Talk:Second Punic War/Archive 3

Minor point
But there was apparently a naval engagement off Rusucmona (Ghar el-Melh) in 203 near the end of the war (Livy, xxx, 9ish). The Siege and Battle of Utica articles also note and source Roman attacks and pillaging around Rusucmona and the Punic faith involved in what this page calls a "successful" "surprise attack" on the Punic camps near Utica. — Llywelyn II   01:43, 7 November 2018 (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

Images
What's the rationale for departing from normal formatting by centring all the captions? And why are the images all so small? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox edit early October 2020
I noticed the infobox underwent a major edit about the 6th October 2020. In the previous version, it listed the strength of the Roman military invested in the War (and an even earlier version of the infobox would also contained the strength of the Carthaginian military as well). Was there a reason for the removal of that info for the current version? I found the info on the strength of the militaries involved in the War informative as it gave a perspective on the level of national investment of the two countries involved in the War.
 * That was probably me when I tidied the article up to take it through GAN. It may well have been informative, but it was not reliably sourced, and so shouldn't be there. Note that the infobox is a summary of some aspects of the main article, so if something is not in the main article - fully sourced etc - it should not be in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I hope that we would be able to find a source for that information in the future.

Abandoned user draft by Wandalstouring
User:Wandalstouring/sandbox2 is a 2011 copy of this article with (in bold text) suggested points to be added. Please would an interested editor assess the usefulness of those suggestions, incorporate what is appropriate (with citations), and then blank the WP:COPYARTICLE, leaving a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox map needs to be changed
This map leaves a lot to be desired.

First, the legend. Other states are marked in orange. Presumably, other states means prominent powers on the map that are not the focus of the map. Why are, what appears to be, Ptolemaic Egypt and Macedon different colors? Why is Epirus and Syracuse orange but not those kingdoms? Are the Attalids even on the map? The resolution is also too poor to properly make out what is a city and what is a major battle.

I also believe there to be inaccuracies in the territories. I may be wrong, and if I am please correct me, but I'm fairly certain Carthage had territory extending to modern day Morocco, if not territory then allies that should be included in the map. I also don't remember Rome having the Dalmatian coast under its control, northern Epirus yes, but Dalmatia I don't remember. Pz Kmpf VI Ausf B (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to amend or exchange the map. So long, obviously, as any changes are reliably sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Map is inadequate and very puzzling
The original map, showing the entire Mediterranean (and the entire theatre of War, including various allies) was replaced by the existing map in this edit. I doubt if anyone (including the GA reviewer) has examined the result with much care; of the various colours assigned to territories, only Rome matches the key colour. Carthage is a vague match, sort-of but some key coloured areas are not shown on the map at all, or are just titchy little blobs at the periphery. I can see the point in focussing on the Western Med., as this was the main theatre of war, but the result is amateurish, confusing and useless to any reader seeking guidance to who was who. This particular edit would be best undone, and the map reverted to the previous but I reckon that's best left to someone knowledgable and competent in this topic (thus not me, except in a very general way). Haploidavey (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As it happens, this is in User:Wandalstouring's sandbox (see previous section, above;



Published in 1923 (and looks like it, soooo drab, so I'm not recommending it as a permanent part of the infobox) but fwiw it focusses on the Western Med, focusses on the broad scenario and doesn't try to cram too much in - the Achiles heel of so many user-made maps from Commons. Lots of derived works too (maps showing Cartaginian and Roman lands and allies in 218; none is perfect but maybe good enough.Haploidavey (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * T8612 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Haploidavey @T8612 @Gog the Mild @User talk:Pz Kmpf VI Ausf B: Actually this map has considerable glaring problems that should be addressed long before this article ever confronts a Featured Article Review.
 * These two maps aren't much better, but they at least are a bit more accurate, while a more faithfully accurate map from an academic source should be sought as soon as possible.
 * 218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg
 * Mediterranean at 218 BC-en.svg
 * Arguably Syracuse in Sicily should be an ally and not just another state, along with the Greek colony of Massalia in Gaul (Marseille, France), considering the role of the latter in Roman logistics during the war going back all the way to Hannibal's decision to cross the Alps. It was Massalia (which hosted Roman colonists and soldiers) that convinced nearby Gallic Volcae tribes to effectively block Hannibal's path to Italy across France's Rhone River, leading to the Battle of Rhone Crossing in 218 BC. Also, considering how the Carthaginian Siege of Saguntum at what is now Sagunto, Spain triggered the entire war in the first place, shouldn't Saguntum be dotted as a Roman ally? The Romans were simply bogged down in other affairs, namely in Illyria, which is another glaring problem on the map.
 * The maps clearly show the results of the second conflict (221-219 BC) in the Illyro-Roman Wars across the Adriatic Sea in the Balkans (Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Croatia). It also shows the Roman expansion into Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy following the decisive Battle of Telamon (225 BC). At the very least Roman allies and colonial control at the very least extended over the Emilia-Romagna region, considering the Battle of Ticinus against Hannibal took place along the Ticino River west of modern Pavia. The Roman forces who fought him there had been sent north to relieve a siege of the Roman colony at Mutina (Modena). Roman influence and control should be seen as extending basically from Albania to Sicily to southern France, and should include large parts of northern Italy whereas the map above would lead readers to believe the Romans only controlled central and southern Italy. Rome's indirect control of Massalia in Gaul was arguably similar to how they allied militarily with city-states in southern Italy like Taras and Capua, city-states supplying Rome with auxiliary manpower that Hannibal was keen to win over to his side instead. It was clearly different from the more distant Saguntum in Iberia, which did not host a Latin Roman colony of any kind, so perhaps that should be made clear with different shades of color somehow? Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Continuing FAR
As the FAR was closed a bit too fast, I'm continuing here.
 * "A cavalry force of 4,000 from the other Roman army was also engaged and wiped out." Are you alluding to the battle of Umbrian Lake? Does it deserve a red link (as it's in the infobox)?
 * The campaign boxes are pretty poor; nevertheless, that's a good point. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Carthaginians continued their march through Etruria, then Umbria, to the Adriatic coast, then turned south into Apulia" Link Etruria, Umbria, and Apulia (which is linked below).
 * Done.


