After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As always, a great article by our FA regulars. I haven't read through the whole article, but the paragraphs are a bit odd: some are really long (>200 words), and some are just one sentence long. I also think that center-aligning captions is a bit odd, but feel free to ignore this complaint. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:
"a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
"personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
Certainly, but point taken.
"Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
"The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
"if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
"but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
:-) Fixed.
"nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
"the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article
The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
Good thinking. Done.
The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
"they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
You expose my ignorance: I didn't know "rout" could be an intransitive verb. Now I know. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?
"them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's much clearer, thank you. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.
PolybiusThe main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
Two modern sources:
A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612(talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I checked Goldsworthy and there are several places where he wrote in support of the points I mentioned above:
p. 21 on Polybius and Scipio His association with Scipio Aemilianus did result in a very favourable depiction of the role played by his relatives in the conflict. [...] Polybius does much to exonerate the elder Paullus for responsibility for this disaster [Cannae]... p. 199 The latter [Paullus] was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus and therefore receives a very favourable treatment from Polybius...
p. 21 also mentions that Polybius' text breaks in 216 (therefore he can't be the "main source" for the 2PW).
p. 22 on Livy more detailed than Polybius Livy provides more detail than Polybius concerning Roman politics, especially some of the controversial elections, and of Rome’s state religion.
Have you been able to read Briscoe & Hornblower? T8612(talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, and it's my fault. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiT8612 and apologies for taking so ridiculously long to get back to you. (RL has been silly busy; other things on WP have distracted me; and rereading all of my sources, plus the one you sent me, plus some others discovered along the way has made my brain want to melt.) I have a draft replacement at User:Gog the Mild/sandbox. You were completely correct in many of your specific criticisms of the current one, which certainly cannot remain as is. I thing that the draft more or less gets the correct balance for a summary style, although it has regrettably grown from 285 to 313 words. Your comments on my attempt would be most welcome. Feel free to edit directly onto the sandbox if that is easier. If you can see ways to trim back the verbiage, that would also be good. Thanks.Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog. I've amended a bit your sandbox draft to give more details about Livy and Plutarch. I've tried to make it short.
I'm not familiar with the sfn template, but is it possible to merge the note to Mineo with Mineo's ref? T8612(talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiT8612, that's great and thank you. I have trimmed your additions a little for summary style - [2] - and changed the section in the article. Any further comments would be much appreciated. And I will try to respond to them more promptly!
Mineo: if I understand you correctly then I could, but I prefer the note to go with the other "Notes" and not in with "Citations". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In "Background", I would write about Roman colonisation of northern Italy, and the resentment it caused among the Gauls. It would explain the later revolts when Hannibal arrived, as well as mirror the part you wrote on Carthaginian expansion in Spain (see Goldsworthy, pp. 138-140).
Done.
"Both states possessed large fleets throughout the war, etc.", but the following sentence implies that Rome was superior. Perhaps tell that Carthaginian navy lost its advantage in the 1PW.
I don't have a source that says that the outcome of the 1PW effected Carthage's naval effort in the 2PW. For whatever reason they made no real effort to contest naval superiority in the 2PW. I mean, they had 500 warships at the end of it (!!) so they could have; and clearly did have a "large fleet". I don't see anything I have written that implies qualitative or numerical superiority for the Romans. (Which they may or may not have possessed at some or all points of the war.)
You only describe Rome's initial plan in bits. It could be clearer if you said from the start that the consuls P. Cornelius Scipio would have attacked Spain and Ti. Sempronius Longus Africa (Goldsworty, 150-151). Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and the Gallic revolts foiled this plan. You also give Sempronius' name but without link.
Done, and linked. (Good spot.)
"The Carthaginians reached the foot of the Alps by late autumn and crossed them" etc. You already linked the crossing of the Alps in the "main article" tag above.
True. Is there a policy suggesting that one shouldn't? There may well be, but if so I am unaware of it.
