Talk:Punic Wars

message: Punic = Phoenician in Latin 185.76.176.222 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does, or almost, which is why the article includes "The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punic = Phoenician 

message: See FAC discussion.
I have added detail about the corvus to a couple of the events in which it featured: "The Carthaginians superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped, while the Romans' corvus gave them an edge as the battle degenerated into a shapeless brawl ... It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of them being used again." (The later referring to the storm off Camarina.) 
Which means the article includes:
"To counter this, the Romans introduced the corvus, a bridge 1.2 metres (4 feet) wide and 11 metres (36 feet) long, with a heavy spike on the underside, which was designed to pierce and anchor into an enemy ship's deck. This allowed Roman legionaries acting as marines to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming ... The Roman adaptation of the corvus was a continuation of this trend and compensated for their initial disadvantage in ship-manoeuvring skills. The added weight in the prow compromised both the ship's manoeuvrability and its seaworthiness, and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless; part way through the First Punic War the Romans ceased using it ... The Romans built a navy to challenge Carthage's,[81] and using the corvus inflicted a major defeat at the battle of Mylae in 260 BC ... The Carthaginians superior seamanship was not as effective as they had hoped, while the Romans' corvus gave them an edge as the battle degenerated into a shapeless brawl ... It is possible that the presence of the corvus, making the Roman ships unusually unseaworthy, contributed to this disaster; there is no record of them being used again." Plus an image.
This seems balanced and proportional in an article covering all three wars. Actually, I think it may be a little over the top. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of detail on the ''corvus'' 

message: The end of the introduction incorrectly states that the official peace treaty was signed April 18th, 2023, which is the day the cited source was retrieved. The correct date, per the source, is February 5th, 1985.
I'm mentioning this here as I do not have permissions to edit the article itself.
For posterity's sake, I'll mention I was brought to the article after seeing https://twitter.com/Trey_Explainer/status/1648177549887799296, which I suspect is what also brought Foxterria (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbellessa87 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch; not sure if the main author, Gog the Mild, intends to keep the sentence at all, but I've corrected the date in case he does. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iazyges: Thank you! Jbellessa87 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Aologies, I have not been watchlisting this. It's not in the article, so shouldn't be in the lead. If it were in the article - which I doubt, as it is trivia - it is still not significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. (Note that it does, just, make the cut in Third Punic War. The article, not the lead.) So I am reverting it and watchlisting for further discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date of signing of peace treaty