Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Punic War/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2020 [1].

Third Punic War

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the long-drawn-out bloodbaths of the first two Punic wars the Romano-Carthaginian conflict ended with this war and the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the death of most of its population; the survivors were enslaved. For what it was worth, they went down hard. This article received a good poking at at GAN and I believe that it is potentially up to FA standard. Any and all comments will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support comments by T8612

Primary sources. I'm just going to comment on this section for the moment. I'll deal with the rest later. I think it needs significant changes, as it is mostly issued from articles on the First Punic War, but things are different for the Third one.
"The main source for almost every aspect of the Third Punic War". Not really. Polybius' books on the Third Punic War only survive in fragments (books 36 and 38, 37 is entirely lost).
Livy's books also end in year 166 BC. Two other major sources: Dio Cassius and Diodorus Siculus are also lost for this period, as well as Plutarch's Life of Scipio. In fact, the most important ancient author on the 3PW is Appian, a Greek living the 2nd century AD, who is known for making damning mistakes (although he apparently used Polybius for his book, cf. Goldsworthy pp. 22-23). As a result, the 3PW is the least known of the three PW, and I would say this ("The 3PW is the least known of the three PW, because of the loss of the two most important historians of the Roman Republic, Polybius and Livy, for the years dealing with the war. Appian is the only surviving author that left a full narrative of the events, but his reliability is often in question, etc. Polybius still survives in fragments etc."). Many questions on the war cannot be answered because of the sparsity of the sources (typically the reasons for the Roman agression).
Then, it is also necessary to balance the statement that Polybius is reliable, because Polybius' fragments on these years deal a lot with Scipio Aemilianus, who was Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius is often biased in his favour; he unfairly berates Scipio's opponents several times (see Astin's statement in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 8, p. 5). This is not a problem for past events, but it is quite important for contemporary ones. Walbank says that Appian's text, which derives from Polybius, "has many of the marks of a panegyric on Scipio" (vol. III, p. 662). In short, you need to tell more about Appian, detail the loss of the sources, and balance your statement on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, did you miss these comments? I can do a source review but it would probably work best if I waited until you got to these. (t · c) buidhe 18:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, yes, I missed this. Thanks for the nudge. T8612, apologies for the delayed response, I am currently on a family holiday and a certain amount of participation is expected. Plus the last place we stayed at the WiFi went down and I had a very limited mobile data. I am now back up and have read your comments, but don’t have the sources I need; in particular I have lost my link to Walbank! Which is a bit of a handicap. The earliest I am going to be able to come back to you is the 27th, possibly later. If you feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw this nomination, I would quite understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have heavily edited the "Primary sources" section along the lines you indicated. I would be grateful for your views on the revised version. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much better. I'll continue the review tomorrow.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two short remarks:
I see that you have included the footnote about Punic in the text, but I find it a bit awkward to have such a long parenthesis in the beginning of the text. Is there a better way to place it?

In the text at Borsoka's request. I'm not sure that it is not better as a note. I have moved it out of parentheses and into the start of "Background", where I think that it fits as well as anywhere if it is going to be in the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus". Diodorus Siculus means Diodorus of Sicily in Latin, so you don't have to say "Sicilian Greek" before, the English form "Diodorus of Sicily" also exists.

I'm trying to have it both ways, aren't I? Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

Carthage and Rome fought the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would mention both the 1PW and 2PW.

Done

I think we need a map with Numidia here.

Added.

The second paragraph details the building up that led to the war, but only from the Numidian side. You ignore the Roman point of view. The famous word by Cato the Censor Carthago delenda est ought to be mentioned here, as well as the Roman embassies that were sent to Carthage. I would also mention that the war was opposed by Scipio Nasica Corculum, the son-in-law of Scipio Africanus. The fact that Cato had to repeat his sentence in every speech is a proof that his opinion was in minority in the senate.

As is often the case we have a difference as to the level of detail appropriate regarding the minutae of Roman domestic politics. A FAC is required to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." The detail you suggest may be appropriate for an article on the Causes of the Third Punic War, but not, IMO, for this one. I could see the point (just) in unpacking "Nevertheless, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage, and, using the illicit Carthaginian military action as a pretext" a little, although I doubt what a reader might gain from it; but not to the extent you suggest.

The problem in academic sources is that there is no consensus as to why Cato was so obsessed about destroying Carthage, and why the rest of the senate followed him. The ancient sources don't make sense; they say Rome felt threatened by Carthage, but it was hardly a threat; it couldn't even defend itself against Massinissa. There have been a number of alternative theories: (a) Mommsen developed an economic argument: Carthage was an economic competitor to Rome (hence was Cato brought fresh figs from Carthage in the Senate) (b) a Machiavellian argument: the Romans wanted to prevent Massinissa from building a huge empire in Africa and so had to take Carthage before him (c) an imperialist argument: after the defeat of Macedon in 168, Rome became a power-hungry state that conquered lands at the first opportunity (no more "defensive wars") (d) individual ambition: conquering Carthage would bring immense fame and fortune to the Roman general (Astin wrote an article in which he said Scipio Aemilianus sabotaged the peace negotiations between Massinissa and Carthage because he expected to be part of the incoming war, sadly he withdrew this idea in a later statement). I suggest you include information from this article by Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, which summarises the debates [she separates the immediate causes of the war and the longer reasons]. She suggests that Rome made a pre-emptive war to avoid the possible reemergence of Carthage as a rival, while Rome was waging wars on several fronts at the time: in Spain and in Macedonia (the Fourth Macedonian War) [it seems to be Goldsworthy's argument too]. W.V. Harris in th CAH still uses the economic argument (p.156). Interestingly Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion to Punic Wars rejects all argument and seems to return to the ancestral fear of Carthage developed by ancient authors.

I refer to my response above. I simply don't find this, admittedly fascinating, content relevant, in this level of detail, to this article. The fact that there seems to be more theories than proposers and nothing even approaching a consensus makes me even less inclined to feel that a reader of this topic will find them either relevant or of interest.

By all means write an article on Causes of the Third Punic War or, better, Possible explanations for Roman involvement in the Third Punic War, but what, IMO, is needed here to meet criterion 4 is a one or two sentence summary.

I wish I had the time. I think it's possible to fit everything into a small paragraph. I've done a demo here. T8612 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 Frankly I find it a pointless addition, but I am just one editor so I shall work it in. Give me some time to source it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - at least a first draft. I have tried to work it a bit more holistically into the flow of the article. (Plus some sources I consulted flatly contradicted some of the stuff in your draft[?]) Hopefully I have retained both the intent and spirit of your suggestion. See what you think.

That will do. What was contradicting?

I think the wealth of the propositions shows that there is no consensus, so I would list the above arguments, saying that none of these explanations has reached consensus. Then I would tell about the debate between Cato and Scipio Nasica, and their embassies. See what I wrote here too (as an aside, I paused writing on this article as the literature was really confusing).

Well quite; so why inflict this confusion on a reader - at, it seems to me, to do it justice, possibly greater length than the whole of the rest of the article.

There is ground to explain internal politics in Carthage too. It seems easier: the constant one-sided Roman policy in favour of Massinissa led to the dominance of the "democratic" faction which pushed for the war, with Carthalo and Hamilcar the Samnite (see CAH, pp. 149-150). T8612 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Again I am not completely adverse to expanding this a little - although the current amount of information on the internal politics of Carthage is my personal preference - but this, again IMO, should be limited to a maximum of an additional sentence or two.

Hi T8612: responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would introduce Scipio Africanus here, as you mention him in aftermath without telling who he was. (sth like "-after the victory of Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama.").

Instead of in the footnote, as now? I'll transfer it up and we can see if it reads better. (I was mostly concerned about flow.) Done.

It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year It was not just a "procedure", but the Roman constitution. I think it's better to say "The Romans elected two consuls every year, each received the command of an army; they could have their command extended for several years as proconsul." I mention the promagistracy here, because Scipio was prorogued as proconsul in 146 BC.

Done. Although using slightly different words.

T8612 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Borsoka wants to include mention of a consul's other duties. I have tweaked. See what you both think.

Good.

Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Censorius, it's Lucius Marcius Censorinus.

What a stupid typo - I am not even consistent. Thanks. Fixed.

If you want to shorten the name, I would prefer "Marcius Censorinus", then either Marcius or Censorinus. If you wish, you can say that Manilius was a good friend of Scipio Aemilianus, member of the Scipionic Circle.

Do you have a source? Miles, the CAH and Goldsworthy all abbreviate to just Censorinus after their first mentions.

I don't think you need for a source for that, use the most distinctive between praenomen/nomen/cognomen. Censorinus seems appropriate here. Sometimes it can be the praenomen too (especially with rare praenomina like Appius or Caeso). T8612 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the consuls made the further demand that, only Marcius did so. Frustratingly, the Cambridge Ancient History just says "to receive the consul's final demand." (singular). This article gives his name (p. 20). (As an aside, the arms given by Carthage were collected by Nasica Serapio, and Scipio Hispallus, son and nephew of the Nasica opposed to the war. There has been speculation that this demand, as well as Marcius', were last chance requests to avoid the war from Nasica and his friends.)

