Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Punic Wars/archive2

Punic Wars

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Punic Wars: 118 years of enmity, four major wars - the first alone lasted 23 years. Outrageous swings of fortune and a death toll in the millions. Hundreds of significant participants, giving every reviewer the opportunity to complain that I have missed their favourite. I have taken 21 battle, siege and treaty articles from these wars to FA, plus the articles on the 4 constituent wars, and boiled these 25 articles, plus many, many others, down to fewer than 7,500 words. No doubt there are differing opinions as to whether they are the correct 7,500 words. This over-arching article stumbled at the final stage in 2022. I bring it back in the hope that this time it will be considered worthy. So fire away. But a word of warning to all reviewers - please do not pet the elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS

Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BCas a... There is a typo in this sentence.

Fixed.

How about using a capital "b" in "battle" as in He was defeated in the battle of Zama...

Most HQ RSs don't capitalise battle, siege, campaign etc in these circumstances, so neither do I. (I was surprised when I discovered this.)

Primary sources

"Greek" could be delinked here.

Done

Background and origin

During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC, against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome in Italy and Carthage on Sicily, Carthage provided materiel to the Romans and on at least one occasion provided its navy to ferry a Roman force. The comma after BC could be dropped for clarity.

Indeed. It was inserted by a helpful editor who believes in post-temporal commas. I missed it on my proof read, so dropped with prejudice.

You could consider clarifying with “a maritime empire (thalassocracy)” for broader accessibility.

Er, it seems pretty accessible to me. I am not entirely sure that this doesn't make it less accessible, but I have gone with your judgement.

That's all for now. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. I am looking forward to your continuing scrutiny.

Opposing forces

When they did they fought as well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears, although they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined. Using a comma after "did" would help separate the introductory clause.

To my eye it would confuse things, leaving a reader suspecting that the first clause was subordinate.

Could the first reference of light cavalry be linked rather than the second reference (both in the same section)?

Done.

with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck. Could the comma as well as the phrase "which was" be dropped here?

It could.

The added weight in the prow compromised both the ship's manoeuvrability and its seaworthiness... You could simply write:The added weight in the prow compromised the ship’s manoeuvrability and seaworthiness...

I could, but I prefer including both to emphasise to the maritimely challenged that these are two different things.

In British English, "partway" is the standard and more commonly accepted form.

Changed.

MSincccc (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Punic War

Much of the First Punic War was fought on, or in the waters near, Sicily. The commas could be dropped in this sentence.

With pleasure.

Carthaginian expansion in Iberia

In British English, "southeast" is the preferred form.

South East England, South Eastern Railway (England), South East London, South East Wales, South East Water, South East Hockey and BBC South East - to pick just a few of very many - would, taken together, seem to suggest that "south east" is at least a widely used formal alternative.

That's all for now. I have read until just before the Second Punic War. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

To be honest, aside from a few minor copy-edits, there's very little to fault in the rest of the article.
Some of the images—particularly the maps—might raise an MOS:COLOUR concern.

All in all, it was quite a lengthy read, but a well-crafted one. Nicely done, Gog. Support. MSincccc (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

I don't know if I'll do a full review, but for now, I'll at least leave a drive-by request that you find enough room in your 7.5 kword budget to mention the origin of the word "Punic".

Hi there Roy, did you miss footnote 1 or are you after something more or different? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Yeah, I missed the footnote :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have another go. There have to be lots of things I left out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, is it possible to make it say "265 BC" instead of "-265"? Also, comparing the -265 frame to File:CarthageMap.png, which claims to show 264 BC, I see some differences. Most significantly in Sardinia, but also along the North African coast. Any idea why these differ? And also on the technical front, is it possible to make this with some kind of control so the reader can stop it on any particular year for closer study?

Re the gif, I have put in a request at Maps Workshop.

Re the differences. That's due to differences between the sources, both ancient and modern, as to what constitutes "control". Or even how you define it. Especially in mountain or desert areas with few or no settled inhabitants.

The Punic Wars were a series of wars "series of conflicts" would avoid repetition.

Well yeah, but we're an encyclopedia - they were wars, great big ones; and they're called wars. Shouldn't we make that clear up front, even if it is a trifle infelicitous?

and involved a total of forty-three years of warfare It could just be my personal peeve, but I find this kind of "and" construction awkward. How about "involving a total of ..."?

Done, but also slightly rephrased.

before the survivors withdrew Only the survivors?

They left their dead.

It's a little odd that you refer to "Italy", since that country didn't exist at the time. I think you could get away with it as a colloquialism, except that you go to the trouble of using "what is now Tunisia", "what is now Piedmont", "modern Spain and Portugal", etc in other places.

Italy is - to my mind - a geographical area as well a country. Like Africa, or Malta.

in 509 BC 348 BC and around 279 BC I think a comma after 509 BC?

Whoops.

Carthage had a proprietary approach to Sicily what does "a proprietary approach" mean?

Changed to "proprietary attitude towards". Does that work better?

as well as a short sword and a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield I don't imagine the Romans were using either cm or ft. Do you know what units they were using?

No idea, don't care. Any more than I do for what either the Romans or the Carthaginians used instead of km/mi, directions (S, SE, SSE), or a host of other things.

Link Balearic Islands

Already linked. (In Background.)

Link Syracuse to Syracuse, Sicily?

Already linked. (In Background.)

(pick up at Interbellum next time)

Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he left Iberia[74][165] – in what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November; the Romans were still in their winter quarters. this is a bit of a long rambling sentence.

Broken into three more digestible ones.

In Roman defeats, 217–216 BC, it's confusing how many armies there were. You've got "A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal ..."

"A large Roman army was lured into combat by Hannibal at the battle of the Trebia, encircled and destroyed", so stop counting that one.

"... an army at Arretium and one on the Adriatic coast" so I guess that's three armies, although one was "encircled and destroyed", so maybe just two at this point?

Yes, just two. I think most readers will consider that an army which has been "destroyed" has been, well, destroyed.

Then later Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army, which leaves me wondering which of those were the "main" army.

Good point. Refined to "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle ..."

Then Hannibal ... completely defeated the Roman army: saying "the army" makes it sound like there was just one army

Changed "the" to "this".

but A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army says there were two.

Changed "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army" to "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the Roman army based at Arretium".

Are these the same two as the ones at Arretium and the Adriatic coast? This all needs a bit of clarification.

Hopefully the above changes in total clarify the situation. Let me know.

Hannibal attempted to draw the main Roman army under Gaius Flaminius into a pitched battle by devastating the area they had been sent to protect does "they" refer to Hannibal or Gaius Flaminius?

Ah ha! This now reads "Hannibal attempted to draw the westernmost of the two Roman armies into a pitched battle by devastating the area it had been sent to protect." Is that clearer?

By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; by 214 BC, 18; and by 213 BC, 22 I think "By early 215 BC they were fielding at least 12 legions; two years later they had 18; and a year after that, 22}} would be easier to read.

Ok. Done.

suborning pro-Roman factions I had to look up what "suborn" means. Is there a more common word that could be used here?

Really! Ok. Done.

After the second of these Syphax was pursued comma after "these"?

You are winding me up, yes? (That seems as near random as can be.) Just in case it is not dry humour, why?

The first time through, I parsed this as "these Syphax". I didn't know what a Syphax was, but it sounded like a plural noun and "these Syphax" was referring to the several of them. That didn't quite make sense, so I started hunting and found (in the previous section) the explanation that Syphax was a person. So I guess "these" is actually referring to "the two large Carthaginian armies which had been destroyed by Scipio"? Adding a comma would make that more clear, with no winding required.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Comma inserted.

after confused fighting they broke into the city, but, lost in the dark, withdrew, this use of "lost" had me thinking "lost the battle" until I figured it out. How about "disoriented"?

