Talk:Treaty of Lutatius

sources in article on Torquatus Atticus

Contributors wishing to expand the article could look at the text I wrote in the article on Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus, consul in 241, who apparently opposed the treaty (see section on his "second consulship"). T8612 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 19:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 188 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC — The article on him says he died c. 125 BC, not 188; that would make sense, since otherwise he would be 12 years old at his death, and 21 years dead when he became a hostage.

Apologies. 118, not 188. Regarding 125 BC, this is not repeated in the article and so not sourced. But for 118 see Walbank p. 13.

• Polybius's work is considered — Who considers it so?

Just about everyone. Certainly a consensus of modern classicists. I go on to quote three of them. I am aware of a single dissenter - there may well be others - but the current consensus is clear.

• Modern historians usually also take into account the histories of Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius... The 12th-century Byzantine chronicler Joannes Zonaras, who relied on much earlier sources, is also sometimes used. — Where did they get their information from?

Good point. Tweaked.

First Punic War

• Many members of the Roman elite saw strategic and monetary advantages in gaining a foothold in Sicily — What caused the breakdown in relations that led this to be considered the more advantageous option?

Nothing really. They drifted into war, either hoping it wouldn't happen or convinced that "it would be over by Christmas". (There is a lively literature on the weighting of the causes of the war and the guessing game as to whether or not it was inevitable.)

• the large majority of the Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with an estimated loss of 100,000 men — How many ships? Is there an article about the destruction?

You are the umpteenth person to ask after the article - no; but it is high on my "to write" list, in spite of an almost complete lack of information. (Should be a challenge.) Additional information inserted on numbers and who they (probably) were.

The new footnote is slightly confusing, because it sounds as if you've already mentioned the 114 captured ships. Perhaps in the body, you could write "The Carthaginians were defeated in several large naval battles, and 114 of their ships were captured"? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

Different numbers were captured in different battles. I see your point and have tweaked the footnote.

• I'm finding myself a bit lost in this section, having come in with little background knowledge. Perhaps a topic sentence such as "The First Punic War lasted from 264 to 241 BC" could be added to the first or second paragraph.

Any thoughts on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to come back to it and forgot. I have split a paragraph, introduced subsections (I thought that I had done this before; maybe the interweb swallowed them), and added some text to introduce the war properly. What think thee?

• they restricted their naval activities to small-scale operations for seven years... the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians — Are these sentences not contradictory?

Hey, this is politics. They refused to accept anything less than, at least, total occupation of Sicily, but none of the (elected) officials were willing to commit the money and manpower that would need. Happy to tweak - but the Roman attitude was contradictory, or at least wildly inconsistent.

• The Carthaginians held only two cities on Sicily — Suggest "By [year], the Carthaginians held only two cities on Sicily"

Point. Done.

• Note 1 could probably be moved into the main text, but it's not a big deal.

I only include it at all grudgingly. It seems to me to be trivia for etymology anoraks. You really think so?

"a studious or obsessive person with unfashionable and largely solitary interests." Nice. Didn't know that usage. If it's only in the article grudgingly, by all means, leave it in the footnote; I only suggested otherwise because I figured other lay readers (and/or anoraks) would share my reaction, which was "Oh yeah, Hannibal. I've heard of that dude." --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• the number of adult male citizens ... had declined by 17 per cent since the start of the war — Was that because they had died in the war, or was it due to other reasons?

Hey. We are lucky to have the figures. They didn't issue death certificates. The sources tend to go on about the "appalling" losses, then mention the censuses and let the reader draw their own conclusions. So I have too. I could probably find one who has stuck their neck out if you would like the connection firming up.

Cause of death for each, please. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Carthaginians raised a larger fleet — How did they pay for it?

The sources don't say. (Punitive taxation of their African possessions is my OR guess, hence contributing to the post-war revolt and its bitterness. (You should have a look at Mercenary War, currently at FAC.) But I can't source that.) It took 8-9 months to raise the fleet, so clearly it wasn't straight forward.

• the better-trained Romans defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet — What happened to the Carthaginian fleet? Captured/destroyed?

Detail added

• Any logical way of splitting this into subsections?

How's that?

Treaty

• it ordered Hamilcar to agree a peace treaty with the Romans — To negotiate a peace treaty? To sign a peace treaty?

"Sign" implies that it was already agreed. I am trying to avoid to many repetitions of "negotiate" or variants. There are already two in the paragraph, one in the same sentence.

My point was more grammatical; can one really "agree a peace treaty"? Maybe "agree to a peace treaty"? Or searching for another synonym, perhaps "solicit". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I surrender. Used "negotiate" and changed the other two usages.

• The senior Roman commander on Sicily was the recently victorious consul Catulus, and Gisco opened discussions with him. — Perhaps "Gisco opened discussions with Catulus, the senior Roman commander on Sicily who had recently been reelected consul."

Rephrased the opening couple of sentences of the paragraph.

Two minor issues: "This caused to be eager to conclude" is missing a noun," and "The two men agreed" probably means Catulus and Gisco, but it could also mean Catulus and his replacement consul. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed.

And it repeats "two men" a little earlier. Specified.

• Lutatius's initial term in 242 BC had, unusually, been extended for a year. — Are we still talking about Catulus? If so, why is he now being called Lutatius?

My confusion. Ignore please. Rewritten, see above.

