Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Saw

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Saw[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of the Saw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

From the Mercenary War, a footnote to the First Punic War, comes this nasty incident in a war nasty even by the standards of warfare. I have completely rewritten it and would welcome any and all criticisms and suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

The sources all look acceptable in terms of WP:RS. Checks below:

  • Scullard 2006
    • I'm not sure the text supports "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa." It says "This motley assembly of Iberians, Celts, Ligurians, Balearic islanders, halfbreed Greeks and, by far the largest number, Libyans, then marched on Tunis and put themselves under the leadership of Matho, a Libyan, and Spendius, a runaway Roman slave." To me that says that a plurality of the mercenaries were Libyans, but not necessarily the majority. Maybe you could rewrite it to follow the source more closely.
I am struggling to see in what way you think Scullard does not support this cite. Is your reading of him that Africans made up the largest single national/ethnic/regional component of the army? OK, I have reread what you have written and it seems that it is. OK, tweaked to reflect that reading of Scullard.
    • " including every Carthaginian citizen of military age" I did not find that on the cited page (it does not contain the word "citizen"), perhaps I'm missing something?
No, I am. Possibly my marbles. That should have been to Miles, p. 211 "... comprising all the remaining citizens of military age." Amended.
    • "At the ensuing Battle of Leptis Parva the rebels were crushed, with few losses to the Carthaginians." The source doesn't mention Leptis Parva and I can't see a mention of a battle where the source explicitly states that Carthaginian losses were light. I do not see a reference to Carthaginian losses in Hoyos either, or the location: "How the battle was fought, and where in Byzacium, is unknown." I would prefer at least one source to be cited with the name of the battle.
Well I was going on Hoyos's footnotes (and Polybius) but while Bagnall specifies near Leptis Magna the more reliable Miles, Scullard and Goldsworthy don't specify, so I have changed the article to also be non-specific.
  • Hoyos 2007
    • I was going to check this but I'm not sure that my version (a pdf) has the same pagination as yours. On page 88 it is the second page of Chapter 9 and the first line is "recorded as suffering shipwreck. After a time, an expedition to Sardinia..." I don't think that this page supports the content cited to it, but maybe it's a pagination issue.

(t · c) buidhe 01:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: If you can confirm that the pagination of the Hoyos source matches (or doesn't) then I could finish the source review. (t · c) buidhe 11:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, apologies for the delay. Yes, that's the one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 137: "Meanwhile, Hanno manoeuvred against Mathos to the north near Hippo". The cited page does not mention either Mathos or Hippo.
I don't know what happened there. I clearly meant to cite Bagnall p. 117 "Hanno, who was now opposing Matho at Hippo".
    • Bit about Naravas switching sides: supported
    • "Both armies are likely to have been composed of similar types and proportions of troops, except that the rebels were weaker in cavalry and lacked elephants." Although Hoyos does say that the rebels probably didn't have elephants, I don't see where the rest of the sentence is supported (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken this out and worked much of it into the following paragraph. (The cavalry part is supported on p, 202 "pretty clearly the rebel cavalry was poor and, almost certainly too, it was outnumbered.")

Hi Buidhe and apologies for taking so long to come back to you. Your comments to date are all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • The Battle of the Saw was a military campaign Do sources use "campaign" or "battle" to adress the event?
Excellent point. I have confused myself. Rephrased.
  • the Carthaginian general Hanno No note for Hanno II?
No. It is covered and linked in text now.
  • one of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great" Hannos' link is a disambiguation?
Changed.
  • Link Carthaginian Senate, Balearic Islands,
1. There is no link. I could link to senate, but this does not even list Carthage as having had a senate, so I thought this more confusing to a reader than helpful.
  • 70,000 men according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius I thought Polybius was a Greek?
Ethnically, he was. But he was a historian of Rome.
  • Isn't that a little bit misleasding since people could think he was a Roman instead of a Greek?
The word "Roman" removed.
  • towns against Carthaginian retribution.[9][10][11][12] Per WP:CITEKILL More than three citations should be avoided. Four or more citations if needed should be bundled into one citation.
One removed.
  • broken and were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[25][28] Remove the citations here since they are just unnecessary 'cause a couple of sentences later we see the same citations.
I prefer to keep them directly attached to the facts they support. As a prophylactic against future - or during the ACR - insertion of additional text or shuffling of existing.
  • Hmm it's not the only place where there are unnecessary citations the sentences "were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[26][29]" and "the area moved south and joined their comrades in Tunis.[32]". I understand your view even though I don't believe unnecessary citations like links shouldn't be here. But if it is meant as prophylactic then I can slide it away at ARC. At FAC I wouldn't since I believe FAs should be almost near perfect and featured thus even the small issues should be solved and standerdised.
Then we would have a debate at FAC, and i would expect you to furnish policies, guidelines and nGrams. But, "sufficient unto the day ..."
  • maintained a more distant blockade from Tunis.[32][28] Re-order the refs here.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry --> "Both Iberia and Gaul provided experienced infantry"
Done.
  • leaving the 20,000 man balance Hyphen is here needed since this is a compound adjective.
Done.
  • his senior subordinate general Hannibal Note 4 should here apply since this is the introduction of our Hannibal.
Good spot. Done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[49][48] Re-order the refs here.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • by being trampled to death by elephants.[30][29] Same as above.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • their horses, their prisoners and then their slaves.[53][29] Same as above.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • Mathos led the rebel army 160 km (100 mi) south --> "Mathos led the rebel army 160 kilometres (100 mi) south"
Done.
  • Why is Zarzas red linked if he had an unknown background?
Lots of notable characters have unknown backgrounds. Look at my other two ACRs for examples - admittedly less extreme that for Zarzas.
  • Hmm why isn't Zarzas then redlinked in the infobox?
Cus I'm not eagle-eyed. Fixed.

Part 2

  • The lead doesn't mention anything about the "aftermath" section?
Added a bit.
  • and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
Delinked.
  • Carthaginian general Hanno, who was one of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great" Maybe rephase it into "Carthaginian general Hanno, who was the second of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great""?
I see no reason why a reader would be interested in how many other Hanno the Greats there were. (If, obscurely, they were, they could click the link.)
  • of rebels north to besiege the two main cities the word "besiege" is half linked and funny look at?
Tweaked.
  • one under his senior subordinate general Hannibal[note 4], Comma here?
Done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[50][51]In keeping Space is here needed after the citations.
Done.
  • Some ISBNs have hyphens and some don't maybe standardise them?
Fixed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks CPA-5, your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: I'd say thank you after my regular second review I've found some smaller comments here and I've replied to your responses. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again CPA-5. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, I think that your only outstanding comment refers to the comma after the note, but that is fixed. I think. Any chance that you could either relook at it or be more precise as to where it is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, looks like indeed all of my comments are addressed and if I find something else then it will be addressed in FAC. Anyway, I better give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

I'm not familiar with the era this article relates so I'm coming at this from the readability/accessibility angle. My comments follows:

Background

  • who was one of several Carthaginian Hannos... Although I appreciate that technically it would be a dupe link, I suggest the link on "Hannos" here go to Hanno the Great rather than the disambig page. That makes more sense to me.
  • And just seen CPA picked up on this too. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax,... Not sure if this is referring to Carthage's output or the new territories. If the latter, I suggest "Half of the area's agricultural output was taken as a war tax,..."
Done.

Mutiny

  • The first sentence deals with the army in Sicily, but in the previous section, Hanno is campaigning in Africa. Some context is required here.
Ha! I had put that in, then trimmed it out as too much background. But you are right. Added in Background. And the Punic War and African war bits paragraphed out.
  • the Carthaginian negotiators; the use of "Carthaginian" seems redundant here; suggest "the Senate's negotiators" or similar?
Good idea. Done.
  • eventually an additional 70,000 men according... suggest "eventually an additional 70,000 men joined the anti-Carthaginian movement, according..."
Done.