Since you mention that Massalia was a Roman ally, you should put it in the infobox.
No I shouldn't. See Template:Infobox military conflict: "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article."
"The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
Done.
"defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
" by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
"Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
"After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
Two maps enlarged.
I am seeing MOS:COLOUR. Which part in particular would you like to draw my attention to?
The first point: avoid using colour as the only means of conveying information. Without being able to see colour several of the shades in these maps are indistinguishable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Background map is missing a legend
Very strange. Thank you. The version of this map with a legend swapped in.
File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
I hadn't understood it to mean that, but removed.
File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
And neither linked to the actual original sources anyway. It was a complete pig tracking them down, but done. (It turns out that I own both of them - *rolly eyes*.)
File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
Oops. Done.
File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work.
Looks like most of these are still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Nikkimaria, I was busy in RL, put this on the back burner and then overlooked it. Thanks both for prompting me and for going through the images in the first place. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.
First, I can tell you really hate commas. In fact, I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the places there should be commas but aren't; I'm just going to fix them.
Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. —Compassionate727(T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. —Compassionate727(T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says: Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used. (Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma.
I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. —Compassionate727(T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans established a lodgement in north-east Iberia When did this happen? A year would be nice.
Good point. Done.
took the offensive in Iberia and were badly defeated, while maintaining their hold Don't like this construction, would prefer "were badly defeated but maintained": parallelism is pretty.
I slightly prefer mine, but done.
The final engagement of the war took place between armies under Scipio and Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202 strike "battle of", it's unnecessary when we already mentioned it was an engagement. If you prefer specifying that it was a battle (don't know what else it would be, but whatever), you can replace "engagement" with "battle"
Done.
resulted in Hannibal's defeat and in Carthage suing for peace. Personally, I think it would sound better without repeating the second "in", but this is a mild preference.
Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
The peace treaty imposed on the Carthaginians stripped them I would strike the imposition part. It seems odd to speak of a peace treaty being imposed when it didn't follow an unconditional surrender, and even if there is a sourcing reason for it, here it's just clunky. As it is, we can already tell that the treaty was quite harsh from the fact that most Carthaginian politicians opposed it
Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on the word "imposition", but this sense needs to be retained in order to follow the sources.
Henceforth it was clearthatCarthage was politically
Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - just spotted this. You don't need 'that'. I'd probably use one, but it's fine with or without. See current edition of Fowler, p. 808. Tim riley talk 07:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That stays out then. (I shall abstain from Fowler, if only to spare the wallcovering of whichever room I might read it in.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scipio was awarded a triumph and received the agnomen "Africanus". "received" seems redundant
Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write: Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence now remove from the lead. (I did some trimming to make space for some other issues in the lead requested by AirshipJungleman29 below.
The balance were equipped as heavy infantry "rest" or "remainder", not "balance". This isn't a bank account.
Done.
into three ranks, of which the front rank would prefer these clauses be separated by a colon or semi-colon (not certain off-hand which is correct) and "of which" eliminated
Done.
second and third ranks had a thrusting spear carried? bore? wielded? just not "had", please
Changed.
Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries For some reason, when "both" leads like that, my brain's first reaction is to think that it means two sub-units. Maybe move it to afterward? Also, what the heck is a "sub-unit" in this context?
The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. —Compassionate727(T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
legionaries fought in a? relatively open order
Er, no.
Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. —Compassionate727(T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
elect two men each year, known as consuls, as senior magistrates, who Is it really necessary to specify that consuls were senior magistrates? I think everyone can infer this. If you feel like it is, the sentence would flow better if the title came after category of job (e.g., "two mean each year as senior magistrates, called consuls").
I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
at time of war "at" should be "during," and "time of" is a waste of words
'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. —Compassionate727(T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in" is fine. Changed.
would each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining two Roman legions This implies that there would be four Roman legions fielded during war (2+2=4), when the second sentence says that traditionally only two total legions of Romans were fielded. Not sure which is correct, but please fix.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army i.e., mercenaries, or should I understand something else here?
