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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2020 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a finale to my series of articles on the First Punic War, I offer you the article on the War itself. 23 years of war boiled down to less than 6,000 words – so there is a discussion point right there. The article has been through GA and ACR and I hope that you will enjoy both reading and reviewing it; if not, here is the place to so note. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a look. Apparently I was the GA reviewer back in March, although I don't entirely remember that review much. Standard disclaimers apply: I'll probably claim this for the WikiCup, I don't know a whole lot about this subject matter, and I'm willing to discuss everything. This is also liable to be done in several chunks, rather than all at once. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

• Open question, I don't quite know the answer myself. In "His works include a now lost manual on military tactics," should it be now-lost, since it's an adjective?

I have no idea. I usually leave a saucer of milk out for the hyphen brownies to tidy such things up for me. Done.

Armies

• "Adult male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, most would serve as infantry with the wealthier minority providing a cavalry component" - Semicolon, not comma, right?

Done.

• " with a similarly sized and" - Should similarly sized be similarly-sized, or is this an engvar thing? I'm still learing BE conventions; I speak a rural form of AE, so there's some big differences in grammar/phrasing

Google gives 1.7 mn examples, so it can't be that uncommon. Eg see the title of this scientific paper.

PS I have brooded on this and decided that you are correct, and changed it.

Lead

• "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed; the base on Corsica was then lost" - Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not finding where the loss of the base on Corsica is mentioned in the body.

Nicely spotted - thank you. I had managed to write straight past that. Now added.

Ready for Rome builds a fleet, gonna take a break at that point. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Africa

• "a brief siege" - Like with the Treaty of Lutatius article, expand the piped link to all three word to avoid a minor MOS:EGG.

But I didn't change it in Treaty of Lutatius. As I said then

I'm not seeing this. You would expect "hard fought battle" to send you to a battle, which it does; so why is it EGGy? It is not normal practice to include definite or indefinite articles within pipes. Eg The Battle of the Aegates and not the Battle of the Aegates. It is so universal that I would guess that there is a policy on it somewhere.

Okay, I guess we just have a minor stylistic disagreement there.

• "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum off Africa, the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured" - This doesn't make a whole lot of sense without a statement indicating how the Carthaginian fleet made contact

Fair point. I have changed it to "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors. It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa and in the Battle of Cape Hermaeum the Carthaginians were heavily defeated, losing 114 ships captured." How's that read?

That works much better. The statement about the interception makes it much clearer.

References

• Ref 153 we need a page number for Miles, I do believe

Nice spot. I had P instead of p. Fixed.

• I guess Pulcher and the chicken incident is out of scope; I get why, but I personally thought that whole saga was hilarious in a sad way.

Sadly I can't think of a legitimate way of working it in.

That's all from me. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hog Farm. You are very busy with reviews and seem to have a keen eye, I appreciate both of them. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely helps that I have way too much freetime on my hands as a bored university student. Supporting, your usual nice work. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up

Several scaled up.

• I see the "Continued Roman advance" map has a legend showing what the colours mean, but the symbols should also be explained

Done.

• File:Stele_des_Polybios.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work

D'oh! Done.

• File:Carthage-1958-PortsPuniques.jpg: when/where was this first published?

While researching this I came across a better image - File:Carthage view.jpg - and swapped it in, it also has a simpler USGov-Military PD rationale.

I'm assuming that licensing is derived from a credit in the source? Is there any further detail with regards to attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Romanadvance_(cropped).JPG is tagged as lacking description.

Added.

Ditto File:Attacksrenewed_(cropped).JPG,

Added.

File:Attacksrenewed2_(cropped).JPG,

Added.

File:RomeWins_(cropped).jpg.

No longer in the article.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, all of your issues have now been addressed. Thanks for looking this over and picking those up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg has been added - should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Of course it should. Sorry Nikkimaria, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the subject and will read this over the next few days. I might add comments on a section by section basis but will see how it goes. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks No Great Shaker, looking forward to it. And good to see that this has tempted you into your second FAC review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Gog the Mild. I've focused on the lead for the moment but I'd like to add that an RPS of 35 kB (5,796 words) is excellent for such a broad subject. The lead is a good summary of the war and adequately fills the scope. I've just two small points which are:

• In the opening sentence, suggest unpiping Roman Republic to make clear that it was the republic and not the empire involved in the Punic Wars.

