Talk:Battle of Panormus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleBattle of Panormus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2020Good article nomineeListed
June 20, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 27, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Roman army repelled an elephant charge at the Battle of Panormus by throwing javelins?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Battle of Panormus/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goody, another Roman battle! *looks at Fabian Ware longingly, wishing the one book to finish it up would just get here already so they could get to writing some content*

You picked this up within four minutes of me posting it; the same minute the bot made it live! If I had realised that Roman battles were so popular I would have started writing them months ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
huh. Guess I just happened to be in the right place at the right time... I think that they're one of the few topics I can reasonably pass judgment upon so they I take them as soon as I can.
One more to come -
Battle of Cape Hermaeum
. I will give you a heads up when I am about to GAN it.
Nice job of copy editing, thanks. I have reverted one (minor) change and tweaked another.
I'll keep my eyes open for it, thanks. If you have a couple of minutes to advise upon my two questions relating to
President of the United Nations Security Council
) and how much detail should it go into about the function? I'd greatly appreciate it

comments

  • Do we have an idea of the numerical size of the Roman forces to put in the lede? Our Legion article says that "The size of a typical legion varied throughout the history of ancient Rome," and I'm not confident the average reader knows what a legion means for scale. Of course, if there is only speculation to do, nothing can be added.
Done.
  • "In 256–255 BC" -> "From 256-255"? I'm not one for such distinctions so that very well could be wrong.
No, it's "In". Invaded in 256, evacuated in 255, never went back (in this war).
D'oh! Done.
  • "devastate the crops of" -> "destroy the crops of"? really preference, I think the latter reads better
A moderately strong preference for wikt:devastate. Not a deal breaker, but it is the more precisely correct word.
  • "In late summer 250 BC Hasdrubal led out his army to devastate the crops of Rome's ally cities. The Romans withdrew to Panormus and Hasdrubal pressed on to the city walls. " I'm somewhat confused... Was it the Hasdrubal's crop destroying army that also pushed the Romans out? If so, then he wouldn't just have been 'attacking' their crops?
Who knows what was going on in his head. He didn't "push" the Romans out. They withdrew without contact, as they had been doing for the previous two years. Happy to discuss rephrasing if this is not clear.
Oh! that makes sense
  • "with a hail of javelins from the broken ground " what does 'broken ground' refer to here? Presumably destroyed ground, but that raises several questions, including why it needs to be mentioned?
Always surprising how a phrase one has been using all one's life is completely unknown to another. I suppose that it might be a tad "military speak". (Although not to me as purely military as dead ground or suppressive fire.) Ah well, rephrased.
  • "Infuriated by this missile fire" can elephants be infuriated? maybe 'missile fire' -> 'onslaught' or something a little less clunky...
Clunky? Clunky! "Precise" is the word you are searching for. According to RSs, the elephants (specifically) "became enraged" (Bagnall); "panicked" (Goldsworthy); "were thrown into confusion" (Polybius); "became confused ... blundered back" (Lazenby); "maddened by their wounds they stampeded back" (Scullard; The Cambridge Ancient History). Happy to entertain suggestions for alternative paraphrasing.
What the devil is wrong with "missile fire"?
Missile to me means something modern, see our article Missile "a guided airborne ranged weapon capable of self-propelled flight usually by a jet engine or rocket motor"... Hard to imagine the Romans doing that, so I'd understand if you want to keep it
Ah. Never occurred to me. When you say "missile", my first thought is a Parisian rioter lobbing a cobble stone at a policeperson. I suspect that in context few readers will assume your first interpretation.
Who knew elephants could get angry?! I guess the secondary sources can know what is going in the elephants heads, but not Hasdrubals. . .
Touche. I am taking that as a non-actionable aside.
  • just personal interest, why did it take nine years to end the war then?
Ho ho! How long have you got. Hey, you reviewed Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC); if that didn't get it across, I'm not sure that I can do it more briefly. Unstormable Carthaginian holdouts; both sides becoming involved in other, more profitable wars; lack of political will; war exhaustion; the war becoming "part of the background".
Pf course!
I promise I didn't forget it- just a lapse
  • "Only a part of the first book of the 40 comprising"
    MOS:NUMNOTES
