Talk:Peloponnesian War

Needing Help with Corinthian History

I am studying the bible and currently the 2 books of 1st and 2nd Corinthians. It is my understanding that the Corinthins were sent into slavery working mines. I would like to know where I can view references to this bit of information as it will hlp me to understand the background of the Corinthian people. When did they go into slavery, why and for how long? are my basic questions but their history as well is very omportant to me. Thank you for your help. Mark Bjorndal

That was probably after the Romans sacked Corinth in 146 BC...that was long after the Peloponnesian War. Adam Bishop 04:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The maps of the Allies seems less than complete (the cities on Crete and the Sicilian cities being unlabeled).

Ok, which Cretan cities were involved in the war? I can change the map but I need names and locations for the cities, and on which side they fought? Sicily would need a map of its own, but I am not likely to do one. -- Jniemenmaa 13:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The most important Cretan city is Knossos (alt. Cnossos) which was neutral during parts of the war and an Athenian ally during other parts. You can find it on this map http://www.utexas.edu/courses/clubmed/10061pelwarmap.jpg Also Corcya (Corkya) was a city as well as an island as was an ally (although highly unrelible) of the Athenians and until the Spartans killed the defenders Platia they were stauch allies of the Athenians. If you want you could try to find a copy of Steven Lattimore's translation, it has one of the more detailed maps I've encountered.QwertyMIDX 22:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is my workcited list from my senior reseach paper all the information that i added was from that work that i posted on your web parge on the peloponnesin war.

• ?Athens Invades Sicily. June, 415B.C.September 413B.C..?Discovering world History.2003.Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/serletSRC>.

• ?Classical Greek Civilization, 2000 B.C.-300B.C.?Discovering World History. 2003.

Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/serlet/SRC>.

• ?Thucydides writes the History of the Peloponnesians War, 433 B.C. 403 B.C.? Discovering World History.2003. Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 17 Nov. 2004.

<http://galenet.galegroup.com/serletSRC>.

• Cartledge, Paul.,ed. Ancient Greece. New York: Cambridge University Press,1998.
• Chin, Beverly, et al.,eds. Glenco World Literature. New York: Glenco Mcgraw Hill Companies Inc.,2000.

Thanks. I've edited your contribution a bit to make it fit into the article better. By the way, you can sign your posts by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That makes it easier to follow the discussion on the talk page. Adam Bishop 00:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancy Between Articles

The section titled "Peloponnesian War" in Ancient Greece has a boilerplate stating that the facts are in dispute. How is this even possible if Peloponnesian War is a featured article? Apparently, the people over at Ancient Greece don't know how to handle the situation; could someone who edits over here and knows the subject well go in and fix it for them? Eric Herboso 03:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template needed

This needs to use the Template:Battlebox, like seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Effects

Should the section named effects be named effects? Most of the components in the section are not the effects of the war, but rather what occured after the war. I can't seem to think of a better title, though. (signed long afterwords because I forgot to sign it before,) AndyZ 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally, in the history of the article, typed in "Effects dpesm". I meant to type in Effects doesn't make sense because the section doesn't explain the effects of the war, but rather what happens after the war (or at least doesn't explain why they are effects). My right hand slipped and moved one key to the right on my keyboard each time, which is why I pressed enter prematurely and I ended up with "dpesm". AndyZ 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness of Aristophanes mention?

Is Aristophanes really important enough to merit a mention in the opening paragraph? I can understand mentions of him later, but in the opening paragraph? Seems a little odd. But I'll leave it to someone who frequents this page.

Hmm, it does seem a little out of place, like the WW2 article mentioning John Wayne movies in the lead. The usual thing would be to have a "The war in culture" section at the end or some such. One could argue that Aristophanes is the most notable route for general awareness of the war in the present age (Lysistrata revivals for instance); a second paragraph in the lead would make sense, since the article is longish. Stan 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

Just a quick thanks--this article is very nicely written from a narrative point of view. I noticed that it wasn't chosen for a featured article and read why, but I do want to give props for the clarity and flow of the writing style. TheSPY 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Props? Give props?JGC1010 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Empire or Hegemony?

I think "Athenian hegemony" is a better, more epoch-consistent term for Athens' sphere of influence, instead of "Athenian Empire". The term is actually an anachronism, not used in historiography before the roman ideal of the "Imperium" came into existence. Potmos 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

League of Attica??

