text:
Talk:Battle of Marathon

Outdated and horrible article
This entire article reeks of outdated and horrible "scholarship". I'll give a few examples - Miltiades shouted "Rush at them", not "At them". Secondly it is entirely plausible and highly likely that the Greeks ran straight at the Persian lines. Firstly it was necessary so that the Persians couldn't muster their cavalry which would have decimated the Greeks. Secondly they weren't sprinting - it would have been more of a jog and still have taken them ~10 minutes to run what was roughly a mile. Thirdly the weight of hoplite armour has been greatly exagerrated and recent scholarship reflects this; full armour (which few hopolites would have had as they had to supply their own) would only be ~55-70% of previous estimated. Fourthly Greeks of this time were mostly farmers who were used to long, hard physical labour and thus would be in an excellent physical condition - much stronger and fitter than almost all modern men. Fifthly, the order of battle maps are horribly wrong; the Persians assembled in battle line in front of their camp which did not face the sea there and if it did, where were the horses? Why couldn't they have mustered them? That "marsche" was at that time probably sea and the Persian camp was near there, with the horses located beyond it in the hills.

GIFs
I've added two GIFs depicting the battle of Marathon ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive
The text of this article states, "Darius learned through Hippias that the Alcemaeonidae, a powerful Athenian family, were opposed to Miltiades and ready to help reinstate Hippias."

This sounds doubtful. The Alcmaeonidae included some of the leading supporters for the democracy, didn't they? In that case they would hardly have wanted to reinstate Hippias, and Miltiades was never really in charge of anything. <- Miltiades was given command of the battle; I'd say that is fairly substantial.

The text also states, "Hippias, tyrant of Athens, had been expelled in 510 BC by his people, with the assistance of Cleomenes, King of Sparta. He fled to the court of Darius to seek assistance." The link for Hippias goes to Hippias of Elis, a Sophist. The article there gives no hint that Hippias of Elis was also the "tyrant of Athens." I presume that these were two different people, so the link is incorrect. If they were in fact the same person, then the article about Hippias of Elis should be updated.

 * Well, the Hippias problem is fixed...as for the rest, Hippias may have been lying to Darius to convince him to invade, but I don't really know that particular aspect of the story. Adam Bishop 04:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

07/19/2004--- News out now that the battle date is possibly off by 1 month. The source I read put the date at August 12, explaining why the runner died after running the distance--heat stroke.
 * Link for that. It talks about it being a month earlier than the current Sept. 12 thinking, but I think that would be a lunar month, rather than a 30 or 31 day month. So it would probably be more like Aug. 13 to 15 or so.-- John Owens (talk) 19:10, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

That info about the moon and the Spartan calendar is interesting, but I wouldn't want to change the date based on the Phidippides story, which may never have happened anyway...I think there should be some corroborating sources as well, this sounds like the sort of thing that might have been published in a journal somewhere. Adam Bishop 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This was recently added:

 * "According to a new interpretation of the legend, Philippides was retreating from the battlefield of Marathon after the Persians gained the upper hand. According to the Dipakavani (an ancient commentary recently found in the Deccan Plateau of India), Philippides was being chased by a battalion on horseback, and could cover the said distance only because of his tremendous skill as a runner, presumably honed while on job as a professional messenger. The original legend concerning the message to be delivered seems to be a corruption entertained by Herodotus as a result of the known resume of Philippides, who was famed as a Olympian runner."

Through Google, at least, there is no evidence for this; Dipakavani does not show up at all. If this has been published anywhere, then we can put it back. Adam Bishop 16:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The number of Persian soldiers is exaggerated. They were no more than 20,000, more probably 15,000. These numbers can be derived by the fact that the Greeks, in order to have a front line equal to the Persian one, were compelled to deploy the central tribes on 4 ranks, instead than on 8, as usual: counting the Platea contingent, the Greek army had a front line of about 1,500 m. We can therefore assume the same length for the Persian army. The latter was formed by the 'artisbara' in the middle, the opilites (about 4,000) and the other Persian troops (about 5,000) on the wings, and the Scitian archers (2,000) in front of the 'artisbara'. Subtracting the front of the winger troops from the total (about 450 m) the result is the length of the 'artisbara' formation: about 1,000 m. Even adopting two ranks for the 'artisbara', they could be no more than 10,000 men, that is a 'baivarabam'. The total amount is therefore about 20,000 men. --Panairjdde 17:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well presumably the 26 000 comes from adding up the numbers in Herodotus. If so, that's a surprisingly accurate guess, if your estimate is 20 000 - usually Herodotus would have a wildly exaggerated number. Adam Bishop 07:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Persian Intentions
''Since it was obvious from the Persians' disposition that they did not intend to march to Athens, the Athenians waited for the Spartans. For eight days the armies peacefully confronted each other.''

What did the Persians intend to do? AFAIK they wanted to march to Athens, but the Greek Army blocked the way in a position that was hard to attack. It should clarified why the persians didn't move. Nevfennas

Casualty Rates
I find the whole concept of one sided casualty rates such as the Battle of Marathon given as fact a bit too much to beleive. For two armies adding to 30,000 men coming into contact assuming that at least 10% of the men actually engaged each other in hand to hand combat to state such a a low death rate for the Greeks seems more fiction than fact. 3000 men attacking each other at close range would generate more casualty than 300 men on either side.

I also know that the Battle of Marathon derives majority of its facts from the winning side and is part of our folk lore.

As a military history fan I tend to try and recreate battles in my mind to see if they pass the basic math and real life situations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.97.37.197 (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 4, 2006.

I agree, the fact that only 192 died for greece compared to 6400 persians seems very hard to swallow this would mean every one Greek killed more than thirty persians. I have also heard of an equation or formula used by Herodotus marathon and other greek victories that determined both strength and casualties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arvand (talk • contribs) 02:52, January 15, 2006.

I've read that at Salamis the Persians had the habit of multiplyimg the greek casualties by factor 4 for their records. However the large ratio at Marathon may not be as unbelievable as it seem. The Greek Hoplites were far better armoured and had longer weapons. Especially the persian archers were probably ill-suited for close-combat with a Hoplite, so once the Greek managed to get to them after breaking through the Persian Infantry, it was probably a one-sided battle. Nevfennas 10:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the article suggests, there was enough hand-to-hand combat in the center for the Greeks to retreat. Surely it had to do with casualties. Troops do not retreat from success. Also I played the part of the Greeks charging 200 yards in full armor. Admittedly I am out of shape, but running 200 yards with full battle gear as the article suggests, against a foe that is primarily made of archers (assuming 2 volleys fired; again I would argue perhaps more volleys were fired, assume half of the troops could fire, that makes it 20,000 arrows in the air...), and battling long enough for the middle to collapse and it causing and inadvertent double envelope seems more Hollywood than fact. Either fewer troops fought on that day and the victor, as you suggested, embellished the numbers, or similar to most battles of antiquities, casualty rates were very low due to lack of lethality of weapons and combat tactics. I state these points since the title of the article misleads the reader into thinking that Herodotus' account is factual. It jumps between fact and recount according to Herodotus. I would suggest the title should be "Battle According to Herodotus" unless there are other independent works that tell of the battle factually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.97.37.251 (talk • contribs) 04:32, January 24, 2006.

Another factor could be that the Greeks held the field at the end of the day- they would have killed any Persian wounded, whereas Greek casualties would have been cared for. Also, the figure may take into account those Persians who drowned in the local swaps. Canislupisbarca (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Swap pictures?
Would anyone have any objections to replacing the landscape scene currently showing in the infobox with Image:Hoplite72.JPG, which shows a hoplite about to stab a Persian? It seems slightly more fitting to me. RobthTalk 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh. Scratch that.  The quality's too low.  I'd still like to see it replaced with something more battle-related, though.  RobthTalk 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No I personally prefer the plains of marathon today, its mute testimony to the events that occurred 2500 years ago, I prefer no so bias images.

