Wikipedia:Peer review/Galatian War/archive1

Galatian War

I've listed this article for peer review because it was up at FAC recently and did not pass the review. You can find that review at this link. I look forward to the comments.

Thanks, Matarisvan (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Penitentes

Some initial comments! I'll add to these when I have more time.

• their allies Pergamum - There are two instances where the text refers to Pergamum as "allies" of Rome. Pergamum seems to have been a single entity, meaning this should be "their ally, Pergamum" or "their allies, the Pergamese".
  • DOne.

• The Galatians lost 40,000 people dead or captured, Grainger notes that even Livy, whose numbers are unreliable, had doubted these figures. - Where does the 40,000 figure come from? Since most of this sentence is casting it into doubt it would be better to phrase this as "[Source] claims that the Galatians lost 40k to death or capture, though [dispute]", or whatever similar construction you like.
  • This had come up at FAC too, and rephrasing this text is a tough task. I have changed it to "Livy's text states that 40,000..." since this was not Livy's own statement but cited from someone else. Unfortunately, this source has not been ascertained. Livy's sources for the campaign's details are known but not for the casualties.

• The location of Mount Olympus is thought to be Çile Dağı, a hill located between Gordion and Ancyra. - This should be moved nearer to the beginning of this section, for general context as well as to distinguish it from the better-known Mount Olympus in Thessaly.

• I would also clarify the location, as hypothesized in the modern day, in the lead too.

• • • Both done.

• while the Tectosagi went to another mountain - Link to Volcae#Volcae_of_Gaul
  • Done.

• The Galatians were once again attacked by long range weapons, the Galatian center broke due to the first charge of the legions and fled to their camp. - I would hyphenate long-range and replace the comma with a semicolon.
  • Done.

• 8,000 Galatians were killed and an unknown number were captured. - Change "8,000" to "Eight thousand" or rephrase per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • Done.

• The loot taken during this campaign was so numerous that all the Roman ships on the Anatolian coast could not carry it, Athenaeus had to provide the Pergamum fleet to carry the remainder. - Comma should be a semicolon or replaced with "and", "Pergamum fleet" should be "Pergamese fleet".
  • Done.

• Athenaios and Athenaeus - Are these the same person? If so, I'd pick one spelling.
  • My bad, that was due to the sources using these different names. Standardized to the latter spelling.

• Livy states that the army had marched at the speed of 5 miles a day from Acoridos Come to Beudos. Grainger argues that this is likely to be an understatement; the army had covered the distance of 50 miles between the two cities in 4 days, it had then marched 48 miles in the subsequent three days. Grainger shows that this is a distance of 98 miles covered in 7 days, with the mean pace being 14 miles a day. - The figures between 0 and 9 should be written out per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • Done.

Overall, nice work! It's a solid article and I would love to see it back at FAC after a little bit of love. — Penitentes (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed review, Penitentes. I would not have been able to spot these issues otherwise. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Relativity

Saving a spot. Ping me if a week has gone by with no review from me. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed the double link. Looking forward to more comments from you, @Relativity. Matarisvan (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: When I use this tool to check, it still shows Turkey as linked twice in the lead. Sorry for the long wait; this week so far has been way busier than I initially expected with an unexpected situation coming up. Once I am able to, I'll try to add more. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I had somehow forgotten to publish the edit when I made the above reply. Now sorted. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Turkey is linked twice in the lead.

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

I added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Dugan Murphy

Here are some comments:

