Talk:Greco-Persian Wars

Template:FAOL

New title

the current title greco-persian wars is a term which does not reflect 1. the origin of the wars, 2. the name used by others. also 1. greek themselves, e.g. herodotus in his book uses "persian wars" and the article says Herodotus is the main source for this conflict (Bust at the Stoa of Attalus), and 2. many of the history books published recently use the term "persian wars". e.g many times in cambridge history of greek and roman warfare. so what about moving the page to persian wars? we can have greco-persian wars redirected to that (but not vise versa). --Xashaiar (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This move needs to be backed up by more sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

how many sources are needed? I will list them here.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this page used to be called Persian Wars, but was moved because there are several wars that might be called "Persian". GPW is far less ambiguous than just "Persian Wars". Also, you need consensus from other editors that the move should go ahead, not just a list of sources. There are plenty of books which call these conflicts the "Greco-Persian Wars". MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then why not Perso-Greek wars?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's WP:OR and therefore forbidden unless you provide sources calling it that way. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

what OR? the following books call it perso-greek wars and the books call it persian-greek wars. So maybe Persian-Greek wars (=perso-greek wars) are acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On English-language Wikipedia, the article titles have to reflect what most English speakers would recognise. On that basis, it's either Persian Wars (which I admit a lot of sources do call it) or Greco-Persian Wars. I favour Greco-Persian Wars because it is less ambiguous. I could be persuaded otherwise, if the consensus is for change. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

we should either call it Persian and Greek wars or again persian wars.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Persian and Greek Wars" sounds good. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There are books that call it "Persian Greek wars", but the number of books that call it "greco-persian wars" is overwhelmingly larger (639 on google book search, against 100), I think we should keep it the way it is, unless there is a real reason to change it, or a vote is called. Uirauna (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are both large numbers. Which materials are more academic? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from academic book the history books by Ancient Greek works (I gave link to it in my earlier comments) do not call these wars "Greco-Persian wars". Also this book with its few first pages available here (page 7) explains this.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Naming. There are clear rules for chosing an article name and so far none has made a valid argument against the current title. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(Moving back over this side) Google books is not a reliable academic source. You can't simply google a phrase and say "This appears in more books, therefore it should be the title". The only appropriate way to decide on the title for this article is to ask what the English-language (this being the English language wikipedia) scholars who work on these wars call them. Of the books specifically written about these wars in the last century

Hignett (1963) calls them the "Persian Wars"

Green (1970) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"

Burn (1984) calls them the "Persian Wars"

Lazenby (1993) calls them the "Persian Wars"

De Souza (2003) calls them the "Greek & Persian Wars"

Holland (2005) calls them the "Greco-Persian Wars"

Perso-Greek Wars and Persian-Greek Wars are not used, and should not be considered. As far as I can see, the only options are the current title or "Persian Wars". But, as has already been pointed out, Persian Wars is ambiguous, and presents the wars from a Greek point of view. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And who told you to pick the worst sources up? You seem to have a bit of problem in understanding the meaning of sources (RS & V) and keeping (NPOV). Any term like "greco-Persian wars" is from european point of view therefore should be replaced by neutral ones. This is explained in the link I posted here. If you read a bit from Wikipedia help pages you see that a NPOV should be follwed no matter how well sourced are the POV's. Is that clear or should I use simlper language? --Xashaiar (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so the mask slips and reveals you as a POV pusher. You have been outvoted and you have little evidence to support your claims, so you resort to insulting me. Well, now I'm convinced by your arguments! Please explain to me:

a) In what way Greco-Persian Wars is POV?

b) In what way Persian-Greek Wars would be a more neutral POV?!?

c) Which sources you would like me to use? Am I only allowed to use sources that support your POV??

And please, use as "simlper" language as you like. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised by your questions. Did you read my previous comments? I am tired of repeating. I gave my reasoning and my sources. They all all academic or else Greek-fictional (the only sources used). --Xashaiar (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:Naming and WP:Reliable sources and use it for your argumentation. Anything else isn't valid and can be completely disregarded like User:Xashaiar's statement above. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

amazing! some people will find ethnic pride even in the naming of wiki articles: "not greco-persian, perso-greek or persian. 85.74.233.181 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes even more interesting is the similarity between the edits/edit summary of User:85.74.233.181 and someone else (a newcomer anyway)!--Xashaiar (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you making WP:PUPPET accusations Xashaiar? If you are, against who and based on what evidence? If not keep your comments to yourself and behave. This is not a forum. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I would like to revert this edit. The info "The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." as well as "result=Stalemate" were sourced and quite well-known statements. It suddenly changed to something unpopular. The official end also was by a "peace treaty". Any objection? The point on territory seems to me unjustified, as subjugating Macedon/Ionia was itself the result of parts of "Greco-Persian Wars", so loosing it again in later conflicts in the same GPW would be called "Stalemate". --Xashaiar (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that there has been much debate as to the content of the infobox, and I am not seeking to cause any antagonism. In response to your four points, I would say:

• "The Persian Empire successfully punishes by destruction the poleis Eretria and Athens." — whilst this is true, it was only one incident in a very long conflict. I don't think the infobox should mention specific events in the war - if the reader wants to know what happened, they can actually read the article. There's no point in trying to list all the events of the war (I did actually try this, and it made the infobox look ridiculous).
• Stalemate — I would be prepared to concede this point. I think that the loss of Ionia makes this not a stalemate, but the way the conflict petered out is itself more suggestive of a stalemate.
• Treaty — this should definitely not be mentioned in the infobox, since both modern and ancient opinion are divided on whether it was real (this is now discussed further in the article). To present it in the infobox makes it look like a fact, when it is not. Besides which, the terms of the alleged treaty would undermine your suggestion that it was a stalemate, since they are harsh on Persia.
• Territory — I didn't mention Macedon. I agree that the gain and loss of Macedon would be a stalemate. However, Thrace was part of the Persian empire from 513 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC; similarly, Ionia was part of the Persian empire from ca. 550 BC, and was no longer part after 450 BC. Persia thus lost control of these regions during the conflict. That is why I don't think this conflict was a stalemate, but as I said above, I'm prepared to concede this point.