I would much rather not. It seems to me that readers are either unaware of the distinction, in which case no harm done; or aware of it, in which case they are unlikely to think that the Empire had already come into existance in the 3rd C BC. It seems to me that those falling into neither grou[p are likely to be very few indeed.

• Specify Akragas (modern Agrigento) after the first mention, as done later for Panormus (modern Palermo).

Good spot. Done.

That's it for now and I'll be back again soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Polybius dates were incorrect – amended.

Oops. Thank you.

• "his The Histories" is distracting – no need for "his" in this context so removed.

True. I have done that elsewhere, so I don't know how it sneaked through. I have probably read that section too many times.

• the details of the battle in modern sources – should "battle" be "war" or "battles"? If a specific battle, which one?

D'oh! 'War'. Fixed.

• Suggest indication of when Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius were active – centuries will do.

Done.

• Good coverage of the naval artefact discoveries and the resultant analysis in comparison with Polybius.

Thank you. (Was tricky not to OR there. There is probably an article on the artifacts to be created one day.)

Thanks No Great Shaker. Your points to date addressed above. Your next installment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few questions on this section which are mainly concerned with the motives of all concerned. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mamertines appealed to both Rome and Carthage for assistance. Is it known if the Mamertines wanted both to assist or if they were playing them off against each other?
• Carthage had already garrisoned Messana when Caudex began his expedition. Did the Romans make any attempt to form an alliance with Carthage in support of the Mamertines or was the expedition a direct attack on the Carthaginian garrison?
• The point of the above two questions is that it isn't really clear why Rome and Carthage went to war against each other when, on the face of it, they were both seeking to assist the Mamertines against Syracuse.
• Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana. Is this Caudex again or another Claudian?
• Is there any known reason for the expulsion of the Carthaginian garrison by the Mamertines? Had the Mamertines allied themselves with Rome?
• Did the Carthaginians form an alliance with Syracuse prior to or during the siege of Messana?
• Their experience over the previous two centuries of warfare on Sicily was that decisive action was impossible. Just a thought only but would it be worth mentioning the 415 BC Athenian expedition against Syracuse in this context?
• The "Armies" sub-section is fine – it's a mine of useful information.

• Slight confusion between hatnote and text as one uses Battle of Agrigentum and the other Battle of Akragas.

Oops. Fixed.

• only two full-scale pitched battles. Worth a brief mention of where – Akragas and Panormus?

Done.

• Use of "interfere" as last word in first sentence. Would "intervene" be more appropriate in a military context?

I have gone with "interdict" and linked it.

• In the piece about the corvus, perhaps add that it was only in use for a few years till its constraints were fully realised.

I mention this in chronological order - "Importantly, the corvus was abandoned, which improved the ships' speed and handling but forced a change in tactics on the Romans ..." - which seems more natural to me. Do you not like this approach?

• The Romans then raided both the Liparis and Malta. Did the Romans make any serious attempt to occupy Malta at this time?

Not that the sources mention. (Malta was still in Carthaginian hands at the start of the Second Punic War.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Second paragraph. I think it would read better if you move the name of the battle from the third sentence into the second sentence where it currently says "the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history".

Done.

• Then begin the third sentence with: "At first, the Carthaginians took the initiative..."

Gone with a variant of this.

• It was intercepted by a Carthaginian fleet off Africa. Might be better to name a specific location which was modern Cape Bon in northern Tunisia.

Very true. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the other sections – Sicily 255–248 BC, Conclusion, Aftermath and the references, etc. – three times now and I've no comment other than all being interesting and highly readable. I like the way you have concluded the aftermath by guiding the reader towards the second conflict.

