Talk:Second Punic War

Commanders, conflict infobox

The current infobox is extremely vague in most parameters, it does not mention the indemnities and restrictions placed on Carthage as part of the consequences of the war - and the commanders section is utterly lacking. It has a few famous commanders from the period, but omits many other significant leaders - like Marcus Marcellus, and Hasdrubal Gisco - who was in charge of defending the Iberian peninsula and then Carthage itself against the initial Roman invasion, and the two Numidian kings who's defections effected a significant change of fortunes towards both sides. I elected to edit the infobox to add many commanders to each side, and would gladly solicit any other opinions on it. My last edit was the penultimate one, revision 1153985595, for reference. Sormando (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I appreciate the desire for completeness, but this results in a very long infobox, which isn't super helpful for readers. Usual practice in these cases is to give a few most significant leaders and leave it at that. Compare World War II. Furius (talk) Furius (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A lot of good work put in there, but it may have been useful to discuss this here before doing it. I agree re the overload of information and so have reverted the infobox back to the consensual version from the article's FAC, per WP:FAOWN. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, the current info box is bizarrely vague. It has Cornelius Scipio Jr. listed as the top Roman commander - even though the majority of his illustrious tenure and consulship took place in the middle and later years of the war.

Also, I had posted this discussion in May, about a month before, on your suggestion to discuss it here.

Best Sormando (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any requirement for commanders to be listed in chronological order (again, cf. World War II, where Stalin is listed before Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek, even though they were at war before he was). Scipio is well know for having won the war; it makes sense that he's named first. Furius (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They are not listed in chronological order, necessarily. But the box is simply largely empty. Whether one general won the war or not is ambiguous in a war like this. In the WW2 infobox you have Churchill because Churchill was one of the leaders of the conflict, whereas Scipio Africanus was, for a long time, in the backwater before taking the forefront at the final stages of the war.

Besides this topic of leaders, the infobox is missing a huge amount of information in regards to participants, and it has Syphax on the Carthaginian side of the conflict, even though he was allied to the Romans for the majority of the war. Sormando (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is not meant to be "detailed": in fact, this would be contrary to its design and purpose, which is to provide the key facts at a glance. Details should be presented though other means, like prose or a dedicated order of battle section or article. Remsense ‥ 论 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It fails at its task at summarizing, is the point. It is not detailed in its summation of this conflict, if that makes sense. Sormando (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to say, but the fact that you've had to express it as a plain contradiction should perhaps be telling. In short, I disagree. Editors have historically made infoboxes into their personal research spreadsheets. I'm not saying what you want amounts to that, but consider the general audience and how utility is best weighted for them, distinct from for you and I. Remsense ‥ 论 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I was reading the Wiki article on the Peninsular War today, and it is unfortunate that a war much smaller in scope than the 2nd Punic War enjoys a significantly larger infobox, containing accurate information unlike this one, which not only omits several significant factions from the conflict, but erroneously includes some prominent people who switched belligerents during the conflict, I re-raise the topic of expanding the information box to include the information, similar to others from other major conflicts. The current one is, in my opinion, miserable and misleading. Sormando (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sormando, the unfortunate thing is that the Peninsular War article has a bloated, inaccessible and non-MoS compliant infobox. The fact that it is a B class article, three steps on Wikipedia's quality scale below this one, which as a featured article "exemplif[ies] Wikipedia's very best work", perhaps partially explains it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate descriptor and classification for that article, as I had found it significantly more informative than this one. There are probably imperfections with Wikipedia's 'quality' scales. Sormando (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Italy, 207–203 BC

This section is completely devoid of important events of this period particularly around Locri, and also Kroton, which is why I proposed some text. Rjdeadly (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There are reasons for that. But I am not opposed to some additional material on the area and period, nor to working with you to get something into shape. Anything proposed as a starting point would need to be fully sourced - obviously. As this is a featured article any proposed source would need to be "high quality" as well as "reliable", in particular this rules out the use of primary sources. If you would like to put a proposed sourced summary here, we could then discuss it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that these matters should be covered, I agree with Gog that they should be covered judiciously with reference to reputable, reliable, and modern sources. The archaeology of second and third century BC Italy has advanced dramatically through the 20th century AD; some book on the matter from 1849 will obviously not include discussion of any such archaeology. If you really want to cite the ancient sources, I would encourage citing them in parallel only when cited by a modern source and in modern format without Roman numerals; see eg Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed) §§ 9.67, 14.242ff. Ifly6 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Peace negotiations