Ah, yes. Good point. I have changed to "becoming disoriented in the dark".

killing everyone they encountered and firing the buildings behind them Maybe an American/British thing, but "firing" to me means "terminating employment". How about "setting fire to" or "burning"?

Switched to "burning" to be more colonial-friendly. ;-)

OK, that's it for a full reading from me. Overall, this is really nice. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith and thanks for the review. All of your comments are addressed above. Thanks for identifying some of the lumpier bits, hopefully it reads a little more smoothly now. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not competent to judge the "comprehensive" or "well-researched" aspects of this, but am happy to support as far as "well-written" goes. RoySmith (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti

Presently teaching this conflict! Will afford me a chance to brush up and make sure my students have the highest-quality source freely available. Will review sometime in next week. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Unlimitedlead - Pass

I can confirm that all seems well as far as the graphics are concerned. My only points of contention are 1) that there are not nearly enough commas and 2) whether we can get File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png in English. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon UL. So far the requests for commas to be removed v requests for commas to be added is 3:1. :-)

Re translating the map, you don't like latin? I could put a request in at the map workshop. I assume that you are only thinking of having the key translated? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just the key is fine. Hopefully it can be done with minimal hassle! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UL, an update. The request is in with the Map Workshop, and I have also run it past a couple of editors who may have the requisite skills. I'll let you know when/if any results come through. Is there anything else standing in the way of an image pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is all. Let me know when we're in the clear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again UL. Done, thanks to Harrias's technical skills. (My hero!) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. Passed image review. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

}}:

UC

Various more-or-less inconclusive discussions

A couple of quick comments for now:

The "Aftermath" section is, as far as I can tell, all true, but seems very light on detail by comparison with other war FAs. See for instance Pontiac's War, Rwandan Civil War, or indeed Second Punic War, where the comparable section ("Roman victory") is twice the length (and, honestly, I think is still rather lighter than it ought to be). In particular, I think we need some mention of the tremendous cultural impact of the Punic Wars in Rome (see for instance Elena Giusti's Big Book on the topic), and almost certainly the name of Virgil connected to that.

There is no requirement, recommendation nor suggestion regarding the length of an "Aftermath", nor even a requirement that there be one. I am happy to write longer aftermaths when I feel they are called for. I suspect that Battle of Dunbar (1650) is more to your taste, or perhaps Battle of Poitiers. I can also produce as evidence more immediately relevant and not overly diminutive aftermaths such as First Punic War, Battle of Zama or the one you mention, Second Punic War. Aftermaths tend to be longer when events are ongoing. In many ways the Punic Wars ended with Zama, and everything after that is aftermath; quite possibly given undue weight in this article, but one follows the sources. I mean, Carthage wasn't even the most important city the Romans destroyed that year; the Third War was already a footnote and leaves little more to say.

I am resolutely against the inclusion of cultural, or pretty much any other, "influences" in articles on warfare. The Romans no doubt wrote about, sang about, carved, painted and re-enacted Gauls, Greeks and, occasionally, Carthaginians. No doubt there is a fascinating series of articles in there, but this isn't one of them. Even when one may want to pad out an undernourished-looking aftermath. The sources don't do it - the books and collections on the wars that is. Miles does, but he is writing a history of Carthage. Influences are the thin end of the wedge, they rapidly lead via the influence of the Punic Wars on Renaissance painting to cricketers traversing the Alps accompanied by puzzled pachyderms. I could make a strong case for including the influence of the Punic Wars on causing both the outbreak of First World War (via the Schlieffen Plan) and the outcome of the Gulf War (due to Norman Schwarzkopf's desire to emulate Cannae) but neither are going in there is a line.

There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars -- we cite two, with one citation each, to the total effect of Numerous large Punic cities ... were permitted to retain their Punic system of government. A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire. This is all to the good, but is it really a fair summary of the key points made there? Lazenby, in his chapter on the wars here, similarly goes into detail on the aftermath and consequences of the war, talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome. I note that one of the chapters in the Blackwell companion (Brizzi, currently uncited) is specifically about cultural memory. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this. Part way through a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you will have gathered, we seem to differ a little on how much (and thus what, or perhaps vice versa) to put into the aftermath of this one. I don't see a need for much more than there is. But, given the usual good sense of your suggestions, and what is in the sources you mention, I'll see what I can do. Some thoughts/points.

Re "There are three chapters in Blackwell's Companion on the aftermath/afterlife of the wars ... is [the current Aftermath] really a fair summary of the key points made there?" It may be, or may not. No article nor section is required nor even supposed to be a summary of a source. I hope that the Aftermath is a fair summary of the scholarly consensus and gives the main points of it due weight in the context of the article - in this case a brief encyclopedia article on a series of wars. I think it is the due weight area that you are unhappy with. [?] so let me see what I can do to edge towards an acceptable compromise.
Rereading Brizzi I really can't find anything appropriate for the aftermath, not even when straining. Did you have anything in mind?
Richardson: I don't see that there is anything to be gained by adding key points concerning the Romans ongoing campaigns in Hispania, nor the role of the site of Carthage in the abortive Gracchian land reforms. (Do you differ?) I am unenthusiastic about adding details from as late as the early Imperial period, but see below for a possibility.
Fantar seems passably well mined to me. But see below for a possible slight expansion.
Lazenby: "talking about the impact of the war particularly on the institutions and politics of Rome." Actually, he doesn't. He does make a comment that the 2PW disturbances to Italian agriculture "were clearly factors behind the period of revolution that began with the Gracchi in 133 and 123 BC." 80 years later? Oh, come on! Absent considerable support from other sources that is not going in. I could put in something about ongoing poor relationships with the allies leading to the Social War, 125 years after Hannibal started poking at that weak point if you wish. But to me the connection seems too tenuous to be included.

A proposed lightly expanded aftermath is below. What do you think?

Rome was determined that the city of Carthage remain in ruins. The Senate despatched a ten-man commission and Scipio was ordered to carry out further demolitions. A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future.^[1] The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land.^[2] The remaining Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital.^[3] The province became a major source of grain and other foodstuffs for Rome.^[4] Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans,^[5] although they were permitted to retain their Punic system of government and culture.^[6] The Romans did not interfere in the locals' private lives and Punic culture, language and religion survived, and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization".^[7]^[8] The Punic language continued to be spoken in north Africa until the 7th century AD.^[9]^[10]

A century later, the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar; it became one of the main cities of Roman Africa by the time of the Empire.^[11]^[12] Rome still exists as the capital of Italy;^[13] the ruins of Carthage lie 24 kilometres (15 mi) east of Tunis on the North African coast.^[14]^[15]

References

Part of this is a difference of philosophy, and I am trying hard to avoid falling into the trap of "I would do this differently, therefore your way is wrong" -- that's not right and it wouldn't be fair. However -- I do think we need some discussion of the long-term impact of the wars (particularly the 2PW) on Rome -- I believe Brunt's Italian Manpower goes into some detail on how many Italians were killed and the impact this had on Italian agriculture and the state's recruitment pool. Hopkins's Conquerors and Slaves would be another "obvious" place to look, despite its age and increasing creakiness on points of detail. I also tracked down Michael Taylor's DPhil thesis, which has a lot (and, more importantly, cites a fair bit) on the economic and political impacts of the 2PW. Clearly, this needs to be handled judiciously, as this article is about the wars as a whole, but by the same token, major changes that emerged as a result of one of the wars form part of the picture of what happened as a result of the whole. I may need to do some more reading to have a firmer idea of exactly what I'd think of as must-say points here, but I think we need something to mark how the Punic Wars were -- politically, militarily, economically, administratively -- a turning point for the Roman state.