• In 191 BC, Antiochus the Great, the Emperor of the Seleucid Empire had invaded Greece This sentence looks like it needs a comma after "Seleucid Empire". If you do that, it looks like too many commas. Perhaps "Seleucid Empire Emperor Antiochus the Great invaded Greece in 191 BC." Or something like that.
• MOS:BC advises using a non-breaking space when writing out BC years.
• Is there an appropriate Wikilink for Pergamum?
• First paragraph of Background: it starts in 191 BC, but doesn't mention another time stamp until the next paragraph. Do you think it appropriate to add one or two more reminders about how much time has passed between those events?
• Who does Vulso work for?
• Who is Scipio?
• Scipio's army, who were now idle: "who were" should be "which was", I think.
• Who is Grainger? (I see that later he is "the historian John D. Grainger". You should introduce him that way in first reference to him.)
• Grainger observed: This sentence says a bit unwieldy and could be reworded and likely broken up to improve clarity.
• Modern historians thus argue: Do either Grainger, Menicucci, or Førde say this in the cited sources? If not, these three stacked sources look like WP:SYNTH.
• Senate is sometimes capitalized and sometimes now. MOS:INSTITUTIONS seems to say it shouldn't be.
• This war was the first occasion on which a Roman general had started a war without the permission of the senate or the people could be more straightforward. Perhaps "This was the first war started by a Roman general without the permission of the senate or the people". Anyway, "on which" looks like it should be "in which".
• This was a dangerous precedent and became an example for the future. This sounds like an opinion that should be attributed.
• However, the King of Pergamum, Eumenes II, was in Rome, so his brother, Attalus II, who was serving as the regent, took command of the Pergamese army. Here's another sentence that is super chopped up with commas. Suggestion: "Because Pergamese King Eumenes II was in Rome, his brother and regent Attalus II took command of their army."
• inland passing needs a comma between those words.
• They advanced inland: This sentence should be two, I think.
• Attalus' should be Attalus's per MOS:'s. Same for Antiochus'.
• Gordiu Teichos is one city or two?
• Grainger notes ... Grainger argues ... Grainger thus appear three sentences in a row. The first instance seems unnecessary since it introduces a fact and not an opinion.
• not to loot: Who said they were there to loot?
• tyrant Moagetes: I don't think it's appropriate to call someone that without attributing this opinion or explaining how broadly he was considered this or something like that.
• was able to persuade: why not just "persuaded"?
• Why is note A written in past tense? Does one medimnoi of wheat not still weigh about 41 kilograms? Same for note B.
• assumed to be the Çavdir Çay: Vulso thought it was Çavdir Çay? Or historians think it is Çavdir Çay?
• After plundering Laco/Lagon (Lagbe), when Vulso crossed the River Cobulatus/Colobatus (the upper Istanos Çay),[19][20] he was met by ambassadors from the town of Sinda in Pisidia. This sentence doesn't work. Perhaps "The army plundered Laco/Lagon (Lagbe), then crossed the River Cobulatus/Colobatus (the upper Istanos Çay),[19][20] where he met ambassadors from the town of Sinda in Pisidia."
• assistance against the city: do you mean to say "assistance fighting the city"?
• Termessos who: needs a comma between.
• except for the capital: "for" isn't necessary.
• The consul agreed to the offer. What offer? Sounds like a request.
• allowing them to enter: The Termessians or the Sindans?
• 2 days should be "two days", I think.
• passed by: "by" isn't necessary.
• provides a lower bound seems an unnecessarily inaccessible way of saying they got at least that much booty.
• The semicolon in the above-mentioned sentence should be a comma unless the words following that semicolon are rewritten in such a way that they could stand on their own as a sentence.
• Same for the sentence that begins Vulso, like he did.
• He notes that Vulso: one too many thuses for one sentence.
• took care to avoid: why not just "avoided"?
• Livy says this was due to fear of the Romans, Grainger argues: adding "while" before "Grainger" would fix this sentence's grammatical error.
• the chief of a section of the Tolistobogii, the only chief: adding "and" after the comma would make this sentence correct.
• The sentence that begins Eposognatus did not have power has a semicolon, but the part of the sentence following the semicolon don't seem related to the first part enough to justify joining those two thoughts together into one sentence with the semicolon.
• Then the Roman cavalry: "Then" doesn't seem necessary.
• Counter-attack doesn't need a hyphen.
• Why is Axylon in italics?
• Note C: that "As: I think it's appropriate to add a colon after "that" because what follows is a full sentence.
• Note C: "steppe" should be 'steppe' because it is within a quotation.
• Vulso then crossed: "then doesn't seem necessary".

That's me having read just the first two sections of the body: "Background" and "March inland". If the subsequent sections warrant as many comments, I don't know if I'll have the steam to get through the whole article, at least not before I take a planned internet hiatus August 8–11. If you don't see more from me by the 15th, and you are interested in my reactions to the rest of the article and the article as a whole, feel free to ping me at that time to check in. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy, I have implemented all your suggestions. These were quite useful and I wouldn't have noticed them myself, since I had become used to the version I had written. I would love to get further comments on the rest of the article, I believe I can get your suggestions actioned before your scheduled break. As for the WP:SYNTH issue, the 3 historians do say so in their works. If this is not agreeable, then I can rephrase. Thanks are due for your very helpful comments! Matarisvan (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, here are some more:

