Talk:First Punic War

message: The Phoenicians lacked the population or necessity to establish large self-sustaining cities abroad, and most of their colonial cities had fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, but Carthage and a few others developed larger populations because of interbreeding with the berbers thus creating the Punic language THAT IS A MIX OF BERBERS AND PUNIC. WHY ARE YOU RASICT TRYING TO UNDERPLAY THE PART OF NUMIDIANS WHO WHERE CALLED THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD BY THE ROMANS. PLEASE CONTROL THIS BULSHIT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.214.102 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have reverted this edit by a user who has a history of hoaxing. Please check if it's correct. Conscious 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Polybius' history on the matter. It looks correct - Vedexent 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - it should be 3200 or 1000 extra talents, not both. - Vedexent 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: The initial power struggle in Sicily involved attempts by Syracuse and Carthage to dominate
the northeast portion of the island, including Messina. Hiero of Syracuse first attacked
before he was elected tyrant, and Carthage intervened to prevent the victory of their rival.
Messina turned to Rome later, hoping for more reliable protection. The prior text merged
the separate assaults of Hiero and confused the dates.
--StephenMacmanus 10:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrected factual errors in "Beginning" section

message: The background section is basically a copy paste of this site http://www.crystalinks.com/punicwars.html   Ciriii 22:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and contains major errors Wandalstouring 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the indicated site, however, is a copy of Wikipedia - and not the other way round --217.229.94.149 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Paste 

message: I base the 270/100K number on Dupuy; he, however, puts it in 256.  Trekphiler 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the sea in ''[[corvii]]'' 

message: Really niece someone made pictures about these events, but it is too obviously based on a game and very much from a Roman perspective. In the last image "end game" is not really needed. Source these images please. Wandalstouring 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  games 

message: I would quite like to know what the army actually consisted of. Mercenaries and ect. But I think that they should the battles in better details.Like the actuall units
:We lack quite a lot of information for this and have only reports from their respective opponents. Wandalstouring 13:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Actuall Army 

message: Livy [1.19]..."Thinking that the ferocity of his subjects might be mitigated by the disuse of arms, he built the temple of Janus at the foot of the Aventine as an index of peace and war, to signify when it was open that the State was under arms, and when it was shut that all the surrounding nations were at peace. Twice since Numa's reign has it been shut, once after the first Punic war in the consulship of T. Manlius, the second time, which heaven has allowed our generation to witness, after the battle of Actium, when peace on land and sea was secured by the emperor Caesar Augustus."... Wandalstouring 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes about the First Punic War 

message: I suspect this person doesn't exist. Besides the fact that his name just looks wrong
for a 3rd century BC Carthaginian, I can't find any independent references for him.
Other than mirrored copies of this article, the only reference I did find is from the
"Spotlight on Games" website which includes military games. I don't think it counts. ;-)
If anyone knows a reliable source for this guy, feel free to restore him to the list.
StephenMacmanus 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a general Bostar, he is famous for being extremely stupid and giving away the hostages held at Sagunt(Polybious). Possibly this is his name in a non-English spelling. Wandalstouring 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted doubtful general "Bostzer"

message: So, could anyone explain why "incompetent leaders" was reverted to "demagogues"? Nobody understands this expression in this context, and furthermore it has got a negative connotation. --217.229.68.147 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: demagogues is totally out of place. bad leaders is questionable, shit happens in war and even generals like the later Hannibal were almost wiped out because someone made an error, so I will rephrase it to 'bad weather and unfortunate tactical dispositions before battle'. Wandalstouring 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demagogues 

message: In the section
"Beginning", this sentence isn't finished:
Most likely unwilling to see Carthaginian power spread further over Sicily and get too close to Italy, Rome responded by entering into an alliance with (?) 
Isn't it supposed to be "the Mamertines"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.2.8 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole sentence needs a source because no ancient writer tells us about such motives. Wandalstouring 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfinished Sentence 

message: :Category:First Punic War is itself a category within :Category:Punic Wars. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Punic Wars]] vs. [[:Category:First Punic War]]  

message: Hello to everyone! I believe that the date style in this article should be changed from the Christian centered AD-BC system to the BCE ireligious system. Since both systems denote the same years it is just a matter of adding an "E" to every "BC" in the article. A small change in practice but a very important one in that this way the article doesn't take a religious stance (for example, the article Jesus doesn't refer to the person as "Our holy lord").Please add your take on the subject so that we may reach the consensus needed to either stay with the current version or switch to the Commen Era one. --Macarenses (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. You may need to review WP:ERA, although I was under the impression that it once said you had to keep the convention with which the article began. I've recently argued for an era change on "substantial reason" grounds (here, if you'd care to see this tempest in a teapot), but I don't find any in this case. Your argument that "it's Christian-centric" is slender: even if you change the abbreviations, you're still using the birth of Christ as the hypothetical "zero year," thus it's still Christian-centered. This is just historical fact, and it causes no misperceptions (not like, say, the Christian-centric practice of calling Cicero a "pagan," which is something that didn't exist in the 1st century BC, at least not in the sense intended, and grossly misinforms as to what Cicero's religious practices were). Besides, you'd be surprised how many people think "CE" stands for "Christian Era." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC to BCE 