Now for the philosophical bit: I do think that at least some articles on battles/wars aren't complete without at least some discussion of the cultural impact of them. I'd include Battle of Thermopylae, and probably Battle of Britain there -- any article which didn't discuss how important they have become as stories would at least be missing something. I'm hesitating to go as far as to say that this is definitely in the same boat, but equally struggling to see that we don't need at least some acknowledgement of the massive role of the wars (and the end of Carthage as the "auld enemy") in the Roman collective psyche, as a major aspect of the way that these wars have been written about in scholarship. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have an FA on a really "transformative" war to use as precedent either way. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, enlightening. I am not much convinced that the Punic wars were either "transformative" or "a turning point" - politically, militarily, economically or administratively and see little support in the sources for it. In your previous comment you specified four sources; on examination they had little to nothing new along these lines. Now there are three more - two of which you seem to be querying even as you mention them and the third a thesis. How does Taylor meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Dissertations? PhD theses are just about allowed as RS, but are not usually considered to be the HQ sources FAC requires. "Turning point" wars: Second War of Scottish Independence, Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) and Mercenary War (PS Winter War? Rwandan Civil War?) are all FAs and one could at least make the case. And, as you point out, many of the effects which might at least be considered for inclusion in this article would fit under one or another of the constituent wars rather than in the aftermath of the wars as a whole. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is a philosophical one. To some extent, this is a "group biography": we wouldn't say that an article on the Flower Pot Men couldn't say anything about Bill that didn't also apply to Ben. Now, there's a confounding factor here that the wars didn't end with the big one, so to be really convicing we'd have to argue that the effects of the 2PW lasted beyond the end of the 3PW -- personally, I think that criterion is met here, particularly in saying (for example) what it meant for Rome to occupy most of Spain and all of Sicily, to have a navy, and to administer provinces. We don't currently have an "effects" or "legacy" section, which would be the natural place for this. However, at the moment I'm leaning towards "I would have done this differently" rather than "it's wrong if you don't do this".

I'll leave this one for now, but might carry on looking for sources -- in the meantime, I'll come back in a bit and do the usual UC nitpick. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible. In particular it seems helpful to separate any additions to Aftermath from any possible Legacy section. And within the former to distinguish between what, if anything, we may wish to put at the end of the individual war as opposed to the overall aftermath.

Re the last point, if you are scrabbling around for sources then it seems to me that this is something which could be done at leisure after the FAC has closed. I don't have any problem with adding that, for example, the administrative or military structure of Roman politics or of the Roman army was changed by either one of the wars or the Punic Wars in general. So long as there is a solid consensus of sources, or sufficient for us to put "Some scholars argue that ..." Your call obviously, but it may take any time pressure of wading through a sea of sources off you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might. The key question is whether I can swallow my reservations about supporting an FA on this topic that doesn't have, for want of a less crude phrasing, a section that decisively answers "why do people say this thing is so important?". I remember being advised, just before nominating my first academic biography, to make sure that it addressed how Panagiotis Kavvadias left the scholarly world different to how he found it -- I think that was very good advice, even though the topic might not be said to call for it so loudly as this one. I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I'm trying to keep the prospect open. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a ridiculously large proportion of the past six years hip deep in the Punic Wars my off-the-cuff response is that they weren't (so important). Just sticking with Roman wars the various wars against the Gauls were almost certainly more significant - politically, militarily, economically, administratively. For the Greek wars remove the "almost". The Punic Wars called for huge efforts but when they were over, they were over. Bar some technical bits around building and operating war fleets, cross-marine logistics and projecting (armed) force. Politically, militarily, economically, administratively - nope, not so that you would much notice. As I say, off the cuff and top level and happy to be overwhelmed by a mass of contradictory sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides.: isn't that true of most wars? We might be hindered here by not having a section that's explicitly analytical rather than narrative about the wars' outcomes, but as far as I can see, we don't make a claim that these wars were unusually destructive by ancient/world standards. I think we would need to do so to justify this under MOS:LEAD.

Some are, many aren't. I can cite it, but you are correct, it isn't overtly there in the main article. I'll take it out.

As novice shipwrights, the Romans: the Romans were not novice shipwrights at all, though the Roman state was new to constructing military ships.

Absolutely correct. I am unsure how that snuck in. Changed to what I meant to say.

A small typo has snuck in here. Personally, I'd be interested in some detail as to how the procurement happened (partly because I have an instinctive "yuck" reaction to "Age of Empires" explanations whereby "the Greeks", "the Romans" or whatever build stuff and it just seems to pop into being) -- what did "[the] Romans set out to construct a fleet" actually look like -- voting money for the purchase of ships? Who actually built them? In Athens, for example, it would have involved wealthy citizens "volunteering" to buy ships, either abroad or within the city; construction being overseen by elected state officials, and physically built by people who might be regular carpenters in times of peace, and might have been working under terms of conscription. However, I appreciate we might not know: I know the imperial navy is not totally unstudied, but I don't think I've seen much written on that of the Republic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. I have come across very little on that side of things. I was thinking that I must have put something into some lower level articles, but no. Bar the decisive battle of 2PW (the battle of the Aegates) where (my words)

With the state's coffers exhausted, the Senate approached Rome's wealthiest citizens for loans to finance the construction of one ship each, repayable from the reparations to be imposed on Carthage once the war was won, and to donate slaves as oarsmen. The result was a fleet of approximately 200 quinqueremes, built, equipped, and crewed without government expense. The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on the vessel captured from Hannibal the Rhodian. By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding and with a proven vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes. Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans; they would need to be superior sailors, rather than superior soldiers, to beat the Carthaginians.

If it were me, I might include a very executive summary here -- that the ship-building was financed by loans from wealthy citizens, that these loans were to be repaid by the spoils of war ("reparations" is pretty euphemistic!), and that the crews were formed of slaves "donated" by said wealthy citizens. It's not only interesting, but a good insight into the operation of the Roman state at this time, and useful to give a sense of the nature of the Roman fleet that resulted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I wasn't clear. That arrangement was a one time only occurrence, noted by the primary sources - one assumes - because it was so unusual. I remember before I nominating First Punic War scouring the modern sources for the sort of detail we (well, you) are talking about and coming up with zilch. It does leave a hole. There are some scattered bits and pieces so I get a rough mental picture, but not something I could put into an article without being very synth. Or have I misunderstood you? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the initial model of funding for the navy? If so, I still think it's useful: if it's just an odd thing that happened in the middle of a war, not so much. You may be ahead of me, but looking for general sources on the Republican navy, I see the book reviewed here, this article (which argues that Rome did not suddenly become a naval power during the Punic Wars), and a bit in this chapter on how the early navy was organised. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was an odd, non-standard, one-off arrangement born of desperation and financial exhaustion after 20 years of continuous war. The navy so created did win the battle which ended the 1PW, but still, as you write "not so much".

Steinby is great, but doesn't bring anything new to the table. Note the reviewer's response to "Roman naval history starts early": "the supporting evidence which is presented for this position is slight (pp. 32-34) and for the most part highly speculative ... The evidence for naval activity prior to the First Punic War is slim at best and is, in the end, analysed in a highly speculative manner." Steinby more or less doesn't cover any of the aspects we are interested in here; the review goes chapter by chapter and even from just that I think you can ascertain this.

I like Harris, I cite him - not this paper - in other articles. I have this paper and assume I went through it prior to nomination, but I'll go through it again - possibly not today - and get back to you. (I am unsure why I didn't spuriously cite something from it just to prove I'd read it, but I didn't. Ah well.)

Potter has barely two pages on the navy and his one comment on organisation is hedged with "we have little direct evidence on this point, it appears that ... If it is correct to generalize from the evidence of the later imperial fleets ... we may surmise that ..."

