Talk:Battle of Magnesia

message: Looking at Grainger on 
page 360 it says Pulcher had a small force of 2,000 infantry. Looking at the reference of Livy 36.10.13-14 provided it shows Pulcher saving the city of Larisa (at that time then not involved in the Battle of Magnesia) from the larger Aetolian force of 3000 infantry and 200 cavalry by displaying a ruse. Can the city or territory he saved be referrred to as a periphery? Based on about 30,000 for the Romans and 70,000 for the Seleucid Empire then there was about 100,000 involved and some 50,000 killed men of Antiochus. Then hypothetically speaking would this statement be correct, even if NOT real good English? There has been taught some explanations on one hundred thousand and fifty thousand killed with some others captured. I assume you are from Europe someplace? --64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your sentence certainly makes much more sense. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: While your correctly structured sentence does make sense, you will have to agree that according to Livy there were 50,000 killed and also many others killed. Not that I want to change anything along these lines, its just the way I see it based on what Livy alone said.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 185 BC)]] 

message: Since you updated and did an excellent improvement to The Two Armies there was lost the references I had originally to Livy. Should there be replacement references as footnotes, perhaps to Granger (or Livy), to show where the information came from. Perhaps also the wording of In all, both writers agree... might be better worded along the lines of Livy and Appian agree... with two footnotes of them saying this at the end of the sentence. The next sentence of Grainger should probably have a footnote also. Its not that I am disagreeing with you on these, its just that I feel important (potentially controversial) facts like this should be backed up with footnotes to quench any future agruments. Can the 35,000 in the Box be changed to 30,000 to match  the Roman army was about 30.000 strong.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and put in the references, since it looked like you had stopped editing the article - for your approval.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: So I read in the first paragraph of the 2 armies that Hannibal was with Antiochus at Magnesia. I do not see Hannibal as one of the commanders, nevertheless this is false. Hannibal was with the Seleucid fleet at Eurymedon and after suffering a defeat at the hans of the Rhodians and Romans he quickly fled to Crete and therefore was not at Magnesia for several reasons as follows:
-He was with the fleet and then after retreating landed in Crete.
-He did not trust Antiochus and foresaw that he would be defeated.
-Antiochus did not value him and he figurd he would be placed in a weak command as Antiochus had done when he placed Hannibal as commander of the fleet but made him share command with another. The other instance is when Antiochus disregarded HAnnibal's plan to invade Italy because he knew that if Antiochus invaded Greece he would surely lose.
-Hannibal believed that Antiochus would have no problems with handing Hannibal over to the Romans
and in conclusion I will change the part where it says that Hannibal was at Magnesia.
Cauca50 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannibal not at Magnesia 

message: Regards "Behind them, Scipio held his 16 elephants in reserve, fully aware that the African elephants could not face the larger Indian stock on equal terms."
I'm not sure of the source of this, or other plausible explanations for the deployment so I don't want to WP:Be bold. However, the articles on the African and Indian elephants state that the African elephant is approximately 0.5m taller and a ton heavier than the Indian elephant. Doug (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, in the classical age is was common to believe, that the Asian elephants were bigger than the Africans. Why? Just guessing: Perhaps in that time "African elephant" meant the African forest elephant. --Kryston (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephants 

message: I've just removed this 'animated image' of the battle from the article:
There are obvious issues with this, starting with it's colour choice, which almost certainly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility guidelines. Frankly, if someone told me it was designed to introduce epileptic fits, I'd have difficulty arguing. It also, as an endless loop, utterly fails to actually convey any useful information about the battle, given the lack of any indication of where the starting point is supposed to be. Blocks shuffling about and disappearing in a blur aren't even remotely appropriate means to convey useful information, and I sincerely hope that had the image been in place when the 'good article' review took place (which seems not to be the case) it would have been rejected. If a pictorial depiction of movements within the battle are necessary, there are many much better ways than this to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly agree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated image