Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)/archive1

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those not yet surfeited on First Punic War articles, I offer this relatively short article on Rome's nine-year-long attempt to end the war by capturing one of Carthage's last two strongholds on Sicily. How did it go? Read and find out. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Harrias

It is unclear from the Background section; did the Carthaginians hold Sicily prior to the First Punic War?

Who controlled what expanded somewhat to make this clearer.

"The remaining Roman consul, Lucius Caecilius Metellus sent out.." Add a comma after Metellus.

Done.

Move the Lilybaeum link to the first use.

Done.

"..under the command of Himilco." Who? Everyone else has been introduced with some sort of title or position.

Done.

"..as being 20-metre -deep (60 ft) and 30-metre -wide (90 ft)." Not quite right, should just be "20 metres (60 ft) deep and 30 metres (90 ft) wide."

I know what you mean, and I have amended to suit, but how I originally had it is how the convert template renders it and how virtually every other FA renders similar conversions.

If it were "a 20-metre-deep (60 ft) and 30-metre-wide (90 ft) dry moat", then I would completely agree. But as "a dry moat that was 20 metres (60 ft) deep and 30 metres (90 ft) wide", the size isn't being used as an adjective, so it shouldn't be hyphenated. I think. Harrias ^talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The caption states "The south-east corner where the Romans started their assault is bottom right." but the article says "assaulted the south-west corner of the fortifications."

I don't know what it is with south west/east; I kept messing this up in my Gascony articles. Thanks for picking it up. Fixed.

"The Romans also lost men to exposure.." Exposure to what?

Just wikt:exposure: "Lack of protection from weather or the elements". The only Wikilink is to hypothermia, which isn't quite the same thing. Privation is no use at all. I could add the Wiktionary link? Or switch to wikt:privation?

Maybe we need to tighten the language in the article. Wiktionary wikt:exposure also gives "The condition of being exposed, uncovered, or unprotected." which remains vague. Possibly rephrase the article to "The Romans also lost men to the elements, disease and poor food; including rancid meat."?

Changed to "The Romans also lost men due to disease, inadequate shelter and poor food; including rancid meat."

"..derogatively as "mercenaries"[43] Their loyalty.." Could do with a full stop.

Inserted.

"..intending to betraying the city." -ing.

Removed.

Link "sally" to Sortie (siege warfare).

Drat. Done.

"The Roman assault continued. The Romans broke down part of the wall using catapults. The defenders built an inner wall." Not keen on the bullet point-like sentences here.

No? I have run it into "The Roman assault continued and they broke down part of the wall using catapults; the defenders countered by building an inner wall." Better?

I prefer that, yes. Harrias ^talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"By means which are unclear in the sources, possibly by tempting them further into the city, Himilco destroyed them and recaptured the wall." The phrasing of this suggests OR or EDITORIALIZING; try to rephrase it to make clear that this is what the secondary sources say, not Wikipedia.

Done.

The article Battle of the Aegates says "The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on the vessel captured from Hannibal the Rhodian.", but this article is cagier: "The Romans modelled the ships of their new fleet on a captured blockade runner with especially good qualities, possibly Hannibal the Rhodian's." Be consistent.

Why? There is no policy or guideline requiring consistency between articles.

Sure, but why be vague in one, and definite in the other? If we're sure, then let's say it, and if we're not, let's not. Harrias ^talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Polybius is clear enough. It is some of the modern sources who want to hedge their bets. Given the gap between capturing Hannibal's ship and the shipbuilding programme, I can understand why. Let's go with Polybius. Changed.

It goes against normal policy, but I would suggest linking Battle of the Aegates again in Naval clashes, given that it is a long time since the first mention, which is also in a section that many might skip. Usability over policy!

I entirely agree, but had stopped doing it because it is always picked up by rulesworths. Done.

Date the Battle of the Aegates.

Done.

"The question of which state was to control the western Mediterranean remained open.." Sounds a bit OPED-y.

Plenty of sources, but I have gone for the blander "Tensions remained high between the two states, and both continued to expand in the western Mediterranean."

Also, try to avoid the single-sentence paragraph.

I do. As you know. But occasionally a single sentence is all there is to say. Now doubled.

@Gog the Mild: Anything on this one? Harrias ^talk 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me at the moment. Another nice article. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias that was very swift. If you liked it, much of the credit should go to Eddie891, who put in a lot of work at GAN. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Harrias. I missed it down there. Now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

I would make it clearer in the lede that the Romans took the city after the Treaty of Lutatius was signed, but that they were unable to take it through a military assault.

What is unclear about "... the Romans ... made a concerted effort to take Lilybaeum by assault, but were unsuccessful and the siege became a stalemate ... By the terms of the resulting Treaty of Lutatius, Carthage had to withdraw its forces from Lilybaeum and the rest of Sicily."

I would say something like "The city held the siege until the end of the war, and was only evacuated by the Carthaginians after the Treaty of Lutatius was concluded..." but it is related to the "Roman victory" in the infobox that bothers me. So I wanted to say more clearly that Rome did not take the city before the end of the war.

I am inclined to agree with you that it is the infobox where the real issue lies; see my suggestion below. I have also tweaked the last sentence of the lead to try and bring out this point.

Yes, the lede is better. What about making a note on the "Roman victory" in the infobox? I would be fine with that.

Same with the "result" in the infobox (not sure if it's possible to summarise this in the infobox, but I wouldn't be against saying "stalemate/Carthage evacuates the city in 241").

