This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Treaty of Apamea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
According to the treaty, west of Tarsus was to be surrendered to Roman Empire. But according to the third paragraph of this article Antiochus kept Cicilia. Well, Tarsus is situated rather to the east part of Cicilia. So if west of Tarsus were to be abandoned, Antiochus III couldn't keep Cilicia save a small area in the east. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Syrian War (192–189 BC)
@
WP:OVERLAP. (Pinged all non-IP users with edits more than 10pc of the page.) Ifly6 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ifly6: Thanks for the heads up. It could go either way. The main thing is that there's some knock-on effects of the Treaty where only the treaty is really relevant, and the rest of the Roman-Seleucid War isn't. This is most notably the "enforcement" action around 162 BCE that helped destabilize Lysias where some ships were burnt & elephants slain, as well as the general lack of funds that caused money shortages. I'd weakly favor keeping this a separate article just for ease of referencing just-the-peace-terms for articles on those later periods, but could certainly be convinced if others feel otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't something like that rather easily fit into something like an Aftermath section? Ifly6 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, nobody else has weighed in. Thought about this some more, and think that there should probably be a separate article for this for consistency if nothing else - we seem to have separate articles on other treaties, such as the Peace of Antalcidas (King's Peace) or the Roman–Jewish Treaty. That said, I do agree that including most if not all of the content of this article in an "Aftermath" section of the Roman-Seleucid War article is fine. I'm not normally a fan of it because it hides things, but the {{excerpt}} is one way to duplicate content across two articles, but simply having some duplication is fine too. SnowFire (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing an excerpt for this is a good idea. Do you at all know how that template works? Ifly6 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
