Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) 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.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as
Today's featured article on September 16, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that shortly after the Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Thanks. I had a look at this a while ago (page 164 in my edition) but thought it a bit flamboyant to be a RS. I think that I need to reassess that, given how little I have to go on. I am going through my sources seeing what I can squeeze out.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
Gog the Mild. Have you considered the year of the battle, 255 BC instead of 254 BC, and the approximate location where the Roman fleet was devastated by the storm (... it ran into a gale off Camarina, a town near the southeastern tip of Sicily...)? Infobox has "Unknown number of ships sunk", but it was 16 ships now according to Casson (Google Books link provided above) in the text (Please also note that it was 14 ships in your version of the source. Might be a typo?). Infobox has "350 ships"/quinqueremes for the Romans, but 40 more ships sortied from Aspis to join the battle.
Hanberke (
talk)
05:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I've found
this book with some details on the battle and the storm.
Battle: All we know is that the poorly-trained Carthaginians sailed too close to the coast, afraid to be encircled by the Romans, who were numerically superior. This strategy turned out to be ill-advised, for it allowed the Romans to advance in line abreast formation. The threatening boarding bridges drove many Carthaginian ships on to the shallows near the coast or fastened themselves to the decks, after which the Roman marines dealt with the crews. After this battle the Romans under siege in Clupea were evacuated without any difficulty.
Storm: According to Polybius, the obstinacy and lack of experience of the Roman consuls are to be blamed for this massive shipwreck. They had disregarded warnings from experienced sailors not to round the cape.
The time of year was about the beginning of the dog-days, when the Mediterranean is apt to be visited by sudden storms. The consuls, upon their passage, were warned that such a storm was at hand; but they were ignorant and rash, and continued their course. Before they could double Cape Pachynus they were caught by the[224] tempest; almost the whole fleet was wrecked or foundered; the coast of Sicily from Camarina to Pachynus was strewed with fragments of ships and bodies of men. Such was the end of the first Roman fleet (255 b.c.). (THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD).
Hanberke (
talk)
12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"The Carthaginians had 114 of their ships were captured," 'had' vs 'were', one has got to go?
Very true.
"What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known" maybe "Whether there were Roman losses is not known" or "Any Roman losses are not known"-- I just think the ', if any,' is an unnecessary break
I am trying to say too things here. I could express it more wordily, but would rather not. Is it a question of your not understanding, or of finding the term a little clunky?
*Rolls eyes* Because my last seven FACs/ACRs have been reviewed by
CPA-5 who asked me to unlink
Latin. I am sure that their reasoning is sound. So I decided to stop pushing my personal preference to link it and, just this once, prophylactically unlink it. Now linked. If I take this to ACR, I imagine that I shall be asked to unlink it.
"The galley expert John Coates " might be useful to clarify that he's a modern expert and not a Roman expert or even like a medieval expert?
Done.
"prior naval experience" -> "naval experience prior to the First Punic War" might be useful to remind readers what this sentence refers to, and clarify that it isn't just more background?
Done.
"The quinquereme provided the workhorse" -> "was the workhorse"? I know 'provided the' is used by some authors, but 'was the' seems to be far more common from a quick google search
Done.
"are also occasionally mentioned" mentioned where?
Fixed.
does ubiquitous need a wt link? I'd think it's a rather common word-- one might even say it's ubiquitous
In another review I was specifically asked to link it. I agree with you, so unlinked.
"At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively." maybe "At least half of the oarsmen needed to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively."?
Done.
You should probably describe and link the corvus
Gah! I can't believe that I did that! Too close. Done.
"25,000 soldierswho would have included many of the survivors of Regulus's army and 70,000" I only count... 95,000?
I am quoting a source. Where do you get 95,000 from. (This is not the same size fleet as the previous year and was carrying an unknown number of captured Carthaginian rowers. An OR calculation gives 384 times (300 plus 120) equals 161,000 as an upper limit. And 384 x 340 = 130,000 as a lower. So I suspect that the sources are being conservative.
"with probably many of these being" -> "with many of these probably being"?
Better; done.
I'm confused about the dashes here: "rs of Regulus's army – and 70,000 rowers and crew – with". As I understand it, those dashes are essentially parenthesis, meaning you have written "rs of Regulus's army (and 70,000 rowers and crew) with" which would imply that the 'survivors of Regulus's army' were Carthaginians taken captive?
I have repuncuated. Better?
"Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed." is he referring to the battle or the storm?
