Talk:Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC)

older entries

Hi, this source might have some details on the battle and the subsequent storm. Page 149. Hanberke (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

255 BC instead of 254 BC? Hanberke (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look at this a while ago (page 164 in my edition) but thought it a bit flamboyant to be a RS. I think that I need to reassess that, given how little I have to go on. I am going through my sources seeing what I can squeeze out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hanberke. There were a couple of pieces of usable information in there, so thanks for the nudge. Any other thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. Have you considered the year of the battle, 255 BC instead of 254 BC, and the approximate location where the Roman fleet was devastated by the storm (... it ran into a gale off Camarina, a town near the southeastern tip of Sicily...)? Infobox has "Unknown number of ships sunk", but it was 16 ships now according to Casson (Google Books link provided above) in the text (Please also note that it was 14 ships in your version of the source. Might be a typo?). Infobox has "350 ships"/quinqueremes for the Romans, but 40 more ships sortied from Aspis to join the battle. Hanberke (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found this book with some details on the battle and the storm.

• Battle: All we know is that the poorly-trained Carthaginians sailed too close to the coast, afraid to be encircled by the Romans, who were numerically superior. This strategy turned out to be ill-advised, for it allowed the Romans to advance in line abreast formation. The threatening boarding bridges drove many Carthaginian ships on to the shallows near the coast or fastened themselves to the decks, after which the Roman marines dealt with the crews. After this battle the Romans under siege in Clupea were evacuated without any difficulty.
• Storm: According to Polybius, the obstinacy and lack of experience of the Roman consuls are to be blamed for this massive shipwreck. They had disregarded warnings from experienced sailors not to round the cape.

Hanberke (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Guthenberg source:

• The time of year was about the beginning of the dog-days, when the Mediterranean is apt to be visited by sudden storms. The consuls, upon their passage, were warned that such a storm was at hand; but they were ignorant and rash, and continued their course. Before they could double Cape Pachynus they were caught by the[224] tempest; almost the whole fleet was wrecked or foundered; the coast of Sicily from Camarina to Pachynus was strewed with fragments of ships and bodies of men. Such was the end of the first Roman fleet (255 b.c.). (THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD). Hanberke (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Cape Hermaeum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can take this one Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

15 minutes! You're slipping . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Link the "failed invasion of the Carthaginian homeland" in the lede?

Link it to what? (There is no separate article on the invasion.

• "Ras ed-Dar" should this use {{lang}}?

tl is Tagalog. Wrapped in Arabic.

• "The Carthaginians had 114 of their ships were captured," 'had' vs 'were', one has got to go?

Very true.

• "What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known" maybe "Whether there were Roman losses is not known" or "Any Roman losses are not known"-- I just think the ', if any,' is an unnecessary break

I am trying to say too things here. I could express it more wordily, but would rather not. Is it a question of your not understanding, or of finding the term a little clunky?

• "Greek and Latin sources" why link Greek language but not Latin language?

*Rolls eyes* Because my last seven FACs/ACRs have been reviewed by CPA-5 who asked me to unlink Latin. I am sure that their reasoning is sound. So I decided to stop pushing my personal preference to link it and, just this once, prophylactically unlink it. Now linked. If I take this to ACR, I imagine that I shall be asked to unlink it.

• "The galley expert John Coates " might be useful to clarify that he's a modern expert and not a Roman expert or even like a medieval expert?

Done.

• "prior naval experience" -> "naval experience prior to the First Punic War" might be useful to remind readers what this sentence refers to, and clarify that it isn't just more background?

Done.

• "The quinquereme provided the workhorse" -> "was the workhorse"? I know 'provided the' is used by some authors, but 'was the' seems to be far more common from a quick google search

Done.

• "are also occasionally mentioned" mentioned where?

Fixed.

• does ubiquitous need a wt link? I'd think it's a rather common word-- one might even say it's ubiquitous

In another review I was specifically asked to link it. I agree with you, so unlinked.

• "At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively." maybe "At least half of the oarsmen needed to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively."?

Done.

• You should probably describe and link the corvus

Gah! I can't believe that I did that! Too close. Done.

• "25,000 soldierswho would have included many of the survivors of Regulus's army and 70,000" I only count... 95,000?

I am quoting a source. Where do you get 95,000 from. (This is not the same size fleet as the previous year and was carrying an unknown number of captured Carthaginian rowers. An OR calculation gives 384 times (300 plus 120) equals 161,000 as an upper limit. And 384 x 340 = 130,000 as a lower. So I suspect that the sources are being conservative.

