Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Zama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Featured articleBattle of Zama 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2023Good article nomineeListed
May 13, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 24, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the battle of Zama commenced with a charge by 80 war elephants?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2004, October 19, 2006, October 19, 2007, October 19, 2009, October 19, 2010, October 19, 2012, and October 19, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

Result parameter

This guideline is in place precisely to prevent this sort of argument. Hypothetically Next someone adds "Hannibal goes into exile" etc etc. It's bloat and it doesn't improve the article.Pipsally (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some sort of record? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did know it was coming! I should make a start later this afternoon, once I'm done with the source review on Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I have just emailed another editor about Hajj; thanks. You are clearly not as busy as I had supposed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

  1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
  3. it contains no original research; and
  4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • 2a. The article contains a list of references, in an appropriately titled section. A few non-GA required recommendations for the formatting of the references themselves below.
All done.
    • MOS initial spacing issues for "Dudley, D.R.", "Walbank, F.W."
Done.
    • No county for Warminster in "Lazenby, John (1998)", or state for Berkeley in "Walbank, F.W. (1990)"? For consistency, they would include them.
Added.
    • Query do you have two copies of A Companion to the Punic Wars? "Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]", and most of the chapters within are listed with "Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4." However, for "Zimmermann, Klaus (2015) [2011]", the details differ: "Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 280–298. ISBN 978-1-405-17600-2." This wouldn't even be an issue at FA if you have two referred to two copies with those differing details, but I found it intriguing.
The on line version is Chichester, the hardback is Oxford. I have access to both, although so far as I have been able to tell they are identical.
  • 2b. All citations are to apparently reliable sources.
  • 2c. Spotchecks carried out on three facts cited to accessible sources:
    • "His works include a now largely lost manual on military tactics," – Sourced to ref #3, Shutt 1938, p. 53. Appears in the source.
    • "The site of the battle is generally, but not universally, believed to be a flat area to the south of Sicca (modern El Kef), the Draa el Metnan." – Sourced to ref #110, Taylor 2019, pp. 313–314. Appears in the source.
    • "The formerly Carthaginian territories became the Roman province of Africa." – Sourced to ref #181 and #182. Appears in ref #181, unable to access #182, but happy enough.
  • 2d. Checks on those same sources as for 2c. for copyvio or close-paraphrasing reveals no concerns.

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

  1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • 6a. Minor issue below, but it doesn't prevent compliance in my mind. Nikki can wrangle with it at FA if necessary.
    • Why does File:Helmet typ Montefortino 01.jpg have a {{PD-old-100-1923}}? I can't see that the helmet itself can be copyrighted, only the photo should need a tag. Not really an issue I guess, too many tags is better than too few.
Don't be so sure. In Italy a photograph of the exterior wall of a public building is copyright, unless you can establish that the architect has been dead for 90 years. "If in doubt, tag it."
  • 6b. Again, only a very minor issue below, not enough to prevent GA compliance.
    • File:Stele des Polybios.jpg is captioned "Polybius". Are we in granny sucking eggs territory if I were to suggest maybe we should say it is a "Carved relief of Polybius"? We do, after all, provide such detail for the bust of Scipio later.
Yes. Perhaps "Photons striking your eyes and causing your central nervous system to create the illusion that your monitor contains the illusion of a monochromatic photograph of a carved relief of Polybius'?
You just can't get proper craftsmen these days! (Did you see what I ditched?)
There is a dearth of even vaguely relevant and acceptable (File:Schlacht bei Zama Gemälde H P Motte.jpg, shudder!) PD images. Given that I personally don't see the point of them outside maps and similar I find this especially annoying.