 * "in the hope of winning over some of the ethnic Greek and Italic city states of southern Italy", I would remove "states" here, because all of Italy was controlled by Rome (something like "the ethnic Greek and Italic areas of southern Italy").
 * Taken "states" out and gone with "cities".


 * "Fabius was not popular among the soldiers, the Roman public or the Roman elite" Zimmermann doesn't really say that. Fabius was the dominant figure of the War before the emergence of Scipio Africanus, and he wouldn't have been able to implement his strategy if he had been unpopular. It's just that he had not yet gained consensus on the issue in the senate. I think it is better to say something along the lines of: . See what Zimmermann says p. 286 "[Cannae] marked a fundamental change in Roman strategy: for the last time in Italy the Romans had sought a decision against Hannibal on the open battlefield. As a result of the losses of the years 218–216 a majority of senators at last became prudent."
 * You are correct and I have softened to language and added Goldsworthy as an additional cite. I don't want to mention post-Cannae issues at this point. Time for that in their chronological place.


 * "Hasdrubal led the Carthaginian cavalry on the left", perhaps you should mention he was not the brother of Hannibal. These Carthaginians apparently had a limited pool of names.
 * Most of them beginning with "H". Done.


 * "the Aetolian League, an anti-Macedonian coalition of Greek city states." I don't think it's possible to describe the Aetolian League like this, because they had also been at times allied with Macedonia (the League was already quite old). So, I would turn the sentence differently: "the Aetolian League, a coalition of Greek city states, which was already at war against Macedonia".
 * Good wording, used.


 * I would say that the siege of Syracuse was won by Claudius Marcellus, one of the great Roman commanders of the war, since you cite less famous generals.
 * Done.


 * The fate of Capua after its re-capture by Rome could be mentioned, the city as political entity ceased to exist (cf. Goldsworthy p. 235).
 * Ok. Done.


 * "In the spring of 207 BC, Hasdrubal Barca..." You haven't mentioned him yet, so there should be a link. Perhaps you could tell "In the spring of 207 BC, Hasdrubal Barca repeated the feat of his elder brother by marching across the Alps and invading northern Italy".
 * Nice! Done.


 * "In 205 BC, Mago landed", Mago needs a link too. Maybe you can introduce Hannibal's brothers in the Background section.
 * Link added.


 * Perhaps tell that the battle of the Metaurus marks the end of the Fabian Strategy.
 * Done.


 * "The Roman general Claudius Nero brought over reinforcements". (1) It is strange that you mention Nero here, because he played only a marginal role in Spain, but a decisive one at the Metaurus. Therefore, it is probably better to move him above, when dealing with the Metaurus. (2) The Spanish theatre seems to have been exclusively commanded by the Scipios, first the brothers Publius and Gnaeus who should appear in the text here (not just in a note). Then, the appointment of Scipio (future Africanus) as proconsul at the head of the Roman army was possibly the most flagrant breach of Roman customs of the war. He was only 25 years old! The main explanation of both the longevity in command of the Scipios and the appointment of Africanus despite his young age is that the Spanish tribes allied to Rome pledged allegiance to the Scipios, and not really to the Republic. I think it would better explain the situation in Spain (moreover, you also note the role of the tribes there). Cf. Goldsworthy pp. 269-271 on these points.
 * Roman consuls involved in Metaurus named. Roman politics and customs ignored.


 * A note on the subsections of the Iberia section: there are four subsections with little text; I would make only two: before and after the Upper Baetis (the first one when the Scipio brothers in command, the second on the string of victories of the future Africanus).
 * Done.

First batch, I will continue tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hasdrubal crossed the Alps into Italy in an attempt to join his brother, Hannibal". You already said earlier that Hasdrubal crossed the Alps, but you don't connect this sentence with the battle of Metaurus. I would rephrase for clarity. "Hasdrubal left Hispania in an attempt to join his elder brother in Italy, but was defeated at the Metaurus" (maybe with a link to the section above).
 * Mildly tweaked, but I don't see the need for too much repetition, nor for double linking.


 * "Later the same year a mutiny broke out among Roman troops, which initially attracted support from Iberian leaders", the mutiny broke out after a Spanish revolt, because Scipio had fallen ill and there were rumours he had died (which underlines the point above about the personal loyalty of the Spaniards to Scipio). You need to reverse the order of the sentence (cf. Goldsworthy p. 284).
 * Goldsworthy says the events happened "simultaneously". My form of words does not suggest what the situation of the Iberians was prior to their initially supporting.


 * "In 205 BC Publius Scipio was given command of the legions in Sicily", you can mention that the old Fabius opposed Scipio's plan (cf. Goldsworthy p. 286).
 * I could, but I don't see that the fine details of Roman politics fit into the summary style of an article on the whole war. Especially details of manoeuvrings which had little or no effect.
 * The idea was to show that Scipio's decision was not unanimous; it was more like his personal decision to go to Africa.
 * I am not sure that is accurate either. Do you have any sourcing for the proposal that the senate really expected him to spend his term sitting defensively in Sicily?


 * "The peace treaty the Romans subsequently imposed on the Carthaginians stripped etc." I would link Carthaginian peace somewhere in this sentence.
 * I don't see how this can be done without creating a MOS:EASTEREGG.