In short, I will change the result to stalemate, but leave the rest as it is. I hope you will find this formulation acceptable, based on my reasoning. If not, I am happy to discuss further. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but I also think "stalemate" is off the mark. Look at the perspective of the Persian Empire's goals: to absorb not only the Ionian Greek city-states, but those in the Aegean and on the mainland, as well. They failed. Persia's only real victory came in Egypt in 454. Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as "Xexes" is concerned, he did what he really wanted. nothing more, nothing less.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ. Another true believer. You're patently wrong. Xerxes wanted to establish satrapies throughout Greece and collect tribute. He failed. They did sack Athens. Congratulations on that. But Xerxes got spanked. Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends who is saying what. Xerxes himself stated and in his swearword he said "I am going to punish them". Nothing like adding an extra satrap to Achaemenid as the empire had already reached the exact borders Darius wanted. I will never believe that Achaemenids ever wanted to expand further.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we attempt to draw a conclusion as to the outcome of any ONE GrecoPersian war, our task would be easy. Yet, even mentioning a final outcome is absurd when we are talking about the totality of any war between the Persians and the Greeks. Of course the Persians successfully subjugated Ionia and Macedon for decades, even more than a century. They subjugated Cyprus for even longer as well as countless Greek cities in Pontus, Ciicia, Lydia, Mysia etc. Of course the Greeks successfully beat both massive attempts of the Achaemenids to subjugate Greece (as a geographical entity) and of course Alexander destroyed the Empire. It all boils down to what we want to include in this article. If this article is about all Greco-Persian wars then no outcome should be given. If it is only about the 2 Persian Wars then Greek victory is the only acceptable outcome. So, we have to decide on the focus. According to this decision, more info should be given on the agreed conflicts. As to Xerxes' goals, these were clearly the subjugation of mainland Greece, as is adequately stated by all historians who wrote about the matter. His goal was as much to punish the Greeks as was Alexander's goal some time later... Alexander conquered lands as Xerxes demanded (earth and water) before him. It is absurd to claim that his expedition to Greece was successful because he sacked Athens... So, choose what this article is about and then write the appropriate outcome or none at all! GK1973 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, be a bit more careful with your statements. There were several Persian kings launching campaigns. Did they all have the same scope? Did they all have one defined scope from the start. Do we have any other sources than Greek aristocrats? How far were these Greek sources able to reflect Persian motives? Did you find any scholarly work about the Greco-Persian Wars that includes Alexander as part of the struggle? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I've considered reviewing this article for GA-class several times. I found the article performing well in prose and neutrality. As a person not very knowledgeable on this period of history, I found that the article was comprehensive and broad enough. However, I felt uncomfortable about was the article's references. Being a rookie reviewer, I didn't know how to discuss this issue, and decided against starting a review.

Nevertheless, and seeing that someone has opted to be the article reviewer, I've decided to state my concerns. Aren't sources like those of Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, viewed by Wikipedia as primary sources under WP:RS? The Sources section explains that these historians are held as reliable by modern scholars, but it is a policy in this encyclopaedia that secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. It's the opposite here, as the majority of the citations use primary sources, particularly Herodotus. Why is that so? I'm sure secondary sources would be of greater benefit to the article. At any rate, even if these primary sources are not a problem for the article to reach GA-class, it will probably be so if this article is to make it to FA-class. --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer and I will check whether the primary sources are taken at face value or whether they are balanced with secondary works. I'm one of the guys who believes it's a good idea to provide references to the primary sources all secondary works use. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors of secondary sources are (mostly) academics and scholars capable of handling primary sources. We're not professionals, which is why these wikipedia policies exist. Secondary works are best for wikipedia because they allow us to include analysis in articles without making original research, and because they relieve us of the need of evaluating the neutrality and reliability of primary sources.

Evidently, the primary sources are not taken at face-value; the opening section of the article contains considerable background information on Herodotus, Thucydides and others, and their reputation among modern scholars. I still think however that this article would make far better use of secondary sources. On the other hand, it would be a good idea if the references to primary sources are supported by secondary sources. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who included a lot of those references, I should mention my justification here. I have used primary sources only when they are essentially unchallengeable (I hope, it was my intention anyway...). So if the article says "Herodotus says that blah blah blah", the reference is to the primary source; it is incontestable that Herodotus does say it, regardless of whether it is true or not. Note that most of the citations directly link to online copies, so that the reader can check whether Herodotus does in fact say what I have claimed!

Where there is any kind of discussion, interpretation, alternative views etc. etc., I used secondary sources. So a typical sentence might be "Herodotus says this (ref to herodotus); modern historians generally agree this was the case (ref to secondary sources). The article might need more secondary sources, but I would argue that it doesn't need less primary sources! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that all the Perseus links are dead. This is very annoying indeed - they were still valid when I submitted the article. I will gradually fix them, but it will take ages... Grrrrr. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, in spite of the source issues, this article deserves GA status. Peltimikko (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greco-Persian Wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and Wandalstouring (talk)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments from Nikkimaria

Most of the following comments deal with prose/MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• this tool finds several disambiguation links and double redirects.
• Ref 7 is a dead link
  •  Done. Removed, it wasn't particularly important anyway.
• Should be consistent in calling the opponents of the Greeks either the "Persian Empire" or the "Achaemenid Empire"
  • The problem here is that the formal name is 'Achaemenid Empire', but 'Achaemenids' would refer to the family, not the people, who were 'Persians' (at least theoretically). It is therefore necessary to switch between the two as appropriate. But I can certainly remove references to the 'Persian Empire'.
• Caption for Battle of Salamis picture?
  •  Done. Whoops. Added one.
• What do the symbols next to certain commanders in the infobox represent?
  • That they were killed in action - this is pretty standard in military history infoboxes.
• Section headings should not start with "The" (The Hellenic Alliance -> Hellenic Alliance). They should also not use characters like "&". Under Bibliography, only the first letter of each subheading should be capitalized
  •  Done
• "See also" is meant to be for links that are not included in the main article text
  •  Done
• Caption of infobox picture is unclear - do you mean "on" instead of "of"?
  •  Done
• Should consistently use either American or British spelling
  •  Done I think
• Avoid using redundant words: "many", "any", "some", "all" are often not required and may interrupt the flow of the passage
  •  Done At least where they disrupted the flow.
• Should avoid using personal pronouns like "we"
• Comma not needed in first sentence
  •  Done Removed.
• Try to maintain a strict encyclopedic tone at all times - avoid colloquialisms, conversational language, WP:WTA, etc.
  •  Done Amended inappropriate passages
• Should avoid wikilinking the same term more than once or twice
  •  Done
• The use of passive voice should be minimized
  • This use of the passive is not in any sense incorrect. It is purely a choice issue. It certainly shouldn't prevent this article becoming a GA.
• Some problems with inclusion/lack of commas - commas are usually included at natural breaks in the sentence, and comma use in this article should be checked
  •  Done Sorted.
• Words like "despatched" and "whilst" are often considered to be deprecated - consider "dispatched" and "while"
  •  Done Changed.
• Check use of "that" versus "which" - grammar issue
  •  Done Changed as appropriate; though note that it is not incorrect to use 'which' for 'that'; this is, again, a personal choice.
• Missing/misusing hyphens for some terms, for example "city states" -> "city-states".
  •  Done I think.
• I would suggest reading through the article out loud looking for potential problems with clarity and flow - there are several instances of poorly worded phrases and unclear sentences. This is not strictly a grammar check (although that would help), but deals with word order and word choice
  •  Done
• The article also needs some copy-editing for grammar - trying running it through a MS Word grammar & style check, or try to recruit a "grammar Nazi"
  •  Done I think.
• "With the completion of the pacification of Ionia, the Persians began planning their next moves; to..." - should use a colon instead of a semi-colon here
  •  Done
• A couple errors in spelling and choice of homophones (uses "there" when it should be "their", "sacrificied", etc)
  •  Done
• The link under "Permission" for the Persian Empire 490 BC image is dead. The links for the Battle of Marathon diagram are also dead, and the licensing indicates that a credit line is required. Battle of Thermopylae - second link is dead. Battle of Salamis - link is dead.
  •  Done Sorted these out.

