Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Aegates

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Aegates

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of the Aegates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


The battle that finally drove Carthage to sue for peace and end the First Punic war after 23 years. Fresh from GAN it welcomes any and all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]

Good range of sources used. Everything looks like a RS to me. No source checks done. buidhe 03:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
Thanks for picking this up Buidhe. you never seem to stop. The building on the left is an opera house built in 1741. I believe the other buildings to be of similar age, but cannot find anything to prove it. So I have cropped as you suggested. Interestingly, while searching I discovered that the same, uncropped, image is used in this article in the Italian Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Gog, just a few minor questions/suggestions...

  • First Punic War - wlinked twice in first para of lede
Fixed.
  • include a now lost manual - hyphen?
Done.
  • debated over the past 150 years, - 150 will age, not sure how to fix
It's Wikipedia. It's good for a decade or so, and by then some Wikignome will tweak it.
  • classicist Adrian Goldsworthy - wlink?
Done.
Done.
  • Coates has suggested that - remove has?
Done.
  • blades weighing up to 270 kilograms - each or collectively?
Ah. Clarified that each ship had one ram, singular.
  • western Mediterranean v. Western Mediterranean
Fixed.
  • When Hamilcar Barca [note 3] took - remove space before note
Done.
  • Aegates Islands, which lie 15–40 kilometres (9–25 mi) to the east of Sicily - west?
Indeed. Done.
  • approach to Lilybaeum with earth and timber camps and walls and now made repeated - needs an Oxford comma (after walls)?
It does, it does.
  • the Senate v. the senate
Fixed
  • Battles of Agrigentum - wlink? (Ecnomus already wlinked)
Done.
  • wait for a following wind - better link? Following sea ("since the wind direction is generally the same as the sea direction")
The GAN reviewer preferred a Wiktionary link, but I'm with you. Done
  • join the actual battle because of injuries suffered in an earlier engagement, so in the actual battle the ships - remove an "actual"?
Done.
  • caption: Remains of the Temple of Juturna at Largo di Torre Argentina, built by Gaius Lutatius Catulus to celebrate his victory. - wlink Temple of Juturna (currently a redirect but may have article one day)
Done.
  • Elements of this building survived to the present day. - just 'survive'?
Done.
  • would run out of supplies and request terms - what does request terms mean in this context?
I have linked it to Suing for peace.
  • his subordinate commander Gesco - is not Hannibal Gisco? If not, maybe add (Gisco) after name per File:Aegades241a.png
I am a little confused. Hannibal Gisco died 17 years before the Battle of the Aegates. (Crucified by his own men!)
  • Hanno, son of Hannibal is only linked in ibox not prose
Apologies. It is the infobox which is wrong. I inherited it and forgot to check the link.
  • The Treaty of Lutatius was signed - add year?
I have gone with "The Treaty of Lutatius was signed in the same year as the Battle of the Aegates and ..."
  • Roman-built vessels had been captured by the Cartaginians - typo h
Fixed.
  • Polybius' v. Polybius's
Standardised. Except in the quote.
  • citation 73 Smith 1870, pp. 135, 1358. - 2nd page no. 138?
Indeed.
  • off Hiera in early March 241 BC.[75][66] - ref order
Done. I assume that you are aware that there is no Wiki policy requiring or even suggesting this?
Well, well, you assume correctly... and I had not! They 'look' better though so I'll prob still mention but not mind if ignored:)
  • supplemented from Hamilcar's soldiers.[81][80] - ref order
Done.
  • captured along with up to 10,000 men.[82][66] - ref order
Done.
  • warships involved being quinqueremes.[100][92] - ref order
Done.
  • The Ship Classes of the Egadi Rams and Polybius’ Account of the First Punic War - straighten curly apostrophe
Done.
  • caption: Carthage's foothold in western Sicily, 248–241, in - add BC?
Done.