 * "In 149 BC, fifty years after the end of the Second Punic War etc.". I think the text following this sentence could be trimmed somewhat. You can tell that Massinissa remained a faithful ally of Rome throughout his long reign, during which he encroached on Carthaginian territory and therefore was a direct cause of the 3PW, but I wouldn't tell about the battle of Oroscopa, or even the fate of Carthage, because it seems a bit too distant from 201 BC. Instead, I would write about the unfinished business that Rome had with Macedonia, which would become the next main series of wars of the Roman Republic, with the Macedonian Wars. The Second Macedonian War started almost immediately, in 200 BC (see Goldsworthy pp. 260, 318).
 * Sorry, but I disagree. Especially re wandering off into the detail of Rome's subsequent wars.


 * Infobox. Belligerents: I'm not sure Syracuse needs to be in the infobox, considering it didn't play an important role, especially on the Carthaginian side (it also takes two spots!). I would instead list Macedonia, which was a great power of the time. Commanders and leaders: I would swap Publius Cornelius Scipio for Claudius Marcellus, whom I already mentioned above was one of the most prominent generals of the Republic. Then Roman generals should be listed in that order: Fabius, Claudius Marcellus, Scipio Africanus.
 * Why that order?
 * It's chronological, Scipio was still a teenager when the war started and only influential in the later part. Fabius was already a prominent politician in 233 (1st consulship).
 * It is not usual for infobox leaders to be listed chronologically. I have squeezed Claudius in. Syracuse was a direct part of this war. In many ways the Macedonian war was an entirely separate affair which just happened to be taking place at the same time.

Final batch. T8612 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . Ok, I think I have addressed all of your points in so far as I can and/or think it appropriate to. (I am very aware that I am making significant changes to a consensus settled at an FAC; but want to balance that against knowing that your contributions were cut off by the unexpected close. Anyway, see what you think. And many apologies for taking so ridiculously long to respond to these. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More FAR comments by Compassionate727
I have some more comments too, and I finally had a few free hours to record them. Here's what I have so far; it's most of the Italy section until I got bogged down in some of the vagueness and disorganization in the second half of the section. I'll have still more, but I spent several hours working on this and I imagine you'll require at least as much time, so I'll pause here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have worked through the sections I had not yet read and made a second pass of the sections I had done previously, with a few new comments for those. I doubt I will have nothing else to say after this but, given some of the revisions I am requesting you to make, I think I am waiting on you. (I suspect I may be the most demanding reviewer you have ever had. Oops.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hannibal crosses the Alps

 * During 218 BC Remember earlier when I suggested the preposition during and you reacted: "No way"? That's kinda how I feel about this one here. Guess I'm just far more used to "in" introducing clauses like this.
 * Eh, complaint retracted.
 * The Romans repulsed a Carthaginian attack where?
 * Fixed.


 * causing the Romans to flee to their previously established colony of Mutina Are we talking about refugees fleeing the chaos to the nearest safe place? Local garrisons somewhat disorderly and autonomously retreating to and regrouping there? Both? If it's the refugees, I would specify so; if it's the garrisons, I would replace "flee" with "retreat" or some other, more martial equivalent. If it's both… eh, I don't know what I'd do. Maybe leave it as-is, I'll have to think about it.
 * Fixed.
 * I think " Roman settlers" is redundant given that they were Roman colonies.
 * Fixed.


 * A Roman relief army Is this a full Roman army (two Roman legions + two allied), or some other, smaller force?
 * "army" replaced with 'force'.


 * An army had previously … to send to northern Italy. This sentence poses a somewhat abrupt break from the previous, and I think it would flow better if restructured. I'm still playing with the possibilities. See what you think of the following ideas (of the three, #1 seems weakest to me), and feel free to make counterproposals; these are just some templates I came up with:
 * The Roman Senate then detached one Roman and one allied legion from an army previously created to campaign in Iberia and sent them to northern Italy.
 * In response, the Roman Senate sent one Roman and one allied legion, detached from an army created previously to campaign in Iberia, to northern Italy.
 * The placement of "to northern Italy" is flexible here and could also go after "sent" or "allied legion".
 * One Roman and one allied legion, detached from an army created previously to campaign in Iberia, were sent to northern Italy by the Senate.
 * Er, of the four, I far prefer the existing version. As it flows chronologically it should be more readily understood than any of the three suggested alternatives; where "previously" marks a chronological hiccup in each case.
 * On rereading, I see your point. (And might even agree with you!)
 * Steady on. No need to go overboard.


 * took an inland route, to avoid the Roman Is that something you can do in British English: separate a purpose clause from the main clause with a comma? I won't quibble if it is, it just stood out to me as unfamiliar.
 * Wow! There are whole varieties of English where this is not permitted. As my granny used to say "I'll go to the foot of our stairs." I live and learn.


 * Hannibal evaded the Romans and they continued to Iberia I.e., the Roman army tried to engage him but he escaped and the Romans continued with their previous orders, or Hannibal managed to avoid the Romans altogether?
 * Who cares, this is summary style. And as you are probably aware, the truth was somewhere between the two.


 * surmounting the difficulties of climate, terrain[82] and the guerrilla tactics of There's nothing obviously wrong with this construction, but I'm just… not a fan for some reason? It's not really a big deal, but I'm going to offer surmounting the difficult climate and terrain[82] and the guerilla tactics of as an alternative that maybe sounds a little better and makes the placement of the citation arguably a little less awkward.
 * Sorry, and I am trying to accept your suggestions where I can, and am not wedded to the existing terminology, but that rather stutters to my ear.


 * Hannibal arrived When? I mean, I assume during winter, since the Romans were still in their winter quarters, but do we know if it was before or after the new year? If not, not important.
 * I have added that he crossed them "in 15 days" and "some time in November". That is about as much as we can safely say.


