Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Metaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Since this page was somewhat lacking in details of the battle itself - details which are very much elaborated on in Edward Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, I've updated the page thoroughly, mostly with information from that book (though with some outside knowledge of my own). I've also saved the old text on my hard drive should the need arise to revert to that. This is my first major edit, so I would certainly love some feedback. --Warrior-Poet 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

If Hasdabal's forces are estimated at 30 000, and his numbers on the chart is "unknown" how could his casualties be so percise at 57 000? ParallelPain 07:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Aftermath

[edit]

There are some statements in the "Aftermath" section of this article, that are not quite indisputable:

1. "Had Hasdrubal succeeded in linking up with his brother, the outcome of the Second Punic War might have been very different. The addition of Hasdrubal's men to his ranks would have swelled Hannibal's army to a number great enough to lead a direct advance on Rome itself, and in the event of such a siege, it is quite possible that Hannibal's forces would have succeeded in taking the city."

There are too many arguments to the contrary (Hannibal couldn't or did not dare to attack Rome even immediately after Lake Trasimene and Cannae, since the fall of Capua and Tarentum he had no more strong allies in Italy, Hasdrubal's reinforcements were not enough to take Rome but to drag the war), so "quite possible" should be deleted.

2. "Like the Battle of Tours, however, the significance of the Battle of the Metaurus is greatly understated in most circles."

In my view the Martel's victory over the Arabs in 732 is not understated (nowadays), at least not as the repulse of Maslama from the walls of Constantinople in 717-718.

3. "He remained in Italy for several years, unmolested by Rome, and attempted to maintain the loyalty of the Italian allies whom he had won early on in his campaign."

I think "largely unmolested" would be a more appropriate wording. At first (206-205 BC) the Romans were somewhat shy, but were gradually emboldened, so there were actions against Hannibal at Locri (205 BC) and Croto and in Bruttium (204-203 BC), of which Livy recalls.

Dobrin 10:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more appropriate to just delete the two middle paragraphs of that section. They are speculation, and the point of the importance of the battle is carried across in the last paragraph quite well. Maybe we could replace it with some more factual information? Or more references to the battle from histories or historians? Farkeld (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LacusCurtius.gif

[edit]

Image:LacusCurtius.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Figures

[edit]

While I appreciate the effort to incorporate more exact casualty figures, the previous updates estimate the Carthaginian force at ~56,000 while giving casualty totals that, per Livy, vastly exceed that sum or, per Polybius, are small enough that the battle's being considered a decisive, semi-annihilation of the Carthaginian force seems inaccurate (ie ~10,000 out of a total of 56,000, while sufficient for a defeat, is clearly insufficient for a decisive defeat in which Hasdrubal essentially commits an honorable action of suicide). I am not sure how best to rectify this, however. It's frustrating to leave the size of the Carthaginian force "unknown" but aren't our sources sufficiently conflicting to make that our best indication of their strength? I tend to give more credence to Polybius than Livy in such matters but that's more a matter of personal taste. Ginsengbomb 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very accurate remarks. The size of the Hasdrubal's army should be left "unknown" or "disputable" or something like. I leave it to you to fix that or, if you like, I'll do it. I suggest not to delete the links to the sources but use them in a separate paragraph (or a section) of the article, dealing with the contradictions. Dobrin 11:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a grammar error in this section. One of the sentences reads: "According to Livy, 27.36." Stubb (talk)

the rewrite

[edit]

hi, i have pasted a rewrite of the battle section and introduced an other section called troop deployment with necessary details. The description of the battle was quite poor and lacked military sense, i have "militarized" it with details of respective troop deployment and maneuvers. It also includes battle maps detailing the events and maneuvers of the battle.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troop Deployment

[edit]

This section states "Therefore, it is certain that Romans were significantly outnumbered", which seems to contradict numerous other sections of the article that state that the Carthaginians were outnumbered. I did not know what this was trying to say, but it was confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyersgoodness (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Metaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Serrungarina

[edit]

Serrunagarina is a common in Val Metauro along via Flaminia where is demonstrated that the battle took place.Kingofwoods (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Metaurus&oldid=1214048596"