You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
were from North Africa and so were frequently Does this mean that even non-North African troops were called "Libyans," so long as they weren't Carthaginians?
Clarified.
provided several types of fighter, including: close order infantry while I understand why you wanted a colon there, I doubt it is correct
Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. —Compassionate727(T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
experienced infantry and cavalry. Theseinfantry were
Done.
The Gallic cavalry, and possibly some of the Iberians, wore armour Unless your sources are stressing the possibility that some Iberians were heavy calvary, I would leave the possibilizing to the next sentence ("most or all" is adequate, I think)
Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. —Compassionate727(T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
I'm realizing I don't really understand what "open-order" and "close-order" means. I don't suppose there's something you could wikilink?
The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll take the lack of a response to mean that you disagree with me that those details are excessive. That's fine, I suppose; we may just have different instincts regarding the appropriate level of background detail. Here's what I intend to be a little more forceful about: I think that the level of detail given for the prelude to the First Punic War is very imbalanced when compared to the level of detail provided regarding the war itself. If you want to keep the amount of detail you currently have in the first paragraph, I will strongly encourage you to expand the second a little. Just a sentence or two outlining the course of the war in very general terms would, I believe, help maintain parity of detail in that section. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But I'll take a look at both paragraphs and see what I feel I can do. Note that even if it is agreed/established that something in an article is not a major fact or detail this does not mean that the article is failing the criteria. To do that it has to go into "unnecessary detail" or not use WP:summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07.
Pyrrhic War removed, a little unhappily. A couple of other tweaks made along the lines you suggest. You are correct about my skimping on the 1PW. I have expanded and may yet add a little more. (If I do I'll let you know.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I might propose text like this: The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island, (Sicily?) and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War.—Compassionate727(T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider glossing the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. —Compassionate727(T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. —Compassionate727(T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiCompassionate727 and apologies for the hiatus. I have now, I think, addressed all of your points above, agreeing with most but not all, and am eagerly awaiting your next contribution. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I've been busy too, especially this past week. I'll add more as I have time.
This section uses the name "Truceless War" (wikilinked) in the second paragraph and "Mercenary War" (without a wikilink) in the third. It wasn't immediately obvious to me that both names refer to the same conflict. I would suggest picking one and sticking with it.
D'oh! Fixed.
After the First Punic War, Carthaginian possessions in Iberia Did Carthage lose territory in Iberia as a result of the First Punic War? To my mind, including that particular temporal clause after having already specified the timeframe in the previous sentence implies that they did; if this was not the case, I would suggest omitting it.
Hmm. Ok. Gone. Although it now reads a little clunkily to me. Hmm again, I have unclunked it, but this results in a monster sentence. How would you feel about "At the time"?
"At the time" should be fine, I think. I believe that, more so than the redundancy, it was how "with the suppression of the rebellion" and "after the First Punic War" are actually slightly different timepoints that gave rise to a potential phantom of meaning (in my mind, anyway), since I was wondering if there was a significance to the slight pivot.
in the early 220s BC and then his son, Hannibal, in 221 BC This construction has the potential to be slightly confusing due to the nature of BC years. (Early chronologically and early numerically are at opposite ends of the decade.) Did Hasdrubal not immediately succeed Hamilcar as viceroy? If he did, I would suggest specifying the exact year.
I was following what I thought was the best source, but have found one with a precise date. Amended. Good nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 219 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum and in spring 218 BC Rome declared war on Carthage. My memory of this event isn't perfect, but I feel like you could (and probably should) say a little bit more about incident that sparked the war.