• found it deserted, however, they still destroyed it: a semicolon rather than a comma would work better after "deserted".
• however, they still destroyed it: to sound more encyclopedic, I recommend "they nevertheless destroyed it". This recommendation assumes that this phrase follows a semicolon.
• As they camped there, they: I think this would sound better with one less "they". Could be "While encamped there, they".
• The Tolistobogii and the Trocmi, the latter under the command of their chief Gaulotos, occupied Mount Olympus, while the Tectosagi went to another mountain. This sentence has a bit too many twists and turns. Recommended: "Mount Olympus was occupied by the Tolistobogii and the Trocmi, the latter under the command of their chief Gaulotos, while the Tectosagi went to another mountain."
• the Tectosagi went to another mountain: "went to" leaves me with questions. Did they occupy that other mountain in a fortified position? Did they flee to that mountain?

I didn't give myself much time, so I only read a few more sentences. I should be able to continue later this week. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more!

• Who are the Phrygians? Or is it the Phrygian region? Is there an appropriate Wikilink?
• Gordion and Ancyra;[49] or Alis Daği That semicolon should be a comma.
• For the first two days: What makes them first? First of what? First of the battle? All I've been reading about in this section so far is about different groups' positions.
• who outnumbered the Roman cavalry guarding the patrol by two times seems an awkward wording to me. Is there a way to fit "twice the size" in its place? That last word in this quote should be followed by a comma, if the sentence is otherwise left alone. But it is a little wonky, so I recommend rewording into two sentences or rearranging to have fewer comma-separated clauses.
• Wikilink Legionary?
• When the Roman legionaries finally stormed the Galatian camp: Is "finally" necessary? If you need to emphasize the delay that preceded the storming, I recommend finding a more encyclopedic word choice.
• lost 40,000 people dead or captured: It may be that I don't read enough military history, but this wording looks wrong. Perhaps "lost 40,000 people to death or capture"? Or "40,000 were killed or captured" or something else.
• so that they could allow their women is a lot of seemingly unnecessary words. How about "so their women"?
• Similar to the last comment, Vulso while he was at the conference could be "Vulso at the conference".
• I could say this is using an encyclopedic voice, but maybe it's just me who wants to change While they were going to to "en route to".
• 600 strong cavalry: unless the cavalry was composed of body builders, you should make that "600-strong cavalry".
• about 50,000 to >60,000 men: first, I don't think the greater-than symbol is appropriate for a non-math topic like this. Second, why offer a range if the upper part of that range is also a minimum?
• on the flanks, but was used: I don't think the comma is necessary.
• 10 miles (16 km): Since this war seems to take place in what is today Turkey, and because Turkey uses the metric system, I think this distance should be offered in km and translated to miles in parentheses. Check MOS:UNIT and apply that to the whole article.
• I think using "crushing" is not really appropriate. Like, I either want this to be an attributed opinion or I want to replace "crushing" with a word like "significant" or I just want to remove "crushing" and leave the sentence as-is.
• A lot of loot: I'm under the impression that "a lot" has no place in Wikipedia. How about "a significant amount of loot"?

I have now read through three paragraphs into the "Aftermath" section. I'll read more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for another great set of comments, executed all except the km to miles one. All the sources use miles, if I use kms as the underlying then some reviewer could claim OR, SYNTH or needless unit conversion. I hope these units being unchanged is alright. Looking forward to the next set of your comments. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:UNIT cares what the sources say. This came up for me recently in an FAC review, so it's fresh in my mind. The source said acres, the topic was Canadian and Canadians use acres, but the MOS says if it's not an American topic, use hectares and convert to acres in parentheses. So if you take this to FAC again, you'll likely be told the same thing about mi/km and lp/kg.

And yet more comments!

• When he returned to Rome: unclear who he is, since the last paragraph ended talking about two men in one sentence.
• 10,000 strong legionaries: like my comment from earlier, I think you want a hyphen there.
• The loot from this campaign paraded at Vulso's triumph had: I think "had" would read better as "included".
• If there's no Wikilink for it, I think you should say what a gold philippic is. An Attalid coin I'm willing to leave undefined since it seems obviously the product of Attalus and/or Attalia.
• Your block quote needs two non-breaking spaces and four dots for the first ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS
• 179 BC among others needs a comma after "BC".
• Book 39 which dealt with the triumph celebrated by Vulso has been needs a comma after "39" and "Vulso".