Hello again, Gog. Although you're still looking at some of the comments I've made above, I don't feel there is anything which prevents me from supporting the nomination. It is a really good, informative, interesting historical summary that is entirely fit for purpose as the introduction to a conflict that shaped world history. Which is true, if you think in terms of what might have been, had the Carthaginians won this war, and there had been no Caesar, no Roman Empire. Sadly, it's true that the war is largely forgotten, but it has real historical importance that cannot be understated. Well done, Gog. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox: what is the logic behind the list of commanders for Rome? it's neither alphabetical, nor chronological. Then, why picking Megellus & Vitulus and not Lutatius Catulus? I would also mention Valerius Messalla. In fact, you could theoretically list all the consuls as they all fought. The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others, like Scipio Africanus or Claudius Marcellus for the 2PW.

Secondly, did Hiero II really fought on the Roman side? As far as I remember, his only fight in the war was against Rome, which he lost and remained an ally until his death. Should he be mentioned on each side (with a mention "after 263" and "until 263")?

I have tried all sorts of rationales on this, but cannot find a satisfactory solution. As you say "The 1PW did not have military leaders that dominate the others". The most reader-friendly solution would seem to be to mention none of the leaders at all - so I haven't. (The template documentation says that including commanders is "optional".)

What about Syracuse? They fought for both sides. T8612 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So did numerous other Sicilian city states. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are not in the infobox. Given the anecdotal role of Syracuse in the military operations, I think it could be removed, or at least add (from 263) next to it. T8612 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am being slow. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In "background", you shortened the name of Appius Claudius Caudex to "Caudex" and "Claudius", pick only one for consistency.

Done.

• I think this time this picture of the Fasti Triumphales is appropriate. You have all the triumphators of the First Punic War. This pic is a bit better.

Thanks. Inserted.

T8612 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sources, I would still mention Livy, even though his books are lost for the period, their content have partially survived through later authors, notably Orosius and Cassius Dio you mention, and their epitome (called the Periochae) is still used by modern scholars.

Umm. How would you feel about

Modern historians usually take into account the writings of various Roman annalists, some contemporary; the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; the later Roman historians Livy (who relied heavily on Polybius), Plutarch, Appian and Dio Cassius.

Commants welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Livy was an annalist too, so I would say

Modern historians usually take into account the fragmentary writings of various Roman annalists, especially Livy (who relied on Polybius); the Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus; and the later Greek writers Appian and Dio Cassius.

No Roman annalist has survived for the 1PW, hence "fragmentary"; Plutarch is useful for the 2 and 3PW, but none of his biographies deal with the 1PW, so I think he can be removed here. I also removed "Heavily" from "relied heavily on Polybius", because Livy relied principally on the previous Roman annalists, he used Polybius for military operations. T8612 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: That works for me. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the caption of the list of triumphs, I would says this: "A fragment of the Fasti Triumphales, listing all of the Roman triumphators of the war." T8612 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 Good points, thanks. Addressed and actioned. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wondering whether note 1 on the etymology of Punic should be in the lede instead of the text body. It's a bit strange to put it in the section on sources. T8612 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Personally I feel that the Sources section is the best place for the information on the etymology - whether in a note or in line. And while I am not sure if there is a guideline recommending against using notes in the lead in the same way that cites there are discouraged - there may well be - I prefer if at all possible to keep the lead "uncluttered". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support just a few things.

• "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, adding 220 new ships, and captured Panormus (modern Palermo) in 254 BC. The next year they lost another 150 ships to a storm.' I might cut 'another'. I don't think the reader will necessarily assume these were of the 220.

Done.

• You might want to move the mention that Roman marines were legionnaires to the first mention of their marines.

Done.

• is it 'north east' or 'north-east' (both as adjectives). You might want to check the other points of the compass, so to speak.

It's "south east" when used eg as "they moved to the south east"; and "south-east" when used eg in "south-east Sicily".