Comments from Wandalstouring

• Siege of Sestos in the first chapter links back to this article. Needs to link to more specific information.
  •  Done
• The minor authors merit a tad more information on bias and reliability.
  • I agree - to be done.
    •  Done
• There are too many sections solely referenced with primary sources. I support refering to primary sources, but you must also point out which secondary source you use for your statements. For example the story about the Ionian migration to Asia Minor is contested, there are also source for a Ionian migration to Greece and new evidence is unearthed for migrations during the Bronze Age and not just during the Dark Age.
  • I agree in general about sections referenced only with primary sources.
    • For this "movement" in the dark ages I want more than Herodot as a source. Any such immigration theory must have an accepted archeological basis or it's nonsense. Also this idea about the temple for Ionian cities needs some backup other than Herodot. there are more primary and secondary works on the topic.
      •  Done I have added some secondary sources to this, and changed the it to a "Herodotus suggests..." type of paragraph. I don't think any further detail is needed for this article. Obviously, if you want to add any, then that's fine; you probably have better access to information than me on this one.
• Military equipment and tactics merit mention because the Greek victory is mainly attributed to them while the Persians were definetly able to conquer Greek Asia Minor. The Persian system of combining archers and spearmen (sparabara) reminds me of Assyrian warfare with the addition of better cavalry, at least the Assyrians were quite influential for the military development in the region of the Persian Empire. For the Greeks you have during this time the switch to the hoplite from looser formations and the introduction of the trireme instead of the double-deck penteconters. There's also a difference between Phoenician and Greek triremes that should briefly be highlighted.
  • This is clearly beyond the scope of the article. This is a summary style article; to discuss these kind of details is just not necessary. Details of tactics and military units etc. can be included in the sub-articles (like we did in Second Persian invasion of Greece, but do not make sense in a primarily narrative article like this.
    • I don't think it's beyond the scope if you write briefly that the Greeks had bodyarmour that was arrowproof, heavy shields and attacked in phalanxes with longer spears than the Persians. The Persians had a large force of drafted soldiers from all over their Empire who fought with bows, shorter spears, wicker shields and only few had bodyarmour. Thus the fighting was very much a Greek affair on land and at sea where the Greek marines played an important role. You get an extra bonus if you point out how recent the introduction of these weapons in Greece was. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright then, if there are bonus points on offer, I'll give it a go...
        •  Done
          • The Greek light armed are missing, they were half the army. Just mention them once. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Added the Greek light troops, and the Sparabara, as requested.
• the "bubbling cauldron of discontent" needs to be more balanced. There are no reports that the Ionians revolted during the regime change from Cyrus's dynasty to Darius's dynasty, unlike elsewhere in the empire.
  • Agreed - I will look into it.
    •  Done
• way too much detail about Miltiades, Themistokles and Aristides. Cut that paragraph and provide only a summary of the important facts for this war. Like for the Persians you left out most of their politics do the same for the Greeks.
  • Agreed - I have already cut this a bit, and will look to remove more.
    •  Done
• You cite Holland too much. That Themistocles wanted a GREEK navy, not an Athenian is not supported by the primary sources and should be backed up by another historian. Also the statement that for the Greeks to survive things were needed is questionable. There were Greeks living in the Persian Empire. You could argue for the independence of Athens some things were needed, but that he thought national and not in political units needs more historians agreeing on this.
  • Agree about citing Holland too much (but see below). Regarding this paragraph, I will look into modifying it away from Holland's interpretation.
    •  Done
• the stories connected with the battle of Marathon can be moved to the article about that battle, they totally distract in the overview of the war.
  • Agreed, and will look at. However, I think a brief mention of the Marathon race is called for, since that is what Marathon is now most famous for.
    •  Done
• "In what Holland characterises as, in essence, the world's first referendum," is a questionable claim. Does Holland write "this was the world's first referendum" or is this your summary? If he doesn't write it remove this claim and just state it's a referendum because we have no idea who in this world held a referendum and whether it was before or after this event.
  • Holland does claim exactly this. I make no such claim. The exact text is:"but the ostracism of 482 BC was, in effect, the first referendum in history".
• the construction of ships needs more backup for the interpretation than just Holland writing a general history and a primary historian. Was it only because of the Persians or was it voted for by the poor, the majority of the voters, who wanted to earn money rowing warships?
  •  Done
• The section about Sparta needs more than one historian for the interpretation. Do all historians agree that the Persians let this message pass because the expected it to fulfill their purpose or was it a backdoor to go back to Sparta in case something went wrong with the Persians?
  •  Done I've cleaned this up; it seems this anecdote is probably an insertion into Herodotus anyway.
• "On the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, Herodotus tells us that rumour of the Greek victory reached the Allied navy," is doubted very much by Lazenby. Please use secondary sources to present information critically.
  • I will add a note that Herodotus's view is generally regarded with skepticism.
    •  Done + Citation
• more to come...

Wandalstouring (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wandalstouring, I am very glad that you are back reviewing articles. You never let me get away with lazy writing! You are, of course, mostly right about all of the above points. There are some general points I want to make though.

• Firstly, please remember that this is a summary style article WP:SS. If some aspects are passed over with little detail, then that is deliberate. We cannot discuss everything to do with the Greco-Persian Wars here.
• Secondly, this article was created mainly by condensing the various individual articles into as small a space as possible. This does not excuse the problems with referencing in much of the article, but I hope it explains it. So for instance, a statement in the article Battle of Thermopylae that read: "Herodotus says X happened.[ref] Modern historians think that Y.[ref]" has generally been condensed to "X happened.[ref]". This is why there are so many passages that only use primary sources; I did not deliberately set out to do it this way. However, I agree that there are points were a secondary source should be used to back this up. This is also why there are so many references to Holland; in the articles I re-wrote early on, I used Holland a lot (as you know). When I condensed those articles, the references to Holland also became condensed; again, I did not set out to deliberately include lots of Holland references. However, I am not going to spend my time replacing these references, if they do represent a general consensus amongst historians. I am of course happy to replace/add new references where Holland is presenting one of his non-representative views.