I have a picture of the plain showing the athenian burial mound with mts in background I took last fall. Any objection to post this picture? GeoTraveller 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of enemy numbers
Before anyone gives histerical numbers like 210 000 to 600,000 as ancient sources or modern estimates of 50,000-60,000 for persian numbers, can that individual provide some links to back up such funny stats. Also, this site is not intended to show patriotism, in this case Greek patriotism. Thank you.

Herodotus does not give numbers for the Persians as erroneously stated in the warbox. He only says it was "a large and well-equipped land-army" (book VI p. 94), see for example the english Herodotus translation at http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/herodotus/book06.htm. As for the 50,000-60,000 number see http://www.army.gr/n/g/archive/history/marathon/index.shtml among others Ikokki 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating a Liakopoulos-style claim that Greeks are inherently superior from all others because they are descendants of extraterrestials or gods (take your pick) and thus it is most reasonable that due to their racial superiority they beat up the barbarians despite huge numerical disadvantage. The only advantage that the Greeks had over their enemies was superior armament, superior physical ability and superior tactic. If anything the battle of Gaza in 201 BC showed that there was no racial superiority. I have added a few links to back up these numbers, probably I will add a couple more before I sleep tonight. Anyway the small numbers seem ridiculus. They originate from a time (late 19th- early 20th century), the height of modern imperialism when feelings of superiority of the industrial powers over other cultures lead to excesses. If 20,000 were the expeditionarry force and half of it landed in Eretria and half at Marathon (as originally said in the article) then the 10,000 lightly armed and probably un-athletic archers were an opportunity to attack to get loot for the hoplites, not a threat of the type that would lead half the generals to insist that the best course of action was to get locked up behind the wall. The landing force was most likely larger than the army Athenians and allies could hope to raise. Since there were 34,000 rowers at Salamis and 8,000 hoplites at Plataea, the military potential of Athens (every man between 18-55) was probably over 40,000 in 490 BC. This seems as a minimum rather than a maximum. Ikokki 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Some believe that the reason the battle occured after the long stalemate was that the Persians had decided to retreat to their ships. This seems believable, as they had to assume that Spartas troops would be arriving soon, so continuing the stalemate would not bring them any benefit (of course this could also explain a persian decision to finally attack the Greeks). If the persians were in the process of embarking and the Greek decided to exploit that with an attack they would have waited until a good part of the persians were already on the ships. This would have eliminated any threat from the persian cavalry, as embarking the horses was a more complex process than embarking the troops and would have been done first. By this way the persians could well have a 6 to 1 superiority in the overall numbers, but far less troops actually able to fight on the battlefield. Add to that the better equipment of the Hoplites and the confusions arising from the unusal fast charge of the Greek and you can easily imagine that the persian troops still on land lost their order during the onslaught. And once the persians were in a rout or pushed into the sea the casualty rate 32:1 starts getting quite believable, cause most of these were not killed fighting the Greek, but killed/drowned trying to run from them.Nevfennas 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, so you give me one source other than the proven exaggerated claims of Herodotus, and that is a Greek site, written Greek. Take into consideration that though 20 000 seems like too little for a 600 ship originally expedition, half of the force was wiped out by sea. There may have been anywhere from 40,000-50,000 originally on the Persian forces, but after the storm and by the time they reached the number was indedd closer to 20,000-26000.

Here are some non Greek, non Persian sites, for now they outnumber your's care to show any more sources with such high numbers that are also please not Greek, and show its blind patriotism with a Greek flag on the front.

These sites below all back my stats and arguments. http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/persianwararticles/a/MarathonBattle.htm http://www.livius.org/man-md/marathon/marathon.html http://mo.essortment.com/thebattleofma_rwnl.htm http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/marathon.htm http://www.historylink102.com/greece3/battle-marathon.htm

Also if you ever wish to know a more accurrate stat on persian forces when ever they faced the Greeks, take the Herodotus claimed number and divide it by 10, this usually gives one a far more accurrate reading.

 * half of the force was wiped out by sea what exactly are you referring to? I can't find these losses in the article unless you mean the ships lost in the storm at Cape Athos. But that was an operation 2 years earlier. The persian army at marathon had not yet suffered major losses, save a possible detached force laying siege to Eretria. Nevfennas 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the sites you mention how they calculated the numbers. On the other hand I've already put two ways in the text that calculate the big numbers. I'll give you a third: If the Persians had a 2,000-front and fought in thirty ranks as Xenophon mentions in "Cyrus's education" here are 60,000. If and when you change back the number on the warbox GIVE ALSO IN THE TEXT WHY THE NUMBER WAS LOW. Do not create contradicitons between the warbox and the text. When was the storm you mention? Neither Herodotus nor any historian mentions any storm in Darius's second campaign. While there were losses in Eretria, they were not really significant since there was no real battle. I've heard the Herodotus 10 rule. It dates from the time when there was much less respect for his work than now. So, the Persians came with 60 ships? Naxos, Eretria and Athens and Sparta could match that in 490 BC. Were there 170,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry in Thermopylae? The Alliance of Corinth plus Thessaly, Argos, Thebes, Crete and the northern Greek states could match that, why not face the Persian Army in the open plain of the Strymon valley, the limit of the greek world back then? Was the Persian fleet 121 ships? Athens alone had more. Does Herodotus exxagerate? Yes he does. But not THAT much, he was a historian, not a  logographos .

I think I now see you problem, we have confused the first expedition and second expedition to Greece. This really large force you are talking about that took on Sparta and Corinth came later on Xerxes, when the grand invasion began in 480 BCE. Marathon occurred shortly after the breaking of the rebellions in Ionia because Darius felt the revolts would never be put down until mainland greece was finished first. On the Persian's first expedition Darius severly underestimated the Greeks taking not many forces. When he gets pushed back, Xerxes plans the second invasion that came ten years after 490 BCE one. Xerxes was present on the first expedition so he decided that to next time take a much larger force. I think you have mistkaed Darius' and Xerxes' expeditions haven't you? By the way, I don't mind the current 20,000-60,000 range, to me that is a good one.

Furthermore, you have shown only Herodotus accounts (known bias and exaggeration) and a patriotic Greek site. If you can find 4-5 other sources that have the same stats then we will have a tie. Also the 10 policy is only meant for stats on the 1st expedition not the second. On the second involving Xerxes, Herodotus just starts pullimg numbers out of his ass like plataea, there is no longer a constant formula he usues to calculate strength and casualties. Like, consider 159 casualties for Greeks at Plataea, I'm sorry thats just bull, it seems to be Greek writers on their own history especially regarding wars are not reliable. Romans do a better job usually, hence Plutarch's number of 1360 casualties at plataea.

Also the war box and article was uniform, until you came along and made several bias changes, several admins had come to a consensus. Don't accuse me, everything was fine and agreed upon before.