message: The article is not clear if the money asked by the Romans was 2200 talents of gold or silver or what.
Other important consequence not mentioned is that Carthage invaded Iberia short after in order to extract metals and pay the enormous indemnization. 
And important also, having control of important silver mines in Iberia, the Punics felt themselves powerful enough to destroy Rome and start the Second Punic War. Something similar happened in the XX century when the Germans took the indemnization issue as an excuse to revenge in other war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.125.189 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your Comment! the matter has been addressed.--Macarenses (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: At least from what I´ve read now about the beginnings of the conflict, there is not much mention about different theories, much of the text seemingly following the account Polybius very closely. Authors before me seemingly didn´t even find it necessary to insert an "according to Polybius", or the like. I dont´think that it is sufficient to mention a source as such only in the citations, when the accuracy of that source is actually a matter of considerable scientific debate. --Mike F2 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Beginning every sentence with "according to" or some other caveat simply doesn't read well. Most of the article is sourced to Polybius for the same reasons most of the Peloponnesian War article (which I took no part in) is sourced to Thucydides. Nobody says they are infallible, but they are the most thorough historians we have on the subjects, and a lot closer to the events then some revisionist professor living in the early 21st century. If there is another writer from the period with a different theory then that can be added, or if (and I don't know if the article already does this) someone wanted to add a statement about "most of what we know comes from..." that would be fine too. The Battle of Marathon article (much of which is sourced to Herodotus, who was hardly perfect) has a "sources" section where the issues are discussed. But again, in the interest of readablity, an inline citation is generally sufficient. AlexiusHoratius 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you both have a point. There are indeed some classics articles that seem based only on ancient sources, but this one includes modern secondary sources, so that does address Mike F2's concerns at least in part. Alexius notes that for stylistic elegance you can't start every sentence with "according to Polybius," and I do think a footnote is adequate, with an introductory sentence such as Alexius suggests ("Polybius is the main source" or such). The solution, if one is needed, is for Mike F2 to introduce scholarship that provides different perspectives on Polybius's narrative. When I see footnotes divided between ancient and modern secondary sources, as these are, I assume (perhaps optimistically) that the ancient sources have already been "filtered" through the scholarship. So it would be a matter of ensuring balance in presenting the scholarly interpretations available. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, but I really don´t think that in this case it is sufficient to put the sources in the citations only. There is, indeed, no need put it in every sentence; I didn´t do that, as you will see, but only put it at the beginnings of paragraphs. I also find it, to say the least, a bit odd what AlexiusHoratius says here: Nobody says they are infallible, but they are the most thorough historians we have on the subjects, and a lot closer to the events then some revisionist professor living in the early 21st century. Well, that´s your opinion. Modern histporians, by contrast, make their living out  of comparing ancient sources (there are more than only Polybius, as you probabaly know), and, especially, in interpreting and criticizing them and trying to work out a plausible version. And I do think that wikipedia articles don´t aim at giving the views of wikipedia authors, but the views held by the scientific commmunity. Of course, we shouldn´t repeat the same mistake by giving the view of one modern historian and selling that practically as the genuine truth by putting it only in the form of, seemingly, matter-of-fact-statements, as was the case before my editing was done, and is still the case in other parts of the article. The solution must be, for the time being, that we need to make clear from the text for every reader that the version to be read here is one version; in time, we should add additional material, so as to point out some of the more important versions discussed by historians then and now. __Mike F2 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I want to add that a citation does not imply that there are different versions discussed by scientists; of course, if something is generally considered as a matter of fact, such as “Hitler started WWII in September of 1939” to take an easy example, it can be stated this way, and the source can be given in the citations only. But, if there is considerable scientific debate on a topic, and that holds true for the Punic Wars (mainly since they occurred much longer ago than WWII, and we therefore have much less surviving sources) it is necessary to point that out to the reader somewhere (and if it is only once in special section of the article, but I don´t find that practical). O course, you needn´t necessarily mention the name of the author you are following, you can just put it like “one version is…” or something like that, but when the source is Polybius, I find it more appropriate to name him, since he is considered a very important source on the topic. --Mike F2 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are other classical sources or more recent theories that aren't essentially one modern historian's opinion then by all means add them. It certainly is not my belief that Polybius is the gospel and everything else is suspect. (My cynicism about modern theories comes mostly from seeing far too many works with some sort of socio-political bone to pick...if I had a nickel for every time I've read the phrase "race, class, and gender" I'd be set.) But of course there are excellent and neutral modern historians as well. Nobody's saying they can't be used. AlexiusHoratius 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then maybe I got you wrong; sorry for that. And maybe I´ll add something, if I find time (I really would like to), but for the time being, I would suggest we leave my phrases "according to Polybius" and stuff? To make my poit a bit clearer, I give you just one example: In the case of my deleted “If one follows Polybius” – for example, it is said there that the Mamertines had thrown them out of their city; other ancient historians claimed that there was some Roman named Claudius (apparently not the Roman commander, but a namesake) who went to Messana ahead of the army and “tricked” (I think it was put this way) the Carthaginians into leaving the city. My source on that is Hoyos, B.D.:  Unplanned Wars. The Origins of the first and second punic wars, de gruyter, Berlin/New York 1998. --Mike F2 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just a passing insert); yes, that's close to my own reasoning on how "according to..." should be used. Haploidavey (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Nothing to apologize for - I can see how my original statement could be read as "Modern historians suck", which wasn't my intention. I think the consensus that we can all agree on is that classical sources are fine so long as they are used through the proper neutral/modern prism, and modern theories are fine so long as we aren't violating Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources). AlexiusHoratius 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: To anyone who unerstands Geman I recommend to also read the German article on this topic; there is somewhat of a real discussion to be found in the section about the causes of the war, although by no means a comprehensive one, and maybe also a bit biased in some points, but it´s better then nothing, I would say. --Mike F2 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  different theories 