I have now read as far as one paragraph into the "Analysis" section. I am now confident I will be able to read and comment on the whole thing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my final batch of comments:

• Livy had written about a combined total of 4,000 soldiers from Morzius, the prince of Paphlagonia, and king Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia being present near Ancyra. "Wrote" seems more appropriate here than "had written". Also, this is the first MOS:SERIAL comma I've seen in the article. To be consistent, either remove this one or add it everywhere else.
• raids that they had: "that" is unnecessary.
• What does "20/3 miles" mean?
• Grainger argues that this is likely to be an understatement; the army had covered the distance of 50 miles between the two cities in four days, it had then marched: "that", "to be", and "the distance of" are unnecessary. Removing "it had" at the end there makes the sentence grammatically correct. Otherwise, you'd need to replace that last comma with a semicolon, but that would be just too many semicolon-separated portions in one sentence.
• Grainger shows that this is a distance of 98 miles covered in seven days This being simple math and not an opinion, it doesn't seem necessary to mention Grainger here in the prose.
• Vulso's route, both of them: that should be a semicolon.
• crossing the Samasbeli Pass, and reaching the heights: here's another serial comma you should either remove or add everywhere else.
• Vulso's distribution of the loot to the soldiers was estimated at 308 talents or 18.5 million denarii,[i] the government's share of the loot after making these distributions was estimated at 26.3 talents of gold and 264.1 talents of silver,[j] Vulso's share is unknown but is thought to be substantial. This sentence reads to me as a list of three articles separated by commas. If that's the case, you need an "and" after the last comma. Also, you need to either remove that last comma or add it everywhere else serial commas are missing.
• Seleucids during the war; and that Vulso that semicolon is unnecessary.
• Why a battle on Mount Olympus and not "The Battle of Mount Olympus"?
• between Gordion and Ancyra; or Alis Daği: that semicolon should be a comma
• which the Roman army had marched through should be "through which the Roman army had marched"
• The first paragraph of the lead section is so short. Maybe combine it with the second?

Overall

• Grainger seems to be referenced in the prose way more than any other modern scholars, at least in the "Analysis" section, which is what I was reading when I thought to write this comment. If this article was to be nominated again for FAC, reviewers may question that it sufficiently represents a comprehensive survey of the relevant sources, per WP:FACR.
• There are many many unnecessary words in this prose. I pointed out many, but there are others I didn't bother with. Most commonly, there are many uses of "that" which aren't necessary. Removing those extra words and phrases would do a lot to tighten up the prose and get it closer to FA-quality. Looking back at my specific comments above can give you an idea of what to look for.
• Similar to the previous comment, I see many instances in which the prose uses past perfect verb tense to refer to events, but which would likely be more appropriately written in past simple tense. The result is many extraneous uses of "had".
• Maybe consider left-aligning some of the images to vary the display in desktop view.

That's it! Not knowing a damn thing about this geography or history, this seems to be like it comprehensively covers the important aspects of the events, even though it may rely too much on Grainger's perspectives concerning those events. I didn't look at the images much or the infobox or the sources. Good luck making further improvements to this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented all of your comments from the last section. As to the over reliance on Grainger, no one except him has analyzed the war in much detail. I've used all sources which showed up on JSTOR, The Wikipedia Library, Google Books, and from the bibliographies of the sources I found there. There are two German sources which I'm looking into and I will add them if there is anything new and noteworthy. On the prose, I will try to use your suggestions. On the alignment, I prefer what MOS:IMGLOC has to say on this over MOS:SANDWICH, I hope that is alright. Thank you for your exceptional set of comments which have helped me improve the article a lot. Matarisvan (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from wtfiv

Background

I'll gladly help out a little with comments. Because this is peer reviewed, I'm a bit more comfortable, as all my comments are take it or leave it with the goal to get this FAC ready.

I took a look at the comments for the FAC that Gog mentioned. I'll try to help a little with the prose and see if that helps or is productive. I may also suggest tighter referencing if I see it, as one of the reviewers suggested too much synthesis and Gog suggest the text to source fidelity could be tightened. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the sources, so I won't be able to verify any of them. But my guess is if the prose is tightened up, it'll go a long way to making the FAC process smoother.

I'll start with the first paragraph. The topic subject is Antiochus, a singular king, who launched an invasion, but the later sentences switch this to the Seleucids, a plural noun. As Antiochus triggered this, he should remain the topic of the Roman response throughout the paragraph.

I'd also suggest to keep the action active. For example, instead of focusing on the Roman act of deciding (intervene) just state that they intervened. Also mention that the Roman's didn't just follow Antiochus, they pursued him (hoping to trap him in another battle.) So, it's not the Seleucids engaging in the war (which sounds more like a consensus group) by Antiochus and his Seleucid army.