- There were three Persian invasions in Greece, in 492 BC by Mardonius which ended after a storm off Cape Athos, the second in 490 BC by Datis and Artafernes which ended in Marathon and the third by Xerxes in 480 BC that ended in Plataea. I did not change the numbers mister anonymous without references, which the original article did not have. There is no reason mr anonymous why modern greek writers should be biased on their history, no moral gain comes from claiming to defeat larger forces than they did. Plutarch BTW was Greek, from Kynos Kefales in Boeotia, he only lived in the Grecoroman era (30 BC - 330 AD). His biographies are in 8th grade ancient greek literature courses. Herodotus is biased in favor of his patrons Athens and Sparta, he is not Thucydides, but unlike logographers for example Ecateus he travelled in the Greek world and the Persian empire,as far as Egypt in order to gain information for his book. He was not a thorough checker of his sources but wrote down the numbers he heard from his hosts, he did not make them up out of the blue, mr anonymous. And if you have anything to add in the text why the numbers were small, add them. This is what wikipedia is supossed to be about mr anonymousIkokki 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey bud, Why did the tone get so bad all of a sudden, I would like to add I have no grudges against you right now. Thanks for the correction on Plutarch though. The first operation in 492BCE you were talking about wasn't that not so much the goal to capture Greece but darius' desire to have a foothold in Europe by capturing Macedonia and Thrace. I did not realize capturing Greece was a priority in that mission, I just thought it was to quell rebellions in Ionia and capture Thrace and Macedonia. The current stats in the article I prefer, for you have kindly put both, the sources for 20,000-26,000 with the sources I gave you and the ones you preferred, which I have no objection to, as long as there is both sides of the stories, something with such varying numbers should have both sets of numbers. I also appreciate you inserted those sources and the numbers 20,000 into the article, I was a little hesitant for I am still a little computer iliterate, and feared I would screw up the formatting of the page. I currently like the current state of numbers. We have a wider range of numbers for the Persian numbers with sources backing the lower end and higher end. This way the readers and users have both sets and can make their own interpretations and perspectives and hey, thats all that history is right: interpretations of past ideas, facts and events. I hope I have not behaved rudely, I hope my former comments were not too crude, I was just trying to state my point.

Also Ikokki, 3 out of 4 of these sources you gave advocating the higher end numbers are in Greek (the numbered ones in the article), it would be more useful if the sources were in English, then a higher percentage of the people can see and believe the numbers, don't you think. Also, why would contemporary greeks show patriotism by bloating numbers strength and casualties, perhaps modern greeks would not, but there is without doubt that ancient ones will, we continue to have modern estimates by historians usually lower than the earlier souces, hence Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataea. And let's not even get into the tales of the idiot Arrian and Curtius. And unforunately too many of the numbers we have today are either closely related to or simply are the same ancient sources that are without a doubt, bias and exaggerated.

Mardonius's campaign in 492 BC probably did not have the intention of conquering Athens and Eretria but since he crossed the borders of the Hellenic Republic it is written in our history books as the first invasion. I am very well aware that most of the links I added are not english as the two more references I will add, but this is because there are few sources in English who claim large numbers. This probably is because the consensus that formed 100 years ago in Oxbridge and spread to the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world was that the numbers were small. The change of tone came when I thout I read that by adding referenced data I screwed up. Now if we can add up more references I think we can get featured article status. About Curtius I don't know since we didn't do Latin in school (except those going for literature). As for Arrian, the first Greek governor of a Roman province, I disagree but this is not the appropriate page. Oh and the battle of Gaza was in 201 BC as I fixed Ikokki 10:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert on things ancient, but is there anyway of cutting down the article's discussion of numbers? It really detracts from the article, it seems there is too much on every greek man and his dog's estimation of the size of the force. I understand that it's a debated issue, but it's really too much.--Evilbred (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Agroteras Thusia
It is because of the non-significance of such an event in our days. It was way important when associated with the Battle of Marathon and that is why the EB 1911 had a topic for that but we do not really need any topic for that since it is part of the past and so few tangible sources can be used in improving the two lines of text present on the article Agroteras Thusia. Lincher 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You will have no contest from me. I think we need to add section where they write about this sacrifice, the appearance of Theseus on the side of the Athenians during the battle (mentioned by Plutarch) and perhaps the claimed supernatural event of 1930Ikokki 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I also vote for the merger. DocWatson42 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since much more than 5 days have passed without contest I have proceeded with the merge. Now we have a new section that needs expansion...Ikokki 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment
Likely quite worthy of GA-status. The infobox picture is a nice touch. And the maps taken from USMA are gorgeous and perfect. I love articles with lots of pictures and maps. This article is long and detailed and thorough, and worthy of the subject it tackles. Just one criticism - expand the introduction to indicate the battle's fame and importance in the eyes of modern military historians, and mention the connection to the origin of the concept of the Marathon (race). LordAmeth 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Information needed in article
Who are the Plateans? Who was Kallimachus? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review
I've dropped by to do a GA review of your article. I'm impressed by the readability, the fine and informative graphics and info boxes and the good balance between vocabulary and readability. All it needs for promotion to GA status is a longer lead, written to the WP:LEAD standard, inline references for the historical sources and background sections. I need to see at least one reference per section and prefer at least one per paragraph. The objective is so that a curious reader can jump to your sources to read more, if they're interested.

I'll put the article on hold to let you all take a look at these issues. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I've expanded the lead section, as for inline references I'll add at a later time. At this point I'm dedicating more energy at the main article Greco-Persian Wars Ikokki 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you! The lead now meets the standard. Does anyone else have time to do the inline refs? --CTS Wyneken (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I passed the article anyway. I'm making the assumption you all intend to keep at it. I'd suggest next a peer review on the road to FA. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Disposition of Forces
What do people think about a section discussing the disposition of forces prior to the battle? The common view, that the Persians were fighting with their backs to the sea, is known to be controversial and seems odd in several respects. If the Persians were responsible for beginning the battle, why would they choose such an unfavorable position? It also leaves their left flank completely exposed to the Greeks approaching from the west. Herodotus also never mentions that they were boarding the ships at the time, which would possibly explain it. The Osprey publication on the battle (Marathon 490 BC) offers what I think is a better explanation, namely that a perpendicular orientation with the Persians' left flank anchored on the shoreline makes much better sense from a tactical perspective. I'm not talking a major revision of the article, just a mention that there are other possibilities.

 * The article mentions the boarding the ships hypothesis without adopting it. A new disposition section would be good if it is properly cited, though generally a section takes more than one paragraph. The biggest stumbling block for the advancement of the article is copyediting, not lack of content. By the way it is best to sign one's commnents using the four wikis ~ Ikokki 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek Epigram
I have a few problems with the translation of that epigram. My Greek isn't the greatest, but that translation bears only the slightest relationship to what was actually said. Anyone want to clean it up?

I would translate it more as something like 'Fighting for Greece, the Athenians at Marathon laid low the might of the gilded Medes'

 * Ελλήνων προμαχούντες Αθηναίοι Μαραθώνι
 * χρυσοφόρων Μήδων εστόρεσαν δύναμιν

 * Word to word:
 * Ελλήνων: Of the Hellenes
 * προμαχούντες: Fighting first
 * Αθηναίοι: Athenians
 * Μαραθώνι: In Marathon
 * χρυσοφόρων : Bearing gold, gilded
 * Μήδων: Medes
 * εστόρεσαν: humiliated
 * δύναμιν: force/power

 * To write "fighting for Greece" is totally wrong, the idea of naming a country "Greece" or "Persia" or "Libya" is a Roman concept, ancient Greek sources refere to the states as "the Greeks","the Persians" and "the Libyans".Thus a translation would be something like

 * Athenians, fighting first for (or among) the Greeks in Marathon
 * Humiliated the force (or power) of the gilded Medes

 * Problem is, I ain't a poet and most definitely I do not want the mess of translation of the epigram at Battle of ThermopylaeIkokki 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the translation of the epigram is that it misses the flavor of the original. The attributive participle προμαχούντες implies not only those fighters out in front, or vanguard, but also those who provide protection for others, and in that sense, champions. The aorist εστόρεσαν means strew or spread, or perhaps here, scatter. So, trying to keep word order as close to the original as possible:

The Greeks' champions, the Athenians at Marathon, did the power scatter of the gold-bearing Medes.