I had assumed that he was speaking on behalf of both of them - I mean, obviously only one of them actually said it. Goldsworthy's "Censorinus, elected first by the comitia, probably older and a better speaker, spoke in answer" strongly suggested this, and the CAH not giving a name seemed to support this. Nevertheless, tweaked.

Coming back to the primary sources section, Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion is very critical of Polybius (pp. 430-431). "I would object that the reputation of Polybius is totally undeserved, for this Greek showed no objectivity when he spoke of the Carthaginians and the Romans."

I know. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. I keep hoping to come across another reputable opinion which speaks badly of Polybius to give myself something more interesting to say about him. As it is Le Bohec just seems a rogue outlier.

T8612 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:: thanks for that; addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Any further input on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been busy. Will continue tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces

with a population estimated at 700,000 Harris in the CAH 8, p. 147 says it is "impossibly high". I think Miles reused the number given by Strabo. Hoyos likewise says "The total is impossible for the city alone" (Hannibal's Dynasty, p. 28), but adds it may have included the surrounding territories. Estimations for the city are between 125000 to 300000. T8612 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall copy my response to Borsoka below:

I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reference for Hoyos? I've checked his book The Carthaginians and he too says there: "It was in this last period that the city’s population, according to Strabo, numbered 700,000. So great a throng could never have lived within the walls, while Megara was mostly a garden suburb, but Strabo may have mistaken a credible figure representing both city and chora as applying to just the city (or expressed himself badly)." (p. 210). T8612 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Hannibal's Dynasty 2003 p. 225. (It's in the appendix, section 3.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Hoyos doesn't give his opinion here, but makes a summary of all the population estimates for Carthage. His own position is given in page 28 (where he says "The total [700,000] is impossible for the city alone"). Hoyos does add that *some* scholars have accepted the figure of 700,000, but it's not a consensus (as often in ancient history). He cites Werner Huß (1985), but not Miles; he also says that Ulrich Kahrstedt estimated the population at 125,000 (a number he finds "implausibly low"). Apparently Walter Ameling went as low as 90.000. Read it again. I would say something like that: "Estimations for the population of Carthage have widely differed among modern scholars—from 90,000 to 800,000 people—depending on the interpretation of a number given by the Greek geographer Strabo, who tells that Carthage had "seventy myriads of men in the city". Any of these estimations would still make Carthage one of the most populous cities of the Mediterranean area." Then cites Hoyos Hannibal's Dynasty p. 225 who makes a good summary of the literature.T8612 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Good thinking. I have gone with a slightly abbreviated version of your suggestion. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

Is it possible to add the date of Poynter's painting (1868)?

Of course. Done.

Can you give the full name for Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus? Because there were many homonyms at the time. You also find Calpurnii Pisones consuls in 139, 135 and 133.

Done.

I would mention the Lex Villia, which set the age requirements for public offices. Perhaps as a link on "age requirement". Another requirement for the consulship was to be a former praetor (which Scipio had not been too). (In fact this requirement was established after Flamininus had been elected consul at 29 years old in 198.)

The first suggestion would get jumped on as an Easter egg. And I am not sure that either is close enough to the topic to merit inclusion. (I could add 'and did not meet other requirements' if you think that would be helpful.

You can also add that Scipio also broke the rules by receiving his command from the people. Normally, foreign commands were distributed between the two consuls by lot (so Livius, the other consul, could have received the conduct of the war in Africa if the standard procedure had been respected).

Again, getting, IMO, a little off topic, but I have briefly summarised the point.

Finally, I would mention that his military successes since the beginning of the war made Scipio look like a successor of Scipio Africanus, on whose fame he was able to play to be elected consul. The source for these events is AE Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford UP, 1967, pp. 61-69. Tell me if you need the pdf. [OR: it seems to me that the legend that only a Scipio could win in Africa comes from this election, and from Scipio. One century later, Julius Caesar put (nominatively) at the head of his army a man named Scipio, because his enemy in the Civil War was Metellus Scipio. Both were related (we don't know how exactly), and the war was waged in Africa. Caesar knew that his men were nervous about fighting a Scipio in Africa, because the legend had survived.]

Most of that added.

There is a mistake in the name of "Mancinius". His name is Lucius Hostilius Mancinus. (He was an enemy of Scipio, and it seems that Polybius gives a negative account of him because of that.)

D'oh!. Fixed.

T8612 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

You forgot to change the name for Calpurnius Piso: it's Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.

It is already done at first mention in the main article, and that is the link for the infobox. Where else would do you think it should go.

Ah yes, it's because you linked it a second time below, so I thought it was the first mention.

For the mention of the Lex Villia, perhaps say something like this: "for which the minimum age requirement was 41, as stated in the Lex Villia".

This, and some of the points below, seem to me to be close to or over the "going into unnecessary detail", which is usually why they are not in the article already. Obviously this is a subjective matter at the margin, so Lex Villia included.

Thanks.

After "which successfully breached the walls", I would place here that the first to climb the wall was the young Tiberius Gracchus. Ref: TRS Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. I, p. 464.

I really think that this is getting too "going into unnecessary detail" for all but diehard afficiadados.

Reading it again, you're right for this article. I will ask it again for Siege of Carthage though (if you wish to move it to FAC).

Fair enough.

I think you don't write enough on the settlement of Africa at the end of the war, with ten commissioners appointed to supervise the annexation, ordered by a law of Livius, the consul of 147. Harris in the CAH summarises this nicely. Carthage also became ager publicus (eg. the land directly belonged to the Republic); this is important for the reforms of Gaius Gracchus explained below.

Added.

Harris adds that the destruction of Carthage also resulted in the annihilation of the Punic culture. Notably, the books of the library of Carthage were given to the sons of Massinissa (who had just died), except one book of Mago (soon translated into Latin by Decimus Junius Silanus).

As with many of the views in the CAH, the old timers are not always in full agreement with more modern accounts. Eg, Le Bohec p. 443 "For all that, Punic culture did not disappear. It survived while transforming itself, and present-day historians call it “Neo-Punic civilization.” It was indeed alive, and the Roman state never forbade it."; p. 445 "From the ruins of the city was born a new Africa, Roman Africa, which never denied the cultural heritage of Carthage"; Goldsworthy, p. 357, says much the dame, less directly, summarising "The Romans had not fought to destroy Punic Culture"; Fantar p.454 "But Punic civilization did not disappear with the destruction of Carthage and the elimination of the Carthaginian state in 146 BC", indeed, his whole "Punic Culture after 146" is worth reading in this context.

You're right, I've oversimplified; Harris does say Punic religion and language survived. Perhaps you could include what you just said above? T8612 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Before the sentence on the refoundation of Carthage by Caesar. I would mention that Gaius Gracchus tried to found a colony there as Colonia Junonia in 123. It was part of his agrarian reforms but he was murdered before the project could be realised. Ref is Andrew Lintott, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 9, p. 78-79. (tell me if you want the pdf).

I have the info, thanks - I made a judgement call that this was unnecessary, but will now include it.

Then, Caesar wanted to refound Carthage and Corinth, destroyed the same year as Carthage. I would mention this similarity too. However, these colonies were only planned by Caesar; he died before their refoundation, which was carried by the Second Triumvirate. Ref from Elizabeth Rawson, CAH, vol. 9, p. 446-447.

I don't see the relevance of what other towns Caesar wanted to found or refound. Hmm, Miles p. 363, says that work did start under Caesar - carried out by Statilius Taurus - although he agrees that possibly not much work was done. He says that the project was resuscitated and completed by Augustus, starting in 29 BC, so I have amended accordingly.

In order to further distinguish between this article and Siege of Carthage, I think it would be a good idea to mention the tears of Scipio over Carthage burning, possibly the most famous event of the war. I would prefer to place it in Siege of Carthage though.

Good point. I have boldly added to the Siege article. See what you think. (None of the first three sources I consulted mention the famous tears!) Could you put any comments on that article's talk page? Courtesy ping to Harrias, who assessed that article for GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: More good stuff, thanks. All responded to. How is it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good additions to the last section. Some points though:
"In 123 BC a populist faction", I think it's better to write "the Populares faction", as well as "Optimates faction". Because "populist/traditionalist" are a bit judgmental and very controversial. Link these terms too.

"Populist" was a paraphrase of the source's (Miles) "reformers"; I have changed it to "reformist", per the source. Traditionalist seems both accurate and a reasonable paraphrase of the source's "conservatives". Both linked as suggested.

Link Colonia Junonia.

Done. (It is amazing what Wikipedia has stubs on!)

Remove ", led by Scipio,", he was already dead by that time.

I didn't mean that Scipio, but you are correct - obviously - that I need to introduce him fully or not at all. So removed as an unecessary distraction for the reader.

T8612 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the picture "Ruins of Carthage in 2006", are you sure it shows the ruins of Punic Carthage and not Roman ruins? I had tried to find such pictures but couldn't be sure as well.

No. I had been AGFing re the poster. I don't know it of my own knowledge. I shall have a look at the UNESCO site and see what they have.

The more I look into this, the less convinced I am that there are any free use photos of unambiguously Carthaginian remains. Which is a shame. That said, the image is in the aftermath section, where much of the discussion is about attempts to set up Roman Carthage so I don't think that a reader will necessarily expect the image to be of the Punic era ruins. I could swap in File:Quartier Punique.JPG which is specifically of part of the Punic Quarter, although I am still not certain that it is not of the Roman era Punic Quarter.

