Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cape Ecnomus

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

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Featured article candidates/Battle of Cape Ecnomus/archive1

After eight ACR nominations in a row from 1345 or 1346, I offer up one from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of. Below is my attempt to recount it. It has just passed GA, where it received a good look over from Constantine. However, in my usual thumb fingered way, I am sure that I have left in many things which I shouldn't, and vice versa. So could see what you can find? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

G'day, Gog, looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the narrative reads pretty good to me and referencing looks
there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
suggest adding alt text to "File:D473-birème romaine-Liv2-ch10.png"

I had forgotten to insert "alt=". Now done.

suggest adding a caption to "File:CapeEcnomus.png"

Done.

suggest adding " | map_label = Cape Ecnomus " to the infobox map, to label the pin

Done.

in the caption, "Location of the Battle, off the south coast of Sicily", suggest decapitalisng "Battle" here

Done.

check English variation: I see both "center" and "centre"

In adjacent sentences even. Fixed.

with Hamilcar Barca).[38][21]: suggest ordering the refs numerically here

Done.

Carthaginian navy challenged them.[32][44]: same as above here

Umm. In the UK 32 comes before 44.

As it does in most places of the world, except apparently my brain... I think I meant: small squadrons provided by their allies.[18][17] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Done. The UK trails Australia 2-1 in the numeracy cup. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5,500 Carthaginian troops: it is best not to start a sentence with numerals, suggest rewording slightly

I should know that! Done.

in the Sources, location of publication for Murray 2011?

Done.

in the Sources, title case caps for the Wallinga 1956 title?

Done/

in the Sources, Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since pre-Classical Times --> "Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times"?

Oops. Done.

suggest upscaling "File:First Punic War 264 BC v2.png"

Done. How is it now?

Yes, that's better. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Thank you for helping out once again. My sloppy bits and pieces now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments

Thanks for taking a look at this,and apologies for the delayed response. My attention has been elsewhere. I hope to get back on these over the next few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612 Many thanks for the suggestions. Some useful stuff there. However, I hope that you will bear with me, as I am used to studying the sources, pulling together the text, and then inserting the best or most appropriate cite for each statement. I am not used to mentioning texts in an article. I am sure that you don't literally mean that I could mention the CAH for context. (Or do you?) Could you help me out and clarify your first point with just what it is that you are suggesting go into (or out of) the article with regard to Walbank and the CAH? I have picked up that you would like to see "The modern historian Frank Walbank has suggested that Polybius's source for the Battle of Ecnomus was Philinus of Agrigentum, who is notably pro-Carthaginian in his approach". Is there anything else? Your other points addressed below. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to F. W. Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is clearly missing. cf. vol. I, pp. 83-89. I suspect that many sources you mention derive from Walbank. You could also mention the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. 7, part 2) for context. Walbank notably suggests that Philinus of Agrigentum (who was pro-Carthaginian) is Polybius' source on the battle.
I would like to see the reference to Polybius' orignal text. The link at the end of the page could be removed and references to Polybius' text added with a link to wikisource.

Good point. Done.

I'm not fond of using "five" instead of quinquereme; I think it is unnecessary military jargon (like "horse" for cavalry and "foot" for infantry").

I am not fond of including polysyllables in foreign and dead languages. I feel that it does not assist reader comprehension. I prefer to write articles in English where I can, especially when I have a reliable source to support my word choice.

Add more pictures, to the trireme Olympias mentioned in the article, or a Carthaginian/Roman ram (search on wikisource).

Good thought. A couple of additional images included. I am loath to include the Olympias: there seems to be unanimous agreement that it is not an accurate replica; and there is no direct evidence of triremes being present at Econmus. So I am cautious that including an image of Olympias would be misleading.

T8612 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Robinvp11

Hi Robin. Likewise thanks for the detailed comments and apologies for the delay. Responses on their way. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11, I have finally got round to some responses to your comments.

@User:Gog the Mild Useful leads :)

I've made some additions to the article, which I've explained below but feel free to remove :).

