Talk:Battle of the Granicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Old move request[edit]

Battle of the Granicus (334) to move to Battle of the Granicus (334 BC) and delete the first one with the Battle of the Granicus as a redirect to the second one. Sorry, I goofed on the moves; I've been away a while. jaknouse 16:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Propose no move



  • Proposed move to "Battle of the Granicus"
    • Support this alternative and oppose other options. As there is no other battle on Wilipedia with that name there is no need to to have moved the page name to a name which includes the year. redirects can take care of any index concerns which jaknouse has Philip Baird Shearer 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, move it back to Granicus, assuming no other battles took place there. Adam Bishop 16:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 19:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

The guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Battles#Article title do not recommend using years for battles. Nor does WP:NC. Philip Baird Shearer 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See also Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#Dates in battle page names --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Im making changes according to this unbiased site: http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/warfare/battle/granicus.html

Coordinates[edit]

Is it possible to get coordinates for the location of the battle? Mmace91 00:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No - nobody knows the exact location

Hoplites?[edit]

The infobox lists 22,000 hoplites as part of the strength of Alexander's forces. I would guess his Greek allies fielded more or less classical hoplites, but the core heavy infantry from Macedonia itself were phalangites/sarissaphoros rather than hoplites. Sakkura 03:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?[edit]

I am concerned that these statements in the "Battle" section

"This would make sense out of the Persians' nonsensical order of battle. The Persian cavalry would hurry to the location of Alexander’s night crossing and reach the scene of the battle first, with the slower infantry struggling in the rear to catch up with the battle. Even if Alexander eventually won the battle, he would have had ample motivation to cover up his first initial defeat on Asian soil, and he would be loath to admit that he was wrong and Parmenion was right."

constitute original research. Can someone identify whose musings these are or shall we remove this? Argos'Dad 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is directly from Peter Green's historical biography of Alexander and should be included in the revisionist section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.154.51 (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexander close to death?[edit]

I've edited the Aftermatch section where it said Alexander came closest to death in this battle. This is not accurate. He did not receive a flesh wound here, whereas Alexander took a poisoned arrow to the chest in the battle with the Malli in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talkcontribs) 16:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

alexander was stunned by an axe blow from a persian noble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talkcontribs) 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualties[edit]

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE NUMBER OF CASUALTIES TO 350. it is totally wrong and do not remove my cited account of 115 casualties and the number of wounded. i will be monitoring this and report it to wikipedia staff if you are to remove my cited work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talkcontribs) 07:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Battle of the Granicus to Battle of the Granicus River, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Please move this article to Battle of the Granicus River, if you could.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Fixed the location of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that we have another title mistake as I have checked in more recent books on the battle they are now refering to it with the river at the end. Kind a like the Battle of the Hydaspes River, both of these battles have to do with Alexander, which occured on the side of the river, with no identification of the place, so there is no place called Hydaspes, except the river itself, so if that is its name, the battle should have its only identification too, which is to included River.----Ariobarza (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of English idiom: the Thames, the Rhine, the Mississippi all mean the river; adding River is unnecessary (and in practice less common). Battle of Hydaspes would imply a place Hydaspes apart from the stream; Battle of the Hydaspes does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


In this and in many other articles, somebody ADDED that on the side of Macedonians (renamed to "Macedon") there were "Greek allies". Is there any evidence about that? Citation is needed (from a neutral source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.242.218 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone of this article is too informal[edit]

First of all, look at this paragraph and tell me this is appropriate for Wikipedia:

The traditional view of the Persian infantry and mercenaries holding behind the cavalry is, from a military point of view, stupid. While no one would accuse the Persian leadership of genius in the battle, to hold a river bank with cavalry (which by its nature is an offensive, not defensive force) strains credulity. Far wiser it would be to have the infantry (however poor quality, they are still more suitable than the cavalry) hold the river line, with stakes and whatever else could reinforce the line, while the cavalry sits behind to thwart any breakthrough (much like the German Panzer divisions behind the 'Atlantic Wall' before D-Day).

I flagged this article for a tone revision. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory accounts[edit]

I added in the fact that there are contradicting sources about this battle, before it strongly indicated that the ancient sources all agreed on Arrian's Homeric depiction. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Persian numbers[edit]

I am fairly sure that there was a much larger persian force than this article says. Some estimates have put the number of greek mercenaries alone at 20,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.113.225 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On the question of numbers, Diodorus Sec 18.4 here mentions the Persians heavily outnumbered the Macedonians ( http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/17B*.html ). 19.4 and 19.5 on the same page states of the Persian forces, "In all, the cavalry amounted to more than ten thousand. 5 The Persian foot soldiers were not fewer than one hundred thousand". Someone else should evaluate the accuracy of Diodorus' account as I am no historian, however i mention this because it doesn't match what is here and isn't accounted for. (Update: I see this mentioned in the last section, maybe it just isn't prominent enough and perhaps the box in the top-right should indicate the varying numbers, or some indication of why the lower numbers are used added.82.16.242.232 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency concerning the role of Alexander's infantry[edit]

I think one of the following statements from the article must be false: 1 - "A hole opened in the recently vacated place in the battle line, and the Macedonian infantry charged through to engage the poor-quality Persian infantry in the rear." 2 - "As a result, after the battle Alexander ordered his infantry, who until this point had played no role in the battle, to slaughter the mercenaries to a man." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.149.221 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)