"The opposing, minority, faction included Scipio Nasica". I would remove ", minority" as we don't know numbers in the Senate; however the fact that Cato had to repeat his famous words in every speech indicates he was in the minority.

It's what the source says, but checking some others there seem to be a range of modern opinions on this. So deleted. Thanks for picking it up.

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612: I have addressed all of your points and you may wish to have a look at them while I try to check out the provenance of the photo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. If you want, you can replace it or add this coin of Carthage (its last issue). T8612 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Done. What next? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to add the coin? T8612 (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Apologies, I swapped the other image and thought that I was done. Well reminded. Coin image included; up near where we talk about Carthage's prosperity. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a source if you think it's necessary. T8612 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now. @Gog the Mild: perhaps you want to format the ref in the caption for the coin though. T8612 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

How is the gallery more beneficial in this article than one or two images of the ruins?

Removed.

File:Carthage.png: I'm a bit confused by the attribution here - what component of this came from Livius, and what was the permission granted?

I may have been/be confused/wrong as to what goes in each section. The map is copied from Livius.org, about half way down. The information within it is the same as that in Goldsworthy p. 341, but is probably redundant and so I have removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this, and apologies for the time taken to respond to you. I believe that I have now addressed both of the issues you raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: How are things looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Firstly, apologies; secondly, I am an idiot. I persisted in seeing what I wanted to see on the page - or not even bothering to check whether it was or not what I wanted to see - long past any reasonable point. You are of course correct that the map seems to be a straight lift from Livius. I have no idea why this was not clear to me.

I have commissioned a fresh and original map - big thanks to Harrias - which is loosely based on similar maps in two separate, paper RSs. Hopefully this does, actually address your concerns. Let me know if you would like me to email you copies of the two hard copy pages. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, pls let me know when you can if this satisfies the image check. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I'll suggest to Gog that it would be helpful for that new map to be displayed slightly larger, but the licensing is now sorted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, do you mean the map of the city? If so, I think that I would need to move it out of the infobox to enlarge it. Is this what you mean?

If you mean the map of Numidia, I agree and have enlarged it slightly. Cheers, and thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys, happy for any fine-tuning to take place post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka

~~Is The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy a reliable source? I am not sure the book was peer-reviewed.~~

It is about as reliable as you get. It certainly meets WP:RS. Books are not usually peer reviewed, but it has been well reviewed; eg here (paywall).

I did not find a single review about the book at JSTOR. I am not convinced that Phoenix publishes scholarly books and Goldsworthy seems to be the writer of popular histories. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsworthy is not an academic and his book doesn't bring anything new, but he has made good use of the academic literature. His book can be seen as representing the academic consensus on the subject. T8612 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like a FA in WP? :) I think we need further references to verify each statement based on his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bold suggestion. You are saying that Goldsworthy should not be used at all. Can I ask what policy or guideline you are basing this on?

Like many scholars Goldsworthy writes some fiction - clearly labelled as such - as well as non-fiction - also well labelled. The copy I use was published by Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books. A glance at their Wikipedia article would suggest a very reputable publisher. I note in passing that Goldsworthy has had at least four non-fiction books on Roman history published by Yale University Press.

Thank you. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I continue the review assuming that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk)

~~The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. Could the term be introduced in the main text?~~
~~His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics... Is this relevant in the context?~~

I am trying to establish Polybius's military expertise, so I think yes.

~~...he is now known for The Histories, written sometime after 146 BC. Do the cited sources verify the sentence?~~

In the light of T8612's comments above I am working on a rewrite of the "Primary sources" section, which hopefully will address that point and several of those below, which I am trying to work in.

~~Consider mentioning that now The Histories is a fragmentary work.~~

Does "In addition, significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost" - given that the article is on the Third Punic War - cover this?

He accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus during his campaign in North Africa which resulted in the storming of Carthage and Roman victory in the war. 1. Maybe this info should be presented soon after Polybius' introduction because this is the reason his work is the most important source of the war. 2. Here I would only say that Polybius accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus to North Africa during the Third Punic War, without mentioning the consequences of the war.
~~Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants, from both sides, in the events he wrote about. Do Shutt and Goldsworthy verify this statement?~~
~~..analytical historian.. Source?~~
The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the war in modern sources are largely based on interpretations of Polybius's account. I understand Tipps writes of the relibiality of Polybius's account of the Battle of Ecnomus in the First Punic War.
~~The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; When stating this, Curry only writes of a specific naval battle.~~

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for this start. An interim response above, with more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is the ISBN for Miles (2011) correct ([2])?~~

I am looking at the hardcopy and that's what is printed in it. I would be happy to scan and email you a copy.

Is this a Kindle edition or e-book? Thank you, I do not need a copy. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No.

OK. I found the book at Open Library ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 3 and 4 seem problematic. 1. One of the cited sources, Lazenby (1996), covers the First Punic War, while the notes provide information in relation to the Second Punic War. ~~2. Scullard (2006) is obviously not correct. 3. What about consolidating the two notes?~~

I have consolidated the notes as suggested.
Scullard: You are quite right. I meant to refer to Scullard 1989 (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VII). However, as this merely duplicates Lazenby, I have removed the cite.
Lazenby: I am not sure that it matters which war is being referred to when the conversion rate is established. Anymore than, for example, establishing that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg in 1789 by referring to source discussing such things in 1748. Or today. If I were to state that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg at the Battle of Trafalgar It would be odd, IMO, if a reviewer were to insist on a cite which stated exactly this, and would not accept that the same was true at the Battle of the Nile, or forty years earlier, or later. (Lazenby 1998 p. 19 could also be used to establish a convertion rate, if you prefer a work on the Second Punic War.)

As far as I can remember conversion rates could change from region to region and time to time. The statement that "The ones referred to in this article are all Euboic (or Euboeic) talents, of approximately 26 kilograms (57 lb)." can hardly be verified by a reference to Lanzeby's book, taking into account the different contexts. We can state that the article accepts Lanzeby's conversion rate if none of the books about the Third Punic War determine it. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka I dropped by to comment that I have made changes to the "Primary sources" section which I believe mean that your outstanding comments above are now moot. Thanks for helping to spur me into the rewrite. I have a couple of RL issues, but will try to get back to these points later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. I must admit that the change relating to the relibiality of Polybius' account seems to be quite radical for me ([4]). Could you read and double check the whole article? Please ping me if you think the review could be continued. Consider also seeking advice on Goldsworthy's reliability in the light of the above comments on him. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yourself and T8612 seemed to be requesting radical changes, and so I made them. Is there anything about the current section which you think should be changed.

The new version looks fair. When writing of a radical change above, I only referred to Polybius's introduction: in the previous version, he was described as a neutral historian, no his bias towards the Romans is mentioned. That is why I thought the article should be double-checked.

I will double check the whole article as you request and ping you once I have.
Borsoka: I think that the review should be continued. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will continue the review.

I have no doubts as to Goldsworthy's reliability. I have not as yet sought advice as I would not know what to ask; which policies or guidelines cause you to doubt this work's reliability?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Source. I have not found a review about his book cited in the article at JSTOR; Goldsworthy is not an academic as T8612 mentioned above; and the Orion Publishing Group quite obviously publishes popular literature ([5]). For instance, Steven Tibble is a well-known specialist among people who regularly read books about the crusades. Tibble is not an academic, but his books are regularly cited in academic works and they receive positive reviews in academic journals. However, an experienced administrator associated Tibble's best known work with Emil's Clever Pig multiple times (both books were published by Oxford University Press). Tibble's reliability was also challenged by an editor who regularly edits articles about the crusades ([6]). What do you think is the best approach now? Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: anyone can misuse a source, or make an honest mistake. That is what reviews and source reviews are for. If you cannot find a policy which rules it out, then, SFAICS, you have to let it go, whatever your doubts.

Buidhe is as thorough a source reviewer as one could wish for - as I have discovered the hard way; they have saved me from many an embarrassing error. They have indicated above that they are only waiting for outstanding issues to be resolved before doing a source review. If they are still willing, why don't we allow them to do a source review, with a concentration on Goldsworthy, and see what they think?

Re your points above, if we couldn't use any author who had ever written fiction, or any publisher which had ever printed it, or any book which didn't have a review at JSTOR, we would have very, very few sources we could use.

You may be relieved or horrified to hear that to my certain knowledge The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC has been accepted in 22 GA source reviews; 4 A class source reviews; and 11 FAC source reviews. It may be many more, I don't especially track it. In other words, it has already had a lot of scrutiny from a lot of experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Goldsworthy is not an academic does not make his book unreliable on this subject. It is a good synthesis of the Punic Wars, on which there are not that many books in English, especially for the Third Punic War. As I said, he follows the academic consensus on the subject and refrains from making any bold assumption or generalisation. T8612 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. I agree that we can assume that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. I only raised the issue, because one of the best sources of a specific aspect of the crusades was challenged multiple times just a couple of months ago, because Oxford University Press also publishes popular literature and its writer is not an academic. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: That's fine. If you have any qualms as a reviewer it is the role of the nominator - ie, me - to assuage them. You do quite right to press me on anything you are not happy about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary break

The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. 1. Consider shortening the sentence. 2. Sidwell & Jones do not state that the Carthagians had Phoenician ancestry, they say that Cathago was established as a Phoenician colony. Could we state that USA citizens had British ancestry?