That's it from me, regards JennyOz (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, and thank you very much. You are remarkably good. Is there any chance of getting you on a permanent retainer to review my ACR and FAC nominations? Your points above all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, thanks for tweaks. Retainer, you say? Your flattery has earned you a dozen! I am ready to support though have not accessed any sources. Thanks for another interesting read. JennyOz (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]

Because I'm a fan of Romans and their timeline, I cannot wait to review this article. However I'll wait until Jenny's comments are addressed here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage A circa template is needed here and link Greek to Ancient Greece.
Done.
  • Carthaginian written records were destroyed along with their city Maybe replace city with capital. Because there were probably more Carthaginian cities build during their reign.
Done.
  • is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin and re-pipe Greek to Ancient Greek.
Why? Surely either both or neither. (If I had to pick one, I would guess that Latin is less well known.)
  • Isn't Latin way more popular than you might think? Isn't Latin the language of the Catholic Church, archaeology, biology, medical stuff and at animals too. we also use Latin letters, words and royals still use their numbers in their names and sometimes Western names are from the Roman too. I do not think Latin should be linked if we all know these came from the Romans and their language. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as someone who studied Latin at school, I had always thought it less well known by the general public than Klingon or Saterlandic. I imagine that an average Wikipedia consulter would assume that the Romans spoke Roman, or Romanish. Notwithstanding, done.
  • into account the later histories of Diodorus and Dio Cassius --> "into account the later histories of Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius"
Done.
  • "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts".[note 2][9] Switch the note and the citation.
Why?
  • Your FA-class Battle of Bergerac uses note after the citation but your other FA Gascon campaign of 1345 uses it before the citation?
There is no Wikipedia policy for editor consistency between articles. I really don't mind - I was hoping that you would point us towards a policy or guideline. There are quite a few thinks that editors can do differently in each separate article, so long as they are consistent within them. However, now flipped.
  • Since 2010 a number of artefacts have been recovered from the battle site, and their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing Okay first of all are warship rams also described as artefacts? If they are then you should change 2010 to 2004 because that's the year they found the first warship ram.
Yes.
The first artefact was recovered in 2010.
  • How about the add "The first warship ram was founded in 2004"? If you need a source I will give you one this evening.
I think that you are referring to what is mentioned at the top of page 11 of this. A ram was seized from a private collection in 2004. "It was reportedly collected" ... Ie, it is not actually known from when or even from where it was dredged. If you have a source which says something different, I would be keen to see it. Cheers.