I am not sure if you have been using an IP address, but there seem to have been a lot of changes since I last looked at this. I am going to tidy up and not necessary explain each edit. (Eg the current lead breaches MOS:LEADLENGTH etc.) If I change anything of yours, feel free to shout.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/battle-of-cape-ecnomus-the-first-punic-war/ This is a great summary of the issues, significance of the battle and Polybius as a source (the opening paragraph in particular). Its written by Marc de Santis, probably the leading modern authority on naval warfare in the ancient world (2016; Rome Seizes the Trident specifically)

Re 'evidence,' I've included this; https://www.livescience.com/10842-ancient-shipwreck-points-site-major-roman-battle.html.

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

My concern about ship details is we know very little about ship design, even for triremes which are considerably simpler than quinquiremes. I see you've referenced Boris Rankov, Professor of Roman history at Royal Holloway, head of the Centre for Archaeo- Architectural Reconstruction and a former rower. He specifically states the trireme Olympias is a 'floating hypothesis;' quinquiremes are a guess - if you take the theoretical model, then compare to what we think we know about the battle, the ships don't fit (they're too wide). I don't think this comes across in the article.

I don't particularly disagree with any of the above, but could you give me a clue as to the specific parts of the article you object to/think could be improved/have qualms regarding?

The section on 'Ships' is very detailed (measurements, numbers etc) but the truth is we don't know and if I read the article as is, that doesn't come across.

That may very well be. I am citing the figures given in a RS. Do you have one which states that it is talking rubbish, or that we just don't know? Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-Classical Times brings together 16 of the top experts on this sort of thing, and if they state that they do know, I am inclined to take them at their word. While, of course, being willing to listen to a contradiction by another leading expert.

Boris Rankov says its a guess.

Not suggesting you need to incorporate all of these but as a consultant, I tend to ask questions, then look for answers :). Annoys the @##% out of my kids.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with Lancaster (nice), my points are conceptual and stylistic

General; you know my prejudices but this could be shorter, tighter, less 'on the one hand' etc all the way through. It's a good article, well researched and I'd like more people to read it - who's our audience? The wording is quite dense

Significance; My limited memory of Cape Ecnomus from Staff School is that its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare until the late 15th century (battle of Sandwich etc). That doesn't seem to appear here.

Nope. My sources are all consistent that this is based on an old, turn of the (nineteenth) century misreading of Polybius. They explicitly state that this was not the case at Econmus. (But see my Battle of Sluys for a 15th-century naval battle which cheer your staff school teacher.) Even my reading of Polybius - not that that has any value here - doesn't find that.

Much of Tipps article is devoted to numbers and battle tactics, so I'm not sure I follow but always happy to learn; what is the interpretation of Ecnomus?

Sorry Robin, I'm not really tracking this. Where did Tipps spring from? Is this bit still about "significance lies ... [in] the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment"?

The link is to my original comment that its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare. My challenge is the statement 'out of date' which I assumed was Tipps; if not, apologies.

The corvus was an attempt to negate superior ship handling skills (whether or not you agree that happened) and enable the Romans to use their superior land fighting skills. That's what my staff school lecturer meant by 'application of land tactics in a naval context.' I can give you a number of sources, dating from 2011 to 2016, which confirm that view.

Sources; I had Polybius at school as a set text so I remember every $%^ing line; Polybius himself says he's using two sources and Philinus will have it that the Carthaginians in every case acted wisely, well, and bravely, and the Romans otherwise, whilst Fabius takes the precisely opposite view. ie he's guessing. Plus (as far as I'm aware), the Carthaginians left no written records.

Carthaginian records - correct. My sources explicitly state this. Want me to include a statement to this effect? I do include "Polybius' work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view".

So its Polybius, he's usually pretty reliable but what we know is based on an historian condensing various accounts over a century later. Bang; that's two lines.

I am probably being a bit slow here, so bear with me. but the precise nature of the change you are suggesting (I assume that you are suggesting a change?) escapes me.