• 2,200 talents of silver – 57,000 kg (56 LT) – over 20 years — Previously, you used a footnote for this conversion. I'd suggest removing the conversion here, and moving the footnote from the previous section into the main text.

I disagree. Giving the reader a "feel" for how much silver we are talking about is important, IMO. If you really don't like the first mention being footnoted and the second in the text I'll replace the first with something vague like "a very large loan". I don't think that the MoS permits me to remove the conversion - I need to do one for each mention, just like any other unit.

• they were rejected — Why?

The popular assembly through it out. Which is now mentioned. Possibly *OR* they felt, reasonably enough, that Catulus wasn't driving a hard enough bargain?

• a negotiating ploy — To do what? Make the brother look good so he would indeed take over as consul?

Get better terms out of the Carthagians. As that clearly isn't clear, I have removed it.

• Probably the Lipari and Aegades Islands and Ustica. — Why is this not known with certainty?

Cus the treaty said "the islands lying between Sicily and Italy". The secondary sources tend to hedge as to just which were included in practice.

• There were other minor clauses in the final agreement — Worth a footnote discussing them?

D'oh! Of course. Done.

Sardinia and Corsica

• Any more details of the pay dispute?

The entire 3,400 wordMercenary War article. I am a little reluctant to get too far into this, as there is no obvious stopping point. If you feel it relevant to this article I could expand a little on it.

Well we wouldn't want to confuse the reader by linking to that article, would we? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I wrote most of it, so it is complete tosh.

• supplied finance and food — financing? finances?

Changed to "food and financial resources".

• 2,743 Carthaginian prisoners still held were released without a ransom — Was this the last of the prisoners held by Rome? I take it these were some of the prisoners who Carthage had previously agreed to ransom?

It is assumed so, but not anywhere explicitly stated. Carthage didn't agree to ransom anyone; they were just told that they couldn't have their soldiers back unless they paid - their choice.

• which took refuge in Italy — Roman-controlled Italy, or another part?

Roman-controlled. Clarified.

• Carthage sent an embassy to Rome, which quoted the Treaty of Lutatius and claimed they were outfitting their own expedition to retake the island, which it had held for 300 years — This should probably be "who quoted" and "claimed Carthage was outfitting" (to make clear it is the embassy talking, not Rome).

Done.

Sources

• This is the second section titled "Sources". I'd recommend renaming one of them.

Done.

• Scullard, H.H. (along with all the editors), Tipps, G.K., and Walbank, F.W., are the only sources which use initials rather than first names.

I just copy what the title page of the work says. G K Tipps for example never uses his/her given names, even in works where every other contributor does - eg [1]. I don't know their given names - assuming they have any. (It could, barely conceivably, be a pen name with no actual name, or be just an initial, like the "S" in Harry S Truman.)

Likely George K. Tipps from searching online, but no need to change it. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Interesting article, Gog the Mild. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique: Cheers. Made a change from my usual wars, campaigns, battles and sieges. First time I have brought a treaty above B class. That was a thorough review - felt more like ACR. Thanks, and feel free to come back on anything which is still not clear, or where you are not satisfied with my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, Gog the Mild. Some comments above. Also, I think you added a short citation to Erdkamp 2015 without adding the underlying source to "Sources". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique More haste, less speed . Inserted, and your other comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild. Good work on this. Failing now; better luck next time. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Usernameunique. Don't give up the day job. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, thanks for picking this up, and so promptly. Bedtime here, so I shall respond in detail tomorrow. I can certainly provide lots of the information you are querying above, but before I do, can I flag up that a lot of it seems to be getting pretty seriously off topic, so are you asking out of interest, or is it your polite way of saying "If it is known, put it in"? If the latter, no problem at all: I currently have Battle of the Aegates - the last battle of the war - and Mercenary War - the post-war mutiny and revolt that among other things led to Roman claiming Sardinia - in the back end of FAC, First Punic War in ACR and have just submitted Gisco (died 239 BC) for GAN; so if the information exists I am probably on top of it. But, as I said, some of it seems to me likely to hit 3b issues. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, Gog the Mild. I was asking mostly out of curiosity, although those are the questions I asked myself while reading the article. So to the extent you see natural ways of working in some of that info (e.g., "the large majority of the Roman fleet of [number] ships was destroyed in a storm") I might consider doing so, but, strictly speaking, I don't think most of that is needed for GA purposes. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Made a start. More to come. Let's not go for the lowest common denominator, but try to make it as good as we can. And just because I have a view doesn't mean I'm right. I've flagged up my concern, I shall now try to address your comments as best I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 22 April 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) 17:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a draft condition of the Treaty of Lutatius that Carthage pay Rome 57,000 kg of silver was rejected as insufficient? Source: Lazenby, John (1996). The First Punic War: A Military History. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2673-3 p. 158.

• Reviewed: Netherlands Fractal Pattern
• Comment: Other suggestions for hooks welcomed

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

• @Gog the Mild: Hi, I have reviewed this nomination. Everything looks good, except for one issue. epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 25 April 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 eligibility:

• Cited: - The reference must immediately follow the end of the sentence where the hook is mentioned, per WP:DYK#Cited hook.
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The conversion to pounds is not mentioned in the article.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks epicgenius. Fair point, I have removed it from the hook. And repeated the relevant cites at the end of what I think are the two relevant sentences in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the quick response. This looks good to go now. epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)