Prose review to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

3. Broad in its coverage:

  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Relevant Featured article criteria:

1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
  • 3a. Clearly no issue on this point.
  • 3b. It's no secret that we have differing opinions on this. For some context, I've also included the relevant FA criteria, because I know you are worried about making changes at GA that could compromise a future FA. My reading of 3b of the GA criteria, and point 4 of the FA criteria is they are essentially equivalent. If I think the article goes into too much unnecessary detail for an FA, then the same must apply at GA. But you've said in discussions elsewhere that you are worried that removing content will make the article no longer complaint with 1b. So I'm going to concern myself with content included in here that I do not think is necessary to "place the subject (in this case the Battle of Zuma) in context".
    • Overall, I'm pretty happy with the "Background" section; it mentions the First Punic War, and nicely summarises the "European campaign" of the Second. The only removal I would suggest is "These Numidians were mostly lightly equipped skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance and avoided close combat." And that's only because it is covered later in the "Opposing forces" section, where I think it is better suited anyway.
Whoops. It is frustrating how I can proofread something several times and still miss obvious points. Thanks. Gone.
    • The Prelude section is great for a prelude to the invasion as a whole, but is a bit too detailed for me as context for Zama itself. I would prefer it be retitled to something like "Roman preparations for invasion of North Africa", but that is largely neither here nor there. The first two paragraphs are okay.
You make a good case, and so retitled "Roman preparations".
    • Given the amount of details later given to the numbers and experience levels of those at Zama, I think the discussion of numbers in the third paragraph is too detailed. I wouldn't keep much more than "Modern historians estimate a combat strength of 25,000–30,000, of whom more than 90 per cent were infantry." and then the detail about the training if you want it, and the gathering of supplies.
Fair. Trimmed. Possibly not quite as much as you would prefer.
    • "..including some units made up of Carthaginian citizens." This is relatively meaningless until the sentence later that "Carthaginian citizens only served in their army if there was a direct threat to the city of Carthage." I'd just cut it, or specify that they worried Carthage itself was under threat.
Cut.
    • Opposing forces is fine.
    • Invasion. Thank you for the work you're already done on this, but I still think there is too much detail not needed to understand Zama.
      • "..in 400 transport ships, escorted by 40 galleys. Three days later.." We've already established overall numbers, do we need to know this, or how long the journey took?
Some of that trimmed.
      • "..with either 200 or 2,000 men, the sources differ.." Again, we don't need to know the numbers at this stage. Something like: "Masinissa joined the Romans with a reduced force after having been recently defeated by his Numidian rival Syphax, who had been persuaded to take action in support of Carthage."
I would like to keep the numbers in. Let me know if it is something you feel really strongly about and would like the full explanation. I think the net reduction is about what you were looking at anyway.
      • "..and a Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal set up a fortified camp 11 kilometres (7 mi) from the Romans. Syphax joined him, establishing his own camp 3 kilometres (2 mi) away from Hasdrubal's." Do we need to know the specifics of how far away they were? They set up camps, outnumbered the Romans, and forced them to pull back.
Trimmed.

Right, that's all I have time for right now, will come back to this later. Feel free to shout at me in the meantime. If you think I'm being completely unreasonable, and our interpretations of the criteria are just too wildly apart, shout even more, and I'll withdraw from the review for someone else to look at it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Stick with it. I'm a big boy, I can handle a reviewer ripping the heart out of my prose politely challenging my tendency to verbosity. It's character forming. And you do it so well. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, given I said there were no 3a concerns, and I've been telling you to cut stuff, my only remaining issue with the balance will probably see potentially see something added in. The article deals at length with Scipio's arrival in Africa, his preparations and his campaign through Africa, but as to Hannibal's return, as far as I can see, all we get is "Carthage also recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy.." and then "The Carthaginian Senate repeatedly ordered Hannibal to advance from its base at Hadrumetum (modern Sousse) and deal with Scipio's army, but Hannibal delayed until he had been reinforced by 2,000 Numidian cavalry led by a relative of Syphax – they were reputed to be elite troops." When did he return to Africa, how many men did he bring back with him, where did he land? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laughs long and loud. The first two paragraphs of "Prelude", bar the first two sentences, are the new material covering this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I deserve that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

