Talk:Punic Wars/Archive 1

page break (arbitrary)
Isn't the last paragraph personal conclusion and/or original research? The best that can be said is "Some historians believe ... blah blah blah", and provide citations to where they say it. - Vedexent 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As soon as I saw it I came to the talk to see how such an edit survived.  If someone wants to rewrite and source it that's fine but I'm removing it for now.  --JGGardiner 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the person who started that punic war, and is proud of what they did out there. Clearly you people don't have any respect for these people who died for us, you should be a shamed.

page break (arbitrary)
Since the map depicted in the article refers to ancient times can it name SPAIN as HISPANIA (the then name of the region) just as France is referred to as GAUL (in fact it should be GALLIA)? This way people will also get information about ancient names of these regions. --Apoorv Khurasia 12.04.07

page break (arbitrary)
Carthaginian Peace- A link should be put in this article to Carthaginian peace and be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.40.94 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

page break (arbitrary)
Removed Vandalism/Immaturity that changed the Punic wars to the Stupid Wars. Also, I believe the bold of the second paragraph is unnecessary/incorrect and would recommend someone else look at it and change it if I'm right. I usually don't bother with editing wikipedia, but immaturity annoys me. 216.120.184.166 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated image
Do we really need this image published twice in the article? —Cesar Tort 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Losing siege engines in the Alps?
Do any primary sources indicate that Hannibal lost siege engines in the Alps? Nothing that I have read ever indicated that his army contained a siege train, and it seems far-fetched and impractical that Hannibal would have his men drag bulky, cumbersome siege engines all the way from southeastern Spain over the Alps into Italy. Besides, Hannibal's plan was not to annihilate the city of Rome itself, but rather to separate Rome from its allies by exposing the Roman weakness in battle. If he needed siege engines, why wouldn't Hannibal simply have them built in Italy by his anti-Roman allies? Are Siege engines crossing the Alps? I have never heard of this, although maybe someone could correct me. Elephants yes, but I have never heard of siege engines in Hannibal's march. Lazenby certainly doesn't mention any siege engines... did Livy or Polybius mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.251.205.152 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Punic Wars = Roman vs. Greeks??!!
I don't know what kind of reference is that but it is obvious that is 100% wrong beause Punic Wars were a war between Carthage and Rome. Carthagenian originated from Phoenicians with a mixture of Brbers and had their distinct language and culture. How Greeks had to do with Punic Wars?! May be there were Greek mercenaries in both parties, but to claim that Punic Wars were between Roman and Greeks it's ridiculous at minimum. I am going to change that part. Aigest (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hannibals Elephants
The text stated that Hannibal used African elephants which commenly refers to the African Bush elephant. It is today agreed that he most definitely not used African Bush elephants. I've added the following text:

"It is still debated if Hannibal used African Forest Elephants, Asian Elephants or even both species as historical traditions indicate both possibilities. The use of African Bush Elephants commenly known as African elephants is ruled out though.)"