I am not keen on complicated explanations against "Result" and it is discouraged. I understand where you are coming from. The usual option, if it can't be summarised in two or three words is "See aftermath".

Would you say the siege was a victory for Rome? They couldn't take the city... I'm not sure how to formulate this though.

I'm not entirely sure that I would. That's why I said that I understood where you are coming from.

Happens all the time at MilHist. I have just checked the guidance - Template:Infobox military conflict - and it suggests leaving it blank in inconclusive cases. Not helpful.

Arf, yes, not helpful.

I have changed the infobox to "Roman victory – see Aftermath" Does that work?

Perhaps you can shorten the Roman names in the infobox to avoid them spanning over two lines: Gaius Atilius Regulus Serranus-->C. Atilius Regulus Serranus; Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus-->L. Manlius Vulso Longus; Publius Claudius Pulcher-->P. Claudius Pulcher; Gaius Lutatius Catulus-->C. Lutatius Catulus.

If, I did that, and I don't want to, I would need to put a ^[note] against each one. Which would make it pointless. I would be happy to miss the praenomina out altogether in the infobox.

Yes, removing the praenomina could do it.

Done. It looks better on my screen.

Me too.

In the Primary sources section, perhaps you can mention Philinus of Agrigentum among the pro-Carthaginian sources Polybius used.

Done.

Can you move up the map "Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage at the start of the First Punic War" so it doesn't push the "Background" title in the middle of the screen?

What size images do you have your preferences set to? Currently, the map is as high as it can go without making a sandwich on 2 of the 4 screens I have checked it on, and doesn't get near the "Background" section on any of them. I could email you screenshots? Or you could send me one?

I've disconnected and this is what I see: https://imgur.com/a/rClvi8v

Harrias has emailed me a screenshot and I was surprised how bad it looks on their screen. I sent them an image of my most crowded screen and assume that they were just as surprised. I am not sure what the answer is.

I have moved the map up as you suggested, which creates a slight MOS:SANDWICH on several of my screens, but should look better on yours.

Didn't change anything for me... I've made an edit and now the titles are not pushed in the middle, but all the pictures are stacked on the right side. Tell me if that's better for you. T8612 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes things slightly worse for me, but that is mostly aesthetic. If it resolves your issue - great.

In the Siege section, I would say "Lilybaeum and Drepana (modern Marsala and Trapani)" to match ancient and modern names (you have reversed the order).

Gah! What an idiot. Thank you. swapped.

I would say in this section that Pyrrhus had also failed there in 287 BC.

I thought about that when I was writing it, but what happened 39 years earlier in a different war didn't seem too relevant. But if you think that it would help, then done. See what you think.

I think the term Fabian Strategy is anachronistic here, as it was designed in the Second Punic War. Moreover, the Fabian Strategy was a war of attrition, while Hamilcar waged a guerrilla. I would use guerrilla instead; although the term was coined later too, it is more accurate here.

All language is anachronistic, as you note. "Fabian strategy" is lifted from a RS. But if you think it jars, then fair enough. Rephrased.

I would move up the picture of the denarius to remove the large white space above the Aftermath section.

I think that you have your image preference set on large. But moved up anyway.

In the Aftermath, I would say that Carthage tried to recapture Lilybaeum at the beginning of the Second Punic War (in 218). Source: John Briscoe, "the Second Punic War", in J. A. Crook, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (editors), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VIII, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 61.

Very good point. Smacks head. Not that their was a lot, if anything, to it. Done.

T8612 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that T8612, you are very quick off the mark as well. All of your points addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Np^^ There is still this question of whether it was a victory for Rome. Do we have another featured article with the same situation? I've found Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45), but it's not a FA. This might be a question for the MilHist wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Responded above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: And further responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Attar

"Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and largely neutral". Is it? I understand why some scholars might consider him objective, especially if they are inspired by positivism. However, no historian is objective and we cant say that Polybius is objective because many scholars consider it as such. For example, the objectivity of Polynius is contested in this work. Therefore, it should be stated that a group of scholars consider Polybius neutral, but not present this as a consensus or a fact.

"traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out". Can an example be given here?

"war elephants which the Carthaginians had shipped to Sicily". Maybe a note explaining the origin of these elephants as I know that African bush elephant were not used by humans and this elephant is probably the first to come to mind when a reader unfamiliar with the history of war elephants read the sentence "war elephant". Carthage may have used the North African elephant, but maybe also the Syrian elephant-Surus being an example.

"It was the long-standing Roman procedure to appoint two men each year to senior positions, known as consuls". Senior positions is too broad. It should be noted that the consul was the highest position a politician can get (sort of a president)

"In 278 BC it had withstood a siege by the highly-esteemed Greek commander Pyrrhus of Epirus". A short background is useful (like in the context of a war against Carthage...etc). Also, "highly-esteemed" sounds a bit celebratory, but its optional for Gog to keep it or remove it.

"Carthaginian citizens played a limited role in their army, most of the rank and file were foreigners". From where mostly?

Adrian Goldsworthy is introduced in the Primary sources section so there is no need to re-introduce him in the Naval clashes section (just using his surname is enough)

"By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding". "By now" or "by then"? Im not the grammar expert so I might be mistaken.

"At the start of this war there were reports of a Carthaginian plan to recapture Lilybaeum" can this be elaborated? like who mentioned this and to whom was is attributed? (for example: Polybius wrote that a Carthaginian leader -enter name- expressed his intentions to reconquer the city...etc)

Nothing more to say. Great read and a comprehensive article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]