An interesting read. Good to hear about the whole thing in context.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt and thanks for the virtually preemptive support. Your points addressed anyway. (Obviously.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "in 237 BC Rome took advantage of the chaos to seize Corsica and Sardinia, in defiance of the terms of their treaty" but according to the map, Corsica and Sardinia are in the pink "ceded by the treaty" area along with most of Sicily. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers: I (quite literally) can hardly believe I did that. Treaty of Lutatius was my last FAC! Amended to cover this crucial point. Going directly to your query is "the additional payment and the renunciation of Sardinia and Corsica were added to the treaty as a codicil". See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. But you might want to expand on the bit about Sicily becoming the first Roman province to add the fate of Sardinia and Corsica. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers: Good point. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support as a well written important topic. If you have control of the maps File:Carthaginianempire.PNG shows Carthage as having the coast of Corsica and not all of Sardinia, which I think may be more accurate than the map which shows the dispositions of Rome and Carthage at the outbreak of the war. You might also want to expand the aftermath to clarify that the Sicilian losses included territory that had been Carthaginian for a very long time whilst much of Sardinia and Corsica was a more peripheral, even ephemeral part of Carthage's empire. ϢereSpielChequers 14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers: thank you for the support; a rather embarrassing omission picked up there. While one suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year, I would prefer the more nuanced approach you suggest. The only editor I know who may be able to sort it has just gone on holiday. I will see how willing they are when they return.

The sources I have (eg Miles) lists five "new" Phoenician settlements in the 7th C BC, stating that they were established to control the export of resources to Carthage. Not what you would call "recent". They also argue that the original, and for some sources the continuing main, purpose of the settlements on Sicily was as way stations to link Carthage to Sardinia. The driving force being foodstuffs and precious metals from Sardinia. Which sources are telling you different? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah "much of" not "all of". I don't dispute that parts of Sardinia were core, and in terms of metals more important. I don't see why anyone going north from Carthage to Sardinia would start by going east to Sicily (other than some very strange winds), though I can see that holding western Sicily would make the sea route to Sardinia safer. Very happy with your solution of asking the mapmaker to tweak things on their return. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers: I confess it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but that's what Miles says. And, from memory, other sources make Sicily subsidiary to Sardinia and suggest that that was why the major Carthaginian strongholds were in the west of Sicily. But what do I know of the winds, currents, tides, trade routes, resources and accessible harbours of the area 2,300 years ago? Anyway, you can see why I wasn't (aren't) keen to go with your compare Sicily and Sardinia suggestion.

I assume "my" mapmaker will be able to sort it. They put the pink in the map in Aftermath at my request so I assume they will be able to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers: Map tweaked as discussed, with grateful thanks to the multi-talented Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. marked that as resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending. In about five weeks be OK? :p ——Serial 12:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

——: well, it's been open 11 days, so if you waited another 73 ... Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fn 166 has the wrong date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7: well spotted. Thanks. The date is correct; I forgot to add the source when I added a cite. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi guys. A query. Serial Number 54129 has signed on to do the source review for this, but has not edited for nine days. (And is not responding to emails.) Would I be in order to strike their 'staking a claim' and to put it in the reviews requested box? Or is there any other advice you have? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can take on the SR here if Serial is missing (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. SN is definitely MIA. (I am a little concerned.) If you could pick up the SR I would most grateful. I suspect that you could identify most of the flaws in my sourcing of a First Punic War article from memory by now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

• Which source supports the figures in the sentence "Since 2010, eleven bronze warship rams have been found by archaeologists in the sea off the west coast of Sicily, along with ten bronze helmets and hundreds of amphorae."? Tusa & Royal speak of "4 bronze warship rams (Egadi 3-6), at least 8 bronze helmets" that they recovered in their survey. The other sources mention ten rams.

I absolutely remember counting eleven when I wrote Battle of the Aegates, but on holiday without all my sources I can't reproduce it. So I am amending to the ten supported by two of the sources. I may revisit this when I am back, but if so I shall consult you. Done.

• • Might be a good idea to specify that the artifacts were from both sides of the battle

Ah, but we don't know that they were. The Carthaginians captured a lot of Roman warships, including 93 at the Battle of Drepana which they reused. So it is possible that they were all "Carthaginian" ships. Thinking this through though, it may be worth mentioning that there were some built by each side, and I shall. Done.

• Tusa & Royal p. 46 (in the official pagination based on the doi-identified version) does not mention Polybius. I think you might be referring to the previous page, where it states, "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire." The sentence in the article is "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." But the source doesn't discuss amphorae, at least not on that page, and the sentence in the article, if kept, needs to clarify what the account is of (the battle, the war)?

My pagination is for the first edition. I am not sure who added the doi. The second edition has the same content, but a new forward by Tusa's widow, which alters the pagination.

