Talk:Siege of Naxos (490 BC)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Plan[edit]

Hi Kyriakos, great job so far on the article. Nice pictures too.
I guess if you can continue to expand with the sub headings, I will help out with some of the stats/figures and wording/grammar. Quite soon this article will be like the other rather well-written and articulate Greco-Persian War articles. Look forward to cooperating with you.--Arsenous Commodore 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arvand, thanks for your help so far. I'm planning on also writting an article on the siege of Eretria if you would like to help. Yesterday I created the Siege of Naxos (499 BC) and would I be possible for you to go over it and copy-edit it. I'm also looking forward to working with you on this article and hopefully in the future more articles on the Persian Wars. Kyriakos 01:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I was doing just that Kyriakos. It's quite a nice article so far, Naxos 499 BC. Well Done! I have no problem editing it, infact the pleasure is all mine, and I am happy to help. Yeah, Eretria sounds good, because it is the next battle prior to Marathon and shortly after Naxos. Those online references of Herodotus you found and are sourcing with in the articles are fantastic, they will be quite handy when we work on Eretria and the rest.--Arsenous Commodore 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also planing to improve the article on the battle of Esphesus and to create one for the Siege of Sardis. When those articles are finished we would have done the first half of the articles. Kyriakos 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try to keep the warbox, as short and simple as we can. For example do you want to just replace the 200-300 triremes + 300 transports with the total written: 600 ships. Then we can be more specific in breaking down the numbers in the Prelude, which you have already started with the Persian infantry. I'll make the changes, but if you are not pleased with the results just tell me and we can make the reverts.--Arsenous Commodore 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map[edit]

At the top of this article, there's a map with the caption "Location of Naxos". However, I can't find the name Naxos anywhere on this map. Is it the wrong map or has Naxos been edited out from it or has the person who put the map in the article just thought wrong? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the map. You should be able to find it without too much difficulty now. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/Merge Proposal[edit]

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, in particular, is problematic, for two main reasons:

  1. As far as the ancient sources tell, there wasn't any real military engagement here. Therefore "Siege" is a rather grand title. Basically, the Persians came, the Naxians ran away. Presenting this as a distinct military engagement, as is done in this article, is not really accurate.
  2. The article can never be satisfactorily expanded, because other than (and I quote from the article):

    The Naxians were surprised when they saw the Persian fleet and they fled to the mountains. When the Persians disembarked they looted and burnt the capitol of Naxos and they enslaved anyone they caught.

    there's nothing to say.

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

I think that the events at Naxos in 490 BC can be adequately covered at First Persian invasion of Greece#Siege of Naxos, 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 First Persian invasion of Greece. The Greco-Persian Wars navigation box would still have "Siege of Naxos (490 BC)" (or some more appropriate title) in it, but now directing to the appropriate subsection of the FPIOG 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; for instance, follow the link for "Siege of Olynthus".

Ultimately, if the consensus is that this deserves its own article, then I will not contest that. However, I fear that it will always be "stubby". I will wait for anyone with a vested interest in this article to voice their opinion before taking any action. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just checked briefly, it appears that there may not be many editors with a vested interest in this article. No-one has commented on this page since April 2007, and no-one has made a significant contribution (other than maintenance tasks) to this article since February 2008. And some of those editors seem to be inactive or banned. So, I will wait two weeks for any opinions, and then act. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although uninvolved in this page, I fully agree with your assessment and proposal. In any historical work I've come across, the capture of Naxos is mentioned briefly as a stage in the Persian invasion fleet's progress towards Euboea and Attica, and that's about it. Given that, if I remember correctly, i) most of the island's population fled to the interior and resistance was minimal, and that ii) the island certainly had no fortifications, the very name "Siege of Naxos" is misleading, indicating some major action. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's now two weeks later, so I'm going to re-direct this page. I now half-expect a flood of complaints, but the article can be reverted if necessary. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Naxos_(490_BC)&oldid=1203194028"