Gog the Mild, I think that's pretty much it. Your coordinates go to a spot on land? Other then that, I'm satisfied that the article is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced and otherwise meets the GA criteria
Eddie891TalkWork23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Eddie891, thanks; you put a lot of work into these reviews, and I appreciate it. On a separate note, may I ask your advice? This article has been a little "bricks without straw", there is so little information on the battle in the primary sources. Would you advise that I leave it as a GA, or is there enough meat on the bones for it to have a chance at ACR, or even FAC?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild, That's a hard one, I'd definitely say it's borderline, particularly because as you say there's so little written on it. What I gained from a bit of scouring the internet is that there really isn't much that's not mentioned in the article; apparently Polybius just says the Carthaginians
presented no problem. A potential problem I see might be that the storm is also really only covered in this article, so there might be some expansion possible there? You could also consider adding a bit more about how little the battle is covered, that's what DeSantis (linked above) seems to mostly talk about when he's not rambling about his own theories.
But I'd reckon you could squeeze an ACR and maybe FAC through as long as it incorporates all historiography available, seems like there is just enough in the article. There are certainly
shorter articlesthathavegotten the star.
As an aside, keep your eyes open for Fabian Ware; I can feel this is the week he's going to be ready for ACR. Just need to finish my book (that just arrived-- only a week and a half late!) and double check all the sources and read through the article again.
Eddie891TalkWork14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
... that shortly after winning the naval Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives? Source: Tipps, G.K. (1985). "The Battle of Ecnomus". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 34 (4): 432–465. JSTOR 4435938 p. 438
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The hook is cited by two off-line sources but I actually own a copy of Carthage Must be Destroyed and can confirm that it supports the hook
Calistemon (
talk)
07:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Lede, this is a battle
Edited for encyclopedic style, identifying first was the topic "is" rather than focusing the verb on "took place". The detail on the reasons why the commanders were the commanders can be left to the body text. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hanberke: Thinking about what I have just written, I have tweaked the campaignbox so "Cape Hermaeum" points straight to the relevant section within this article. What do you think?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The first paragraph mentions the coffin of Dio Brando, a prominent manga character from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. I made an account to report this so sorry if this isn't formatted right, but it's jarring for a featured article. Is there anyone who can check if that's actually supposed to be there?
LemonyLilly (
talk)
13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) 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.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as
Today's featured article on September 16, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that shortly after the Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Thanks. I had a look at this a while ago (page 164 in my edition) but thought it a bit flamboyant to be a RS. I think that I need to reassess that, given how little I have to go on. I am going through my sources seeing what I can squeeze out.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
Gog the Mild. Have you considered the year of the battle, 255 BC instead of 254 BC, and the approximate location where the Roman fleet was devastated by the storm (... it ran into a gale off Camarina, a town near the southeastern tip of Sicily...)? Infobox has "Unknown number of ships sunk", but it was 16 ships now according to Casson (Google Books link provided above) in the text (Please also note that it was 14 ships in your version of the source. Might be a typo?). Infobox has "350 ships"/quinqueremes for the Romans, but 40 more ships sortied from Aspis to join the battle.
Hanberke (
talk)
05:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I've found
this book with some details on the battle and the storm.
Battle: All we know is that the poorly-trained Carthaginians sailed too close to the coast, afraid to be encircled by the Romans, who were numerically superior. This strategy turned out to be ill-advised, for it allowed the Romans to advance in line abreast formation. The threatening boarding bridges drove many Carthaginian ships on to the shallows near the coast or fastened themselves to the decks, after which the Roman marines dealt with the crews. After this battle the Romans under siege in Clupea were evacuated without any difficulty.
Storm: According to Polybius, the obstinacy and lack of experience of the Roman consuls are to be blamed for this massive shipwreck. They had disregarded warnings from experienced sailors not to round the cape.
The time of year was about the beginning of the dog-days, when the Mediterranean is apt to be visited by sudden storms. The consuls, upon their passage, were warned that such a storm was at hand; but they were ignorant and rash, and continued their course. Before they could double Cape Pachynus they were caught by the[224] tempest; almost the whole fleet was wrecked or foundered; the coast of Sicily from Camarina to Pachynus was strewed with fragments of ships and bodies of men. Such was the end of the first Roman fleet (255 b.c.). (THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD).
Hanberke (
talk)
12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"The Carthaginians had 114 of their ships were captured," 'had' vs 'were', one has got to go?
Very true.
"What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known" maybe "Whether there were Roman losses is not known" or "Any Roman losses are not known"-- I just think the ', if any,' is an unnecessary break
I am trying to say too things here. I could express it more wordily, but would rather not. Is it a question of your not understanding, or of finding the term a little clunky?