  1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • 1a. A few minor issues on which we don't agree, but they are stylistic preferences, and I'm content that the article meets the criteria as written. I might revisit at FA if I feel like it.
    • Second paragraph of the "Background" section has five sentences, four of which start: "From 236 BC", "In 226 BC", "In 219 BC", "In early 218 BC", which makes it sound a bit bullet point-y.
I like bullet points. They are a good way of conveying information. I clearly got a bit carried away here. Fixed.
    • "..in particular in terms of cavalry.." To avoid close repetition of "in", could this be "..particularly in terms of cavalry.."?
I have gone with "especially in terms of cavalry."
    • "A series of exchanges of negotiating parties followed; Scipio obtained information.." The semi-colon feels wrong here. I can't put my finger on why, but it feels it would flow better as "A series of exchanges of negotiating parties followed, during which Scipio obtained information.." This is probably a personal preference thing though.
Looks a bit better to me too. Done.
    • "When recalled the limited number of ships available meant that few horses could be taken, many were slaughtered, and that many newer recruits were left in Italy." I'd just cut the "many were slaughtered" bit. It creates close repetition of "many" with the subsequent statement, and just isn't really needed, as the statement before gives the important information.
Done.
    • "..ordered Hannibal to advance from its base at Hadrumetum.." I find "its" odd here. If it refers to Hannibal, it should be "his"; does it refer to the Carthaginian Senate? I'd prefer "his", unless there is a specific reason against it.
Gah! Done.
    • "..and there is no record of reinforcements.." and then "..ancient sources agree that the Romans were reinforced by 6,000 Numidian infantry and 4,000 cavalry under Masinissa." Should the first clarify there is no record of Roman reinforcements? Or find an alternative word in the second case, such as "supported by".
Lol. Sorted.
    • "..the best of a bad job.." Is this encyclopaedic language?
It works for me, but tweaked anyway.
    • "The Carthaginian infantry, like the Romans' went in the centre." Comma after Romans' please.
Death to commas! Done.
    • "..Moor archers and Moor and.." Switch the link to the first Moor.
Rolly eyes!
    • "..is variously estimated at 12,000[142] 15,000–20,000.." Missing a comma after 12,000.
Inserted.
    • "Terrified by the swashbuckling infantry and their bugles the majority stampeded into the.." I'd like a comma after bugles to help readability of this sentence.
Also inserted. AirshipJungleman29 will be so happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "..and commenced a hard-fought, close-quarter, hand-to-hand combat." I'm not sure the "a" should be there.
I am. I am referring to "a combat". As in Wiktionary's first definition "A battle, a fight (often one in which weapons are used)."
    • "..according to Polybius to the point of fighting them off." I found this difficult to parse; could you flip it: "..to the point of fighting them off according to Polybius."
Hmm. That reads clunkily, and worse, to me. How about if I insert a semi colon?
    • "The survivors of the front rank.." To improve flow, consider adding "As such" at the start of this sentence.
Seriously, how does that improve flow? Happy to tweak, but not convinced that is the tweak we need.
  • 1b. No issues with the relevant sections of the MOS.
    • Not actually a GA requirement, but it hurts my eyes, and very much will be an FA requirement: "This extended from drills by individual centuries - the basic Roman army manoeuvre unit of 80 men - to exercises by the full army." Endashes please.
Done
    • Another personal preference; for the "Invasion section", consider restructuring it so tha first paragraph and "Battle of Utica" are merged into one section called "Utica", then the next three paragraphs go into another, "Battles of the Great Plains and Cirta", then make "Prelude" its own level 2 heading. Or don't, but I think it would improve the flow and readability of the article by making it less bitty, while merging similar sections.
Sliced a little differently, to similar effect. See what you think.
I like that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not a 1b. issue, and not at all required, but personally, I'd merge refs 124 and 125. The source-text integrity would be plenty fine with them together, and it would avoid the citation spam.
Ho hum, done.
    • "..against their shields - swashbuckling." Another endash, please.