Url to 1st edition removed. Note that the page given states "The amphora finds attest to the particular mission of the warships in this conflict". This, IMO, supports "they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account". Note that this paragraph begins "The finds from the Egadi Islands provide archaeological evidence for the key naval battle described by Polybius that ended the First Punic War in 241 B.C., a crushing defeat for the Carthaginians which launched Rome on its path of expansion and empire. It is the sought-after convergence of the archaeological and historical records". (Emphasis added.)

• • As far as I can tell, Tusa & Royal mostly support the location of the battle being where Polybius said. But you already state that earlier in the paragraph, "The archaeologists involved stated that the location of artefacts so far discovered supports Polybius's account of where the Battle of the Aegates took place." Therefore, I wonder if the last sentence in the paragraph is redundant, or if not, whether it can be made more specific.

The last sentence "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy of other aspects of Polybius's account." refers to Polybius stating that the Carthaginian ships were weighed down with food supplies which they planned to unload in Sicily before getting into battle trim. I didn't want to get into a lot of detail at this stage, so summarised. This is confirmation of a different aspect of Polybius's account than the location.

• The one citation to Sabin checks out.
• On page 121, Morgan states that the majority view puts the battle in 250, but she argues that it was actually 251. Either both dates need to be given as alternatives, or else another source would need to be cited to show that Morgan's view has been adopted as the majority one. If, on the other hand, Rankov, Lazenby and Bagnall state it was 251, then I don't see the need to cite Morgan. Also, I am not sure why you also cite page 129, since it does not include any relevant information as far as I can tell. Also, I am not sure where you get "late summer" from.

I was relying on the quote from Polybius "when the harvest was at its height" and the vindication of Polybius's account on page 129. I could switch this to Goldsworthy who says in his own voice "while they harvested their crops", which I believe is a reasonable paraphrase to "late summer". In fact, if you are unhappy with Morgan for the year I could switch that to Goldsworthy and make things simpler all round.

I think that using Goldsworthy would be a better solution (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. Thanks a lot. (I haven't read it yet, I reserve the right to withdraw my thanks. ;-) ) I am currently packing to go on holiday. I shall take most of my sources, so there will be a response, but please bear with me if it is delayed and/or arrives bitily. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I should have read it first. I am now on holiday and haven't got my pdfs of most of the sources you refer to. I should be able to access on line versions. Tusa and Royal: I used the pre-publication, old version of this. After Tusa died this was withdrawn; my understanding was that no changes were made to the text, but I am guessing that the preface or similar may have been rewritten and this may explain the page number discrepancies. It is not impossible that the text has changed in the new version and I shall obviously check for this. (Note that a helpful drive by editor has changed all of the identifiers to the new version - I didn't notice - so you have been looking at a different version from the one I intended you to.) I shall crack on now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, I am going to be out of commission for the next two to three days. Apologies. I hope to wrap up my responses to your review over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources used

• There is some inconsistency in whether locations are provided, e.g. see Collins, Walbank, Sidwell

Beginners mistake. The book by Walbank already has a location, the journal doesn't. Locations added to the other two. Thanks. (And for "Untied States of America"; *rolly eyes*)

• The sources look reliable for what they are being cited for (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Buidhe. Apologies if my responses are (increasingly) incoherent. (I miss my library.) I have responded to, I think, all of your queries. Possibly over-hurriedly before I go off line. Any hoo, see what you make of it, and I will come back on your follow up comments in a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about this subject, but reviewing is as good a way to learn as any. As always, feel free to query/revert any copyedits I make as I go.

• "greatest naval war of antiquity" "antiquity" is a potentially fuzzy term; can you link it?

Done.

• "A Carthaginian base on Corsica was seized, but an attack on Sardinia was repulsed" at this point the reader only knows Sardinia is Carthaginian if they've looked at the map; I'd suggest clarifying in the prose, too.

Good point. Done - "on Carthaginian-held Sardinia".

• "attacked and recaptured Akragas" Akragas hasn't been introduced yet, and doesn't have a link

D'oh! Good spot. Thank you. I have mixed the Latin and the Greek names - and even thrown in one bare modern name! Now standardised. Akragas (Latin: Agrigentum; modern Agrigento).