War

  • raise the siege of Utica at the Battle of Utica. To me this doesn't parse well. I suggest "raise the siege of Utica.", with the link to the battle on "siege of Utica"
You are correct - it's a mess. I have changed to "In early 240 BC Hanno was defeated at the Battle of Utica, while attempting to raise the siege of that city."

I'm up to "Truceless War", more to come tomorrow. Zawed (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truceless War

  • Mathos to lift the close siege of Carthage lack of antecedence for this siege, first time it is mentioned.
That's me getting far too close. Thank you. Added to very start of "War" section.

Opposing Armies

  • thrusting spears; as well, grammatically, I think that semi-colon should be a comma?
Ah, a proponent of the narrow, grammatical use of the semi colon. Fair enough. Changed.
  • link Balearic Islands
This is about the tenth article in which I have missed that. I seem to have a real blind spot.
  • distant blockade from Tunis.[32][28] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.

Manoeuvres

  • Some of first half of the paragraph seems like it would better go in the Opposing Armies section, particularly the discussion of the make up of the Rebel forces, which is otherwise quite weak in that section. Similarly, the strength discussion of the Carthaginian could go in that section.
I see what you mean. I have had a go. See what you think.
  • and so opening up suggest "and so opened up"
Done.
  • could tell or isolate one tell? Is that a typo?
No. wikt:tell, definition nine. Loads of examples, eg [1] from The Times Literary Supplement: "This time, they waited for the invaders to come to them, confident that in a hand-to-hand fight, their weight of numbers would tell."
  • This plan is described by the historian Dexter Hoyos as "extraordinarily risky tactics". tactics plural but plan singular, is that grammatically correct
Wiktionary gives "tactics" as "The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other", so apparently it is.
  • if they could keep their army in being it may be too close to the source, but suggest "if they could keep their army intact"
That means something different, but done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[49][48] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • being trampled to death by elephants.[30][29] ditto here
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.

Trap

  • and then their slaves.[54][29] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • 10,000 defenders of Carthage under Hanno last we heard of Hanno, he was skirmishing with the rebels after the battle of Utica so some context is needed here
True. I have inserted his recall and Hamilcar's promotion over him into the second paragraph of "Truceless War".

Aftermath

  • Note 4 needs a cite
Why? Do you think that it is "likely to be challenged"? It is not a fact - which would need citing - but an aside to the reader. As such, by it's nature it is uncitable. If you don't like it, I could remove it.
I'm used to seeing everything cited, I guess. Leave it in. Zawed (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have come back to this, my initial pass of the article is complete. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see CPA picked up order of refs issue as well. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, many thanks for that. Some of your points had me smacking my head, some thinking hard, and several both. All of your comments so far are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog, just a few questions...

  • After immense material and - materiel?
Good spot. I assume that it has been drive-by "corrected". Changed.
  • several Carthaginian Hanno's known as - is apostrophe correct?
No, but it seems to have already gone.
  • several years back pay - apostrophe on years?
Seems to be there. Your doing?
  • describes to this as "a gross - is "to" intentional?
Again, this blipped into existance and has now disappeared.
  • The close order Libyan infantry - hyphenate close-order
Again, is done.
  • Hannibal[note 4], and - move comma before note?
Done.
  • their army inact the Carthaginian - intact?
Corrected.
  • experience.[50][51]In keeping - add space before In
Done.
  • sources Koon / Jones - swap alpha
Oops. Done.
It is. Added.

That is all I have, JennyOz (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jenny, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. This was a DYK on 20 November (23,000 views!). It attracted a number of drive by edits. Some corrected my errors; others introduced good faith errors. And some introduced errors which you picked up but which other editors have since corrected. I had wondered what was going on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Gog, sorry for delay. Yes there were a number of conflicts happening with review and dyk day. I've just tweaked/retweaked(?) 3 of the above - pls check. Congrats on the visits! Adding my support. JennyOz (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_the_Saw&oldid=993484756"