Talk:Siege of Eretria

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Eretria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Siege of Eretria has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 29, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 3, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
May 27, 2009	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 18, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
January 22, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

Military history: Balkan / European / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Mid‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thermopylae and Darius???

"Darius sent envoys to Greece demanding earth and water which symbolized surrendering.[14] Most of the islands surrendered because of the Persian's dominance at sea.[14] A lot of the mainland states also surrender, but when the envoys went to Athens they were thrown into a pit and told to get there own earth.[14] The envoys got a similar response in Sparta where they were thrown down and well and told to get water. [14] This was the last time Darius tried to subdue the Greeks with diplomacy."

I thought that it seemed strange that this should be so similar to the stories told of the methods and fates of the messengers sent by Xerxes to Athens and Sparta in 480 B.C., but thought perhaps 'like father like son'. But, when checking the reference, I note that it is titled: Bradford, Thermopylae: The Battle For The West.

So, this is out of place in this article, yes? A tad inaccurate?

67.183.45.98 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is a passage from Bradford, Thermopylae: The Battle For The West: "Darius was not deterred by one attempt against mainland Greece, especially since it had been aborted not by Greeks but by weather and natural hazards. As evidence of his intentions he sent heralds to demand formal submission from the islands and citystates. All the islands, menaced by the overrding seapower of Persia, submitted, as did most of the mainland states - Athens and Sparta being notable in refusing. Sparta, as has been seen, treated the envoys with compemt and threw them down a well "to get their earth and water from there' "

So please when you make accusation please make sure that your sources are right. Thanks. Kyriakos 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Kyriakos. Anonymous, sorry I don't know your name so I will call you anon for the moment. I think you were either relying on an incorrect source or mixed something up. Kyriakos is quite correct. It was Darius I that sent emissaries demanding capitulation from Athens and Sparta. The two prominenet city-states who did not capitulate like most of the other Hellenes. As far as I can recollect, Xerxes never sent any emissaries because he had witnessed what happened to the ones his father sent. Infact there is a follow-up story that showed shortly after Darius I death (486 BC) and Xerxes come to the throne, Sparta sent two old and wealthy men to Persia and suggested that it was Persia's right for retribution on these two men because Sparta admitted they broke international law/conduct by killing the two emissaries 4-5 years earlier under Darius' rule. Apparently Xerxes' response was a laugh and said that he would never reduce himself to the level of the Lacedemonians. Claiming that Sparta had broken international conduct and he would not commit such similar and atrocious crime. Thus he sent them back. Having said this, Xerxes didn't feel he needed to warn the Greeks again, he launched the invasion in 480 BC without any emissaries sent under his order.--Arsenous Commodore 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So please when you make accusation please make sure that your sources are right. Thanks. "

Wasn't an accusation. Was a question. You say it's accurate, I say ok. I'm no expert on this subject which is why I said I found it strange and then asked the question because the source was about Thermopylae which was Xerxes' invasion rather than Darius'.

Also, I find it strange that 'like father like son'. I give you now the wikipedia page on The Battle of Thermopylae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

"After the expedition to Greece had got under way, Xerxes sent messengers to all the states offering blandishments if they would submit and asking earth and water from their soil as a token of submission. Many smaller states submitted. The Athenians threw their envoys into a pit, and the Spartans threw theirs into a well, taunting them with the retort, "Dig it out for yourselves." "

This, the reason for my question. I'm no expert. I'm just interested in learning about the subject because of an interest amped up by the upcoming film 300. I can't say which is right, but apparently your source explicitly states Darius. So be it. I can only assume that Xerxes was an imitator of his father in more ways than one.

And anon will work for the time being. Doubtful that I'll sign up, I only was inspired to ask because of my confusion.

67.183.45.98 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can only assume that Xerxes was an imitator of his father in more ways than one."

Oh. And let us not forget that Xerxes sending messengers for Earth and Water might be imitative of his father, but the Athenians and Spartans precisely replicated their response to Darius... Strange, that's all. 67.183.45.98 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Referenceing

I took the liberty to start a conversion to harvard referencing. I have a few examples in place. The first citation in the prelude section, and the citations in the notes section. If you do not like this format, feel free to undo my work. Otherwise, I'll try to make more changes later. Meanwhile, you're welcome to mimic my citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudyAndBeWise (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There, I completed the transition. I think there are too many citations. I suggest that in cases where you are using the same citation for several consecutive sentences, including the same page number, that they be combined into one citation. But that is just me. I'll leave every cited sentence remain as is, and leave it to the discreation of the author.

StudyAndBeWise 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

So, I'm really pleased with this article. It cites reliables sources (well, let's ignore problems with Herodotus), is reasonably well written, and provides excellent coverage. However, there are some pressing issues:

The lead needs to be rewritten: too much information and detail and haphazardly ordered. There is no need to mention in the lead what the Persians did after capturing the city.
The "Siege" section doesn't make it clear how long the seige actually lasted. In the Aftermath section it's stated that the Persians stayed for 6 days. Please make it clear just how long the Eretrians held out.
In the article it already saysd that the siege carried on for 6 days. Kyriakos 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it and it's GA! By the way, anon above brings up an interesting point. Could somebody that knows how make the citations list two-column, it would look better in my opinion.--Meowist 21:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Yo....less than 2 days left until On Hold expires and it fails automatically! I might make the changes myself, but no guarantees. --Meowist 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some cp edits and small rewrites. Since the lead has been rewritten and your query answered, would you reconsider the article for GA status please.AshLin 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been changed and is satisfactory. I'll withdraw my complaints about the exact length of the siege not stated explicitly. Suggestions for improvement: maybe get a better for the Delian league section, grow the categories at the bottom, and somehow get the references to appear in two columns (is it just my browser?) --Meowist 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In looking over this article I noticed that it could be improved a little by naming the refs that are used multiple times. Something to consider. Lara Love 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem I'll get to work on it soon. Kyriakos 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a few minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. It would be beneficial if you could find some online sources that readers could go to for further information for an external links section. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortals leading the Way

I've heard and seen some documentaries and ppl that the Immortals were among them. It's even on Battles BC though could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]