Talk:Mercenary War

Name

• "Mercenary War" is the correct name according to historical reference materials. Peter Grey 20:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Punic War

Why is this listed as a Punic war? While it occured between the first and second it is not actually a Punic War. The Punic Wars were all between Rome and Carthage. ForestJay 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't exactly part of the Punic wars, but it is related to them. It was triggered as a result of the after-effects of the First Punic war, and the after-effects of the Mercenary War triggered another conflict between Rome and Carthage (very small and brief), which exaggerated the impact of the post-war indemnity that Rome demanded of Carthage. It can be argued that it was the oppressive conditions of the treaties and the resentment by Carthage/Hannibal Barca that lead to the Second Punic War - so it did involve the Rome-Carthage conflicts indirectly.

It also was the event that elevated the Barcid family in Carthaginian society because of Hamilcar's generalship in the war. It could be argued that without this boost to the "family fortunes" that Hannibal Barca would not have been in a position to trigger the Second Punic war.

So, is it part of the Punic wars? Maybe; maybe not. Is it related to the Punic wars? Absolutely - without the Punic wars it wouldn't have occurred, and - arguably - without it the second Punic war might not have occurred, or would at least have been very different. - Vedexent 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree about their connections. I've been generally more inclined to think it worked against the potential of the second Punic war because of it's civil destruction. I agree that it is closely related to the Punic Wars. Do you agree that it's misleading? Perhaps instead of removing the Mercenary War from the Punic Wars we could add a little information on it's connection to the Punic Wars in Punic Wars. What do you think? ForestJay 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Animation

I did this animation for es.wikipedia that ilustrates the maneouvres of Hamilcar Barca in the Battle of the river Bagradas according to this description. Maybe you would find it useful here too. Chabacano 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try but you should explain what he symbols on your map mean. Besides it is unlikely the rebels moved their forces this way. Choice of words is another problem, I know lots of sources use the term light infantry, however archeology can not prove any difference in equipment between them and the so called heavy infantry. To be more correct some historians call it regular (fighting in formation) and irregular (not fighting in formation) infantry. The rebels would under any circumstances start with their irregulars and form a battleline that opposes Hamilcars. If I see this correctly, they tried to attack him on the flank and he brought his infantry of the line very far to the right while denying his left flank with the elephants and irregulars. Afterwards he outflanked them himself with elephants and irregulars. Wandalstouring 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your criticism :) I myself do not know much about this, I was asked to do this animation in the Spanish graphic lab from this source (it is not the most reliable one, I know), and this is the result. I would like to correct ii if you have the time to give me indications about what the real movements were. About explaining the symbols, I prefer to explain them in the caption, in legends outside the image (example). That way is easier for editing the text and translating it from one wikipedia to another. Thanks again for your review. Chabacano 11:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation in English from Lacus Curtius, Polybius book 1 chapter 76:

"Spendius, on learning what had happened, put his two forces in movement to meet in the plain and render mutual assistance to each other, those from the town near the bridge being not less than ten thousand in number and those from Utica over fifteen thousand. 2 When they got in sight of each other, thinking that they had caught the Carthaginians in a trap between them, they exhorted each other with loud shouts and engaged the enemy. 3 Hamilcar was advancing in the following order. In front were the elephants, after them the cavalry and light-armed troops and last of all the heavy-armed. 4 When he saw that the enemy were attacking him in such precipitation he ordered his whole force to face about. 5 He bade those in front, after facing about, retire with all speed, and reversing the order of those who originally were in the rear he deployed them to await the onslaught of the enemy. 6 The Libyans and mercenaries, thinking that the Carthaginians were afraid of them and retreating, broke their ranks and closed with them vigorously. 7 But when the cavalry, on approaching the line of hoplites, wheeled round again and faced the Libyans, while at the same time the remainder of the Carthaginian army was coming up, the enemy were so much surprised that they at once turned and fled panic-stricken, in the same loose order and confusion in which they had advanced. 8 Consequently some of them came into collision with their comrades who were advancing in their rear with disastrous effect, causing the destruction both of themselves and the latter, but the larger number were trampled to death, the cavalry and elephants attacking them at close quarters. p2079 About six thousand Libyans and mercenaries fell and nearly two thousand were made prisoners. The rest escaped, some to the town by the bridge and some to the camp before Utica. 10 Hamilcar, successful in this fashion, followed closely on the retreating enemy and took by assault the town by the bridge, the enemy in it deserting it and flying to Tunis. He next traversed the rest of the country, winning over some towns and taking others by assault. 11 He thus restored some confidence and courage to the Carthaginians, delivering them in a measure from their previous despondency."

So the two troops are advancing from both sides to trap the Carthaginians in between. These move away with their irregulars, elephants and cavalry and lead their regular infantry to the scene. The enemy rushes in to engage before the infantry has established their formations. The cavalry charges and the enemy flees in confusion.Wandalstouring 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Utica is to the northwest of the Bagradas river mouth. The bridge was in front of Hamilcar's army. "Gather the armies together in the plain and render mutual assistance" doesn't sound to me like a pincer movement. They actually thought they had caught the carthaginians in the middle of both forces, for Hamilcar's army was in line formation. That you can clearly see in the animation, but however, they "closed with them" (the hoplites, I guess, for they were the ones in the front line now). About what you say, that they rushed in to engage before Hamilcar's infantry was in formation, later Polybius says that the cavalry "approached the *line* of hoplites". I think the animation is pretty accurate to what Polybius narrates in his book. Were the mercenary army formed of heavy or light infantry, we don't know, maybe we have to choose the words better, as you could possibly argue that the mercenaries were indeed heavy geared soldiers... Anyway, what the animation tries to reflect is the outstanding movement from Hamilcar, retreating his front tropps by the sides of the formation, while the hoplites wheeled to hold the enemy charge. Also, in the end, the retreating rebels clashed into their comrades "who were advancing in their rear with disastrous effect". That means that the army from Utica must have moved closer to the carthaginians than the army from the bridge, for if this latter army was the one who retreated, they would only have found empty land behind them, clashing into nobody. --Redtony 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have time to check for scholarly work. but the cavalry attack is definetly missing in the animation. What is in the animation and missing in Polybius is the movement of irregulars and elephants to the right flank. Wandalstouring 10:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoted source

"Gesco and 700 of his men had their arms and legs broken, their hands and feet cut off, and were thrown into a pit to die, according to Will Durant."