The bit of Potter that stood out to me was The First Punic War saw a radical change in the structure of the Roman fleet. In the fourth and early third centuries b.c., we hear of officials known as the duumviri navales who commanded a fleet of twenty ships. ... [and] it is likely that the main purpose of these ships was to control piracy. This fleet appears to have been replaced in 278 BC, when the Roman state decided to depend entirely on the naval forces of allied states. The existence of a large seafaring population would prove decisive in the years of the first war with Carthage, for, while Rome assumed responsibility for building the necessary ships, it required the preexisting skills of naval architects throughout Italy to help in the actual construction of the ships. I think there's some useful context there, particularly in the fact that Rome had the use of warships immediately before the 1PW, even if they were technically held by the allies, and that these allies were critical to the building of the "real" Roman fleet -- again, it helps to do away with the popular narrative that "nobody in Rome had ever got their feet wet until, suddenly, they magicked a war-winning navy out of nowhere". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:-) We're not here to right great wrongs, but I don't see why we can't apply a slight tweak. I've seen another source who will support that, so bear with me while I hunt it down. (Was it Harris?) We are getting into the weeds here, and somewhat away from where this part of the thread started.

done.

According to the classicist Richard Miles, Rome had an expansionary attitude: I know that we've hedged this as Miles's point of view (though would also observe that he's writing in a mass-market book here rather than an academic one), but I'm really not happy with this kind of anthropomorphism -- it's dangerous for any state, even a modern one, but especially misleading for Rome. As many wise heads have pointed out, the Roman system makes it particularly complicated to project any kind of single agency or long-term strategy onto it -- we have absolute executive power invested in two potentially (often?) antagonistic men, who get carted away and changed every year! I don't think the sourcing helps you here, as we would naturally expect even a careful scholar to simplify things somewhat when writing for the general public, and oversimplification is precisely the problem at hand.

Well quite. And put three classicists in a room for long enough and they'll give you four reasons for the 1PW starting. I have just reread Hoyos on this ("The Outbreak of War"). I like his analytical approach to the sources. He has his own take, but pretty much agrees that "stumble into war more by accident than design" and especially that war was more or less inevitable. (Summarised on pages 145-147.) A quick skim elsewhere suggests that most sources more or less agree. (Although I spotted a "This is a clear case where the factors within the Roman political system seen as favouring expansion did come into play and were the prime cause of a war", so I feel a need to be careful." What do you feel about something like 'As Rome and Carthage came closer to sharing a joint border the chances of misunderstandings and hostilities increased. In the event they stumbled into war more by accident than design, with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict." I know, I know, but for summary style, how would it do?

Let me see if I can have a look at Hoyos: I think it's better, but I expect we can probably do something about the MOS:CLICHE of stumbled into war more by accident than design. I'm still not totally happy with with neither anticipating a prolonged conflict -- again, empires and cities do not have personalities, minds or expectations, though the people in them do -- but it's less important here because we're explicitly disavowing an anthropomorphic mode of explanation. That change is definitely a step forward, anyway. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall put it in for now (while I have the sources open) then and we can both brood on't.

The modern historian Andrew Curry: from what I can gather, Curry is a journalist, and very much not a Polybius scholar. Given that those are not a rare breed, he seems an odd choice here. (In passing, I'm not a huge fan of "this historian is reliable" vs "this historian is unreliable" as a useful mode of analysis, but I may have to swallow it here).

Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy.

Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus;: Diodorus was writing in 21 BCE, which would be very impressive indeed if he were indeed contemporary with the Punic Wars.

Colon added.

We have a rather nasty sandwich in the First Punic War section (including the subhead "Course") between map and navbox. While this isn't strictly outlawed by the letter of the MoS, which only covers images, it would seem to fall within the spirit of not creating overly-thin chunks of text. On my screen, it reduces the first line to eight words.

Better?

