Talk:Roman–Seleucid war

Clean-up

The following things need to be changed with this article:

1. The introduction needs to be more encyclopedic

2. Grammar and punctuation needs to be fixed Crispus 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Name, 2006

Wouldn't it be better to call it Roman-Seleucid War?--Aldux 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Potentially this would be a better title, as it would fit in the Roman war naming conventions that we have been using. But since there was earlier fighting between the Seleucid Empire and Rome before this conflict, this issue would also need to be discussed in an article on the Roman-Seleucid War. Or maybe we could make several articles, and make them the First Roman-Seleucid War, the Second Roman-Seleucid War, etc. Crispus 17:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Another better title might be Syrian-War, or Roman-Syrian War. Syrian War was the title given as this website[1]Crispus 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have found out that most of the fighting between the Seleucid Empire and Rome happened later, such as the War with Antiochus XIII. That would also have to go in an article on this topic. Crispus 04:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

I reworded and rewrote the first and second paragraphs of this article but the section on the battle of Magnesia is too far gone for me to do much with. That section should be linked to the wiki page on the battle (Battle of Magnesia). The problem is that the writer of the page describing the battle is a little off on his statistics and seems to be using a new source for his numbers, completely disregarding traditional views of the battle, as well as all the primary sources. Drungarios 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long period of time since work began on this artical improving it from the small set of sentences it previously was. Frankly im kinda dissapointed with its progress users such as Drungarios and Crispus claimed that they knew everything about this subject when really progress has been very poor :(

Whoa, Whoa, where did I say that I knew everything, or even say I'm going to work on this page. I did once say that "I hope to add information from ancient historians soon," once, but that's not really an affirmative answer. And to tell the truth I don't know much about this war. That's what reading from ancient historians is for, and I haven't done that yet.

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_syriaca_00.html

That is a good website to go to if anyone wants to help. Frankly, with my school work right now, I really don't want to get bogged down in a potentially long and complex article such as this. Crispus 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey man (Crispus) just wanted to let you know that the first comment on this section is a bit harsh I dont know who wrote it, I began working on the artical what seems like ages ago now and im happy that its been developed. As my knowlege on the subject is also vague. King Alaric 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About the beginning year of the war

The lead says that this war began in 192 BC, while the infobox claims that it occured in 191 BC. This is contradictory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

192 is correct, when Antiochus landed in Greece during autumn. --Kryston (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Name, 2023