Frumentarius 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear Frumentarius

 * You're absolutely right about προμαχούντες, and I've tried to render it in my recent edit as 'fighting in the forefront'. 'Gilded' is a good translation for χρυσοφόρων, but the adjective could mean 'wearing gold' or 'carrying gold'.  I suspect that Simonides may have been thinking of the golden apples famously carried on their spearheads by the Immortals, so perhaps 'gold-bearing' might do it.

 * Djwilms (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Style
I think the article could be much better written. I have made a start with the first two sections. Rintrah 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your assistance. I am not a native english speaker, thus my contributions tend to be a little messy. Ikokki 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph
This needs expansion: In 510 BC, the Athenian people, with the assistance of Cleomenes I, King of Sparta, expelled Hippias, who had ruled as tyrant of Athens.[5] Fleeing to the court of Darius, he sought the emperor's aid.[6]. On its own it seems isolated. It does not connect strongly enough with the rest of the section. Rintrah 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole Background section needs expansion. It is difficult to read because many events are described without their context. Rintrah 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Size of Opposing Forces
Currently the third paragraph of Size of Opposing Forces is very messy. I suggest it be rewritten to be made readable. I can see this article is slowly getting better. Rintrah 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much. I am very tied up, else I would expand what was necessary Ikokki 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making really good progress on the article. It is much better than what it was when I first encountered it. Much of it is a joy to read. Let's get to work on fixing the whole article (I haven't gone through everything yet.) I should also give credit where credit is due: your work on the article is invaluable. Rintrah 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

evidence?
From the last section:
 * Evidence that the runner did exist and did run is given by the following popular legend. . .

Did the authors cited make the rather astounding claim that a folktale first recorded in the 19th century is evidence of events that took place more than 2000 years earlier? If they do, do they give any kind of supporting argument for the far-fetched claim that there's an unbroken oral chain of transmission stretching back to the time of the battle? One that gives a version of the story so similar to the written accounts? (Imagine a 2500-year-long game of Chinese whispers.) Even if they do, do we need to repeat their claims without question?

It's certainly interesting and relevant that there were fairly modern Greek folktales about the battle, and I'm glad they were included here, but I really don't think they should be presented as evidence for any of the stories; it should suffice to say they existed. —Charles P._ (Mirv) 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Kakrides compiled a book about how the ancient Greeks were seen in later legend. In his book he includes a longer version of this passage. In the E Istorika dedicated to the battle of Marathon, the last article (about 4 pages long with pictures) is about the Marathon run where, after a rather long discussion with references over whether there was a runner and which route he took this legend is given as further evidence (it is called weak evidence though) that the runner existed. Treat it like the other tales mentioned by Kakrides, like that from Aetoloacarnania that the ancient Greeks were 6 meter tall. Ikokki 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A picture
The picture which has a caption of lancers is only partially correct. Those are Persian Immortals. AllStarZ 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Map With Location Needed
Page needs regional map with Marathon clearly marked.

Datis Killed?
Having read Herodotus inside and outside on several occasions I don't remember him (with his authority on the matter) claimng that Datis, one of the Persian maritime and Land Forces Command being killed in action (KIA) at Marathon. Ikkoki correct me if I am wrong but Herodotus never claims this - correct? To the best of my knowledge this is probably Cteisas' claim. I understand that there is an appropriate question mark in the warbox, but isn't there a better way to illustrate the conflicting views of Herodotus and Cteisas, perhaps by adding their names in brackets somewhere or in the article? Sorry is I am being a little nit-picky. --Arsenous Commodore 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Herodotus does not claim so, in fact he has him returning a statue to Delos. It is Ctesias who claims so and claims that the failure of the Athenians to return his body caused Xerxes' invasion (something unlikely, the Greeks returned the bodies of the dead when asked) Ikokki 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A-class review
I do not have something more to add to this article. The only real task left if the rewrite is complete is to renominate for A-class status Ikokki 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

recorrection of name
the place Marathon is in greek Μαραθών genitivus Μαραθῶνος.It is derived from the once abudance there of the plant μάραθον genitivus μαράθου plural μάραθα genitivus μαράθων. Your correction was totally wrong.

Thanatos666 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I never knew that. In any case, shouldn't the definite article match the noun "mache" in case, number, and gender? Τη Mάχη? As it is now, it looks like it would be translated: battle of the Marathons. - Christopher 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

reply
I'm using standard latin transliteration for speed.

mache belongs to first or alpha or (-as) -es (for male)  -a -e (for female) declension (same-analogous to latin -a). Marathon to third or labial and velar declension(same-analogous to latin 3-5 declensions meaning if you're accustomed to other classification, declensions other than -a and -us-um).

I don't understand why you said that the article should match the noun. It's " He mache tou Marathonos". article-noun matching (as almost everything else) is pretty much the same in greek as in latin.(latin ofcourse doesn't have an article.by this I mean noun matching in general)

for more greek see wiki Ancient Greek Grammar or the rest of the internet for broader treatises.

Singular

N he  mache   ,ho   Marathon

G tes maches  ,tou  Marathonos

D tei machei  ,toi  Marathoni

A ten machen  ,ton  Marathona

V o   mache   ,o    Marathon

Plural   (plural of Marathon not widely used)

N hai machai  ,hoi  Marathones

G ton machon  ,ton  Marathonon

D tais machais ,tois Marathosi

A tas machas  ,tous Marathonas

V o   machai  ,o    Marathones

Dual      (dual of Marathon not widely used)

N/A to  macha    ,to   Marathone

G/D toin machain ,toin Marathonoin

at your service

Thanatos | talk 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Kynaigeirus? I can not find anything on google about him, except for the same paragraph about him placed here, though on many different sites. Source needed, I think!

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Add inline citations for:
 * 1) "However, he was born a few years after the battle, and it is believed he wrote his book after the Peace of Callias (449 BC/448 BC)."
 * 2) "In order for the Athenians to revolt, two things would need to happen: the populace would need to be encouraged to revolt, and the Athenian army would have to leave Athens so that they could not crush it."
 * 3) "Some of the poor who remembered Peisistratus well, since he had given them jobs, probably hoped for a victory of the Persians and a change in regime to give them more power, which is one of the reasons Hippias ordered the landing in Marathon where the vast majority of local inhabitants were from these social classes."
 * 4) Some claim that Artaphernes took part of the Persian army and laid siege to Eretria, while the remainder of the army crossed with Datis and landed in the Bay of Marathon.
 * 5) Others claim that the events happened consecutively: at first Eretria was besieged and fell, and later the whole army landed at Schinias beach.
 * 6) "It states: "The cavalry left. When Datis surrendered and was ready for retreat, the Ionians climbed the trees and gave the Athenians the signal that the cavalry had left. And when Miltiades realized that, he attacked and thus won. From there comes the above-mentioned quote, which is used when someone breaks ranks before battle"."
 * 7) "Proponents of the former opinion note the following arguments: the ancient Greeks—as indicated by the surviving statues—were in very good physical condition (the hoplite run had recently become an Olympic sport), and if they had run the entire distance, it would have been covered in about 5 minutes, whereas if they had marched, it would have probably taken 10, enough time for the Persians to react, which they did not."
 * 8) "Some modern historians doubt they traveled so fast."
 * 9) "The tomb was excavated in the 1880s by German archeologists."
 * 10) "See D.W. Olson et al., "The Moon and the Marathon", Sky & Telescope Sep. 2004, pp. 34—41.1" Convert this to an inline citation.
 * 11) "This phenomenon appears to have also been reported in the modern era: according to newspapers of the time in the year 1930, visitors to the region claimed to have heard a sound of metal clashes and screams coming from the battlefield."