Will Durant?? Polybius himself gives these details in Book I of his Histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.106.173 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Autaritus

Hi Blue Danube: I have removed the sentence "The mercenary leader and orator Autaritus is cited as a chief instigator of this massacre" as it uncited. I am more than happy to put it back in if you can cite a reliable source which states this - and we can be reasonably sure that other RSs don't say something different. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gog the Mild; I did not think a citation was necessary as we have a whole section which confirms Polybius as "the main source for almost every aspect" of the info. I'll restore it with Polybius specifically called out. Blue Danube (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Blue Danube: If you mean cite directly to Polybius, unfortunately he is primary source and so doesn't meet WP:RS. You need a reliable secondary source. Strictly Polybius shouldn't be used to source anything in Wikipedia, but certainly not an FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what either "RSs" or "FA" stands for, so it may be the case that I cannot understand fully what you are trying to communicate.

The information was originally found at the Autaritus article and I spotted where that was sourced from in the Polybius. Blue Danube (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Blue Danube: I thought that it might have been. OK, after some digging I have found a source which mentions Auraritus in this context; as being a bit second fiddle but I will big it up as much as I can. Meanwhile if you come across a stronger secondary source mention, please shout. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blue Danube: No, I think that you are communicating fine. It is me who is struggling to communicate. Where to start? Some not quite random points:

• This is a Featured Article (FA). "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing." It meets the FA criteria.
• All facts on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable sources - often known as RSs. See WP:RS for discussion and definition. Primary sources are not RSs. Polybius is a primary source. Policy permits anything in Wikipedia not cited to a RS to be deleted. Outside of biographies of living and recently-dead people this isn't imposed too strictly, but as articles go up the assessment scale policy is implemented more strictly.
• This article has had a pretty thorough going over to become an FA - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercenary War/archive1. So a strong consensus exists that it is good just as it is.
• Obviously, even FAs can be improved, but there are some tweaks to the usual procedures - see WP:FAOWN. And any changes need to meet all of those FA criteria mentioned above.

I dunno if any of that helps. I am for bed now, but feel free to post any follow up questions and I'll get to them in the morning. Meanwhile you may - or may not - find this reflective essay on my first year on Wikipedia amusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly !Blue Danube (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Center-aligned captions?

I wonder why the image captions in the article are wrapped with {{center}}. I've never seen this done elsewhere, and MOS:CAPTION does say, "The text of captions should not be specially formatted, except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text." --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

“In/on” Sicily?

Small point, but as it was reverted, so raising it here. Do we really say “on Sicily” rather than “in Sicily”? “On” an island usually is only used for smaller islands. For larger land masses, like Sicily, “on” sounds idiomatically strange. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear I’m referring to the reversion of this. And just noticed that earlier in that paragraph it already does indeed say “in Sicily”, so I think “on Sicily” must just be an error. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Zarzas

@LuciusHistoricus:

• You only put things in the infobox which are already mentioned in the main article. Which is where they are referenced, hence no need to cite anything in infoboxes.
• Could you format your edit? It is often helpful to check an edit in "Preview" before clicking "Publish changes".

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild Will do ... from now on. Thanks. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@Gog the Mild: Hello, could you explain why you restored a worse version of the infobox? All the removed content was sourced, including the contemporary, topic-relevant image - furthermore, the restored version is partially incorrect, as it marks Mathos and Spendius as "killed in action" even though they were executed as prisoners. Thanks in advance for the explanation. Applodion (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Applodion, probably a bit of reflex BRD. Thanks for querying. I have put up a draft compromise.

• I am not enthusiastic at all about the image, but when it comes to it, not sufficiently so to get into an argument, so it is back.
• I have changed the KIAs. I have no idea what I was thinking there.
• I have put all of the lists into bulleted format. What do you think?
• When I submitted the article to FAC I drew a line between major and minor leaders, only including the former in the infobox. (I accept that there is always going to be an aspect of subjectivity about both parts of this.) This version gained consensus at FAC and it still seems the least bad option to me. Just because we have the information doesn't meet that we have to put it in the infobox.

I don't mean the infobox as it is now to, necessarily, be the end of the conversation, but sometimes it is easier to show than to describe. See what you think. I look forward to your response and possible suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Ah, thank you very much for providing your reasoning. It was just confused. I think your changes are very good:

• IMO, the image is valuable as it basically provides one of the few available glimpses at the rebels' self-portrayal.
• Thanks for adjusting the KIAs.
• The bulleted format looks quite nice!
• Ok, I was not aware that the exclusion of some commanders had been discussed. Personally, I'm not opposed to leaving out less-important officers, though I believe that Autaritus was quite important. Both the written sources as well as the rebel coins suggest that he held a similar rank of respect as Mathos and Spendius. Thus, I approve of his inclusion in your adjusted infobox.

Applodion (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)