Considered, but I don't see how. (Why is it an issue? It is shorter than the sentences on either side of it.) This may no longer apply as it has been moved further to your next comment.

Tweaked.

We could, if like Carthage the US defined citizenship by direct descent from the original settlers.

~~Introduce Rome and Carthage (and the term Punic can also be introduced in this context).~~

Good idea. Done. (Also done, despite my qualms about defining it before the first usage of "Punic" in the text.)

~~In the mid-1st-century... Which century?~~

Gah! It's this backwards counting. Thanks. Corrected.

~~Introduce Hannibal and his war elephants and also Scipio Africanus (they are now mentioned in note 2 in the subsequent section).~~

Why? Hannibal had been dead for centuries, and war elephants were nor involved in this conflict; this is just a passing reference to a term of a 50-year-old treaty. If a reader really wants to know more, they can click on the Wikilink.

Hannibal and his war elefants are mentioned in the text. Scipio Africanus is mentioned in a footnote.

Hannibal introduced - I had missed that. Scipio Africanus - the first one, is only mentioned in a footnote, where he is already introduced. Reference to elephants removed.

~~...the dominant indigenous people in North Africa west of Egypt. Does Kunze verify this statement?~~

Rephrased

In 151 BC Carthage raised a large army commanded by Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians. Which source verifies this statement? Kunze, who is cited in the next sentence, writes of the late 150s and he does not mention Hasdrubal.

Additional citation inserted.

~~Introduce Hasdrubal.~~

I started to do this, but can't find anything useful to pass on to a reader. I have added 'the Carthaginian general' but I suspect that a reader will have already worked that out. I have also added that he was previously unknown in the records.

~~Carthage had paid off its indemnity and... Is this text verified?~~

Citation added.

Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. Does Le Bohec verify this statement? I think Kunze is the source of the second part of the sentence.

She is, that is why she is cited. (I have moved the positioning of her cite in case it was not clear.)

Carthage ... was prospering economically... Does Le Bohec write of a prospering economy? He writes of an "economic renaissance", but he also emphasizes that "several arguments prompt us to limit its size" and he refers to "mediocre funeral stelae" and "currency of weak quality".

Kunze p. 405 "There is archaeological and epigraphical evidence that, despite Carthage having to accept defeats, building activity was nevertheless flourishing during the period of the Punic Wars. In addition, numerous finds of imported pottery from all over the Hellenistic world confirm a prospering economy and show that trade, one of Carthage’s pillars of wealth and success, was still thriving."; p. 408 "a closer look at Carthage’s economic and military situation near the time of the Third Punic War suggests that the city, despite a recent economic upswing, was not in a position to pose any serious military threat to Rome." Miles p. 324 "a remarkable economic recovery"; p. 325 "Further evidence of Carthage's renewed prosperity ... " a list of archeological sites and finds follows. Goldsworthy p. 327 "agricultural production was booming ... [t]he archeological record suggests a high level of prosperity ... a rich material culture ... new prosperity". Harris in the CAH p. 147 "'It was considered the richest city in the world', says Polybius, thinking of the final period of its existence ... the absence of mercenaries no doubt explains why its precious-metal coins were of increased purity". Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~If my understanding is correct, Le Bohec (who is cited) does not verify the statement, but there are other authors who could be cited instead of Le Bohec.~~

It seems that Le Bohes was a poor choice to support the statement. Swapped for Kunze.

~~Consider mentioning multiple possible reasons of the war, for instance, taking into account Kunze's and Le Bohec's summaries.~~

I always hate hypothesizing as to what went through, or failed to go through, the minds of prople long dead. The more so when the conclusion of the diversion is " ... and we don't know". It does not seem to me to be either helpful or encyclopedic; the ommission was not an oversight. That said, I can readily add something if you consider it an important point.

In this case, you do not like science: nothing is proved, but only proposed, especially in history. ( Joke :) ) A study about the possible reasons of the war could clearly distinguish this article about the Siege of Carthago. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why are Cato the Elder and his words "Carthago delenda est" ignored in the article?~~

Because of "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", but see discussion above.

Now included - although (again) see discussion above.

~~I cannot imagine an article about the Third Punic War without mentioning these famous words, but now it is OK.~~

Carthaginian embassies attempted to negotiate with Rome, but when the large North African port city of Utica went over to Rome in 149 BC the Senate and the People's Assembly declared war. 1. Does Kunze verify the statement? 2. The connection between Utica and the declaration of war is unclear. 3. Clarify that Rome declared war against Carthago.

1. Kunze and Goldsworthy between them do.

2. Clarified. (To the extent that the sources link them.)

3. The rephrasing "aware that its harbour would greatly facilitate any assault on Carthage, [Rome] declared war" makes this clearer, IMO.

Those who know that the Senate and the People's Assembly are Roman institutions realize that the war was declared by Rome. However, I am not sure that all WP users are required to know it by heart. :)

It's not!! OK, made explicit

~~It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year, known as consuls, to each lead an army. Consuls had multiple tasks.~~ Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Including each leading an army, which is what is relevant here. I have added a general indication that they had other duties, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Opposing forces" describes the fortifications in the city of Carthago and provides numerical information about the armies. Consider adding a more detailed description: services, ships, arms, tactics....

If we had any reliable sources, I would be happy to do so, as I have for similar articles on the earlier Punic Wars. If you could point me towards some, I will see what I can incorporate, but I haven't come across any.

Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The second of these wars ended with a Roman victory... Both wars ended with a Roman victory.~~

D'oh! Fixed.

The Roman army moved to Carthage and twice attempted to scale the city walls, from the sea and the landward sides, being repulsed both times, before settling down for a siege. When? I know we are in the year 149 BC, but no more information. The chronology of the events sometimes remains unclear.

The sources give no indication of when things happen. A lot seems to have gone on in 149 BC. The order of events is mostly (not always) clear, but there is no suggestion as to when in the year any of them happened.

~~The first and second paragraphs are not linked in section "149 BC".~~

Hi Borsoka: I am probably being slow, but I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate a little? (I have tweaked the first sentence of the second paragraph to, hopefully, be a little clearer; which may or may not have resolved the issue. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing: the chronology of the events or their links remain unclear. We are informed about the siege of the city in the first paragraph and the next paragraph refers to a camp established by Censorinus. We are not informed whether the camp was established before, during or after the siege and we do not know where the camp was established. :)

Enlightenment! I have added "The Romans set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one intended to house the Roman legions." tot he first paragraph and changed the start of the second to "The camp established by Censorinus was ... ", Clearer?

~~He then led a night march with a strong force... Maybe the numbers?~~

If only. We are not told.

~~4,000 Romans pushed into the city Were there Romans who did not push into the city?~~

On one level, no; or at least the sources don't say. On another level,, obviously yes; the Roman army was larger than 4,000. But what they were doing, and whether they were all asleep in their tents, we don't know.

~~...blessed Scipio... Did she?~~

Le Bohec says "She wished every possible happiness to Scipio Aemilianus". I don't have an issue with paraphrasing that as "[she] blessed Scipio".

I missed the text. Do other sources cited in the article mention the story? It is too romantic to be true. :)

~~...a small proportion of the pre-war population... 50,000 is a huge number in Antiquity - are we sure it represented a small proportion? Percentage? The population of what? The city? The state?~~

I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: good stuff, thanks. Addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Scipio was awarded the agnomen "Africanus"... Does Le Bohec verify the text? He writes: [Scipio] "was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus..."~~

Yes, I am reading Le Bhec's full sentence as saying exactly that " On returning to Rome, he was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus, which in times past his adoptive grandfather had borne." However, now changed to "took the agnomen "Africanus" ".

~~The formerly Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital. Scullard is cited twice at the end of the text.~~

Yes; once to his 1955 article and once to his 2002 book. But you are correct that I am confused - the 1955 Scullard should have been Le Bohec! See next point

~~I think the text "with Urica as its capital" is not verified.~~

"Utica, promoted to the rank of capital of the new province": Le Bohec p. 443. But, yes, I messed up the referencing, as you point out above. Now fixed.

Worlds Together, Worlds Apart: A History of the World: From the Beginnings of Humankind to the Present (Fourth Edition) (Vol. One-Volume) has multiple authors, but I cannot find Pollard ([7]).

I am referring to this work - I suspect that a bot may have mangled the ISBN.

Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans, 1. Numerous? Large? 2. Fantar is more specific. He writes that only the towns supporting Carthage till the end of the war were destroyed, but other towns survived under Roman rule.

So do several sources. If you consider that more specific, then fine. Done.

~~3. Consider mentioning some surviving towns in a footnote.~~

I would quite like to, but sourcing is an issue. You and me may "know" that modern Tunis and Utica, for example, are the linear descendants of the Punic cities, but finding a source which explicitly states this is the very devil! (Do you have any thoughts on this?)