• Note 1 is significant enough in its content that I'd include it in the main text, but that's a matter of preference only

Done.

• The sentence beginning "other sources include" would flow better attached to paragraph 2 of that section, IMO

Done.

Hi Vanamonde93, good to see you again and thanks for the comments - a couple of them I am annoyed to have missed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: "empire": I slightly prefer Carthage had come to dominate X,Y and Z in a military and commercial empire, meaning (it seems to me) that X, Y and Z were in the empire and that Carthage dominated them; to "building". But if the former is impenetrably unclear, then best to change it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde93: I was wondering if you had any further queries or comments, or any follow ups to my responses above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Vanamonde93, I wouldn't have bothered you except I am going to be off line for a day or two and I thought that I would give you a nudge as part of my "housekeeping". Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Apologies, I meant to read through the rest of the article and hadn't gotten around to it. If this is otherwise ready to promote I will not stand in the way, but if not I'll get to finishing my prose review soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In retrospect, the "empire" wording was just a matter of preference, I think, so self-reverted.

Cheers.

• "Carthage was unperturbed" strikes me as rather heavy use of editorial voice...

Fair point. Rephrased to avoid this.

• "Adult male Roman citizens" is it possible to mention somewhere that this definition of "citizen" is rather different from the present-day understanding of it, in that most (?) of the inhabitants of the empire were not citizens?

This has come up before (hence the IMO redundant "Adult male") and I would like to add a footnote. Bizarrely, I can't source it! All of my sources take this factoid as a given.

Huh. well, the sources are what they are.

• "Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army" are these foreigners to the city or the empire?

Ah now. Carthage was an empire rather like the old British Empire - components from outside the city and a few colonies settled directly from it were viewed as "foreign". Rome was not so different: hence the references to Latin, Italic and Greek allies - the components of the growing Roman "republic". So, to answer the question, some of both in your terms; or non-citizens in mine.

• "close-order" and "shock cavalry" strike me as terms that could use links or explanation

A bit like citizen: widely used, but not oft defined. But you are correct; they do need defining. Let me hunt around. It may need to wait until after my current holiday so I can access my more general military sources.

Yeah, it's not a make-or-break thing, but would be worth fixing; technical terms without definitions or links aren't ideal, in my view.

• " several other small Carthaginian dependencies switched to the Romans" The prose to this point hasn't suggested Syracuse was a dependency; or perhaps it wasn't, and the "other" needs to be omitted?

Oops. Well spotted. "other" removed.

• "Carthaginian naval supremacy prevented them from shipping supplies by sea" More for my curiosity than anything else; Sicily is an island; getting any supplies there requires shipping by sea; why was it specifically hard for Akragas?

Omitted for summary style is that sneaking supplies by night across the 3 km Strait of Messina was achievable with acceptably low losses. Sailing them 400 km and landing them on the open beach probably wasn't technically doable. Even if you had naval superiority. Hence much of the war being over the major Sicilian ports.

Thanks for the explanation, the summary seems fine.

• "which assembled in Africa" Africa's rather large...do we know where exactly? If not, can we at least say "African coast"?

Well now, I "know" that they were assembled in Carthage, and to a lesser extent (possibly) Utica. But Polybius says "Africanus" and every modern source I have read blindly copies him. I would be entirely happy to give a fairly precise location, but you would shoot me down for inadequate sourcing.

Fair. it annoys me no end, especially because Polybius's phrasing sounds a heck of a lot like modern geographic ignorance that does the same thing; but if the sources aren't specific, then you can't be, either.

Ah; it is even worse. Africanus is Latin for Tunisia, as in the Roman province. Do you too sometimes want you to shake the modern scholars who fail to think things through? When I am home I shall have a proper root around. Some one must have thought this through!

• "ultimately fruitless campaign against Corsica and Sardinia" sounds like an event of the same scale as that which has just been treated over several paragraphs; was it much less important, or do we just not have any information?

A bit of both. It was a secondary campaign - at least one modern source lambasts the Romans' strategic judgement for diverting resources to it. Whoever won the campaign, it was not going to significantly effect the outcome of the war. And so neither the primary nor the secondary sources spend much time on it.

Seems fine.