Done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harrias, a lovely level of detail which is much appreciated. All addressed, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good here, passing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the battle of Zama commenced with a charge by 80 war elephants? Source: Lazenby, John (1998). Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War. Warminster, Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips. ISBN 978-0-85668-080-9. Page 223.

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Zama; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Gog the Mild: Very nice; you have done it once again. I will approve this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42.9% on Earwig, but I see mostly titles. Bruxton (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Sorry if this is a pointless question, but what happened to the image on this article? I feel it could benefit with one. 86.145.154.160 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. If you mean either this - File:Slaget ved Zama - Cornelis Cort, 1567.jpg - or this - File:Schlacht bei Zama Gemälde H P Motte.jpg - they disappeared because they have multiple inaccuracies. As Wikipedia we need to be able to reliably source everything we show, as well as everything we write. There is a serious dearth of accurate images of ancient battles and soldiers in the public domain. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add here that I think Gog's objections to the image is very relevant. A 16th century depiction of a 2nd century BC battle should always assumed to be historically inaccurate and biased. The purpose of 16th century artists was not to provide anything we would understand as "realism" but rather to contextualize it to their own time. They're only relevant to illustrate the legacy of an historical even, not the event itself.
This is no different from being skeptical of 16th century written histories of the 2nd century. We would never quote Erasmus as a source for what happened in ancient times, so why should we accept Cornelis Cort uncritically? Peter Isotalo 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't, but the Cort is an attractive image, and demonstrates Early Modern interest in the battle. It may be true that a 16th century depiction of a 2nd century BC battle should be assumed to be historically inaccurate, but I don't know what you mean by biased - since the 17th century rather admired Hannibal etc it is probably less biased than any Roman image of the battle, not that we have any. Neither part of "The purpose of 16th century artists was not to provide anything we would understand as "realism" but rather to contextualize it to their own time" is true. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument here is about aesthetics and I believe it flies in the face of MOS:PERTINENCE. I also think you know pretty well that 16th century understanding of history was not exactly what extremely lacking compared to today.
If you want to describe the historiography of the battle, I think you should. That's when Cort and the likes could fit in. But please don't pit your opinions about attractiveness against concerns about accuracy. Peter Isotalo 09:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image presently at the article is an interesting example of painting mimicking tapestry art, but it seems highly, even ridiculously, inaccurate: the elephants' front-facing eyes with furrowed, scowling brows; the impossibly gigantic howdahs; the line of elephants facing the line of Romans, when a major tactical innovation was to open Roman ranks and leave avenues down which the elephants ran, relatively harmlessly (do we have any examples of the Mahouts getting their beasts to turn to face the Romans?); etc. If we were to keep the image, its inaccuracies should be labeled, so as not to mislead readers. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a painting copying a tapestry which copied an engraving, which if nothing else shows the high level of interest, focused on Scipio, in the Renaissance in the subject. I'm all in favour of analysing images of battles against historical reality, but if we start down that path there is an awful lot of work to do. A gap of some 1,700 years is by no means required for images to be inaccurate. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should be careful not to give the wrong impression, and images of fanciful dress, tactics, etc., can do just that. There's been a resurgent interest in tapestry recently, which includes designs and derivative paintings. Shouldn't we be able to refer to catalog entries detailing how ahistorical a particular design has been found to be? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, but they tend not to be written by military historians. There's a long note here, in Russian on another Cort painting version. The original set of tapestries, for Francois I, were burnt in the Revolution, but the Louvre has a set of copies from c. 1690 (see commons). Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to including iconic but inaccurate paintings of historical events, but not merely as decoration or some sort of art historical footnote. Other than adding a splash of color, this painting provides zero relevant information about the battle. On the contrary, it's actively misleading from what we know about modern historical research of the period. There's already a pretty clear argument against it in MOS:PERTINENCE already and this isn't just some minor quibble about the wrong shade of helmet ornaments. For crying out loud, there's a Roman soldier rushing elephants in a colorful silk nightgown brandishing a goddamn cutlass. Peter Isotalo 02:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my comments at the top of this section, so I shall just add that I broadly agree with Peter's comments; the argument seems to be personal aesthetics against several policies. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background too big?