I just started my moves here the rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a galley, c. 45 metres (150 ft) long, c. 5 metres (16 ft) wide at water level} My source says it's 8 m wide in general. p. 24
Whereabouts? The article specifies "at water level". And the source is a specialist one - "The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys" by the naval architect who designed the only modern replica of a galley.
  • The galley expert John Coates suggested that they could maintain 7 knots (8 mph; 13 km/h) for extended periods My source says the top speed was 8 knots. p. 24 (and was second time mentioned in p. 26)
Does your source specify "for extended periods"? (Coates agrees that the maximum speed is higher, but that - obviously - it can't be sustained.)
  • My source tells me that other galleys were involved too. They were maximum 30 m wide and 4.5 m long and archaeologists think they were a type of trireme. p. 27
I would be interested in more details. This may be a reference the sentence in the article "Based on the dimensions of the recovered rams, the archaeologists who have studied them believe that they all came from triremes, contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes."
  • It's possible that it came from Gardiner's book "The Age of the Galley" however it's relative old so I'm not sure there is an updated version of this information. I do not have the source so I'm not sure which page this is kind of information is in.
  • A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers; I got 280 oarsmen and 70 others in my source. p. 24
My sources, which I have included, give 340, which could be increased at need up to 420: "A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers;[1] it would also normally carry a complement of 40 marines;[2] if battle was thought to be imminent this would be increased to as many as 120.[3][4]" Goldsworthy also gives 40 marines for a total crew of 340.
  • Maybe add these pieces of information?
  • I've used Ramaker, Ernie (2018) "Historia: De Grootste Historische Gebeurtenissen [Historia: The Greatest Historical events] (Dutch) Bonnier Publications International AS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands number: 6, ISSN: 2535-3438 Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind WP:NONENG: " ... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones ... "
  • @Gog the Mild: I do, I do but my source is linked to Goldsworthy book called "Carthago" from 2010 (or 2008, I saw some sources say that) which means that his own book from 2006 can have outdated information. My source is also linked to R. Gardiner's book "The Age of the Galley" from 2004 (or 2000); these sources are written in English which would change the whole game here. :) Also it doesn't mention which page numbers in those books. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great stuff CPA-5. See what you think of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I'm not trying to be awkward, but you haven't answered the questions above which I need to come back to you. I have high lighted them in green. And it is difficult to discuss your sources when you are citing entire books, and not even specific editions. Carthago is a Dutch language book, first published in 2008 and is a translation of Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage : the Punic Wars 265-146 BC which I use extensively. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus Link corvus.
Already linked, two paragraphs above.
  • The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose another 150 ships to a storm in 253 BC --> "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose another 150 ships to another storm in 253 BC"?
Done.
  • base on Sicily of Lilybaeum with 200 ships What kinda ships?
I have changed to "200 warships".
  • at the expense of the Libyans and the Numidians Don't understand this one; you're linking Libyans to Berbers but the Numidians were also Berbers?
Good point. They are indeed. Tweaked. Does "at the expense of the Libyans, especially the Numidians" make more sense?
  • Hanno the Great had been in charge of operations Which Hanno, 'cause there were three Hanno the Greats?
There were, there were. Linked more precisely.
  • either 10,000 or 4,000 according to different ancient sources Maybe switch the big and the small numbers?
Good thinking. Done.
  • The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno Hanno who?
Gah! Added.
  • these would be supplemented from Hamilcar's soldiers.[80][81][80] Two of the same citations.
Oops.
  • were captured along with up to 10,000 men.[66][82][66] Same as above.
Strange. Fixed.
  • Elements of this building survive to the present day Missing a hyphen here.
Inserted.
  • The Carthaginian Senate was reluctant to allocate the resources necessary Maybe link its Senate?
If there were an article on it, I would, It is not even listed as a deceased senate at the bottom of senate. I could link to senate or red link to Carthaginian Senate if you would prefer?
  • which he left up to his subordinate commander Gesco No link for Gesco?
Just a couple of hours ago I added create an article for him some day to my to do list. I have red linked him.
  • I don't understand why this article uses kg in bigger numbers like 82,000 or 52,000? And also by MOS:UNITNAMES long tons should be written fully.
There is a reason. Possibly a bit personal preference, Can we leave the explanation to the FAC? LT now long tons.
  • Unlink Latin in the notes.
Done.
  • The Carthaginians were commanded by Hanno Which Hanno in the lead?
Fixed.

That's it I believe well if I missed something it'll come back in the FAC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I left a lot of faults in that. Thanks.
You probably will pick up more at FAC. It's strange how no matter how closely you study something, if you leave it for a while new flaws jump out at you.
@CPA-5: Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

@Buidhe, JennyOz, and CPA-5: Many thanks for your work on this. I am impressed by your dedication and depressed at how many flaws you have been able to find in my work. Unfortunately, after six weeks this nomination has only attracted one support. This would not matter, except that I have a vacant slot at FAC and this article, thanks to the work you have put into it, is in my opinion now ready for FAC. So I am closing down the ACR in order to nominate it for FAC. Thanks again for helping to bring it up to this standard, and perhaps I will see you at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2020 (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.
  1. ^ Goldsworthy 2006, p. 100.
  2. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 435.
  3. ^ Casson 1995, p. 121.
  4. ^ Goldsworthy 2006, pp. 102–103.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_the_Aegates&oldid=945757576"