• The first sentence of "Rome builds a fleet" seems to me to belong in the previous section both chronologically and thematically

It's there deliberately as an explanation as to why Rome felt a need to build a fleet. It seems to me that if I moved it I would need to say much the same thing again to introduce this section.

Even so, I think all you need in "Rome builds a fleet" is "As the war in Sicily reached a stalemate..." and the rest could be moved up

• I wonder if the material about ship types, etc, would be well-served by a subsection, and also perhaps whether that belongs along with "armies" above

Similar to what I have done in Punic Wars? Hmm. That may well work better. I have tried it. See what you think.

Looks good, thanks.

• A more general comment; a lot of the material here strikes me as patchy, in the sense that the amount of detail used for events of seemingly similar significance varies considerably. Based on the "primary sources" section I rather suspect that this is the result of patchiness in the source material; would you say that's accurate? if so, is that something that could be discussed in the first section of the article?

Please don't get me started! Before I dropped by 1PW there was no article on an event which combined Carthage's greatest naval defeat and Rome's greatest (by far) loss of live. Because both were barely covered in the primary sources and hence likewise in the secondary. I have never had a more difficult time getting an article through FAC. This is where Wikipedia being a tertiary source comes back to bite us.

So yes, the ancients judged events by different criteria, and modern RSs inevitably have similar weighting (mostly), and I would love to explicitly point this out under sources, But the RSs - curse them - seem blind to this "selection bias" and I would not be able to source it. It makes me want to chew my keyboard.

Ah well. The sources are what they are. Perhaps you'd need to write a paper about it, and then someone can come and at least address the patchiness directly in this article...

Don’t encourage me. I just possibly could. And I know a head of a university history department who would probably help me get it published. But it sounds a bit like actual work to me!

• Another likely ignorant question; the prose refers to Carthaginian Sardinia and Corsica; but the map only shows them partially under Carthaginian control; why?

Another oft asked question. The map was custom tweaked at the request of WereSpielChequers above at their third struck comment. I commented later "One suspects that outside the town walls (and on in a bad year within them) what could be called "controlled" varied, a lot, from year to year." I could elaborate quite a lot on this, but hopefully you get the idea. If the Carthaginians controlled, say, a silver mine, who cared who controlled the barren hills around it. And define "control". Which by any definition may have varied by time of day - the locals coming out to raid and extort at night for example. It's a lot of nuance over an extended period to pack into a shading on a map.

• "was possibly the largest naval battle in history" I think you mean the largest naval battle to that date; or is it really saying it was the largest ever?

No, it means just what it says, including the "by total number of combatants" qualifier. Staggering eh?

Huh, yeah, indeed. I'd have thought Jutland or Midway would have been hard to top...

)t is all the oarsmen in each ship. 680 x 690 = c. 290,000, Leytte Gulf was probably the largest WW2 naval battle and “only” made 200,000 combatants!

• "losing 30 ships sunk" strikes me as ungrammatical, but maybe I'm just unused to military history writing conventions; I would write "having 30 ships sunk"

It seems normal - non-military - English to me. A Google search on "losing * ships sunk" gives well over 2 mn hits.

Hmmm. A matter of preference, then, so you can ignore it.

• Who is Bostar? He hasn't been introduced, and isn't mentioned later

Sorry, he appears this once in the sources, then disappears again. I am never sure how to introduce him. (And whatever I do seems to get criticised.) "Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and a third general called Bostar" is the best I can think of, but is so clumsy. Do you have any ideas?

"a third general, Bostar," would seem fine to me

Done.

• "the presence of the corvus" is the singular form correct here? There was one on each ship, presumably?

Wiktionary says that it is an English word with a plural of "corvi". I do not consider this helpful to a reader and am, frankly, IARing.

• There's some inconsistancy with serial commas; I was unsure which way you wanted to go, so I didn't make any changes

I don't do Oxford commas, but sometimes a comma after and is nevertheless grammatically required. If you see others, feel free to delete them. I have been referred to as a "comma-minimalist".

Agreed, I'll do a sweep.

• "the Carthaginian hold-out cities" what makes them hold-out cities? Didn't Carthage still have a lot of territory on Sicily?