 * an unknown number of elephants – the survivors of the 37 with which he left Do we have any idea how many elephants survived? Most? A couple? An explanatory footnote might be appropriate here.
 * No. The number is completely unknown. I assume between 2 and 36, but that is OR. Not sure what there is to put in a footnote.
 * Evidently, nothing. Suggestion retracted.


 * in Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy). The Romans were I would suggest connecting these with a semi-colon due to the intimate connection in meaning between them; after all, sentence two periodizes sentence one.
 * Done.


 * I'm noticing these two paragraphs sometimes use northern Italy and sometimes use Cisalpine Gaul with a clarifying parenthetical that Cisalpine Gaul is northern Italy. I would suggest standardizing this. I think the first mention should use Cisalpine Gaul with the clarifying parenthetical and then all subsequent instances use either Cisalpine Gaul or northern Italy (I think I would slightly prefer Cisalpine Gaul, but this could pose a slight hardship for the reader, so I'll leave to your discretion).
 * Oops. Sloppy of me. Standardised. Note that the one surviving use of "northern Italy" is because Mago did not land in the Cisalpine Gaul part of north Italy.


 * You use New Carthage at the beginning of the second paragraph and in the Iberia, 211-205 section but Carthago Nova in the lead. I would suggest standardizing.

Carthaginian victories

 * The Carthaginians captured the chief city … battle of Ticinus in late November. Did both of these happen in November? If not, I would suggest separating the clauses with a comma and "then" to disconnect the capture from the month.
 * Rephrased as two sentences for clarity.
 * Any chance we can get a temporal clause for the capture? Even something general like "that fall" would, I think, sound better than beginning the paragraph with no temporal context at all.
 * See MOS:SEASON. But tweaked a little. Better?
 * Yes, thanks.


 * and their army routed suggest deleting "their army" as redundant
 * Rephrased to be more specific.


 * battle of the Trebia. The Carthaginians encircled Would suggest a semicolon here too.
 * I see why, but I think it can survive as is.


 * in northern Italy by this victory, "by this victory" seems redundant
 * I deleted it, reread it, thought about Wikipedia's target audience and reinstated it.
 * I think you are underestimating our audience. (Especially the sections of it who read halfway through an article on a 2000-year-old war.)


 * recruited further legions, both Roman and from Rome's Latin allies; I'm not sure specifying the recruited legions were both Roman and allied is necessary at this point; by now it seems clear enough to me that standard recruitment procedure is to raise them in one-to-one ratios and this can be assumed to be the case here too. Maybe you disagree though.
 * Possibly I am over egging it, but I am reinforcing the idea of two different types of legionaries to lay the ground for Hannibal's different treatment of them.
 * That makes sense. It's not impossible that it has slipped a more casual reader's mind at this point.


 * and be well positioned I think "were well positioned" is correct here, as their good positioning, unlike their blocking Hannibal's advance, is not contingent on anything.
 * True, done.


 * Hannibal attempted to draw I think "drew" would be adequate here
 * On consideration, I disagree.


 * had been sent to protect[101] which provoked Flaminius I would propose "to protect,[101] provoking Flaminius…." This just adds some variety to the sentence structure by replacing the last instance of a long chain of clauses connected by only prepositions with one connected by only a comma, plus it places the footnote after a punctuation mark, which I prefer aesthetically.
 * Sound reasoning. Done.


 * I would consider making the paragraph beginning with The prisoners were badly treated part of the preceding. This doesn't really feel like a disconnected enough idea to merit a separate paragraph.
 * Done.


 * the Latin allies who were captured consider instead "captured Latin allies". Says the same thing in half as many words.
 * Neat. Done.


 * of their treatment.[95][104] Hannibal hoped some Another potential semicolon candidate
 * That would make a ridiculously long sentence, which already contains a semi colon.


 * in the hope of winning consider "hoping to win"
 * Done.


 * rebuild its military strength. Hannibal was left Semicolon?
 * Nope.


 * The Roman populace derided Fabius … and that suggested by Varro. I would move this entire sentence to the end of the preceding paragraph, then join the two sentences that remain to the subsequent paragraph.
 * Done.


 * derided Fabius as the Cunctator As an amateur (hopefully professional, one day) classicist, "the Cunctator" just strikes me as wrong, probably because there are no articles in Latin. Maybe omitting the article sounds equally wrong to the average English speaker, but I would prefer to do so.
 * If the article were written in Latin, you would be correct, ...
 * Ok., tweaked. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider using lang-la for the parenthetical, or maybe just eliminating the Latin altogether. (Is it really necessary?) But I agree this sounds better.
 * It was specifically requested at FAC, so I am very reluctant to take it out completely.
 * Sensible. In that case, I'll just reiterate that I would prefer you use lang-la. That's just because Wikipedia has this standardized way of formatting parentheticals containing alternate languages and it looks weird to me that this isn't following it.


 * at the elections of 216 BC elected new consuls Proposal: "in 216 BC elected new consuls," mainly to remove the redundant second reference to election.
 * Done. (Did I really write that!)


 * The heavily outnumbered Carthaginian infantry held out while this was happening until Proposal: "Meanwhile, the heavily outnumbered Carthaginian infantry held out until…." Fewer words.
 * Done, except I also dispensed with "Meanwhile".


 * As a result, the Roman … killed or captured. I'm playing with the idea of eliminating "as a result" as unnecessary and merging these two sentences into one, but right now don't feel too strongly about that. Maybe I'll have more of opinion coming back to it later.

Roman allies defect

 * cities in southern Italy allied themselves with Hannibal "themselves" feels unnecessary to me
 * Removed.


 * also joined the Carthaginian cause Would merely "also joined Carthage" work? If not, "Carthage's cause" is still shorter than "the Carthaginian cause"
 * Nah. It works better as is.


