Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercenary War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [1].

Mercenary War[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The First Punic War ended after 23 years with a Carthaginian defeat. Still a great power, Carthage arranged to pay off its army and ship its members home. One botched attempt to shortchange the troops later and the army was blockading Carthage and its African vassals had risen in revolt to join the mutineers with 70,000 volunteers. The war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time. I believe that this horrific tale is to FA standards, but I trust in the community to point out the myriad ways in which I am mistaken. All comments gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are all free + relevant but I have concerns about some of the sourcing.

Umm. Yes. Ideally we need good secondary RSs. This may take a while. Leave it with me.
@Buidhe: sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • I have concerns about the relevance of comments on Polybius' reliability on the First Punic War, because technically this isn't part of the First Punic War. It may be that RS are heavily reliant on Polybius' account for this conflict, but since we aren't citing him directly, I don't think it's necessary to discuss his reliability in detail.
Re the first point - guilty as charged. That's me reading what I want to read, not what's there. Now tweaked to reflect his work on this war.
Re the second point, I understand your view. I am inclined too disagree with it, but not too strongly. However, see Peacemaker's response to your point below and my comments on it.
  • The background section seems to be split between actual background and the revolt that became the Mercenary War. You might consider reorganizing to add a section on the mutiny specifically.
Good idea. I have made it a sub-section of Background. Does that work?

buidhe 04:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Buidhe and apologies for taking so long to respond. Your "other comments" addressed. I will get my teeth into proper sourcing for those images and ping you once I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I was slightly too late for the GAN party, so now I'm here, will review soon. Some starters below. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Punic War is duplinked in the intro.
Fixed.
  • I think the Polybius image could have a more descriptive caption. Like, "Polybius is considered the most reliable source etc."
Done.
  • Maybe the caption of the recreation image could have some added context, such as "at a convention in country x" or such.
Done.
  • Carthage and Rome are both linked twice early in the article, but to two different articles each.
The first time Carthage is mentioned as a city it is linked to Carthage; the first time it is mentioned as a state it is linked to Ancient Carthage. Similarly for Rome - Rome and Roman Republic. I had hoped that which was which was clear from context, although I have occasionally added pointers.
  • "and Matho, an African dissatisfied with Hanno's attitude" African is a very unspecific term compared to the other terms used, why not specify Berber as his article does?
Cus throughout the article I have avoided using Berbers, Numidians, Libyans (who don't come from modern Libya), Phoenician settlers, Carthaginian colonists, Libyphoenicians[!] - other that when using them technically to describe troop types. It would require a dense paragraph of explanation for little gain to a reader, IMO. I strongly suspect that most would read each as interchangeable. I believe that using Berber instead of African would detract from, rather than add to, an average reader's comprehension. However, I see that I have similar for Navaras, so I suppose I have set a precedent. Done.
Sounds right to me ;-). And I have just been picked up for linking Corvus to Corvus. It was meant to be a red link. Fixed.
@FunkMonk: thanks for stopping by and for the input. Your various comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No details of the battle survive" You redlink the battle though, but is there any chance a battle without information will ever have an article?
I have it on my to do list. When the mood takes me I shall rattle off the half dozen stubs needed to turn most of the First Punic War red links blue. If I pad the background and aftermath, this one may even get past stub status.
  • Link Polybius in his image caption?
Done.
Thanks again FB. Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk. Harrias's asides at GAN had me giggling. Nothing to do with FAC, but I thought that you might enjoy them:
  • "The Carthaginian authorities decided to instead wait until all of the troops had arrived and then attempt to negotiate a settlement at a lower rate." Well, this doesn't seem a recipe for disaster at all. Sit an army inside your city, and then try and screw them over. No review comment here. Unless I'm reviewing their tactics, in which case I might start looking for that quick fail template again.
  • "The pay dispute had become a full-scale revolt threatening Carthage's existence as a state." I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
  • "When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." Well, of course they did.
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Will have a look in the coming days or later today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It lasted from 241 to late 238 or early 237 BC and ended with Carthage suppressing both the mutiny and the revolt. The infobox and this sentence don't match with each other.
I'm rubbish at checking inherited infoboxes. Thanks. They do now.
  • based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.
Done.
  • Link talents.
Done.
  • the Carthaginian general Hanno was leading Add "the Great" Next to Hanno; we should introduce him a little bit.
Introduced.
  • Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 kilometres (190 mi) south-west --> " Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south-west"
Done.
  • Libyans provided close-order infantry equipped with large shields Wrong link?
Cheers.
  • Numidians and Berbers provided light cavalry Numidians were Berbers; maybe add "other" next to "and".
Fair point. Berbers deleted.
  • North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time Wrong link; should be "North African elephant"'s link.
No it shouldn't. Some scholars argue that the North African elephant was a sub-spices of the forest elephants - which would still make them forest elephants. But most don't and my sources which mention it all describe them as "forest elephants".
  • they were relocated to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef) 180 kilometres (110 mi) away --> "they were relocated to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef) 180 km (110 mi) away"
Done.
  • 20,000 troops marched to Tunis, 16 kilometres (10 mi) --> "20,000 troops marched to Tunis, 16 km (10 mi)"
Done.
  • Is it Gesco or Gisco?
The sources differ, I am going with Gisco. Now standardised.
  • threatening Carthage's existence as a state.[42][30] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • Rome for protection, which was refused.[51][52][48] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • who suffered losses of 8,000 men.[53][54][30] Same as above.
Done.
  • with 10,000 men commanded by Spendius Spendius who?
The Spendius introduced earlier as "Spendius, an escaped Roman slave who faced death by torture if he were recaptured ... [was] declared general".
  • Pinned against mountains and with their food exhausted, the rebels ate their horses, their prisoners and then their slaves That's disgusting.
True. I did mention that "the war was fought with unusual savagery, even for the time."
  • Tunis and marched 160 kilometres (100 mi) south --> "Tunis and marched 160 km (100 mi) south"
Done.
  • prepared an expedition to seize both Sardinia and Corsica Why Corsica? I understand that they wanted Sardinia but were there also mutinies?
  • In both notes 3 and 7, we should use abbreviations for kilogramme, fully write long tons and link long tons as well.
Done.
  • In the image "File:Troupes carthaginoises Arverniales 2012.JPG" we should write "re-enactment" per Ngram.
Done.
  • Is it Mathos or Matho because Matho's link goes to Mathos?
Same guy. Spelt "Matho" in my sources.