Since I'm not really familiar with editing in Wiki and I usually don't edit pages I really don't know if the formating is ok, so someone might want to check it out.--84.74.103.125 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BC or BCE
A recent edit on the article page changed all references to dates "BCE" to "BC". I do not know what the preference is for this type of historical article. I will check Wikipedia's policies on this and return, possibly to revert the format edit.The Bearded One (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, you need a good reason to change the format. As this article used BC from the start, unless there is consensus here that there is a good reason to change, I'm afraid our guidelines say leave it. I just checked the history because if it had started as BCE I would have changed it all back to BCE. See WP:ERA I'd prefer it to be BCE, but it wasn't started that way. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked the many Wikipedia guidelines, and found the lack of concensus/stalemate over the era issue. I appreciate your quick response; if no one had commented, I think I would have been bold and changed all the references to "BCE".  If the concensus changes (and I hope it does), I'll help with the changes. The Bearded One (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Atrocious
In 149 BC, in an attempt to pacify Carthage, Rome made a series of escalating demands, one being that 300 hundred men of upper class stature had to give away their son as a hostage, ending with the near-impossible demand that the city be demolished and re-built away from the coast, deeper into Africa. The Carthaginians refused this last demand and Rome declared the Third Punic War. Carthage finally realized something, they realized what it meant to truly fight for their country. Before they were a mercantile country that sought wealth above most other things, but now the Carthiginians fought with a zeal found in Rome in Hannibal's time. They made thousands of makeshift weapons in a short amount of time, even using womens' hair for catapult strings. The three hundred Carthiginian council men were being attacked for their cowardice and Carthage finally found their fighting spirit. However, it was too little too late. They embarassed the first Roman army, but the second army, under command of Scipio Ameilianus, made their mark. Scipio Aemilianus besieged the city for three years before he breached the walls, sacked the city, and burned Carthage to the ground. Scipio Aemilianus burned the city so systematically that now it is hard to find any evidence of Carthiginian culture. Scipio Aemilianus was said to be crying intensely, when confronted and asked why he said he feared it would one day happen to Rome. Thus, this war ended another world power and changed our culture as we know it, if Carthage won who would know what would happen to the modern world. The surviving Carthaginians were sold into slavery, and Carthage ceased to exist, until Octavian rebuilt the city as a Roman veterans' colony over a century later.

Somebody please rewrite. This attempt at flowery language is both a failure as prose and as history. --Dustek 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned it up a little bit. I think the anecdote about Scipio and the proceeding line on Cato aren't that relevant, and better dealt with on their own pages. Also, there's some British/American spelling inconsistencies (esp. 'theater'/'theatre') but I'm not sure which should be changed. Leliro19 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the Cato quote in there; Its a famous quote that summarizes Roman anxiety towards Carthage and therefor, I would think, is quite relevant to Carthages ulimate demise at Roman hands. BoudewijnBecking (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"strategus"
The Latin form of the Greek word for general seems absurdly inappropriate when referring to a Phoenician commander, what with Phoenician being a Semitic language unrelated to Greek or Latin. This is pseudo-intellectual exhibitionism, and goes far to discrediting any claim to sophistication the article might otherwise aspire to. Just because a classical historian refers to a Phoenician general as a "strategos" does not mean any Phoenician had such a title in his own language. --AGF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Something's missing
In the second paragraph of the article I see this sentence: "With the end of the — which ran concurrently with the Punic Wars — and the defeat of the Seleucid King Antiochus III the Great in the Roman–Syrian War (Treaty of Apamea, 188 BC) in the eastern sea, Rome emerged as the dominant Mediterranean power . . . " Something's missing right before the first m-dash -- "With the end of the XX." What should go there? Thuvan Dihn (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the major Berber involvement on the Phoenician thus creating the Punic language
Where is the major involvement of the Berbers ( called Numidians, moors, mauri´s, Berbers, Libyans' The origin of Punic isn´t Carthage but Phoenicians who were a minority creating a society with the majority Berbers talking a new language called PUNIC? Fucking racist bullshit motherfuckers.
 * What an astounding intellectual contribution! Rather than provide citations for the claims made, then editing the article with the citations, you come here and begin some odd rant, lousy with profanity. I'm quite certain that your mother and father are proud of you.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

replacement proposal
Hi everybody, I made an animated gif showing how Rome and Carthage's possessions changed during the three Punic Wars. Maybe it could help to have an overview of what happened in these three wars. I noticed that the current image Carthaginianempire.PNG is focused only on the Carthaginian situation, so I think that looking at the entire timespan from both sides may improve the understanding of the events. What do you think? I'm open to suggestions or improvements to the animation. Agata brr (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fix the "Expansion depth limit exceeded" issue (17 June 2017)
I see "Expansion depth limit exceeded" over and over again in the "Second Punic War" section. Please either correct the syntax error causing the message or just remove whatever is causing the error in the first place. Konokai (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done someone had vandalised Campaignbox Second Punic War, which I have reverted. Thanks for reporting the problem.  For future reference, WP:HD or WP:VPT are good places to report technical problems, and can sometimes get attention more quickly than an edit request, but any form of report which clearly flags a problem for attention is good.   Murph 9000  (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Salting the earth
Hi. I can't find any mention of this in the source you cite, neither on p. 39, nor on p. 497, which covers the destruction of Carthage. Ridley, here, in a 1987 study is clear that the first mention of salting Carthage was by Hallward in 1930 - Ridley p. 144.

