Talk:Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Untitled
The diagrams of the battle are beautiful but Roman numeral II in the last section needs to be put next to the right Roman squadron.

Duration?
There is no indication here whether the battle lasted hours or days. Does anyone know? Grant |  Talk  12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Carthaginian Fleet
I understood that the Carthaginians had the elements marked 2,3, and 4 (in the diagram) in a line, with 1 advanced, so that it would look a little like a "j" from the coast of Sicily. The diagram, however, has both 1 and 4 advanced, so that it would look like a backwards "c". The article text makes it seem that the "j" is correct. Also the "j" seems to be confirmed by the external link (at livius.org), which shows 2,3, and 4 all in a line.Mazzula (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says that half of Carthage's navy was sunk or captured in this battle, yet lists Carthaginian casualties as 95 ships out of 350. Strange! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.158.19 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hermaeum or Hermaea
"Battle of Cape Hermaeum" returns 184 Google hits, where "Battle of Cape Hermaea" 5 only. Hanberke (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good spot. Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Little queries
Hey Gog, I have some queries if you don't mind.


 * Of course I don't mind.


 * Most of your First Punic War serie's articles use "Polybius's" while this uses "Polybius'"?
 * Fixed.


 * In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war Shouldn't it be "In 264 BC the states of Carthage and the Roman Republic went to war"?
 * No. It is not normal to specify the type of governance of a country when mentioning it.


 * but he is best known for his The Histories Remove "his" per one of my comments in other FACs.
 * Done.

Thanks for replying. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image is inaccurate
The image used in the infobox is historically inaccurate. Compare the galleys in the fanciful illustration with those in trireme.
 * Bearing in mind that they are from a different shipbuilding culture, from 50-100 years earlier, of much smaller ships and based on a modern reconstruction. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ships have these flowing curves that don't match contemporary depictions, some of the galleys simply lack outriggers which makes the arrangement of the rowers kinda weird, the elephant-faced bows are clearly just 1760s fantasies and have these weird tusks sticking out.
 * "outiggers"? As in Outrigger? They are not that bad. But yes, not that good either. The tusks may be an attempt to show the "oar-buster" fittings from a slightly later period. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not 100% sure about this, but I believe masts and rigging were generally taken down or even left ashore before battle during this time period.
 * They generally were, although we don't have specific information regarding this encounter. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Peter Isotalo 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to move the image down to the bottom of the Battle section and add an "as imagined by" to the caption. I don't know how Peter would regard that. Also pinging and  who take an interest in this sort of thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gog, I don't like splitting up posts so I'll reply in one go here. I've never seen ancient galleys depicted in the way that's shown here. I've also never seen any indications of radically different ship designs between different Mediterranean powers. Can you please provide some sources to back up that the Saint-Aubin illustration is considered historically accurate? Peter Isotalo 22:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)