You mention Pergamum in the plural (allies), but it is really singular. Why not turn it to the singular and mention and link the Kingdom of Pergamum. (Actually, consider mentioning Eumenes II, as he will show up two more times later.

The final sentence may be stronger as a more direct one: Antiochus sued the Romans for peace. (Mentioning the Roman consul by name, which sets up what happens in the next paragraph.)

Here's a version based on my comments: I'm not suggesting this, but hope that it might help clarify the point I'm making, and hopefully make the prose more direct.

Current version

A sample version based on my comments.

In 191 BC, Antiochus the Great, the Emperor of the Seleucid Empire, had invaded Greece. The Romans decided to intervene and they defeated the Seleucids at the Battle of Thermopylae. The defeat by Rome forced the Seleucids to retreat back to Asia Minor. The Romans followed them across the Aegean Sea and together with their allies, Pergamum, decisively defeated the Seleucids at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 or 189 BC. The Seleucids sued for peace and began settling it with Scipio Asiaticus, the Roman consul.[1]

In 191 BC, Antiochus the Great, the Emperor of the Seleucid Empire, had invaded Greece. The Romans intervened, defeating him at the Battle of Thermopylae and forcing the Seleucid army to retreat to Asia Minor. The Romans pursued Antiochus across the Aegean Sea, where they and their ally, King Eumenes II of Pergamum, decisively defeated the Seleucid army at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 or 189 BC. Antiochus sued Scipio Asiaticus, the Roman consul, for peace.[1]

Because the prose in this article was one of the reasons cited for it not passing the first FAC, I'll share a resource on writing for Wikipedia by tony1 that was once shared with me. I found it very useful. It may not be less useful to you, but I thought it worth sharing.

If you find my comments helpful, I'll continue, though in far less depth. If you do not find it useful or fit with the style you are aiming to achieve, I more than understand. Wtfiv (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the sample text to the version you recommend, with just a few changes. I will look through the resource you have provided, thank you very much. I found your comments very helpful and it would be great if you could continue with your detailed review. Your recommendations do fit in with the prose style I was targeting. Thanks once again. Matarisvan (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep going.

Also, I saw you kept "the Seleucids in the last sentence. Because its a kingdom, it would be Antiochus doing the negotiotions, and it would make the prose more consistent and smooth by staying with Antiochus as the main subject of the sentence. Otherwise, the main subject would revert to plural again. The exception would be if the Antiochus was deposed and the negotiations were led by a group of Seleucid nobles or rebels, but this wasn't the case. As we know, Antiochus will guide his side of the negotiations that eventually resulted in the Treaty of Apamea.

I'm guessing that you may be trying to make it clear that the negotiations are still in process? Would it be better to state something to the effect of: Antiochus began peace negotiations with Scipio Asiaticus, the Roman consul. This suggests the negotiations are ongoing, and sets up the arrival of Gnaeus Manlius Vulso's arrival to complete them in the next paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not just Antiochus who was involved in the negotiations, there were other Seleucids too, like his son Seleucus, who was the main truce overseer. But that is relevant to the Roman-Seleucid war article and not here, which is why I didn't include this much of detail. Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The three sentences in the second paragraph could be compressed, though you may have to move the citations about. The first and third sentence go naturally together, so maybe say something like Gnaeus Manlius Vulso was elected as a new Roman consul and was sent to Asia Minor to conclude the treaty Scipio was negotiating. He arrived in Ephesus in early spring 189 BC.

This introduces Vulso and his main purpose immediately. I also suggest deleting the phrase "probably during the month of March or April". Estimating pre-Julian calendar dates with the modern Gregorian calendar is tricky indeed, so specifying the approximately time seems best. After Vulso's reason for being in Asia Minor- to wrap up the treaty negotiations- then it seems appropriate to introduce the facts that he was unsatisfied, sought glory for himself, and the army was unoccupied.

This second paragraph has many conjectures about Vulvo's inner thoughts and motives, which are stated as fact. I'd suggest staying with what little is know, which I'm assuming is primarily derived from Livy. Consider something like He assumed command of the army, which was idle after the Seleucids had been defeated. Before negotiations were complete, he proposed a new war against the Gauls of Galatia in Asia Minor arguing that they had supplied soldiers to the Seleucid army at the Battle of Magnesia.

This deletes statements about motives, which we have no access to. (Everything is based on third-person judgements from a distance, and primarily based on a Latin author with an agenda.)