• "with probably many of these being" -> "with many of these probably being"?

Better; done.

• I'm confused about the dashes here: "rs of Regulus's army – and 70,000 rowers and crew – with". As I understand it, those dashes are essentially parenthesis, meaning you have written "rs of Regulus's army (and 70,000 rowers and crew) with" which would imply that the 'survivors of Regulus's army' were Carthaginians taken captive?

I have repuncuated. Better?

• "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed." is he referring to the battle or the storm?

Good point. Clarified.

That's it for a first pass, may have more later... Nicely done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks once again Eddie; your usual top quality review. Your first pass comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I think that's pretty much it. Your coordinates go to a spot on land? Other then that, I'm satisfied that the article is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced and otherwise meets the GA criteria Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks Eddie. Maybe the shoreline changed? (My, accurate, coordinates for the naval Battle of Sluys are, now, ten miles inland.) Tweaked. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, alright, I'm now happy to promote to GA. Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, thanks; you put a lot of work into these reviews, and I appreciate it. On a separate note, may I ask your advice? This article has been a little "bricks without straw", there is so little information on the battle in the primary sources. Would you advise that I leave it as a GA, or is there enough meat on the bones for it to have a chance at ACR, or even FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, That's a hard one, I'd definitely say it's borderline, particularly because as you say there's so little written on it. What I gained from a bit of scouring the internet is that there really isn't much that's not mentioned in the article; apparently Polybius just says the Carthaginians presented no problem. A potential problem I see might be that the storm is also really only covered in this article, so there might be some expansion possible there? You could also consider adding a bit more about how little the battle is covered, that's what DeSantis (linked above) seems to mostly talk about when he's not rambling about his own theories.

But I'd reckon you could squeeze an ACR and maybe FAC through as long as it incorporates all historiography available, seems like there is just enough in the article. There are certainly shorter articles that have gotten the star.

As an aside, keep your eyes open for Fabian Ware; I can feel this is the week he's going to be ready for ACR. Just need to finish my book (that just arrived-- only a week and a half late!) and double check all the sources and read through the article again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that shortly after winning the naval Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives? Source: Tipps, G.K. (1985). "The Battle of Ecnomus". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 34 (4): 432–465. JSTOR 4435938 p. 438

• Reviewed: John Ferdinand Smyth Stuart

Created by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook is cited by two off-line sources but I actually own a copy of Carthage Must be Destroyed and can confirm that it supports the hook Calistemon (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede, this is a battle

Edited for encyclopedic style, identifying first was the topic "is" rather than focusing the verb on "took place". The detail on the reasons why the commanders were the commanders can be left to the body text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Years inconsistent

• the final battle of the war, fought thirteen years later. (in Battle of Cape Hermaeum)

Inadequate maths!

• The war continued for a further 14 years, mostly on Sicily or the nearby waters, (in Battle of Cape Hermaeum)

Correct.

• The Battle of Cape Hermaeum was a battle of the First Punic War fought in 254 BC between a... (in Battle of Cape Hermaeum)

What! That is just cretinous.

• Having lost most of their fleet in the storm of 255 BC, the Romans rapidly rebuilt it, adding 220 new ships. (in First Punic War, Battle of Panormus)

Correct.

I had reminded this 254/255 BC issue above earlier. Hanberke (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hanberke. Sometimes I despair of myself, I really do. Early 255 BC. 14 years before the end of the war in 241 BC. All corrected and many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help! Your Punic series is awesome to follow! Hanberke (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Location(s)

It'd be wise to rename the article, but the location should also be updated/expanded in infobox. Hanberke (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Good spot Hanberke, thanks. And the short description. I have tweaked both. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks great now, cheers! Hanberke (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Campaignbox First Punic War

Regarding the title change, do we need to update the

, as well? Hanberke (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hanberke: IMO, no. This article fully covers the battle. There is never going to be a different article on it. And it is a vastly better target than the redirect to the Battle of Adys(!!) which existed previously. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hanberke: Thinking about what I have just written, I have tweaked the campaignbox so "Cape Hermaeum" points straight to the relevant section within this article. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild: That is it, three cheers for you :) As you are hot on the trail of the Punic Wars, you might wish to consider the red linked articles in campaignbox, too. Hanberke (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The first paragraph mentions the coffin of Dio Brando, a prominent manga character from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. I made an account to report this so sorry if this isn't formatted right, but it's jarring for a featured article. Is there anyone who can check if that's actually supposed to be there? LemonyLilly (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)