Very little is known with certainty. I have added the duration. Most of what you have read was probably based on Livy, about whom modern sources are even more scathing than usual for this event. To quote from just one HQ RS: "his chronology at this point is hopelessly confused"; "it is probably best to reject this"; "Livy even claims that ..." (This last the author feeling that they have to state one of the common "facts" about the siege - that Hannibal was wounded - but, unusually, distancing themselves from what they are writing.) I could go on. ("the more unreliable Livy") Even "facts" supported by Polybius are hedged with things like - to use a third HQ RS "at least suggest that he was not too unwilling to ..."; you what? I have expanded on the political to and froing preceding Rome's declaration of war a little.
The politics was really what I was looking for; sacked the city straight into war seemed a little to abrupt. Thanks.
Rome made a separate agreement Do we know anything about this agreement? The vague recollection I have from my college Spanish history class is that it wasn't a formal alliance and Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext, and I'm pretty sure we don't know much, but if we could be any more specific than just "an agreement," that would be nice.
You are pretty spot on in that "it wasn't a formal alliance", "Rome's citing it as a casus belli was something of a pretext" and "we don't know much". So calling it an "agreement" is about as specific as we can be - it is not clear that it was either formal or written. It seems that both sides were up for a confrontation and the situation around Saguntum would do as well as anything - regardless of any actual wrongs or rights.
Sorry, I've been busy and will continue to be for another week as my summer class wraps up. I hope to have time to finish commenting after that. —Compassionate727(T·C) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would dropping "which were" from the first sentence be an improvement?
Lol! You are so right. What convoluted phraseology. Changed.
There is some inconsistency in the content of the captions. Sometimes there is a bit of context on the artwork, and elsewhere it only has the name of who is depicted.
Yerse. I am probably being slow, but I am missing your point. Is this a problem? Happy to remove information if it is.
It's not a big deal. I was thinking of actually adding more info to the captions. For instance, adding "1704 French bust" in the Hannibal caption, etc. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief no. Who cares? It's like mentioning sources in line for each paragraph of prose. If readers want more information, they can click on the images, just like they could chase the cites. I didn't add all of the images, and while I have trimmed the fluff from some, for others I have gritted my teeth and left as is. Bleh! What the heck - if that is all you want I'll grit my teeth harder. Done.
In the 'Primary sources' section, "Carthaginian" and "Roman" are linked yet "Greek" isn't.
Ho hum. (MOS:OVERLINK). "Greek" now linked, although I am not really happy with it.
'Much of Polybius's account of the Second Punic War is missing, or only exists in fragmentary form." needs a source.
Since I took it to GAN someone had "helpfully" introduced a paragraph break and I somehow missed it. Well spotted. Fixed.
"if there was a direct threat to the city" Should that be if there were? I'm unsure myself...
Umm. I see what you mean, but surely 'if there was a direct threat to the city' or 'if there were direct threats to the city'? No?
An Engvar thing. Until fairly recently in BrE the subjunctive was thought to be on the way out, but lately it seems to be making a comeback, infected by AmE. The phrasing as drawn is the correct BrE for now. Tim riley talk 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that we Americans are particularly consistent about when we use the subjunctive, either. But yes, the English subjunctive is pretty much always optional in conditional and counterfactual constructions; "if there was" is fine. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"When they did they fought" clunky
I disagree. It reads fine to me. But I would be happy to consider alternatives.
I know you hate commas, but adding one here would make it more obvious to us Americans that they did they isn't an error. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it helps readers. Where would you like it? (I have mentally inserted one in every possibility, and each just reduces the phrase to nonsense to my eyes. PS, have I yet referred you to the grammar writer Lynne Truss - [3]?
I should never have shared that quote with you! If I were to insert a comma, he said, carefully using the subjunctive, it would be "When they did, they fought...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No good deed goes unpunished. That almost makes sense. Fair enough - inserted. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"if a combat" is the 'a' needed?
I think so. Possibly I am being over subtle, but it does change the meaning. (Ie, it is not a case of the battle as a whole being protracted ("if combat") so much as the particular sub-battle they were engaged in ("if a combat").)