Simply, I don't think you need two paragraphs on Polybius :)

Ah. I agree. I don't believe that I need anything on Polybius. See discussion at GAN. I shall introduce you to Constantine, a courteous and knowledgeable editor who requested/required that Polybius be much mentioned, and see if the pair of you can achieve consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to both. My point is that when you write about a historical event which is essentially known by precisely one source, that source, and the possible accuracy or not of its information, warrants some explanation. Anyone who knows about the period is aware of Polybius, but that does not apply to the general reader. The "Sources" section IMO does a very good job on covering that. If you can trim it while preserving the essentials, no objection. Constantine ✍ 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine. Appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background - Sicily this doesn't explain the strategic value of Sicily ie why the Athenians had a go in 410, the French in the 1670s, War of the Quadruple Alliance 1718, Nelson in the 1790s, the Allies in 1943 etc.

Nor do I have any intention of dragging in every conflict in which Sicily was involved. My sources suggest that Sicily was not of "strategic value" in the First Punic War so much as where the spheres of influence of the two proponents just happened to first intersect. I am more than open to mentioning any strategic value if you could point me towards some that was relevant to this conflict.

Carthaginian control of Sicily blocked Roman expansion to the West and would be a constant threat to their security; plus, Sicily was far more fertile then and a major source of grain. The acquisition of Sicily paved the way for Rome to invade Africa (which is contained in Tipps' article). Plus, Carthaginian control of Spain and ports like Marseilles also threatened Roman expansion in that direction; the classic war on two fronts. That's why I felt the point re the fact they were allies against Pyrrhus less than an decade previously is important.

Not bothered about retaining my inserts (truly) but I wanted to correct a point which I think is misleading ie ... Carthage was fighting a battle with Syracuse for control of Sicily, not its alliance; that's partly why they didn't take Rome seriously.

Umm. Well, I could argue that in reality Carthage was trying to place its faction in control rather than actually conquer the place, but having established our point of difference, how would you feel about "More broadly both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse …"?

I am ducking the issue of war aims and strategic values. Let me know if you would like me to come back on them.

Ships leaving aside why I need to know knots, then km, then mph, I don't understand the significance of the speed; why did that make them more seaworthy? Speed and ramming - that I get but it doesn't appear. And the 'reconstructions' are guesses, so even if I agreed the information on ship design was accurate, why I should care? Facts and detail need a 'So what,' otherwise they're irrelevant.

I fear that we simply disagree on this. A fact relevant to, or bearing on, a part of the article should be included for its own sake. That's what an encyclopedia does. It seems to me that pushing your argument a little further would obviate the entire need for Wikipedia.

Don't fear disagreement :). What I'm arguing for is relevance to the reader. There may be many reasons why ship speeds are relevant - but tell me why it's significant. At the moment, its not clear to me.

I'm a reader. The article refers to galleys with oars. Right, I can grasp that; I took the family out in a row boat last bank holiday in the local park. So I have a really good idea of the speed and endurance of the vessels propelled by oars.

Each article on a mechanically propelled ship will state its speed and endurance both in the infobox and early in the text. It is important context for the reader.

Similarly we have these things called "fives" ramming and boarding each other. Without some information on size, I am not sure how the reader would be able to visualise, or even make any sense of, the details of the battle.

Suggested sources' JH Thiel is the authority (still) on the development of sea power under the Roman Republic and doesn't appear here - worth a look, as is Nigel Bagnall's 'The Punic Wars' (view of a modern soldier, with a classics background - we won't see his type again). He covers the background to the battle and the battle itself in about two pages.

Yes, I have Bagnall, I cited him four times. Personally I found his coverage a little superficial. I don't violently disagree re Thiel, but I feel that he has dated badly re Econmus; eg see Tipps, especially pp. 443-444

I like Bagnall (Full disclosure - I dated one of his relatives :)) not because it's comprehensive but because it shows how to be concise. And while Tipps is well worth reading but that doesn't make him right. We're guessing - that's the problem with any ancient naval battle, because wood doesn't last. The rams discovered between 2008 to 2010 show the Roman ones were ornately and carefully crafted, while the Carthaginian ones were extremely crude - which supports the Polybius detail that it was hastily constructed. So Tipps has good points but he shouldn't be read in isolation.

Still missing your point. I cite 16 authors, so I don't think that I am reading anyone in isolation. You suggested that Bagnall was "worth a look"' I agreed and pointed out that I had looked. You mentioned that he had covered Econmus in two pages which I assumed, you didn't say, you felt was a good thing. I feel that in attempting to cram 118+ years of conflict into 333 pages (in my edition) he fails to do it full justice - which is hardly surprising. Which is not to argue that there might not be things which I could slim down in the article - I will have a hard look at that when I get the chance. Any specific suggestions?