~~Fantar lists about 10 towns where the survival of Punic institutions is well documented (Fantar (2015), pp. 455-456).~~

I had misunderstood you. In this case I would rather not, unless you consider it important.

My concern is that readers can assume a link between the following two sentences: "Seven cities which had gone over to the Romans early in the conflict, such as Utica, were rewarded." and "All of the surviving Punic cities were permitted to retain their traditional system of government." However, although seven cities were awarded (how?), the survival of Punic institutions can be detected in more than 10 towns. I do not insist on listing the towns, but the difference between the two group of towns/numbers should be clarified.

I am struggling a little here. Possibly neither of us are communicating our points as clearly as we might. The article attempts to say

Seven cities were rewarded; precisely how and how these seven were chosen we are not told. (We are told why.)
Some cities were punished - by becoming Roman property or, in at least one case, by being razed.
"All of the surviving Punic cities" remained Punic in their institutions.

I could change the last to 'All of the surviving Punic cities, whether rewarded or forfieted' but the additional clarification seems redundant in light of the preceding "all". Your choice.

Or am I (still) missing the point?

I made an attempt ([8]). Please feel free to edit the text. 1. I understand Fantar only refers to specific elements of pre-Roman administrative system that survived the Roman conquest. 2. I think the sentence about the seven cities which were rewarded could be deleted if we cannot list the cities and cannot say what was their reward.

We probably could, but I doubt it worth the effort. Reward sentence removed.

Fantar p. 455 "With the exception of those that were destroyed because they supported Carthage until the end of her days, the cities were able to continue and to preserve their institutions".

~~...until the 7th century. Consider adding "AD".~~

Done.

Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and comments. I think there are 3-5 pending issues above. I think the "duplication" of the article, raised by Buidhe below is the principal issue to be solved. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I shall get on with them. Re the "duplication" suggestion. My (inexperienced) understanding is that if an editor believes that two articles should be merged they can set up a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles in line with and according to the rationale in Wikipedia:Merging. But this is an issue outside the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think, merger is not the only or proper solution. Perhaps, the siege could be the main article of a significant part of this article. 2. I am convinced that it is within FAC criteria. If it were not, we could hardly describe WP as an encyclopedia. We cannot review an article as an isolated piece of work,because each article exists within a broader framework of articles. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be opposing this nomination, as it is not within my power to delete the other article and I had thought that I had already made the siege "a significant part of this article". (I am aware of "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".) We do indeed review each article as an isolated piece of work so far as FAC is concerned; you will find nothing in the criteria requiring (or allowing) a reviewer to consider other articles. I would be grateful if when you oppose (I am aware of the orange issues above and hope to address them shortly) you could make very clear the basis of your oppose. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." - If an article exists about the Siege of Carthage during the Third Punic War, the article about the Third Punic War can hardly stay focused on the main topic if it repeats the article about the siege.

That would depend, it seems to me, entirely on what the content of the article was. (I intend to discuss this a little further under Harrias's comments.

~~Could we repeat all information about each segment of the universe in an article about the Universe?~~

Indeed we would not, and such an article would fail FAC. Irrespective of whether or not there were other articles dealing with components of the universe. This is, it seems to me, precisely my point.

Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would fail because of criterion 4. If this article presents all aspects of the siege, althouh a specific article about the siege exists, this article does not stay focused.~~ Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending issues

Euboic conversions: having twice reread this section above I can't work out if it is one which you consider still pending, and if you do where we are in the discussion. I would be grateful if you could clarify if this is still a live issue and if it is, perhaps summarise the state of play.

~~I could accept the present version if readers were explained that the conversion rate is from the time of the Second Punic War (as far as I can remember the referred work).~~

But we are talking about amounts agreed in the treaty which ended the Second Punic War. But done.

I have started into the other pending issues above and am putting my response in blue so you can find them more readily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I put the pending issues in orange above. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: Firstly thanks with sticking with this review; I am sure that it has become a much larger task than you anticipated when you started. Secondly, if I am understanding you correctly then a potential solution would be to remove, condense or summarise some of the information on the siege in this article. Do I have that right? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, plus expanding the article about the possible reasons of the war.~~ Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: possible reasons for the war expanded, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background"; aspects of the prose which are more fully explained in Siege of Carthage have been cut back to summary style, mostly in these edits. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work. I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. As soon as the issues listed above by T8612 are addressed I will gladly support this FAC. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A series of edits ([9]) convinced me that the Third Punic War is a FA. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Thank you for the work you have put into this and for the support. I look forward to reciprocating with Charles I. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

When deciding if a source is reliable for a particular claim, there are multiple considerations to evaluate: author, publisher, reviews/citations of the work, how extraordinary the claim is, etc. One factor doesn't usually determine reliability all by itself. (BTW I don't share Iridescent's view of OUP, especially the very prestigious Clarendon Press—in my experience, more prestigious outlets are much less likely to publish garbage than other publishers). Likewise, although academic works are usually preferred to popular history, well regarded popular works and garbage academic ones also exist. However, just because a source has been accepted at previous source reviews is not a guarantee that the previous reviewers were correct in their estimation. (For example, Franz Kurowski was cited in several FA and A-class articles). (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your remark about the reliability of some sources used in FAs and GAs. I did not dare to say this. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

"the modern consensus is that this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in an excessively favourable light" I wouldn't say that Astin supports "consensus" (see WP:RS/AC). I do not have access to the other source.

Hmm. This is definitely the case, but I see your point. Every historian who discusses Polybius at any length comments on his pro-Scipio bias. I am loath to support it by giving a cite to a dozen separate sources. {u|T8612}}, do you know of a source which expressly states that this is generally agreed?

See Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, pp.3-4 (see screenshot); and also the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8, pp. 5-6.

@T8612: Thanks. Unfortunately CAH pp. 5-6 is precisely what Buidhe was unhappy with. I am sure that they will point out that the other Astin cite you provide is just one scholar's opinion and does not prove a consensus. Where is Lazenby when you need him? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Walbank, who is the most important scholar on Polybius. The Cambridge Ancient History is a reference work, especially the first pages on the "sources", which all the contributors certainly reviewed and participated, although it is signed by Astin. I think it is enough to establish consensus. T8612 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe: you convinced? T8612 explains the situation better than I could. Ot should I water down the claim? Your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered by it if there's at least one source which explicitly states "consensus" or that there is an agreement among scholars, as required for verifiability purposes. However, that does not seem to be the case here. I would change it to "this proximity causes Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light" in wikivoice, without the claim to represent scholarly consensus. (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe, I have gone with "this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light". That OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will rarely find an author saying "consensus". However, when the most important reference works say the same thing, then you can assume there is consensus on the matter. T8612 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe: I am checking if my change noted just above satisfacorily addresses this point and if there is anything else outstanding on the source review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is fine by me. I would do more source checks but I think that the duplication issue, also raised by Borsoka, should be addressed first. (t · c) buidhe 13:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bohec does not support "significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost". He does say Polybius has not left us much information but that is ambiguous as to whether it was never written or lost.

OK. Replaced with Hoyos "Only Polybius’ first five books (out of 40) are complete, although we do have sizeable extracts from the rest" and Goldsworthy "only a small part of the total work has survived".

"Modern historians also use the account of the 2nd century CE Greek historian Appian" Bohec does not say that Appian was Greek or lived in the second century: he describes him as Appian, a provincial living under the High Empire

That had me stumped for a moment - as to how I had messed up. not as to its accuracy. In the next sentence I quote Mineo, from an earlier article in the same volume. I also cite to the appropriate page of Mineo in the previous sentence. I must have had it in my mind that this covered the sentence in question as well - obviously it doesn't, I am merely going senile. Mineo - "Appian was a Greek from Alexandria (born at the end of the first century AD, died in the 160s)." now cited at the appropriate place.

Other comments

Yann Le Bohec states on the first page of his chapter:

The conflict known under the name of the “Third Punic War” does not enter the category of wars in the general sense of this word: it amounted, in fact, to one single military operation, the siege of one city, in this case Carthage. The author who wishes to describe it will have no order of march to report, no great battle in open country to describe, neither armistice nor peace treaty to mention. But the expression “Third Punic War” has been adopted by tradition, and that is why we are allowed to keep it. In reality, the title “Siege of Carthage” would be more appropriate.

This supports my view, after reading both articles, that there seems to be a very high amount of overlap between this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). I think that a merge would be a good idea, especially considering that both articles are pretty short. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree, there were a small naval battle and other skirmishes. The general context and preparation with the Numidian confrontation don't really belong to the siege of Carthage too. I think the "background" section should be expanded to better show the diplomacy and political debates at Rome behind the Roman invasion (will comment on this tomorrow). Le Bohec is deliberately simplifying things here. It could be possible to merge all the skirmishes into Third Punic War, but the article would be quite large. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited investigation, Le Bohec is in a minority, probably of one, in holding this view. While there is overlap, other authorities consider the War and the siege to be separate. I could OR as to why they may consider this so - not unreasonably none of them attempt to deal with this negative - eg the Carthaginians fielded an army of 30,000 entirely separate from the siege, which was involved in several pitched battles (not, IMO, "skirmishes") and was eventually (after nearly three years) destroyed when its camp was stormed by a Roman legion. Yes, there is overlap between the Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia of course, is not a reliable source. I note in passing that both the siege and the war are separate vital articles; not, of course, a conclusive point, but one assumes that a similar discussion to this one was held at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd that you would emphasize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but then count Vital articles (a Wikiproject) as a reliable indicator of anything. According to a free online tool https://www.cortical.io/freetools/compare-text/ 85% of the text in the articles is identical. I have often been concerned by overlaps in your Punic Wars articles, but this is worse than usual. I can't support this article until the issue with having a substantially identical duplicate in mainspace is addressed. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, we do not need two almost identical articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Purely on the use of the tool you mention. "85% of the text in the articles is" not "identical". A skim of both articles, or a look at the grid the tool produces, would seem to confirm this. The introduction to the tool states "overlap in meaning between the two texts is quantified as a percentage" (emphasis added). I cannot see that "meaning is defined.

