Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Punic War

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

First Punic War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

First Punic War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

With three naval battles from the First Punic War at or on their way towards FA it seemed a good idea to tidy up the main article. I mean, how difficult could it be? Ha! Very, was the answer. But I now present, fresh from GAN, 23 years of war boiled down into 6,000 words. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; too long

[edit]

Like last time, I want others (ie Readers/Users) to benefit from your work. This is an encyclopaedia; if we don't make it easy for our audience, they'll go elsewhere. I do this kind of thing for a living, and I know how hard it is to leave out detail interesting to me, but not useful, or helpful, for my audience .

Key principles; bitesize (shorter is better, whether the article itself, sentences, paras etc), engage early (ie if the opening isn't grabbing, you lose people).

Agreed; all other things being equal a shorter statement is better than a long one. I have something similar on my user page. ("Could I put it more shortly?" You may recognise the source.) Other things are not equal, or all Wikipedia articles would consist of just the Short description. "First war between Rome and Carthage, 264-241 BCE" in this case.

General; (1) too wordy throughout eg "The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account." ie There's been debate, but most modern accounts consider him a reliable source. Bang.

It is my view that reducing an article to a series of bullet points means that is unlikely to meet the A class criteria to be written in articulate English and to have clear prose. Of course YMMV and/or I may be wrong.

(2) Paragraphs need to be chunked; four lines max.

I disagree. A paragraph should be as long as it needs to be to cover the area under discussion. One may argue that any given sentence within a paragraph is unnecessary or is too wordy (or not "wordy " enough) but to artificially limit paragraphs to four lines or less seems to me to be a recipe for incoherence.

Specific Lead; waaaaaaay too long; as a user, I should be able to quickly read and understand what its all about. Too many numbers; I've rewritten it to show what I mean. Or look at my rewritten War of the Spanish Succession - which covers a war far more more complex, in less than this.

"as a user, I should be able to quickly read and understand what its all about." In which case I commend to you the 9 word short description or the 82 word first paragraph. Your rewritten lead would, IMO, fail to meet the A class criterion "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic" as one of the ways in which it achieves brevity is by saying nothing at all about military events between 255 and 241 BC,

Sources; this should be at the end (again, most people don't care and you lose them)

There are more, but we both spent a lot of effort going back and forth on Cape Wotsit; I even did some work myself, and it pretty much ended in the same place. So no biggie, I know many editors think the more content the better, but I'm fine with a 'Yeah, ok'. I'm not sure who your audience is; if you are, and this is what they want, then you don't need to persuade me :)

I recently had Mercenary War, from the same period, go through FAC; it covers a five year war in 3,450 words. This article has 5,787 for a 23-year-long war. I do not consider either excessive. I have, so far, put four battles from this war through FAC - each lasted less than a day. They had 3,654, 3,344, 3,090 and 2,779 words. I was more than pleased to summarise the entire war in fewer words than the two shortest descriptions of individual battle.

14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • This was the longest war of the Roman Republic, it's okay to tell about in lengths. I personally think the article could be more detailed. Moreover there are 33,936 bytes of text, which is way below the limit of WP:TOOLONG for splitting an article and is within the acceptable range. I think your critic is misguided. I do agree that the lede has some problem though (see my comment below). T8612 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase; I'm not bothered about the total length so much. It needs to be rebalanced; too long-winded in some areas, too short in others (eg general strategy and overview, ie why.)
If you are "not bothered about the total length so much", why is your summary "Oppose; too long"?
I’m going to put this here, but as I do so, let me clarify; I'm not seeking agreement, nor do I need to be told I’m wrong. After about three years of editing, I am genuinely still trying to figure out what Wikipedia is for. Is it (a) an opportunity for individuals to write articles on topics they find interesting, less bothered if anyone else does; or (b) an online encyclopedia, designed for general users.
How you answer that question is important; if (a), none of my points matter, so stop reading. If (b), they might do.
I am not inclined to get sucked into arguing a false dichotomy. What I am trying to do is write an encyclopedia article which meets the A class criteria. It is expected that comments against an individual nomination will focus on where the article nominated fails to meet the criteria. If an editor believes the criteria are at fault, eg by encouraging wordiness or discouraging punchiness, there are more appropriate venues to discuss this and to endeavour to have them changed; it is possible that I may even support you on some of these.
First, according to Wikipedia statistics, well over 70% of page views are via a mobile device; ergo, if you want to know how likely your article is to be read, look at it on a tablet, not a laptop. That means shorter, less threatening paragraphs,
Second, 60% of views only look as far as the Lead; which makes it the most important part of the article. The idea behind the four paragraphs rule is conciseness; so writing four really long paragraphs for the lead misses the point. This is not me being controversial; I’m quoting from the Wikipedia guidelines on Lead Para.
Third, if you want people to continue reading, it's a series of hooks; if I’m a general reader, I could care less about the Sources - why is it the first paragraph? It's inviting people to stop.
I fail to see either an actionable comment or anything which relates to the A class criteria; if I am being slow, apologies - that is sadly not uncommon.
I’ve only ever put forward one article for A-Class review, because I wanted to understand the process, and I've only recently started doing Bs. I don’t feel the need to persuade others – but if I want my articles reviewed, being part of a community requires me to provide the same courtesy. If I'm the only person who thinks this is a problem, then I'm happy to be ignored.Robinvp11 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robinvp11 and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. My thoughts on your comments are above, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

[edit]

Hmm, I know you have experience with these kinds of articles but this does not meet the criteria and I believe it is a little it further than it normally should be. Because it's a big article I understand there are a lot of things that should be addressed but there are some vague sentence in it and I believe we did not add all the information about the war in it like what were the roles of Corsica, Sardinia and Malta in the war. I believe these are the biggest issues to me but again because it's long we cannot add everything without someone else giving feedback.

