Talk:Ancient Greek mercenaries

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

There is a notice at the top of the article page which said it was unassessed. I wasn't sure how to address this but, having looked at Ancient Greek warfare and Talk:Ancient Greek warfare, I think the project notifications which I've copied above are the solution. I'd be happy if someone else could check the parameters for me. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izzat Kutebar. You have tagged and assessed the article correctly. It is always tricky doing a Wiki-activity for the first time, isn't it? I have changed a couple of assessment judgements and the importance rating for one of the task forces. Give me a ping if you have issues with any of them. Nice start on the article. A fascinating topic, which could easily become a monster; don't forget to link to other existing articles where appropriate. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Gog the Mild: and thanks very much for helping me with this. I've been reading about project assessments in the meantime and I think I'm understanding it much better now. You're right: this could grow and grow, so I need to be careful about the scope. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia work is mostly on MilHist, and most of that Roman and Greek, and GoCE, so I have a fair idea of how good this article could be and how you might get it there. Anything which you get puzzled about, feel free to give me a ping; I may not know the answer, but probably will know someone who does. Similarly, if you get stalled on developing the article and want to talk it through. I only wrote my first article in December, and had my first GA in March, so it is all recent enough for me to remember how much of a struggle it was. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is some seriously misleading information in this article that contradicts archeological evidence and scholarly consensus on the topic. In the section titled '7th Century' - the description of a battle between the Babylonians and Assyrians in which Greek mercenaries may have played a part - is not consistent with what we know of Assyrian or Aegean tactics of the era. Furthermore, evidence gathered by researchers and historians over the last 200 years have allowed us to concluded that it was highly unlikely that Greek mercenaries played a part in the military affairs of the Babylonians at this time, and if they did it is nearly impossible that they would have been present in sufficient numbers to make a dramatic impact. The sources listed are utterly outdated and many were created without the advantage of the evidence available to historians today - such as the abundance of written records and graphical depictions of battles kept by the Mesopotamians of the the era. The article quotes lyrical poetry that has been discredited as a reliable source of information. Furthermore it implies that the transmission of said tactics took place in the reverse direction, both geographically and chronologically, than is generally maintained by scholars on the subject. Obviously this is a major continuity issue as phalanx tactics were the basis of the Sumerian armies since nearly 2500 BC, and evidence we have available today shows that these tactics were continued and refined under the Assyrians, and the Panoply of the hoplite was a virtual copy of the Neo-Assyrian armored spearmen. Sources indicated this are abundant, reliable, and based on hard evidence - not poetry.

Seeing as how this article is supposed to be about ancient Greek mercenaries, I strongly suggest removing content unrelated to the topic and based on unsubstantiated notions. We are depriving readers of accurate information on an interesting topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.254.194 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, how does one update this article without it being reverted to this false and romanticized style? I am happy to elaborate on the topic in detail and provide sources, and it seems like this talk page would be the best place to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.254.194 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]