Quote Originally Posted by Ellesthyan
Just saying that ancient historians are unreliable is easy, but getting proof is nearly impossible. Neither can I proof they used such massive armies, but I can show you that it is possible and likely. If I may ask, what are the reasons modern historians have for ignoring Herodotus when he comes with numbers, and why are they so sure that the actual number is only in the tens of thousands?
Just some things to keep in mind...

It's not that the ancient historians are unreliable. It is just unreliable to take anything for granted without analizying the context in which it was created.
Just like anything else, to do a good analisis of history. An historian (and every other scientist for that matter) has to always keep in mind who wrote it? Why he wronte it? What were his agendas?o whom he Twas writing...etc...etc..etc.

In this particular case, you always want to keep in mind that this was written by Greeks, for Greeks to read.

I once did a paper analysing the differences between the history of the War of Paraguay written in Brazil and the history of this same war written in Paraguay. For brazilian historians, it was a great war, full of remarkable heroes and generals, memorable battles and of course it was a war agains the tirany of enemy of freedom. In Paraguay the history of that war is very different. It was unfair, uncalled for. A total genocide.
In the end are any of those sides wrong? No, they just cannot be understood out of the context.

Not agreeing with any scientific fact doesn't mean that you are ignoring it. In fact there is no way to disagree and ignore at the same time. To disagree you have to take what you are disagreeing with into consideration.