Hi CPA-5: I have been aware that I have been struggling with this one and have asked a couple of people to chip in. I think that the finished article will be more than ever a true Wikipedian effort, where the whole community drags it up to standard. And yes, there is a lot of room for debate in an article like this as to what is too broad or too narrow. With no answer being obviously "right". I seem to have incorporated an even larger proportion of nonsense in this one than usual, and I very much appreciate the time and dedication you have devoted to picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox doesn't include important information like casualties, losses and add mercenaries here because it's important that they were a separate party here.
There is no information, even roughly, on total casualties. I could add "Heavy" to both. My preference would be not to, as I don't think that it conveys useful information. And Template:Infobox military conflict under casualties states "optional".
  • The lead doesn't mention the Corsica and Sardinia battles.
That was deliberate, but was a marginal call. Inserted. I would be grateful if you could check if you feel it is really necessary, as the lead is already long.
  • Publius Claudius Pulcher is an SIA.
Well he was ransomed after a couple of years and fought in the war for another 15 years, including serving as a consul again, so it seemed a bit misleading. I am happy to take advice on this.
  • Where's the commander of Syracuse in the infobox?
Good point. Added.
  • Which Hanno the Great are we talking about in the infobox?
Ah ha. Fixed. Also fixed in the infobox.
  • Don't understand why "Syracuse" isn't included as a Carthaginian ally in the infobox?
Cos Syracuse was a Carthaginian ally for 4 years; then a Roman ally for 19 years. So I could put Syracuse as an ally of both or of neither. The latter seemed the least confusing. And the fact that it played a pretty minor role, mostly logistic support, seems to support it. Happy to seek consensus.
  • I understand but personally it's a little bit misleading to not add it. Like a film I'd say it's a big plotwist to see that the Greeks became ally with the Romans.
I seems to me to be a very minor plot twist. Syracuse spent a year cooperating with the Carthaginians, then 22 years as allies of the Romans. I have added them as allies of the Romans in the infobox. (Although my preference would be not to.) I think that to also try and cram that they were allies of the Carthaginians into the info box would overload it. That's what articles are for, not infoboxes. From Template:Infobox military conflict: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional [emphasis in original] – the parties participating in the conflict.
  • No Malta as part of the locations?
I am considering it a set of Sicilian off shore islands like the Liparis or the Aegates. If I list Malta, which barely saw any fighting, then I certainly need to list them, possibly others and the list fills up with island groups.
  • Personally, Malta is more important than the other islands offshore Sicilia. Because Malta is a separate country and it even has it's own language which is unique. But it's fine to not include it was just curious why not.
I take your point, and Malta was important in more recent conflicts. But it wasn't in this one. The Lipari Islands for example were more important.
  • By its terms Carthage paid large reparations and Sicily was annexed as a Roman province Corsica and Sardinia aren't included here.
Correct. By the treaty their status was not affected, so they are not mentioned.
  • The end of the war sparked a major but unsuccessful revolt within the Carthaginian Empire Add mercenaries they have paid here.
20,000 of the rebels were foreign fighters from the Sicilian army, derogatorily termed "mercenaries" by the Romans, but 70,000 were subjugated Africans. So I have tried to avoid "mercenary" for PoV reasons. And I feel that concentrating on the 20% of the rebels who were foreign would be giving them undue weight; similarly the 70,000 rebellious Africans were not rebelling over pay.
  • the First Punic War is based on several, now lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.
Done.
  • contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes.[23][19] Re-oder the refs.
Done
  • The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in southern Italy for a century Add mainland here.
Done.
  • conquered peninsular Italy south of the River Arno by 272 BC No need for an upper case in river.
I think that there is; it is a proper name.
  • So you're saying both River Arno and Arno River are correct?
Yes. In virtually all cases they are interchangeable. (Hey! Should I be invoicing you for English lessons? )
  • I wouldn't mind if you do. Learn everyday more about English. (Could you imagine that I never had English lessons at school nor never learnt it on language-learning platforms? :) )
Frankly, no, I can't. So where did you acquire your skill at English.
