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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to raise the question as to why the article only mentions Diodorus statistics as to Allied casualties; certainly, Xenophon's claim in the Agesilaos, 8 'Lakedaemonians' to 10,000 allies, is spurious, but the emphasis on such outlandish numbers should certainly indicate that the defeat was not a 'standard' hoplite battle in terms of numbers. Equally, I feel that it should be noted that this is one of the few, if maybe the only, battle in which Lakedaemonian troops 'attack' a retreating enemy, which may preclude the reliance on 'standard' proportional casualties. If anybody knows of any reason, other than the sheer disproportion between the two figures, as to why Diodorus figures are 'exact,' please comment. If not alternate suggestions as to the quantity of losses, obviously with reasoning, would be appreciated.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.88.101 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC).Reply