Talk:Siege of Byzantium (478 BC)

This redirect 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:
/
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Wait

you must wait couple of days so i can get the info on it so please wait!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

??? Needs help. Doug Weller (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

Wasn't it Pausanias and Aristides who captured Byzantium, which led to the formation of the Delian League? [1]: "In 478, the Spartan prince Pausanias led a Greek expeditionary force to Byzantium. If he would take the city, the Greeks would control the Bosporus and could keep the Persians out of Europe. However, Pausanias lost authority when rumors were spread that he wanted to collaborate with the satrap of nearby Hellespontine Phrygia, Artabazus. He was recalled by the Spartan authorities, and the Athenian Aristides, who may have been behind the rumors, took over the command of the Greek army.

"Although Pausanias was cleared of all accusations, the Spartans now decided to remain outside the war against Persia. For Sparta, the main war aims had been reached now that a cordon sanitaire had been created in Asia Minor. If the Persians wanted to return to Europe, they first had to occupy the towns of the liberated Ionian Greeks. The Athenians had a different perspective. They felt related to the Ionians, and in their view, security could only be reached when their compatriots were safe as well. Therefore, they continued the struggle and founded the Delian League."

Doug Weller (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

You are right Doug. I am in the middle of a paper on this as part of an Honours project; i have edited the sub accordingly (insofar as time will permit). Hopefully someone with a bit more time on their hands can expand it into a proper article. I wish them luck trying to sift through all the sources and controversy!

Alyelle (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Amanda[reply]

Redirect proposal

I'm trying to improve the depth of coverage for the Greco-Persian wars across all articles, and get all of them up to at least Good Article status. However, this article (as with others) is problematic, for one main reason: the ancient sources don't have much to say about it (as evidenced by the stub nature of this article). The article can never be satisfactorily expanded, because there's nothing else to say, and no other details in the ancient sources.

Thus, I don't think it really needs a separate article.

I think that the events at Byzantium in 478 BC can be adequately covered at Greco-Persian Wars#Byzantium, without needing a separate article. I suggest leaving this page as a redirect to the above article, and moving any content which is not already covered there, to Greco-Persian Wars. The Greco-Persian Wars navigation box would still have "Byzantium" in it, but now directing to the appropriate subsection of the Greco-Persian Wars article. This is the approach I have used for some other battles which are clearly not going to have a full article written about them.

Ultimately, if the consensus is that this deserves its own article, then I will not contest that. Having checked briefly, it appears that are probably not many editors with a vested interest in this article. No-one has made a significant contribution to this article since Nov 2008, and they are now banned. So, I will wait one week for any opinions, and then act as described above. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot later than planned, but now redirected as described above. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]