  • Well, it is a really long story you know. It started at secondary school where me and my friends talked a lot of films, games and YouTube back in the times and mostly they were in English however, it didn't really started before I joined Wikipedia in 2016 (damn that's almost 4 years ago). Back in the days I was more a copy-paster in ongoing conflicts' timelines. You may ask yourself "why didn't he work on the Dutch Wikipdia" and you're right, I indeed worked over there but I got embarrassed from my work back in the days. For instead back in the day I made and translated the South Yemen Civil War to Dutch (without sources and citations because I was stupid and didn't know MOS) which supprising still is there without sources or even being deleted. So back to being a copy-paster, at the time I was really assciocal 'cause I mean what you expect if think you're not a native speaker or someone who's an advanced speaker of that language? So I needed to learn I needed to talk and understand the language, the usages, the slangs, the natives and the rules. It later surprised me that I'm one of the few who tries and learn proper English without slangs or internet abbreviations, let's say I'm a little bit conversitive in language. I decided to watch a lot of films with English subtitles and even made some online friends outside Wikipedia who're from the English world. I even once met someone online who thought I was an American while they were from Britain and vice versa. Which is funny to think about because first of all I'm not good in English not back then nor in the present day. My embarrassing feeling is the reason why I never decided to write a proper article here well not until that long ago. Thus, I decided to review some ARCs back in April 2018 before that I never met MOS. So you guessed it, it was a disaster if I can be honest. And now a days I am watching YouTube some documantries in English. Let's summarise these; I learnt English on many ways by real life friends, internet friends, Wikipedia (even though it tools some times) and YouTube (watching now too much Conan). The only proplem I have in langues is word types ask me a half year ago what a proposition was and I'd probably wouldn't answer that question and it's not only in English, in Dutch it's the same story, somehow my brain doesn't want to understand what those words are and always will be problems. So that's how I learnt English without teachers.
That's impressive. But now you're getting advanced: I have no idea what a preposition is, except I think it is something you are not supposed to end a sentence with. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you don't know? Prepositions are on, in, with, near, by, along, to, chez, than, down, under, above and more. The one thing I've learnt from preposistions is you can end a sentence with the word "with" as long it's a question. Advanced is a big word in my opinion and I believe I'm far from advanced; let's say I'm a beginner in English and always believe in yourself and all your dreams will come true (that's how I got my driving licence not that long ago). ;)
  • No need to link North Africa.
Unlinked.
  • The two states had several times asserted their mutual friendship via formal alliances: in 509 BC, 348 BC and around 279 BC I don't understand why you add the years here without the reason why they become friends and broke the alliances a couple of times? Had they the same enemies?
They made/reaffirmed/renegotiated the original treaty twice. After 161 years they possibly felt that it would be a good idea to agree and confirm everything.
  • Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC, against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome --> You mean the King of Epirus.
No. I could have said that - in that it would have made sense and been grammatically permissible - but I meant what I wrote.
  • In 288 BC, the Mamertines, a group of Italian mercenaries, previously hired by Syracuse, occupied the city of Messana (modern Messina) in the north-eastern tip of Sicily.[33]. Remove the full stop after the citation.
Done
  • At the same time, Roman troops revolted and seized control of Rhegium Against whom and why actually?
A fair question. But that, IMO, would be off the point of something which is already marginal, so I have taken it out.
  • However, many saw strategic and monetary advantages in gaining a foothold in Sicily Many who?
Romans. I could go with 'many Romans saw', but it seemed to me clear from context and I have used "Romans" in the previous sentence. Is it not to you?
  • No was just thinking at the time about generals, senators or other politician, not about Romans themselves.
Ah. I take your point. I have added "of them" to try and make it a little clearer.
  • The balance were equipped as heavy infantry, with body armour, a large shield, and short thrusting swords They were divided into three ranks Forgot full stop here.
Ha! Eagle eyes.
  • Many would be Numidians and Berbers from North Africa --> "Many would be Numidians, former neighbour Berber tribes and other Berbers from North Africa"
I think that I see your point, so I have removed "Numidians and Berbers".
  • troops who would charge ferociously, but had a reputation for breaking off if a combat was protracted.[45][43][note 4] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Two thousand slingers were recruited from the Balearic Islands.[46][43] Same as above.
Done.
  • partly made up of Ligurians, Celts and Iberians.[56][39] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Five months after the siege began, Hanno marched to Akragas's Which Hanno?
The one named in full and linked in the previous sentence.
  • westward to relieve the besieged city of Macella Wrong link.
Good point. Thank you. A bit of a mess. Removed the lot.
  • Hamilcar took advantage of this to launch a counterattack, taking one of the contingents American counterattack.
Fixed.
  • After a quarrel, the Roman troops and their allies set up separate camps Is this meant to be Syracusians if you mean in groups did the Romans had an extra ally which isn't mentioned in the article yet?
Their Latin allies mentioned as "An army was usually formed by combining a Roman legion with a similarly sized and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies" under Armies.
  • had usually relied on small squadrons provided by their allies Same as above.
Inserted 'Latin or Greek'.
  • Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable. [75] Remove extra space here.
Done.