@T8612, Avilich, and Caeciliusinhorto: Do we now know what to call this thing? The discussion above on the matter seems largely to be the old Wikipedia game of making stuff up. Ifly6 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I did find some sources calling it the Syrian War but that name puts me in mind of the current Syrian civil war rather than anything else. Gruen calls it the Antiochene war – Gruen, Erich (1995). "The "fall" of the Scipios". In Malkin, I; Rubinsohn, Z W (eds.). Leaders and masses in the Roman world. Mnemosyne Supplements. Vol. 139. Brill. p. 72. doi:10.1163/9789004329447_006. ISBN 978-9-0040-9917-3. – which I think is an acceptable name. Ifly6 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Briscoe in Commentary on Livy 34-37; Badian in a noted article; Paul Burton in Rome and the Third Macedonian War, call it the Syrian War. I think this is the most common name. However, Syrian War alone is confusing given all the other conflicts of that name. So perhaps Syrian War (192–188 BC)? T8612 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we know why it's called the Syrian war? Is it basically just because Livy and Polybius call it Syrian? It seems strange to me inasmuch as Magnesia isn't even in "Syria" and the Seleucid empire extended from Syria to modern Afghanistan. While I agree that the name is with the clarifier is acceptable, it seems more WP:NATURAL to use a different name that doesn't have the same problem. Ifly6 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It also seems for some reason that the page revision history is truncated at 2007, as if there were some kind of history-breaking move around that time. I think what is present then may be all we have. (It's like reading Livy.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• In the absence of further information the most logical thing is to move the page to "Syrian War (192–189 BC)" (or "–188 BC" ?), but more evidence would be better; an internet search only returns the wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, which were also called Syrian wars. Avilich (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  The main reason why I would trend towards something other than "Syrian war" with qualifiers is simply due to the number of other Syrian wars. I think they are of a sufficient number that it may even be more useful to pick a descriptor that isn't "Syrian" unless faced with an overwhelming scholarly consensus for it. Ifly6 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare calls it "Rome's Syrian war" and I can think of nothing better. Some very old sources also call it "Syro-Aetolian war". Avilich (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  You would go with Syrian War (192–189 BC) then? Ifly6 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Going with your suggestion of a descriptor, my first choice would be "Rome's Syrian War" and second "Syrian War (192–189 BC)". Avilich (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of this new title. The Syrian Wars were the wars between the Seleucid Empire & the Ptolemaic Kingdom, and had the advantage of Actually Being Fought in or near Syria (well, Coele-Syria). My suspicion is that "Syrian War" is a term mostly stemming from Roman/Latin sources where of course, the Syrian War is "the one we fought in." (Did Polybius really call this the Syrian War? EDIT: I checked, and I can't find any sort of name for the war as a whole in Polybius's Histories, but maybe I missed it.) I'm not saying the old title was perfect, but the new one seems deeply confusing given that we now have the Syrian War, the First Syrian War, the Second Syrian War, etc. where the unnumbered one is "the one against Rome." Also, this term is weird because most of the fighting was in Asia Minor / Greece, not in Syria proper (even if the Seleucids as a whole were also called "Syria").
• Anyway, doing some checking of recent books... Michael Taylor's "Antiochus the Great" calls the war "The Roman War" (but is writing from the perspective of a history of Antiochus III, so in this case, it's "The War with Rome"), which is an equally bad name to "Syrian War." John D. Grainger's "The Seleukid Empire of Antiochus III, 223–187 BC" also calls this "The Roman War." So eh, I'm inclined to prefer the old title at this rate, if Romans call it the Syrian War and the Seleucid Empire called it the Roman War. SnowFire (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Checking another good source: "From Samarkhand to Sardis", one of the most important works on the Seleucid Empire, simply calls it "The Seleucid conflict with Rome." If we don't have a better title, then Country A - Country B War is fine, so I'd be in favor of reverting to the old title after doing some more research. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Most reference sources I have checked keep the war entirely unnamed, with descriptive names (something like the war between Rome and Antiochus); in, for example, the Oxford Classical Dicitonary, this is because the war itself has no article and instead is covered obliquely through the articles on Antiochus and the Scipios. My look at English sources, which admittedly is entirely classical studies from the Roman side, does seem to trend strongly towards Syrian War with Antiochene as a distant later descriptor. I think it's probably a reflection of Appian's Syrian wars (L[oeb] CL 3; pp 104 et seq), which discusses this specific conflict. Ifly6 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Britannica does not include this war among the list of Syrian Wars which took place within a completely different context anyway. And neither do the Greek language sources I have access to. Despite the fact that I have brought 5 articles on this topic to GA status I was never pinged, this wasn't listed on the WP:WikiProject Military history talk either. @Avilich: are you truly seeking consensus or not?--Catlemur (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm profoundly unclear why you are seemingly attacking Avilich for not seeking consensus. I don't think anyone in this discussion as yet acted in bad faith. I should have pinged everyone who made major contributions (more than 2pc as of present) to the article as it existed. I am doing so now. @Kyriakos, Crispus, Catlemur, Kryston, and Aldux. Ifly6 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Is asking why a page on a war was moved and every single article on the battles of said war was altered without clear consensus after barely 2 days of discussion by a limited number of parties a personal attack now?--Catlemur (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer the seeming level of tension in this discussion to fall rather than increase; I apologise if you think that was a personal attack. I don't think renaming things across articles wasn't in good faith; if, hypothetically, we know what something is called and that name replaces a made-up name that nobody uses outside Wikipedia, doing that rename would be the right thing to do. Ifly6 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I didn't accuse you of a personal attack. Text does not convey people's emotions well so misunderstandings happen. I don't have a problem with anyone here. All I said was that Avilich should have waited a bit before renaming the article so that more people could express their opinion.--Catlemur (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catlemur: To be clear, Ifly6 is who actually moved the page, even if it was at Avilich's suggestion. I don't think discussing the matter on the talk page was bad faith or anything, it's good practice, but in retrospect it would have been better to use the WP:RM process to attract the wider community's attention.