Hold-out refers to bypassed cities surrounded by Roman-held territory and fortifications. It was the most accurate succinct phrase I could think of, but I am not wedded to it. (Maybe "the isolated cities holding out behind the Roman lines"? Longer, but clearer.)

Hi Vanamonde93: Apologies for keeping you waiting for this. I think that I have addressed all of your comments, if sometimes not very satisfactorily. I shall try to revisit this in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "picked": it may be a specialist usage - I hadn't thought so - but "picked" in this context is not synonymous with selected, see [2]. Or to quote from some sources - Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough.

  @Gog the Mild: Thanks; a couple of brief responses above for you to consider; the only one I feel strongly about is the technical terms. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93: all addressed. I agree re the technical terms (I should have defined them when I first wrote them, but I have grown too used to the specialist terminology and it is not always obvious to me that it is specialist), but they are going to have to wait until I am home and can consult my The Art of War in the Western World, which I know covers these (well). Hopefully I am in good enough standing with the coordinators that they will bear with me.

Many thanks for this comprehensive trawl through my sometimes shakey prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; thanks for a detailed article about an important topic. No objections to waiting on the technical terms. Happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like many others, I know little about this period of world history. Nonetheless, I offer the following comments and questons. Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The Romans then built a navy to challenge Carthage's, and using novel tactics inflicted several defeats.

Carthage's > would "the Carthaginians" be more apt?

It would, it would. Done.

Primary sources:

• His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics,[4] but he is known today for The Histories,

Is "today" clear enough for readers?

It seems entirely clear to me. In what way do you think it may not be? Or what do you feel might be clearer?

A clear situation of diminishing return.

• Carthaginian written records were destroyed along with their capital, Carthage, in 146 BC and so Polybius's account of the First Punic War is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources.

• Independent clauses: This sentence has two independent clauses separated by a coordinating conuction but unjoined by a comma?

Indeed. It is how I was taught and my usual Wikipedian habit.

We are in agreement, fantastic!

",now lost," seems essential to the meaning of the sentence?

I fear you have the advantage of me. It may be simpler if you copy edited the article to your satisfaction and I commented if I were to be unhappy?

Advantage here is still in question, but I fear I may have struck a nerve. Anyway, the ball is still in your court.

Background

• The Romans had not previously displayed any interest in Sicily and did not wish to come to the aid of soldiers who had unjustly stolen a city from its rightful possessors.

Independent clauses - same as in the

lead?

And a similar response. You will find a lot of these.

Ditto!

• Two legions commanded by Claudius marched to Messana, where the Mamertines had expelled the Carthaginian garrison commanded by Hanno (no relation to Hanno the Great) and were besieged by both the Carthaginians and the Syracusans.

How about a comma after (no relation to Hanno the Great)?

A definite theme is developing.

Yet, the nominee continues to play games.

Rome builds a fleet

• In 260 BC Romans set out to construct a fleet and used a shipwrecked Carthaginian quinquereme as a blueprint for their own.

Independent clauses - same as in the lead?

...

Ditto!

• As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies that were heavier than the Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable.

Consdier replacing "and so" with "but"?

Would this not deny the reader the reason why they were slower? Ie, because they were heavier. I am not adverse to a rewording which continues to communicate this.

Call this one a draw!

Africa

• Their naval victories at Mylae and Sulci, and their frustration at the stalemate in Sicily, led the Romans to adopt a sea-based strategy and to develop a plan to invade the Carthaginian heartland in North Africa and threaten Carthage (close to Tunis).

How about a comma after strategy?

Ah, well, I think that you will have identified by now that the missing commas are not unintentional.

Gamesmanship at play!

Sicily

• Their entire fleet, under both consuls, attacked Panormus early in the year.

Consider "in the same year", or in "that year", referring to 254 BC about two sentences back?

Both of those seem a little clumsy to me. I could repeat the year: "attacked Panormus early in 254 BC"?

You seem to have this well in hand.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Pendright, I see you too rarely. Thank you for your comments, which I have addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we do this again sometime, perhaps in the next life? In the meantime, the article is worthy of my support. Pendright (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose @FAC coordinators: Hi guys, given the above could I fire up my next one? Thanks? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fire away... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.