Much. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

between the Roman Republic and the Carthaginian Empire during the period 264 to 146 BC: I'm not sure about "Carthaginian Empire" here as a proper-noun way of referring to the polity. It does come up in print, but relatively rarely, and usually as "Carthaginian empire" to talk about the geographical extent of Carthage's territories -- see Walter Scheidel here, who does talk about the "Carthaginian Empire" (though tends to avoid the phrase when he can) in the sense of "the spread of Carthaginian control over the western Mediterranean), but refers to the state that makes the decisions and takes the actions as "Carthage". Carthage was just as much a republic as Rome was, and for much of the period in question, Rome was more of an empire than Carthage was, so I think the Republic/Empire distinction is unfortunate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The First Punic War broke out on the Mediterranean island of Sicily in 264 BC as a result of Rome's expansionary attitude: I'm not sure this is (any more) a good summary of what's in the article (and it's anthropomorphic). We don't really say why the 1PW started in the article (we say that the "spark" was the desire to control Sicily, but we don't clearly divide that from the Battle of Messana, which is part of the war). I might be tempted to go more low-level here and say something like "when Rome sent forces to assist the Mamertine mercenaries, occupying the city-state of Messana, in their war against Syracuse". However, I must admit I'm not totally clear why, from the 1PW article, sending a garrison to a city already garrisoned by another state meant that the two necessarily had to fight each other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "mainland Italy" an overlink?
This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for fourteen years before the survivors withdrew: the use of "the survivors" hints that we've missed an important change in the campaign's fortunes over those fourteen years.
Suggest pulling the link on "armed forces" to cover the "its", so we don't expect the link to go to "armed forces" per se.
This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat.: add to Rome?
Link on "defend itself" might be better on "attempted to defend itself". It's a bit of an Easter egg, to be honest.
In 151 BC Carthage attempted to defend itself against Numidian encroachments and Rome used this as a justification to declare war in 149 BC: I think these would be better joined with a semicolon rather than and, since only one of them happened in 151 BC.
I wasn't expecting the link on "Carthaginian" (in the footnote) to go to "History of Carthage". Colour me at least somewhat astonished.
He is best known for The Histories,: better as "best known for the Histories". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows approximate extent of territory controlled by Rome and Carthage immediately before the start of the First Punic War: The approximate extent -- or just cut The map shows? Also suggest "controlled by Rome, Carthage and Syracuse", since most of the Greek isn't (the city of) Syracuse.
Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts: did Goldsworthy really write that -- not differs from or disagrees with? Sloppy subeditors at Phoenix, perhaps.
Why is Goldsworthy a classicist but Craige Champion not? Goldsworthy's first degree was in history, although I think his DPhil was technically classics.
is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant: I am also going to quibble this line. In particular, Livy is often used for different things -- in particular, you'll find a lot of Livy in treatments of how the Roman army actually worked on a micro scale, and on "face of battle" type history (Sam Koon's work springs to mind here). How about amending "historians, particularly where..."?
Modern historians usually take into account: the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and later writers such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius.: not sure about the colon at the start here. I know it's introducing a list, but to me it reads more naturally without.
empirical evidence from reconstructions, such as the trireme Olympias.: does Goldsworthy explicitly name-drop Olympias? I only bring it up because, as far as I know, triremes played a fairly minor role in any of the Punic Wars, and Olympias is modelled on one from the 5th century. As you point out later, Olympias also handles and would fight rather differently to a quinquereme.
It had conquered peninsular Italy south of the Arno River by 270 BC when the Greek cities of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) submitted after the conclusion of the Pyrrhic War.: this is a bit clumsy: what we mean is that this surrender completed the conquest of that region, not that Rome suddenly conquered the whole region (which, of course, includes Rome itself) in in that moment. How about "By 270 BC, when the last Greek cities of southern Italy ..., it had conquered all of..."?
Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate: I would favour thinking of Carthage as a city with an empire, like Rome, so Carthage is in Tunisia. We wouldn't say "Rome, with its capital in Italy", or "Athens, with its capital in Attica".
Relationships were good: relations is the normal term in diplomacy, I think.
the two states had several times: thrice?
Detail from the Ahenobarbus relief showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC: I would suggest a slight rephrase to be clear that the relief is itself from the late C2nd -- it could be a modern relief that depicts soldiers from a long time ago.
I would treat velites as a Latin word and italicise (in a template).
a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield: false precision, perhaps? It's pretty debated as to how standard these bits of equipment were, so I wonder whether "large, rectangular shield approximately 3 feet in height" or similar might be better. "90-centimetre" suggests "not 80 and not 100", and I'm not sure we can really do that given that we have exactly none of them to go and measure. Even on the relief, the soldier on the right has a shield a good 10% longer than the other guy.
they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined: I would like to know who said this -- if it's the Romans, I think we need to fess up to that.
Many were from North Africa and these were frequently referred to as "Libyans".: by whom?
Hyphenate "close-order infantry" (and "light-infantry skirmishers").
citizen-militia: not sure this one should be hyphenated, however, when standing as a noun.
If either commander felt at a disadvantage, he might march off without engaging. In such circumstances it was difficult to force a battle if the other commander was unwilling to fight: I don't really get the if here -- if the other commander was marching off, surely he was necessarily unwilling to fight?
Quinqueremes, meaning "five-oarsmen": the word unambiguously means "five-oars", but Goldsworthy may be correctly nudging it because we don't believe that was literally true.
the workhorses of the Roman and Carthaginian fleets: suggest a rephrase for MOS:IDIOM (potentially confusing, as well: do we mean the ships that did the literal heavy work of transporting the most stuff, logistical/mechanical work, etc?)
In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and: Rome or the Romans.
The Romans were unaccustomed to building quinqueremes: as we discussed above, it seems like at least a lot of the shipwrights in question weren't actually Romans.
At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively: I'd quite like a basis for this number: which part of his body has de Souza plucked it from?
employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming.: not sure I like traditional here -- there wasn't any "tradition" about it, it was just the only good way of using your boat to put a hole in someone else's boat.
Does "city-state" have a hyphen in it? We vary.
the only substantial, independent power on the island: I would lose the comma here for total clarity -- I don't think it adds much, and makes clear that other powers were either substantial or independent.
was badly defeated at the battle of Akragas. That night the Carthaginian garrison escaped: suggest the night after the battle -- battles don't necessarily happen in the day or take a single one.
It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of their being used again: lang template on corvus. As you'll surely remember, corvus is 2nd declension, not 4th, so can't be plural: we therefore either need to pluralise it in the first sentence as corvi or keep it singular in the second ("its being used again.").
On Sicily the Romans avoided battle in 252 and 251 BC: Why on Sicily here, given that all the previous battling was on Sicily?
We might consider calling Lilybaeum by its Punic name ("Lilýbaion"), much as we call Agrigentum by its Greek one, before the Roman conquest.
Polybius regarded the war as "the longest, most continuous and most severely contested war known to us in history": consider adding the Polybius citation to the footnote, for those who want to read more or verify it.
The immense effort of repeatedly building large fleets of galleys during the war laid the foundation for Rome's maritime dominance, which was to last 600 years: are we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? After all, fast foward less than two centuries, and Rome will be (apparently) unable to stop pirates from sailing up the Tiber with impunity. I need some convincing that Rome really held "maritime dominance" over (in particular) Egypt in 241.
This breach of the recently signed treaty is considered by modern historians to be the single greatest cause of war with Carthage breaking out again in 218 BC in the Second Punic War.: just checking that one of the three citations makes the meta-judgement that it is considered this (rather than just saying that they consider it to be so?) Ditto, earlier, Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral between Carthaginian and Roman points of view.
their previously-established colony: no hyphen here.
An army had previously been created by the Romans to campaign in Iberia and the Roman Senate detached one Roman and one allied legion from it to send to north Italy: northern Italy -- but I would also consider reworking the long, clunky passive.
Was it a conscious choice to use "New Carthage" rather than Carthago Nova?
the battle of the Rhône Crossing: the capitalisation here seems odd, since "Rhone Crossing" isn't really a proper noun -- it's like we've suddenly decided to use "traditional" capitalisation halfway through.
Consistent diacritics needed on "Rhone".
what is now Piedmont, northern Italy in early November: comma after northern Italy.
The Carthaginians captured the chief city of the hostile Taurini Gauls (in the area of modern Turin) and seized its food stocks: is city really the right word here?
Only 10,000 Romans out of 42,000 were able to cut their way to safety: at the risk of being a spoilsport, I would call MOS:IDIOM and replace with something dull like "escape". Can we really be sure that none of the 10,000 got out by bludgeoning, dodging, playing dead or some other means?
Hannibal set an ambush and in the battle of Lake Trasimene completely defeated this Roman army, killing 15,000 Romans: and no allies?
These allied states provided more than half of "Rome's" military manpower: the MoS doesn't really like scare quotes, and it's usually better to find a way of making the implicit subtext explicit. "These allies provided more than half of the military manpower used by the Roman state"?
Hoping that the ethnic Greek and Italic states of southern Italy in particular could be persuaded to defect he marched deeper into Italy: that's a giant perambulatory clause -- I think we definitely need a comma after defect, or else a rephrase.
the Roman army, public and senate: cap Senate.
the richest and most fertile provinces of Italy: Italy didn't have provinces at this time.
both were more aggressive-minded than Fabius: not a usual idiom in print: aggressively minded
who accepted battle on the open plain near Cannae.: is it worth giving a vague idea of where that was?
Libyan heavy infantry on the wings swung around their advance, menacing their flanks: might be a bit too flamboyant: threatening?
Another Carthaginian commander named Hasdrubal, not the same man as Hasdrubal Barca, one of Hannibal's younger brothers, led the Carthaginian cavalry on the left wing which routed the Roman cavalry opposite: clearer, I think, if you use dashes or brackets for the "not the same man..." clause -- it's quite a run-on sentence otherwise.
enrolling slaves, criminals and those who did not meet the usual property qualification: there's an unintentional comedy to the order of this tricolon ("and worst of all...!"). To take you way back to the "Armies" section, we said that Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service and would serve as infantry, but didn't actually clarify that the most meant "except the poor" -- later, we talked about the velites as poorer or younger men unable to afford the armour and equipment of a standard legionary, so it's now a bit of a surprise to find out that there was another tier of poverty below them.
Hannibal repeatedly defeated Roman armies, in 209 BC both consuls were killed in a cavalry skirmish: semicolon here, not a comma. What were both consuls doing in the same cavalry skirmish, incidentally?
The siege was marked by the ingenuity of Archimedes in inventing war machines to counteract the traditional siege warfare methods of the Romans: It's a little sub judice whether all or any of these machines actually existed...
. A fresh Roman army attacked the main Carthaginian stronghold on the island, Agrigentum, in 210 BC: we've changed its name: is that intentional? If so, I think we should clarify/remind that this is Akragas.
By the middle of the 2PW, we seem have fallen out of the habit of giving modern equivalents for places. I'm not sure I particularly mind, but consistency is, as ever, king (consul? Sufet?).