Checking out a few existing FAs, not at random, I find that HMS Princess Royal and Lion-class battlecruiser have an 84% "overlap of meaning"; Reign of Cleopatra and Cleopatra 86%; Chough and Red-billed chough 70%. Third Punic War and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) currently have an 83% "overlap of meaning".

I am not with this post attempting to address or refute your main point; I am refuting the assertion that "85% of the text in the articles is identical". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and thank you for picking up assorted idiocies of mine above. Now addressed bar Polyibius's pro-Scipio bias. Let's see if another editor has an explicit source; if not I shall have to do it the hard way. Is there more to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More source checks

Harris 2006
- Article says: "The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land." Source states "Much of Carthage's own land, however, became Roman ager publicus.":::Quite right. I don't know what I was thinking. Replaced with Le Bohec "The former area of Carthage, called chora by the Greeks and pertica by the Romans, became the collective property of the Roman people, in Latin ager publicus populi Romani".
Vogel-Weidemann
- "since the 18th century he has been credited with ending all of his speeches with Carthago delenda est ("Carthage must be destroyed")" not supported

Miles establishes that he alledgedly said it, Vogel-Weidemann that it was an 18th century invention.

- Both Cato and Nasica were members of embassies to Carthage., not entirely supported by the source which states that Nasica only had "probably been a member of the same mission"

Hmm. I took the stress to be on "the same", but I see your point. Changed to "Nasica was likely a member of the same embassy."

- Vogel-Weidemann 1989, pp. 79–88. I need a shorter page range to be able to check this.

Well, the whole article is a summary of modern explanations for the war; I will break it down against each phrase, but this may cause some loss of context.

Not a source check, but you may be interested to learn that "Cartago delenda est" is said to be the first recorded incitement to genocide.

I have come across that. I am not personally persuaded that Cato envisaged genocide, and anyway, it is well established that the words were a much later invention, so I skipped it.

May do more tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" The province became a major source of grain and other food." not supported by the cited source

I no longer have (easy) access to that. Perhaps Mitchell p. 345 "The large hinterland of Carthage ... was mainly taken up with cereal agriculture. ... two thirds of the annual harvest is said to have been exported to Rome. ... Africa was rich in all things, including grain, fruit [and] olive[s]."

"What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear. The modern historian William Harris describes these political issues as "the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" As far as I can tell, Harris discusses the political divisions in Rome and then says, "we are now getting to the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" . So I'm not sure this is supported.

Weeell, that's not how I read it, but this has been added since the review started, so I am happy to remove it. I started a rather complex explanation as to how I feel that Harris p. 151 and other sources support "What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear." but, again, that is a review accretion, and reading through the section, I think that it works better without it, so gone.

"Modern scholars have advanced a number of theories as to why Rome was eager for war. These include: a Roman fear of Carthaginian commercial competition; a desire to forestall a wider war which might have broken out with the death of Masinissa, who was aged 89 at the time; the factional use of Carthage as a political "bogeyman", irrespective of her true power; a greed for glory and loot; and a desire to quash a political system with Rome considered anathema. No consensus has been reached regarding these and various other hypotheses." I think most of this is supported by Le Bohec, but verifiability would be improved if you broke up the refs and cited each clause individually. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That ties in with your Vogel-Weidemann point above and my response there. I will sort it. Done.

"A large Roman army landed at Utica in 149 BC under both consuls for the year, Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus the fleet. The Carthaginians continued to attempt to appease Rome, and sent an embassy to Utica. The consuls demanded that they hand over all weaponry, and reluctantly the Carthaginians did so. Large convoys took enormous stocks of equipment from Carthage to Utica. Surviving records state that these included 200,000 sets of armour and 2,000 catapults. Their warships all sailed to Utica and were burnt in the harbour. Once Carthage was disarmed, Censorinus made the further demand that the Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away from the sea; Carthage would then be destroyed. The Carthaginians abandoned negotiations and prepared to defend their city." It would be much easier to verify this info if refs were broken up. Most or all of this is not supported by Le Bohec, IDK about the other sources.

OK. Done. It is all based on Goldsworthy - let me know if you would like a scan - except for Purcell clearly establishing that it was Censorinus who made the demand re moving the city. Le Bohec is not really needed and I have removed him.

"The Carthaginians raised a strong and energetic force to garrison the city from their citizenry and by freeing all slaves willing to fight." Slaves are not mentioned at all in Le Bohec.

That's in Miles p. 341 "It set free its slaves to fight in the army."

"They also formed a 30,000 strong field army, which was placed under Hasdrubal, freshly released from his condemned cell." not supported

I am an idiot. I both conflated two sources and typoed the army strength. Correct army strength now cited to Harris - I believe that the rest is supported by Le Bohec.

Hi Buidhe, all done and awaiting further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Sorry for the additional ping but just checking in on where we are with the source review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buidhe. (And I am going to go back to school before posting another FAC, in the hope of avoiding giving my next source reviewer as hard a time as I have given you.) Pinging Laser brain, source review passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

I will proceed with what will mostly be a prose review. I have not reviewed this article before, but I did carry out the GA review for Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), which I note that buidhe and Borsoka have mentioned above, so I will do my best to weigh in on that topic too. Note that when I ran the external duplication tool mentioned by buidhe, I only got a 30% match: I don't know if that is because changes have since been made, or something else. I am also competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.

"..but after 167 BC it has survived only as a list of its contents." Sorry, are we saying that 1) All that survives of the account now (after 167 BC) is a list of its contents. 2) That all that is left of what he wrote after 167 BC is a list of its contents, or 3) That all that survives dealing with events that occurred after 167 BC is a list of its contents?

Ah. Nice. Fixed. I think.

"Both wars wars ended.." Duplicate word.

Fixed.

"At the end of the war the Roman ally Masinissa emerged.." While I don't think it is actually wrong, I find the definite article slightly jarring here. Although it adds a sub-clause and more commas, I wonder if "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged.." or "At the end of the war an ally of Rome, Masinissa, emerged.." might be clearer. This might just be a personal preference thing.

It may be personal. I am quite prepared to change to one of your suggestions, but standing back as best I can, the increase in commas and sub-clauses seems to me to make the meaning less accessible.

Noting the discussion below, I have gone with your suggestion of "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged".

"..Rome backed its ally, Masinissa, and refused." Not sure it is necessary to include "its ally" here, it feels repetitive, "..Rome backed Masinissa, and refused." seems to suffice.

OK.

I don't like the easter egg red link to Battle of Oroscopa: "The campaign ended in disaster at the Battle of Oroscopa and the army surrendered;"

Fair point. Changed.

Is there a more accessible term than "temporised"?

dissembled?

"..the Senate and the People's Assembly of Rome declared war." Presumably on Carthage?

Added.

There is a lot of commonality between the "Opposing forces" and "Course of the war" sections in this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). If a merge is not justified, then the two articles need to rationalise their purpose. This article should provide a summary of the entire war, and therefore provide less detail on the Siege. The article on the Siege should provide greater detail on the Siege (clearly), but only a summary of the other events and Background. If it is felt that the two are too entangled for that to be achievable, then I would concur with the suggestion that the articles should be merged. I'm going to hold off any further review comments, particularly as most of what remains is very similar to what I already reviewed at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)/GA1. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias—not my period, so I would bow to your superior knowledge here but there appears to be two separate questions. In progress in this FAC, the only question here is whether the article meets the criteria. On that basis I would urge you to complete your review. The second question is whether the two articles should merge. No one is progressing this through a merger discussion. As a lay reader of this article the action seems to amount to more than a single siege and over a period of several years: more a campaign with a single objective. I don't know if there are articles on other engagements in this war but with limited sources I would be surprised if the area warrants a summary article for the war (here) with child articles for the various engagements. This article is less than 4k words, the siege article is less than 3k. Where your expertise comes in handy is answering the question would any reader search for siege of Carthage and if they did would this article serve the purpose. If so I would suggest completing this FAC then initiating a discussion to get the siege article deleted. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish:: "I would be surprised if the area warrants a summary article for the war (here) with child articles for the various engagements." But it does: we have articles on the Battle of Lake Tunis, Battle of the Port of Carthage, Battle of Nepheris (147 BC) and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), and Gog has indicated that they intend to write the article for the Battle of Oroscopa. So within that context, I believe that this article should be trimmed to provide a summary style per FACR #4. If, as you say, those other articles were to be deleted, then this article could bear to include more, but while the Featured article criteria only considers individual articles, as an encyclopedia we need to consider the whole picture. For this to pass the FAC before we ascertain its purpose seems folly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and very much the answer to the question I was asking. Having flicked through them all they look very underdeveloped though, largely Start Class at best B. Are they ever likely to develop further? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that as to how things break down, and also that Norfolkbigfish's suggestion is the appropriate course of action. Although we seem to be in a minority.