That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. Your usual eagle-eyed job. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have a few minor comments:

  • I disagree with Buidhe regarding the sources explanation, I think with these ancient wars, this sort of information is necessary to explain where we got the accounts from originally
@Buidhe: Note Peacemaker67's comment above. I incline towards his view, as we have discussed elsewhere; without it being a complete dealbreaker. Possibly the pair of you could reach a consensus? Maybe discuss it in a separate section so others could contribute. Or flag it up on the MilHist discussion page? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Sicily, Hamilcar Barca" needs a comma after Barca
Done.
  • "Most of the Carthaginian infantry" this would only be the Libyans, as the Gaulish and Spanish mercenaries were not trained for close-order work.
Yes, the Libyans - and Carthaginian citizens when present, who also fought in the phalanx - "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa". But I see your point; as we have the information, why not communicate it. How is "The close order Libyan infantry, and citizen militia when present, would fight in a tightly-packed formation known as a phalanx."
  • perhaps mention in the lead that the original force from Sicily was 20,000 strong
Good point. Done.
  • for stratagem link Ruse de guerre
Neat. Done.
  • maybe a note for Hannibal that he isn't the famous one?
Done.
  • hyphenate "largescale" as a compound adjective?
Done.
  • link crucifiction?
Done. (You may get a dissenter, depending on who else reviews.)
  • link Hannibal Barca
Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, I seem to have got off lightly on this one. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Infobox gives a rebel strength of 90-100k - where is the higher number coming from?
I inherited the infobox and clearly didn't check it closely enough. "100,000" removed. None of my sources mention this. Which is not surprising, because the primary sources don't either.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
I now am.
  • Miles: is this citation to the US or UK edition?
UK. Drat. Location corrected. And I will start into the eight other articles with the same error.
  • Tipps issue should be 4, "4th Qtr" is the date
Fixed.
  • Do any sources give estimates of Carthaginian strength or casualties?
With the exception of the Battle of the Bagradas River none of the sources I have checked - which I think is all of the RSs - venture a guess, or even discuss it. I assume because there is nothing much in the primary sources to base a guess on. (Which there isn't.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, many thanks for going through that. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support An interesting read, though I don't know much about the subject matter. A few comments.
  • Sources are not all consistently formatted. Collins could use a location, the second Hoyos source differs in ISBN formatting than the others.
Collins location added at 18:59.
Hoyos: the second Hoyos source is a journal article with a JSTOR. The third is a different book from the various references to articles in A Companion to the Punic Wars, which all have the same ISBN.
I'm referring to Truceless War, for which you give the ISBN as 978-90-474-2192-4. The other books have three digits, than one, then four, then four, then one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Stanford University Press in Stanford, California? Apparently today it's in Redwood City. Of course it may have been different in 1996.
"Stanford, California" is what it says on the title page. No mention of Redwood.
  • "lenience" wouldn't leniency be more commonly used?
Done.
  • "the early 3rd century BC, and lasted for 23 years, from 264 to 241 BC." This doesn't strike me as particularly early in the century.
True. I can't imagine what I was thinking of. Fixed.
  • Gisco or Gesco? It seems tied, 3-3.
The sources tie as well. and there isn't an article on him to break the tie. I resolved this in favour of Gisco with an 18:40 edit; it must have been while you were picking up the discrepancy. I need to write the article!
Wehwalt: Article now written. A bit rough and ready, but I will tidy it up. I also found a source calling him Gesgo - spare us. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Wehwalt, I hope that you enjoyed it. And very good of you to support before I addressed your comments, for which many thanks; I don't know how I get so much sloppiness into so few words. All now resolved, although you might want to check the Hoyos ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)[edit]