  • a bridge 1.2 metres (4 ft) wide and 11 metres (36 ft) long We had a discussion about this before but maybe we can introduce those "old fogies" the symbols of metric units? I mean we could use this "a bridge 1.2 metres (m) (4 ft) wide and 11 m (36 ft) long"? And I believe we need an "of" here? Because in my opinion it's a little bit unnecessary, but I agree it should be mentioned once before same with other metric units.
I don't think that an "of" is needed.
I prefer to give the metric units in full. Is there a policy that they should be abbreviated? I note that elsewhere you have asked me to expand LT to long tons at every mention.
  • Well surprising there is. I thought it was just me but I found in MOS:UNITNAMES we only should use full short written units a "few" times and only once with long units.
Well found. Done: now, I think, in full on first mention and abbreviated on subsequent. Does this mean that elsewhere you only require me to give "long tons" in full on the first mention?
MOS:UNITNAMES and WP:UNITSYMBOLS are just alternate names for the same policy. You can't have it both ways.
  • Whooops, another embarrassing moment. I think at the time I needed to go to sleep before knowing I was screwing this up. Anyway in the section "Specific units" both short and long tons should be written fully. Let's say they are one of those exceptions.
  • Maybe introduce the other rams too because you only used the triple set though there were more than one kinda ram.
CPA-5: my understanding is that the excavation and examination of the rams in anything so far published has been under the direction of Tulsa and/or Royal. Their overview - [1] - has all of the rams reported being triples. If you have a RS which says something different I would be most interested.
I note in passing that triple rams were so universal thet they were depicted as such on coins a hundred years later - see coin image in article.
  • with the first 17 ships to arrive to the Lipari Islands Maybe add the islands were close to Sicily, because before I clicked to the link I had no idea where they are.
Very good point. Clarified.
  • move he despatched 20 ships under Boodes to the town Boodes who?
ER, the one you link to when you click on his name. (He didn't have any other name that we know of.)
  • Some Romans panicked and fled inland and the consul himself was taken prisoner You mean the Consul?
Done.
  • The year after Mylae, 259 BC, the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio led part of the fleet against Aléria in Corsica and captured it Maybe I cannot calculate but the sentence before told us the year 262 BC and I don't think 262-1 is 259 BC?
The C's were raiding from 262. Stop. The year after Mylae - which was in 260, so the year after was 259. I am not sure what is unclear, but obviously something is, so I will have a look at rephrasing.
  • I think there are more information about the campaigns in Corsica and Sardinia. Like what happened with Ulbia, the rest of Corsica and Sardinia?
None of my sources say. None of them even mention Aléria again. I assume that the primary sources don't say anything. Three secondary sources have variants of the attacks fizzled our=t and were not renewed.
Nothing happened with Ulbia - the Roman attack failed and there is no record of Ulbia being attacked again.
  • The Romans then raided both Lipari and Malta Didn't they captured Malta?
Not that I have a source for.
  • I guess together with the Corsica and Sardinia events are lost history :/
There is quite a lot that we don't have information for; or only partial or patchy information. I have tried to put together a coherent account without repeatedly mentioning where our knowledge runs out. Things are probably similar for many/most articles, just a little more obvious here.
  • They planned to cross to Africa and invade what is now Tunisia.[96][71][97] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Link Battle of Cape Ecnomus.
Done.
  • Most of the Roman ships returned to Sicily, leaving Regulus with 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to continue the war in Africa Why did they leave and why not all?
To fight the war in Africa. The sources don't say. And the modern sources I have don't guess.
  • Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Bostar were placed in joint Who are the other two commanders?
Two Carthaginians who turn up in the primary sources on this sole occasion and who don't have articles because this is all the information there is on them. I prefer not to red link them as there is little possibility of them being turned blue, but would value your opinion.
  • Nah, maybe in the future they can become blue. Let them stay black as they usually are.
  • They gave charge of the training of their army to the Spartan, mercenary commander Xanthippus Xanthippus who?
Just Xanthippus. That was his whole name.
  • Question, I don't know if there is a policy here but, shouldn't we add toponyms at the first time too?
If you mean as in Xanthippus of Sparta, my RSs don't use that term, just his singular name.
  • 2,000 retreated to Aspis; 500, including Regulus, were captured; the rest were killed. This is a start of a sentence please try to avoid using numbers at the start of a sentence.
I often forget this. Thanks. Fixed.
  • They lost another 150 ships, from a fleet of 220, to a storm while returning from raiding the North African coast east of Carthage. They rebuilt again. Maybe merge the really short sentence?
I prefer not to.
  • In late 251 or early 251 BC the Carthaginian commander Hasdrubal Maybe switch early and late here.
My typo; my bad. Changed to 'In late 251 or early 250 BC'. Which is the correct chronological order.
  • The Carthaginian commander Adherbal was able to lead his fleet Adherbal who?
Linked.
  • before they were trapped and counter attacked in the Battle of Drepana You mean counter-attacked?