As an aside, the various Punic wars campaign boxes have a number of articles which IMO would be best merged/deleted. (I am not at all sure that I would consider Siege of Carthage one of them, but that would be where a merge/deletion discussion would establish consensus - and I am probably too close to form a disinterested view.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think there is sufficient content to justify separate articles on the Third Punic War and the Siege of Carthage, but I think that this article should trim back some of the detail on the siege (and similarly, the siege article should trim back some of the extraneous detail in its "Course of the war" section, but that is beyond the purview of this review). For example, at the moment the 146 BC section includes a note saying that the "Main article" for that section is Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), but in fact that 146 BC in that article is almost identical, so suggesting one is the "main" article and one is the "summary" article is a little misleading. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and thanks for that clear steer. I have reduced, I think, the content in this article which is more fully explained in Siege of Carthage to summary style, mostly in these edits. I have also expanded a little on possible reasons for the war, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background", at Borsoka's request. Hopefully this will allow you to continue with your review: let me know either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"..and energetic force.." energetic seems an odd word to use here, I have images of the soldiers constantly breaking out into star jumps or something.

Perhaps they did! I am trying to paraphrase "fought long and hard" and "the whole Punic citizen body threw itself wholeheartedly into the war effort" and Norfolkbigfish didn't like "enthusiastic". I think that I am reverting to "enthusiastic" based on the second source, unless there is a better idea?

I think "enthusiastic" works, suits me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions." I find this phrasing awkward, and I don't like it. Maybe "They set up two camps: Censorinus's had the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's housed the Roman legions." or similar?

OK. Done.

"Hasdrubal moved up his army and harassed the Roman supply lines and foraging parties." To avoid the double "and" statement, could this be "Hasdrubal moved up his army to harass the Roman supply lines and foraging parties."?

Good idea. Done.

"Arriving there, Manilius ordered an immediate assault.." Rephrase to avoid the easter egg link to Battle of Nepheris (149 BC). To be honest, given that article redirects to the Content section of Battle of Nepheris (147 BC), which gives less information about the engagement than this article, I would just bin it completely.

Binned.

Is there an appropriate wikilink for "winter quarters"? (I seem to recall from my own articles that there isn't really; unless you know of one, we could do with adding something.)

Redirects to cantonment. Which is not, IMO, what we want.

I think it would definitely be worth creating something for if we can find some decent sources, but that is clearly beyond the purview of this review. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In the engagement which followed.." how about "In the ensuing Battle of the Port of Carthage.." to avoid a minor easter egg?

Done.

"..or captured by the Romans. The Romans now.." Awkward immediate repetition of "the Romans".

Fixed.

"Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This sounds like the romanticised sort of thing that is often written, and I'm always pretty incredulous. I know there is an RS for it, but is there enough corroboration that this definitely happened, or should it be a softer "it is said that.."?

I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice).

If it is that prevalent across the sources, then that's fine. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future." Is this not repeating "The site was cursed with the intention of preventing it ever being resettled." from the previous section?

It is. Sorted. Thanks.

"..had been dug up by wolves - a very poor omen." Use an endash, not a hyphen.

Sloppy! Done.

I think that's the lot. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy to support this now, excellent work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Norfolkbigfish

Lay readers' view of the article, comments below.....

Primary Sources

Uses Punic prior to explaining definition

This has been a footnote, in brackets; at first mention, at first mention outside "Primary sources". Each change has been at the request of a reviewer - not necessarily at this FAC.
We are attempting the impossible: if I move it to the opening sentence of the main article (the first mention is currently there) it is open to the valid criticism that it is not comprehensible because I have not yet introduced "Carthage" or "Rome".
Neither where nor how it currently is is my personal first choice, but I really would prefer to avoid restarting this particular merry-go-round when we seem to have reached a compromise everyone is content with.

this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light, proximity is a strange use of words, maybe Polybius account of Scipio's actions may therefore be overly favourable or something similar

I am attempting to suggest physical closeness,, but if you don't like that I have deleted "proximity".

Second paragraph uses historian 5 times, might be worth a ce!

Good spot. Reduced to two - both "modern historians".

Background

Carthage and Rome had fought the 23-year-long First Punic War from 264 to 261 BC I think one or more of your dates is wrong, or my maths

Its your maths. (Honest. Count backwards on your fingers if you don't trust me.)

It was actually a typo: I fixed this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. That's why I need good copy editors! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over the following 50 years he was he really campaigning for 50 years?

Yep. Goldsworthy p. 335 "88 years old, but still fit enough to ride without a saddle ... and to lead his men into battle."

ended in disaster is it worth linking this to a page that does not exist?

Changed to specify the battle. Still a red link. It's policy; and is firmly on my to do list, so shouldn't be red for too long.

Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. grammar, could lose had, and and replace the comma with and for the same effect?

That would change the meaning t my eye.

which temporised is not needed

It has been changed to "which dissembled" at another reviewer's request. If I delete it a reviewer is going to ask "And is it known how the Romans responded?"

I notice this is written in British English, would be worth tagging to that effect

It is - dated August 2020.

Utica, where is that in relation?

Nice. Added.

Opposing Forces

Do two small paras warrant a section?

I personally think that it helps to seperate this overview of the two sides out from the rest of the background. And I don't think that the article is overloaded with sections. But I am not wedded to it. I could make it a sub-section.

and enthusiastic really? I doubt we know their level of enthusiasm.

Changed to "energetic".

149 BC

being repulsed both times is redundant

Not to me it's not. Deleted, but I shall refer any complaints to you ;-) .

Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions I think the ones are redundant

Erm, if I delete them, the sentence isn't grammatical; or at least doesn't mean what we want it to.

pestiferous I think is not the right word, although I understand what you intend, unless the camp was plague ridden?

That's exactly what it was.

made repetitions of repeated?

Good grief! Did I really write that? Changed.

foodstuffs food?

Changed.

led out 300 cavalry and with a led 300 cavalry in a?

Done.

pulled back withdrew?

I think that "pulled back" communicates what is meant a little more clearly. Is this a major issue?

had cut off had redundant?

It needs the "had" to match the past tense "That night it was realised" earlier in the sentence.

the cut-off trapped?

Done.

Romans back retreat?

Changed to "Manilius withdrew after the Romans ran out of food ..."

So far, so good. All very interesting and understandable. More to follow......Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Norfolkbigfish, just what was needed. All addressed bar your very first point, which has had so many opinions that it makes my head spin. I shall try to get back to you on it tomorrow. I have gone with, I think, most of your suggestions; with queries, comments or defences against others. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

148 BC

Hasdrubal, commander of the Carthaginian field army, overthrew the civilian leadership of Carthage and took command himself phrasing commander, command

Tweaked.

147 BC

Scipio intended to stand in the 147 BC elections for the post of aedile; this was a natural progression for him and at age 36 or 37 he was too young to stand as consul, for which the minimum age requirement was 41 long sentence worth breaking

Broken

There was considerable political manoeuvring behind the scenes, much of which is opaque in the sources, and it is not known to what extent, if any, Scipio helped orchestrate this outcome not sure we can say there was considerable manoeuvring if the sources are opaque and things are not known

Without wanting to give chapter and verse - which I could if you wish - the sources say a lot about this manoeuvring, but it is opaque because we lack the context to make sense of it. Happy to rephrase, but obviously will need to reflect the sources; the current sentence is reasonably close to a source, hence its attractiveness to me.

You were not alone in not being totally happy with this, so I have worked some more detail in.

Once the channel was complete this sailed out this sailed out, perhaps the fleet sailed through is better?

Very good. :-) Changed.

struck at the Carthaginian field army attacked the....?

Done.

This section has a number of subordinate clauses, not important but it would read clearer if these were rewritten as sentences.

Done with all bar one.

146 BC

helpless to prevent them and furious helpless, furious.....really?

Goldsworthy p. 352 "Nothing Scipio or their officers did could persuade the men to return to return to their duty ..." seems to cover "helpless". Grr; can't find the cite for "furious", so removed. I'll let you know when/if it turns up.

holdouts not a word, at least according to the OED

{{wikt:holdout]]

The site was cursed (evocation) this can be rewritten without parenthesis

"(evocation)" removed.

Aftermath

as his adoptive grandfather had as had his adoptive grandfather

Done.

foodstuffs food

Done.

Nice work, I enjoyed readin that. I assume the facts and sources will be checked by the other guys

Oh yes!

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Thanks for that. I owe you one. All of your points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norfolkbigfish, is there more to come, or do you feel able to make a judgement on the prose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support on prose, interesting article, well done.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mardus

In reply to User:Harrias:

"At the end of the war, the Roman ally Masinissa emerged as..." — the definite article inicates, that Masinissa was an ally of Rome, but from outside the Roman Empire, and not a a Roman, as he's been indicated to have been a Numidian. Were the definite article absent, Masinissa would be interpreted as a Roman who was an ally. -Mardus /talk 10:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I suggested other, clearer phrasing options. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

Lots of commentary already, but I have a hard time figuring out where the support is going, so I thought I might chime in anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is some duplinking, especially in the aftermath section, can be highlighted with this script.[10]

Sorted.