I have addressed your specific comments above. Many thanks for a thorough review so far. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• What's the status on the review from both sides? Nice progress so far, but since this is the oldest GAN in the backlog hopefully things could be sped up a bit :) Wizardman 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On hold. Replied on talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I am working on it. Apologies for the slow progress, but real life calls! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Result again

Judging by the article's history, there is a consensus on Greek defensive victory since AT LEAST December 2009. In addition to multiply sources here is what Encarta 2003 writes in the relevant article: The outcome of the wars shifted the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians to the Greeks... The Persians were never again able to threaten another invasion. The Greeks moved to the offensive and over the next decades liberated the islands of the Aegean and large areas along the western and northern coasts from Persian control. The most important direct result of the wars was to establish Athens as the dominant Greek naval power. We don't need a new lame edit war on that. Brand[t] 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2. And Encarta is anything but what we are allowed to use. 1. Do not do OR as "shifted the balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians to the Greeks" is not a "victory" in any sense. Xashaiar (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? The scholar consensus is Greek victory, what you do is synthesis. Give me some reliable sources that indicate a stalemate result, otherwise refrain from disrupting the article. Brand[t] 08:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it was "Greek defensive victory" but just for 480-479 BC period, so you can put that result for Second Persian Invasion, but not at global war which lasted till 450/449 BC. Remember that Greek forces invaded Cyprus and Egypt, but their expedition was disaster. You should also notice that Encarta speaks just about 480-479 BC period, not after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.134.114 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In a defensive war, repulsing the aggresor is universally considered a victory and NOT stalemate. Especially when the defender pushes forward into the aggresor's territory... It is really unacademic to describe the result as a stalemate and unsupported by ALL academic sources. I really do not understand why a Persian defeat is in anyway considered by some as national shame. The Greeks have been beaten multiple times too by the Persians in Ionia and Cyprus, in Macedonia and Thrace, but these engagements are not part of what is commonly known the Persian Wars... GK1973 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GK1973 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I still wonder why Xashaiar mentions OR when the article itself explains the result. The wars have a definite time span and the final stage, the Wars of the Delian League, were victorious for Greeks. This is not a place for Pan-Iranist notions. Even if there are some sources favouring the stalemate outcome, that would be a minority view per WP:UNDUE. Brand[t] 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The key point is the policy wp:nor which you fail to respect. Your comment "This is not a place for Pan-Iranist notions" is not fine, but it is good to remember that 1. do read wo:battle 2. should I respond to you? Xashaiar (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the one conducting an OR here is you. GK1973 explained the result a few strings above. A defensive victory is a more narrow term than victory, it means that Greece scored a victory as defending side, in response to external circumstances. Above I have asked you for some sources, which claim a stalemate result, but currently see nothing. Brand[t] 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Xashaiar is partly correct. The term "defensive victory" is indeed awkward. We should substitute it with plain "victory". Maybe Xashaiar could set up some new articles on the submission of Macedonia, Ionia and Cyprus to the Persians and there we could as straightforwardly state a Persian victory... GK1973 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since I see that no sources have been presented as required, I will start by giving one (John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. More can be cited, but now, I see the burden of source production shifted. GK1973 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

More modern sources (I guess ancient ones will justly be seen as biased...)

1. Emma Bridges, Edith Hall and P.J. Rhodes, Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars (Antiquity to the Third Millennium), p.123 "The responsibility of the Greek victory over Persia becomes a much contested question of the 4th century."
(not contested in its essence as to the auestion of who was responsible for it. Was it the Athenians, the Spartans or another Greek state?)
2. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare, p.249 "The Greek victory stemmed the tide of Persian conquest and ushered the great days of Classical Greece"
(this is about the outcome of the totality of the Persian Wars. Not about a battle or a single campaign)

and many more... GK1973 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to go into these sources but honestly the result was "Macedon, Thrace and Ionia gain independence from Persia" (another word for this is Stalemate) because these wars started with "taking those greek city states under Achaemenid rule" and then ended with "getting the independent back". Note that all of these are called Greco-Persian wars and not only the second part "struggle of Greeks for independence". You seem not to understand these. Xashaiar (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should go into these sources and present more supporting your proposal. Your understanding of the word "stalemate" is unusual, yet this is why we resort to sources when we have a problem achieving consensus. Whenever there is war, victory is not measured by territorial gains only, although in this situation even this is in favor of a Greek victory. The Vietnam War was a North Vietnamese victory and the North Vietnamese just made the US withdraw and win a civil war. The Gulf War was a coalition victory, yet the coalition did not gain lands, nor did Iraq lose any (Kuwait was not annexed by Iraq)... Victory is all about the end result. And the end result here was the liberation of many Persian dependencies and two Persian invasions repulsed. The fact that the Greeks did not push into Persia has nothing to do with a stalemate. The Persians lost the wars and signed a treaty which surrendered Persian rights to the Greeks. That is all. That in the interim there had been Persian victories is an indisputable fact, but we are only occupying ourselves here with the end result.