I always thought that it was the Delian Laegue that was at war against the Spartans. Also I can not find anything about the Laegue of Attica??? so i was wounding wether they are the same thing just different names of them or if they are different thanks

It would appear that someone came by and "sanitized" our language about the Athenian empire a couple of days ago; I have reverted. Who knew there were classical Athenian POV pushers? --Robth^[[User

Talk:Robth|Talk]] 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the Peloponnese was with Sparta i got mixed up sorry

AID

I've nominated this for the Article Improvement Drive, to hopefully bring up the quality of this article. If everyone interested could support the nomination, we might be able to give it the attention it needs. --YankeeDoodle14 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the delian league was allied with Sparta and the peloponnese with athens----

^ 72.225.38.64 fails so I deleted his/her comment.

Eclipse

Why isn't the famous triple eclipse mentioned in this article? It only makes mention of a single eclipse. It would as be werth mentioning the fact that a triple/double eclipse allows for the date of the war to be mathematically determined, and all such efforts have strongly contradicted the conventional dating for unknown reasons.

Alcibiades

i am learning about the Peloponesian war and Athens, i had to do an essay on the war and... i never knew how Alcibiades had played a big part in the battle with the swapping sides DURING battle! thats crazy!!! but for my help through school, i need more information on the war, i can use links, summarys, and historic documents on the subject PLEASE! it can help out mutch,--64.251.55.229 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)mike k

GA hold

The article is good and I'd be happy to promote it if a few changes are made. He they are:

1. There are no inline citatation after the Break down of Peace section. Please add inline citations for those sections.
2. The aftermath section is thin, if it is paossible please add some more info for that section.
3. Could you also add a map showing the Delian League or Peloponnesian League if it is possible.

THose are all my worries at the moment and if you are able to fix them I woould be more than happy to pass the article. Kyriakos 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to fail this article as none of my concerns were adressed. Better luck nesxt time. Kyriakos 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GA status is under review

I am contesting the failure of this article as a GA at the page above largely because the requests of the reviewer were indeed met. Diez2 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Result of the GAR

Peloponnesian War

result:Remain as Failed GA 4-0

I usually don't disagree with GA failures, but this is one I must contest. The article was placed on hold for about 4-5 days because the reviewer stated that it needed more in-line citations. User:YankeeDoodle14 carried out almost all of his instructions the day after it was placed on hold. About 3 days later, the reviewer comes back and fails the article because "none of his instructions had been carried out." I'm sorry, but I do think that this article deserves GA status. Diez2 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose GA My review, it generally started out well but the following sections contain no references; The "Archidamian War", Peace of Nicias, Sicilian Expedition, The Second War, Athens recovers, Lysander triumphs, Athens surrenders, Aftermath. That's a total of 29 paragraphs with no references. Imo the reviewer did the right thing failing the article, and you should respond to the reviewer when an issue is dealt with. M3tal H3ad 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How should I re-word it? I oppose the failure of the article's GA status. Diez2 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

last sentence says you don't think it deserves GA status. M3tal H3ad 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my dictionary, "do" is the opposite of "don't"...? / Fred-Chess 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha i read it wrong, what a smart dictionary! :) M3tal H3ad 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In-line citations are not requisite for an article to be a "good article" (see WP:WIAGA). I'd make sure the article is in top shape by following the suggestions offered by the reviewer and M3tal H3ad and if you believe it's good, re-submit it for consideration.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  Citations are required for information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. M3tal H3ad 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  It would be helpful to provide examples; most of this is straight Thucydides and much of the rest is almost certainly consensus of the (cited) sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Being the editor that failed the article I'll give my opinion. I gave the editors the maximum of 7 days to follow the instructions. During that time I regularly checked the article to see if there were any improvements. When I put the article on hold it had 22 citations and I asked for more. I also asked for the aftermath section to be expanded. I am normally linient with my review but from what I saw none of my instructions were carried out so I decided to fail the article. And I still stand by my opinion and I think the article needs some work before it becomes GA. Kyriakos 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• fail but a GA should cite references and GA is defacto moving to inline like FA, like it or not.Rlevse 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• DelistSumoeagle179 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• delist, too much info needed citing / Fred-Chess 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Democracies Fighting Wars

Can wars be won by popularity contests and polls?Lestrade 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Three phases

The opening paragraph of this article says that historians have traditionally divided the war into three phases, but then goes on to define only two of those. I think it should name the third. Courtesy of Gavla 13:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misprint in maps

Should AEGAN be AEGEAN? I'd change it, but I don't know how to do pictures. John Wheater (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is corrected now. Thank you for the info. Besides that there is also another spelling error: the file name contains Pelopennesian and in the picture itself it is written: Peloponnesian. ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that was quick!... However, a later map still says AEGAN...John Wheater (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture with AEGEAN is shown here in: firefox: 2.0.0.11, IE: 7.0.6001.16510, Safari: 3.0.4 (523.12.9)

Can you check after reloading the image/deleting cache/cookies in your browser ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A part we missed?