    : " "comparable numbers should be both written in words or both in figures."
Done.
  • "better-off minority providing a cavalry component"
    Equestrians
    ?
Equites, good thinking.
NO! Don't get me started. "The victors write history". From my Mercenary War "Roman sources refer to these foreign fighters derogatively as "mercenaries", but Goldsworthy describes to this as "a gross oversimplification". They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal arrangements." "
  • "Many would be from North Africa " -> "many were from..."
Um. OK.
  • "The Carthaginians also employed war elephants; North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time" -> "The Carthaginians also employed war elephants; indigenous African forest elephants from North Africa"?
That says something different. Should I expand on the historical range of forest elephants to be clearer?
Oops. Fixed.
  • "In 264 BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. In 264 BC the two cities went to war" -> "In 264 BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. That year the two cities went to war" or "In 264 BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. The two cities went to war in 264 BC"?
Changed to 'In the 3rd century BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean.' It's not as if this was only the case in, or by, a single year.
  • "Panormus was one of these" seems like you might mention the other here?
Footnoted.
  • "The focus of the war shifted to the sea." do you have a year to anchor the beginning of this section?
I do indeed.
  • "The Romans won naval victories at Mylae and Sulci," link the battles?
  • smacks head*! Done.
  • "and launched a determined offensive in Sicily." year? 254 BC?
"and launched a determined offensive in Sicily. Their entire fleet, under both consuls, attacked Panormus early in 254 BC." Would it improve things if I replaced the full stop with a semi colon? (I don't to keep opening paragraphs and sentences with "In XXX BC ... "
Yeah, I think maybe something that explicitly links the two so the reader isn't given the opportunity to think that maybe the offensive was launched before, and the attack happened in 254.
Done.
  • "Panormus was a large-for-the-time " I'd imagine if you left it as 'large', large for the time could be inferred, but I won't say I'm the best wordsmith to decide that
I am concerned that just using "large", and then giving the population will cause people to think "Oh, not that large then", whereas, at the time, 70,000 was a huge population.
fair enough
  • "one consul had left Sicily with half" might add which one?
I debated that and decided that it was giving extraneous detail. Added.
  • "Encouraged by this by now expected timidity" a little awkward here- suggest rephrasing?
Done.
  • "Once the elephants had crossed, or were crossing" so is this a historical ambiguity?
Yep. Or a secondary source ambiguity anyway. (Plus, to be fair, military operations don't start at a precise moment.) I would be happy to shorten it to either if you wish, and be confident that it was both accurate and sourced.
fine as is if the sources contradict themselves
  • In other battles, there's been a bit of foreshadowing of the second punic war in the Aftermath section
That was 36 years later; there was still 9 years left in this war. It would feel like ending
WWII
. I do tend to end battles from the very end of the FPW with a mention of the SPW; that feels appropriate. Obviously I am open to discussion.
given that you do mention at Battle of Adys (with 14 years left in the war) in late 250, I'd think one or the other should be changed for consistency.
Wikipedia has no requirement that editors be consistent between articles. I remember searching when another editor was frustrating me with something similar. Battle of Adys was because I wanted to make a comparison of the actual peace terms and Regulus's, and it seemed natural to them wrap it up with "what happened next". I have cut and pasted the same sentence, and given it a minor tweak.

That's it from me. As always, feel free to disagree/discuss anything. Characteristically nice work! (And an interesting read on top of that) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moi! Disagree? Both nice work and an interesting read, huh; I am spoiling you.
Thanks Eddie, that looked thorough, and I appreciate it. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Re on some, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891: Actioned and/or responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, This article is well written, comprehensive, contains no copyvio, well referenced, images are suitably licensed as far as I can tell, and I'm happy to promote. Nice job! Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie. I reckon that I owe you a review or two. Do shout when you have something for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test theme

Test reply of theme 176.52.107.138 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test theme

Test reply of theme MortionGQ (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Panormus&oldid=1195359883"