If sources can't be found, either consider removing them or inserting them into hidden comments until one is found. If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. I will leave notices on the talk pages of the main contributors to this article along with related WikiProjects to ensure that the above issues are addressed by the appropriate people. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, --Nehrams2020 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I have delisted the article as a GA at this time since the above issues were not addressed. If they are fixed at some point, please renominate again at WP:GAN, it should have little problems passing. The article was a very interesting read, and I hope it is returned to GA status. If you disagree with this review you can seek an alternate assessment at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. I have modified the page history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's been a while since the above review, but I have finally got round to editing this article to (hopefully) return it to GA status. I have substantially reworked the article to increase its logical progression, to improve the quality of the English, and to remove irrelevant information. I have also removed the offending statements listed above. I think this article now exceeds the requirements for GA, and I hope it should be possible to work this article up to featured article status relatively easily. If anyone would care to give some feedback on what might be required for FA status, please do! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

use of units in marathon distance
The page says (at least, in my locale) "The distance eventually became fixed at 26 miles (42 km) and 325 yards (297 m)". Clearly it is inappropriate to make two separate unit conversions - 26 miles 325 yards is certainly not equal to 42km 297m as a reader might infer from this text.

It should read something like "The distance eventually became fixed at 26 miles and 325 yards (42 km)" but I don't know enough syntax for the Convert macro to make this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.137.246 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Jubilee?
Does anyone know if the 2.500 year memory of the battle is going to be celebrated this summer in Greece, or among classical scholars? Not too often you have an occasion to fete an event with a fixed date this far back into history. Strausszek (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You may see the Greek 2 Euros' commemorative coin in the Greek article. ---Pagaeos (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Miltiades?
Miltiades ordered the two tribes that were forming the center of the Greek formation, the Leontis tribe led by Themistocles and the Antiochis tribe led by Aristides, to be arranged in the depth of 4 ranks while the rest of the tribes at their flanks were in ranks of 8.[73][74]. I read those sources, and neither Herodotus not Plutarch state that it was Miltiades who ordered this. I may be interpreting the sources incorrectly, but I am pretty sure that this part is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.133.229 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"the Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings"
Its included in the introduction and then is included in the body of the article verbatim. The introduction sentence needs to be summarized and rephrased. I will summarize and rephrase the introduction if no one else does. You have 24hours. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources: "Many changes that were subsequent with ancient historians ..
"Many changes that were subsequent with ancient historians, despite following in his footsteps, criticised Herodotus, starting with Thucydides."

The grammar of this sentence is obscure, it seems we have different subjects in the first ("Many changes that were subsequent with") and second half ("ancient historians ... starting with Thucydides.".

Can someone explain and maybe rephrase?

46.115.23.2 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Really outdated
The historiography of this article is really outdated! In 2010 was published Peter Krentz's The Battle of Marathon and in 2014 Dennis Fink's The Battle of Marathon in Scholarship, a synthesis of all the studies about the battle written from 1850 to 2014. I used this books to rewrite the article on it.wiki and I want to suggest you to traduce it, because the present version of this article is obsolete and a lot of aspects of the battle aren't treated at all (e.g. the reconstruction of the battlefield)! --Epìdosis (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why only thin the center?
If the intention was to match the length of the Persian line and not get outflanked, why did Miltiades only stretch the center and leave the sides 8 men deep? Why not thin out the entire line by a smaller margin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.127.244 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tyrant Hippias and semi-colons
How many times are you folks going to mention Hippias was a tyrant. You only have to do it once - not three times. I do not find the article's usage of semi-colons enjoyable. I think in this article, semi-colons are misused. This is a good article - but you folks have some redundant phrases (half-baked sentences) - Don't respond. I am only only reading the article and will never be back again. Good luck! 66.234.58.131 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Decisive
It says that 'greek victory' is "informative enough" however this is far from correct - we should always be as detailed as possible. The way I see it, it was definitely decisive since this battle was the turning point. So why not decisive? Green547 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

 * No objections? Green547 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813093010/http://www.e-marathon.gr:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54 to http://e-marathon.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Marathon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-marathon.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=54
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923173917/http://www.army.gr/files/File/History_En/Events/The%20Battle%20Of%20Marathon.pdf to http://www.army.gr/files/File/History_En/Events/The%20Battle%20Of%20Marathon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: A set of five new maps to illustrate the course of the battle
Currently the section describing the battle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon#Battle, has one map (Persians in red, Greeks in blue) that tries to show all the phases of this battle. It is complicated and, I think, makes it hard to understand what happened there. It also contains an error. The article specifically states that Persian cavalry were “not engaged”, yet the map shows two Persian cavalry units right in the middle of the struggle.

I have worked with one of the mapmakers at the map workshop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop) to create a series of simple maps, that accompany the text as it stands today, and that attempts to illustrate each of the phases of this battle. The project was completed in March 2021.

The maps are to scale and closely match the existing topography of present-day Marathon. The maps also show the only two remaining relics of the battle, the Tumulus Mound and the Trophy of Marathon. The lineup of the two armies on the day of the battle conforms to the article:

“…the Athenian army marched quickly to block the two exits from the plain of Marathon, and prevent the Persians moving inland."[35][36]

"The camp of the Athenians was located on a spur of mount Agrieliki next to the plain of Marathon; remains of its fortifications are still visible."[79] The phases of the battle itself are based on the location of the Tumulus Mound, that might show the location of heaviest Greek losses, and the Trophy of Marathon, that might show the location of heaviest Persian losses.

I enjoyed working with the mapmaker on this project, he is very much the professional. But I don’t know if what we have done is appropriate for this article. In any case I have set up the proposed draft of the new “Battle” section in my sand box, here: (link deleted), and I would welcome any comments. What do you think? Joe Bfsplk (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This proposal has been here for about 3 months, and about 20 of you (I think) have clicked through to my sandbox to see what I am proposing. Having seen no objections, I plan to insert the proposed set of maps over the next few weeks. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong date for the battle
the date needs to be changed. It was, according to Plutarch, Camillus §Cam.19.3 Again, on the sixth day of the month of Boedromion the Greeks defeated the Persians at Marathon, That isn't the 17th of μεταγειτνιων. Luxporphyra (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Numerous mentions of Athens lack hyperlinks
It appears some of the mentions of Athens lack the hyperlinks seen for other mentions of it.

title: Talk:Battle of Marathon


text:
Balance of trade

Balance of trade is the difference between the monetary value of a nation's exports and imports over a certain time period. Sometimes a distinction is made between a balance of trade for goods versus one for services. The balance of trade measures a flow variable of exports and imports over a given period of time. The notion of the balance of trade does not mean that exports and imports are "in balance" with each other.

If a country exports a greater value than it imports, it has a trade surplus or positive trade balance, and conversely, if a country imports a greater value than it exports, it has a trade deficit or negative trade balance. As of 2016, about 60 out of 200 countries have a trade surplus. The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists.

Explanation
The balance of trade forms part of the current account, which includes other transactions such as income from the net international investment position as well as international aid. If the current account is in surplus, the country's net international asset position increases correspondingly. Equally, a deficit decreases the net international asset position.

The trade balance is identical to the difference between a country's output and its domestic demand (the difference between what goods a country produces and how many goods it buys from abroad; this does not include money re-spent on foreign stock, nor does it factor in the concept of importing goods to produce for the domestic market).

Measuring the balance of trade can be problematic because of problems with recording and collecting data. As an illustration of this problem, when official data for all the world's countries are added up, exports exceed imports by almost 1%; it appears the world is running a positive balance of trade with itself. This cannot be true, because all transactions involve an equal credit or debit in the account of each nation. The discrepancy is widely believed to be explained by transactions intended to launder money or evade taxes, smuggling and other visibility problems. While the accuracy of developing countries' statistics would be suspicious, most of the discrepancy actually occurs between developed countries of trusted statistics.