 * By 214 BC the bulk of southern Italy had turned against Rome, but the majority of Rome's allies remained loyal, including many in southern Italy. That took a minute for me to make sense of. Maybe because my brain is fried after all the close reading I've done so far today, I don't know. I don't see any obvious improvements for this sentence, but if you do, please say something.
 * Tried something. See what you think.
 * That is much clearer, thanks. My one suggestion is many exceptions, and the majority of, linking the two sentences that are both about which allies defected and which stayed.
 * Done.


 * All except the smallest towns were I assume this is an explanation for the pro-Roman holdouts in southern Italy? An explicit connection might be worthwhile.
 * It's a more general statement. Possibly the earlier tweak makes this clearer?


 * Carthage's new allies felt little sense of community with Carthage What exactly does a "sense of community" mean in this context?
 * I could Wikilink it? Sense of community
 * That would probably make sense to do, although what I was actually bothered by… well, I don't know what I was bothered by, that was too long ago and I don't remember. I suspect I thought it was weird to speak of interpersonal psychology as a primary driver of wartime geopolitics here, but I guess I can imagine why it might be, so if that's what your sources say, I shouldn't argue.


 * the number of fixed points How about just "places"? "Fixed points" seems unnecessarily geometric or geographic or something technical.
 * Done.


 * to assist him in doing so "in doing so" is unnecessary
 * No it isn't.


 * and performed badly when "poorly"?
 * Ok.


 * I'm confused by the organizing principle of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of this section; in fact, there doesn't seem to be a clear one. The third paragraph jumps forward two years in time, only to jump back in the fourth. I recognize that the first sentence of the third paragraph is related to the preceding points in the second, and the specific event cited is relevant to that, but even here I'm a little lost on the finer points. Was Samnium the only example of Hannibal managing to raise a sizeable force of locals? Is it being used as an example of something that happened regularly? The second paragraph mentions the defection of Capua in passing and then there's suddenly several sentences explicating that in the fourth. I understand that finding an organizing principle is difficult when most of the concrete chronology is missing, but really, we can do better than this.
 * I'll return to this. If I don't, please prompt me.

Macedonia, Sardinia and Sicily

 * Dashes are emphatic when used instead of commas. The use of one in the first sentence is poor.
 * Removed


 * the area and despatched I'm not fluent in British English spelling, but "despatched" looks like a typo
 * It's not.


 * Sicily remained firmly in Roman hands Given what follows, as a summarizing statement this seems quite inaccurate. Some kind of temporal qualification would be appropriate
 * Added
 * A couple further suggestions: I would replace the physical preposition "up" with the temporal "prior," and I would begin the following sentence with a temporal marker as well, either by moving "in 215 BC" to the front or by beginning with "then."
 * Oops, yes, "prior"; done. I prefer not to move the date (nor add "then") as a constant struggle in thi sort of article is not repeatedly using the formulaic "in ... in ... then ... then ... in ... then ..." to start sentences.


 * whereby Syracuse came over to Carthage "joined" or "defected to," not "came over to"
 * Why? It seems the most appropriate of these three options.
 * Erm, can you explicate why? Is there some shade of meaning that I'm missing? From my perspective, they all mean the same thing, with "came over to" being an odd choice because it uses more words and explicitly invokes physical movement when countries can't physically move.

Italy, 213-208

 * Why isn't this entire section part of the Roman allies defect section? Or the bottom two paragraphs of that one part of this one? Or something? They're talking about the same place and time period, they really ought to go together. That would probably help with the general lack of concrete clarity in that section too
 * Gah! The first should be 216-214. Changed. I still need to look at its structure, but losing the last paragraph may improve it.


 * Fabius captured the Carthaginian-allied town Quintus Fabius Maximus? I was under the impression he had been rendered irrelevant a few years ago.
 * His reappointment now mentioned in the Cannae aftermath.
 * Erm, were consuls elected or appointed?
 * I suspect that you are half expecting the answer to be "it depends". :) I have just checked. The first three sources I consulted decline to be drawn one way or the other. Lazenby, bless him, gives some detail of the sordid mess and you are right in that he was more elected than appointed, so changed and Lazenby added as a source.
 * I would suggest replacing the very general "became" with "was elected" (I think it would sound better). If you do, you can then delete "was" in front of re-elected. I would also add "again" before "in 215" to help clarify that we are talking about a person previously mentioned, since it has now been a couple of paragraphs since Fabius was mentioned. Finally, if Fabius was (as I assume) elected because Rome wanted to go with his more cautious strategy after the preceding defeats, a brief statement to that effect would help explain why this sentence about elections is where it is.


 * Livy's account … to lift the siege. Erm, what exactly is unclear then? Is there doubt that the Romans suffered heavy casualties, or are we merely unclear on how that came about.
 * Summary style; I am not about to try and give details which the sources state they can't work out. The statement is instead of a detailed account.
 * Now that I think about it, is this just explaining the use of the word "seems" in the next sentence? If so, I would more explicitly connect the two thoughts by joining those sentences. (…is unclear, but the Romans … heavy casualties, while the Carthaginians…)
 * Good idea, done.


 * Hannibal then assaulted the Romans' siege works Erm, what not-assaulting-the-siegeworks thing was Hannibal doing in the first battle? Would his attempt to lift the siege not have necessarily entailed something along those lines? Did he not get that far?
 * I think I see what you are driving at. Has the "but was again unable to relieve the city" tweak addressed it?
 * No, but I think I understand now, and it was just me being confused. In the first battle, Hannibal "offered battle," which I assume means that he lined up his forces somewhere outside the city, inviting the Roman forces to meet him and do battle (since, IIRC, in pre-modern times, commanders would camp out next to each other for extended periods of time until they felt like it was a good time to engage combat); the second time, he did none of that waiting around stuff and just attacked the siegeworks. The problem is that you need extra knowledge of the way battles were conventionally fought in ancient times that isn't easily conveyed here.
 * True, but the penultimate paragraph in "Opposing forces" attempts to, at least sketchily, cover this.