My overall feeling - and its designed to challenge, so its not personal; if I'm looking for an article on the Battle, then most of the stuff down to Prelude is either irrelevant or could be usefully stated in about two paragraphs (and I'd happily do that if you want, not as an edit but an example).

We have, it would seem, a fundamental difference of opinion in what we are looking for in an ACR/FAC article; bar the section on sources, which I feel is a little prolix but which was by special request, I would rather expand than shrink the pre-prelude sections. I feel that they include little more than the bare minimum necessary for a reader to reasonably comprehend what follows. That said, I have just removed some only marginally interesting prose, not IMO necessary to follow the course of the campaign and battle, which I hope that you will feel at least marginally improves things.

We don't have to agree; that's the point of cloud collaboration. But there is a tendency to assume the more detail shoehorned into an article the better - and if we want Wikipedia to serve as an encyclopedia for users, then we need to think about the user experience. I force myself constantly to take out stuff interesting to me but not necessarily value added (eg there's some really interesting interpretation of the rams found by the RPM but I left it out).

Ah, no. We are in at least broad agreement there, and possibly closer. (I do a fair bit of work for GOCE; I have taken over 40% of a reasonably well written article before, and other copy editors have taken out far more.) Believe it or not, I not infrequently get praise, or even criticism, for the brevity and succinctness of my articles at FAC - and AFAIR you are the only person to suggest that as articles they are over-long. Which doesn't, of course, make you wrong. Let me have another leisurely read through, apart from the recent edits I have deliberately not looked at this for a month, and see to what, if any extent I agree with you. Honestly, if I include a fact it is because I believe it is necessary, for at least some readers, in order to understand fully what the argument is about. If someone queries one, I try hard to be objective as to whether I could delete or trim it. I am aware that there is no objective stopping point to contextualisation, and no obvious subjective point of agreement - which may be our issue.

I will put this on my Watchlist this time but as I said, this is about concepts, not wording so I'm not holding up the assessment.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that Robinvp11. I like the way that you take a big picture view, have some specialist input, and don't get dogmatic. I have addressed all of your points above, not always by agreeing with them and in at least one case with a query. I shall shortly be going through the whole article, having left it alone for a month, to see what jumps out at me - especially re your comment re "tightening up". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin, some more responses for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral part II

Gog the Mild i've moved this down to make it easier to follow.

I'm not trying to impose my views on experienced editors who've been doing this far longer than me. But the criticisms on the 45 article improved it and also resulted in more detailed coverage on aspects like the composition of the Jacobite Army, the Manchester Regiment, far more comprehensive bios of the various leaders etc. Disagreeing can be really helpful, if its a conscious act (ie this is why I disagree).

Indeed. I expressed my appreciation for your input immediately above, and I was being sincere.

My original comment its significance lies not in results but the initiation of land tactics being applied in a maritime environment which dominated naval warfare.

...Your response..My sources are all consistent that this is based on an old, turn of the (nineteenth) century misreading of Polybius.

I assumed the statement 'out of date' came from Tipps; if not, apologies. The corvus was an attempt to negate superior ship handling skills (whether or not you agree that happened) and enable the Romans to use their superior land fighting skills. That's what my staff school lecturer meant by 'application of land tactics in a naval context.' I can give you a number of sources, dating from 2011 to 2016, which confirm that view.

Ah. I believe that I have mentioned that my preference would be for you to be a little more specific. The scholarly consensus a century ago was that the Roman tactical formation at Econmus was a direct imitation of legionary tactical formations. Eg the rear squadron was named the triarrii, which, as you are doubtless aware, is what the last line of a legion's formation was known as. The more recent sources spend a lot of ink rebutting it and I had assumed that this was what your "imitation of land tactics . . ." was alluding to. OK. So you feel that I need to make more of the use of the corvus in the several major engagements preceding Econmus (especially Mylae and Sulci) and/or that I need to elaborate the extent that the corvus was old hat at Econmus, already factored into both sides' tactical plans and/or emphasise more how in spite of the Carthaginian's full appreciation of the corvus their "naval skill" approach was defeated (yet again) by the Roman's "land battle at sea" approach and/or why not long after Econmus the corvus was discarded, never to reappear, and naval conflicts reverted to the status quo ante corvus. If you would care to pick and mix which of these you were intending, I will see what I can do.

