Scenario: 300 Van versus 1 Million C'Tisians

[Epaminondas]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:

Epaminondas--check the wikipedia link in my earlier post. Different historians believe different things. I had always heard it was 150,000. The subject of my post refers to the movie though--and in the movie there are supposed to be a million persians....

Uh-nu-Buh,

I did briefly glance through the Wikipedia article but you have to understand that Wikipedia articles are not always to be taken seriously. They are seldom written by experts in the field, and in fact any Joe Shmoe can enter his 5 cents.

[Cerlin]

Normally written by fanatics. Definatly take them with the grain of salt. Give me a scholarly source any day of the week.

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Epaminondas said:

Uh-nu-Buh,

I did briefly glance through the Wikipedia article but you have to understand that Wikipedia articles are not always to be taken seriously. They are seldom written by experts in the field, and in fact any Joe Shmoe can enter his 5 cents.

True, that's why they/we have citations. In a study done a few months ago, a random sampling of articles in both a regular encyclopedia written by experts and wikipedia were shown to have an almost comparable number of errors.

Aside from that, it pretty much says what you said--except it shows several different perspectives: i.e. this historian believes this (citation), this other historian believes something different (citation), etc. It also shows the history of the history: e.g. Herodotus believed it was about 5.3 million men including logistics personnel; Simonides gave a figure of ~4 million; Ctesias, a Persian historian, reported ~800,000; the list goes on into contemporary times giving schools of thought. Here are a small sampling of excerpts. Note that they are all accompanied by citations in the article.

"One school of thought rejects the figures given in ancient texts as exaggerations on the part of the victors"

"A second school contends that ancient sources do give realistic numbers. "

"Dr. Manousos Kampouris argues that Herodotus' 1,700,000 for the infantry plus 80,000 cavalry (including support) is realistic for various reasons"

"On the other hand, Christos Romas believes that the Persian troops accompanying Xerxes were a little over 400,000."

I've written/edited/contributed to several articles on wikipedia (cars, japanese archery, various authors, literature) so I know what you say is true: any dork can write anything they want. That is backed by the Colbert-mania elephant extravaganza and etc. However, if the article says something that you disagree with you can check the citations and read the discussions in the meta-article to see if there is any disagreement or controversy. To me, and many others, this lends/gives/assures credence/quality to the system.

[Evil Dave]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:

True, that's why they/we have citations. In a study done a few months ago, a random sampling of articles in both a regular encyclopedia written by experts and wikipedia were shown to have an almost comparable number of errors.

And you can't bother to look up this study? The citation is: Giles, J; Internet encyclopedias go head to head; Nature 438, p900-901, 15 Dec 2005. This study was savaged by critics for methodological problems, notably:

numbers of errors were counted, but not types or magnitudes. Both "The Mon is generally believed to have been created by a Mars-sized object colliding with Earth." and "The Moon is made of green cheese." were counted as one error.

no accounting was made for Encyclopedia Brittanica articles generally being longer and more comprehensive than Wikipedia articles. So the error count is nothing like signal-to-noise.

Here are a small sampling of excerpts. Note that they are all accompanied by citations in the article.

"One school of thought rejects the figures given in ancient texts as exaggerations on the part of the victors"

"A second school contends that ancient sources do give realistic numbers. "

"Dr. Manousos Kampouris argues that Herodotus' 1,700,000 for the infantry plus 80,000 cavalry (including support) is realistic for various reasons"

"On the other hand, Christos Romas believes that the Persian troops accompanying Xerxes were a little over 400,000."

The first one dates from 1929, the second from 1930, and the last two are from what appear to be popular magazines*. These are not useful scholarly citations. Archeology and speculation from 70 years ago is generally regarded as junk, and popular writing doesn't have to meet any criteria for correctness.

*: other than the Wikipedia hits, I can find the title of the first offered only by an on-line wargaming store, and the second doesn't appear at all. I'd expect even tiny scholarly journals to have websites under their own names.

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Evil Dave: sounds like you are well informed and have your mind made up. I'll respect that for the most part, but I can't let a few items go.

Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old. In hindsight, he was nutty as a pancake. A complete fruitcake.

Darwin's works are over 70 years old. From the modern perspective, his crazy theories don't stack up compared to intelligent design and spontaneous generation.

Herodotus' Histories are also over 70 years old. Worthless garbage. I am unsure why they are still published. I have no idea at all why they are regarded so well by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Frankly, I am amazed you have a limit of 70 years. That seems so old fashioned. In this marvelous digital age, if it is older than an hour or two, I regard it as pap-smear. For example, your post from yesterday--especially your quote from Helmut von Moltke (for whom there is a very nice article on Wikipedia if you are interested)--is junk and "doesn't have to meet any criteria for correctness." It's garbage. Outdated. Digital archeology. Musings and speculations on history and information theory from literally hours ago!! Gah!

I'll also pick on your childish eye rolling. To me, that immediately means you are a dick. No matter how correct you are, you are still a dick. You could be 100% right, but you would still be a dick.

To paraphrase Churchill: 'Tomorrow I will be wrong, but you will still be a dick.'

