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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [1].

---

Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)

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

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)

Review Support 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)

• 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)

• "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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

Comments Support 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Thanks, support promotion now. T8612 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Support 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.
  • Comment from the peanut gallery: The sentence already qualifies itself with the word "considered". I have no knowledge of what the scholarly consensus on Polybius is, but finding a single naysayer is not proof that there is no consensus so we should just "teach the controversy," per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Moreover, reading that passage in GBooks, it doesn't even seem clear that it's actually attacking Polybius himself, but rather simply saying all historians are biased and that Polybius wrote for a literate aristocratic audience - which is not directly contradictory to the article's sentence, since the point of the original sentence is an implicit comparison between Polybius and other ancient sources, many of which are horrendous. SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"naysayer"? Just because I showed one example doesnt mean its the only one. I will wait for the nominator reply for now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"we cant say that Polybius is objective because many scholars consider it as such" Well possibly. But the article doesn't say that. As you quote, it reads "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective". (Emphasis added.) Or to look at a different way "Polybius's work is considered broadly objective [ ... ] as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view". I don't see that the article gets into the relativistic debate as to whether "objectivity", however one may wish to define that, is possible.

In the source you give Champion is a little theoretical; in Champion, Craige (2015) [2011]. "Polybius and the Punic Wars". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 95–110. ISBN 978-1-119-02550-4 he states "Polybius’ work (along with that of Thucydides) has set the standard for historical accuracy and precision by which all other examples of classical historiography" and "Polybius lived up to his own rigorous historiographical standards as a painstaking researcher and historian " and summarises "Therefore, all in all, Polybius was a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian, who well deserves the reputation for accuracy and precision he has enjoyed throughout the ages [ ... ]. By the standards of ancient historiography, we could not hope for a better source on the Punic Wars."

I feel that if anything I have understated the modern academic support for Polybius, and do not feel that my phraseology says that "Polybius is objective". It says what the scholarly view is. If you like, I could amend to "Polybius's work is considered by modern historians to be broadly objective and largely neutral as between Carthaginian and Roman points of view"

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

It could. (Eg a further reference to the war against Pyrrhus of Epirus which is mentioned further down.) But I am not sure that a passing mention to a single example helps, and getting into enough detail to make the point is likely to lose focus. I have added 'as they had done several times during the Sicilian Wars of the previous two centuries.'

• "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.

The sources specify that they were African bush elephants. (The existence of the North African elephant as a separate spices, or even sub-spices is seriously doubted these days. Even the lead to its Wikipedia article states "it has not been widely recognized by taxonomists".) As it is off-topic - elephants did not feature at any point in the siege - I have put a brief summary in a footnote.

• "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)

Tweaked.

• "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.

"highly-esteemed": fair point, removed; the rest of the sentence gives, I feel, sufficient information for a reader to form their own opinion.

I think that the sentence give sufficient background; eg after "he had captured every other Carthaginian possession on Sicily" stating that this was during a war with Carthage seems redundant. And it would arguably be off topic to the point of not meeting criterion 4.

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

I have a source for the origins of the original garrison, which I have added, but have not been able to find one regarding the reinforcements.

• 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)

Oops. Fixed.

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

Me neither. My understanding is that either is acceptable, but I have rephrased to duck the issue.

• "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)

It was Livy. I haven't prefaced all the other sentences with 'Polybius stated', 'Diodorus claimed' etc and the last sentence seems an odd place to start.

It was a rather vague report, that I have only found in two modern sources and wouldn't want to make too much of. I have expanded with what there is.

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

Hi Attar-Aram syria, I feel honoured to receive a review from you. And a nicely probing one - thank you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

This article has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Criteria 3 met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

• link siege

Done.

• "could be supplied and reinforced by sea" this also applies in the body

Done.

• move the link to Ancient Carthage up to first use of Carthaginian

Done.

• link Ancient Greek instead of Greek language

Done.

• move link to Roman Republic up to first use of Roman

Done.

• there are a few duplinks

Removed bar Battle of the Aegates. See comment by Harrias above.

• link Balearic Islands

Done.

• no article for the capture of Panormus in 254 BC?

No.

• comma after "Publius Claudius Pulcher"

Done.