Hey @Gog the Mild:, is the background too big? I may be overreacting but we've got four paragraphs on the background and four on roman preparations. Then we have a paragraph on an invasion of Africa and then four paragraphs on a bunch of battles before this battle. Then, we have another two paragraphs detailing Hannibal's return and then finally two paragraphs on the prelude to the battle before the article on the battle actually begins. That kind of seems like a little too much background. Though, I would like to hear your opinion on this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Best place for discussion on this at the moment is the ongoing FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Zama/archive1. There has been discussion both ways regarding the length of the background detail! Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massylii role in the battle

Its well known that the Massylii,led by Masinissa were crucial in the battle with the Numidian cavalry they helped Romans achieve the battle so they deserve their place between the participants i dont understand why you deleted them. Tayeb188 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not well known at all, although it may be your personal opinion or interpretation. This is known as WP:OR and is not allowed. Could you produce high quality WP:RSs which state this. The ones I have access to describe the battle as one between the Romans and the Carthaginians, with only passing references to the Numidians on both sides. In a similar way to little being made of many of the "Carthaginians" being Bruttians or Moors. And "deserve" is not relevant; what you or I may think doesn't count, the question is "What do the HQ RSs say?" Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no Wikipedia:No original research over here,i dont know where did you get your sources from but it's well known among historians that Massylii with the commend of Massinissa did participate in this battle, Numidians on both sides were commended by their own chieftain who came to support their allied weather it was the king Syphax on the Carthaginians camp or Massinissa on the Romans one.it's literally stated everywhere and again im very surprised that you didn't know about it.here are some contemporary sources that attest it : [1][2][3][4][5] Tayeb188 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild is right on this point - we aren't writing history here, we are summarising the histories that have already been written by historians. Our own feelings about what is/isn't right or just don't matter - we follow the sources. This article isn't denying the presence of Numidian forces in the battle - they are mentioned right there in the lead - but for us to list Numidia as one of he belligerents, we would need reliable (modern) scholarly sources to do similarly. Girth Summit (blether) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i gave some sources above this comment,im by no means writing history here.Im just making things clear as if you did a little bit of researches,you would find that indeed the king of Massylii Massinissa did participate in this war and i think by denying it,you are the one writing history over here.and if you are searching about history,you need to take consideration sources that were close to the event,and that's what i did as Salluste did confirm the presence of Massinissa in the battle. Tayeb188 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is denying his involvement - that's already mentioned there in the article (and in the lead section, no less). The point we're making is that we don't use our own evaluation of what is fair, or what people deserve, to determine how we write the article - we follow the sources. Do any of the sources you're citing here describe it as a battle between 'Rome and Numibia' against Carthage (which is what your change to the 'belligerents' field of the infobox would imply)? Girth Summit (blether) 15:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"if you are searching about history,you need to take consideration sources that were close to the event,and that's what i did as Salluste". Possibly. But if one is writing a Wikipedia article one is required to use modern sources. Sallust, from more than 2,000 years ago is not a reliable source. He is a WP:PST and so should be used sparingly and with care, if at all. Even allowing for that, Sallust is not considered a significant source for the Punic Wars, eg see Mineo, Bernard (2015) [2011]. "Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (Apart from Polybius)". