Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate

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

Change of Article Title

Does anyone agree to changing the title name to "Battle of the Persian Gates." Isn't that what historians generally call it. Perhaps I'm being too picky?--Arsenous Commodore 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

um im not sure we should because there was 1 Persian gate. lol.

Citations Needed

This article has very few citations and seems to generally paint a one-sided picture. It would improve its credibility to add the appropriate citations.I have marked a few major points. For example, the Battle is mentioned as starting in January 330 BC (no exact date is mentioned) and as ending on the 20th of the same month, yet the duration claimed is 48 days which seems contradictory. Do let me know if I can help hunt down the facts. -- Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

its common knowledge

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

Here is a site claiming that Ariobarzanes held back the Macedonians for 48 days. Unfortunately, I'm not strong with how Wiki functions especially regarding footnotes. Anyone want to include it? I'm putting forty-eight days back in the article.--Arsenous Commodore 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/9026

also of those 700 only 80 were armed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-Check

The article seems to incorporate information from Livius.org [1], which is a reliable source, however, much of this information is taken selectively. For example in the "death" section the article states: "On the 20th of January 330 BC, Ariobarzan was killed in combat along with his 80 companions after weeks of fighting." Livius.org explicitely mentions that Ariobarzanes abandoned his post and fled to Persepolis, where entrance was denied, and was "most likely" killed by the Macedonians. The heroic death of the defenders does not meet scholarly consensus, depite what the article claims. Overall lots of work needs to be done regarding WP:NPOV and WP:ATT violations. This is why I added the tags. Miskin 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the infobox fields should be blanked until reliable sources can be provided. The article claims that this battle has been compared to Thermopylae. The article provides sufficient historical manipulation in order to draw this parallel between the two, though in reality there's too little in common. On the true commonalities:

• Thermopylae was the entrance to "central Greece", Persepolis was the heart of Persia.
• Both Hot Gates and Persian Gate contain the word "gate".
• Both events involve Greeks and Persians

On the fabricated commonalities:

• The Persian defenders were under siege, they didn't make a stand as the article states
• The defenders were not extremely outnumbered, if at all outnumbered - this was after all the capital of Persia
• That the Greeks lost thousands is unverified and misleading. There was only one Persian attack which inflicted great damage to the Greek army, yet this was the result of "mercilessly raining down boulders and stones on the Macedonians", and not of an actual encounter. This ambush attack was Ariobarzanes' only shot at glory, the rest is just fabrications. Following this failed attempt he tried to escape but failed.
• To claim that Ariobarzanes defended the Persian capital with a handful of men is only laughable. Ariobarzanes had gathered an army of max 40,000 for his ambush to Alexander (I've got different accounts on this). After his failed attempt he fled to the city "with but few horsemen" i.e. 40 horsemen and 5,000 infantry (sourced), where he intended to "rob the citadel of its treasures and effect his escape", but was killed by Alexander instead.

In addition, I think that "Battle of the Persian Gate" is a very misleading name for this article, possibly the result of original thought since it has zero results in google scholarly search. I'm not sure if the event qualifies as a "battle" at all. Miskin 12:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The 40,000 figure is a primary source estimation and it is cited in more than many modern sources, so it has to stay as the max figure. I don't know how realiable the Ephialtes story is, but the shepperd story is clearly a myth because of its great resemblance to the former (according to this [[2]). They could both be myths, but for the obvious reason the second version has more chances to be a myth than the first. If you prove that a consensus of scholars consider the Ephialtes story as a myth, then by all means do make the necessary edits. For all I know the story of Ephialtes is generally cited as something factual. No double standards there, only abiding by wp:att. I would have no problem to admit on both being myths. Miskin 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've just included both Western and Iranian views for NPOV and to counter systemic bias. Maybe this should (hopefully) settle a few issues? Jagged 85 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Iranica

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

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

This of course was a trap question, as the article is already linked, but I doubt you or anybody else who cited had ever read it. Let's see what Iranica says on the subject:

Alexander historians give Ariobarzanes a large army (40,000 infantry and 700 cavalry in Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.2; 25,000 infantry in Curtius 5.3.17 and Diodorus 17.68.1; the latter adds 300 horsemen), and their modern successors follow them unreservedly (e.g., Th. Doge, Alexander, Boston and New York, 1890, p. 401; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great, London, 1958, pp. 228ff.; N. G. L. Hammond, *Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman, London, 1981, p. 185). However, Greek estimates for Persian infantries were generally valueless (C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford, 1962, pp. 350f.), and Ariobarzanes could hardly have mustered more troops than he had taken to Gaugamela. Arrian's 700 can thus be interpreted as indicating the total strength of Ariobarzanes. Against them Alexander led an army of well over 10,000 men, for having sent Parmenion with the baggage train and heavier-armed troops down the carriage road, he himself took the Macedonian infantry, the lancers and archers through the mountainous track (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.1; Curtius 5.3.16f.; Diodorus 17.68.1; Stein, op. cit., pp. 19f.)

Do you expect anyone to believe that this was written by a western author? Citing a guy who claims that "Greek estimates on infantry are generally valueless", therefore equal to zero, therefore Ario came down with cavalry only. This is honestly laughable, just be neutral for a moment and think that Persepolis was the capital city of the Persian Empire. What about Curtius' claim on 25,000? He was Roman not Greek, hence the 25,000-40,000 figure supported by modern sources. The article does admit that mainstream opinion cites Arrian and Curtius, the author's original thought is a fringe view which has no support in western sources and is violating NPOV. You removed all the sources to replace them with this fringe view, speaking of systematic biased, what an irony. How about Starting an RfC on this? I think it's time the Iranian-related article POV-pushers came to the attention of the wikipedia community. What's most hilarious is that you didn't even revert to Jagged version, but you chose to completely remove all reference and keep the Iranian "patriot" [sic] POV. Your edit-summary made the perfect irony. Miskin 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

hello i am from punjab india.. I came here because Miskin keeps removing this battle from the article 'last stand', i have alerady explained to him that Iranica is a western project, but he talks as if he's the all-knowing God of wikipedia or something, and dismisses oppsing views that clash with his nationalistic view point under different pretexts by citing various irrelevant rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I understand that you're a new user but you have broken WP:3RR in last stand. I'm taking this to RfC. Miskin 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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