Persian Invasion of 480 BC - articles

[Magnus]

We are running circles in this discussion. I have already made my basic points time after time, but people keeps confusing field armies with global armies, literary sources with documentary sources, etc.

Maybe it's not so much that people are getting these elements confused, but rather a case of some people discounting one type of evidence over another, because it seems to fit better with their theory on something. This isn't a confused reaction, it's an attempt to remain objective by using all available sources of information to build up a point of view.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps your pay documents aren't accurate? So far I've yet to see anything logically convincing in your arguments to irrefutably prove a Persian army over 100,000 couldn't exist. This might have something to do with the fact that you reject historical and archaeological numbers, then use them a post later. :?