Note to anyone other than Evil Dave: I read wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. I just do not immediately pan them due to methodology. Like everything, I am skeptical of them--but I actually like the methodology. If you want to check something, you are free to check the citations and meta-article--as Evil Dave did. You are free to choose what you believe in a wikipedia article, based on your own researches. That makes it a good reference, imo.

[Meglobob]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:
Evil Dave: sounds like you are well informed and have your mind made up. I'll respect that for the most part, but I can't let a few items go.

Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old. In hindsight, he was nutty as a pancake. A complete fruitcake.

Darwin's works are over 70 years old. From the modern perspective, his crazy theories don't stack up compared to intelligent design and spontaneous generation.

Herodotus' Histories are also over 70 years old. Worthless garbage. I am unsure why they are still published. I have no idea at all why they are regarded so well by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Frankly, I am amazed you have a limit of 70 years. That seems so old fashioned. In this marvelous digital age, if it is older than an hour or two, I regard it as pap-smear. For example, your post from yesterday--especially your quote from Helmut von Moltke (for whom there is a very nice article on Wikipedia if you are interested)--is junk and "doesn't have to meet any criteria for correctness." It's garbage. Outdated. Digital archeology. Musings and speculations on history and information theory from literally hours ago!! Gah!

I'll also pick on your childish eye rolling. To me, that immediately means you are a dick. No matter how correct you are, you are still a dick. You could be 100% right, but you would still be a dick.

To paraphrase Churchill: 'Tomorrow I will be wrong, but you will still be a dick.'

Note to anyone other than Evil Dave: I read wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. I just do not immediately pan them due to methodology. Like everything, I am skeptical of them--but I actually like the methodology. If you want to check something, you are free to check the citations and meta-article--as Evil Dave did. You are free to choose what you believe in a wikipedia article, based on your own researches. That makes it a good reference, imo.

Am I a dick too?

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

Am I a dick too?

[/quote]

Nope, you are funny. Very different.

[PhilD]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:
Evil Dave: sounds like you are well informed and have your mind made up. I'll respect that for the most part, but I can't let a few items go.

Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old. In hindsight, he was nutty as a pancake. A complete fruitcake.

If you reread Evil Dave's post, he didn't attack all science older than 70 years, only "archeology and speculation". I don't know about archeology (my guess is that there was some serious archeology work done way before that, even though a lot very probably lacked enormously in seriousness), but he could very well be right on speculation.

But then, to attack him with examples of older scientific theories which are solid work is, at best, unfair.

Now I'll all let you go back to your usual flamewars.

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

PhilD said:

If you reread Evil Dave's post, he didn't attack all science older than 70 years, only "archeology and speculation". I don't know about archeology (my guess is that there was some serious archeology work done way before that, even though a lot very probably lacked enormously in seriousness), but he could very well be right on speculation.

But then, to attack him with examples of older scientific theories which are solid work is, at best, unfair.

Now I'll all let you go back to your usual flamewars.

Science, when first published, is speculation. Until it is peer reviewed, tested, and duplicated. Putting an arbitrary time limit on it is ridiculous.

Your other point about attacking him is valid though. Egg on my face. Turnabout is fair play. I will be the dick this time.

That eye-rolling thing just gets my goat. It is childish and inappropriate.

[Evil Dave]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:

Newton's works on gravity and mathematics are over 70 years old.

Darwin's works are over 70 years old.

Herodotus' Histories are also over 70 years old.

Frankly, I am amazed you have a limit of 70 years.

I pointed out that the citations were old because archeology is a young science. As you indicate from your choices of people, the sciences advance. Newton's physics, while perfectly good for many things, falls apart for very small things and very large or fast things. Darwins's core ideas of evolution are right, but he guessed at many of the details and has been shown wrong. Herodotus is no longer the authority he once was.

In the '20s, archeology was a new field, still struggling with 19th century notions of history, some of which were badly confused. When Schliemann went looking for Troy and Mycenae (1870s), some well-educated people thought he was a fool, as the Trojan War was "just a myth". Others believed the cities to be real, but thought the Illiad's descriptions were fanciful, and they'd be of no help in find them. Likewise, many of Arthur Evans' reconstructions of Knossos (1900) were silly, and many modern archeologists believe his attempts damaged the site. While things were better by the '20s, scientists at the time still didn't know how to balance skepticism of ancient sources with evidence indicating some were right on target.

In the 20s, chemistry was of no help to archeology; carbon dating wouldn't be invented until 1947. Climatology was not very advanced either, so claims about inadeqate water for ancient armies are dubious. Even archeology itself has advanced -- early stratigraphy had problems. That's why I'm dismissive of work from '29 and '30.

I'll also pick on your childish eye rolling. To me, that immediately means you are a dick. No matter how correct you are, you are still a dick. You could be 100% right, but you would still be a dick.

Keep in mind that personal attacks are not permitted on this forum.

If a poster wants to convince his audience that he knows what scholarly citation is, he should provide references to studies backing up his points. It's like having a Phoenix cast Wind Guide and Flaming Arrows on the 500 archers he brought with him to a battle. It doesn't guarantee victory, but it shows that the player knows the game.