It may be that I am being slow and have missed the reference in The New American Cyclopædia: a Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, so perhaps you could quote me the actual words?

Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing the problem. I copied the reference from Salting the earth, where it has apparently been corrupted over the years (I originally added it in 2008 or so). I've corrected the page number. The URL is correct. The text appears about 70% down in the right-hand column: "...and sowing salt in the furrows". Ridley's study identifies the first scholarly mention of this pseudo-fact, but Ridley wrote in 1986, long before Google Book Search was available! --Macrakis (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Macrakis Got it. Thanks. I think I over-concentrated on p. 39. Or am just having a slow day. And I hadn't noticed Ridley's careful wording. Thanks for that, I'll tweak the reference to fit in with the rest. Nice to know that Wikipedians are more informed than the academics . I am sure that you will have noticed that I have made a lot of other changes - I am hoping to get the article up to FA standard - so if you feel like checking for any other errors that would be most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Paullus as "aggressive"?
There is a factual error at Punic Wars. Currently, the paragraph clubs Paullus as decisive, along with Varro. It is true that Varro has been overly vilified, and that Paullus did not wholly oppose battle, but it is known that he was not spoiling for a fight. I tried to correct this, but was requested to discuss first. Does anyone have any objections? Feel free. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and thanks for posting here. I think that you may be misreading the text. Or possibly I am not being clear enough. The sentence we are debating is, I assume, "At the elections of 216 BC the more aggressive minded Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus were elected as consuls." The previous sentence is "Hannibal marched through the richest and most fertile provinces of Italy, hoping the devastation would draw Fabius into battle, but Fabius refused." The source cited agrees that both Varro and Paullus were more aggressive than Fabius. Do you disagree? If so, do you have a source to support this position?
 * Note that at this point there is no mention of Paullus's attitude to giving battle; nor, for that matter, of Varro's. The sentence compares their general attitude to Fabius's, at the point they were elected consuls and replaced him
 * All of that said, if you think that this could be phrased differently, while, obviously, still being supported by RSs, feel free to suggest a different form of words. It would be easier to thrash this out here than via a quasi-edit war on the article page.
 * Cheers
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Paullus and Varro were indeed members of the same political group, alongside the Cornelii Scipiones, and they both opposed Fabius Maximus, despite what Livy says (that Varro forced the army to engage Hannibal, against Paulus' wishes). Still, I would reword the sentence as it could be read in two different ways (a) Varro is more aggressive than Paullus [Livy's story] (b) both are more aggressive than Fabius [modern consensus]. Perhaps include something like this In 216 BC Fabius' delaying strategy was rejected by the new elected consuls Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who wanted to confront Hannibal again. The Roman Senate therefore authorized the raising of a force of 86,000 men, the largest in Roman history up to that point. T8612  (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Paullus and Varro were indeed members of the same political group, alongside the Cornelii Scipiones, and they both opposed Fabius Maximus, despite what Livy says (that Varro forced the army to engage Hannibal, against Paulus' wishes). Still, I would reword the sentence as it could be read in two different ways (a) Varro is more aggressive than Paullus [Livy's story] (b) both are more aggressive than Fabius [modern consensus]. Perhaps include something like this In 216 BC Fabius' delaying strategy was rejected by the new elected consuls Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who wanted to confront Hannibal again. The Roman Senate therefore authorized the raising of a force of 86,000 men, the largest in Roman history up to that point. T8612  (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Paullus and Varro were indeed members of the same political group, alongside the Cornelii Scipiones, and they both opposed Fabius Maximus, despite what Livy says (that Varro forced the army to engage Hannibal, against Paulus' wishes). Still, I would reword the sentence as it could be read in two different ways (a) Varro is more aggressive than Paullus [Livy's story] (b) both are more aggressive than Fabius [modern consensus]. Perhaps include something like this In 216 BC Fabius' delaying strategy was rejected by the new elected consuls Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who wanted to confront Hannibal again. The Roman Senate therefore authorized the raising of a force of 86,000 men, the largest in Roman history up to that point. T8612  (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Gog's recent edit has solved the problem. While both consuls opposed Fabius, many (probably the majority of?) modern sources still give some credence to Livy, in that Paullus was a bit more cautious, though not opposing battle. Revisionist historians say that he too was as eager as Varro. This edit is a good one, sidestepping all that controversy and simply stating that both were more aggressive, not getting into the heated debate of who wanted battle. I think we can leave it as it is now. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers . As has almost certainly worked out, I am working this one up to go through GAN shortly and then FAC. (I have First Punic War at FAC at the moment, if you fancy reviewing it.) So be as critical as you like and throw in as many suggestions as you wish. The balance between keeping things very "summary style" because there is so much of note, and missing out things which perhaps should be mentioned has been a difficult one, so freely poke at anywhere where you think I have this balance wrong. And I often get so close to an article that I can't see where I am not being clear, or even readable; so pointing out any of these would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Pre GAN scan
Hi Gog, as discussed, here are a few minor misc left-over comments. No need to reply to them, just use anything that's helpful.
 * armour, especially among Hannibal's troops - should this wlink be to Hannibal Gisco?
 * No, it is correctly linked. What made you think otherwise?