 * besieging Roman forces, but this time they
 * This would rather duplicate the structure and wording of the previous sentence.


 * the siege to defend their home city Propose "to defend it "
 * Done.


 * although modern historians doubt his account. Uh, why? Explanatory footnote please.
 * IMO already covered in the second paragraph of "Primary sources".


 * This battle enabled another Would it be fair to call this a diversion?
 * Possibly it was. Possibly it was happenchance. The sources don't say.

Iberia, 218-2011

 * was repelled[156] at the battle of Cissa.[85] Why isn't the Edwell citation at the end of the sentence with the Zimmerman one? That would certainly look nicer.
 * But would be less precise.


 * The Romans' lodgement … Pyrenees was now secure It isn't obvious to me how this naval victory secured their lodgement. Is it possible to elaborate the connection a little?
 * You are right that the statement, if made, needs explaining. I can't see how to do so succinctly, so have removed it. I don't think it is much of a loss.


 * Hasdrubal received orders When?
 * Added.


 * offering battle at Dertosa. In this battle he I propose: "offering battle at Dertosa, where he…." It's briefer and joins two predicates that share the same subject (Hasdrubal), so it also reads more cleanly.
 * Nice. Done.


 * It was now not possible "No longer" sounds better to me, but I'll defer to you.
 * Done.


 * the three Carthaginian armies were deployed apart from each other Three Carthaginian armies in Iberia? My first thought when reading "the three armies," which implies specificity, is that this refers to the armies campaigning in the three theatres mentioned in the lead. To clarify that this sentence is referring to things not previously mentioned, I would propose: "Observing that Carthaginian forces in Iberia were deployed apart from each other in three armies…" or suchlike.
 * Done, along similar lines.


 * This strategy resulted in … battle of the Upper Baetis. This sentence is a terribly verbose way of providing a name and a year, especially when both battle of Castulo and battle of Ilorca just redirect to battle of the Upper Baetis. It's also not clear to me after reading this paragraph what actually happened. Did the Romans split their forces into two and try to engage two of the Carthaginian forces in separate battles and defeat them both, and they are called a single battle because they happened physically apart but nearly simultaneously? Did the battle of the Upper Baetis consist of one engagement quickly followed by a forced re-engagement and second Roman defeat? What makes this battle a "complete" defeat rather than an ordinary defeat not requiring any adjective?
 * 1. Summary style. 2. Read the main articles for details. 3. Trimmed, better? 4. When the sources describe it as such or similar.
 * Yup, thanks.

Iberia, 211-208

 * his army in good order This sounds like jargon, is there some unintrusive way to link it to a definition or make it not jargon? I mean, I can guess what it means, but ideally, I wouldn't need to guess.
 * Jargon! Really? Perhaps I am writing too many military articles. Rephrased. Better?


 * Roman capture of Gades, after the city rebelled I.e., the city tried to assert independence and the Romans were able to capture it because it was isolated, or the city defected to the Romans?
 * Good point. Rewritten.
 * Assuming this defection was a response to Carthage's defeat seeming inevitable, I join the sentence about Gades to the previous sentence with "and".


 * Later the same year "later that year"
 * Is that US English?
 * Do Brits not use "that" as a demonstrative adjective?
 * Well yes, clearly I was unclear. This is not required form in these cases, at least, AFAIK. So why not give the little extra information to the reader?
 * As far as I ever knew, "that year" meant "the same year" but was one-third shorter. Do Brits not use that phrase?


 * which initially attracted support What does "initially" mean here? It took longer for Scipio to put down the mutiny than it did for the Iberians to lose interest in participating? If so, I feel like this sentence understates the severity of the mutiny, because I got the impression that Scipio had just defeated the mutinying soldiers in one battle and it was over. Meanwhile, if the sentence is supposed to indicate that the Iberians quickly joined the mutiny, "initially" seems unnecessary and misleading.
 * "initially" removed.
 * Two more comments in this area: 1) I would delete "effectively," which is ambiguous (it can express either an equivalent outcome or the way in which Scipio carried out the putting down) and doesn't seem to add any detail, and 2) I think I would delete "an" before Iberian uprising (unless you would argue that what happened in 206 wasn't also an uprising by the Iberians?).


 * In 205 BC a last attempt This article has made no reference to any previous attempt to recapture Carthago Nova. Is something missing or is "last" misleading?
 * I think I incompetently edited it down from this being their last attempt to salvage something in Iberia and then read what I wanted to. "last" removed.

Africa

 * Do we just have no information on how the campaign between Carthage and Syphax went? That would be disappointing but not surprising.
 * That really is pretty much all we know.


 * back through the Carthaginian ranks. The Roman and allied calvary A temporal conjunction would be helpful. Did the latter happen after the former? Both simultaneously?
 * Ancient battles didn't really happen like that. But tweaked. Although personally I think the source is pushing his sources and common sense close to breaking point. But as he's both impeccably qualified and one of few modern treatments of Zama at any length, hey ho.

Roman victory

 * The peace treaty Newly revised following the Carthaginians' repudiation and subsequent Roman victory? If so, I would say so.
 * Added.


 * began later in 149 BC "began later that year". Don't introduce the year by its number if it hasn't changed, that just requires extra thinking. "Later that year" also helps emphasize the direct flowing into the next of the events described here.
 * I'm not convinced so much detail on the aftermath of the Third Punic War is appropriate in this article, but I'm guessing we'll disagree on this again.
 * We shall. (It's one of my shorter aftermaths too.)