...I am ducking the issue of war aims and strategic values... and ...Carthage was trying to place its faction in control rather than actually conquer the place, but having established our point of difference, how would you feel about "More broadly both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse …"?

Battles are fought in support of strategy; they are not isolated events and that background matters. I haven't suggested 'dragging in every war involving Sicily' but a short summary provides context and makes the article a standalone piece. If you want an example, see my Battle of Seneffe.

My problem with both sides wished to control the city of Syracuse is not because I disagree but because its a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues, why the battle was fought and why it was so significant. Syracuse was a rival to Carthaginian economic power and their control of Sicilian trade and ports. Rome aimed to conquer the whole of Sicily (their Empire was effectively a franchise operation), not just control Syracuse because their primary aim was security and expansion, not trade. Control of Sicily gave them security against a dangerous rival (that's why Hannibal had to go via the Alps), while placing them far closer to its power centre in Africa. It also allowed them to disrupt Carthaginian trading routes into the West Mediterranean (the same reason that drove Britain in the 1719 War of the Quadruple Alliance). Look at a map of Roman expansion post 250 BCE and the point becomes obvious.

Leaving all of this out misses the true significance of the battle. I'm not trying to persuade you and I'm fine with an explicit 'I don't think it matters and this is why, not 'I don't think it matters.'

Frankly, my view, and that of the sources I have consulted is that Syracuse had sod all to do with the Battle of Econmus. It was the operational stalemate in Sicily 200-300 km away, which pushed Rome to gamble on a potentially war winning strike at Carthage itself that was the strategic background. If you disagree could you provide a source; if you agree are you happy with how this aspect is currently covered, would you prefer me to reduce it, or would you prefer me to expand on it?

Per the article; The immediate cause was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina). More broadly both sides wished the allegiance of Syracuse, the most powerful city state on Sicily.[14] By 256 the war had grown into a struggle in which the Romans were attempting to decisively defeat the Carthaginians and, at a minimum, control the whole of Sicily.

That's not my wording, so I don't understand the statement Syracuse had sod all to do with the Battle of Econmus. If so, why put it in there in the first place? That's a rhetorical question, I don't need it explained.

No, that's a very fair point. The prose you quote above regarding Syracuse is a background explanation of how the war first started, eight years earlier. Hence the opening sentence of the paragraph and section: "In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War." If you think that it is not clear that "The immediate cause..." and "More broadly..." relate to "... starting the First Punic War" then I certainly need to add, delete or alter something. What do you think? (An honest and open question. I want to check that that is what you mean before I change it.)

...Still missing your point. I cite 16 authors, so I don't think that...

My point was this needs more on background and context - and it doesn't need to be that long.

Well I don't necessarily disagree with either of those points, but it may be best to park them for a while while we agree just what background and context there should be more of. Once we both feel that everything that should be there is, or have reached consensus that it isn't going to be, then we can look at how to slim it down. Make sense?

...I'm a reader. The article refers to galleys with oars. Right...

This is an article about a battle, not ship construction so I'm asking for a clear connection between ship data contained in the article and its impact on the battle. How fast do you need to go to ram? How far away from land can you be? What's the range of fleet operations? Did you have to beach every night? These are crucial to understanding the patterns of ancient naval warfare.

Agreed. But not to understanding or mentally picturing this battle. This isn't an article about the patterns of ancient naval warfare. Nevertheless, if you as a reviewer would like it, I would be delighted to sprawl into areas only tangentially related to the topic. I shall insert something and ping you to see what you think.

...sprawl into areas only tangentially related to the topic. Having run that through my context translation machine, please don't.

...only person to suggest that as articles they are over-long...

Being concise takes far more work than the opposite; not necessarily too long overall but too long in some areas, too short in others.