"The same summer, not long after this, the Ambraciots and Chaonians,

being desirous of reducing the whole of Acarnania and detaching it from Athens, persuaded the Lacedaemonians to equip a fleet from their confederacy and send a thousand heavy infantry to Acarnania, representing that, if a combined movement were made by land and sea, the coast Acarnanians would be unable to march, and the conquest of Zacynthus and Cephallenia easily following on the possession of Acarnania, the cruise round Peloponnese would be no longer so convenient for the Athenians. Besides which there was a hope of taking Naupactus." ThucydidesA New History of the Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan ,ISBN 0801495563,page 107,"Chaonians and Ambraciots proposed that the Spartans Organise a fleet of ships and 1,000 hoplites".-isn't this part of the war?Megistias (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

couldn't find any info on this page about this: List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity Mathmo ^Talk 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Amphipolis

After the battle [of Pylos], Brasidas, a Spartan general, raised an army of allies and helots and went for one of the sources of Athenian power, capturing the Athenian colony of Amphipolis, which happened to control several nearby silver mines which the Athenians were using to finance the war. It is worth noting here that Thucydides the historian was a general at this time for Athens, and it was due to his failure to stop Brasidas capturing Amphipolis that he was exiled.

• Wouldn't it be nice to mention that Amphipolis was at the other end of Greece?
• Why is the second sentence "worth mentioning". Just mention it, if you have to; this isn't Thucydides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No citation

The Athenians captured between 300 and 400 Spartan hoplites.

There is no citation for this sentence. Numbers are also varied, some claim 300-400 others claim 100 etc.

130.17.86.60 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The great thing is that anyone can edit the article; if you'd like to add a citation, by all means go ahead! You can tag an unverified statement with the {{fact}} template too. Coldmachine^Talk 09:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated history

The paragraphs under the heading "Peloponnesian War: Phase 5 (407-404)" have recently been added and appear to be largely an alternate version of the events described under the heading "Lysander triumphs, Athens surrenders". The new version has no references and the heading makes little sense in terms of the article (the lede talks about three stages - so where did phases come from?). I think the new version should be deleted, or at least merged in to the existing text. The article is left very confused in its present state. SpinningSpark 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As no one has responded, I have removed the text and posted it here for discussion, SpinningSpark 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC);

Peloponnesian War: Phase 5 (407-404)

<copyvio material removed>

Actually, I have now found that it is a copyvio from here so it definitely should not go back in the article. SpinningSpark 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Spartan Bias, Breakdown of the Peace

I noticed a few things when reading through this article that indicate to me a bias in favor of the Spartans where there shouldn't be. First, in the second entitled "Breakdown of the Peace" the terms of the Thirty Years Peace are scarcely mentioned in the Revolt of Samos, where they are important. Since one of the aspects of the peace was there would be a list of allies to both the Athenians and Spartans and neither party should intervene in the others' affairs, the Spartan congress to declare war (which the Corinthians, according to Thucydides, had a large role denying Spartan intervention) can be viewed as a breaking of the treaty, though the Athenians made no complaint through Thucydides about it.

Spartans and Corinthians were also technically at fault, from the perspective of the Thirty Years Peace, in encouraging the Potidaean Revolt from Athens (so argues Terry Buckley, he makes the interesting point that Corinth refused to hold to the Peace of Nicias because of alliances that Corinth held with the potidaeans since when they revolted--citing Thucydides 5.30.2: "instead, they (the Corinthians) used the pretext that they had sworn a separate oath at the time when Potidaea first revolted, and had given other guarantees later."). Actually, it surprises me that Buckley's section is a little misused to get the following quote: "Many regard this as the main reason blame for starting the war can be attributed to Athens." I have this section right in front of me, and I can find no justifiable way to interpret it as arguing that the perceived majority of historians blame Athens for the outbreak of the war since, structurally speaking, the opposite argument is given more weight (with the chronological events that are easy to defend Athens being placed chronologically--that is, first--and the anti-Spartan argument placed last in the section discussing the ultimate responsibility for the war [a call out for all of those primacy-recency thinkers out there]). Content wise, there is very little bias to be seen for either argument since both are given about equal time in the section itself.