I do. Done. Have you read my appreciation of people who know where commas hyphens go here?
  • against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Do we know how heavily they were defeated?
Not really. Of 123 ships, 93 of their ships captured, an unknown number sunk. It seemed a bit unnecessary detail to add that, but what do you think?
  • Something inside me tells we should because this Wikipedia and we should add as much information as possible. But from the other side this is a long article and we shouldn't go to detailed so let's say we'll let it stay like this and add the numbers in the Battle's article.
That was my thinking, but prepared to change it. Full details are in Battle of Dreana. ("Pulcher led a successful breakout by 30 Roman ships, the only ones to survive the battle. The result was an utter Roman defeat, with 93 of their ships captured, an unknown number sunk, and 20,000 men killed or captured.")
  • able to use their superior army to interfere.[132][65] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Hamilcar employed combined arms tactics in a Fabian strategy Wasn't Hamilcar Barca the real name because I thought they had barely surnames and middle names so isn't it part of their name at the time?
It is usual to name an individual in full at first mention - which I do two sentences earlier - and thereafter to refer to them by a single name.
  • -ise vs -ize.
I can't find an inappropriate "-ize". Where should I be looking?
  • I think I'm seeing ghosts; I was totally sure they were there.
I think that you are working too hard!
  • Maybe, who knows? :)
  • the Carthaginians, led by Hamilcar Barca, began a series of campaigns to expand Is there a link for the campaigns?
Short answer - no. Longer answer - I have linked it to a sub-section of Carthaginian Iberia.
  • Sicily became the first Roman province as Sicilia, governed by a former praetor Who and how was this the first province weren't there areas in mainland Italy provinces?
Nope. They were either incorporated into Rome proper, or retained their [quasi-]autonomy as Latin allies. See also the first sentence of Sicilia (Roman province).
  • and when Carthage besieged the Roman protected town of Saguntum in eastern Iberia in 218 BC, it ignited the Second Punic War with Rome Was there a reason why they besieged it? We also need a hyphen between Roman and protected.
Yes, but it is, IMO, getting off topic. This article is on the First Punic war. We do - inserted.
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry Unlink Latin in the notes.
Done.
  • 100 talents was approximately 2,600 kilograms (2.6 LT) of silver Long ton should be written fully same with the other notes.
Done.
  • This assumes, per G. K . Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans Remove the unnecessary space here.
Done.
  • primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters I had a discussion with Sturm or PB don't remember which one but we shan't link Mediterranean here.
Not IMO.
  • I guess this is an ongoing never ending issue.
Rereading, I am not sure if you are saying that "Mediterranean" should or shouldn't be linked. My view is that it shouldn't.
  • No no, I mean this will be a never ending story because this is opinions by some editors and I guess you have to know your nominators whether it is needed to be linked or not.
  • However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy --> "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified to confirm the accuracy"
Sorry, no; my version is correct. (Yours is not grammatical.)
  • Hard pressed by Syracuse, the Mamertines in Messana appealed to both Rome Hard pressed needs a hyphen?
Done.
  • It was recognised that this step may lead to ill feeling from Carthage A hyphen between ill and feeling is needed.
Done.
  • a port city half way along the south coast of Sicily Merge half and way.
Done.
  • In spite of this victory, the Romans who were attempting to support Maybe replace "in spite of" with "despite"?
Done.
  • After a prolonged and confused day of fighting the Carthaginians were defeated --> "After a prolonged and confusing day of fighting the Carthaginians were defeated"?
Either is fine, but I prefer mine.
  • The Romans sent a fleet evacuate their survivors and the Carthaginians attempted to oppose it --> "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors and the Carthaginians attempted to oppose it"
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • The Romans were pinned against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Carthaginian ships with their better trained crews --> " The Romans were pinned against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Carthaginian ships with their better-trained crews"
Done.
  • Romans could react and unloaded reinforcements and a large quantity of supplies --> "Romans could react and unloaded reinforcements and a large number of supplies"?
No. (It's like saying a large number of air.)
  • By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding, and with a proven vessel as a model produced high quality quinqueremes --> "By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding, and with a proven vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes"
Done.
  • There is something strange with the image "File:First_Punic_War_264_BC_v2.png" because if you look at this "File:Carthage_Holdings.png" these maps' borders of the Carthaginian Empire don't match with each other so I'm a little bit confused which one the Carthaginian Empire looks like before the war broke out?
"File:First_Punic_War_264_BC_v2.png" is sourced to a RS; "File:Carthage_Holdings.png" is unsourced.
  • And last comment about which Hanno the Great are we talking about?
Correctly linked at first mention - there was only one Hanno the Great at this time.