*Rolls eyes* Because my last seven FACs/ACRs have been reviewed by
CPA-5 who asked me to unlink
Latin. I am sure that their reasoning is sound. So I decided to stop pushing my personal preference to link it and, just this once, prophylactically unlink it. Now linked. If I take this to ACR, I imagine that I shall be asked to unlink it.
"The galley expert John Coates " might be useful to clarify that he's a modern expert and not a Roman expert or even like a medieval expert?
Done.
"prior naval experience" -> "naval experience prior to the First Punic War" might be useful to remind readers what this sentence refers to, and clarify that it isn't just more background?
Done.
"The quinquereme provided the workhorse" -> "was the workhorse"? I know 'provided the' is used by some authors, but 'was the' seems to be far more common from a quick google search
Done.
"are also occasionally mentioned" mentioned where?
Fixed.
does ubiquitous need a wt link? I'd think it's a rather common word-- one might even say it's ubiquitous
In another review I was specifically asked to link it. I agree with you, so unlinked.
"At least half of the oarsmen would need to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively." maybe "At least half of the oarsmen needed to have had some experience if the ship was to be handled effectively."?
Done.
You should probably describe and link the corvus
Gah! I can't believe that I did that! Too close. Done.
"25,000 soldierswho would have included many of the survivors of Regulus's army and 70,000" I only count... 95,000?
I am quoting a source. Where do you get 95,000 from. (This is not the same size fleet as the previous year and was carrying an unknown number of captured Carthaginian rowers. An OR calculation gives 384 times (300 plus 120) equals 161,000 as an upper limit. And 384 x 340 = 130,000 as a lower. So I suspect that the sources are being conservative.
"with probably many of these being" -> "with many of these probably being"?
Better; done.
I'm confused about the dashes here: "rs of Regulus's army – and 70,000 rowers and crew – with". As I understand it, those dashes are essentially parenthesis, meaning you have written "rs of Regulus's army (and 70,000 rowers and crew) with" which would imply that the 'survivors of Regulus's army' were Carthaginians taken captive?
I have repuncuated. Better?
"Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed." is he referring to the battle or the storm?
Gog the Mild, I think that's pretty much it. Your coordinates go to a spot on land? Other then that, I'm satisfied that the article is well written, reasonably comprehensive, well referenced and otherwise meets the GA criteria
Eddie891TalkWork23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Eddie891, thanks; you put a lot of work into these reviews, and I appreciate it. On a separate note, may I ask your advice? This article has been a little "bricks without straw", there is so little information on the battle in the primary sources. Would you advise that I leave it as a GA, or is there enough meat on the bones for it to have a chance at ACR, or even FAC?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild, That's a hard one, I'd definitely say it's borderline, particularly because as you say there's so little written on it. What I gained from a bit of scouring the internet is that there really isn't much that's not mentioned in the article; apparently Polybius just says the Carthaginians
presented no problem. A potential problem I see might be that the storm is also really only covered in this article, so there might be some expansion possible there? You could also consider adding a bit more about how little the battle is covered, that's what DeSantis (linked above) seems to mostly talk about when he's not rambling about his own theories.
But I'd reckon you could squeeze an ACR and maybe FAC through as long as it incorporates all historiography available, seems like there is just enough in the article. There are certainly
shorter articlesthathavegotten the star.
As an aside, keep your eyes open for Fabian Ware; I can feel this is the week he's going to be ready for ACR. Just need to finish my book (that just arrived-- only a week and a half late!) and double check all the sources and read through the article again.
Eddie891TalkWork14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
... that shortly after winning the naval Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives? Source: Tipps, G.K. (1985). "The Battle of Ecnomus". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 34 (4): 432–465. JSTOR 4435938 p. 438
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The hook is cited by two off-line sources but I actually own a copy of Carthage Must be Destroyed and can confirm that it supports the hook
Calistemon (
talk)
07:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Lede, this is a battle
Edited for encyclopedic style, identifying first was the topic "is" rather than focusing the verb on "took place". The detail on the reasons why the commanders were the commanders can be left to the body text. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hanberke: Thinking about what I have just written, I have tweaked the campaignbox so "Cape Hermaeum" points straight to the relevant section within this article. What do you think?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The first paragraph mentions the coffin of Dio Brando, a prominent manga character from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. I made an account to report this so sorry if this isn't formatted right, but it's jarring for a featured article. Is there anyone who can check if that's actually supposed to be there?
LemonyLilly (
talk)
13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)reply