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 111–128. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont see why Salluste would have lied in the presence of Massinissa in the battle but apart from this,i gave you 4 sources and all of them attest that Massylli led by Massinissa have fought with the Romans in the battle even Polybius that you mentioned said that "the spies left the day before Massinissa arrived"[6]so if massinissa,king of Massylii have fought in the battle with the Romans why can't he be in the belligerents section? Tayeb188 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Girth Summit has answered that perfectly well. As we seem to be going in circles I am going to cease responding unless you make a new point. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep in mind that after the battle of Zama,Massinissa did unify Numidia to a single entity so we can say that Numidia is a unified version of the Massylii kingdom but you are right in the belligerent section it should be Massylii not Numidia. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources describe it as a battle between 'Rome and Massinissa' against Carthage? Or do they describe it as a battle between Rome and Carthage, in which Massinissa played and important role? As I've said, nobody is denying his involvement, that's already prominently noted in the article, but I'm not seeing the reason to add him to the info box like that. Please, in your next post, cite the wording of the sources that make you think we should do this. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have edited the article again to your preferred version, with a misleading edit summary. Can I urge you to revert this - if not it is unlikely to end well. I appreciate that Wikipedia's way of doing things can sometimes be frustrating, but this is not the way to handle it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont understand here,what are you waiting for i litteraly proved that massinissa was part of the battle with scipio what else do you want ? Tayeb188 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the belligerent section is for the participant in this battle if sources described as a battle between Rome and Carthage it doesn't mean they were without their allies i dont understand your point over here. Tayeb188 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK for you to not understand. It's not OK for you to reinstate your edit when you know that multiple people disagree with you. You need to convince people before you make the change. Girth Summit (blether) 00:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i thought we have agreed on it that is why i changed the version but from what i see we didn't,i gave you proof that Massinissa did participate in this war and i wanted to put it in the belligerent section(literally a section for the participant of the battle) so technically if he did participate with his own army he can be in the section but again i dont understand why you disagree with this,if you could explain the real reasons why you dont want to put it there it would be really helpful Tayeb188 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'belligerents' section of the infobox is there to list the main belligerents in the battle, not all the participants. If we were to add all of the allies of all of the people who fought alongside or against Rome, we would have an awful lot of articles to change, and probably a lot of excessively long and complicated infoboxes. As I understand it, most sources characterise Zama as a battle between Rome and Carthage, while acknowledging that both sides had allies on the field. Unless you can demonstrate that most sources characterise it differently, our infobox must reflect that. Girth Summit (blether) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kiffer, André Geraque (2019-12-07). Battle Of Zama, October 19, 202 Bc. Clube de Autores.
  2. ^ gamal, omar; gamal, ahmed (2020-06-23). Kings of the ancient world. Lulu Press, Inc. ISBN 978-1-716-80906-4.
  3. ^ Plutarch (1989). The Lives of Aristeides and Cato. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-85668-421-0.
  4. ^ Sallust (1838). Jugurthine War, And, Conspiracy of Catiline: With an English Commentary, and Geographical and Historical Indexes. Harper.
  5. ^ Fleischer, Aylmer von (2004). Retake Your Fame: Black Contribution to World Civilization. Revised and Expanded Edition, Volume 1. Aylmer von Fleischer.
  6. ^ Gabriel, Richard A. (2008-06-30). Scipio Africanus: Rome's Greatest General. Potomac Books, Inc. ISBN 978-1-59797-205-5.