And as far as your arguments regarding the "territorial gains" (I do think of them as irrelevant, but I will answer to them also), if we place the Ionian revolt in the Persian Wars as we do in this article, then the war started with the revolt of the Ionian states under Achaemenid rule. This means that the war started wit the Ionian states being Persian dependencies, so the end result of their independence was a territorial loss. Macedonia did not even revolt, so this is an indisputable loss as is the case with Thrace. So, the war actually established the victory conditions set by the Ionians. Even if we did not count Ionia as a part of the Persian wars, the end result remains territorial loss for the Persian Empire, since the Ionian revolt was crushed before the first invasion. GK1973 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about period 480-479 BC, but it was fought till 449 BC. War was fought in Mainland Greece, Thrace, Aegean Islands, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Egypt. Delian League attempted to take control of Egypt, Cyprus and southern Asia Minor, but they also failed. So it's obivusly - stalemate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.134.114 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously an OR, as far as I know the stalemate result is not even a fringe theory to mention per WP:FRINGE. Brand[t] 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about Encarta, I should remind you that Encarta article is talking mostly about Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BC) including first Datis' & Artaphrenes' invasion (490 BC), not about Greco-Persian Wars in global (499-449 BC). Remember citation: The Greeks moved to the offensive and over the next decades liberated the islands of the Aegean and large areas along the western and northern coasts from Persian control.? They talked about Delian League wars, which means their article refers just to Darius & Xerxes expeditions is Greece, not after 479 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the Delian league? Why is the outcome of its exploits compared with the starting point of the war (before or after the Ionian Revolt) a stalemate? Your deductions are indeed peculiar apart from unsupported... Things are as simple as I presented them above. The Greeks of Ionia wanted ro free themselves... they did it. The Persians invaded Greece twice, they were bloodily repulsed (after having some temporary successes - Thermopylae, sacking of Athens etc), the Macedonians stopped being vassals, the Thracians too, the Greeks brought the war over to Asia, they again beat the Persians in some battles, lost (or didn't give) some others, a peace was at last accepted in which the Persians gave up many rights. So, please.. stop this little crusade, unless you have more compelling arguments than just a question on why the Greeks did not conquer Persia if they were truly victorious... By the way, editing as an IP is not "polite"... GK1973 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you're not much into the issue... First Ionians started their revolt by support with Athens and Eretria, but they were badly beaten. After Persians regain it's sovereignty over Ionia, Persian general Mardonius allowed Ionians to establish democracy so Ionians changed their side and participated on Persian side during Xerxes invasion. When Darius sent his satraps Datis and Artaphrenes with their regional army from Asia Minor to punish Athens and Eretria, they did razed Eretria but Athenians defeated them at Marathon. Note: it wasn't Persian man army but regional satrap force, so even term "invasion" is quite nonsense. Then Xerxes personally led main Persian army which razed Athens, and then gone back to Asia, leaving again regional army which was beaten at Platea year later. Persians weren't able to strike again due to revolts in Babylonia, Egypt and India, but they still repelled Greek armies at Cyprus and Egypt (siege of Memphis). So, Persians didn't succeeded in Europe and Aegean Sea, and Greeks didn't succeeded in Africa and Eastern Mediterranean. Result - stalemate. I didn't make profile, but it isn't "polite" from you as Greek to be so one-sided (I'm not Greek or Persian, or even related). All issue about the result began with Encarta article which refers to wrong period (Xerxes invasion only). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.159.24 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I had enough with your source distortion: Britannica, which you inserted to confirm alleged stalemate result, says: Although the Persian empire was at the peak of its strength, the collective defense mounted by the Greeks overcame seemingly impossible odds and even succeeded in liberating Greek city-states on the fringe of Persia itself. The Greek triumph ensured the survival of Greek culture and political structures long after the demise of the Persian empire. Brand[t] 07:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is about Xerxes' Second Persian invasion of Greece, but not about whole war. Please notice the last sentence which refers to period till 449 BC: Although the Persian invasion was ended by the battles at Plataea and Mycale, fighting between Greece and Persia continued for another 30 years. Led by the Athenians, the newly formed Delian League went on the offensive to free the Ionian city-states on the Anatolian coast. The league had mixed success, and in 449 bc the Peace of Callias finally ended the hostilities between Athens and its allies and Persia. LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have to repost... SOURCES

1. John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. More can be cited, but now, I see the burden of source production shifted.

2. Emma Bridges, Edith Hall and P.J. Rhodes, Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars (Antiquity to the Third Millennium), p.123 "The responsibility of the Greek victory over Persia becomes a much contested question of the 4th century."
(not contested in its essence as to the auestion of who was responsible for it. Was it the Athenians, the Spartans or another Greek state?)

3. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare, p.249 "The Greek victory stemmed the tide of Persian conquest and ushered the great days of Classical Greece"
(this is about the outcome of the totality of the Persian Wars. Not about a battle or a single campaign)

and many more... (I will bring more forward if there is any need...) So, any sources as to this famed "stalemate"? GK1973 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Britannica, the time range in corresponding article about GPW is roughly the same (492–449 BC), while the Second Persian invasion is of 480-479 BC. So the outcome, described in Britannica, is still valid. The continued fight for another 30 years and Delian League's mixed success do not indicate a stalemate, such conclusion is ORish and I believe that Britannica nowhere in its article uses that term and that would naturally contradict Britannica's own notion above about Greek victory. Brand[t] 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're or a liar or you don't understand chronology.

Anyone can open Hutchinson Dictionary on Googlebooks (page 249.) and see this first sentence: Series of conflicts between Greece and Persia 499-479 BC. Also; article is finishing with battle of Platea (479 BC). Perhaps you didn't noticed, but this Wikipedia article is about 499-449 BC period. I'll also check your first two sources, because seems like you extract them from wrong context.

Sources about stalemate: I put relevant link from encyclopedia Britannica, which is written and reviewed by dozens of academic scholars and clearly refers to whole period (till 449 BC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Greco-Persian wars (according to contemporary and Britannica's chronology) end in 449 BC when Delian League was defeated on east. This is what Britannica says: League policy entered a new phase as relations between Athens and Sparta broke down in 461. The Athenians committed themselves to war with the Peloponnesian League (460–446), at the same time launching a large-scale eastern offensive that attempted to secure control of Cyprus, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean. While the Athenians and allies were campaigning successfully against the Spartans, subjugating Aegina, Boeotia, and central Greece, further expansion was checked when the league fleet was virtually destroyed in (Persian) Egypt. Fearing the Persians would mount an offensive following such a naval defeat, the Athenians transferred the league treasury to Athens (454). Within the next five years, with the resolution of difficulties with Sparta (five-year truce, 451) and Persia (Peace of Callias, c. 449/448), the league became an acknowledged Athenian empire.

I don't think this is a good idea to disrupt the good article, honestly your bold text is nothing but original research and synthesis. Again, your Britannica link also supports the victory result, not the draw. GPW's lead meanwhile mentions the expulsion of the remaining Persian garrisons from Europe, while the article's body says, that the wars of the Delian League shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks. Not a single source, that I met, mentions a stalemate. Maybe your Hutchinson Dictionary? The Persians did not achieve their goal in subjugating Greece, the Greeks themselves managed to launch a counter-attack. The existence of the peace treaty is also challenged, but even if the treaty did exist, its terms were humiliating for Persia, as the article says. Brand[t] 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you have to notice in older changes that during last three years result was "Stalemate", referring to Peace of Callias. There were always been few Greek nationalists or 300 movie fans who tried to change it in favor of Greece, but always unsuccessfully. This article was awarded with Good Article status when there was a impartially result - "Stalemate", not "Greek victory" or anything similar. By changing it's result, article becomes one-sided so GA-status actually loses itself. As I said at least 10 times before, Britannica refers to Second Persian invasion, and after it mentions "30 years of later conflicts". Delian League shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks shortly after 479 BC (second invasion), but it was changed in 449 BC when their fleet at Cyprus and garrisons in Egypt were destroyed (other Britannica link about Delian League which I cited). I put link of Hutchinson Dictionary because GK1973 refers to it saying it's about whole war (499-449 BC) but text is explicitly talking about conflicts till 479 BC. All sources which mention "Greek victory" refers to Second Persian invasion of Greece (even this internal wiki article), but can you name me just one which mention "Greek victory" in 449 BC? Of course not. It isn't for us to resolve which was Persian goals; you said it was "attempt to conquer Greece", and I can say it was Persian expedition to punish Athens (which they actually succeeded) for Ionian revolt support - so I can even name second invasion as "Persian victory". But, it is irrelevant personal conclusion, like your is. Again, you're referring to Greek counter-attack which lasted till 449 BC and their defeat in Eastern Mediterranean. If there was treaty or not, fact is that Athens gone home after Cimon died (or being killed) at Salamis on Cyprus. Talking about "humiliating treaty for Persia" is personal conclusion of some unknown Wiki editor, and there is no any relevant source which calls it "humiliating". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.33.41 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hutchinson Dictionary just applies another dating, the article is the same as could be seen. We are not speaking about impartiality, but factual accuracy. In addition to the aforementioned sources, one may add The Cambridge companion to Herodotus, The encyclopedia of warfare: from earliest time to the present day, AncientGreece.com, "The Status of Ancient Military History: Traditional Work, Recent Research, and On-going Controversies" and Philip De Souza. The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 B.C., Taylor & Francis, 2003, p. 70 (League victory ended the Persian threat to the mainland of Greece). As far as I can see, Encyclopedia Iranica somehow does not have an article on GPW, but even Ancient Persia.com writes: Although a treaty was not signed until 30 years later, the threat of Persian domination was ended. The stalemate result remains unsourced, being a manifest synthesis, not even a fringe theory from at least one scholar. Brand[t] 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see it's completely useless to talk with you because despite all my explanation you're still focused on the wrong chronological period. Can you understand that periods till 479 and 449 can not be the same? It's like talking about World War 2 and apply "Hitler's victory" for period till 1941. Nonsense.