Factors that can affect the balance of trade include:
 * The cost of production (land, labor, capital, taxes, incentives, etc.) in the exporting economy vis-à-vis those in the importing economy;
 * The cost and availability of raw materials, intermediate goods and other inputs;
 * Currency exchange rate movements;
 * Multilateral, bilateral and unilateral taxes or restrictions on trade;
 * Non-tariff barriers such as environmental, health or safety standards;
 * The availability of adequate foreign exchange with which to pay for imports; and
 * Prices of goods manufactured at home (influenced by the responsiveness of supply)

In addition, the trade balance is likely to differ across the business cycle. In export-led growth (such as oil and early industrial goods), the balance of trade will shift towards exports during an economic expansion. However, with domestic demand-led growth (as in the United States and Australia) the trade balance will shift towards imports at the same stage in the business cycle.

The monetary balance of trade is different from the physical balance of trade (which is expressed in amount of raw materials, known also as Total Material Consumption). Developed countries usually import a substantial amount of raw materials from developing countries. Typically, these imported materials are transformed into finished products and might be exported after adding value. Financial trade balance statistics conceal material flow. Most developed countries have a large physical trade deficit because they consume more raw materials than they produce.

Historical example
Many countries in early modern Europe adopted a policy of mercantilism, which theorized that a trade surplus was beneficial to a country. Mercantilist ideas also influenced how European nations regulated trade policies with their colonies, promoting the idea that natural resources and cash crops should be exported to Europe, with processed goods being exported back to the colonies in return. Ideas such as bullionism spurred the popularity of mercantilism in European governments.

An early statement concerning the balance of trade appeared in Discourse of the Common Wealth of this Realm of England, 1549: "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them." Similarly, a systematic and coherent explanation of balance of trade was made public through Thomas Mun's 1630 "England's treasure by foreign trade, or, The balance of our foreign trade is the rule of our treasure".

Since the mid-1980s, the United States has had a growing deficit in tradeable goods, especially with Asian nations (China and Japan) which now hold large sums of U.S debt that has in part funded the consumption. The U.S. has a trade surplus with nations such as Australia. The issue of trade deficits can be complex. Trade deficits generated in tradeable goods such as manufactured goods or software may impact domestic employment to different degrees than do trade deficits in raw materials.

Economies that have savings surpluses, such as Japan and Germany, typically run trade surpluses. China, a high-growth economy, has tended to run trade surpluses. A higher savings rate generally corresponds to a trade surplus. Correspondingly, the U.S. with its lower savings rate has tended to run high trade deficits, especially with Asian nations.

Some have said that China pursues a mercantilist economic policy. Russia pursues a policy based on protectionism, according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries.

Views on economic impact
The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists. According to the IMF trade deficits can cause a balance of payments problem, which can affect foreign exchange shortages and hurt countries. On the other hand, Joseph Stiglitz points out that countries running surpluses exert a "negative externality" on trading partners, and pose a threat to global prosperity, far more than those in deficit. Ben Bernanke argues that "persistent imbalances within the euro zone are... unhealthy, as they lead to financial imbalances as well as to unbalanced growth. The fact that Germany is selling so much more than it is buying redirects demand from its neighbors (as well as from other countries around the world), reducing output and employment outside Germany." According to Carla Norrlöf, there are three main benefits to trade deficits for the United States:

 * 1) Greater consumption than production: the US enjoys the better side of the bargain by being able to consume more than it produces
 * 2) Usage of efficiently produced foreign-made intermediate goods is productivity-enhancing for US firms: the US makes the most effective use of the global division of labor
 * 3) A large market that other countries are reliant on for exports enhances American bargaining power in trade negotiations

A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by economists at the International Monetary Fund and University of California, Berkeley, found in a study of 151 countries over 1963-2014 that the imposition of tariffs had little effect on the trade balance.

Adam Smith on the balance of trade
"In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous.

Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium."

Keynesian theory
In the last few years of his life, John Maynard Keynes was much preoccupied with the question of balance in international trade. He was the leader of the British delegation to the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in 1944 that established the Bretton Woods system of international currency management. He was the principal author of a proposal – the so-called Keynes Plan – for an International Clearing Union. The two governing principles of the plan were that the problem of settling outstanding balances should be solved by 'creating' additional 'international money', and that debtor and creditor should be treated almost alike as disturbers of equilibrium. In the event, though, the plans were rejected, in part because "American opinion was naturally reluctant to accept the principle of equality of treatment so novel in debtor-creditor relationships".

The new system is not founded on free-trade (liberalisation of foreign trade ) but rather on the regulation of international trade, in order to eliminate trade imbalances: the nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it, and in doing so they would automatically clear other nations' deficits. He proposed a global bank that would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange and would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country's trade deficit or trade surplus. Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account at the International Clearing Union. He pointed out that surpluses lead to weak global aggregate demand – countries running surpluses exert a "negative externality" on trading partners, and posed far more than those in deficit, a threat to global prosperity. In "National Self-Sufficiency" The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933), he already highlighted the problems created by free trade.

His view, supported by many economists and commentators at the time, was that creditor nations may be just as responsible as debtor nations for disequilibrium in exchanges and that both should be under an obligation to bring trade back into a state of balance. Failure for them to do so could have serious consequences. In the words of Geoffrey Crowther, then editor of The Economist, "If the economic relationships between nations are not, by one means or another, brought fairly close to balance, then there is no set of financial arrangements that can rescue the world from the impoverishing results of chaos."

These ideas were informed by events prior to the Great Depression when – in the opinion of Keynes and others – international lending, primarily by the U.S., exceeded the capacity of sound investment and so got diverted into non-productive and speculative uses, which in turn invited default and a sudden stop to the process of lending.

Influenced by Keynes, economics texts in the immediate post-war period put a significant emphasis on balance in trade. For example, the second edition of the popular introductory textbook, An Outline of Money, devoted the last three of its ten chapters to questions of foreign exchange management and in particular the 'problem of balance'. However, in more recent years, since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, with the increasing influence of monetarist schools of thought in the 1980s, and particularly in the face of large sustained trade imbalances, these concerns – and particularly concerns about the destabilising effects of large trade surpluses – have largely disappeared from mainstream economics discourse and Keynes' insights have slipped from view. They are receiving some attention again in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–08.

Monetarist theory
Prior to 20th-century monetarist theory, the 19th-century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France (the customhouse would record an import of 70 francs), and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit of 20 against the ledger of France.This is not true for the current account that would be in surplus.

By reductio ad absurdum, Bastiat argued that the national trade deficit was an indicator of a successful economy, rather than a failing one. Bastiat predicted that a successful, growing economy would result in greater trade deficits, and an unsuccessful, shrinking economy would result in lower trade deficits. This was later, in the 20th century, echoed by economist Milton Friedman.

In the 1980s, Friedman, a Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist and a proponent of monetarism, contended that some of the concerns of trade deficits are unfair criticisms in an attempt to push macroeconomic policies favorable to exporting industries.

Friedman argued that trade deficits are not necessarily important, as high exports raise the value of the currency, reducing aforementioned exports, and vice versa for imports, thus naturally removing trade deficits not due to investment. Since 1971, when the Nixon administration decided to abolish fixed exchange rates, America's Current Account accumulated trade deficits have totaled $7.75 trillion as of 2010. This deficit exists as it is matched by investment coming into the United States – purely by the definition of the balance of payments, any current account deficit that exists is matched by an inflow of foreign investment.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. had experienced high inflation and Friedman's policy positions tended to defend the stronger dollar at that time. He stated his belief that these trade deficits were not necessarily harmful to the economy at the time since the currency comes back to the country (country A sells to country B, country B sells to country C who buys from country A, but the trade deficit only includes A and B). However, it may be in one form or another including the possible tradeoff of foreign control of assets. In his view, the "worst-case scenario" of the currency never returning to the country of origin was actually the best possible outcome: the country actually purchased its goods by exchanging them for pieces of cheaply made paper. As Friedman put it, this would be the same result as if the exporting country burned the dollars it earned, never returning it to market circulation.

