Talk:First Persian invasion of Greece

To be expanded!

This article is still under-construction. At the moment it is mostly lifted from the article Greco-Persian Wars, but it will be expanded (and the latter article contracted) soon. Please do not delete! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wish list: It would be nice if someone could find or generate a map of the first invasion as a stand-alone map. It's frustrating to find nothing but 'combo-maps' on which both invasions are depicted. The article isn't about the second invasion, so cluttering the map up with irrelevant information is second-best. I'll keep an eye out myself.Hiernonymous (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Myth-making we should aviod

This article is not bad per se. It's very informative, with most of the given infos, dates and time-lines accurate, but tone is awful and passe, with referencing so poor it can hardly be enough to stand serious academic trial.

On top of that, beside primary source Herodotus, this article relies practically entirely on one primary and one secondary source of "popular history" (Herodotus & Tom Holland, who is by the way much appreciated as author of fiction & science fiction, and much less as author of "popular history"). Holland's goal was to entertain western readership, and makes them able to identify themselves with ancient heroic Greeks, "defenders of western civilization", in absolutely biased account of pop-history.

If the goal is popular and propagandistic view on "creation of wester civilization", then OK, article sounds like Nat Geo program. However, if we want to avoid that trap, and if we want to provide, instead of another myth-making rubbish, decent and accurate account, but without our western bias, we should change a tone and find more secondary and tertiary references !

In the name of Ahuramazda and Athena, let's avoid rubbish like John Stuart Mill's infamous quote that "the Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings", or at least let us provide some background for the 19th century British (as well as European) "Orientalism". These 19th and early 20th century often very prejudiced narratives are rejected and transcended by most historians of today, in the west as well as around the world.--Santasa99 (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020061207/http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=13917&m=Y08&aa=1 to http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=13917&m=Y08&aa=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205032506/http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/lectures/history/PersianWars/persianwars.shtm to http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/lectures/history/PersianWars/persianwars.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not Persian victory

@Remsense Gypsygreek (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you deleting edits for no reason that contain the sources you asked for? Gypsygreek (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Don't cherry-pick sources, and don't clutter the infobox with wishy-washy statements per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
2. The infobox is a summary of the article itself, and the article body (i.e. the Significance section) does not characterize the conflict as inconclusive.

Remsense诉 17:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In the text of the article, as well as in the source I added,[1] it is mentioned that the Persians did not achieve their goals in the war, especially in light of future events, the war can be described as indecisive. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, a few things:

1. The light of future events affects perception of many conflicts, but that's not what the |result= parameters tries to encapsulate.
2. Another key distinction is that success in war aims ≠ military victory.

Paging @Gog the Mild, as I'm curious what their thoughts are here while I go and work on that Genghis Khan PR I promised— Remsense诉 19:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why I got pinged in, but the consensus of reliable sources and the article state that Persia did not achieve its war aims: in lay terms, this is known as "losing". Similarly, the consensus of reliable sources and the article state that the belligerent Greeks did achieve their war aims: which is known as "winning". The instructions for the infobox state "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." In other words, the infobox should state "Greek victory". To get this changed to "inconclusive", it would need to be shown that a consensus of the RSs state that the belligerent Greeks did not achieve their war aims, ie, that they lost. On the face of it, this seems improbable. For further expert input, post a query on the talk page of the MilHist Project. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you show where in the article or the sources we have absolutely determined the war aims sought out by either sides? I doubt Herodotus could attest precisely to what the Persians or the Greek states wanted. If we're being fair, the Persians sought retribution for Sardis, and the Greeks sought to protect their territories.

The reality of the conflict seems more important to look at. If we're saying the Greeks lost all those territories and Eretria was sacked, based on what we know, that does not sound like a victory to me, no matter how we spin it. I have no idea how you can confidently in the face of all those losses consider calling this a Greek victory. To me it's perfectly acceptable to consider a Persian victory, simply by looking at what was gained.

Furthermore, the lead as it stands -

"The first Persian invasion of Greece, during the Greco-Persian Wars, began in 492 BC, and ended with the decisive Athenian victory at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC"

This statement is incredibly misleading and seeks to frame the conflict in favor towards the Greeks. I understand there is eurocentrism on this site, something that is still dreadfully unaddressed, but I was under the impression we no longer used terms like "Decisive" WP:DECISIVE, in the result as well.

Nationalism and ethnocentrism is already a problem beyond Wikipedia, we don't need to contribute to it. 184.147.89.187 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article does not present the result as a victory for the Greeks, in addition, sources are indicated indicating that the goal of the Persians is to punish Athens (not fulfilled) Dushnilkin (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)