1. Again... When do we place the commencement of the Persian Wars?

A. At the moment the Ionians rebelled...

Ionia was still a part of the Persian Empire. The rebellion was crushed by the Persians, the lands remained under Persian rule, thus after any end of hostilities the freedom gained by the Ionians is surely a major Persian setback. They lost control over Ionia.

B. At the moment before the 1st Persian invasion.

Ionia was again a part of the Persian Empire, its rebellion having been crushed some years ago. After the end of the wars, Ionia had gained its freedom. Again, a Persian setback and territorial loss.

Both possible starting points (in this article we are supposed to support A.) have Ionia being a part of the Persian Empire. Would you consider calling a successful rebellion a "stalemate", because you would choose an argument like "since the rebelled lands were not a part of the Persian Empire when they declared independence and also were not a part of the Persian Empire at the end of the rebellion, so we have no territorial exchange and so the result can only be a "stalemate"??????

So, whatever your objections, arguments etc, the Persians did lose Ionia...

2. Was Ionia the only Persian territorial loss?

No... They also lost Thrace (any objections, Thrace was ruled by the Persians before, during and after the Ionian rebellion but not after the Persian Wars...), Macedonia (again a dependency of Persia before, during and after the Ionian revolt but not after the Persian Wars). So.., two populous and large provinces were also lost regardless of how you choose to interpret the Ionian revolt discussed above.

3. Were the Greeks also checked after the last Persian invasion?

The Greeks tried to assist Greek Cyprus and Egypt as allies, sent some contingents had some successes and some failures. They did not succeed in driving the Persians out of those places. So, yes, the Greek endeavors were checked and the Persian Empire did not perish... I guess that would they have succeeded in that, we would call the Greek victory a decisive one...

4. How did the hostilities end ?

Both parties came to an agreement, which, again regardless whether it was the peace of Callias or not and regardless of its exact content, is sure to have contained Persian rights revoked or taken. It also established Persia's new borders and loss of control over its European dominions and Ionia.

5. Conclusions

However you might approach the subject, the Persians did lose control over part of their Empire due to the Persian Wars. They also were repelled twice from Greece and retained dominion over Cyprus and Egypt despite Greek intervention (so they repelled the invading Greeks from Cyprus and Egypt). So, militarily they had some victories and some defeats, YET territorially they lost. This constitutes a Greek victory, yet NOT a decisive one. These are the reasons why most (if not all) sources and academians treat the outcome of this war as a Greek victory. References were given above and more an of course be given if necessary. GK1973 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Eddie Kido > persians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.194.241 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Are you talking that all war was only about Ionia? It was expedition of punishing Athens and Etetria for suport of Ionian revolt, so main goals were achieved - both polises were razed. Talking about Ionia, I have to remember you that Persians got it back after Peace of Antalcidas.

2. I have to remember you that Greco-Persian wars was fought mostly by Persia and Athens, and both Macedonia and Thrace participated on Persian side during Xerxes' invasion. Also, did Athens (or any former Persian enemy) gain Macedonia or Thrace? No they didn't. So it's irrelevant in context of Greco-Persian wars.

3. Indeed, Greeks started to aid rebellions in Persia, but they were repelled from both Egypt and Cyprus.

4. Continuous hostilities ended in 449 BC when Persia also began to aid Spartans against Delian League in First Peloponnesian War, so Athens were forced to sign Peace of Callias.

5. Persia left Athens vs. Sparta fighting in First Peloponnesian, Peloponnesian and Corinthian War, after which they gained Ionia and all lost territories after Peace of Antalcidas. Which means - you can not speak about "Persian territorial losses "especially in 449 BC when there was First Peloponnesian War, in which Athens lost many of it's teritories in favor of Persian-sided Sparta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.31.55 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It does not matter what happened after the peace of Antalcides for this was much much later... If we start talking about future engagements, then I guess that we will start discussing Alexander and Heraclius.... As far as Ionia, Thrace and Macedonia are concerned, these were Persian losses in this war however you approach it. And yes, it does matter. First, because losses are not only these gained by the enemy and secondly, because the Macedonians are counted among the Greeks and because both Macedonia and Thrace were filled with Greek cities which were also Persian dependencies as were those in Ionia. So, their loss to Persia is not at all irrelevant, especially when they were lost because of this war... Athens was sacked, so was Sardis, battles were fought, won and lost, but we are talking about the final outcome, what both sides won or lost after the last day we consider the end of the Persian Wars in this article.

2. The Greco-Persian wars were NOT fought principally by Athens.. The Lacedaemonians have an equally strong presence, as have many other Greek states (fighting for or against the Persians, rebelling and being crushed etc). About Macedonia and Thrace see above (1.).

3. Yes... I agreed to that.

4. And the peace signed was the formal acceptance of Persian losses. They did not get back sovereignty over Ionia, they accepted their independence, nor did Greeks lose any trade rights, while Persians did...

