Talk:Battle of Thymbra

Strength Figures

For the Persian strength figure wouldn't 30,000 be easiest? It was considered to be the standard formation of Cyrus' armies. It it is listed by Alxander Campbell as the strength and Paul Davis' 20,000-50,000 range coincides withe 30,000 figure. Even with an average, Davis arguing 35,000.--Arsenous Commodore 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I always find it disturbing when people cite figures to an author without a page number and their information is not within that work. Campbell, on page 387, gives Persian numbers as 31,000 but is not referring to the Battle of Thymbra; on page 388, he writes of Cyrus "with about 80,000 men" marching "in quest of 400,000." I cannot confirm 30,000 being the standard formation of Cyrus' armies but it seems to be a good estimate. Of the Lydian numbers, Davis only states that their numbers are "unknown, but probably more than those of Persia" on page 7 altho the info box states 100,000+. --Gingerbreadman4290 17:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadman4290 (talk • contribs)

Don't forget Xenophon

Tommorow I will have a better description of the battle and describe Xenophons account of it too. Also I might make a second article about the Siege of Sardis in 547 B.C which lasted 14 days, or two weeks!--Ariobarza 11:09 p.m, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't happen

Nowhere in this article is any mention of the fact that the battle never actually took place. It is a fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.34.93 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also why does the article describe Xenophon's account as being 'confirmed' by Herodotus, when he was Xenophon's predecessor and was indisputably read by Xenophon? 131.247.34.93 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just came across this article (and fixed the errors and misunderstandings) and it appears to be be historical. Xenophon's characters and their dialogue may be fiction, but in terms of battles and sieges, they are mostly true in a historical sense. They match each other historian's accounts, mainly Herodotus'. Herodotus book 1, section 80 describes the battle (Thymbra) after the Battle of Pteria, but does not give a name to the plain near Sardis where it was fought (Xenophon calls it Thymbra, and if you read Xenophon, he describes it as a plain near Sardis or the capital of Lydia). Thymbra was both used for the name of the area near Troy and Sardis. In 1.81 Herodotus talks about the Siege of Sardis. It is generally known in history that sometimes historians omit entire battles from their history (for various reasons), but in our case both historians included this battle down to the last detail of how Cyrus's camel cavalry (first noticed by Harpagus of how the Lydian horses reacted to camels in the battle Pteria) enveloped Croesus's horse cavalry and won the battle. Basically Xenophon was describing Cyrus's last battle against Lydia, and so was Herodotus. Plus, from a book which the name now escapes me, archaeologists have found since the 70's, Persian spear heads and other things dated to 546 BC near Sardis, further confirmation of a battle outside of Sardis before the siege. Here is link to Herodotus' account, please read it carefully [1]. Thanks!--Eirione (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Herodotus being taken as gospel truth? 93.97.193.226 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Xenophon and Herodotus recorded the story of the battle in order to instruct readers in an intended lesson, in much the same way that Aesop's Fables were intended to instruct rather than to impart an accurate retelling of events. The battle is commonly accepted to not have occurred. The existence or nonexistence of sixth century artifacts outside of Sardis has no bearing on whether the events were recorded accurately. If you wish to cite Herodotus's account, don't remove the part about Apollo saving him from the funeral pyre. This article isn't completely irredeemable but it does need to be rewritten to reflect the fact that it did not actually occur. Keshik (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keshiklabs, The Apollo part has nothing to do with this battle, it occurs after the siege of Sardis, almost half a month later. By the way, I will contact others on this topic to get their take on it, both in the field and in editing skills. Also, if we interpret events like this, it would be easy to classify every ancient battle as a fable or it is trying to prove a point theory (theories are theories). The full list of evidence from artifacts, other ancient historical accounts, modern historians, and books, plus other expert users input will be included in the next message. Best regards.--Eirione (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess he forgot. Or he found out I'm right. Someone oughta go over most of the articles about events of antiquity with a fine-toothed comb. Keshik (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I watchlist every page I edit to keep track of updates, so am not sure what you mean by "Guess he forgot." I understand that we need make historical battles more articulate to see if they happened or not, but just you or me declaring that a battle did not happen and that is it, is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I agree that some battles, mostly mythological ones are fake, but we need to do more research before proclaiming such a bold statement (especially those that involve real historical figures). So I see you might want to prove your theory, which would be a not neutral point of view, so we have to find a consensus or something that most historians agree on the battle. Therefore, I was hoping I would have got a more thorough reply from Professor Keshik. Thanks.

I think that the battles in Cyropaedia are almost historical, not all! Xenophon didn't mention the battle of Jaxartes in 530 BC that cost the life of Cyrus and the head of his dead body! But Napoleon wrote: "Cyrus maneuvered in the oblique order at the battle of Thymbra", so that this Corsican confirmed the existence of the battle of Thymbra (I don't know that this Corsican used sources from Xenophon or Herodotus in his writings!)!Ti2008 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I'm kind of wondering how far citation of sources can go, as entire sets of paragraphs are copied directly from the Paul K Davis book 100 Decisive Battles with absolutely no changes, whatsoever. This is at least moderately unprofessional and smacks of plagiarism to me.--CarlSandburgPI (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Added template request for cleanup to add to problems with this article. Keshik (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying these problems. Another time, it would be good to remove the paragraphs as you notice them. I have removed the affected sections, meaning that the article will likely need to rewriting to cover the topic appropriately. --Slp1 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I think it was about time we update this article. Since my interest in ancient history, both academically and as a hobby, this was one the first battles I edited pertaining to the Achaemenids. It caught my eye last year when researching the first interactions between early Eastern and Western civilizations, which in military history this would be considered one of the first important encounters. I guess more people are becoming interested because of the increasing media attention on the middle east. If anyone needs help or would like to improve this article feel free to do so. So I think it was really good that Professor Keshik updated that part of the article, and I'm glad as it seems he somewhat supports that this is a historical battle. Bests! Eirione (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article should be pulled as non-encyclopedic

This article, as nearly all of theWP content I have seen Cyrus' military involvements, are series of texts that are either plagiarised—cribbed from sources as quotes without being so demarcated—or they otherwise boldly appear as tomes of text without inline references.

If they cite soured at all, they are plagiarised as described (See Wars of Cyrus the Great) or cite sources untraceably (e.g., citing books without page numbers).

This is not an encyclopedic effort. It is worse than any final student effort that has ever crossed my desk. It is an editor's sandbox on public display. 73.210.154.39 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reassess MILHIST rating

Given the issues stated here and the unaddressed improvement tags from 2015, it cannot be considered that this article properly covers the subject and hence B2 has been reassessed as "no". Uncritical reliance on primary sources and non-scholarly secondary sources is not adequate in this case and could seriously mislead. Monstrelet (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

persian immortal

Persian immortal was built during the time of Darius the Great and not during the time of Cyrus the Great Phoenix0758 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)