So why do we only use this source to talk about how many historians attribute blame to Athens when the article attributes plenty of blame both ways? I have a few problems with the incidents mentioned too:

Regarding the Corcyran alliance: "It is worth noting, however, that the Athenians were instructed not to intervene in the battle." Why is this worth noting? Well, because it shows that Athens was holding to the letter of the Thirty Years Peace, but this is never stated anywhere in this section. If Athens aggressed against a Peloponnesian member state, that would be breaking the treaty. So, too, would Peloponnesian invasion of an Athenian ally. However, Corcyra was not a listed ally of either party in the time leading up to the battle between Corinth and Corcyra and sought alliance with Athens--as any neutral party was allowed to do under the terms of the treaty. Corinth then argued that Athens should remember Corinth's role in upholding the treaty when Samos revolted from Athens (this is mostly according to Buckley, which uses Thucydides gratuitously, with personal interpretation inserted in parts). Athens only agreed to a defensive alliance with Corcyra in order to deter any statement that they were breaking the treaty.

"Following this, Athens placed Potidaea, a tributary ally of Athens but an old colony of Corinth, under siege." Seiges don't just happen. Potidaea was a colony of Corinth, so some level of causation can be argued. This article makes little mention of the fear the Athenians could have had for a reprisal from Corinth (who just got dissed in their attempts against Corcyra). The demands that Athens made on Potidaea, alongside with the encouragement of multiple outside-states (including the leader of the Macedonians, Corinth, and peripherally Sparta), caused Potidaea to revolt from the league. Here, Potidaea was again a member, as stated, of the Athenian Empire (which I will personally uphold: even though the idea of Empire was not contrived, and the Athenians had no name for the power they controlled over their neighboring states, it acted like an empire before the Roman ideal came about and many historians call it such). But that membership is important because it places it inside of the clause of the Thirty Years Peace: that allies accepted from one party into the other party is a breach of the truce. My problem with this is mostly that the causative breach of the treaty is not mentioned until after the Corinthians encourage a congress to be called by Sparta, not that it isn't mentioned.

"This conference was attended by Athenian representatives as well as those from the members of the league, and became the scene of a debate between the Athenians and the Corinthians." Well, according to Thucydides*. Remember, however, that there is a characteristic problem in Thucydides' work. He quotes people, but explicitly says that he cannot remember what they said verbatim and so attributes statements to them as what the situation would have called for. This problem is made even larger when the Spartans, at this congress, dismiss the allies and Archidamus and the other guy (name eludes me for the moment) argue against and for starting the war right now respectively. Who was there for Thucydides to talk to? How did he get the information? These are questions that we historians have a hard time answering, so attributing too much to these statements is unwise. The Athenian representatives, according to Thucydides, happened to be there on other business and mysteriously overheard the discussion and put their own piece in. The Corinthians certainly are given a good amount of time within Thucydides, as are the Athenian representatives, but the argument that there was a debate is a little much. Thucydides presents it as the wronged Peloponnesian allies griped about Athens, Corinth--as the last of them--spoke against Sparta at length, Athens asked to speak and thus spoke. Then everyone was tossed out and the Spartans talked amongst themselves and voted in majority in favor of war. Hardly a debate between anyone except Archidamus and the other guy since the Athenian position was "hold to the treaty, ask for arbitration" while the Corinthians were "attack now (we have an alliance with those folk and could use the help)."

The Megarian Decree is another issue of contention. Historians like de Ste. Croix contest the "traditional" view that this was a big deal, and so in some ways Thucydides does as well. It seems unfair to go without mentioning this contest when this article places so much weight on the economic sanctions as to label it "the main reason blame can be attributed to Athens." There are a couple of areas there de Ste. Croix finds historians strongly disagreeing with him, one of which being the popularity of the Athenian Empire. However, do dismiss his argument entirely loses some of the color of the nature of this issue. Personally, having read both sides, I feel neither here nor there on the matter. Both the traditional view and de Ste. Croix contrarian view have strong points to make--though de Ste. Croix argument is hurt by Athenian willingness to discuss that aspect of Spartan demands (which Pericles does via Thucydides, even if he makes the argument alongside that if they give into this one demand, how afraid it would make the Athenians appear). From the economic perspective, however, de Ste. Croix makes the interesting point of discussing the Megarian Decree's supposed exclusion of Megarian citizens as opposed to all trade to Megara. What validity this point has, I'm not sure yet, but it seems as though the entire argument is ignored by this article, reinforcing an anti-Athenian pro-Spartan bias that I am not convinced should exist.

Also, it seems that de Ste. Croix has at least some partial followers, for in Terry Buckley's Aspects of Greek History 750-323BC, he discusses this contrarian point of view at length, with the traditional view having at that point of the article already been discussed (this point is discussed above, but I thought it a good time to bring it back up: not everyone disagrees with de Ste. Croix and it seems biased to ignore this).