 * off the coast of western Sardinia - western coast of Sardinia? ie per the following "off the south coast of Sicily"
 * Done.


 * In 251 BC the Carthaginians advanced on Panormus - 250?
 * Correct. It's this counting backwards, I can't handle it.


 * and the Romans settled down to a siege - wlink to Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)?
 * Done.


 * Interbellum, 243–218 BC - should start 241?
 * Fixed.


 * 70,000 Africans from - Africans numbering 70,000 (to avoid starting sentences with number?)
 * Restructured the sentence to avoid breaking the flow.


 * 15,000 Romans were killed - as above
 * Fixed.


 * 4,000 Roman cavalry from - ditto
 * Fixed.


 * by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, - wlink should be Hasdrubal the Fair?
 * It should, it should.


 * Hamilcar ruled as a viceroy and was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, in the early 220s BC and then his son, Hannibal, in 221 BC - Hamilcar died 228? Hasdrubal died 221 BC? So Hasdrubal succeeded Hamilcar when - can't be "early 220s"?
 * Ah ha! The early 220s BC are 229, 228 and 227. No? 222 BC, for example, is later.


 * A Roman relief army raised the siege - perhaps tweak to avoid 3 x raise this para?
 * Reduced to one "raised".


 * their other army - ?
 * I am not sure that I understand the query, but see "The Romans stationed an army at Arretium and one on the Adriatic coast to block Hannibal's advance into central Italy." above this.


 * more aggressive minded - aggressively or hyphen?
 * Hyphen, done.


 * into the legions' from behind - legion's "something" or remove apostrophe?
 * Removed.


 * This strategy resulted in the Battle of Castulo and the Battle of Ilorca, usually combined as the Battle of the Upper Baetis - possibly remove the first 2 wlinks (unless you think the page will be split into the 2 battles in future?)
 * Possibly. Looking at them properly is on my to do list. But de-linked for now.


 * catapults - wlink? maybe Ballista#Early Roman ballistae
 * I thought I had, but it was the same phrase in Third Punic War. Done.


 * Cite 206 Coarelli 2002, pp. 73, 74. - intentionally without dash?
 * No. Very good spot.


 * maybe check the "modern" towns in brackets for consistency. Sometimes old name is linked, sometimes new. Also, "in the area of modern-day Turin", drop -day?
 * All done.


 * The Romans lodgement between - apostrophe?
 * Done.


 * 'Someone' might insist/insert on nbsp before every BC
 * I thought that was your job? All done.


 * declared for Rome. Rome sent - tweak to avoid rome rome?
 * Done.


 * The Roman and Allied Numidian cavalry - cap A correct?
 * Probably not. Removed.