Part 2

  • the First Punic War is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin?
Done.
  • recruited from the Balearic Islands.[46][43] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • their superior army to interfere.[65][66][65] Excuse me found an embarrassing issue here; remove the second 65's citation.
Done.
  • provided by their Latin or Greek allies.[67][68][39] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • The Romans followed up and captured Tunis, only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage Needs "|abbr=on"; second mentioned kilometres here.
Done.
  • 50 Carthaginian quinqueremes gathered off the Aegates Islands, which lie 15–40 kilometres (9–25 mi) to the west of Sicily Same as above.
Done.
  • being able to use their superior army to interfere.[135][65] Re-der the refs here.
Done.
  • left up to his subordinate Gesco.[155][154] Same as above.
Done.
  • LTs in the notes should be fully written long tons per this
Done.
  • Link long tons in the note 5.
Done.
  • Replace Italy with the Italian Peninsula 'cause Sardia and Sicilia are also both Italy and it's also too wide-known to link it. Another alternative is Mainland Italy.
Replaced with the Roman name for peninsular Italy and linked.

That's it from me phew I think this my biggest review I've ever made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a monster. Thank you very much, I am grateful. I shall try to complete my response over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 I think that that is everything you have flagged up addressed. See what you make of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer.
Hi CPA-5. It's good to have you back. You OK. Your family OK. Apart, of course, from being frustrated at being cooped up. Did you get to see your dad?
OK. Your responses to my responses responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 That's a bummer. It was a glorious day over here too. I walked into town and back. To take some pictures of a war memorial for a Wikipedia editor. It was spookily quiet.
A couple of comments above. So, is it improved enough/irredeemable enough to shift you from that soft neutral. In either case, many thanks: you have put an awful lot of work into this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't surprise me it was spookily quiet. In my home city, there are still people walking here and there (not much of course) you could say there is no lockdown at all. Let me guess are those pictures for HJ Mitchell?
  • @Gog the Mild: I responded to your responses to my (again) responses to your (again) responses to my (once again) responses to your (once again) responses to my comments. The reason why I took to soft neutral is because I believe there were indeed a lot of comments. And I believe there were probably more evens about Corsica and Sardinia and I believed they should be expanded. Like you told PM below me, this isn't really your best work but I don't believe that's bad. We all learn something new every day and maybe you need more time to experiment in Roman topics. I'm not saying it's bad but that's why most people just take one era or topic to work on like PM with Yugoslav topics, both Sturm and PB with their warships, AR about Australian military history, Nick-D about WWII history and the list goes on and on . Maybe you are still using your Hundred Years' War style of writing. But after my last comments are addressed I will change it to a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. But I like the intellectual challenge of researching and wrapping my head around a completely new topic. Plus writing about an entire 23-year-long war was never going to be easy. Thank goodness that writing an article on Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I have lost track of the comments above. If there is anything left for me to address, could you repeat it below for me? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just made a sandwich for you; hope you like it. And don't worry you'll master it in no time. If you know me then you know I always have a check-up before I'll give the nominators my support. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, now you have made me hungry. All of the layers of your sandwich now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, eating your food is the best medicine for hungry. I've changed it to support; I cannot keep this as a soft neutral forever by searching every tiny little issue here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put it past you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Now excuse me, I'm now gonna eat my chocolate mousse because this review made hungrily I assume you enjoyed your supper too. (I really have chocolate mousse with me.) ;)

Image review—pass

[edit]
What an idiot! I have added Goldsworthy, with a broad page range. I am not sure that specifying 12 separate ranges would help a reader. (And it would be a pain to do!)
  • I'm not concerned by the discrepancy flagged by CPA-5, because the image that you used has a stronger source.
  • All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant; all other images are sourced. buidhe 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Buidhe. Thanks for the review, and for picking up on my stupidity. My comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing—I have no issues with this citation style for images. buidhe 12:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable, and the best sources (e.g. recent books) are used most heavily, as it should be
  • No issues with how sources are used
  • No source checks done.
  • I'd be happy to review this article again at FAC, so please ping me. buidhe 21:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you Buidhe. I see this as a bit of a slow burner, and want to get it right before nominating it for FAC, but I shall certainly ping you when I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Wow, impressive effort to condense this all down to a readable article. I have a few comments:

Thanks Peacemaker67, high praise indeed. A bit of a labour of love; not my best work, as CPA-5 points out above; and lots of judgement calls as to what doesn't make the cut in order to keep it to a manageable size.
  • in the lead, suggest piping the link to the Mercenary War to "major but unsuccessful revolt" rather than just revolt, per WP:EASTEREGG
Done.
  • also in the lead, "between Rome and Carthage would lead"
Done.
  • when did the Carthaginian troops arrive at Messana?

"The precise chronology of these events is unclear." (Goldsworthy.) Some time in 265 or 264 BC.

  • when did the Roman Senate decide to send troops to Messana?
Added. Also added when the Mamertines appealed for help.
  • The Background section doesn't explain why both empires sending forces to Messana would lead to conflict. What were the orders to the respective forces?
Umm. The Carthaginians and the Romans both accepted Messana as a subject town and both sent garrisons. The Romans in the knowledge that the Carthaginian garrison was already in place. What could go wrong?
"convincing the Mamertines to accept a Carthaginian garrison in Messana. According to Polybius, a considerable debate took place in Rome as to whether to accept the Mamertines' appeal for assistance, which could easily lead to war with Carthage." I could easily lay this on a bit thicker if you think it necessary, it just seemed clear enough to me.
I strongly disagree with this. Were they both aware that the other empire had also been asked for assistance? The article doesn't make it at all clear why both empires sending forces to Messana would lead to conflict, particularly given the two empires had cooperated in the past. Is there any info about what the Roman commander was told to do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not explicitly. Polybius and the secondary sources I read seem to make the same assumption I have. There is a fair bit on the broad causes of the war, but not on the detail you want. I will see how closely I can dance around that without ORing.
I have rejigged the last two paragraphs of "Background"; see what you think.
  • could you vary the language "most" in "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, most would serve"?
Done.
  • "better-off" is a bit colloquial
Really? Changed to "the wealthier".
  • how big was the force that landed at Messana in 264 BC?
Two legions, as it says in the text. Say a minimum of 10,000 men, quite possibly more, but that's OR. The sizes of the Carthaginian and Syracusan forces are not known.
  • it isn't clear how the Romans besieged Syracuse, then lifted the siege, then the Syracusians made peace with the Romans because of a brief siege? Is this the same siege that was quickly lifted, or a second one?
A second one. The second sentence recast to try and make this clearer.
  • "prevented them from shippeding supplies by sea"
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • throughout, I would actually link major battles by name rather than piping them to narrative, also some of them are EASTEREGGY, eg "immediate attack"
27 months of nominating articles on Wikipedia, and Easter eggs have never come up. Now, three mentions in a week. Makes me wonder if I have changed my writing style. Done.
  • is there target links for "ultimately fruitless campaign against Corsica and Sardinia" and "equally fruitless expedition to Africa"?
No.
  • the Cconsul himself
Done.
  • link crucifixion
Done, but the last time I linked it a(n experienced) FAC reviewer asked me to unlink it.
  • suggest "9nine of the leading 10ten Roman ships." and "8eight Carthaginian ships and captured 10ten"
Done.
  • Lipari is duplinked
Fixed.