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In late November the Carthaginian cavalry routed the cavalry and light infantry of the Romans at the battle of Ticinus.: a Roman force of cavalry and light infantry? It makes it sound here like they didn't rout the heavy infantry (who in fact weren't there at all), but somehow inspired the Gauls anyway.
It was the only time during the war that Carthage reinforced Hannibal: successfully reinforced -- since Hasdrubal tried to do so later?
For 12 years after Cannae: this seems like an odd way to mark time, since we haven't mentioned Cannae or its date for quite a while. Most readers will need to scroll up, I think.
blocking the ready seaborne reinforcement and resupply of Hannibal from Carthage: I would look to rephrase this: does it mean that the reinforcements were ready, but just couldn't physically sail?
Hannibal negotiated a treaty whereby Syracuse defected to Carthage, in exchange for making the whole of Sicily a Syracusan possession.: I think we need to be clear that the second part of this was firmly in the future tense; Hannibal wasn't in a position to actually make the whole of Sicily Syracusan at that point (or ever).
217 BC 40 Carthaginian and Iberian warships were defeated by 55 Roman and Massalian vessels at the battle of the Ebro River, with 29 Carthaginian ships lost: that was lucky for the Iberians!
The Romans' lodgement between the Ebro and the Pyrenees blocked the route from Iberia to Italy: what does lodgement actually mean here?
It's not ideal that Hasdrubal dies in the Italy section then comes back to life in the Iberia section: would this be better organised by year, with the theatres handled together?
In 149 BC a Roman army of approximately 50,000 men, jointly commanded by both consuls, landed near Utica: can we name the consuls here?
Ñaco del Hoyo appears to be alphabetised incorrectly.
Capitalisation of Baker 2014 is out of whack with other similar sources.
Some journals have ISSNs, others don't.
Hoyos 2015b should have location removed. Ditto Sidwell and Jones 1998 and Whittaker 1996.
I'm not sure I'm on board with citing Liddell Hart for historical fact (though would be sympathetic to using his view in the history of scholarship on the topic).
The Stele of Polybios Art, Text and Context in Second-Century BC Greece: missing a colon?
Worlds Together Worlds Apart -- missing some kind of punctuation?
Do you have any thoughts on Pen and Sword as a publishing house?
Link Walbank in Scullard 2006.
The World of Rome: an Introduction to Roman Culture: cap An?
The UNESCO citation puts the title first, so alphabetise by that.
Make sure there is consistently a space between two initials ("F. W. Walbank").
Write out page range in full in Whittaker 1996 (WP:NOTPAPER).

T8612

The captions of the pictures are inconsistent in the article; some suggestions:

~~The picture of Polybius is a stele found in Kleitor, not far from his home city of Megalopolis. You could add a source, like this one.~~

Excellent. Thank you. Done.

The picture of Hannibal is a modern statue, sculpted by Sébastien Slodtz in 1704, now in the Louvre.

Yep. I think that is all in the image details. Caption lightly tweaked.

The date of 1872 is when the sculpture was placed in the Tuileries gardens, but it was made in 1704.

Whoops. Changed.

~~The mosaic of Archimedes is in the Liebieghaus, Frankfurt, but it's considered to be a forgery. See here (p. 294). I suggest saying it is a creation of the early modern era.~~

Ah! Thanks. Caption tweaked.

The ruins in the picture of Carthage are from the Roman Empire. I suggest using this picture, which shows the remains of the circular military port.

I really like that image. I have used File:Carthage view.jpg in First Punic War to illustrate a similar point, but it needed a ridiculously long caption, as your suggestion would. I don't think that that is worth the space for an aficionado's point in an overview article.

"Remains of the military port of Carthage"?

T8612, done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that T8612. Eagerly awaiting the next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with the Primary sources section.
The biggest problem is that the text downplays the usefulness of Livy, is commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant. Livy is widely used, even when Polybius is extant. He was not as good as Polybius for analysing battles of politics, but Livy recorded everything and gives a comprehensive list of all the operations and Roman magistrates (it complements Polybius very well actually). Moreover, Livy relied on Polybius, but only on certain aspects, like campaigns or battles; he extensively used previous Roman analysts, such as Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, who were contemporary of the events. I would like some rephrasing to express this.

While I am not necessarily doubting any of this, could you provide sources to support the points you make? While there are probably endless ways of expressing anything, and any piece of prose can be improved, I have reread most of my sources, especially Mineo's "Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (apart from Polybius)", and feel that the current section is a reasonable, short summary of them. In particular I wish to avoid going down the rabbit hole of chasing nuances in a section which is peripheral - arguably optional - to the subject of the article.

More generally, I think this section would benefit by telling which parts are extent: Polybius is extent for the 1PW and the beginning of the 2PW, in excerpts afterwards; Livy is extent for the 2PW and in short summaries for the 1PW and 3PW. As a result, the 2PW is the best known of the three wars.

I can, obviously, easily cite this, but suggest that this would be getting into rather too much detail for an overarching article.

I would also mention that Polybius was a contemporary of the 3PW, and that he witnessed the destruction of Carthage as he was in the staff of Scipio (it could also be placed in the 3PW section).

Added.

and the later Roman historians Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius. These men were ethnically Greek, not Roman, although they wrote during the Roman Empire. Plutarch is also a moralist/philosopher, but not historian. So, I would rephrase to and authors writing during the Roman empire, such as Plutarch, Appian, and Dio Cassius

"The Roman empire" would need introducing and explaining, so I have tweaked your suggestion but, I think, captured the spirit of it.

During the Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC link Pyrrhic War.

Already linked at first mention in the same section.

Messana (modern Messina). You link it twice in the "background and origin" and "Sicily, 264–257 BC" sections. Perhaps add a link to the Mamertines in one of them?

The first is to the city, the second to the battle. Rephrased the second mention to make this clearer. I think that may be a little Easter eggy.

In the 1PW article, the responsibility of the war is rightly put on Rome (and Appius Caudex), but it is absent in this one. Can a short sentence of the events be placed here, like The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), and the desire of the consul Appius Claudius Caudex to obtain a rich booty from the war.

I have gone with just the first part of your suggestion. (But not the second: as I comment below to Tim riley, "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.")

under the command of the Spartan mercenary Xanthippus, perhaps link Sparta.

Done.

their request for a 2,000-talent loan, I would link Attic talent somewhere.

I follow the sources and refer to all of the talents as Euboic. Do you have sources which contradict this?

The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed, maybe tell who was Lutatius?

See my "interesting-and-nice-to-know" comment.

The Romans, panicked by these heavy defeats, appointed Quintus Fabius, the abbreviated form of his (long) name is more "Fabius Maximus", than "Quintus Fabius". There were hundreds of Quintus Fabius, but only dozens of Fabius Maximus.

Again I would be grateful for evidence that this is the consensus of scholarly opinion.

Gaius Varro and Lucius Paullus , idem, "Terentius Varro and Aemilius Paullus" are better.

Could I have the sources for these. Thanks.

Hiero II, the tyrant of Syracuse for the previous forty-five years and a staunch Roman ally, Hiero started his reign in 275/270, so it's more than that. Moreover, it makes him king already at the beginning of the 1PW, when Syracuse battled against Rome. So I would say that Hiero had been a Roman ally since 263 (after he had been defeated by Rome).

Done.

In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua, link Mago. But I also think you could tell in the Carthaginian expansion in Iberia that Hamilcar had three sons, and present them there.

I think it is easier on a reader - who may not read the whole article, and may not remember all the details if they do - to introduce them as they first feature in the narrative.

In 210 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio. In order to help the casual reader, I would mention either in the text, or in the footnote that he was the later Africanus. However, I think it's possible to remove the footnote, by mentioning the two Scipio in the text above, as in Both battles ended in complete defeat for the Romans, who also lost their two commanders (Publius and Gnaeus Scipio), as Hasdrubal had bribed the Romans' mercenaries to desert. This way, you can just say below In 210 BC Publius Scipio (son and nephew of the Scipios who died at the Upper Baetis)

Ah ha. That sounds better. That said, I have recently tweaked this for another reviewer. Could you have a look at that before I change it again? Thanks.

More to come later. T8612 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612, it is good of you to review this. I have addressed your comments to date - I suspect you may wish to come back on some of them - and eagerly await your next tranche. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

~~Consider integrating note 2 into the main text.~~

It gets close to being trivia. I think that if it is to be mentioned, a footnote is appropriate.

~~I would delete note 3 (this is not an essay, but an encyclopedic article).~~

Done.

~~Explain thalassocracy with two words.~~

Done.

...Carthage was the dominant external power... I am not sure I understand. Were there more external powers on the island? I would rather say that "Carthage dominated/had seized large chunks of the island/...".

Rephrased.

~~...well-armoured heavy infantry armed with long thrusting spears... I would delete "well-armoured".~~

I see no need to deprive readers of this information.

~~...(also known as "heavy cavalry")... Do we need it? If yes, do we need the quotation marks?~~

1. Yes. 2. IMO yes, otherwise I wouldn't have included them. I think it helps a reader. As you, I assume, don't, quote marks removed.