• author-link Sebastiano Tusa, Jeffrey Royal and Peter Jones (classicist)

Done.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker and thanks again. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• I am seeing nothing concerning with the sources. A check for additional sources did not uncover any. No source checks done. buidhe 04:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• As an aside, this source says that there was a third siege of Lilybaeum involving Octavian, Sextus Pompey, and Lepidus. Do we have an article on that and if so, can it be hatnoted? buidhe 05:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks Buidhe.

No. It is pretty obscure. It doesn't even get a passing mention in the Sicilian revolt article and I don't see it ever having its own article. So I am inclined to leave it, but not strongly so. I note that your source says it is not even known if the siege was successful. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99

• In mid-250 -- no BC? (even though you use it twice later in the paragraph)

Groan. Good spot. Corrected.

• earlier, pro-Carthaginian, historians -- I don't think you need the second comma

I prefer both, but the second deleted anyway.

• Other sources include inscriptions, archaeological evidence, and empirical evidence -- as I recall it, you don't use the last comma in style

Correct. Thank you.

• Other, later, histories -- do you need the second comma here?

IMO yes. I don't see that it is even grammatical if it is removed.

• Do you need the Operations in Sicily subheading if there's only one? Can't it replace Background?

It can, it can. Done.

• had come to dominate southern Spain -- wouldn't this be better as Iberia?

More in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks truflip99, some good stuff there; all addressed now. Looking forward to the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

More:

• Peppered with missiles -- This might need to be clarified, as I'm painting a particularly out-of-place scene in my head

I decline to be held responsible for what happens in your head. Changed to 'riddled'.

@Gog the Mild: hahaha! I meant the word missiles. Do we have an idea what the objects were? I take it they are not what's depicted here.

truflip99, I am glad that I inserted my disclaimer. "Missile" has been used since 1656 to mean "Any object used as a weapon by being thrown or fired through the air, such as stone, arrow or bullet." (Wiktionary's first definition, which also offers the quotation "The Rhodians, who used leaden bullets, were able to project their missiles twice as far as the Persian slingers, who used large stones.") I have changed to 'Peppered with javelins'. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanation is good to me! You didn't actually need to change it. I'm most likely in the minority of not knowing that regarding this topic. Anyway, I'm supporting. --truflip99 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• 20 m (60 ft) deep and 30 m (90 ft) wide -- could the units be spelled out? usually it's first instance, but I could see why you wouldn't want to do so here. optional I suppose

Done.

• After a fight which Lazenby describes as "confused and desperate", they were forced to withdraw without success. -- perhaps explicit state who are "they" here as I got lost and had to back read a few times

Done.

• but due to the prevailing sea conditions they were unsuccessful. -- what were the conditions?

Yes well. Three modern sources:

1. "closed the harbour mouth with a massive timber boom" which was smashed by " high winds ... [and] ... the surging sea". Further attempts were made but failed for unspecified reasons.

2. "dumping boulders and spoil into the sea", which "was swept away by the current".

3. 15 blockships, loaded with stone, were sunk in the channel "and blocked the entrance to the harbour". A little later "Nothing is said about the 15 blockships ... so either this was untrue, or the blockships had been ineffective or the Carthaginians had somehow removed them".

So if I am a little vague, it is because the sources are! I note that the last source in their speculation misses (*OR alert*) the possibility of their being moved by the currents which Lilybaeum was famous for.

• the Romans distracted the Carthaginians with a feint at one part of the wall -- is it possible to link feint?

Done.

• built, equipped, and crewed without state expense -- last comma

Removed.

• Carthage evacuated Sicily, handed over all prisoners taken during the war, and paid an indemnity of 3,200 talents -- last comma

Removed.

• both continued to expand in the western Mediterranean. -- link Mediterranean?

Really?! Done.

• When Carthage besieged the Roman-protected town of Saguntum in eastern Iberia in 218 BC -- you use Iberia here, but Spain up top. Iberia would probably be better.

Changed.

--truflip99 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi truflip99 and thanks again. Your comments addressed. How's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Query to the coordinators

Hi Ian: given the above, could I have permission toss another on the barbie? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Struth, go for it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.