• We don't know if he was not content to finish negotiations. (One alternative: Maybe he just sought to employ the army.)
• We don't know if his claim about the Galatians was a pretext (alternative: maybe his knowledge of Galatian reliability was based on his local intelligence.)
• Citing historians citing Livy to imply motivations seems particularly tenuous. It's historians conjecturing on motives based on Livy's conjecture of motives regarding a person, Vulvo, to whom we have no access. I'd consider deleting this, but if it is thought worth keeping, I'd suggest that if historians or Livy's conjectures of inner motivations are added to the text, they be included as a footnote so they don't disrupt the flow of the narrative, which is about Vulvo, not historians or Livy. Even this may be problematic. Does Grainger discuss how other historians agree, or is this Grainger's opinion based on Livy? As mentioned, until getting to the legacy, my feeling is that it is best to stay focused on what can be "factually" (i. e., statements in Livy and modern historian's conjectures about what happened.)
• Wtfiv, the above suggestions are very accurate based on a general overview, but the underlying text was structured based on the sources. I somehow forgot to ask you if I can wikimail the sources to you so you can read them alongside the text. Please let me know if you have the time for that, I can then wikimail the sources to you asap. Matarisvan (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds great! I hadn't looked at the references yet, and assumed Grainger was a book, but its an article on JSTORjust checked, and I can get the Grainger article. That one is set. I can get (old) translations of the primary sources as needed. and you have a link to Menicucci. I don't have access to Waterford, though.

Since that Grainger is the main source, I'll address its role in the second paragraph. (Use G. for Grainger)

• Before I do, I to mention that Grainger's language on p. 29 aligns with the suggestion about avoiding "Seleucids" and making Antiochus the focus of the last sentence of the first paragraph. Grainger makes Antiochus, not the "Seleucids" the agent. He carefully distinguishes between Antiochus, the king and the Seleucid Army. Grainger explicitly states that Antiochus sued for peace:The first was the truce which king Antiochos had asked for and been granted about a fortnight after the battle and Antiochus sent envoys to arrange a truce...

Second paragraph and alignment to sources:

• G., p. 25 appears to agree that dating by month is a bit wonky, he gives Vulso's arrival as "spring" and then says say March which is a hedge. I saw no mention of April. I'd suggest going with Grainger and stating "spring". For the first sentence, I don't see the need for p. 29 as all the information is on p. 25.
• G., p. 27 Grainger does not state that Vulso was not content. Rather he states that his command had two objectives: to finish the peace treaty and to gain prestige via successful diplomacy, victory in war, and the acquisition of wealth. It seems a subtle different, but "not content" implies Vulso is acting outside of his mandate by the senate, but Grainger is making it suggesting that the second objective- gain prestige (and bring honor to Rome)- is an assumed expectation of his assignment.
• G., p. 33. Grainger doesn't mention an address to the soldiers and a congratulations for their victory on this page. G. states that he established control over the army by ritual purification and a promise of war with the Galatians. The summary in the article seems like a continuation of Vulso taking control of the army outside of his mandate. But as mentioned, p. 27 suggests Vulso is working within senate expectations. G. p. 33 reads to me as a continuation of G.'s argument on the last paragraph of p. 31. There G. argues that Vulso was expected to further reduce Seleucid power and Vulso, once he assessed the facts on the ground saw advantages in a Galatian campaign as opposed to further confrontations with Antiochus.
• I don't have the Waterford. If he uses "pretext" and he stays with that, it's okay. My issue with it is a minor quibble: it implies a lack of sincerity that later historians infer but may not have been the case at the time. The first paragraph in an old 1863 article in French on JSTOR, |Campagne de Manlius Vulso Contre Les Galates suggests that the word "opportunity" could be used in lieu of "pretext" il en trouva l'occasion ou le prétexte dans la présence des Gallo-Grecs parmi les troupes d'Antiochus [He found the opportunity or pretext in the presence of Gallo-Greeks among the troops of Antiochus.] I wouldn't cite such an old source, but it does allow for the more neutral synonym of "opportunity" to be considered in lieu of "pretext".
• G., pp 24-25. I Grainger's description of Vulso's motivation may be a bit different than stated in this article's paraphrase. It seems to me that Grainger is justifying why he is covering this topic. He gives the Livy view, suggests that many historians have accepted the Livy view. Then he addresses some historians who have alternative views, and argues that the French, German and Italian accounts are no more detailed. He is suggesting that the evidence is sufficiently ambiguous to be unclear. He summarizes by saying: It is time for a new examination of these events. Above all, it is find some acceptable explanation for an expedition which marched against the Galatians by way of Pamphylia. For me, the explicit mention of historians (Livy and moderns) at this point is an intrusion on the narrative flow, which is seeting up Vulso's invasion. Given that G. makes the case the scholarship is muddy and he will be reexamining it, I think it still is best to remove this last sentence about Vulso's internal motivations. These motivations are better addressed in terms of senate and cultural expectations, which also include victory and plunder. (Again, if a discussion of the various attributions of Vulso's characterological reasons is desired, it could be put in a footnote. I don't think removing it at this point would hurt the article.)