~~Link and introduce Messana when it is first mentioned.~~

Isn't that what I have done with the last nine words of "Background".

~~..., the only significant independent power on the island,... I would rephrase it. Perhaps changing "independent" to "native Greek/local" would help.~~

I don't see how either of those improve things for a reader, or even address the political point being made.

According to my memories, Sicily was the first Roman province. If I am right, this could be mentioned in the article.

Your memory is correct, but I don't see that a diversion into Rome's internal governance is relevant in this summary of the Punic Wars. (I refer you to your second point above.)

I understand your concern but I need time. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) Oh, now I remember what was my problem: Sicily was not annexed as a Roman province, but as the first Roman province. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Done as you suggest.

Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, all addressed and ready for more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~...and their cities brought back under Carthaginian rule. We are not previously informed that they seized cities.~~

Done. (And changed to "towns".)

~~...an act of war... A link to casus belli?~~

It seems overlink to me. Are any readers likely to not grasp what an act of war is?

~~Could the three Hasdrubals be distinguished from each other in the text in some way? Alternativel, I would introduce the third Hasdrubal in the text (not in a footnote).~~

Not, IMO, without mangling the text. None of thee sources do. I assume for the same reason. I don't introduce the third Hasdrubal in a footnote, I disambiguate him there. Nevertheless, I have moved this into the main text, although I am not sure it is an improvement.

Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, your latest batch addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am not sure that socii is the best link to Latin allies, because socii were Rome's non-Latin allies, according to my memories.~~

Your memory is completely correct and the text should say "non-Latin allies". However, thinking on't, that is the most reader friendly of phrases, so I am going with "Italian allies".

~~...Several of the city states in southern Italy allied with Hannibal... Had these been Roman allies before Cannae?~~

Depends on how you define "allies"; tribute cities may be closer in some cases. They were all in some formal relationship with Rome.

~~How do you define "allies"? They are mentioned in the section title, but in the text the city states are not introduced as such.~~

Ok. The logical place to introduce them would seem to under "Roman defeats, 217–216 BC" where I write "The prisoners were badly treated if they were Romans, but released if they were from one of Rome's allies. Hannibal hoped some of these allies could be persuaded to defect and marched south hoping to win over Roman allies among the ethnic Greek and Italic states." Before I expand this I just wanted to check that this works for you.

~~Excellent idea.~~ Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

~~...(see § Iberia below)... Is this necessary?~~

Few things in life are necessary, but I think the pointer is helpful. I can imagine a reader at this point ("In 205 BC Mago landed in Genua in north-west Italy with the remnants of his Spanish army ...") thinking "who? What? Where did he spring from? The indication that the whole article is not chronological, only chronological within themes, is I feel, likely to be reassuring.

~~Only here? I would delete it. For me, such "helpful" references indicate the lack of copyedit.~~

Removed.

~~...jointly commanded by both consuls,... Could you name them?~~

Probably. But I am deliberately keeping the name-count down in this overview article. As I have said to other reviewers in similar circumstances "in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them."

~~Rome still exists as the capital of Italy;... Is this necessary in an encyclopedic article?~~

I feel so. An astonishingly high proportion of people are extremely shakey on what thee and me would consider basic geography. I note that the Wikipedia article on Rome starts "Rome is the capital city and most populated comune (municipality) of Italy." And I think it succinctly shows the deep continuity.

~~Sorry, but for me the last sentence (contrasting Rome with Carthage) is unencyclopedic. It reads like a last sentence in a speech about the Punic Wars for very young or very old people. :)~~ Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we differ.

Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More responses, including a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Lead): ...of wars between 264 and 146 BC fought between... Could it be rephrased?

Certainly. Excellent point. I have rephrased the opening paragraph and shortened it.

(Lead): ...It lasted twenty-years years, until 241 BC... Twenty?

Fixed.

Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC) Happy to support this nomination. I highly appreciate your ability to write concisely about complex topics. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

"Each war involved immense material and human losses on both sides." I might reverse "human" and "material", since by modern standards, the human losses are more important.

Done.

"This caused Carthage to cease to be a military threat." Is this fully accurate? They could become a threat by breaking the treaty, presumably.

Nah. They couldn't even chase off a bunch of Numidians, as they established at [[|Battle of Oroscopa|Oroscopa]]. I've checked a couple of sources, it's a fair enough summary.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Progress report, up to "Italy" in War II, nothing further to report.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it through and it all seems very solid work, as did the previous iteration that I supported some time ago. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Going to qualify up-front that this is not a topic where I am deeply familiar with the sources. The source formatting seems consistent, although I notice that this is used as a full text link on one source but only that source has such a link - have other sources been investigated?

Link removed. I don't understand your final query Jo-Jo. Could you help me out by explaining a little further what you are after?

Mahaney, W.C. (2008). has one critical review, does it affect its assessment?

I quite like Mahaney's mildly left-field analysis. But it is not as if there is any shortage of sources for Hannibal crossing the Alps, so I have swapped out Mahaney for Briscoe and Erdkamp, who seem safe enough.

With the exception of Bagnall every source seems to be well-cited or from a prominent publisher.

One doesn't get much more prominent than Pimlico and he seems to be cited to the gunnels. On the first page of Google Scholar I found "There are a number of good general accounts of the Second Punic War, including Lazenby 1978, Bagnall 1990, and Goldsworthy 2000" by Kathryn Lomas, and that in Hoyos's magisterial A Companion to the Punic Wars. I felt no need to look further, but what skeleton did you shake out of the cupboard?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo. Thanks for looking this over and apologies for the delayed response. Do my comments above resolve your qualms? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that this source is the only one with a full text link, which begs the question whether it's because it's the only source with a full text link or because only one source had one added (which would be inconsistent formatting). Re Bagnall only that I couldn't find much information myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: okey dokey. Thanks again. Is this a pass for source review then? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of drive-by comments on the images

The terracotta elephant (Naples, Mus. Arch. Naz. 124845) illustrated in the section on the first Punic war is not from Herculaneum, as stated in the caption. It was found in the courtyard of a house in Pompeii (XV.15.5) in 1895: see Notizie degli scavi 1897, pp. 23–27, with fig. 3 on p. 25.

Changed. Source added.

The maps need better proofreading. I didn't check them all, but there are typos in the labels of at least two of the ones used in the section on the second Punic war: File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War_Modified.svg ("Panoramus" for Panormus), File:Campagna africana di Scipione 204-203 aC.png ("carthaginenis" for carthaginensis).

Request submitted.

I also endorse UC's comment above about Andrew Curry: he is not a historian, and should not be described as one. Champion's opinion on the reliability of Polybius carries some weight; Curry's carries none. — Choliamb (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curry's comment removed and replaced with one from Goldsworthy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

Excellent article. Only a couple of comments from me:

In the lead, it is a bit unfortunate that the Mercenary war is introduced twice, but I am not sure if this needs to be addressed.

Well each of the four wars are introduced twice. I am not sure there is much that can be done about it.

You do not mention the causes of the first Punic war; was there a particular event that caused Rome to declare war?

Er "The spark that ignited the First Punic War in 264 BC was the issue of control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)."

The conflict between these policies pushed the two powers to stumble into war more by accident than design. – I wonder if this is really a widely accepted fact, or if it needs author attribution?

It is the consensus of scholarly consensus and I don't think it needs different attribution than any other.

Akragas: Mention that it is also called Agrigento/Agrigentum, as you also do with another city? This helps with finding it on the map, which uses "Agrigentum".

Good point. Done.

link Spartan

Done.

which was already at war against Macedonia. In 205 BC this war ended with a negotiated peace. – Sounds as if both sentences refer to the same war, but they refer to separate ones.

It was one war. But I think my use of language is confusing, so I have rephrased.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens and thanks for that. I have addressed your points above. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In your articles it is a challenge to find any nitpicks at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Background and origin

You need a key for the map

Done.