We should add something about the peace negotiations; they evidently dragged (or the ratification thereof did) into 201 BC. The article abruptly ends with Zama right now. Ifly6 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Rereading the first paragraph of Roman victory it seems to have an appropriate level of detail for an article covering the whole war. What are you proposing be added? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Any information on the negotiations themselves. By analogy, the last battle of WWI's western front was on 11 November 1918 but the peace treaty itself had to be written, ratified, etc which dragged long into 1919. Ifly6 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Both points understood. There isn't much more in the records to pass on. Do you have a HQ RS which covers this aspect in particular detail and which you would like paraphrased/summarised into the article? Or have - however rough and ready - your own suggested draft form of words to serve as the starting point for discussion? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Mainly the two or three paragraphs in Briscoe's chapter in CAH² (1989) pp 64ff discussing the aftermath of the battle and specifically attempts by the consul at Rome to oppose it before Scipio's supporters secured tribunician intervention. The specifics, as they are, are at Polyb 15.19; Liv 30.37.7–12, 30.40.7–16, 30.42.11–43.4. Further secondary material is in the same Briscoe chapter at pp 73–74 in the section titled "War and politics at Rome"; Drogula Commanders and command (2015) pp 298–99, especially n 4; a longer digression at Rosenstein "Sorting out the lot in republican Rome" in Am J Philol vol 116 (1995) p 52 n 32 (giving the story in Livy with some analysis). Ifly6 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

the map is messed up?

I dont know if it always shows up messed up but on my screen rome only control a bit in the north east of italy and carthage only controls some territory in spain, neither control their capital city? also some of the text is moved? i do not know how to fix this but the map does not work. Joanofarc565 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I also have the same rendering issue on both iPhone and Edge. Ifly6 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Has that fixed it? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion, 30 Nov 2025

@Gooboo Loopoo: Diff. This was the summary I gave in the reversion. Mos infobox purpose. pls don't remove language and date usage templates. see also template parameters requiring "X victory". rv unsourced assertion of pyrrhic [recte] roman victory. I want to explain it.

• MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Adding a huge number of commanders because you feel like it makes the infobox difficult to use.
• Templates such as {{Use British English}} help keep track of WP:ENGVAR. Removing them does not do editors a service.
• Re template parameters, see {{Infobox military conflict}} sv result: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.
• There is no evidence of a Pyrrhic Roman victory after the Second Punic war. The imperial republic renews aggression against Macedon a few years later and conflicts to fight conflicts through the 190s. See generally Harris War and imperialism (1979).

See also WP:FAOWN, which is partially relevant for this page, though I think at times many editors take too expansive a view on it. Ifly6 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gooboo Loopoo: Please justify this new claim that Hasdrubal Barca was wounded in action. He was killed in 207 at Metaurus. Ifly6 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, i meant to put that for Mago Barca. Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Mago died of wounds in 202. OCD⁴ (2012) sv Mago (2). Ifly6 (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In that case, the article itself was incorrect, as it listed him as KIA. Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for that edit then. Ifly6 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, this edit which adds a new person to the infobox who is nowhere mentioned in the rest of the article. Vide MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Everything said in the infobox should be verifiable by reference to the main article body. Ifly6 (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In any case, shouldn't articles linked in the body count as part of the body by extension? Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles do not incorporate text outside of them by reference. Ifly6 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What does that mean? Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles linked in the body do not count as part of the body. In part, there is no expectation that two articles be consistent with each other, even if we would like that to be the case. The infobox is based on what can be supported in the article that hosts it. Ifly6 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you for helping me understand. Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand these points have merit, thats something we both can agree on, however. This Roman victory was Pyhrric in every sense of the word, as they lost ~200,000 men (give or take 50,000, but my point still holds water). To put that number into perspective, thats around half of Rome's military aged male population. Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

First, the claim that Rome lost like half of its male population is inaccurate. See Rosenstein Rome at war (2004) ch 4 and app'x 5. That also is to ignore the larger denominator: even under older low count estimates of Roman manpower this is inaccurate. Brunt IM (1971). Second, your assessment that Roman victory was Pyrrhic is not sufficient for inclusion. The standard for inclusion is whether high quality reliable sources take that view. They do not. Ifly6 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. And you're right. Gooboo Loopoo (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox again

@Gooboo Loopoo: Please stop adding like every commander who is named in the article to the infobox. The infobox is supposed to convey facts a glance – see quoted material in the OP – which requires editorial discretion rather than a barely discriminate list of persons. Infobox readers are best served by being told who the most important leaders were. Eg how infobox for the second world war does not mention even Eisenhower. Ifly6 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Syracuse

@Philippinesisthebest: Re this edit. Hieronymus (son of Hiero II) started negotiations with the Carthaginians in 216 contra Roman interests but no conflict started this early; he was regardless overthrown and killed in 214 at Leontini. Hostilities between Rome and Syracuse only started after Hippocrates and Epicydes raided Roman territory, were thrown out of it, and then returned to Syracuse to take it over with the army. This led to a Roman siege starting in spring 213. Ergo a relevant link cannot be to the Kingdom of Syracuse, which stopped existing after Hieronymus' overthrow and death in 214. All of this is explained in Hoyos (ed) Companion to the Punic wars (2011) pp 327f. Ifly6 (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Entanglement during combative era of siege

The unknown exponential borders during the expansion of foreknowledge of such as axioms of territory and vectors of battlefield ready announced dimensions to engage within. Were the force pondering realistic command split; compared to <2045> & afore. So the distancing and scouting factors weighing weren't as commandeered as beforehand… causing the Christian crusades and multitudes of no pity moral beliefs Swcconefoueeeee (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)