This position is a more refined version of the theorem first discovered by David Hume. Hume argued that England could not permanently gain from exports, because hoarding gold (i.e., currency) would make gold more plentiful in England; therefore, the prices of English goods would rise, making them less attractive exports and making foreign goods more attractive imports. In this way, countries' trade balances would balance out.

Friedman presented his analysis of the balance of trade in Free to Choose, widely considered his most significant popular work.

Trade balance’s effects upon a nation's GDP
Exports directly increase and imports directly reduce a nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is a positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to the balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of the nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic product (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP; however, foreign made goods sold (e.g., retail) contribute to total GDP.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Balance of trade


text:
Talk:Balance of trade

American vs universal opinion
There has been a recent edit warring on this page (beginning with this edit) regarding the statement:
 * The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by trade experts and economists.

An editor ( prefers the wording
 * The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by American trade experts and American economists.

noting that this idea may be unique to American experts and not universally held. The cited source does not identify the opinion and a peculiarly American idea, as pointed out by in this edit summary, although the author and publisher of the source are both Americans.

I would recommend to Shharp that if they wish to have their preferred wording, they must provide a reliable source showing that opinions of experts in other countries differ from those of US authors.

I invite and urge both and  to join this discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a survey of leading economists (at least one quarter are non-Americans) where they take a position on whether "a typical country" can boost citizens' welfare by reducing trade deficits: they overwhelmingly disagree that reducing trade deficits has to be good. The text that the editor has been adding is about specific cases of trade deficits and about some of the harms that trade deficits can cause. It's akin to wanting to try to dispute "Economists do not believe that trade harms the average citizen's welfare" with this or that economist disputing a specific trade agreement or this or that economist pointing out some of the harms that trade can cause. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources presented don't show consensus among economists on the effects of the trade deficit on the economy. the sentence "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected by trade experts and economists, is therefore completely false.

The IMF writes exactly that trade deficit can be harmful

A survey of economists with at "least one quarter are non-Americans", is not enough to say that there is a consensus in the world.

Shharp (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Shharp

 * Shharp, the IMF source you cite states that trade imbalances can be harmful if they lead to balance of payment problems that then lead to foreign exchange shortages. However, the sentence in question states that "the notion that trade imbalances are bad in and of themselves is widely rejected." So your source is not talking about trade balances themselves, but rather trade balances that lead to balance of payment problems. Not being an economist, I don't know that the two are always related, but your source says that the one can lead to the other (i.e. that it is not always the case), so the trade deficit per se is not the bad thing, but rather the possible (but not inevitable) consequence of the trade deficit. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I presented the analyses of Stiglitz  and Bernanke (among the most renowned American economists) who believe that trade deficits are harmful.

And a country such as China considers the trade balance as an important factor: it pursues a mercantilist economic policy (based on trade surpluses). Chinese economists have clearly a different view of economics.

And Russia is pursuing a policy based on protectionism (according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries )

Shharp (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Again, not being an economist, but a layman, I would argue that Stiglitz' and Bernanke's arguments are unique to the Eurozone, meaning that "trade imbalance in itself is not a problem", but when coupled with an inflexible common currency, can lead to problems. So those examples may not be relevant to the point at hand, although they are definitely valid points to bring up elsewhere in the article. The other points you've made here, about China and Russia, do seem pertinent. I would argue then that the sentence in question could be reworded as:
 * The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists.
 * The points about specific cases should not be handled in the lead, but rather in a separate section dedicated to that point. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Russian and Chinese governments are not trade experts and economists. Governments frequently do not adopt policies that are consistent with those that economists favor. The editor even admits as much when he cites mercantilism (!) as a legit economic policy, even though it's been universally recognized as bunk by economists for more than a hundred years. To conflate government policies with academic consensus is not wise. Should we alter the description on relevant Wikipedia pages of climate change as a consensus on among climate scientists because the current government in the US rejects that climate change is a thing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that the Chinese and Russian governments don't adopt policies that are consistent with those of their economists? China has been conducting this surplus policy for several decades. So you assume that the Chinese and Russian leaders are stupid, don't listen to their own economic experts, don't know what they're doing, and are necessarily less competent than American leaders?

Shharp (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Countries of all types enact policies that go against expert consensuses. There are plenty of policies that Western leaders enact that run contrary to what economists advise them to do. This talk is WP:SYNTH in the extreme and getting extremely annoying. I have shown and sourced without any shadow of a doubt that economists overwhelmingly reject that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves, yet I now have debate whether governments are stupid and all kinds of irrelevant nonsense with someone who thinks mercantilism is a perfectly legit policy in economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

With a minimum of modesty, we can only acknowledge that there are major differences in economic doctrines between countries. Moreover, given the current economic and political situation in the United States, I am not sure that their economic politics can be considered as models in the world. Shharp (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 * What economic policies countries choose has absolutely nothing to do with the text that's being considered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Stiglitz writes about Keynesian theory about trade imbalances in general (and not just about an inflexic currency)

Bernanke explains the origin of the trade deficits by citing the undervaluation of the German currency against other eurozone countries. But he clearly explains the role of deficits in the crisis: "The fact that Germany is selling so much more than it is buying redirects demand from its neighbors (as well as from other countries around the world), reducing output and employment outside Germany"

Moreover, the United States has the same problem with other currencies, which explains its trade deficit. : https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/11/china-devalues-yuan-against-us-dollar-explainer http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072115/how-undervalued-yuan.asp https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/trump-does-have-a-point-the-japanese-yen-is-undervalued-strategist.html

Shharp (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The economic model followed by Russia and China (as well as South Korea, Taiwan,...)http://www.fes.de/ipg/IPG2_2005/ROBERTWADE.PDF is not a pure invention.

It is simply the model followed by... the United States between the 18th century and 1945 (the model inspired by Alexander Hamilton, author of the text "Report on Manufactures" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures) and between 1945 and 1971 (the Bretton Woods Agreement) that enabled the United States to control its deficit. Shharp (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence :"The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists." but Stiglitz and Bernanke's analysis and information on other countries should be cited. Shharp (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to debate but unfortunately, Snooganssnoogans does not want consensus despite the sources provided and despite WikiDan61's opinion on the sentence "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is rejected by some trade experts and economists." Shharp (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I point out that this page doesn't belong to Snooganssnoogans, and that he's obliged to take into account the opinion of other publishers. Shharp (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * , please don't continue to re-insert challenged text like this. Several of your changes are at odds with the source, and some are plainly nonsensical (e.g., this edit, which inserts the following oxymoronic text: "The notion that trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by some trade experts and economists." Clearly, if something is "overwhelmingly rejected," that view is held by more thanb "some"). Neutralitytalk 18:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the terms "American economists" or "economists of the United States", which I thought were more realistic; but this was also rejected by Snooganssnoogans Shharp (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * That's because the sources don't say this at all. Come back with a source that directly supports what you wish to say. Then you'll get a better response. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The economic doctrine applied by these countries is totally contrary to the United States. Where's the consensus? there is no global consensus in the world

Shharp (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * You are confusing individual countries' trade policies with the professional consensus of economists. The two are not the same, as Snoogs tried to explain to you before. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Economics is not an exact science like Mathematics but a human or social science. Even economists say that

Shharp (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There are major ideological divergences between economists: those who follow the doctrine of hayek, keynes, neoclassical theory,...

Shharp (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * As the sources show, there are things that economists overwhelmingly agree on. Balance of trade is one of them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

None of your sources show consensus at the global level .They only show polls at American universities.