5. AFTER... so, this is what is irrelevant in this article.... and some years later, Alexander conquered the totality of the Persian Empire, but this is also not counted among the Persian Wars according to this article... So, this should be a matter in the respective article, not here (can be mentioned but has no weight regarding the outcome of this specific war...) GK1973 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing.. if you are to really participate in WP, could you set up a profile? It is always awkward to debate with an IP. I really do not know if you are the same person making comments above or not... GK1973 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. & 5. Actually, we can't discuss about Alexander because his Macedonia along with Ionia participated at Persian side during Xerxes' invasion. Yes, Macedonia and Ionia become independent after Persian invasion, but it's irrelevant because they were Persian allies, and later they weren't part of Athenian or Spartan colonies.

2. Yes, both Athens and Sparta rejected Persian peace offer, so Persians razed Athens and annihilated Spartan king Leonidas and his royal guard at Thermopylae.

3. I'm glad to hear that, because without that fact we could talk about Athenian/Delian victory.

4. I explained you about Ionia at (1.), and about peace: Persians agreed not to get involve in Aegean Sea, while Greeks agreed not to involve in Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

X. Did you noticed that result was "Stalemate" for more then two years until you came? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.146.167 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is not irrelevant, because they were Persian dependencies, not just allies and Persian influence/dominion over them ceized because of the Persian Wars. + The war was not between the Spartans and the Athenians and the Persians but between the Greeks and the Persians and this is why the war is called Graeco-Persian and not Athenian-Persian or anything else... The Greek cities of Thrace and Macedon were as involved as any other Greek city. I do not understand your use of the word "colonies", but anyways, the loss of these dominions count towards the war result.

2. ? This has nothing to do with the outcome of the war... Else Napoleon also defeated the Russians since he occupied flaming Moscow... Nor does Leonidas' death mean that the Sparans or the Greeks were defeated. they lost the battle, but they won the war.

3. I have no problm in admitting the historical truth as perceived by the academic community.

4. You did not explain anything like that, nor is this explanation enough. These were absolutely NOT the terms. The terms included the acknowledgement of the independence of Persian dependencies, not just trade rights. And of course, Greek trade rights were not affected as were Persian rights. The Greeks kept on trading in Eastern Mediterranean.

Again... PLEASE... make yourself an account. And as far as the result is concerned, the debate was on long before I involved myself with this article and of course this has nothing to do with academic approach. Yet, you choose to not answer my points. If you are ging to pursue this further I would recommend

A. making an account

B. answer all points and not just the ones you feel more comfortable with.

GK1973 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is relevant, because Macedonia, Ionia, Caria and other polises or states participated on Persian side by their own will. War is called "Greco-Persian" because leader on one side was Greek alliance of Athens & Sparta, and Persia was leader of opposite side. It does not mean ALL Greeks participated on Atenian-Spartan side.

2. Again absolute nonsense. Sparta won the war? By 449 BC they were still fighting against Athens, mostly by terrible defeats. It's irrelevant to compare it with Napoleonic Wars because Napoleon's goal was to conquer, not punish Russians.

3. Neither do I, but I already explained you that you were referring to wrong period of time.

4. This is what Peace of Callias article says: The Peace of Callias gave autonomy to the Ionian states in Asia Minor, prohibited the establishment of Persian satrapies elsewhere on the Aegean coast, and prohibited Persian ships from the Aegean. Athens also agreed not to interfere with Persia's possessions in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Libya or Egypt (Athens had recently lost a fleet aiding an Egyptian revolt against Persia). So you're obviously wrong.

5. I suggest you again to accept terms which was previously agreed by all Wikipedia editors. I'll repeat, result was conventionally accepted as stalemate until you come. Try to contact main editors who have made page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.13.153 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Wait until MinisterForBadTimes come and judge what's relevant, I noticed that he made all this article and it was rewarded as part of "Good Articles" series - one of criteria for that status is Neutral Point of View, which you ruined by reverting this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.13.153 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again...

1. The war was not between Sparta-Athens and the Persians but between all Greeks and the Persians. The war "started" because the Ionians rebelled and Macedonia and Thrace were far from willing allies of the Persians as is stated in all sources. Herodot is very clear on the sentiments of the Macedonians when he has Alexander I killing Persian envoys, warning the Greek army at Plateae etc and the same applies to the Greek states of Thrace and Macedonia. The war was between ALL Greeks and the Persians and those Greeks who WILLINGLY went to the Persian side (as did the Thebans) were branded for many centuries to come by the rest of Greece. What you say has no logic, for even if we accept that Sparta and Athens provided leadership, most Greek states actively participated in the war. Even the non Greek Thracians "willingly" attacked the Persian army as it was withdrawing from Greece.

2. Absolute nonsense. If the goal of the Persians had been the sacking of Athens, then they would not have given the battle of Salamis nor the one at Plataea. Their goal was to annex Greece as is clearly attested. I wonder why the King of Asia demanded "earth and water" from the Spartans, the Atheneans and the other Greeks... He came and was repulsed... he lost the war and with it many Persian dependencies.

3. What wrong time? What are you talking about?

4. Even what you admit to be the peace of Callias CLEARLY shows that the Greeks had the upper hand in the treaty... They gained independence for Ionia, trade rights and they gave.... PEACE... Is this a treaty of a "stalemate"????? Please....

5. The result was not accepted but many times disputed. I did not take part in these conversations and I was not the one who initiated the one here. Why don't you set up an account before talking about what WIkipedia "accepted" in the past, were you a part of this past as you seem to hint at? And please... give SOURCES... Above I have given proper sources about the totality of the war which you do not like and of course you have not commented on. Your argument is about how many days the unsourced result has stood here??????

I suggest you set up an account (5th time my saying so...). You avoid answering or even commenting on why you do not and I regard this as most suspicious... GK1973 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've reprotected this page, as the edit war has started right back up again. You're attempting to discuss it on the talk page, whilst persisting in changing each other's edits on the article. If you can't come to an agreement here, made a Request for Comment for other editors to get involved. GedUK  09:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What was the result of the wars?

There is a dispute as to the outcome of the Graeco Persian wars as it should appear in the infobox of the article. The page is currently protected, because it is constantly edited back and forth from

As suggested by Ged UK, I have made a request for comment regarding this issue. Everybody is welcome to comment on the arguments presented on whether the outcome should be :

A. Greek victory
B. stalemate

Greek victory. No question. The Persian goal was to conquer Greece--they utterly failed. The Greek goal was to survive--they succeeded by decisively defeating and repulsing the invading Persian army twice. I utterly fail to see any logic whatsoever in the "arguments" for a stalemate. (Taivo (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Greek victory. I Agree with Taivo´s position. The Greek not only accomplished their objective (to resist the invasion) but also freed some states from Persian rule. The Persians not only failed their objective (to extend their control over Greece) as well as lost the control of some of its territories. Also, reliable sources were presented in favor of the victory position. Uirauna (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. My opinion from the start (see arguments above and below). GK1973 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. Per the above. Athenean (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate: Per Encyclopaedia Britannica the result was "Greek gained independence from Achaemenid rule". The war was 1. To get the Greek states under Achaemenid rule (phase 1, successful for Persians) 2. To get Greeks their independence back. (phase 2, successful for Greeks). Therefore the result of wars was: Stalemate. Xashaiar (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. I utterly fail to see the rationale behind "stalemate". When state A attacks B and is thoroughly repulsed, it counts as a victory for B, regardless of the details. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory. I understand that when the wars ended, it was in a stalemate; i.e. the final campaign in Cyprus was stalemated. However, taking into account the situation at the beginning and the end of the wars, the only logical conclusion is that of a Greek victory. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate: I argued all my points above. By the way, campaign in Cyprus was actually - decisive Persian victory.--93.142.128.9 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalemate: Both sides won some of the wars and lost some of them, the eventually neither sides managed to win the whole thing, the outcome was indecisive.