@Ifly6: Given that Avilich's opinion does not appear to have consensus behind it, would you be willing to move the article back for now? Per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title, when there is no acceptable common name to be found, it's okay for Wikipedia to use a basic "descriptive title." In the case of wars, the simplest descriptive title is usually something like the old title - "Country A - Country B War" or "Country Adjective - Country Adjective War". I think that's the best compromise here, the old descriptive title of Roman–Seleucid War. SnowFire (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverting the name change would require overwriting an existing page, I think, which would require administrator help. Inasmuch as we're looking to find a good name to place this, I would want to see if we can just reach a consensus on what to call it. The options so far seem to be Roman–Seleucid war (RS), Syrian war, Antiochene war, Roman war. I dislike RS because it's made up and is nowhere found in any scholarship. I think the criticisms of Syrian and Roman are both correct inasmuch as there are lots of wars that could be called those things. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not seriously recommending Roman War. I'm just saying that in works whose focus is on the Seleucids and/or Antiochus III, that seems to be a title that comes up, but it has the exact same problem that "Syrian War" has of there being other wars that would be confused with it. (Basically it'd be Seleucid POV in the same way that Syrian War is Roman POV, to the extent there's any POV to be had milennia later.)

WP:RM/TM is the way to revert moves in general. My current rough suggestion is that one of us files a technical request at RMTM to go back to the old title for now, and if we can find a good title attested to in the sources, we can open a full WP:RM to move it there. I really don't think "Syrian War" is it, though, due to the confusion with the Syrian Wars. SnowFire (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I didn't do the move myself, and my own support was reluctant; I'm also out of touch with which wikiprojects are important or which editors have high GA counts (neither have a special right to be notified anyway). But the sources cited above are just enough to prove that "Syrian War" is the best-attested name for this (though my own preference was "Rome's Syrian War" as opposed to the current one). "Roman–Seleucid war" (should be with lowercase w if one's to bring up Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title) isn't wholly accurate since there were other participants. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think that Rome's Syrian War would be better here. T8612 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Wouldn't "Syrian War" be even worse than Roman-Syrian War then? That only mentions one participant rather than two. (Aside from the already stated problems of being misleading geographically.) SnowFire (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update

I was busy with some other things, but I got a reply from Michael J. Taylor, an authentic published historian on this. I tried not to prejudge things TOO much and asked about the title of the war from 192-189 with Antiochus, and here's the reply:

The Romans themselves called the war "the Syrian War," but I've never cared for the term. It confuses the war with the back and forth wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies that were also called the Syrian Wars, and of course the Seleucid kingdom was far larger than Syria, although Syria was indeed a core component (and no actual fighting took place in Syria). Syrian-Aetolian War does sound confusing, and has no currency among historians so far as I know.

I've personally always preferred "Roman-Seleucid War."

I am inclined to favor reverting the move on basically the same grounds as described above, whether via opening a WP:RM or just doing it boldly if Ifly6 and/or Avilich are convinced. Any final thoughts from participants above? Trying to avoid a trainwreck RM with too many clashing options...

I'll note as well that in browsing some other sources (one on the Kingdom of Pergamon), I saw yet another variant: "Antiochic War", which is pretty similar to "Antiochene War". But eh, that one isn't very specific either. SnowFire (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support restoring the old title like I said before.--Catlemur (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Inasmuch as there is some credibility for Roman–Seleucid war (I would prefer it "war" decapitalised), I think it's acceptable. Ifly6 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire, Avilich, and Ifly6: Should we proceed with the move to "Roman–Seleucid war"?--Catlemur (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to a move back at this point. I am satisfied that the discussion largely rejects my initial impression, from the previous discussion in 2006, that the name was invented whole-cloth. I also would recommend that the other names be kept somewhere in the article and in redirects. Ifly6 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. And yes, we can definitely bold and highlight the various alternative names of the war. I was going to prepare a big long essay for a formal RM, but if we informally are okay with a move to R-S war with a lowercase w, that's also good. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ifly6's solution. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Aetolian War