Down to Invasion of Africa, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wading through this one Peacemaker, I know that it's a bit hefty. All good stuff above. See what you think of my changes, and I await your comments on the second half. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and threaten their capital, Carthage" you've already established it was their capital
I have taken it out, but reviewers in the past have complained that it is not always clear whether Carthage/Rome the state or |Carthage/Rome the city is mean - the previous phraseology seemed a useful disambiguater.
  • "(close to what is now Tunis)" as we learn later that Tunis existed then
Done.
Good thinking - I got jammed up on how to rephrase that.
  • link Hasdrubal the Fair
Sorry - my usual sloppiness in not fully checking the lead I inherited. A different Hasdrubal. Who appears for a walk on role in this battle and disappears again, so I was/am reluctant to red link.
  • drop the comma from "the Spartan, mercenary commander Xanthippus"
Done.
  • link mercenary at first mention, in the Background section
Done.
  • link guerrilla warfare
Done.
  • is there a link for "defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet"?
Already linked. I missed naming this one per your earlier suggestion. Changed to 'in the hard-fought battle of the Battle of the Aegates Islands the better-trained Romans defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet.'

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker, very helpful. All addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by T8612

[edit]
  • The Mamertines occupied Messena in 289, see Cambridge Ancient History, p. 474.
True. Originally it said that. I have no idea why I changed it, but thanks for spotting it. Fixed.
  • I think the role of Appius Claudius Caudex is not highlighted enough. He may well have been the guy who decisively pushed for war, because of his personal ambition (cf. Cambridge Ancient History, p. 544, the second paragraph). It seems he got the command of the war by promising booty to the people in the assembly. He should also be in the infobox, and perhaps the lead.
I don't see that this is the consensus of scholarly opinion. To be frank, I don't really see it as supported by Scullard. "it is possible that no formal war-vote was passed by the Roman people and that their vote that help be sent to the Mamertines empowered Claudius to implement this order in whatever way he judged fit."; "or could Claudius himself have been authorized to act as deputy?" After a paragraph of hedging and kite flying Scullard concludes "At any rate, whatever the formalities, Rome was now at war with Carthage and Syracuse." which I think that I have reasonably captured in the article. I repeat, bear in mind that Miles, Goldsworthy and Bagnall - just the first three book length treatments of the Punic Wars I checked - don't mention him in this role at all.
Other sources for Caudex the warmonger: Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, pp. 47-49 (and p. 61 for his use of the assembly to bypass the Senate). James Tan says here that Caudex brought the mobilised soldiers at the assembly and promised them booty to win the vote. See also Bruno Bleckmann in Hoyos' Companion To the Punic War, pp. 170-171. I don't mind you being cautious and say something along the line of "Some historians suggest that Caudex might have been one of the leading voices for the war, while the majority of the Senate was against it. He possibly bypassed the opposition of the senate by using the assembly, where he promised booty to the voters."
That is convincing to me. Thanks. I have tweaked. See what you think.
  • I don't really like the lead, because it goes in too much details, telling how many ships were lost for example. It would be better to theorise a bit, notably by saying Rome won the war on the sea, while it was completely inexperienced in this area before the war. Lutatius Catulus should be named as well, since the Treaty of Lutatius is mentioned. You could also mentioned the corvus. I would say something like this for the third paragraph:

    The war initially fought in Sicily, but after four years of conflict with no decisive victory on either side, the war shifted on the sea. In 260 BC the Romans built their first fleet equipped with a new device, the corvus, which enabled the consul Gaius Duillius to win the first naval victory of Rome. Thanks to the corvus, the Roman fleet then won a string of victories: in Corsica in 259, Sulci in 258, Tyndaris in 257, and Cape Ecnomus in 256. The latter battle was perhaps the largest sea-battle in history. Wishing to end the war quickly, Rome sent an expeditionary force in Africa led by the Marcus Atilius Regulus in 256. Regulus was at first successful, but the operation ended in a disaster after Carthage had given the military command to Xanthippus, a Spartan mercenary. Rome nevertheless won a new large naval victory at the Cape Hermaeum in 255, but the corvus impeded manoeuvrability of the ships in difficult weather and two storms annihilated their fleet in 255 and 253. By now, both sides were exhausted and fighting returned on Sicily. Rome conquered most of the island after its victory at Panormus in 251, but Carthage held its two strongholds of Drepana and Lilybaeum in Western Sicily, while Hamilcar Barca organised a guerrilla in Mt. Eryx. In 244, Rome started to blockade Drepana and Lilybaeum, which finally led Carthage to attempt breaking the siege in 241. The Punic navy was however undermanned, and the consul Lutatius Catulus won a crushing victory off the Aegate Islands, forcing Carthage to sue for peace.