Is the nuance you are driving at that within a particular battle, the shock infantry would sometimes charge, disengage, then charge again? Otherwise, I'm not sure the difference is actually substantial. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Although they might. The one I outline above. The more I think on't the more it seems to be needed. If it's clunky I could completely rewrite? (Albeit in a slightly less summary style.)
"Carthage never attempted to use its fleet decisively" I'm not sure what that means.... Is there a more clear way to word that?
Oof! It seems pretty clear to me. Which possibly means I am too close to it or trying to be too succinct. Let me think on't.
While most of the changes you made were an improvement, and not to act aggressively decidedly is equally, if not more, vague. The impression I'm getting is that the Carthaginian fleet tried to avoid a pitched battle; if that is what you mean, I would suggest saying so. —Compassionate727(T·C) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem is that the sources are even vaguer. Fair nuff, they are trying to get 17 years into a sentence or two. Straining them a little I have "when it did it was usually to escort transport ships; it rarely acted aggressively." How's that?
More comments to come. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiHAL333 and thanks for this. Your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"well treated" --> "well-treated"
Is there a high-quality image of Fabius you could add?
Good idea. Done. (I have even put the date in the caption for you.)
The Roman populace derided Fabius as the Cunctator ("the Delayer") and at the elections of 216 BC elected as consuls Gaius Terentius Varro who advocated pursuing a more aggressive war strategy and Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who advocated a strategy somewhere between Fabius's and that suggested by Varr is a bit of a run-on.
True. Broken with a colon.
The historian Richard Miles As you've already introduced Miles, could you just use "Miles"?
Yep. Sorry.
A second force, under Hannibal's youngest brother Mago This is really nit-picky and I'm not sure if it's incorrect: should that be "younger"? If Hannibal only had two brothers, there can't be a 'youngest' out of two.
I believe he had more than two; but anyway, both were 'younger' than him, so noe was "youngest".
I don't much care. I don't remember linking it and it isn't currently.
Would moving the map of Scipio's African campaign to the right be more aesthetically appealing?
I tried it before and didn't like it. I have just switched it and still don't, so have put it back. But if you feel strongly I could live with it on the right.
That's all. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this article. ~ HAL333 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done this before, so please bear with me.
Everyone starts sometime and it always cheers me up to see new people reviewing at FAC - and bringing new view points. If I really don't like a suggestion or seriously disagree I shall say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead seems slightly confused—specifically, the placement of the sentence explaining the war's outbreak between more sentences more geographical than it. Would it not make more sense to place "In 219 BC..." as the second sentence, with the other chronological details?
Would it help if I broke the paragraph immediately before "In 219 BC..."? (I could amalgamate the last two paragraphs to stay within the maximum of four.) This would make the opening paragraph the overall summary (per MOS:OPEN) and the following three the detailed break down.
I think that might work, if the new second paragraph begins with the military theatre discussion (or if the first paragraph ended with it).
Actually there are two discussions of the military theatres in the first paragraph, so one is probably redundant.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading after a break I can see that you are correct and I am not, so moved as you suggested.
Also, "which were" seems removable from the first sentence.
Yes, indeed. Gone.
Do you think the lead should mention the first and third wars explicitly, rather than only indirectly in the first sentence?
Again, rereading after a break I agree with you. I have removed some information which in the context of the lead is too much detail and added a brief summary of both wars. What do you think?
I feel like the link to Battle of the Upper Baetis in the lead should enclose the "were" of "were badly defeated". Something something verbs something something gut feeling I don't know.
I know what you mean, but that is not the usual convention. If there is a general feeling to include "were" - and similarly in similar cases - I am relaxed about doing so.
I'll stay out of the source discussion above, save for generally aligning with the nominator's viewpoint, which seems to concur with those of the RS I have to hand.