Another pass of sections I commented on in the FAN

 * Lead
 * drawn into the fighting; and Iberian That semicolon looks wrong to me. Even though you Brits can apparently use whatever punctuation you want wherever you want, I would prefer you use a comma there, and I'm reasonably confident that wouldn't be wrong to you.
 * You will be thinking of the US, where they sprinkle commas plentifully but randomly across the page. It looks fine to me, but you are correct that so does a comma; so changed.


 * Iberia, where Hasdrubal … with mixed success before I feel like "mixed success" implies that Hasdrubal had lost some Carthaginian territories in Iberia but retained other important ones before choosing to redeploy to Italy, which is totally different than what actually happened (after a long stalemate, he was driven out of Iberia entirely and retreated to Gaul).
 * Nope, he wasn't "driven out". The Romans tried to prevent him leaving Iberia, which he did in accordance with his orders.
 * I'm sure he received those orders because his commanders felt he was about to be driven out, but regardless, even so: saying that Carthage defended its territories with mixed success implies, to my mind, that they had lost some but retained others, and that they were shifting focus to a new theatre after having ended the threat to what remained. In reality, by the time Hasdrubal moved into Italy (I assume that's what you are referring to there, and not Hannibal's campaign), Hasdrubal had lost most of Iberia, and his redeployment was abandoning the rest of it to Rome. I recognize that your saying "with mixed success" is trying to refer to varying levels of success he had over the course of his twenty-year campaign, but to my mind, the phrase refers just as much, if not more, to the ultimate outcome, which I think we would both agree was a total loss.


 * The First Punic War between Carthage and Rome had ended in 241 BC This is background, let's clearly frame it as such. I also believe "between Carthage and Rome" should be eliminated because it is unnecessary—given that the name is the same, it will be assumed the primary combatants are the same unless specified otherwise—and a lot of words.
 * Done.


 * after 23 years and with immense materiel delete "with"
 * Gone.


 * Post-war That looks and sounds really odd. "Afterward" or "After the war" would be more elegant, IMO.
 * Done.


 * Rome declared war on Carthage, starting the Second I think "beginning" would sound better than "starting." I can't tell if it's because "beginning" with its extra syllable would make the number of syllables in each clause more equal or if I just have some weird thing against using "starting" as a subordinating conjunction. I'm just offering the alternative, you can decide which you prefer.
 * Done.


 * Moving to southern Italy in 216, Hannibal defeated the Romans again at the battle of Cannae For the lead, this seems overmuch long just to say that what happened in the previous two battles (a Roman defeat) happened again. I propose merging this sentence and the preceding like so: "at the battles of Trebia (218), Lake Trasimene (217), and Cannae (216), annihilating the largest army the Romans had ever assembled at the latter." (Or "in the latter annihilating" or somesuch; that temporal clause can go pretty much anywhere.)
 * Nope. These are three of the most important battles of hte ancient period, and Cannae is probably the most studied battle of all time. I would (much) rather add then subtract.


 * control over much of southern Italy. As Syracuse Given this next sentence is still about states joining the Carthaginian side, a semi-colon would be more appropriate than a period.
 * I disagree.


 * and Macedonia also joined To clarify that Syracuse and Macedonia were not defecting cobelligerents, unlike the aforementioned allies.
 * Er, Syracuse was defecting from the Roman side.


 * the Carthaginian side after Cannae delete "after Cannae", we're clearly still discussing the aftermath of that battle, so it's not necessary.
 * If I do, the whole sentence becomes redundant.


 * This new Carthaginian invasion was defeated at the Battle of the Metaurus. This isn't even alluded to in the body.
 * Er, "Scipio was not able to prevent Hasdrubal from leading his depleted army over the western passes of the Pyrenees into Gaul. In 207 BC, after recruiting heavily in Gaul, Hasdrubal crossed the Alps into Italy in an attempt to join his brother, Hannibal, but was defeated before he could." and "In the spring of 207 BC, Hasdrubal Barca repeated the feat of his elder brother by marching an army across the Alps. He invaded Cisalpine Gaul with an army of 35,000 men, intending to join forces with Hannibal, but Hannibal was unaware of his presence. The Romans facing Hannibal in southern Italy tricked him into believing the whole Roman army was still in camp, while a large portion marched north under the consul Claudius Nero. They reinforced the Romans under the second consul, Marcus Salinator, who were already facing Hasdrubal. This combined Roman force attacked at the battle of the Metaurus and destroyed the Carthaginian army, killing Hasdrubal."


 * Capitalizing and redlinking "Carthaginian Senate" seems odd to me. Do we even know that the Carthaginians called their ruling body a senate (or rather, some Carthaginian equivalent) rather than the Romans just analogizing from forms of government they were familiar with?
 * The sources all call it that.
 * Which doesn't actually answer my question, because I imagine all the sources are just following Plutarch, who might have been analogizing. But eh, who am I to argue?
 * We can certainly argue. We may even agree. But if this agreement differs from the sources then, as you suggest, it is a bit moot.


 * treaty imposed on the Carthaginians I know I asked about this previously, and you said needed something like this to follow the sources. FWIW, my quibble with "imposed" is that Carthage had not unconditionally surrendered and therefore was not forced to accept the treaty (in any political or diplomatic sense; meanwhile, saying that a defeated state was militarily forced to accept a treaty seems like stating the obvious). Having not read your sources: were they trying to say that the terms of the treaty were imposed on the Carthaginians, rather than the treaty itself? If so, I would suggest: "The peace treaty dictated by Rome stripped the Carthaginians of…" or somesuch. (This seems to me like the probable sense: given that they had negotiated terms previously, and Carthage had reneged when they thought they saw an opportunity and were instead crushed, I imagine the—probably irritated—Romans capitalized on the morale victory by just sending a new list of demands instead of reopening negotiations.)
 * Changed.


 * subordinate to Rome. Rome contrived We just jumped fifty-two years without any explanation of what happened in the meantime. That's too abrupt; at a bare minimum, some explanation of why Rome contrived a new justification for war should be provided.
 * Somewhat through gritted teeth, expanded.