  • Note: planning to claim review as part of wikicup
  • Where does 90,000 in the infobox come from? Can't find the same number in the article body
"the Carthaginian army of 20,000 men from Sicily" ... "an additional 70,000 men according to Polybius".
  • The appearance of "Carthaginian victory" and "Roman annexation of …" together in the infobox seem jarring. Suggest qualifying "Carthaginian victory in Africa" and probably merging the Roman annexation in the same part of the infobox.
First part done. I am not sure that I understand your second suggestion; do you mean list the territorial changes under a heading other than "Territorial changes"?
My suggestion is like this, let me know what you think. I think it's better to present it as "two halves" of the result, rather than listing one result and one territorial change which seemed like the opposite. I hope I make sense. I self-reverted my suggestion above, so if you agree please reinstate. I can totally understand if you disagree though. HaEr48 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that that might be what you meant. I don't object as such. But I do worry that it will give a reader the impression that the whole of the war was between Rome and Carthage; after all, every other article involving both involves them fighting each other. Yet it seems unreasonable not to include this information. How would you feel about something like 'Opportunistic Roman annexation of Sardinia and Corsica'? To give a bit of a feel for the nuances.
@Gog the Mild: Good point. Yeah, that would clarify the nuance, and IMO it wouldn't matter too much which heading it goes to. Let's do it. HaEr48 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Sardinia and Corsica be part of "Location"?
Well, obviously I decided not. The infobox is a summary. But I am open to persuasion that I have over summarised.
  • Suggest giving years of key events in the lead. e.g. year when Hamilcar Barca was given command, as well as since when "the war was pursued with great brutality"
Good idea. Done.
  • "So much so, that before the full 20,000 had arrived they were relocated ...": I don't get the "So much so" here. Is the implication here that it's bad for them to appreciate civilization?
No. The implication is that the locals found 20,000 soldiers with time on their hands difficult neighbours. Reworded to be clearer.
  • "Rome pointedly declined to take advantage of Carthage's troubles". This is given without explanation, but later I find out one is given (quoted from Richard Miles) in the #Truceless War section. Maybe move it up?
Well this may be over-simplifying a complex, and largely unknown situation. Eg Hoyos says "the atmosphere of goodwill that developed between the two powers ensured that the Sardinia mercenaries appeal to Rome later on was turned down". And, in a different work "It is hard to explain the Romans volte-face in 237 [regarding] Sardinia". Other modern sources, like Polybius, just report the facts. But what the heck, Miles id the definitive modern work on Carthage and it's an attributed quote, so done.
  • Spendius was reinforced by an additional 15,000 men from the siege of Utica, which the rebels had renewed: If the siege was renewed, how come new soldiers became available?
They were drawn from the besieging force - I have tweaked to make clearer. (To OR, possibly at some risk of weakening the siege, but feeling that dealing with the new threat of Hamilcar was more important.)
  • Navaras linked in the article is redlinked, but there is a Naravas article with a matching description. Which one is a typo?
That is odd. I changed it when I was told above that "Navaras links to Indian aesthetics.." (Which it did when I double checked.) Checking, that should be "Navarasa", but see here. I think that the redirect needs deleting. What do you think? Or I could rename the Numidian leader's article?
@Gog the Mild: Is the Numidian's leader name actually Navaras or Naravas? If it is the former, yes we should rename Naravas. HaEr48 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: It never ceases to amaze me how long and hard I can study something and still see what I expect to see, rather than what is there. Thank you. Resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can understand :) I have trouble remembering the right spelling of Battle of Gegodog myself, hehe. HaEr48 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every Carthaginian citizen of military age": Males only, or did all females join the army too?
Females weren't citizens. (In any culture of the time.) If I insert 'male', which I have no problem with, I will need to remove "citizen", which may lead to a net loss of comprehensibility to a reader.
  • The last 2 sentences of #Sardinia probably belongs in #Aftermath?
I am not sure that it doesn't cause unnecessary repetition, but done.
  • Is it possible to elaborate more on the Hoyos and Miles quote, on why they think the war so politically enduring/profound politically? Is it related to the rest of the paragraph (seizure by Rome, rise of the Barcids), or is it related to the upcoming Second Punic War, or do they mention some other reason?
Oof! Difficult to summarise. If pressed it may be easier to remove it. I have had a go.
  • Note 8 is probably redundant because the relevant info is given in the last sentence of that paragraph.
It is, removed.

In general very well written and easy-to-follow article. Appropriate historical context and detail is given. Appreciate the little details such as the composition of Carthaginian armies, or the reason for Rome's lack of intervention. Well done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48. Thanks for the review, and for the summary comments. I hope that you enjoyed it. Your comments above are all addressed. A couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I enjoyed the article, and happy to support based on the content and clarity, as well as your excellent responses to my feedback. Thank you for working on this and other articles! HaEr48 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HaEr48, thanks for the support and even more for the insightful comments. I appreciate your taking the time to go through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Given the progress above, could I have permission to throw my next one at the wall? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go ahead. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Ealdgyth Gog the Mild (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mercenary_War/archive1&oldid=954158491"