Cheers. :-)
Never a fan of one-sentence paragraphs, and even less of one-sentence sections. If the navies section is only worth one sentence, surely it isn't worth a separate section? Armies and navies aren't that diametrically opposed.
Very good point. Sections fixed. And I am with you as a rule on single sentence paragraphs, so rewritten to now be three sentences.
Couldn't "The immediate cause... the First Punic War." be combined into one sentence? That might solve the mini-issue of the First Punic War being referred to multiple times before its linking.
Resolved a little differently. I think it's resolved, see what you think.
I'm not entirely sure that the "There were three main military theatres" sentence needs to be in the background section.
Great stuff AirshipJungleman29, thank you. I have cherry picked some of your comments to respond to. I shall come back at the others later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I am impressed by your comments so far - you are giving my prose a good kicking and it seems warranted. Your comments to date addressed above and your next instalment eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear my comments are at least somewhat tolerable. Your edits to the lead have significantly improved it, in my opinion. To finish it off, the prose of the last paragraph in the lead are somewhat too bullet-pointy (esp. the lines about the peace treaty conditions; the line "Henceforth it was clear Carthage was politically subordinate to Rome." is particularly reminiscent of a secondary-school textbook, in my opinion). Lastly, I think the Third Punic War could be referred to in one sentence: the storming, sacking, and slaughtering is less important than the ending of Carthaginian civilization.
Ah. The sources are clear that Carthaginian civilisation was not ended by the sacking etc. See the second paragraph of Third Punic War#Aftermath, which I took to FA a couple of years ago.
"several types of fighter": is the choice of the last word to convey some sort of disorderliness compared to the more organised 'soldier'?
Yes. Ie, they were recruited as fighters and trained to become soldiers. Let me know if you think I am getting too clever there, I can always change it; although "types of soldier" would not work.
Another single sentence paragraph is in the Macedonia section.
Yes. The topic doesn't warrant more than a sentence and there is no other paragraph with which it could sensibly be grouped. So IMO the awkward single sentence paragraph is the least bad option.
Also, perhaps a sentence more on the First Macedonian War?
I am not sure why, but ok.
Most of your body prose is excellent, so I think that's about it. Hope you'll forgive my minor quibbles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiAirshipJungleman29, I think I have addressed all of your concerns above, although you may wish to check that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you AirshipJungleman29, much appreciated - even the bits I grumbled about. I hope that you didn't find it too bad, perhaps even enjoyed it. Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, can I encourage you to review another candidate for FA some time soon? You are just the sort of reviewer that FAC needs poring over its nominees. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, to tell the truth, I originally came here because I myself intend to submit an article or two for FAC in the near future, and I wished to gain firsthand knowledge of the process. I have, however, enjoyed my mini-break here, so I will probably return wearing a reviewer hat in the near future. Cheers! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Africa, where the war was decided. given that the other two theaters give the victor of the campaigns, perhaps and Africa, where the war was decided, in Rome's favor.
Good point, done. (Not with those exact words.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Romans beat off a Carthaginian attack suggest The Romans repulsed a Carthaginian attack, per the American understanding of the term.
Done.
Such Italian forces as were raised resisted operating away from their home cities and performed badly when they did can perhaps be simplified to The Italian forces that were raised resisted operating away from their home cities and performed badly when they did.
That would lose "Such Italian forces", ie not many; which would require me to add a sentence saying the same thing, and so not simplifting it at all.
since the Capuans had no obligations perhaps since the Capuans had no obligations to Carthage
I think it's pretty clear from the context that the current wording means that the Capuans had no obligations under the treaty. (To Carthage or to anyone else.) The sentence starts with "The treaty".
After the Carthaginians failed to resupply the city, Syracuse fell in the autumn of 212 BC perhaps After the Carthaginians failed to resupply the city, the entirety of Syracuse fell in the autumn of 212 BC
Good spot. Changed to "the rest of".
Replace the horrid British English with American English, as God intended.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