As may well be. Personally I would like to make Sources more concise, but there are other reviewers who are not happy with that. You would like to make the section explaining the capabilities of the weapons used in the battle (the ships) shorter, but I don't see how one can describe any military engagement without giving the reader a feel for what the weapon systems employed were. We do seem to be making progress on the areas which could be expanded.

We have not made progress but I'm ok with that because we disagree on concepts, not facts per se. As a former soldier, I always think strategy; I'm less interested in How or Where we fight, far more on Why. We don't all think the same way and life would be boring if we did but without that alignment, arguing about wording is pointless. You've listened, I appreciate that, lets leave it there.

We have argued about strategy and about conciseness. And I have often been slow to grasp the precise point you have been driving at. I have left this article for a few days to let the input marinate in my brain. (An unsavoury image.) I shall go through and put more in on strategy. (This may be at the expense of brevity.) You are an experienced editor, I do value your input, and if you say that the strategic aspect is lacking I need to take that on board. If I have been over-"sparky" in our exchanges, apologies.

Hi Robin Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Here we go - left this out and I've tried to make the relevant bits more obvious. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinvp11. A couple of responses above. I will go through today or tomorrow and try to give the article a "fresh eyes" overhaul. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild 'Sparky' is fine; means you're paying attention :) We should feel challenged - that's the point of a review.

What's missing for me is two or three lines on why Sicily mattered to Rome and Carthage; tbh, if I look at the article on the First Punic War, its not clear there either. In that sense, Syracuse is irrelevant, the Mamertines just a vehicle - exactly the same thing happened in 1676, when one faction in Messina expelled their Spanish rulers and called in the French.

OK. Good point. Why Sicily matters isn't clear. Thinking about it, and rereading the sources, it's because they don't think that it does. They seem to consider that Sicily had no particular deep strategic significance. It is just where the two powers happened to run into each other.

To go beyond what they are overt about, Rome was brash and expanding, Carthage was dominant and touchy. They were bound to collide. If the island of Sicily had never existed they would have clashed somewhere else; as they did to start the Second Punic War. Ie, the details of Sicily mattered tactically and operationally, but not strategically. And as it ain't in the sources, it ain't in this article or the one on the First Punic War. Yes, a lot of OR in there, but it seems to explain the observed facts.

I think that I have been hesitant to be too explicit about this, even though it can be more or less supported from the sources, as it will be a red rag to those who believe/have been told that it must have been strategic. It can't just have been a war looking for a place to happen. Ie, I hand waved over the issue and you caught me at it.

The wording on the ships is quite dense but I understand the issue - its complex, so you either massively simplify it and put the detail in an article on ship construction or leave it. Again, that's a personal view - Victor Hanson explaining the experience of hoplite warfare has stayed with me, long after all the stuff about armour and length of a sarissa etc.

Yep. Nail on head there. Either explain the ships properly or cut it to a sentence of hand waving. Not a lot of scope for something in between. I wish there were, as you are correct, the wording on the ships is dense. I have plumped for one option, and having so plumped have limited my own choices re conciseness. I had hoped to give a reader a bit of a feel for what these weapons platforms were like, to better understand the text. Possibly that was an error.

16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robinvp11 Some ruminations above around your points. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from LouisAragon

This is my first A-Class review (or, as a matter of fact, my first review regardless of quality level) so go easy on me! ;-)

"Carthaginian naval ram, ca 240 BC; note gouges on bottom" -- suggest adding a link to "naval ram".

Well spotted. Done. (The image was inserted by another editor.

It appears you're using both "BC" and "BCE" -- please maintain one style throughout the article.

Standardised.

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Thanks for taking a look. Your first two points addressed. I eagerly await the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"(...) between the fleets of Carthage and the Roman Republic, during the First Punic War" -- suggest adding the timespan of the war within brackets right after "First Punic War". Optional.

Good thinking. Done.

"Carthage was a well-established maritime power in the Western Mediterranean" -- suggest adding a link to "maritime power" and "Mediterranean [Sea]". Really optional though.