(Wow, this ping train is getting long.) @Kyriakos, Adamdaley, Crispus, Catlemur, Kryston, and Aldux: I've noticed the existence of Aetolian War as well. I feel these articles should be merged per WP:OVERLAP. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support the merge into the Syrian War (192–189 BC) article.--Catlemur (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked the sources and there are several occurrences of Syrian-Aetolian War. While this name is not that prevalent, it would be a good title in case of a merger. See CAH 8 p. 145 for example. T8612 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire, Catlemur, and Avilich: What do you think of that proposition? Ifly6 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I support Syrian–Aetolian War. It's the best of all options proposed until now. Avilich (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose this - this has the same problems as French and Indian War in that any casual reader would assume it was referring to a war between the Syrians and the Aetolians. Not good without an overwhelming COMMONNAME argument. SnowFire (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• On the merge: Do the sources treat the Aetolian-Roman conflict and Seleucid-Roman conflict always in a big group? p. 280 of CAH8 seems to treat the Aetolian war as a related topic but also a war that merges with Antiochus's war pretty quickly, but that may be a surface-level view.
• On the name: Checking CAH8 (it's on Wikipedia Library thankfully), that reference isn't really as a title but more in running text, and is in a very Roman context (it's talking about Rome & Carthage). It's a passing reference, anyway, and seems very set for one specific situation. The more relevant chapter is "Rome Against Philip and Antiochus" where the section heading is simply "Antiochus the Great" and no term seems applied to the overall war at all (other than a primary source on p. 283 calling it "war against Antiochus and those in his empire"). Later on in p. 324, the conflict is retrospectively referred to as "The war between Antiochus III and the Romans." I'm still convinced this means "no common name" and would prefer a descriptive name like the old title. SnowFire (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Aetolians spurred Antiochus into invading Greece and thus provoked a direct Roman-Seleucid conflict, when the invasion failed they kept fighting in mainland Greece as allies of Antiochus in a minor side front. I don't agree with the Syrian–Aetolian War title since its not prevalent and does not represent the full scale of the conflict which had Cold War proportions with many satellite states involved.--Catlemur (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update on naming, 2023

I moved the page to Roman–Seleucid war and turned Aetolian war into a redirect to effect the article merge; most of the material formerly at Aetolian war was poorly sourced and to the extent that it was reliable had been merged here regardless. Some double redirects have been left hanging; I expect that bots will clean them up per guidance. Ifly6 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman–Seleucid war/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Will gladly take this on, in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking this up for a review.Catlemur (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: With all due respect it has now been over 2 months since you began this review. Do you plan to actually carry it out? If not feel free to fail it so I can renominate it.--Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catlemur: my sincere apologies, real life has become quite demanding of late. Best of luck with the renomination. Constantine ✍ 08:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced maps

Hi, File:Roman-Syrian-War.png, File:Treaty of Apamea.png, and File:Aegean Sea 192 BC.png appear to be unsourced. Would be good to add sources for GAN. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman–Seleucid war/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed, although it would be nice to get the German-language maps translated into English.

@Sturmvogel 66: I will try to request for an English version of the map after the review. Other than that, all done.--Catlemur (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Find a synonym for maximalist in the lede.

 Done

• Link Hellespont, Laconia, Heraclea, phalanx, Cephallenians, Maronea

 Done

• but the specific rites for surrender were unclear and vitiated What does this mean? Religious rites?

The passage is about the rites of the Roman deditio ceremony of surrender of an enemy community.--Catlemur (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Then add a link to deditio.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done

• Antiochus then dispatched fleet reinforcements awkward

 Done

• Fortunately for the Romans, Hannibal's fleet was stopped by the Rhodians at the Battle of the Eurymedon reword

 Done

• Antiochus' army, driven to rout awkward

 Done

• one thousand talents – far beyond her ability to pay – was eventually given a break reword

 Done

• Broughton needs an OCLC number--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Revert, 1 March 2024

I reverted some drive-by edits to the infobox which included a very strange line Roman Republic conquered Syria which is complete nonsense when Syria is wikilinked to Roman Syria and only absurdly misleading when "Syria" means the Selucid Empire. As to the bolding of certain participants, I find it strange to emphasise Hannibal (who largely played no part in fighting) and Scipio Africanus (who was ill at the decisive battle and played no part in it). This isn't some kind of action movie rematch between the two TITANS™ of the Second Punic War, no matter how much people might want to read that in. Ifly6 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert, 10 March 2024

@Kansas Bear: Hi, I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit. When I wrote the article, I took specific care to write Lucius Cornelius Scipio before the man by that name adopted the victory cognomen Asiaticus. While he is more well known as Scipio Asiaticus, he is not called that prior to his victories in Asia. (Similar terminological exactitude can be seen in works describing Augustus in the triumviral period as young Caesar instead of Octavian or anachronistically as Augustus.) Ifly6 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. I figured it may have been something chronological. As I posted on user:Emrahthehistorist17's talk page, since this is a GA article they should be getting consensus before making changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)