To summarize my thoughts now that I have the source, I'd say that Vulso's motivations can be reworked based on Grainger without implying Vulso's state of mind. Rather it was the senate's and Roman culture's expectations for a consul (combined with an assessment of the facts on the Ground, which seems to be Galatian vulnerability. Wtfiv (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional comment (observation only). Reading the first few pages of Grainger, it appears to me that Grainger suggests Vulso is not criticized for exceeding his mandate as consul, which was to reduce Antiochus's power in Asia Minor, support Eumenes II, and expand Roman influence. Rather, the critique seems to be focused on the manner that he fulfilled the mandate. Wtfiv (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I was able to find an eBook of Grainger's 2020 "The Galatians". But I don't have page numbers for the paper version. Starting around para 25 of Chapter 8: Galatia Facing Pergamom and Rome that begins For the decisive campaign Antiochus brought up a much smaller army Grainger elaborates a bit more on Vulso's motivations for the invasion. He states the Galatians took Antiochus' side in the war but were not included in the truce. This seems important. Grainger also states that there is no evidence that Vulso had authorization for the invasion from the senate. Grainger's argument here seems to strengthen that Vulso didn't need a pretext: the Galatians had allied with Antiochus during the war but had been excluded from the treaty. It also suggest that (citing early Grainger) that Vulso was expected to seek glory for himself but (citing later Grainger) he did so without authorization from the senate.

I've gotten hold of an ebook by Waterfield too. The description is brief, but Waterfield 2014 makes it clear that pacification of Asia Minor was a Roman priority. I'm reading Waterfield a bit differently than the paraphrase in the article. Waterfield doesn't state that the presence of Galatian troops was used as a pretext by Vulso. Rather Waterfield uses this as evidence that the Galatians were Antiochus' allies in the war (supporting Grainger 2020's point): Waterfield also points out that Vulso did not see the ongoing peace with Antiochus as applying to the Galatians (a point that Grainger 2020 also makes). In Waterford's view it seems that Vulso's expedition, which may not have been officially authorized, (according to the secondary sources like Grainger) but nevertheless served Rome's purpose of further isolating Antiochus and securing Asia minor without directly confronting Antiochus.

I'm starting to see that one of the challenges may be the narrative thats been created is relying on Livy's description, but the article should be relying more heavily on the secondary sources, such as Grainger, which take a slightly different perspective than Livy.

I appreciate looking this over. I'm still unsure about its usefulness to you, but I enjoy learning a bit more about this period of time. I don't think I'll be able to obtain Hansen or Forde, though. Wtfiv (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan I didn't want to leave my comments sounding too critical without trying to illustrate how they are meant to suggest a possible way forward. In this sandbox I created a sample redraft of the introductory section. I'm not suggesting it be used, but wanted to illustrate one way to address the concerns above. I included notes explaining how the draft differs from what is in the article. These are just suggestions. If you are in agreement with any of the underlying stylistic principles, I think these could be built into the remainder of the article.

It avoids all primary sources, which I'm less comfortable using as they are embedded in the political emphases of the Roman Empire at that time. But if you do use primary sources in the article, I'd like to second Choliamb's point that they are linked for the reader.

Thanks again for inviting me to review this. Wtfiv (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have actioned most of your changes except the last two, I prefer the current prose style if I may humbly say so. For the third point, the mention of the speech is in Waterfield 2014, which is the next citation after Grainger. Hansen is available on JSTOR and I can mail the Forde source to you asap. I will look at the sandbox, especially the two new sources you have incorporated, and see if they can be added here. Thank you for the great review, I hope you will continue to read through the next sections, also, please excuse the delay in my response. Matarisvan (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Vulso's advance in the Galatian War