There's a word missing in the alt text ("a colour of the western Mediterranean region")

Inserted.

(I noticed these just in passing, but will conduct a full review shortly). - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

From first canter-through for typos etc:

"entirely on Carthagian territory" – should this be "Carthaginian"?

Possibly.

"a quasi-monarchial, autonomous state" – the OED calls "monarchial" "obsolete, rare". You might be better off with "monarchical".

Another fine traditional word goes down with all hands.

Starting proper perusal now. More soonest. Tim riley talk 09:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of First Punic War section

"forty-three years of warfare ... It lasted 23 years" – words or digits for such numbers? I like your first style more than your second, but either way you should, I think, be consistent

Ah. Yes. Sorted.

"immense material and human losses on both sides" – should this be "matériel"? (OED: "The equipment, supplies, etc., used by an army, navy, or other organization, as distinguished from the personnel or body of people employed."

I keep reverting "helpful" changes to this. Even linking it to materiel. To little avail. Done.

"Rome was a rapidly expanding power in Italy, with a strong army but no navy. The fighting took place primarily on Sicily and its surrounding waters" – not obvious how Rome could fight in the surrounding waters of Sicily if it had no navy.

I don't see that, for the lead, I need to add more than the current "At the start of the war".

"This expedition enjoyed considerable early success and campaigned in Italy for 14 years" – do expeditions campaign? And I refer my honourable friend to my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

I believe they do; much as an army or other military might.

You may, thank you.

"Carthage provided materiel to the Romans" – both the OED and Chambers give "matériel" its acute accent.

I prefer to go with Collins, Wiktionary, Wikipedia and, even, some sources emanating from Oxford.

Now you mention it, I see that the current edition of Fowler says Used in English since the early 19c. to mean ‘material and equipment used in warfare (as distinct from personnel)’, it has been naturalized and is printed in ordinary roman type without the accent on the first e of the original French matériel. The open e in the last syllable differentiates it in speech from material., and I subside with what grace I can. Tim riley talk 15:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Fowler I have always said.

"Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service" – were there any female citizens? (I know not of Rome, but the only people recognised as citizens in ancient Athens were men.) And I presume there was some sort of upper age limit: you wouldn't want old dodderers like me in your front line.

Long ago, I omitted "male" from this boilerplate. It was objected to, on the grounds that how was a reader to know that there were no female Roman citizens at the time if I didn't tell them.

"they were notoriously ill-trained and ill-disciplined" – says who?

The sources cited at the end of "the latter were usually Numidians." Are you hinting that you would prefer more frequent citations?

"If either commander felt at a disadvantage, they might march off" – as there were no commanderesses I think a plain "he" would be preferable to a clunky gender-neutral "they"

Boudica, Zenobia, Mavia, Hypsicratea? Done, at the risk of the Wrath of UndercoverClassicist.

"partway through the First Punic War" – the OED hyphenates "part-way"; Chambers and Collins make it two separate words. Take your pick, but certainly isn't a single unhyphenated word.

Torn apart.

"the only significant independent power on the island" – this is Plain Words on "significant": This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'

I keep falling for that one. Sorry. Swapped out.

"The Carthaginian's superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped" – the possessive apostrophe should be after the "s" in this sentence.

D'oh!

"there is no record of them being used again" – anyone for gerunds? "their" would be preferable to "them" here.

That was my contractually required gerund misuse.

"had declined by 17 per cent" – see my comment on "forty-three years of warfare etc", above.

Further comments later. Off to lunch now. Tim riley talk 10:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Years of warfare are consistently in words, percentages in numerals.

A few more

"Carthage's oppressed dependant territories" – I think (but am not absolutely sure) that when used as an adjective the word is "dependent".

Yep. Dependant is obsolete; why am I not surprised?

"Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" – you've told us that in the lead, but after that we've have four mentions of Iberia in the main text before we read this explanatory parenthesis, which might, perhaps be moved up to the first mention in the main text.

It might, it might.

"in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage" – this isn't a carp or quibble, but I'm just wondering how a declaration of war was actually declared in those days?

Pushed the ambassador down a well? I just follow the source, which states "Fabius [the Roman ambassador] responded by declaring that he let fall war ... In this way war was declared".

"but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – I don't imagine it really besieged itself. I might shift the "itself" to between "and" and "ambushed"

Great image though.

"Fabius introduced the Fabian strategy of avoiding open battle with his opponent, but constantly skirmishing with small detachments of the enemy" – worth a mention and explanation of his nickname "cunctator"? I just mention it.

I mentioned it in Second Punic War - "The Roman populace derided Fabius as "the Delayer" (in Latin, Cunctator)" - but in this overview article I feel that once we get into "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids we could drown in them.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"to be paid over 50 years ... restricted to 10 warships" – as above for digits-v-words.

I'm happy with both. (I am assuming that some new MoS rule to standardise all mentions of numbers has been introduced?)

"almost all of the requirements of Scipio's large army" – do we want the superfluous first "of" here?

Nope.

More to come. Tim riley talk 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch

"Over the following 48 years" – words-v-digits again.

See above.

"However, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage" – about all I knew until now about the Punic Wars (Alps and elephants apart) was Cato the Censor's "Carthago delenda est" and I'm mildly surprised at not seeing it in this article, though I don't press the point.

Again "interesting-and-nice-to-know" factoids. (Most of which relate to the Romans.)

Once again, fair enough. Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Vast amounts of materiel" – acute accent needed.

Umm.

"Rome still exists as the capital of Italy" – do we really need to be told this?

Spoilsport! I can cite it> It is included for the benefit of North American readers.

Whoooo! Steady! Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Several different "talents" are known from antiquity" – this and note 14 seem to me models of their kind, helping the modern reader understand the values involved.

Thankee kindly.

"prohibiting attacking each others allies" – needs a possessive apostrophe after "others"

Drat. Added.

"Publius Scipio was the bereaved son of the previous Roman co-commander" – not clear why "bereaved" is in this sentence.

Rephrased

That's my lot. The article seems to me clearly of FA standard and I look forward to adding my support when you've had the time to address my comments, above. Tim riley talk 07:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr riley, I am even more in your debt. All addressed I think and the article much improved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with the above exchanges, and pleased to sign on the dotted line to support the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view, as well as being a crackingly good read. – Tim riley talk 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Greetings all, this nom has six general supports, image and source review passes, no unaddressed comments and has been open for a little over three weeks. Could I have permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: [1] Oh come on guys! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're out camping for a month and coverage has proved intermittent so just saw this -- go for it,more death and destruction please...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and your wish is my command. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTEMiles2011353-1] Miles 2011, p. 353.

[FOOTNOTELe_Bohec2015443-2] Le Bohec 2015, p. 443.

[FOOTNOTEScullard2002310,_316-3] Scullard 2002, pp. 310, 316.

[FOOTNOTEWhittaker1996596-4] Whittaker 1996, p. 596.

[FOOTNOTEPollard2015249-5] Pollard 2015, p. 249.

[FOOTNOTEFantar2015455–456-6] Fantar 2015, pp. 455–456.

[FOOTNOTELe_Bohec2015443–445-7] Le Bohec 2015, pp. 443–445.

[FOOTNOTEFantar2015454-8] Fantar 2015, p. 454.

[FOOTNOTEJouhaud196822-9] Jouhaud 1968, p. 22.

[FOOTNOTEScullard1955105-10] Scullard 1955, p. 105.

[FOOTNOTERichardson2015480–481-11] Richardson 2015, pp. 480–481.

[FOOTNOTEMiles2011363–364-12] Miles 2011, pp. 363–364.

[FOOTNOTEMazzoni201013–14-13] Mazzoni 2010, pp. 13–14.

[FOOTNOTEGoldsworthy2006296-14] Goldsworthy 2006, p. 296.

[FOOTNOTEUNESCO2020-15] UNESCO 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]