I have gone with maritime power, but not Mediterranean Sea.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. These were really the only minor things I could find. The article reads well and is of good quality. Well done, a great article about an important battle. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

General image comments: images shouldn't used forced pixel sizes, they should be scaled using the upright parameter. Also, they shouldn't sandwich text per MOS:SANDWICH

Whoops. The px image has been uprighted. I can't see a sandwich on any of four devices, but I am guessing that it is where another editor has inserted a (very useful) image, so have moved that one. I would be grateful if you could check it.

I'm guessing you're looking on mobile devices - I'm getting sandwiching from the map and the pentareme image and from the trireme and the corvus illustrations. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A PC, a laptop, an iPad and two phones. Nothing close to a sandwich. So I have inserted some stops, which should prevent runover between sections and hopefully solve the problem

Huh - I have a fairly wide monitor (24") but I had to reduce the window size to half the screen to get the text to wrap enough that nothing sandwiched.

@Parsecboy: Very puzzling. Have the stops cured it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, though they've added some white space that some might ding you for at FAC. What are you going to do, eh? ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked it around a bit and lost one image. How's it look? Obviously, there is a complete absence of any white space on any of my devices.

File:First Punic War 264 BC v2.png - the image description page needs whatever sources the creator used to make the map

Added.

File:Penteres.png - needs a US PD tag - {{PD-US}} will work

Done. (Thanks.)

File:D473-birème romaine-Liv2-ch10.png - we need a pre-1924 publication for the photo; right now, the source listed is from 2007

Strange. It is a 1905 photograph. There are three versions on Commons and I thought that I had gone for the best tagged one. Obviously not. I have switched.

US copyright law depends on when the photo was published, not when it was taken - for all we know, it was taken in 1905 and left in an archive somewhere until the author of the book found and used it. Granted, that's not likely, but we can't assume it was published earlier.

It says on its information page - the one for the "new" image - that it was published in File:Reclus - L’Homme et la Terre, tome 2, Librairie Universelle, 1905.djvu in 1905. I have added the page number and a link. Copy of the link. The author, Élisée Reclus, died in 1905.

That's fine now - I improved the ref on the image page too. Parsecboy (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:CapeEcnomus.png - this needs sources too.

And it has them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bit of a meal of this Parsecboy. Thanks for wading through it all. Hopefully I will learn from it. (Sorting out how image licences work id =s the bane of my Wiki-life.) And hopefully what I have done addresses all of your concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy Both queries addressed. Possibly satisfactorily. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate can you please confirm you are happy with the images now? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Coming to this late, and I see there has been a lot of discussion about the way the information is presented. In my view the article is in good shape and explains the central part Polybius plays in what we know about this battle. I have a few comments:

I wonder about the description of the soldiers embarked as "marines", which to my knowledge has a more recent and specialist connotation. Is this the way they are referred to in the sources?

It is. The 40 combatants regularly attached to each five are universally referred to as marines in the sources. It is also usual in Wikipedia articles, eg see the A class Battle of Salamis. I have, I think, done my best to distinguish them from land based infantry added on an ad hoc basis, eg "Roman legionaries acting as marines", "embark soldiers to use as marines", "rowers, other crew, marines and soldiers". This reflects the sources, eg ""Roman infantry were taken on board to serve as marines".

suggest (c. 200–c. 118 BC) as this is the first date in the body

Done.

I think, given the reliance of more modern historians on Polybius, the Sources section is necessary, and goes into sufficient detail
for consistency, I reckon put BC after all years

You sure? When dealing with time periods in the early ADs/CEs I usually suffix the first mention and thereafter don't (eg "the consul of 35 BC as the father of the consul of AD 10. The younger Dolabella married Sulpicia Galbilla, and their son was Publius Cornelius Dolabella, consul in 55."), and have not had an assessor, nor reader, comment on any inconsistency. The MOS is silent on this and I can find FAs going either way. (I am not that bothered, I just wanted to check that you were clear about it.)

I know the MOS is silent on it, but to me it is like putting a minus sign in front of a negative number. I doubt you could be fairly criticised for including it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

could you add a sentence fragment to summarise why the Romans were "unable to effectively bring their superior army to bear against the Carthaginians" in Sicily?

Significently reworded to try to explain fully.

link Squadron (naval)

Done.