Which is coincidentally the largest problem I have with this section. Thucydides blames both "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta" (translation by Penguin books, so the same as is used in the article; I. 23) while this article cites only the Spartan reason for declaring war and sending the envoys to Athens (as indicated by the quote from the Spartan congress to declare war, which is actually the reiteration of the earlier quote I provide just above). There is plenty of blame to go around. Spartans, being the historic power of the Greek states, saw Athens as a new, adventurous rival at a time when new equated to bad. The Spartan society was also built to be conservative--that is, to preserve the status quo--where the helots stayed in their slaves-of-their-own-land place. So the Spartans saw this "new" power with anxiety, and the Athens saw the Spartans with a certain degree of caution (since the Spartans were notorious for being wholly self-interested, as implied a number of times by the Corinthians in the congress to declare war against Athens).

But let's not ignore the areas that Sparta (and Corinth) is at fault in order to argue that many historians blame Athens, mmkay? Ye Olde Twit (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

When you end your argument, which is neither chronologically correct nor academically sound, with 'mmmkaaaayyy?', I have to wonder about your credentials. If anything, Thucydides was biased towards the Athenians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.231.148 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule by the many != Democracy

It is a hideous misrepresentation that the thirty were replaced by democratic rule. In fact what followed the oligarchs was a short period when rule was by the "Five thousand" rather than either the 30 or the full extent of the rabble. Also this is the period which various commentators, following Thucydides have considered to have been the time when rule was the best, neither the tyranny of the few, nor the abuse of popular sentiment that existed when the full rabble was in control, and famously even condemned some of the best both to death, and exile. -- 88.112.53.195 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Why was "war" in the following sentence capitalized? I reversed it, If there is a legitimate reason for it being capitalized, discuss it here and overturn my reversal. "...was an Ancient Greek military WAR, fought by Athens..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgexu316 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are Fine and Kagan?

I see the names of these two authors used as sources in this article but what are their names and where and when were their books published? This is perhaps one of the most important wars in the history of the Greek city states yet there are so little sources.

How do you not know Donald Kagan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.0.102 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone has the time to improve it, please consult R. Sealey's History of the Greek States (Berkeley, 1976) for a decent narrative on the war.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs improving. The article makes no mention of the battle of Delium, a turning point in the war. And it says 300-400 Spartan hoplites were taken prisoner at Sphacteria - I believe it was more like 120 Spartiates and the rest were allied hoplites. Somewhere out there there is an editor ready willing and able to give this article the attention it needs - the Peloponnesian War is one of the cornerstones of ancient history. Lucretius (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fatality Figures?

I am curious if the fatality figures given in this article are accurate or not. First of all, I find it odd that it doesn't list casualties (killed, wounded, captured, and missing), though I recognize that there might just not be a reliable figure for that. However, when it comes to the fatalities, the ones listed here seem awfully low. 4,130+ dead for the Athens/Delians and 2,256+ dead for the Spartans/Peloponnese. To begin with, the Sicilian Expedition, which as far as I know counts as a part of the Peloponnesian War, resulted in the entire loss of tens of thousands of Athenians and their allies alone. Even if the vast majority were just captured and sold into slavery, I would expect that the death totals from that expedition was at the very least in the 4,130 range, and more than likely even more. Further, after Aegospotami, 3,000 Athenian sailors were executed. That alone would account for almost 3/4 of the total number given in this article of Athenian/Delian killed, and I think that you would have to include a post-battle slaughter as part of the fatality figures in a war.

With all of this in mind, do we have a more accurate fatality figure for the war, or is the 4,130/2,256 ballpark actually accurate in spite of the points I brought up? RPH (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The figures were inserted in this edit. Judging by the edit summary, they were sourced by adding the casualty figures from the Wikipedia articles on individual battles. This, of course, is incomplete information - Wikipedia may not have an article on every single engagement and the figures are not present in every article that we do have. I think the best thing to do is to revert this as unsourced, it can always be reinserted if some more realistic data is found. SpinningSpark 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any figures but I recall that the Spartans, although victors, were severly (90%?) depleted in numbers at the end of the war, and Athens likewise depleted (including by plague, of course). This must have played a part in the later conquest by Alexander. Could that not be mentioned in the "Aftermath" section? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gylippus Dies Twice at Syracuse?

In both sections "Sicilian Expedition" and "The Second War" the Athenian reinforcement of Gylippus at Syracuse is described. You should fix the duplication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.0.102 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No .... YOU should fix it. SpinningSpark 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)