 * An indemnity of 10,000 silver talents[note 11] was to be paid over 50 years - is note 11 meant to be 10,000 not 50,000?
 * Yes. Again, picked up in its home article but not here. Thanks.


 * image First Punic War 237 BC.jpg - should move up a section?
 * and an unknown number of elephants - any ballpark available eg 1-10 elephants, 100-500, 800-1000?
 * More than 1, no more than 37; I have tweaked the article.


 * The historian Phillip Sabin - is this fellow Philip Sabin ie with only one L?
 * He is. My typo.

That's it for now. I've enjoyed reading it! JennyOz (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Phew! You are extremely good at this, and I can't thank you enough. If you fancy any more of the same, do let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
"It lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated."
 * Please change the spelling for the word materiel to material. VivianVijay (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, "materiel" is the correct word. See materiel: "Military equipment, apparatus, and supplies". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dishekel hispano-cartaginés-2.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
In the sentence: "The fighting took place primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa, Corsica and Sardinia. It lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated."

The word "materiel" is not commonly known and therefore should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiel Elemutau (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

3rd Punic war officially ended in 1985?
The research team behind QI just tweeted that the third punic war officially ended in 1985. If someone can find a reference, surely that's worth a mention! Apepper (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems a contrivance based on this article. Practically the 3rd Punic War ended because Carthage ceased to exist as a political entity.
 * --203.194.35.53 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
The belligerents should have just been Rome and Carthage not Romans and Carthaginians. 98.114.254.117 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes_check.svg All done! Thank you for your contributions. —  TG HL ↗  (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021
In the very beginning of the ship/naval forces section, maneuverability is spelled wrong Flamegator (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "manoeuvre", "manoeuvring", "manoeuvrability", etc are valid spellings in British English, and these spellings will be kept in the article to maintain consistency in regards to English varieties (as the rest of the article is written in British English). Best, ev iolite   (talk)  03:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021
Change all "BC" to "BCE" and "AD" to "CE". EPogYT (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, per MOS:ERA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite that clear reply Ksuwildkat changed all to BCE. I reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Today Ksuwildkat changed all to BCE again without explaining in the edit summary or this talk page. I ping prior participants: EPogYT, Gog the Mild. And I ask others who may be watching: do you have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to all and specifically to Peter Gulutzan for screwing up the citation. I accidentally posted it to my own Talk instead of here. Use of BC/AD is inappropriate for a purely secular topic like the Punic Wars. Were this a religious topic, a dating notation pinned to a religious event would be appropriate. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era Given the secular nature of the topic, BCE/CE is more appropriate. Wildkat (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksuwildkat (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have an opinion. MOS:ERA is clear. The Wikipedia article which points out above has no weight in this discussion. The degree of religosity in the article is also not relevant. They were over enthusiastic in their revert, when WP:BRD suggests that they should have come here - to an existing discussion in which they had already participated! I have reverted the article to the convention which it has used since its creation 29 years ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

So you are literally going with "Thats how we have always done it here" Gog the Mild? It was put in wrong 29 years ago so its going to stay wrong? Wildkat (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to establish why the status quo should be changed. I can offer a consensus of scholarly works on the period which use the convention in the article. At the moment you seem to be offering "I don't like it"; you are entirely entitled not to like it (I dislike lots of things on Wikipedia), but you need more. If you can offer something which is valid in Wikipedia terms to suggest that the long-established convention should be changed then now would be a good time.


 * PS, It was not "wrong" when it was first used and if you believe it was, then some evidence would help to move the conversation along. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Gog. The sources present in the article use BC not BCE. So MOS:ERA would indicate we go with what sources state. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am going to be away from internet for four days or so. I would be grateful if nothing irreversible were decided until I am back. Given that the article has had BC in it for 7 days short of 20 years, I would hope that it could wait a few days for a full discussion around the issue. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm back. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021
Could you add a flag map of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Punic war, in their respected headlines. DoctorAce08 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If you have a map in mind, link to it here so other editors can review it Cannolis (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)