 * Primary sources
 * largely neutral as between Carthaginian I'm guessing "as between" looks normal to you? It doesn't to me. I'm thinking merely "between" would look less unusual, although I'm not sure how much so.
 * Yes, and ok. Done.


 * Polybius was an analytical historian What does that mean?
 * Linked.


 * As a result, the main … is not extant. If you need to use an endash to separate two parts of a sentence because you can't tell what relationship they have to one another and therefore can't find another appropriate punctuation mark, you really just need to rewrite the sentence. I would propose rewriting this as something like: "Where Polybius's account is not extant, the main source used by modern historians is the account written by the Roman historian Livy." This is also just structured better from an information processing perspective, because the subject in the first clause of my revised version is the topic of the previous sentence, and the predicate subject of the second clause is the subject of the next sentence; that makes for less jumping between concepts while processing.
 * Done.


 * described by John Francis Lazenby as "clearly far inferior" to Livy In what sense? Are they even more demonstrably inaccurate than Livy, or are they just less useful as sources for reconstructing what happened because they are fragmented?
 * I'm just putting the sources up here. A reader should draw their own conclusions. Given the kicking Livy gets immediately prior and their main use is stated as "some fragments of Polybius can nevertheless be recovered from their texts" I personally am reading Lazenby's words as meaning "useless".
 * Oh, well, if recovering fragments of Polybius is their main use, I would propose revising this sentence as follows: …during the Roman era; they are described by John Lazenby as "clearly far inferior" to Livy, but some fragments of Polybius can be recovered from their texts. The previous wording suggested (to me at least) that the two things were both true but only distantly related, if at all; I think using a conjunction right away draws out the connection better.
 * The nuance you are after is too subtle for me to see but/therefore changed as you suggest.
 * Heh, to be honest, it was too subtle for me too! I couldn't figure out how to explain why it would result in the improvement I claimed it would, but I remain confident it had the intended effect. One final point about this sentence: it speaks of "the writings of Diodorus Siculus and Cassius Dio," "they", and then "their writings." I think maybe you thought that "they" referred to Diodorus and Cassius, but it could equally (if not more) easily be construed as taking the writings, and even if it does refer to their persons, that's just synecdoche for their writings anyway, all of that being an overwrought explanation for why you should replace "their writings" with just "them," retaining the same subject (the writings) through all three.


 * Opposing forces
 * (from a footnote) a variety of arrangements; for example You claim that they served under a variety of arrangements and then only cite one example. You don't need to include all of them, but it would be nice if you included one or maybe two other highly salient ones.
 * Two added.


 * were frequently referred to as prefer "called" to the verbose "referred to as"
 * (from a footnote) and used to close rapidly and aggressively should be "closing"
 * Wait, I misinterpreted "used to" as that idiom indicating familiarity rather than a past tense verb taking an object infinitive. Ideally there would a fix to prevent that, but I don't currently have any suggestions.
 * I shall wait on you. (I can't think of an alternative off hand either.)
 * Two options have occurred to me. The smallest change would be replacing "used to close" with "used for closing." But is "used" even necessary here? I think we could just say "trained to close" and the reader will assume they are actually doing the thing they have been trained to do.
 * Fair enugh. I am probably letting Clauswitz over-influence my thinking. Removed.


 * You wrote "close-order infantry" followed by "close order shock calvary". I don't know rules for hyphenation very well and couldn't tell you which is correct, but I doubt it's both of them. I continue to see both variations throughout the rest of the paragraph.
 * This case the second use should have been hyphenated. I shall check the others.


 * among Hannibal's troops. Both Iberia and We just spent several sentences discussing troops from Africa. A stronger break, using a conjunction like "In addition" or similar, would help with the transition here
 * Done.


 * I think I would expand the wikilink around "sub-unit" to include "legionary," since the linked article is about legionary subunits, not subunits in general.


 * Background
 * This meant the loss … Treaty of Lutatius I think I would prefer this sentence be structured more like: "Under the Roman-dictated Treaty of Lutatius, Carthage ceded its Sicilian possessions to Rome," with the treaty being described before its terms. See what you think.
 * I could make a case either way, but if you prefer summary first, so be it.
 * Well, this is a summary, but if you want to make a case for another style, I am willing to hear it.
 * I think you misunderstood. Already changed per your suggestion.


 * had led to victory in I would suggest that "to victory" is unnecessary given the preceding
 * Removed.


 * Re: the separate agreement with Saguntum that we know nothing certain about except that its use as a casus belli was a pretext, I wonder if a footnote explaining as much would be appropriate.
 * What is it that you feel needs explaining/elaborating?
 * Eh, nevermind. I had thought some explanation of the diplomatic maneuvering here might help the reader, but I don't feel so strongly about it anymore.

, can I offer my humble apologies for taking nearly three months to get back to you on these. That is an unacceptable wait. Especially as your comments were so insightful and have improved the article so much. I have not agreed with all of your suggestions, but agreed with or was neutral towards the majority, probably the vast majority. I would welcome any further comments or come backs you may have. I am aware that there are still two, or is it three, comments for me to respond to, but it seemed that I had done enough for it to be worth pinging you. Many thanks for your work on this, I appreciate it greatly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha, you aren't the only person who has been procrastinating. I need to respond to these before I go back to school or it'll never happen… Anyway, comments on your comments. I didn't think I'd have so many of them,
 * , it happens. 'Tis Christmas, so my responses are more fragmented than usual but I think I have come back to you on everything and in a passably accessible way. How are we doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have missed a few of my initial comments, and I have added a few more (responding to both your most recent round of comments and some others). I'm mostly nitpicking at this point, but I will note that you do not seem to have returned to the organization of the "Roman allies defect" section yet. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)