I'm not all that keen on the use of "five", it strikes me as colloquial

Done.

link trireme

It is. On first mention. Under "Sources".

suggest "in ~~this ship type~~the quinquereme"

Done.

suggest "as a blueprint for their own ~~fives~~"

Done.

same observation regarding "sixes", "fours" etc

Assuming that you mean replace with quadrireme and hexareme, done.

link Command of the sea for naval supremacy

Done.

is it known if any of the leaders had naval battle experience?

No. Nothing about their naval experience or lack of is known. Where any prior significant military command experience is known - the two Carthaginians - I have mentioned it.

link Heraclea Minoa and state that it was a city

Eerm - "Heraclea Minoa, the easternmost of the Sicilian towns …"

in general, I feel the battle narrative could do with some tweaks to make it clearer, see below
I suggest in the narrative explaining the position of each squadron in the initial battle formation, and identifying the commanders where possible. ie "The first two squadrons, each under the command of a consul, led the way arrayed in echelon to form a wedge, with the first squadron under Vulso on the right and the second squadron under Regulus on the left."

Changed along those lines.

According to the map of the battle, both wings of the Carthaginian formation were advanced in echelon and there were four squadrons, not three?

True. I inherited the map and it is not ideal. I have deleted it as more misleading than helpful.

the map of the battle only identifies three Roman squadrons, and identifies the third squadron as the rearguard, but this is not the way it is reflected in the narrative. For clarity, unless the map can be modified, I suggest adopting the numbering from the map and just referring to the current third squadron in the narrative as the squadron towing the transports

See above re map. I have tried to also make this a little clearer in the text.

suggest "arranged in ~~a single, long~~ line abreast"

Done.

"backing water" is obscure except to anyone who knows paddling, perhaps rowing in reverse

Done.

suggest "attempting to attack from the ~~side~~flank"

Done and linked.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the map doesn't support the idea that "The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres"

See above re map. I have tried to also make this a little clearer in the text.

Rather than me going sentence by sentence, I suggest revising the first two and last two paras of the Battle section along the lines I've tried to explain, then I'll have another look. A common approach via the map and narrative is very important, but happy to discuss alternatives
the sources all look of high quality and reliable.

That's me done for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Apologies for the delayed response. Your points above addressed, the map dumped, and parts of the Battle section rewritten. See what you think> Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked what appeared to be a typo in the spelling of Ecnomus, and there is "Despite being advanced from the their fleet formation" and "~~Consul~~ Vulso's squadron", but otherwise the Battle section is fairly easy to follow now. I recommend a new map be obtained before this goes to FAC, as that would greatly aid understanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for tidying up my errors. I am reading this as there being no further actionable issues from you> Could you let me know if I have misread that. Re map - I completely agree. I won't bore you with the issues I have had failing to get my request for this correctly formatted on the Maps Request page. I shall contact a mapmaker directly and see if they are feeling friendly. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've fixed those two minor things myself. Well done on getting a naval battle article from this period up to scratch, not easy by any means, and I haven't seen too many over the years. You might like to contact XrysD on Commons, a truly awesome mapmaker I've worked with before. Not sure if they do battle maps, but worth asking. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Looks like I somehow missed this one.

a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage I think we beter link Rome with the Roman Republic's article in this sentence than in the In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war sentence.

Initially I agreed. But the Rome Polybius was sent to the city - I could link it, but it seems MOS:OVERLINK. The Roman Republic link is at the first mention of Rome as a nation-state.

The "Ships" section uses metric units as primary units but the "Naval operations" uses US/Imperial units as primary which one should the article uses?

Good spot. Thank you. That's me copying from a source without engaging brain. Fixed.

@Gog the Mild: I still can see some feets and metres as primary units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I was certain that I had already done that. Strange. Apologies. Now done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and displacing around 100 long tons (110 short tons) No metric units? I also think we should link both tons except tonnes of course.

Done.

have achieved speeds of 8.5 knots (9.8 mph; 16 km/h) Link knots.

Done.

deck able to carry marines and catapults I reckon we shall link catapults right?

Done.

In the century prior to the Punic Wars Maybe link Punic Wars?

Done. (But at first mention.)

There are also some ISBN errors in the Lazenby's and Morrison's sources.

Sorted.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Very good, thank you. All addressed, your first point queried. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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