![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 The sources listed are utterly outdated and many were created without the advantage of the evidence available to historians today - such as the abundance of written records and graphical depictions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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)