 * I appreciate the balance in perspective and viewpoint presentation in the article when it comes to the Keynes and Monetarist theories.Azizalshalfan (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Shharp (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

History
What is the balance of trade? 203.99.159.194 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Balance of trade


text:
Talk:Barbara Olson

New facts
She was discovered on polish-german border sometime after(unknown), the direct links are dead however it is mentioned on renese.com , she was supposably arrested.

That means, there was no flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon, to my most logic sense it was a missile with phony aircraft pieces on.

People who oppose this facts, are either evil, don't care, are in shock and show overwhelming sympathy for the person which is cutting their ability to understand or probably in the conspiracy it self. For those that are simply close to those people, you would probably be very emotional in which you would oppose the "stupid" rumors , but let's be honest , I am sorry about those who died and those who apparently didn't too , but the evidence speaks for it self. Xowets (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

She was "supposably" [sic] arrested on the Polish-Austrian border, not the Polish-German border, and there is no Polish-Austrian border. See http://www.rense.com/general67/olsen.htm for discussion of this point. There used to be a Polish-Austrian border before World War One, but she was not yet born at the time. Therefore, she could not have been arrested there at any time, unless she went back in time and was arrested before her own birth. 71.109.159.196 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That's it - rather than being a terrorist attack, 9/11 was conveniently created to advance the illuminati's plot for continued world control by using their time travel technology. I've heard that Elvis was involved in the initial tests of this machine and that he was killed through force feeding him pb and fried banana sandwiches over several decades until he died of a heart attack (the cover story of drug overdose was part of a bigger conspiracy to discredit the AMA) to silence him some 34 years before the 9/11 plan was brought to fruition. All of the so called "victims" were transported back to the Titanic just after she struck an Illuminati engineered iceberg - the sudden increase in weight broke the ships back and was the real cause of her sinking, otherwise she would have survived. Unfortunately, Ms. Olson got inadvertantly caught in a time vortex that spun her off course, landing her on the Polish-German border. This temporal infraction is what led to her arrest there before the Great War (another fabrication of the Illuminati, it wasn't great and it wasn't even a war). Fortunately, most people don't have the "my most logic sense" to see through all of the smoke and mirrors involved. Now it can be revealed - don't forget you read it in Wiki so you know its true (actually this is more factually correct than some of the information in real Wiki articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Truther Bias
Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77. . .when it was alledgedly flown into the Pentagon

 * Deleted "alledgedly (sic) "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.78 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 on her way to a taping of Politically Incorrect in Los Angeles, when it was allegedly flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Truther crap is back 70.190.32.185 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Citation-less truther garbage is still on the page. I'm removing it. 74.64.22.128 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also cited The Shadow Factory by James Bamford as a source for one of the paragraphs regarding her phone calls from the hijacked plane to her husband. I don't how to cite properly so whoever does should just correct it real quick. It's on page 90 of the book. 74.64.22.128 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Links updated
There is a tribute to Barbara Olson at http://www.angelfire.com/va2/kksposter
 * It's no longer accessible.

 * He's correct.

 * I'm getting an error message on that page.

 * However, I've taken the liberty of adding some memorial tributes to the "external links" section at the bottom of this article.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Telephone calls to husband
According to the released evidence from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria concerning the Moussaoui trial (see http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html ) the phone call to her husband was 0 minutes i.e. she got no connection.
 * After planes crashed into the WTC 8:46 a.m the entire mobile phone network suffered mulfunctions because of the sheer volume of mobile phone calls being made at the same time so it is possible that the system was down and did not record the duration of the calls. Mieciu K 21:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's possible.

 * In any case, I don't believe that conspiracy theories relating to September 11th belong in this article-even if they focus specifically on Barbara Olson-although I suppose they could be added to the article related to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 * I'm glad that someone deleted that.

 * Inserted "allegedly": "During the duration of the flight, she allegedly [3] called husband Theodore Olson who informed her of the crashes in New York." There is no definite evidence of this call; call records which should exist do not, there is no reason to believe that high call volumes would disable the call record system from recording anything, particularly just call durations, there is no evidence that this flight had airphone service, Ted Olsen's story changed repeatedly, tests of 2001-tech cell phones have consistently failed at lower altitudes and velocities. To fail to insert "allegedly" here disregards the balance of the evidence; to assert without qualification that the calls did or did not occur goes substantially beyond the available evidence. Anyone wishing to delete "allegedly" must come up with documentation clearly superior to the referenced article's references.Enon (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says "About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off." "About a minute" means that it could be less than a minute. If the call lasted between 1 and 59 seconds, would the cell phone records say 0 minutes or 1 minute?

Do records saying "the phone call to her husband was 0 minutes" actually mean "she got no connection" or just that the call lasted less than one minute? The statement in this discussion "the phone call to her husband was 0 minutes i.e. she got no connection." needs clarification. It could actually confirm, rather than refute, the article.71.109.159.196 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I Have something to add, how did she not make a call if it was her conversation that was the only one describing terrorists with box cutters? look it up, her phone conversation is the only conversation that describes hijackers with box cutters, are you all implying that the terrorists never used box cutters as we were all told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.190.158 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Memorial lectures
This section mentions the inaugural lecture given by her husband, Theodore Olson and a link to the content of the lecture is provided. This makes reference is made to the phone calls she is alleged to have made during the hijacking, but as mentioned above it now appears that these calls did not take place. Should this topic be included in the main article?

Dean Armond (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I Have something to add, how did she not make a call if it was her conversation that was the only one describing terrorists with box cutters? look it up, her phone conversation is the only conversation that describes hijackers with box cutters, are you all implying that the terrorists never used box cutters as we were all told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.190.158 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Her name in 1991-1992 is shown incorrectly
The phrase "...in 1991-92, when Mrs. Olson..." makes no sense. Her name did not become Mrs. Olson until 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.159.196 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spear of Titans is a really good story. You can find it on various searching engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.106.100 (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They Live!
According to the book "Thorn, Victor (Arkancided!!!), Guliani, Lisa Phantom Flight 93, And Other Astounding September 11 Mysteries Explored 2007", Barbara Olson was arrested at the border with Poland after her supposed death. 67.206.183.9 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Barbara Olson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828235527/http://cf.newsday.com:80/911/victimsearch.cfm?id=65 to http://cf.newsday.com/911/victimsearch.cfm?id=65

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Olson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831194046/http://hs.houstonisd.org/WaltripHS/TriviaFolder/trivia.htm to http://hs.houstonisd.org/WaltripHS/TriviaFolder/trivia.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cf.newsday.com/911/victimsearch.cfm?id=65
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200109/ai_n8954773

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Olson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Early life
...and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Saint Thomas in Houston. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Career
As a newcomer, she achieved a surprising measure of success, working for HBO and Stacy Keach Productions. In the early 1990s, she worked as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering where she did civil litigation for several years before becoming an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Olson's support in 1991 of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas led to the formation of the Independent Women's Forum. At that time, Olson and friend Rosalie (Ricky) Gaull Silberman started an informal network of women who supported the Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, a former subordinate of Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Olson, who had also worked under Thomas at the EEOC and was a close friend of Thomas, spoke out on his behalf during his contentious Senate confirmation hearings. Olson later helped edit The Real Anita Hill, a book by David Brock that savaged Hill and portrayed the harassment claim as a political dirty trick (Brock later recanted his claims and apologized to Hill). The Independent Women's Forum continued on with a goal of retaining a high profile group of women to advocate for economic and political freedom and personal responsibility.

In 1994, Olson became chief investigative counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In that position, she led the Travelgate and Filegate investigations into the Clinton administration. She was later a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the Birmingham, Alabama law firm Balch & Bingham.

Personal life
Theodore went on to successfully represent presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, and subsequently served as U.S. Solicitor General in the Bush administration.

She was a resident of Great Falls, Virginia.

title: Talk:Barbara Olson