  • This way I have reduced the description of the fighting to one paragraph. It leaves you a bit more room to detail the origins of the war (in the second paragraph), and its consequences (in the fourth). I would additionally mention in the last paragraph: the emergence of the Barcids, the birth of the Roman provincial system, and the subsequent annexation of Sardinia which created revanchism in Carthage. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that we are having philosophical differences here. If you think that the lead is too detailed, I am happy to attempt to trim it and we can relook at it. However, MOS:INTRO requires that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." As the vast majority of the article is about the fighting - which seems reasonable to me, the article is about a war - then surely so should most of the lead be? I don't want to make room to detail other aspects. In particular I am not enthusiastic about putting in to the lead virtually all of the Aftermath (which only makes up less than 6% of the article).
Similarly, not being a supporter of the great man theory of history I don't want to put any names into the lead, and certainly not ones which do not feature in the article.
Can I suggest that we "park" the lead for now? I am certainly not saying that it is perfect, and would have no issues with trimming it. Although at less than 11% of the size of the main article it is not long by Wikipedia standards. But if we change the main article, I will then need to change the lead. So could you make any comments you have on changing, adding to, removing from and amending the main article; we can discuss and hopefully resolve them; and then we can debate what should go in the lead and with what weight. Does that make sense?
I'm fine with you avoiding telling too many names in the lede; they are in the infobox after all. Except in one case: remove "Treaty of Lutatius", or say "named after the victorious consul", or just "final treaty". However, my main concern is that you detail too much the outcome of the battles, you don't have to tell how many ships were lost in the introduction, "the Carthaginians were heavily defeated" is enough, the "losing 114 ships captured" is not needed.
Done.
I do think that the aftermath section could be expanded a bit. You could tell about the rise of the Barcids. You only mention Hannibal in a footnote for example. Dexter Hoyos wrote another book on the "Barcid Empire" as he calls it (Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and Politics in the Western Mediterranean, 247-183 BC), that could be mentioned here. T8612 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to expand a bit. Not so sure about expanding what I already have on Barcid Spain. Even less sure about mentioning Hannibal in an article about a war which ended when he was six.

Hi T8612 and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Many thanks for bringing your expertise to bear on this one. My initial thoughts on your opening comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 replies and actions in response to your latest comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612: I finally have time to come back to this. I have lost track of where we are a little. I have addressed some of your comments, but am not sure if I have done all of them. Possibly you could check and point me towards any I have not yet covered, and any further comments you may have. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for the delay. I would only amend the following sentence: "Carthage, seeking to make up for the recent territorial losses and to gain a source of silver to pay the large indemnity owed to Rome, turned its attention to Iberia (modern Spain); in 237 BC, the Carthaginians, led by Hamilcar Barca, began a series of campaigns to expand their control over the peninsula." In fact the Spanish conquest was made by the Barcids rather than the Carthaginian state; Spain became their personal domain. Therefore I think you should highlight the place taken by Hamilcar and the Barcids. Something like this: "Thanks to his military success against Rome and the Mercenaries, Hamilcar gained a great influence [Hoyos says "supremacy"] over the Carthaginian state. In 237 BC, the Barcid family led the conquest of Iberia as a compensation for the recent territorial losses and to gain a source of silver to pay the large indemnity owed to Rome." You can simply cite Hoyos, Hannibal's Dynasty, pp. 1-2. T8612 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612, no problem, it has taken me long enough to get back to people. Good point. I have gone with slightly different wording, based on what is in Mercenary War. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy

[edit]
  • I'm not concerned about the length; the article is 64kb, which includes more than just the readable prose
  • I do think the section on sources would be best at the end of the article
If sources are discussed in the text of a work, which they usually are for this period, they are invariably at the start of it. This is the case for the five paper sources I have to hand and can readily check. And I have run four battles from the First Punic War through FAC over the past six months with the same format without a peep of protest. I am not personally that fussed, but I am sure that if I move it I will be requested to revert it as soon as this gets to FAC.
Fair enough
Done, thanks. I linked in the lead, so it was a bit silly to have missed it in the article.
  • Do we need the same key in the caption of all of the maps? Not necessarily saying we don't, as I suppose readers might skip around, just asking if you've considered it.
Hmm. Well, I could make an argument, but it's a good point. Fixed.
  • Can you shift the map for the Invasion of Africa section up a paragraph? For me, it impinges on the section below
Done.

I think this article is in fine shape, and after reading it, I don't have anything but a nitpick or two. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Parsecboy, your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 13 May 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/First_Punic_War&oldid=956709758"