I've provided a map Vulso's anabasis for your consideration. I think it might be difficult for most readers to track the actual journey, which was around 500 miles, through a narrative- Grainger's, Livy's or the articles- alone. The map connects the major waypoints of cities that appear on a map by used Droysen. I've posted Galatian War's talk page. Don't hesitate to use it if you think it is helpful. Wtfiv (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Added the map, thank you for making it. I was trying to find a non copyrighted one but couldn't, and didn't know how to make one using Wikimedia. Thanks once again. Matarisvan (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Choliamb

I didn't read the whole article; I just looked at the citations of ancient sources (Livy, Polybius). They could use some attention:

• As they stand, all of the citations of Livy and Polybius include the abbreviation for page number (e.g., Livy p. 38.14.3). But there are no page numbers in this reference, which points to Livy book 38, chapter 14, section 3. It should be formatted like this: "Livy 38.14.3". Same for Polybius p. 21.35., which should be "Polybius 21.35" (= book 21, chapter 35).
• The author links for Livy and Polybius in the footnotes point to specific translations in the list of primary sources (the Penguin translations in this case), but that is not very helpful for readers, since you don't provide page numbers or quotations from these particular translations, and they are still under copyright, so they will be hard for some readers to access, at least on line. Fortunately, there are translations in the public domain for most ancient authors, and those can be cited instead. But really, there's no need to cite a specific translation at all unless you are discussing a controversial passage in which different scholars offer different interpretations; otherwise it is enough simply to give the book-chapter-section reference, since that will point readers to the right place no matter which translation they use, and will also be equally useful for those who can to read the original Greek and Latin.
• To make things easier still, it would be helpful when citing ancient authors to provide links to the specific passages cited, so that readers of the article can see what Livy and Polybius actually wrote. The Perseus Project is a good choice for this: if you link readers directly to, say, Livy 38.14, they will be able to see it in both the original language and in an English translation; likewise for Polybius 21.35. If you look at the source code for these links you'll see how easy it is to create them.
• I did a quick check of the references to Livy and Polybius to see if the passages cited matched the content in the article; most were fine, but I did find a few small inaccuracies:
  • The army then advanced into the territory of Cibyra, ruled by Moagetes, who Livy says was a tyrant. Moagetes persuaded Vulso to accept 100 talents of silver as indemnity and promised to provide him with 1,000 medimnoi of wheat. The passage cited here is Livy 38.14.3, but section 3 contains only the characterization of Moagetes as a tyrant. The payment of silver and grain isn't mentioned until 38.14.13-14. Either add the specific section numbers for the latter ("Livy 38.14.3, 13-14"), or, an easier solution, just cite the chapter without the section numbers ("Livy 38.14"), which is the form adopted in most other citations. You might also want to double-check the amount of grain: the article currently says 1,000 medimnoi, but the text of Livy appears to say decem milia = 10,000 medimnoi.
  • The consul reached the Rhotrine Springs and he was once again met by Seleucus, who took the injured and sick Romans with him to Apamea and provided some guides to the Romans." The reference given here is Livy 38.15.12-15, but the correct reference appears to be 38.15.10-13 — or again, you could just omit the section numbers altogether and write 38.15.
  • then took the city of Lysinoe before accepting a tribute of fifty talents and 20,000 medimnoi of barley and wheat from the city of Sagalassus. Polybius specifically says 20,000 of barley and 20,000 of wheat, for a total of 40,000 medimnoi of grain; this is perhaps worth clarifying, both because the sentence can currently be misunderstood to mean 20,000 medimnoi of barley and wheat combined, and because the next sentence discusses Grainger's calculation of the total amount of grain available for the army on its march. (In explanatory notes a and c, the singular of medimnoi should be medimnos.)
• Finally, Strabo is listed along with Livy and Polybius among the primary sources, but as far as I can see he is not cited anywhere in the article. Did I overlook him?

— Choliamb (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Choliamb, thank you for reviewing the primary sources. I was about to request you for a review on the talk page given your knowledge of the classics. I have linked to the Perseus Digital Library for all citations to Livy and Polybius, however a pp. prefix will have to be present since the ref breaks otherwise. I hope that is alright. I have implemented the three changes to the section numbers and the medimnoi figures which you suggested. Frankopan and Pothecary's translation of Strabo is used only once for providing the equivalent measure today for Roman miles. I hope you will be able to do a full review of the text soon, which would be very helpful for improving the article. Matarisvan (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To remove the pp. prefix from an sfn, use the |loc= parameter instead of |pp=. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, I had somehow forgotten that parameter was available. Will you be reviewing too, UC? It would be a great help to have your comments. Matarisvan (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)