Comment: The 93.142 editor is running around canvassing his fellow Iranian ultra-nationalists [1]. This must be taken into account when closing the discussion. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek victory I mean, is this still a question? We could be working on more important issues here than this! Come on.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts 1. The GP wars as defined in our article lasted from 499 (before the rebellion of the Ionian city states)to 449 BC (Peace of Callias).

2. The GP wars as defined in our article encompass multiple engagements and campaigns :

a. The Ionian Revolt (499-493 BC)
b. The First Persian invasion (492-490 BC)
c. The second Persian invasion (480-479 BC)
d. The Greek counter attack (479-478 BC)
e. The Wars of the Delian League (477-449 BC)

3. Many battles were fought, some were won by the Greeks others by the Persians

4. The whole Greek world (apart from most Greeks inhabiting the West Mediterranean)and the Persian Empire in its totality took part in the wars.

5. Greeks fought (mostly voluntarily) for the Persian king.

6. Greek and Persian lands exchanged hands during the war but it is the territorial state directly before and after the wars that matters towards the end result.

Arguments in favor of option A. Greek Victory

1. The end of the war found the Persian Empire with the loss of many dependencies (territorial loss)

A. Ionia gained independence when at the start of the wars it was fully controlled by Persia

B. Thrace (along with its Greek colonies) was lost to the Persians, when at the start of the wars it was a dependency of Persia (gaining independence only for a very short time during the Ionian revolt).

C. Macedon was lost as an unwilling ally to the Persians (having been placed under control during the wars)

2. The end of the war found the Persian Empire acknowledging its territorial losses in exchange for peace.

3. Bibliography

i). John Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, p.39). In his -Causes of Greek Victory- he gives all the reasons he deems responsible for the conclusion of the Persian Wars. He might be referring only to 479.

ii). Emma Bridges, Edith Hall and P.J. Rhodes, Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars (Antiquity to the Third Millennium), p.123 "The responsibility of the Greek victory over Persia becomes a much contested question of the 4th century." (not contested in its essence as to the question of who was responsible for it. Was it the Athenians, the Spartans or another Greek state?)

iii). Thomas Harrison, Greeks and Barbarians, p.5 "...one which sees the Greeks' victory as due to their innate freedom, the pattern of Persian error as the result of their monarchy, and their lack of proper reverence for the gods. The end of the Persian Wars (possibly formalised in a treaty of 449), and the end of a series..." (many historians regard 479 as the end of the war, Harrison here clearly speaks of 449)

iv). Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: a portrait of self and others, "Chronological Reference Points...449 - Greek victory in Cyprus; Persia forced to abandon control over Asiatic Greeks"

v). Max Pohlenz, Freedom in Greek life and thought: the history of an ideal, p.18 "The immediate objective of the alliance was to liberate the Greeks who were still subject to the Persians, and this objective was gained after long fighting, An agreement with the Persians was reached in the year 449 whereby, for practical purposes at least, the exercise of sovereign rights over the Greek coastal cities was waived, and the spheres of influence at sea were also clearly defined."

(more references can be provided if necessary)

GK1973 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of option B. Stalemate

1. Not even a single Persian territory was lost in favor of their enemies Athenians or Spartans.

A. It was Greece (Athens and Eretria) who started the war (Ionian revolt), not Persia. Persians revenged to both Athens and Eretria by razing their polis (I. and II. invasion)

B. and C. Ionia, Macedonia and Thrace participated on Persian side during Xerxes invasion, so it isn't matter they gain their independence after wars. Persian enemies Athens and Sparta didn't subjected that territories.

2. The end of the war did not found the Persian Empire acknowledging its territorial losses in exchange for peace; Persia agreed not to involve in Aegean Sea, while Athens agreed not to involve in Eastern Mediterranean. Peace of Callias was arranged after Athens was defeated in Cyprus and Egypt.

3. During a whole period of Greco-Persian Wars, Greeks didn't win a single inland battle against main Persian army (just naval battles and satrapic local armies).

4. Bibliography:

i) Encyclopedia Britannica: League policy entered a new phase as relations between Athens and Sparta broke down in 461. The Athenians committed themselves to war with the Peloponnesian League (460–446), at the same time launching a large-scale eastern offensive that attempted to secure control of Cyprus, Egypt, and the eastern Mediterranean. While the Athenians and allies were campaigning successfully against the Spartans, subjugating Aegina, Boeotia, and central Greece, further expansion was checked when the league fleet was virtually destroyed in (Persian) Egypt. Fearing the Persians would mount an offensive following such a naval defeat, the Athenians transferred the league treasury to Athens (454). Within the next five years, with the resolution of difficulties with Sparta (five-year truce, 451) and Persia (Peace of Callias, c. 449/448), the league became an acknowledged Athenian empire. - Britannica is written by dozens of academic scholars and it's actually ONLY source which reffers Greco-Persian wars from 499 to 449 BC, while most others refers just to Darius' and Xerxes' expeditions (490-479 BC).

ii) All given sources in favor of Greek victory refers to different period of time, and they're obviously one-sided kind of informations (note name of Harrison's book: "Greeks and Barbarians")

iii) Greco-Persian Wars have finished with ends of Dealian Leauge expeditions in 449 BC, and there is no single source with mention their victory against Persians.

I'll return soon as I have been inactive for some time. RfC supported the Greek victory outcome and the article should be semi-protected (maybe permanently) IMO. Brand[t] 08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should let the people vote for couple of more weeks, because our dear Greek GK1973 started voting without mentioning even single pro-Persian argument, and he actually misinformed people that "most of Greeks in Persian army was forced to serve", which is notorious lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.128.9 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think you can (and think you should) assign a single word result to the outcome of a series of complicated conflicts fought 2,500 years ago by long-gone empires and city-states? I'm waiting for Wikipedia editors to produce a "yes" or "no" answer to "does God exist?" - let's RfC that! Meowy 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)