Why does the painting keep on getting deleted?

I brought it back but it got deleted again. It's a good painting, and it's not misleading at all. It's obviously a medieval representation. 74.79.75.186 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was consensus at FAC that it was misleading, inaccurate and unsourced. Images, at least for FAs, need to meet the same standards as the prose. Just as we couldn't use prose from a romantic novel loosely based on the battle, we can't include an "imaginative reconstruction" as an image. Any reader looking at it would be actively misled. Why do you want to include it if you know it doesn't accurately represent the battle? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we remove the circas for the strength numbers

I propose removing the circas for all strength numbers. They look silly and I think readers are smart enough to understand all strength numbers are approximations. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The figures with "circa" are approximations, as indicated by the sources, and so it is appropriate to indicate this. I don't see that it is our role to guess what information readers will understand without our providing it. In what way (or why) do you feel that showing that some figures are approximate looks silly? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild So there were exactly 20,000 Carthaginians killed, exactly 20,000 captured and exactly 4,000 cavalry on the Carthaginian side? Otherwise these numbers will need circas as well. Besides the 29,000, the 30,000, the 40,000 and many others are given without circas in the article and in the sources. I propose to remove the circas because the historians in the citations don't use them as well. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, and so the article, all give the figure of 20,000 Carthaginians killed. And so we use it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: your opinion or my opinion on what the sources say is irrelevant; our role as editors is to reflect them. (I, like you, am quite sure that there were not exactly 20,000 dead Carthaginians. So what? Wikipedia cares nothing for our opinions, only for what the sources say. Also note that as an FA a strong consensus has already been established for the current version of the article, absent new information from the sources.) The sources and so the article state that the precise Roman numbers are uncertain; and so if we give them we need to also reflect this aspect of what the sources say. The accepted way of doing this, especially in infoboxes, is by using the circa template. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the numbers involved section. You used circas when the historians that were cited didn't. So you will have to adapt some of your circas. Either use circa for all the strength numbers in the infobox or remove them. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am referring to. Circas are consistently used when it is clear that the sources are not certain about a number and not when they supply a specific figure. Your proposal would inaccurately represent the sources and the numbers involved section. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what you did in one of your last edits. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show the diff? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild They usually give a total of 29,000 (Miles 2011)(Taylor 2019)} or 30,000 (Lazenby 1998)(Taylor2019) although Nigel Bagnall gives 40,000.(Bagnall 1999). Of these, slightly more than 6,000 were cavalry.(Lazenby 1998).
They are clearly approximations, but given as exact numbers. So according to your proposal we should use them as exact numbers. That means no circas. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "that is not what you did in one of your last edits"?
What the article says is a summary of what the sources say. You need to quote the sources, not the article. The sources are what counts. As I thought I made clear above, in the post commencing "The sources ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild You edited in the circas.
I just had a look at the battles of the Second Punic War and non of them had circas in them. So again: I suggest we remove the circas. Otherwise this battle is breaking with the style of the Battles of Second Punic War. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait a further week, if no one objects to my latest suggestion, I will implement it.
I reiterate: I suggest removing the circas to have uniformity with all other Battles of the Second Punic War which do not use them. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use a range for the Roman strength numbers?

There are 4 strength numbers for the Romans (all from renowned historians), but no uniformity. I suggest using as range because the real strength number is somewhere in between the extremes. There is some precedent to this suggestion (see: the casualties at the Battle of Cannae). LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We could. The infobox when I nominated the article for FA gave a range and that gained consensus there. I suggest using the range which was supported then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Then I don't get why you fought me on my earlier edits when I tried to use a range? Which range would you like to use? LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's late here. I'll reply with the why and my preferred range in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, both RL and Wikipedia have been busy. Originally I put a range in, and a circa, to show the consensus of the HQ RSs. I excluded Bagnall as a single, unexplained outlier - worthy of going in the article, but not the infobox because of WP:UNDUE. You introduced Bagnall's number - well, ok, it's a bit subjective - and made it a range. Which it isn't. Either the vast majority are correct, or Bagnall is. There is zero support in the sources for any figure between c. 30,000 and 40,000.
So I would suggest removing Bagnall's figure from the infobox as undue and using the range c. 29,000 – c. 30,000 as the consensus of the HQ RSs. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Hi Gog, no apologies needed, I've been busy as well ( working on some C class pages ;-) and enjoying my holiday). I agree with you about Bagnall (although his numbers have some merit). I would prefer a 29,000 – 35,000 range (this would include Goldsworthy's numbers), but would also agree with 30,000 (not a range). After doing some more research I found most historians to agree on around 30,000. This would give the infobox some uniformity, since the strength numbers for Hannibal are round numbers as well. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, you are proposing a Roman strength of c. 30,000 with sub-totals of c. 24,000 infantry and c. 6,000 cavalry, yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I would prefer the numbers without 'circa', but a compromise seems the right way to go forward so... Let's agree on c. 30,000 with c. 24,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I forgot the c. for the cavalry. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also done. I did wonder, but I didn't want to start the conversation all over again. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Zama&oldid=1240110781"