive victory (after some hardships).

Thanks, warrior4321 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.

And asking us to learn to 'read between the lines' is asking us to accept original research, that's what 'read between the lines' is. My only pov here is our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe read between the lines isn't the right term. I should have said read the actual lines. They say this was the BIGGEST challenge to Alexander. Therefore, winning it in such a total and decisive manner (entire enemy army destroyed (killed or captured, last Persian army defending capital, biggest treasure of the world, etc) even after initial setbacks is definetely in decisive victory territory. Do you think it is a fringe opinion that this was the biggest obstacle in Alexander's campaign? Since you like policies so much, how about you do and RfC now? You said consensus was against me, but I showed you that it was not so (MFBT for instance)... Simanos (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Doug, now that you added the references to it being a decisive victory, can we change the infobox to show it? Also a sentence you changed seems not to make complete sense now. "During his advance, Alexander subdued the Uxians, a local hill-tribe. As he passed into the Persian Gates he met with no resistance, confirming his earlier suspicions." you removed the earlier suspicions stuff so it doesn't make much sense now, no? Remove it too? I think historians agree that we don't know why Alexander had no proper scouting of the Gates, we're puzzled by it. Simanos (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Length of the battle

I think someone should check what Hammond really says about those 30 days, because no other source or book says that. The closest I found was Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army, which says it probably took Alexander 30 days to march from Susa to Persepolis (including halts), and that the battle took several days. No other book mentions anything like that. Moreover, Peter Green says in Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: a historical biography that says Alexander left Susa for Persepolis in mid January, and that he reached the city on 31 January, making the 30 day last stand impossible.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey asshole.

Stop putting in the redundant phrase "a claim unsupported by other modern or ancient sources", shitface. The Encyclopedia Iranica does indeed find support in the ancient sources (considering how many troops Ariobarzanes brought with himself to the battle of Gaugamela, and the nature of the location of the battle of the Persian Gates which could IMPOSSIBLY house any of the estimates given by Hammond or Waldemar Heckel) The Greek numbers given are obviously inflated and have no root in historical reality. How can Ariobarzanes magically summon more troops than Darius III Codomannus at Ecbatana (where the greater part of the nobility followed him)? Explain that to me, cuntface.

Let me guess, you're probably one of those schmucks who believes the Persians fielded million-men armies just because Arrian says so. What would you think of Hans Delbrück who single-handedly cut down the Persian forces at that battle to a mere 52,000 men?

So stop being a shithead, pretty please? I know it's a lot to ask from you, but I will not relent in removing that phrase. It is stupid on so many levels and serves only as an attempt to discredit the Encyclopedia Iranica, when in fact it does a better job at cutting down customarily inflated Greek estimates than Hammond who takes his numbers straight from the Imperial Roman author Curtius-Rufus (Which was a thinly veiled political exaltation of emperor Vespasian).

The Encyclopedia Iranica has a peer reviewal board that approves the submission of articles, so this down-watered public-for-all armchair-historian lair known as Wikipedia doesn't need to expend extra energy to skew perspectives to curious readers.

Fucking idiot. The Persian Cataphract (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks

A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

Apologize please or face the consequences. Also stop pushing your POV over consensus. Simanos (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in no obligation to apologize. You are mistaken if you think otherwise. I do not recognize the "consensus" presented by amateurs, especially when the data is published in the Internet's most accessed encyclopedic resources. I do not accept the non-professional assessment of a perfectly valid numerical estimate in an article published (and peer-reviewed by a professional board) by one of the most credible resources used within Iranistics today.

You must keep it civil in wikipedia. Iranica is hardly unbiased. It's mostly a good source, but some of its arguments are laughable. It's also a tertiary source. Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, saying that the source is "unsupported by other sources" when the article indeed does justify its figures is pushing POV. I will remove it as I see it fit. It has no place nor relevance, furthermore it is not Wikipedia's role to audit recognized academic sources or engage in refutations.

The very text of Iranica says that "Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army, and their modern successors follow them unreservedly". It bloody admits it on its own that it espouses a fringe theory, contradicted by most ancient and modern historians. Also the argument that "Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless" and "Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes." is laughable (as people have already explained in this talk page), historians do not work that way (nationalists do). The argument that "Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela" has some merit, but it's hardly convincing. The 2000 (or 6000 actually for whole Persepolis troop at Gaugamela) need not have been the entire army reserves of the capital. The whole paragraph in Iranica is written in a nationalistic style to praise the Persians ("Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men"). Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you push my buttons, I will make a public embarrassment of you to my buddies at Sasanika and subject this whole article to my own personal scrutiny. It will be scathing and better yet, you will bear no influence of it in any shape or form. I choose; you lose.--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Making threats like that will get you blocked. For a month it seems :p Feel free to use that time to reflect on your attitude, or to make scathing diatribes to show to your buddies at Sasanika or whatever Simanos (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was Parmenion?

The article indicates Alexander split his force in half - Parmenion leading one half along the Royal Road, while Alexander took the other half towards Persepolis. From Susa, the Royal Road went to Persepolis - are we to infer that Aprmenion was taking the branch of the royal Road leading to Ecbatana? Also - the inset lists Parmenion as one of three Macedonian commanders at the Persian Gates, yet he is not mentioned in the article. Suggest that the article clarify where Parmenion was leading his force after Susa and either state his role in the attle of the Persian Gates or remove him from the list of Macedonian commanders.DavisGL (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is correct, Parmenion was not present at the battle.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

new sources

• Sandler, Stanley (2002). Ground Warfare: H-Q. ABC-CLIO. pp. 18–. ISBN 9781576073445. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
• Farrokh, Kaveh (2007-04-24). Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Osprey Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 9781846031083. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
• Ashley, James R. (2004). The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359-323 B. C. McFarland. pp. 274–277. ISBN 9780786419180. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
• Fuller, J. F. C. (2004-02-04). The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Da Capo Press. ISBN 9780306813306. Retrieved 7 April 2013.

The page needs clean up. J8079s (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What is 'valueless' ?

Is it possible that the basis for the Encyclopaedia Iranica to call the infantry numbers amongst the persian army to be valueless is because it was composed at least in part if not in majority by untrained and unequipped civilians, who wouldn't stand a chance against a well trained, equipped and experienced macédonian army (which can be without much problems be called the most powerful army of its time) ? Leaving aside the exact numbers, I think everyone actually agree that the persian forces here would stand no chance against Alexandre's forces on an actual battlefield... ? From what I gathered, the forces lead here by Ariobarzanes were whatever forces he could muster to come and ambush the macedonians, not a ready-to-fight army of professionals. ISoulend (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)