Link Numidia in caption?

Done.

A minor point, but it always annoys me when left aligned images "clash" with section headers. You could circumvent this by reversing the alignments of the images from the "149 BC" section and onwards.

Anything to keep a reviewer happy. Reversing the images doesn't prevent the clash at 146 BC, but I assume that you are less concerned, as it is right alined now.

Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for stopping by. Those points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alignment of the catapult image could probably depend on which direction the catapult aims at. If it aims to the left, it might be cool to right align it, so it could aim towards the text... FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"Carthage had paid off its indemnity" By what year?

Good point. Added.

"Map of Numidia at its greatest extent" Perhaps add to the caption that it was the rival of Carthage for context?

I dislike repeating information in a caption which is already in the text. In fact I dislike chunky captions in general - if the information is that useful/important, I put it in the text.

Heh, I guess this is another place where interpretation of MOS can lead to different philosophies. I take WP:captions to imply that image captions should establish the the context of the images, but I won't press the issue. "Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text... captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative." FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that this is a case of "succinct" and "informative" fighting it out. :-)

"political system with Rome considered anathema" Which?

Ah now, there is a whole paper on this, and even Le Bohec's half page summary doesn't really make sense without a lot of background knowledge. I have tweaked this bit but am not convinced that it is an improvement.

Ah, I should have been clearer, I meant should "with" be "which" in the sentence? "desire to quash a political system which Rome considered anathema"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That gave me a genuine LOL! Sorted.

"nabled up to 4,000 Romans to fire" With what?

Not specified. I assume whatever came to hand, but that's OR. I am guessing that the primary sources took it as read, and no secondary source I have seen ventures a guess.

"At this point Hasdrubal surrendered to Scipio on the promise of his life and freedom. Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This almost sounds like dramatic war propaganda, and surprisingly specific. Maybe a case where we could state who this claim is attributed to and how reliable it is? Especially since another dramatic claim right after is shown to have been a later invention.

As I responded to Harrias's similar point "I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice)." Just because WP:We Don't Like It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that we are entitled to pick it out to undermine it's credibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, can't say I don't like it, but since as you say in the article, one of the main sources about the event was biased in favour of the Romans, it is easy to imagine he would exaggerate. But yes, that is of course speculation if none of the sources go into this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enthusiastic about it either. But once we as editors start deciding which RS backed ideas we are going to question the reliability of in an article we are on a slippery slope. I entirely understand why you and Harrias both queried it.

One wonders what happened to Hasdrubal subsequently? Especially since you do state what happened to Scipio afterwards.

Not specified, but I have managed to infer without, I think, ORing.

"and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization"" Anything to link?

Sadly not. The closest is Punic language. But I mean quite a bit more than that, and while the language article gives "to 6th century CE" in the infobox, it actually peters out not long after the fall of Carthage.

"the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east of modern Tunis" Are there cities at the site itself today?

There is a sprawling suburb of Tunis with about 20,000 inhabitants. It is a separate administrative area and so has a mayor. I have added "As of 2020 the modern settlement of Carthage was a district of the city of Tunis." (Sourced to UNESCO.)

"the mayors of Rome and the modern city of Carthage" But is there a modern city of Carthage? All I could find is Carthage municipality...

Good point. Well, I suppose it depends on what you call a city, I have removed "city" as it smacks of OR, and I think the addition noted above serves as an introduction.

"via blockade runners" Should these be mentioned i the article body as well?

Good spot. Went MIA in a large cull requested by another reviewer. Added back.

"Here, over several months, they constructed a structure as high as" In the intro you mention it was made of bricks, could be stated in the article body as well?

As above. Reinstated. Thanks.

Thanks FunkMonk, all useful stuff. I responded once, but an edit conflict seems to have eaten it, so this is take two. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some comments above, but you only have to act on my miscommunication about "which", the rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With/which typo sorted. A couple of random comments added as well. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - which that out of the way, I better wrap this up. Nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit

A great read, as usual. I was disappointed to learn that the sowing with salt was apocryphal, that was one of the few things I could remember about this campaign from my classical studies lessons at school. To my mind, this is already there, so I'm supporting, but I have a couple of thoughts for consideration:

Would the bit about Utica going over to Rome bear an additional sentence expanding on how and why the city did that? My impression from the current text is that Utica could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to switch allegiances, but it might be helpful just to spell that out for the reader?

It would be, and I wish I could. It seems obvious. But it would be OR. The sources give it only the most passing of mentions.

Fair enough - yes, if the sources don't expand on that, then best leave it as it is.

In 148 BC, the sentence "He failed: Neapolis surrendered and was subsequently sacked; but Aspis withstood assaults from both the Roman army and navy; while Hippo was fruitlessly besieged." - are those semi-colons necessary? There are conjunctions between the clauses, wouldn't commas suffice?

I would not dream of arguing with you. Now comma'ed.

That's it from me. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Mr Summit, how thoughtful of you to drop by. Thank you for the review and the input. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Since this has a lot of commentaries I'll have a look before this will be promoted.

In 149 BC Carthage sent an army, under Hasdrubal Hasdrubal who?

Not known.

the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus --> "the Roman General Scipio Aemilianus"

Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES.

Probably never gonna learn it.

of the Third Punic War have been lost.[10][7] Re-order the refs.

This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.

That's true but my perfectionism wouldn't let these go. ;)

while Carthage was a large city state Not "city-state"?

Apparently either is acceptable. My paper Chambers only gives "city state".

Just in case I've searched on Ngram which one is mostly used and it looks like in British English city-state is more popular. I also found out that city-state in general is more popular in English.

Fair enough. Changed.

"modern northern Tunisia" (lead) vs "in the north east of what is now modern Tunisia" (body) One says northern and the other north east.

One says where the fighting was; the other says where Carthage's territory was. Two different things.

the Second when the Roman general Scipio Africanus --> "the Second when the Roman General Scipio Africanus"

See above.

Link Masinissa in the body.

Oops. Done.

Carthaginian general Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians --> "Carthaginian General Hasdrubal the Boetharch and, the treaty notwithstanding, counter-attacked the Numidians"

g → G, see above; hyphen inserted.

of Utica, some 55 kilometres (34 mi) north of Carthage --> "of Utica, some 55 km (34 mi) north of Carthage"

Done.

Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away Same as above.

Done.

Carthage would then be destroyed.[63][62] Re-order the refs.

This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.

with walls of more than 35 kilometres (20 mi) circumference --> "with walls of more than 35 km (20 mi) circumference"

Done.

This army was based at Nepheris, 25 kilometres (16 mi) south --> "This army was based at Nepheris, 25 km (16 mi) south"

Done.

The Romans launched another assault on the city but were thrown MOS:EGG here.

Removed.

the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east --> "the ruins of Carthage lie 16 km (10 mi) east"

Done.

Maybe switch the last two sentences since they are not in chronically order?

Done.

Purcell, Nicholas's source should have a "pp. 133–148" not "pp. 133–48".

Eagle eyes. Fixed.

10,000 talents was approximately 269,000 kg (265 long tons) of silver at the time of the Second Punic War 10,000 is the start of a sentence and maybe link long tons?

Fixed and done.

Hasdrubal escaped to Carthage, where in an attempt Typo of wherein?

No; missing commas. Added.

the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's Strange choice to use "and" after a semi-colon?

Entirely normal when semi colons are used to separate items in a list.

Optional In spite of the greater forethought --> "Despite the greater forethought"

Good. Done.

Optional death on the walls, in view of the Roman army --> "death on the walls, given the Roman army"

I am not sure I understand your alternative. Is there a typo?

I think CPA-5 is assuming that you are using the phrase 'in view of' in the sense that would be synonymous with 'given' (or with 'in light of'); I believe you actually mean 'within the sight of'. I don't think it needs changing, but you could consider rewording if there's any chance of someone misreading this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. "view" changed to "sight".

@Girth Summit: Looks like someone can read my mind. ;)

he considered ill disciplined or poorly --> "he considered ill-disciplined or poorly"?

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. It is so good to see you back in action. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes since my classmate tested positive; I'm now put in quarantine until the 1st. Thus I have a lot of time unless I feel under the weather within this week. :( Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Ah. So a "bad news and good news" situation. City state tweaked. Have I missed anything? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth: This one looks close to done for me. Which obviously is a decision entirely for you. If you do feel that a consensus has been reached, it would make me a happy nominator if this could be agreed before the end of play today, as I am in the WikiCup and today is the end of the final round. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's it worth t'ya then?! Seriously, it does look sufficiently advanced to permit a new nom so feel free... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian but my referencing has been poor recently, so I intend to take a break from FAC nominations for a while until I sort myself out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, do you intend to tweak this article further in that regard? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. No. This article is as good as I am likely to get it and there are no unaddressed comments. This process for this one felt a bit rough and I am probably getting a bit stale/burnt out. It was just a passing/chatty comment to that effect. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 31 October 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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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