message: I noticed that the map in the info-box has Carthago Nova in Hispania Ulterior. The map is titled for 264 BC, but Carthago Nova wasn't founded until 227 BC (see Cartagena). In case that's a mistake, I erased the name and city marker in GIMP. There was (possibly) a town known as Mastia there prior to Carthago Nova, and I could edit that in there if it seem's more correct. I've uploaded a new version of the map here:
Besvo (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  264 BC map error 

message: Greetings to the contributors and watchers of this article. It seems to have languished as B class for some time and I feel that it deserves better. I am intending to give it a major overhaul, and hopefully get it to FA. Having recently seen  Battle of Cape Ecnomus to FA and with two other battles from the war on their way through the assessment process, I feel that I have some idea of what I am doing.
Obviously, this being Wikipedia, I am hoping that other editors will freely step in to make this article as high quality as we can. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrade planned

message: Do we need spaces before and after an en dash used for time range? This website says no. 
A span of years (such as “2009–2012”) or any other time range includes an en dash. (And note that “from 2009–2012” and “between 2009–2012” are incorrect; either use both from and to, or between and and, or neither.) The same treatment is given to a sequence of components, such as a range of chapter or page numbers or amounts (for example, “chapters 1–10” or “250–300 pages”). Hanberke (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. My misreading of MOS:DASHES. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No spaces for a span of years format 

message: Hi 
The normal convention when wishing to demonstrate a change is to either put it in a sandbox, or make the change to the article and then self revert. The diff can then be posted - eg  - and discussed without getting into an edit war. I will undo your edit again, with no prejudice - I may end up entirely agreeing with it - and post my thoughts on it here. I note that you made a subsequent small change. Is your revision of the lead ready to be discussed, or are you still working on it?
You comment that I have asked for "collaboration". I have no memory of this, but my memory is not what it was; could you point me to where this discussion is taking place?
Thanks.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hi  and apologies for not getting back to you earlier; I came back from holiday to a confusion of RL and Wikipedia issues and this article completely slipped my mind. Checking your FAC comments the technical terms you specifically wanted explaining were "shock" and "close-order". I have found an article on the latter which is pretty good and have linked it in at first mention. There is an article on shock troops, but it is inappropriate; so I have inserted a footnote cited to a basic text (page 1 no less!).
*Does this cover your concerns?
*Is there anything else which stands out as being technical? I am probably too close to all of this jargon to be a good judge. In particular variants of the "Armies" section turn up in previous and (hopefully) future FAs, so if you feel like focusing on a smaller section, that is probably the one.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thank you for getting back to this. I always enjoy reviewing your work, so I'm happy to keep an eye out for future articles...Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical terms 

message: Hi , you may remember me being frustrated that I couldn't support there having been 11 rams recovered from off the Aegates because I was stuck in the Highlands. I said that I would get back to you. I still can't reconstruct my original sourcing *eyeroll* but this would seem adequate to support the original assertion. However, digging a little further, I found on the website of the organisation doing the excavations this with "As of the end of the 2018 field season, 19 ancient warship rams have been added to the archaeological record". Are you OK with me updating appropriately? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of rams recovered